DOCUMENTS

2026-08-17 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 17 August 2026

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Tasmania 1 Senators Sworn 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Withdrawal 1 10:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion to discharge the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 from the Notice Paper. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely, a motion to discharge the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 from the Notice Paper. Labor's NDIS cuts are cruel and unnecessary. This bill must be discharged, thrown into the parliamentary bin, because it will do harm to the Australian disabled community and our families. It appears that the major parties in this place are—despite all of the evidence given on so many different fronts from so many different community groups at so many different parliamentary hearings that this bill is dangerous, will do harm and will cause those who have finally reached independence to go back into isolation, back into the dark, shut in, shut up and shut away. Despite the most compelling evidence that I have taken in nearly 10 years in this place from mums and dads, from brothers and sisters, from grandparents, from allied health professionals, from academics, from those that run service provision organisations across the board—unanimous, united feedback that this bill will do harm. It is cruel. It is unnecessary. In the name of all that the community ever vested in a parliament; they have said to us that it goes too far. It goes too fast, and it is unnecessary. We have seen in the last week alone fresh evidence, fresh research, pulled together by the Australia Institute that laid out for us clearly the reality of the impact of these cuts. This report shows that if these cuts go ahead 56,000 jobs will be lost and that 94 million hours of care work will go back onto the shoulders of family members and friends and carers who are already at burnout. What are they meant to do? This report also shows that the claim made by the government that these cuts are made and are needed to be made because of sustainability—this report lays bare that is just nonsense. They have stated in this piece of fresh research: … the overriding premise of cuts being required to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the NDIS— Senator Gallagher ING On a point or order: the debate should be about whether or not the Senate should suspend and not on the substantive of the motion that the senator seeks to move. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Steele-John, I will remind you to always refer your comments back to the original point of the suspension, but you have the call. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 This is urgent, and this motion must be considered and approved by this chamber because we have new evidence within our hands now, which speaks to the impact of these cuts on jobs—56,000 jobs lost—and on those carers and family members who are already at burnout. They will have to bear on their shoulders an additional 94 million hours of unpaid care work. We now know that these cuts are unnecessary to meet the government's proposed aim of ensuring the so-called sustainability of the scheme because, as the report states clearly, the overriding premise that the cuts are required to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the NDIS is revealed here to be false, given that a 25 per cent tax on gas exports over the next four years would raise $31.8 billion more than would be saved by the cuts to the NDIS. Indeed, there are so many other measures that we could take. I cannot believe that this parliament, that this Labor government, would look to cut the vital supports of the disability community before they would think to ask gas exporters to pay even a cent more, or billionaires to pay even a cent more. What is wrong with you people? This is so out of line with Australian values. I urge all members of parliament: listen to the community and discharge this bill. (Time expired) 10:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting the suspension motion moved by Senator Steele-John this morning. We do believe that it is time now for the second reading debate to start on this bill and continue, and, by my looking at the speakers list, that's the debate that will take most of the day. This is an important piece of legislation. The government does not support the discharge of this bill. In terms of ensuring the NDIS remains sustainable over time and is there to support the participants that it was originally intended to support, this bill has to be dealt with by the Senate this week. We don't support the suspension that seeks to discharge this bill. There has been an extensive committee inquiry. There have been significant stakeholder consultations led by my colleagues Senator McAllister and Minister Butler, and those consultations will continue as the reforms to the NDIS roll through. But this is not something we can support today. I move: That the question be put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [10:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

30 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, S. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 9 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:19 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I will put the question on the suspension. The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:21]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

9 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 30 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, S. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 3 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 3

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Second Reading 3 10:23 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) in 2023, the Government announced a target growth rate for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) of 8 percent and was unable to achieve it; (b) in January 2026, the Prime Minister announced a new target growth rate for the NDIS of 5-6 per cent, which the Government again failed to meet; (c) in April 2026, the Health Minister announced yet another new annual target growth rate for the NDIS of 2 per cent over the next four years, despite the Government's ongoing inability to meet any of their previously announced target growth rates; (d) the Government and the National Disability Insurance Agency have been unable to clearly quantify or comprehensively address the scale of fraud within the NDIS; (e) the Australian National Audit Office estimates that up to 10 per cent of NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal; (f) the Government is failing to do more to prevent the fraud and rorting that is rife within the NDIS despite this being the primary concern of 7 in 10 Australians, by the Government's own admission; (g) the changes in the bill will do little to remove bad actors from defrauding participants and taxpayers and fails to adequately meet the expectations of Australians for greater integrity within the Scheme; (h) robust integrity systems are critical to protect taxpayer funds, restore the Scheme's social licence and to protect NDIS participants from exploitation by unscrupulous providers; and (i) the Government must ensure that participant safety remains a core value of the NDIS and that adequate safeguards are built in to ensure that vulnerable Australians with severe and permanent disability will be supported". For Australians living with significant and permanent disability, the NDIS provides not just support but opportunity, independence and dignity—the chance to work, to participate in community life, to live with greater freedom and confidence and to access the support they need without feeling like a burden on the people they love. The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms undertaken in Australia and has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability, but the scheme is at a crossroads. It has grown rapidly since its establishment. Originally expected to support about 410,000 Australians, the NDIS now supports 782,000 people, nearly double the original estimate, and it continues to grow. Originally estimated to cost $13.6 billion, expenditure this year is more than $50 billion. The latest projections show that costs will reach $70 billion by 2030 and around $100 billion by 2035. This is the NDIS Labor built, and its trajectory has become unsustainable. We need to be honest about that. The bill represents the Albanese government's third attempt to rein in the growth of the scheme. In August 2023, they promised growth would be reduced to eight per cent; they haven't achieved that. In January this year, despite missing that target, they pledged to reduce growth even further to between five and six per cent; they failed again. Growth is still at nearly 11 per cent. Now—in this year's budget, with no achievements under their belt—they have committed to reduce the growth in the NDIS to just two per cent. In some ways it's hard to believe that this is not just another accounting trick by the Albanese Labor government to make their near-trillion dollar deficit look better. There is every likelihood, given the government's track record, they won't achieve this new target either. The bill will establish a new framework to assess a person's eligibility for support through the NDIS. Until now, eligibility has been based primarily on a person's diagnosis. This bill will change that to be based on a person's reduced functional capacity as a result of that diagnosis. There are a lot of people right now who are exceptionally worried about whether they themselves, their child, their family member or their loved ones will be eligible for support through the NDIS. The answer still remains unclear. The bill establishes the legislative mechanism to change the way a person is assessed but provides no detail on what that new assessment will look like. The Albanese government hasn't developed it yet. This, in and of itself, has caused a level of fear and anxiety amongst the disabled community. Changes of this magnitude need to be done right. People need to be consulted; they haven't been. These changes won't roll out until 1 January 2028, so the Albanese government say they still have time. I hope they are true to their word, but broken promises have become the norm with this government. The other concern is that all existing NDIS participants will be progressively reassessed over three years, between 1 January 2028 and 31 December 2030. With more than 760,000 participants, that's a lot of reassessments. And where do they go? Our state and territory health systems are already bursting at the seams. People are turned away daily from our emergency departments and hospital services. Getting an appointment at a doctor takes forever, and, despite what the Albanese government say, too many people are still paying massive out-of-pocket expenses. Wait lists are months long. We are hopeful that people with significant and permanent disabilities will not be put through the wringer during this process and asked to provide multitudes of new and, usually, very costly medical reports to prove and re-prove their disability. The Albanese government needs to use commonsense during this process. The bill will restrict a person's ability to ask for an unscheduled reassessment of their plan. The Albanese government has said that around 12,000 unscheduled plan reassessments are taking place each month, with most reassessments resulting in additional funding variations of 20 per cent. Right now, a participant or their support team, including their plan managers, can ask for a plan reassessment if they believe a person's needs have changed. Unfortunately, we are seeing this power misused by some bad actors who are just out to skim additional funds from participants for services never provided. The changes in this bill will restrict who can ask for a plan reassessment to a person's plan nominee or guardian, and these will only be considered when there has been a significant and ongoing change in a person's functional capacity. This will ensure a participant or their trusted nominee or guardians remain in control of their needs. The bill clarifies that a person will only receive funding and supports for the impairment for which they're assessed by the NDIS. The government has advised that in some cases where a person has sought support for additional medical conditions for which NDIS support was not intended and which have not been granted—the Administrative Review Tribunal has overruled these decisions. This is an important clarification in the legislation. It was always the intention that the NDIS support people with significant and permanent disability, but other medical conditions should be supported by the health system—as was intended. The changes to support for NDIS participants are what is concerning the disability community the most. This is completely understandable. These supports are relied on by many to build independence and assistance with daily living skills. This looks different for each participant depending on their goals. The government has stated the changes will apply to two support categories: social, civic and community participation supports; and capacity-building activities. We secured changes to the bill in the House of Representatives which will protect daily living supports and employment supports. The bill will also change the way a person's plan is renewed. At the moment, plans don't have an official end date, and a person's unspent funds are, in most cases, rolled over into the next year. The caution we have for the government on this is to ensure there is no gap between a person's plan ending and a new plan being created. There can be no delay in supports for people with disability because of slow bureaucracy. The bill will clarify the definition of permanence of disability to allow access to the scheme. These changes will require a person to have had all appropriate treatment for their condition, for that treatment to be unlikely to materially improve their condition and for the condition to be lifelong. Importantly, there will be rules to exclude some circumstances for people. For example, a person with a hearing impairment may not be required to have a cochlear implant. The government must work through this very carefully to ensure that participants are protected. The coalition's support for the scheme remains unwavering. We believe the scheme must be there for Australians with significant and permanent disability, exactly as it was intended, but there is no denying that the integrity of the scheme is weak. Australians can see this. Day after day, we see shocking stories of criminals exploiting the NDIS for hundreds of thousands of dollars or, in some cases, millions of dollars. Our law enforcement agencies have said that organised crime outfits are now targeting the NDIS, and these criminals continue gaming the system because they know the guardrails are weak and the fences meant to protect it are flimsy. The Australian National Audit Office has estimated that up to 10 per cent of payments are non-compliant, incorrect or fraudulent—10 per cent. That is $5 billion a year on today's expenditure. That's $5 billion of taxpayer money just walking out the door and delivering no care. In March this year, the Australian Federal Police raided a Sydney home linked to a man accused of fraudulently claiming NDIS payments as a registered provider. Authorities allege he has links to serious organised crime, and he's accused of claiming more than $1.5 million for services that were never provided. In February, a Darwin NDIA employee was charged over an alleged $5 million fraud. In New South Wales, three people were jailed for a $5.8 million fraud. Another case involves an alleged $14.5 million scheme tied to major provider networks. In my home state of South Australia, there was a provider who not just overclaimed but charged for services never provided. Recently, another two men in South Australia were caught defrauding the system of over $460,000. The list goes on. It's not just the theft of taxpayer money that should be horrifying us. Behind the fraud statistics are vulnerable Australians being exploited, manipulated and abused by people who have been entrusted with their care—participants allegedly being trafficked for their support packages, coerced into approving invoices for services that were never delivered, having their identity stolen to drain every funding meant to support their independence and dignity. These cases show a disgusting abuse of power against some of the most vulnerable people in our society. With Australians hearing these stories day in, day out, the NDIS has lost the social licence it once had. In Minister Butler's Press Club speech, he admitted seven out of 10 Australians believe the NDIS is too large and struggles with dodgy providers. Worse still, six in 10 Australians think the NDIS is broken. What was once a beacon of pride for our country has become, to some, a national disgrace. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar taken away from someone who genuinely needs support. Despite all this and the Albanese government's rhetoric that it is tackling fraud, the original bill presented to the parliament did very little to address fraud or target criminals that are infiltrating the scheme. In fact, the government's own modelling for the reform measures contained within the bill noted the fraud and integrity measures will only reduce the estimated $5 billion walking out the door each year by $300 million, and none of this will even kick in until 27-28 financial year. The bill presented to the House of Representatives included digital payments platform, changes to claim timeframes and requiring people to keep receipts, as I mentioned earlier. Don't get me wrong, these measures go some way to addressing inappropriate claims, but it is not a strong enough response to what we know has become a criminal ecosystem. The coalition has been clear: more must be done to address the fraud occurring within the scheme. The coalition has been working across the parliament with the government, the Australian Greens, specifically Senator Steele-John, and members of the crossbench to improve this bill. There were also additional amendments which will require the pricing advice received by the minister to be tabled and a review of these reforms to be undertaken and tabled in the parliament. We continue to work with the government to make additional improvements to this bill. We all want to see the scheme protected, but the scheme's growth and expenditure are unsustainable at current levels. One of the things that stood out during the Senate inquiry was the disability community's outrage and heartbreak that they were not consulted on these reforms before they were introduced. There has been no consultation with the disability community, representative organisations or even state and territory ministers on these reforms. State and territory disability ministers even made a submission to the Senate inquiry. They said: … Disability Ministers have not been meaningfully consulted in the development of these reforms, signalling a broader shift away from shared governance despite the Scheme's joint funding responsibilities. With state and territory ministers pushing back on the Albanese Labor government's signature reform package of this year's budget, there is a clear risk that alternative supports will not be in place for participants who are exiting the scheme when these changes commence. The coalition has raised this concern extensively since April, when the changes were first announced. The minister for disability and the NDIS has said he won't let people fall between two stools. When questioned on Insiders on the weekend, the Minister for the NDIS said they will not leave people without support. The welfare and safety of participants must remain paramount. The success of these reforms relies heavily on the co-design of measures and their careful implementation. The coalition urges the government to consult with the disability community. It is essential that there are escalation pathways should there be any concerns for a participant's welfare and safety. Ensuring people remain safe from abuse, neglect, violence and exploitation is not negotiable, and the government must ensure that participant safety remains the core value of the NDIS. 10:35 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria The NDIS is a vital piece of social infrastructure in Australia. It was first introduced by the Gillard government with bipartisan support, and it has transformed the lives of thousands and thousands of people with disability, and, indeed, provided relief and confidence to their carers. I was a member of the committee that heard testimony over the last eight weeks from numerous stakeholders in this sector. This was a community affairs inquiry that received over 4,000 pieces of evidence. We can tell that the community is highly invested in this scheme, and we understand that. What was telling though was that while we heard evidence that people were trenchantly opposed to any changes in this bill, we also heard testimony that NDIS was failing other families—and sometimes even failing people within the same family. We heard examples where one child would be receiving supports and another child, a sibling, with similar needs was not getting those kinds of supports. There was a real paradox here. We, as a government, understand the vital importance of the NDIS—after all, it is a Labor scheme—but we also understand that we need to protect it for future generations. This means that we need to confront some hard truths. The first is that growth in the NDIS has been unsustainable. The scheme currently costs $50 billion for 760,000 participants. This contrasts, for example, with Medicare which costs $40 billion for 28 million Australians. The scheme, without any changes, is on track to hit $70 billion in 2030 and, a decade from now, in 2035, it will hit $100 billion if no changes are introduced. This is clearly unsustainable and it is pulling and tearing at the social licence of the scheme with the Australian taxpayer. In addition, we know that the scheme has been riddled with fraud and rorts. It has become a honey pot for syndicated crime. This is why this government introduced a package of $1½ billion to combat fraud in the system. We introduced, for example, the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. We strengthened that further with the NDIS safeguards and integrity legislation. And we have further empowered the agency, the NDIA, to strengthen integrity and chase down these fraudsters. The NDIS has effectively become a honey pot for shonks and criminals and that is not a costless crime. In addition, we have problems with eligibility. That was evident throughout the inquiry, even within families with children with similar needs. There is far too much inconsistency around eligibility, and this has really been born from the fact that eligibility has been determined by diagnosis. As a doctor, I trenchantly oppose any medicalisation or pathologising of health conditions. In fact, what has happened is these access lists have become a gateway for entering into the NDIS when actually we are trying to shift it to a more functional test. So, the NDIS was established to help and to assist those with permanent and significant disability. We are moving away from the diagnostic gateway—frankly, it has led to diagnostic inflation—to one threshold that is more based on functional needs. Those thresholds will be determined by a technical advisory group that we have stood up that is chaired by a person with expertise in occupational therapy. It's this group that will provide evidence to the government as to how we should set thresholds for entry into the scheme, but it should not be based on medical diagnosis because those lists are as long as your arm, and they have not worked. In fact, what we are doing instead, I think and I fear, is pathologising a whole range of conditions, and that can lead to other problems. The NDIS is there to support people with permanent and significant disability, so we want to really dial back some of the scope creep that has entered the NDIS. As architects of the NDIS, we are absolutely determined to secure its future, and that is what this bill does. It builds on four pillars: fighting fraud and stopping the rorts; slowing the rapid cost increases; clarifying eligibility requirements, which I've talked about; and ensuring that we continue to deliver quality services and supports to participants both now and well into the future. The scheme is far too important to allow these to slide. Under the coalition, in the 10 years that they were in power, the scheme completely went off the rails. The growth of this scheme was in the order of 22 per cent when we came to government. We halved that growth to 10 per cent, but it wasn't enough. The actuary clearly told us that the scheme was on track to cost $100 billion in less than a decade, so we have to make further changes. That's why, in January of this year, National Cabinet agreed on bringing the cost down to five to six per cent. The scheme will still continue to grow—I just want to make that clear—but it will grow at a lower, more sustainable rate, and one that retains integrity and preserves its social licence. We know that this growth cannot come at the expense of other services Australians need, whether that be Medicare, hospital funding, regional and rural health services and so on. Importantly, in creating a more sustainable NDIS, it allows us to look at other groups who have, I think, been neglected for too long. In my practice, I saw a lot of patients with psychosocial disability. What does that mean? For example, it might mean people with burnt-out schizophrenia. These are people—often young people, I might add—who are heavily medicated, who have really challenging psychiatric disorders that require ongoing specialist input, and they are unable to work. They rely on the state. They rely on the safety net. The problem is the safety net is sometimes not adequate for these people. They end up homeless. They go from boarding house to boarding house. They enter the hospital system like a carousel—in and out, in and out. Sometimes they fall through the cracks. We as a government recognise that this is a problem. This has been discussed with the subnational governments. We want to help these people and try to enable the NDIS to provide that kind of support to these people. I agree with that because the current status quo cannot be upheld for this particular group. So we will continue to work with the states on creating space in the NDIS for groups that have been neglected. We're also working with the states on restoring wider supports in the community. Those are called, broadly speaking, foundational supports. One such is the Thriving Kids program, which is due to open in October of this year and will officially go live on 1 January 2028. This will be pitched towards children who are eight years or less with autism and/or developmental delay but with lower needs. We have seen a massive growth of autism spectrum disorder in the NDIS. We have around 300,000 participants with this diagnosis. The problem with autism spectrum disorder—and don't take it from me; take it from the neuroscientist who did the seminal research in ASD, Professor Uta Frith—is that it has become so inclusive as to be meaningless. What we are trying to do now is move away from this diagnostic labelling gateway to a more functional assessment that determines entry into the NDIS. Creating the Thriving Kids program will ensure those children—and this is a good thing—spend more of their time in the community, in schools, in playgrounds and on sporting fields while still receiving their supports. Children do not need to be spending time in the waiting rooms of doctors and specialists and therapists. That is not in their best interest, absolutely not. I say this as a medical professional. That's not all we're doing. We're also going to be introducing a new scheme that builds on community and social participation. Right now, this particular element of the NDIS has seen rapid growth. It has seen a tripling in just the last five years. It's not clear that it's actually serving its intended purpose. We heard a lot of testimony from participants. Mind you, the people who come to the hearings are a very small sample size, and for them this was an enabler of employment and participation in broader society. We absolutely heard that loud and clear. But, when you scratch beneath the surface, this scheme is not working for a lot of people. We're seeing people with disability who have support workers with them out in the community. Support workers are on their phones. You can't tell me that that is actually doing any favours to these participants or embedding them in any type of social program. It isn't. We're seeing far too much of that. So we need to restore some integrity to the scheme. We're going to be creating a $200 million fund, the Inclusive Communities Fund, in order to rebuild capability in mainstream society, in community organisations and in sporting clubs. I think this is really important. I don't want to see people with disability tucked away in a corner of a cafe with a support worker on their phone and no interaction going on. What I would like to see is people with disability actually participating in mainstream programs. Not only will that be good for them, but it'll be good for everyone else—people without disability. It helps build bridges. It helps build empathy. It helps build understanding. That's where we need to get to. That is the purpose of establishing this Inclusive Communities Fund. In addition, we're bringing in changes to provider registration. Currently, there are around 1,400 plan management providers. What we've seen is a massive growth in an industry around plan management. There are a lot of people clipping a ticket here and not necessarily providing the quality or the integrity. This is a vulnerable group of Australians who are at high risk of exploitation. We will be requiring all providers of high-risk NDIS supports—for example, people who need suctioning, ventilation support and so on—to register. This is a safeguard and integrity measure designed to protect these vulnerable Australians from harm, and I fully support it. Registration is commonplace for healthcare professionals, whether they be nurses or doctors or allied health professionals. It should absolutely be the case with providers who are provisioning high-risk care to NDIS participants. It will also give participants and their carers and families the confidence that there is an oversight mechanism here. Once these providers are swept up into the umbrella of registration, it means that they are then bound by rules, and that is a really important oversight mechanism. There are a lot of different elements to this bill, but in addition we will be strengthening some of the powers of the NDIA in ensuring that integrity is maintained in the scheme and Australians can have confidence in the scheme going forwards. As I said, the NDIS is a vital piece of social infrastructure. Prior to its beginnings, people with disability were segregated and living in the shadows, with families under enormous carer stress. We will, as a Labor government, always protect the NDIS, but we need to ensure it is sustainable and secure going into the future. 10:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The eyes of 5.5 million disabled people fall at this moment on this parliament. The hundreds of thousands of Australian community members who are our allies are in solidarity with this community. History is watching this debate. Every word spoken by every senator will be recorded and remembered. The Australian disability community and our families have spoken with a clear and united voice. They have said that these cuts go too fast, go too far, will put us at risk and risk our lives, our livelihoods, our freedom and our very independence. We have taken on our backs as disabled people, once again, the burden of attempting to educate and explain the reality of our lives to people and government who just don't get it—asking again and again to be heard, telling Labor that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 must not pass: 'Wrong way. Go back.' Yet this Labor government has turned away from disabled people, away from our families, away from the experts and the allied health professionals, and away from those that have fought decade after decade to end violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. Instead, they have turned to the corporations, to the gas exporters and to the billionaires, and the attention which should have been given—which was owed and expected—to the disabled community has instead been given to those powerful vested interests. It is to those people that the government have listened, to those people that they have decided to commit themselves. Make no mistake, this legislation represents a choice to put the interests of Woodside and its fellow cadre of gas exporters making so much money, selling our gas for their profit, ahead of the interests of disabled people and our families. Make no mistake what is happening here. It has been laid out, clear as day, in the evidence received by this inquiry and so many others, that if there was a need to provide funding for the NDIS all that is required of the Labor Party is to grow a backbone and tax the gas exporters. A basic 25 per cent rate of tax on their exports would raise enough money to make these cuts—even by your own twisted logic that they are needed in the first place—completely irrelevant. So let's have no more statements about the tough choices you are making. You are putting your own future political interests and the interests of your government and their donors ahead of disabled people. That's what you are doing. It is not only a profound act of political cowardice, but it is also a deep and unforgivable political betrayal. I have looked into the eyes of mums and dads who have shared with me how it felt when people like Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard assured them that they no longer had to worry about what would happen to their kids after they passed away. I've spoken with people who lived the first chapters of their lives within the darkness of institutions. They have shared how it felt to know that they would never again have to worry about having to go back into those spaces, those grouped pits, in which so many of us struggled for so long. They trusted you to keep your word. They trusted you to listen, and in this moment you break that trust and you betray. In preparation for this debate, I went back and looked at the original intent of the scheme—that thing that you are so keen on telling us all again and again that you are restoring with this monstrous bill. Well, let's have a look at the act. Reasonable and necessary supports are gone. Individualised supports, which is the idea that what you are able to access in a disabled person should align with what your individual needs are—because we're all different; we don't come in neat little boxes or packages, we don't fit into your automated systems and we don't live a life neat and tidy in a way that is communicable and convenient for you—are gone. Choice and control—which is the idea that we should control the services that enable us to live, that we should decide the support workers that enable us to get out of the bed in the morning and that we should have control over our own services that enable control over our own lives—are gone. In this legislation dignity, for God's sake, is gone. How do you expect a disabled person to live with dignity and confidence if they must first prostrate themselves before their own government to pass a series of randomly decided tests as to whether they've done enough to cure themselves before they can access the NDIS? Where is the dignity in that? And you dare tell us that there is no such thing as a mandate or requirement to undertake these ministerially decreed treatments, as though it is not blatantly clear to us and to you that to put a disabled person in a position to choose between keeping the supports that enable them to work, live and experience happiness and not, because you can't afford the test, because it isn't available where you live, because it is not appropriate for you, because you don't want to undergo electroshock therapy, because it is not advised by your doctor or because it is not something that you are comfortable with—and you dare tell us that that does not in fact end up constituting a choice. When it comes to national responsibility the NDIS's original intent, as you established it, was about ending the bloody game of pass the buck when it comes to disabled people. The states, the territories and the Commonwealth government all say: 'It's not our problem. It's too expensive and too complicated.' Yet you're presiding in this legislation over the complete return to a siloed postcode lottery, where what people receive in Queensland is different from what they receive in WA, which is different from what they receive in the NT—and that's if you ever decide what a foundational support is in the first place. I don't think people in this place understand what is on the line for disabled people and our families, despite the 4,500-odd submissions made by the community and despite the six hearings. In the contributions that I have heard so far, the basics were not fully understood. I feel that there is a great act of disconnection happening here from the human impact of what you are doing. Both the government and the Liberals seem to be able to believe that they can deal with disabled people as pieces of data to be added to a spreadsheet for the federal budget. Well, we are not—we are human beings. I will end with a message from one of disabled human beings that will be impacted by these brutal cuts. Nathan writes: 'I feel like people making these decisions do not truly understand what they will mean for people like me. When you look at a budget, you see numbers on a page. When I look at the proposed cuts, I see pieces of my life being taken away—fewer opportunities to build independence, fewer opportunities to leave my house and participate in my community, fewer opportunities to maintain my health and develop skills and friendships and to continue becoming the best version of myself.' This is not a joke to the disabled community. This is not a political moment. This is our lives on the line. These cuts are not needed. This parliament and this government can choose in this moment to turn back, to find courage and to tax the gas exporters and the billionaires rather than to cut the supports needed by a disabled family to live. You can choose to do that. The community is looking and watching you in this moment. You can choose to listen and to act. If you do not and you decide to complete your betrayal—if the Australian Labor Party decides to have the backs of the gas industry and the billionaires instead of the backs of disabled people and our families—then shame on you. You will betray not only this community but the national character. You will be condemned by history. The blood and the lives of those who will suffer and die will be on your hands and will live in your consciences forever. And disabled people will not let any of you forget. Come the next election, we will consider what to do with our votes and we will remember who backed us up, who fought our in corner in this moment and who decided to turn away. Between now and then, we will ensure that every single life, every single cooked decision and every single automated nightmare created by this bill is laid directly at your door. You will find no peace from us. You will understand what is being done to us, and you will hear our voices growing louder and louder on the streets and on every platform we can gain. We will not be silent or go back into the dark. I foreshadow the moving of my second reading amendment. 11:05 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The coalition affirms strong bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as Australians with significant and permanent disability deserve to live with dignity and independence and have greater choice in their own lives. This is an idea worth defending, and it is worth protecting for those who depend on it. In saying that, it is also worth protecting the scheme itself. That is exactly why the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 deserves close scrutiny, as NDIS participants and the taxpayers funding the scheme deserve much better. The NDIS in front of us today is Labor's mess. It was Labor that designed the scheme with weak controls and no real handbrake on growth, and it is on Labor's watch that the cost has blown out to the point where it now threatens the very sustainability of the scheme itself. When the coalition was in government, we worked to put the scheme on a sustainable footing. Labor in opposition shamefully blocked those reforms. Having spent years blocking sensible changes, Labor now comes to this parliament asking to be trusted with sweeping new powers to fix a problem it had every opportunity to help prevent. That is exactly why this bill requires scrutiny. The NDIS currently supports close to a million Australians with disability, including tens of thousands of participants in my home state of South Australia. It was estimated to cost $13.6 billion a year. Under Labor, it is now costing more than $50 billion every single year and is projected to reach $70 billion by the end of the decade and $100 billion by the mid-2030s. A scheme growing at that rate needs careful, considered reform. The coalition wants the NDIS to succeed and be sustainable not just for this budget cycle but for the participant being diagnosed today who will rely on it in 30 years time. This is now the government's third attempt to slow the scheme's growth. In April 2023, it committed to reducing annual growth to eight per cent. We know it's big on announcements. That one wasn't met. In January 2026, the minister for health and disability set a new target of five to six per cent. Guess what? That wasn't met either. Are you noticing a theme here? Growth right now sits at around 10.3 per cent, and this bill asks us to believe that a two per cent target is suddenly achievable and safe. What concerns the coalition most is not the goal; it's actually the method. The single largest savings measure in this bill resets social, community and civic participation and capacity-building supports from October, stripping more than $13 billion over the forward estimates. We know that economic and social inclusion is so important to people living with disabilities. It helps them to live the best life they can. The minister says that this category has tripled in five years, but neither he nor the department has produced evidence explaining that growth or justifying the cut of this size. It is not just the process that I'm worried about; it's the people. This bill gives the minister sweeping new powers to reduce funding for entire groups of supports by legislative instrument, not through this parliament, not with the scrutiny of this parliament, not with the opportunity to dig deeper like we do through our parliamentary processes that Labor constantly tries to undermine. That's what helps us: the process to make a bad bill that comes from Labor, perhaps, a little bit better. Or perhaps it's drawing out the issues that haven't been identified and consulting people in an appropriate way. The bill requires the minister to have regard to participant safety, but not to explain how, on what criteria or on what evidence. There is limited scope to review these decisions and limited public accountability. For a scheme touching close to a million Australians, that's an extraordinary concentration of unchecked power. We heard directly from people that will be affected. Women with Disabilities Australia told the committee that when funded supports are cut the need for care does not disappear, it just shifts to someone else, and it will shift to unpaid carers, who will disproportionately be women. From the other side we hear constantly about how they're always on the lookout for the interests of women. There is no evidence of this in this legislation. The chief executive spoke of a woman in regional Australia with multiple sclerosis locked out of support for an incurable condition because she cannot afford the pathway to prove it. Down Syndrome Australia said that a blanket percentage cut applied without regard to individual circumstances undermines the entire purpose of the scheme. Hannah Diviney, in testimony nobody in that room will forget—I saw it; I heard it—warned this government that, if people die as a result of this bill, that responsibility sits with the decision-makers, not with the people left without support. Beyond that headline savings measure, several other schedule items will directly touch South Australian participants in my home state. The bill moves eligibility away from diagnosis alone towards a new test based on reduced functional capacity, but the government has not yet said what that assessment will look like. We're supposed to trust them. Existing participants will be progressively reassessed between January 2028 and December 2030. Labor has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted to fix it later. It should have fixed it in this bill, not later. The bill tightens who can request an unscheduled plan reassessment, limits funding to the impairment a person is actually accessing the scheme for, changes how plans are renewed, allows plans to be suspended where a participant cannot be contacted, and clarifies the definition of permanent impairment with sensible carve-outs, so a person with a hearing impairment is not forced to get a cochlear implant to remain eligible. I acknowledge the coalition secured changes in the House to protect daily living supports and employment supports specifically, and that was the right call. But on eligibility, reassessment and permanence, the detail that will decide a participant's fate still sits in instruments nobody in this chamber has actually seen. State and territory disability ministers, who share funding responsibility for this scheme, say they were not meaningfully consulted, describing a shift away from shared governance inconsistent with commitments made at National Cabinet in January and the National Agreement on Foundational Supports signed only months later. The broader NDIS issue is particularly acute for South Australia. Our state has thin markets at the best of times. A participant in Port Augusta or Ceduna who loses NDIS support does not have the fallback options of someone in metropolitan Adelaide. There is no queue of alternative providers in the south-east or on the Eyre Peninsula. Disability ministers warned that, without a coordinated approach, people risk ending up in hospitals or other settings that cannot meet their needs, or with no services at all, because states and territories have no agreement to deliver like-for-like services to people exited from the scheme. They've warned what is possible. Again, Labor is not listening. I turn now to the issues that actually should sit at the centre of this bill: fraud, corruption and maladministration. Time and time again, this Labor government turns away from that, choosing instead not to tackle it. They don't like the tough stuff. They don't like to talk about or tackle fraud, corruption or administration. It's well and truly on record not just in this place but in the media. That's Labor's way. The minister himself has said that seven in 10 Australians think the NDIS has grown too large and struggles with dodgy providers. Six in 10 say that it's probably broken. Yet, by the government's own modelling, the fraud measures in this bill will reduce an estimated $5 billion in fraudulent and incorrect claims each year by just $300 million, and those savings will not begin until 2027-28. By any measure, that's a fail in addressing fraud and corruption—not participant fraud but provider fraud. This is a program administered by government and managed in this place by a minister. It's their program; they should be able to manage it. The Australian National Audit Office estimates that between six and 10 per cent of NDIS claim outlays could be noncompliant, fraudulent or incorrect—a figure that John Dardo, co-chair of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce within the NDIA, confirmed as recently as February. The NDIA's own general manager of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce told a Senate inquiry that her team identifies around 50,000 risky claims every single day, and law enforcement has warned that organised crime groups are now deliberately targeting this scheme. The evidence was clear. It's not reflected in the response in this bill. Evidence of fraud, corruption and maladministration was provided over and over again, but it's Labor's way to turn its back on that evidence. It's too hard. It shouldn't be. South Australians see the sharp end of this. My office regularly hears from participants who were quoted one price for cleaning or gardening, only to watch it quadruple the moment they mention it will be paid through their NDIS plan. The coalition does welcome parts of this bill. Expanding mandatory registration is overdue. Around 94 per cent of providers are currently unregistered, operating with, essentially, no oversight. New civil penalties, stronger record keeping and cutting the claim period from up to two years down to 90 days will help. But, against a scheme spending $50 billion a year, $300 million in recovered fraud is not a serious answer to a $5 billion problem, nor is it an answer to the evidence that was clearly represented in the inquiry. Valuing taxpayers' money, tackling fraud properly and prioritising vulnerable Australians is not in contention. Every dollar recovered from a dodgy provider is a dollar that stays with a genuine participant and supports not only that participant but also their families and communities. We are all better off when people with disabilities live amongst us, work amongst us and play amongst us. This bill doesn't seek to tackle the most important things. A scheme with real integrity does not need to punish honest participants to balance its books. With national debt racing towards $1 trillion, it is not hard to see what is really driving this bill. It's a grab, again. Improving Labor's bill has been the focus of this process, and that work continues this week. Slowing NDIS growth and eliminating fraud and waste are the whole point, not optional extras. Bring forward the evidence for these growth targets. Consult properly with the states. Set out transparent criteria for ministerial determinations and put the same urgency into recovering fraudulently claimed taxpayers' money that the government reserves for cutting support to vulnerable Australians. This is bigger than the NDIS alone. The coalition is committed to protecting Australians' way of life, and that means spending has to be brought under control right across the budget not just in this scheme. I want to finish by acknowledging everyone who made a submission to this inquiry and every witness who shared their story, often at real personal cost. Their evidence should shape this bill. What I say today is this: the NDIS must be made sustainable, and spending and fraud are the biggest issues standing in the way of that. Labor has not been prepared to do that in the interests of the very people—people with disabilities—that the scheme was set up for and should operate for and protect. 11:20 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia The NDIS is one of the greatest acts of collective decency our parliament has ever delivered. It transformed disability support from a fragmented system too often determined by a postcode, personal wealth or sheer luck into a national promise—a promise that Australians with permanent and significant disability have the right to live with dignity, to exercise choice and control over the care they receive, to participate in their communities and to pursue the life that they choose. Labor created the NDIS as that promise of dignity, security and participation. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 protects that promise by making the scheme sustainable, improving the quality of supports that people with disability receive and ensuring that its funding reaches the people who need it the most. A promise like this is not kept simply by repeating it. It is kept by making sure that the institution that gives effect to it is strong enough to endure. As chair of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I've spent recent weeks listening to the concerns of participants, families, carers, advocates, providers, experts and government agencies sharing their views on this bill. I have heard the genuine anxiety surrounding these reforms. We heard from people worried about whether the support that enables them to work, to study, to leave home, to maintain relationships and to remain safe would still be there. We heard important common ground—broad agreement that fraud, overcharging, conflicts of interest and poor-quality services have no place in the NDIS. There was broad agreement that public money shouldn't disappear into a market that cannot demonstrate what is being delivered and that, in many cases, does people harm. There was broad agreement that the NDIS must endure for generations to come and that there are challenges in the growth, in the integrity and in the quality that we must address. The disagreement is not about whether the NDIS matters. It is about how we best protect it and how we protect the people who rely upon it. The responsible course is not to wave reform through without scrutiny or to retreat from difficult decisions. Our focus through our work on the committee and, indeed, the focus of the government, Minister Butler and Minister McAllister has been to listen, to strengthen the legislation, to explain honestly what we seek to do and to continue the work beyond this week should this bill pass the parliament—and I hope it does—and to continue to work with the disability community on how these reforms come to fruition. The NDIS operates at an enormous scale. More than $50 billion is paid through the scheme, and that is projected to grow significantly. The NDIA processes around 660,000 claims a day. When Labor came to government, annual growth in the NDIS was around 22 per cent. That was simply not sustainable. Since coming to government, we've brought that down. It was around 10.5 per cent in 25-26. We've worked with state and territory colleagues through National Cabinet, and that group has now agreed to work towards sustainable annual growth of five to six per cent or lower. The NDIS, under these changes, will continue to grow each year, but this bill seeks to slow that growth to bring the scheme to a more sustainable level. This is crucial to making sure the scheme continue, but it doesn't come without tough decisions. One of the most important considerations of our work on the NDIS has been the challenges that have come from fraud and managing integrity in the scheme because every dollar lost to fraud or rorting is a dollar that is not going to people with disability who need support. The problem has been fraudsters and organised criminals who have treated the NDIS as easy money, aided by a market with inadequate safeguards. Since coming to government, we have invested $1.3 billion in antifraud measures and established the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. That's real progress, but the agency needs stronger powers, and this bill provides them. It allows the NDIA to investigate suspicious claims, inspect records, issue compliance and infringement notices, and pursue civil penalties. Providers will have to keep proper records to prove that they have provided the services they say, and claims will need to be made within 90 days of a support being delivered. The principle is straightforward: if someone is claiming public money, they must be able to show how it was delivered and that it was delivered. These powers target the wrongdoing that has existed in the scheme. It protects participants' funding. This is an important reform. Our bill also lifts standards across the provider market. Since 1 July, supported independent living and NDIS digital platform providers have been required to register with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. This bill broadens the definition of an NDIS provider, giving regulators clearer reach across the market and better oversight of who is being paid through the NDIS. It also reforms plan management, who administer around 60 per cent of NDIS funding. Many do this job with great integrity, providing an important and trusted service, but there have been problems across the market: conflicts of interest, raising of false invoices, related-party transactions and payments made without services actually being delivered. That's why we seek to establish a panel of plan managers, required to meet proper quality, governance and integrity standards. We want participants to retain choice in who manages their plan but to be able to choose from genuine, accountable providers who are subject to strong oversight so that plan managers protect a participants plan, not profit from it. This bill also establishes a clearer pricing system. For agency managed and plan managed supports, the minister will be able to set enforceable maximum prices based on advice from the NDIA. We heard through the Senate inquiry that not everyone agrees that this is the right approach, but I do believe that it is an appropriate mechanism for setting pricing. The minister is accountable, ultimately, to the parliament and to the Australian people. Importantly, the minister must provide that advice to the parliament within five sitting days. If a provider charges above the maximum price, the difference can be recovered from the provider. An NDIS plan must not be treated as a blank cheque by providers, and public funding should provide safe, effective and high-quality support for participants. This bill makes access to the NDIS fairer and more consistent. The independent NDIS review found that the current approach is too dependent on diagnosis and access lists, which favour some but make it more challenging for people with more complex diagnoses to access support. The system shouldn't favour someone who can obtain the right support or manage a difficult pathway. We heard evidence during the Senate inquiry about varying assessment outcomes, including a particularly stark case where twins with the same diagnosis and the same support needs received very different plans through assessment. It's really important that access to the scheme is consistent. This bill moves towards a more consistent, evidence based assessment of functional capacity. A technical advisory group will advise on the thresholds and assessment methods, and this will be informed by consultation with people with disability and the states and territories. This work is really important, and it is ongoing. Those details are not being rushed, and access changes will not begin before 1 January 2028, giving us time to work through these important technical details. We know how important it is that we get this right for the disability community, for their families and carers and for providers. There's important work with the states and territories to build Thriving Kids and other foundational supports before changes take effect, and this remains a priority. This bill also introduces more sensible rules for plan reassessments. One in five plans is currently subject to an unscheduled reassessment each year. Some of those requests have been initiated without the participant's knowledge or with very little notice. Under this reform, only a participant or someone legally authorised to act on their behalf will be able to request an unscheduled assessment. Reassessment will remain available where there has been a significant and ongoing change in functional capacity. Emergencies and short-term crises can still be addressed through a plan variation. This protects a participant's right to seek more support when their circumstances change, while preventing providers from pursuing larger plans without participant authority. These plan renewals will also replace the current rollover process. One of the most difficult parts of this reform concerns our changes to social and community participation. I heard the concerns about these changes from people with disability, their families and their carers through our Senate inquiry. We know that participation is not a luxury. It can mean attending an appointment, seeing friends, getting to work or simply enjoying life out in the community. This is really important. Spending in this category has risen from approximately $4 billion to more than $12 billion in five years. Without reform, it was projected to reach around $20 billion by the end of the decade. That's simply not sustainable. The government will reset social and community participation budgets as plans are renewed or reassessed. It will not abolish participation support, and it will not reduce funding in a participant's current plan partway through that plan. Supports essential to a participant's health or safety and support for those who require 24-hour care are not the target of this measure. We will also invest $200 million through the Inclusive Communities Fund to rebuild the ability of local and community organisations to offer genuine opportunities for participation. Following the first round of Senate inquiries into the first draft of this bill, the government, the Greens and the crossbench members put forward amendments in response to feedback. All of those amendments were broadly supported in the evidence given to our inquiry. The bill now confines the minister's power to make a support determination to two categories and ensures employment and disability related health supports are carved out. A determination, as I said, cannot reduce funding partway through a plan. The minister must consider participant safety, and the determination will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The other amendment that we made was to clarify contact where the agency has not been able to make contact with a participant. It requires that the agency must make at least five attempts to contact a participant, their nominee or another authorised person, that they must occur over a period of three to four months and that, where a participant is in hospital or another institution or experiencing homelessness, the attempts do not count. Importantly, we've also clarified the test for appropriate treatment. There's a lot of fear about this particular measure, but it's important to know that a person will not be required to pay for expensive treatment. The treatment must be regularly undertaken in Australia and publicly funded. Restrictive practices are expressly excluded, and choice will remain at the centre. No-one will be forced to undergo treatment if they do not wish to. Importantly, these reforms will be subject to an independent statutory review in 2029 that will consider the impact on access, participant outcomes, quality of support, review rights, provider viability, thin markets and foundational supports. Our government will continue working with people with disability as these reforms are implemented. We have two important obligations in this regard: protecting the dignity, independence and safety of people who rely on the NDIS today and preserving that same promise for every Australian who will need the scheme in the decades ahead. That's not to say this change isn't hard or scary for the people who will be impacted, but doing nothing is not the compassionate choice. Labor created the NDIS, and we will always protect it. This bill goes to doing just that and to making sure the scheme is sustainable for generations to come so that people with disability, their families and their carers can always rely on it. 11:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The NDIS has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians by providing access to the essential supports, services and equipment that enable people to participate more fully in their communities, education, employment and family life. That was its purpose and it was created by the Gillard government with the support of the Greens in the Senate. What a difference a decade makes. This Labor government would now prefer to work with the Liberals to ram through cuts that will see 241,000 people kicked off the NDIS to save money off the backs of disabled people and their carers rather than raising revenue by making the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, like making the greedy gas corporations pay tax on their gas exports instead of letting them continue to rip Australians off. This government doesn't have the guts to take on the greedy gas corporations, so they're punching down on disabled people instead. It is appalling, and the Liberals and One Nation are lining up to back them because they're all in hock to the same big corporations and the one per cent—for shame. Months of inquiry and evidence have made it abundantly clear that the changes proposed by Labor risk causing significant harm to disabled people. These cuts are being made too far, too fast, without adequate workforce planning, without proper economic modelling and without genuine consultation with the disability community. These changes will restrict access to the NDIS, will reduce or remove supports and will leave many people with no adequate alternative program or supports. There are no substitute programs in place, not all of the states have committed to even having them in place, and, in particular, 145,000 autistic people will suffer the most. The replacement program for them is only for kids under eight years old, and a mum was telling me on the weekend she is petrified what removing support for her autistic daughter, who's aged nine, will do for her daughter, for her daughter's ability to keep participating at school and for their whole family. The government has repeatedly insisted that there'll be alternative supports for participants who lose access, but the evidence before the Senate from its inquiry tells a very different story. State and territory disability ministers have made clear that they cannot provide like-for-like services for everyone who may lose NDIS supports. This leaves disabled people in hospitals, in aged care or in other inappropriate settings that cannot meet their needs. The Greens have been crystal clear on the NDIS since budget night that these cruel cuts should not pass parliament. We will always fight for the rights, dignity and autonomy of disabled people. We think that disabled people deserve support, that they are worth it and that they matter. They should not be sacrificed for budget savings; their needs should be met. We strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, and we urge the crossbench and the opposition to do the same. We hear some strong words pointing out all the problems with the bill, but you're going to bloody vote for it. Have some guts, and do the right thing. I want to talk now about the impact on women, both on disabled women and on the care provided to disabled people, which is often unpaid and generally done by women. This government has made commitments to end violence against women and children within a generation, yet this bill will put women with a disability at greater risk. The Our Watch and Women with Disabilities Victoria report Changing the landscape identified a range of factors that make women with a disability particularly vulnerable to domestic, family and sexual violence. First Nations women with a disability and women from culturally diverse backgrounds are even more vulnerable. The First Nations disability network has found that 26 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women have a disability—that's roughly twice the non-Indigenous rate—and that one in five of them report experiencing abuse or neglect. The disability royal commission found that key factors preventing violence and neglect included reducing isolation, strengthening safeguards and supporting women with a disability to participate in their communities. This bill goes directly against those recommendations. Cutting support for social and community participation will further isolate women with a disability. For many victims-survivors with disability, participating in community programs is visibility. It can create an opportunity for other people to notice their situation and to take action to stop the abuse, the neglect and the exploitation. Capacity building and community connection also help women with a disability to better understand their options, to connect with frontline support services, to report abuse and to plan a safe escape from violent situations. This bill undermines those protections. Cutting women with disability off from social activities will increase the risk that they will experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and that the abuse will go unchecked. That's why I foreshadow a second reading amendment addressing this and calling on the government to withdraw this cruel and unnecessary bill. On gender-responsive budgeting, this government has often spoken about its progress on applying a gender lens to decisions and requiring significant policy proposals to be subject to detailed gender impact analysis. This year's Women's Budget Statement talked up the evolving maturity of gender impact assessment and the importance of intersectional approaches to gender analysis. It included snapshots of gender analysis in practice, including on tax transparency, changes to non-compete clauses, urgent care clinics and Australia's space program. But, for a document at pains to point out the government's intersectional gender analysis, the Women's Budget Statement was strangely silent on the gendered impact of a cornerstone of the budget: these appalling changes to the NDIS. It didn't want to talk about the impact of funding cuts on women, particularly women with a disability, young women, First Nations women or women in aged care. But it's not surprising that the government chose not to highlight those impacts, because they actively undermine the government's stated priorities on gender equality. These changes will have a huge impact on women's economic equality and security. These changes will exacerbate the risk of family, domestic and sexual violence against already vulnerable women, and these changes will make it harder for young women and older women with disability to live with dignity. The government might not want to talk about these impacts, but it's important that we lay them out. I particularly want to thank Women With Disabilities Australia for their sustained attention to these important issues that the government is ignoring. On economic equality, today is Equal Pay Day, marking the additional number of days since 1 July that women have to work to take home the same yearly earning as men. It's 48 days. The gender pay gap currently sits at 11.3 per cent. That is still far too high. It is better than historic levels, but it's still too high. But today is also the day that the government and the coalition and One Nation are supporting legislation that could undo this progress. The bill will do this in three key ways. It will increase the demand on families to provide unpaid care when NDIS participants' plans are cut. The NDIS already relies on a huge network of unpaid care work to supplement funded supports, and the value of that unpaid care has been estimated at $78 billion each and every year. Cutting funding for support doesn't reduce the amount of support that people living with a disability need. All it does is shift the responsibility onto already burnt-out families to drastically increase the amount of unpaid care that they already provide. We know that the vast majority of that extra unpaid care work will be done by women, and it will be unvalued and unpaid. The increasing unpaid care load created by this bill will mean that more women are unable to participate in the workforce as much as they'd like or possibly at all. That has a direct impact on women's long-term economic security. Cuts in this bill to community participation funding will directly impact women with a disability who rely on community programs to develop the skills and the confidence to join the workforce. Again, this has direct consequences for these women's economic security, autonomy and dignity. The government cannot say that it's working to close the gender pay gap on one hand while actively creating the conditions for more women to be forced into unpaid care roles. It cannot and should not ignore the human toll. Mum Kim Berry talked to the Saturday Paper about her fear that cuts to her adult son Oscar's NDIS plan would mean that he could no longer afford the supports that allow him to live independently. Kim said that Oscar having to move home and her taking the primary care role on again would be fraught for both of them. Kim said: For me, the idea of it is so oppressive, stripping me of recently found independence and scope to be spontaneous. I'll be back to organising all his programs and transport pick-ups. The result for Oscar, Kim said, will be 'death through boredom', as the activities that have helped him engage with society will be taken away. With these cuts to the NDIS, Labor is making the largest cut to a government services program this century. This is a political choice, and it marks the tipping point for the Albanese Labor government. In the UK and the US, we've seen what happens when people are fed up because the politicians back the one per cent. This government is not concerned with inequality. It's concerned with appearances. It pays lip service, and people are fed up. They're fed up because Labor can do something about the problems that they face, but they waste every single opportunity. They're fed up with the tinkering, the cowardice, the weakness and the wasted time. They're fed up with the gas industry getting the gas they're selling for free and not paying their fair share. Instead of cutting billions of dollars from the NDIS and the 240,000 people who will now be bereft, the government could and should have required gas exporters to pay their fair share. A 25 per cent gas tax would raise an estimated $17 billion a year. That's about $31.8 billion more over the next four years than the total value of these NDIS cuts. Labor have made a choice, and they're choosing to make disabled people bear the cost of their failure to make big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. They're choosing greedy gas corporations over disabled people—donors over disabled people. They're choosing to kick 241,000 people off the NDIS while handing billions to Donald Trump for nuclear submarines that we'll probably never get anyway. They're choosing, at every turn, to protect the profits of their corporate donors, while the people that they're supposed to represent are left behind. Quite often when I say that Labor, the Liberals and One Nation are all working for the same vested interests and making the same decisions that benefit big corporations and the one per cent, the people who support Labor get quite upset, but, when a political party shows you, repeatedly, who they are and who they serve, you should believe them. Labor has made its choice, and it seems that the Liberals and One Nation are backing it in. The Greens will always back disabled people in Australia because we think that's what being Australian is about. We're meant to look after each other, and the Greens will always do that. We will oppose this bill with every fibre of our being, and we condemn the parties that vote for it. You don't fix the NDIS by cutting it. 11:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia 'Disability can affect any of us, and, therefore, it affects all of us.' Those were the words of prime minister Julia Gillard that captured the fundamental idea behind the NDIS. It's that disability support is not a matter of charity. It is a responsibility of a nation. The NDIS began with a simple promise: Australians with significant disability should not have to rely on luck, charity or the exhaustion of people who love them to live a life of dignity. Before the NDIS, support depended too often on where you lived, what services happened to be available and how long your family could keep carrying the load. People with disabilities and their families and carers fought for that change, and Labor listened. It was a Labor government that designed and legislated the NDIS. We believe that people with disabilities deserve more than a patchwork of crisis services. They deserve dignity, choice, control and the chance to participate fully in our country. That remains Labor's commitment today. The NDIS has changed hundreds and thousands of lives. It can mean support to enter the community, greater independence or parents knowing their child will be supported into adulthood. These are the simple foundations of a life lived with dignity. Because Labor created the NDIS, we bear the responsibility for its future. We will not let rising costs, poor services or fraud weaken public confidence. We know reform can sound threatening when your life depends on the NDIS. For families, uncertainty can mean laying awake worrying about someone they love. I understand the fear that comes with changes like that, and I want to acknowledge that here today. We heard this through the inquiry and directly from people with disability and their families, advocates and providers. This bill has changed in response, and safeguards have been strengthened, and provisions have been clarified, but protecting the promise of the NDIS requires us to be honest about the pressures that also threaten it. Growth in this scheme is not in itself a failure. More Australians receiving the support they need is part of what the NDIS was created to achieve. But, when costs grow because providers inflate prices, services outside the scheme disappear or dishonest operators take money for the support they never delivered, participants do not benefit. Under the former government, the annual NDIS spending growth reached 22 per cent. Labor has brought that down to around 10 per cent. National Cabinet has agreed to work towards a sustainable growth of five to six per cent or lower. This is, in fact, not about spending less because Labor believes it should be done for people with a disability; it is about ensuring that growing investment delivers better support not inflated prices, poor services or profits for people exploiting that scheme. When the scheme is allowed to become unsustainable, it does not become safer. It becomes vulnerable to the cuts, neglect and political opportunism that Labor created the NDIS to actually overcome. The Albanese Labor government will not allow that to happen, nor will we allow dishonest operators to treat participants' plans as easy money. Imagine discovering money had been taken from your plan for a service that you never ever received. That is theft from a person with disability. Over nine months, more than 4,000 claims worth $19 million were rejected because services had not been delivered. Some plan managers approved invoices from businesses they had financial interests in—in fact, marking their own homework. This bill establishes a commission panel of plan managers. It strengthens the NDIA's ability to require evidence and to act against fraud and extend registration to more high-risk providers. Stopping fraud protects participants' plans. The bill makes eligibility clearer and more consistent, focusing on how permanent disability affects daily life rather than on diagnosis alone. The NDIS cannot be the only doorway to support, and the $200 million in the Inclusive Communities Fund will create more opportunities for that participation. Through Thriving Kids, governments will invest $4 billion to support children where they live, where they learn and where they play. Services begin in October, but the NDIS access will not change before 2028, and children with high support needs remain eligible. For Western Australians, sustainability must mean a scheme that works across our vast state, and the Albanese and Cook governments are rolling out the Joint Work Program across the south-west, the Gascoyne, the Great Southern, the Wheatbelt and Goldfields-Esperance, where more than 11,000 NDIS participants live. This is building on the $7.6 million Katanning pilot that will identify local gaps and improve access particularly for First Nations participants. The $5 million assistive technology rental and refurbishment pilot has also expanded to WA, through Ability WA. It allows people to rent, test or exchange equipment as their needs change and is open to all people with disabilities under 65, not only NDIS participants. And Ellie Moir now represents WA on Australia's Disability Strategy Advisory Council, ensuring that grassroots Western Australian voices help shape our national policy. The community affairs committee heard the concerns, examined the bill and recommended that it be passed. Former prime minister Gillard said: The NDIS will stand alongside the minimum wage, the age pension, Medicare and universal superannuation as one of the great Labor pillars of social justice and opportunity for all Australians. Labor created the NDIS, Labor believes in the NDIS and Labor is taking responsibility for ensuring it remains strong. For the people who depend on it today, for the families planning for it tomorrow and for every Australian who may one day need it, I commend this bill to the Senate. 11:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I begin by thanking people with disability and their families, carers and loved ones who have emailed, called and pulled me aside on the street here in Canberra to talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the concerns they have. I held a community town hall with Independent MLAs Thomas Emerson and Fiona Carrick, and had over 100 people attend, on a weeknight. We heard stories of people's genuine fears about what will happen if this bill passes in its current form and what it will mean for the most intimate parts of their lives, including who gets them out of bed, who helps them have a shower and who helps them go to the bathroom. Overwhelmingly, people told me that they're not opposed to reform; they want it to happen. But, as press gallery journalist of the year James Massola said, reform should be done with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. The NDIS is one of the largest social programs, and its growth rate must be brought in line with other social programs in Australia. It is appropriate for the government to seek a growth rate of five to six per cent; that's in line with programs like Medicare. And I agree that this is the way we need to go if we want to make sure this program is available for the next generation of people with disability. I also support cracking down on fraudulent providers and exploitation, ensuring funding reaches participants rather than bad actors; more consistent and evidence based decisions; functional capacity assessments, if properly designed with people with disability; clearer boundaries between the NDIS, health and other service systems; and properly funded foundational supports. While I broadly support the architecture of this bill and the intent to ensure that the scheme is sustainable, maintains its social licence and, critically, supports Australians who need that support, there are two areas of this bill that I have major concerns with. The first is around the cut to people's social and community participation funds—a 50 per cent arbitrary cut made across the board, totally indiscriminately. I don't think this can be done safely. We heard that this will isolate people—people who are already more isolated than the general population. The disability royal commission warned what can happen when people with disability are isolated, when they are segregated. Violence, abuse, exploitation—this funding is a safeguard against all those things. It's what the NDIS was designed to do—ensure that people with disability can be genuinely included in their communities. It's not just there to keep people alive; it's to ensure that they can participate. One Canberran told me that, once this is cut, they won't have the funding to go and check on their ageing father anymore. That's what she uses her funding for. When it's indiscriminate, we don't know what will happen. I agree with the Disability Discrimination Commissioner that we will be leaving people in unsafe situations. Witness after witness to the Senate inquiry into this warned about that. Clearly, the government has taken what could be seen as much-needed reform and added this immediate budget saving on top. This 50 per cent cut across the board to SCCP is not a policy decision; it's a budget decision. These cuts aren't even necessary to bring the rate of growth down to the government's target. Analysis from the Grattan Institute shows that other reforms in this package do most of the work, but they are slow. Clearly, the government saw a big chunk of money that they could be saving immediately and did not think through the consequences, as became clear during the Senate inquiry. When questions were put to the department about things like the impact this would have on Australians with Down syndrome who use a big chunk of this funding to actually get to work, they didn't seem to have answers. Clearly, this was not something they'd consulted on; this was a decision of government. As is the phrase in estimates and inquiries, it's a decision of government taken around the cabinet table, which then gets put to the department, who are told, 'Build this into your reforms, into your legislation. The analysis shows that if we don't cut SCCP, if we actually honour existing plans and arrangements, then the NDIS will grow at three per cent per year. That is still a real cut in population adjusted terms, and it sits well below the long-term NDIS rate of five to six per cent per year. Again, these cuts aren't needed to bring the scheme under control. This is purely a budget-saving measure. I have real fears for what this will mean for participants and their families when this goes through. The other area which should and does concern almost all senators in this place is the unprecedented inclusion of automated decision-making powers in this legislation. Automation has a legitimate role in calculations, routine processing and in detecting fraud, but the bill goes so much further than that. Evidence from the Human Technology Institute was that, subject to a ministerial determination, almost any major NDIS decision could be automated, including decisions involving judgement and discretion. They described this as unprecedented. The explanatory memorandum talks about human oversight, but those protections are not expressed in the bill. It's deeply worrying when you have rhetoric from government saying, 'Well, no, the intent is not to do it this way,' and yet, in the bill, the parliament will be handing extraordinary powers to the executive, the minister and the NDIA when it comes to automated decision-making. One of the other concerns about the framework is that it could also remove established internal review pathways for some automated decisions. What a perverse outcome of this legislation it will be if participants have fewer rights to challenge a decision, simply because a machine made it. You would think that there would be more accountability if we're handing decision-making to an algorithm. I think that Australians, rightly, have very little trust in algorithms when you look at the havoc that social media algorithms are wreaking on society, the black box nature of these algorithms when it comes to social media companies, and our own government and what they've rolled out with Support at Home assessments. We're told that we couldn't possibly look at the algorithm because it's sensitive and they don't want people to know how to game the system, yet we've had expert after expert saying that this is not the way to treat older Australians and it is not a fit algorithm. Now we're saying, 'When it comes to the NDIS, let's roll that out at scale—let's keep rolling that out, potentially allowing ADM to raise debts and then not having a way to appeal them.' It is astounding, in the wake of the robodebt royal commission, that the parliament is looking at legislation that expands these sorts of powers when it comes to automated decision-making and the use of algorithms without the right of participants to appeal those decisions. This is a very serious thing for us to be doing as a Senate. ADM means harm can be produced at scale. Robodebt taught us that, and the robodebt royal commission, in recommendation 17.1, recommended an overarching act to deal with automated decision-making and the use of algorithms. Recommendation 17.2 was for a much-needed independent body that can look at these algorithms so we don't have to turn up to these inquiries where the department tell us, 'Don't worry, everything's great—this is a good algorithm,' but every expert that we ask questions of says that this thing stinks and is clearly not providing the level of care that Australians need. I'll be moving a second reading amendment proposing that these provisions not commence until after we have those safeguards in place, the overarching act that deals with ADM algorithms across departments and agencies, and an independent body to evaluate these algorithms. I also have serious concerns as a senator for the ACT. So much of what I've heard from Canberrans are concerns around the sequencing and foundational supports. Thriving Kids was announced on 20 August 2025, almost a year ago, and is still not operating. It currently only covers children aged zero to eight with developmental delay or autism and low to moderate support needs. Governments have not agreed on the next foundational support cohorts, funding, commencement dates or services. There's no clear arrangement for adults, people with early stage neurological conditions or complex needs, or cross-border communities such as Canberra. Yet access changes are due to begin in 2028. That leaves about 18 months to design, fund, staff and deliver a nationwide range of supports. I'm supportive of these changes, but I'm really concerned about the short runway left to complete this job, given the huge impact that this will have on Australians and their families across this great country. People cannot be denied access to the NDIS on the assumption that another service exists when it remains only a commitment. One of the really worrying submissions to the Senate inquiry was the one from the states and territories, which basically said, 'We don't know what we need to do, how much it's going to cost or who we're providing services for.' None of this has been discussed or agreed, and yet the Commonwealth is charging on with this bill, with huge cuts to people's budgets, and we're told that the states and territories are going to have to pick up the slack. When I asked the department about the $13-odd billion of savings, they pointed to, I think, a $200 million fund for community organisations. Anyone can see that $200 million worth of grants and other supports does not cover a $13 billion cut. I recognise that this bill will pass this week, and, while I cannot support in its current form, this is clearly not the end of the work for senators in continuing to apply scrutiny to government decision-making, continuing to apply scrutiny to the decisions of the NDIA, continuing to listen to NDIS participants and their families, and committing to listen to Canberrans. I encourage government to be open and willing to change course if things go wrong. We've seen that in aged care, with the introduction of an algorithm that we're told is going to be a great thing. Again, I give credit to senators Allman-Payne and Ruston, who've done outstanding work in highlighting just what can go wrong when the government doesn't get it right. I would urge the government to keep an open mind with this, to continue to consult and to make changes where appropriate. 12:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens unequivocally, strongly and unapologetically oppose this cruel and heartless bill. Disabled people will suffer, and they will die, if this bill passes. The courageous and brave people that came to give evidence to the Senate inquiry into this bill made that crystal clear. When actor, speaker, media personality and disability advocate Hannah Diviney gave evidence to the Senate inquiry, she said this: The number-crunchers around here seem to have deluded themselves into thinking that disabled people daring to live costs too much; that our lives can be reduced to lines on a budget that simply must be balanced, forgetting all those zeros represent actual human beings … She went on to conclude her powerful testimony with the following warning: You may cast me as a frightened little girl, but hear this: when disabled people die as a direct result of this bill—and they will—their blood will be on your hands. Those of us in this place have the absolute privilege of representing the people of this country and our states, and this bill totally and utterly betrays what we were sent here by the Australian people to do. It sells out the marginalised while protecting the powerful. It extinguishes the humanity of the marginalised. Labor, yet again, is blatantly betraying the people who have put them here. Disabled people shouldn't suffer just because Labor wants to prove that they can be just as callous as the Liberals and One Nation. This government is morally bankrupt—this bill is proof enough of that—but we already knew that. Time and again, the Albanese Labor government has shown that they are more interested in caving to misleading clickbait from right-wing media barons and protecting their corporate donors than looking after people. There's a reason that we're seeing a crackdown—or a so-called crackdown—on the NDIS before we see any meaningful gambling reform pass. There's a reason that this government wants the so-called NDIS reform to pass quickly to save money, but they won't impose a tax on gas imports. There's a reason that the government is more comfortable with pouring an endless stream of money into the war machine than properly funding life-saving disability care. They are working for big business and the billionaire and corporate donors that keep the door revolving. They are not working for people, and disabled people will indeed pay the price. The media in this country has not helped either, with pages upon pages dedicated to demonising and scapegoating disabled people to serve their own needs. Where is the outrage over the $268 billion that this government is spending with AUKUS on nuclear subs that will never arrive? Where is it when the government forks out billions to subsidise and bail out fossil fuel corporations that are profiting off the destruction of our environment? This bill just shows that the Albanese Labor government fundamentally misunderstands the NDIS and fundamentally misunderstands the reality of living with a disability. This misunderstanding is pretty wilful, from where I sit, because disabled people do not leave any stone unturned to tell you over and over and over what the impacts of this bill will be on their lives. They shouldn't have had to tell you over and over and over again. But they have, and still you completely disregard and ignore them. Some of the biggest cuts will come from budgets for social participation. The impact of this will be devastating, and it will be costly. Kim Berry, whose son Oscar receives NDIS funding, has said that these cuts will be 'death by boredom' for her son. But the price isn't just boredom for participants and the loss of independence for family carers. There will be a longer term cost borne by our healthcare system and our justice system, because people are no longer able to live the lives that they deserve and that they have a right to live. Hannah Diviney, in her evidence, pointed out that, in the absence of social and community funding, she won't be able to work and will no longer be a taxpayer. She went on to say: The mental health crisis will escalate, as will the strain on our healthcare system. You will find the workforce shrink as our support systems have no choice but to leave to ensure our safety and survival. That'll mean more people rely on other government support—Centrelink and the like. But those systems won't be able to handle the load … The government says this bill is about saving money. The government will throw around words like 'financial sustainability' and even has the audacity to call this bill 'securing the future of the NDIS', but all it does is shuffle those costs onto disabled people, their communities and their supports, and on to other parts of our social services infrastructure—and these costs will be significantly higher. These are costs that people cannot afford, costs that will leave them without support. What is happening here today is utterly, utterly shameful. This is not only terrible policymaking, but it is also unimaginably cruel. To be honest, we could be here for days outlining the problems and flaws in this bill. My colleague Senator Steele-John has done an excellent job, but I also want to highlight a few flaws. A critical flaw in this bill is the requirement that disabled people show they have tried all publicly available treatments before accessing the NDIS. While this provision has been slightly ameliorated by the work of Senator Steele-John, it is still deeply flawed. People aren't going on the NDIS because they have a broken leg which can be fixed through a few weeks on crutches and some physical therapy. To ask someone to jump through hoops, to exhaust treatment options for disabilities that we know are permanent, is demoralising, dehumanising and downright cruel. This provision ignores long waitlists for public services. It fails to address accessibility issues around availability of specialists and location of services. It also assumes that people have the capacity and/or the support to access these treatments and to care for themselves while they wait for treatments and assessments—and maybe, one day, eventually access the NDIS. There's not only that. This bill is throwing people off the side of a boat into raging waters without a life jacket. The government has ignored repeated warnings that services for people kicked off the NDIS won't be ready and won't necessarily even make up for the services that will be lost. This is also a completely backwards step for disability care. The NDIS was all about moving away from a 'one size fits all' approach to care and moving to a system where people have the right to choice and control, choosing the services to best support them and controlling how these services were provided. It was about agency. It was about independence. Any Labor, Liberal or One Nation senator supporting the passage of this bill today should be so ashamed of themselves, but I'm not sure if you have the moral conscience left in you anymore to even feel that emotion. Only three years have passed since the robodebt royal commission found that the automated robodebt scheme was cruel and unlawful, yet this bill grants the government the power to automate key decision-making for people receiving NDIS support, showing how willing they are to gamble with people's lives all over again. The government is trying to sell this bill as a response to the witch-hunt that has gone on in recent years over NDIS fraud, yet the bill barely even addresses fraud, noncompliance and misconduct by mainly corporate providers and other actors within the scheme. The vast majority of this bill is about restricting, or entirely removing, support for disabled people. To be clear, the Greens do not oppose reforming or changing the NDIS. We support a scheme that delivers the best possible outcomes for disabled people and that is protected from fraud, exploitation and wasteful spending. But this bill ain't it. This bill pretends to address financial sustainability while sacrificing disabled people. In case you haven't seen it already, this Labor government is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. They pretend to be progressive and talk a big game on equity and inclusion, but, if you're paying attention, they are just the same—upholding a political system that delivers for the top end, for endless wars, for genocide, for climate-destroying fossil fuel companies, while cutting and culling from the people who need it most. This bill comes only two years after a round of significant NDIS cuts that have already left people struggling to access support and scared of when the next round of cuts will hit. Disabled people deserve to thrive. They have a right to thrive, to live lives like everybody else, with opportunities for joy, for work, for fun, for participation in community and with fulfilment. We live in a country that is wealthy enough to provide all of that, yet here we are with this bill, which is not about what the government can and cannot afford; it is about where they choose to put those public funds. Your choice, I'm afraid, today, is a completely wrong choice. It is a cruel choice. It is a disgraceful choice. To once more reference Hannah Diviney's incredible testimony in the bill inquiry, she told the committee that while a lack of social participation funding might leave her unemployed, that would give her 'even more time to be a thorn in the government's side'. Disabled people have been fighting for their rights for centuries, and they will not give up. The Greens will be right alongside them in this fight. 12:23 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. First of all, I associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues earlier on this bill—they're Senator Waters, Senator Steele-John and Senator Faruqi. I commend Senator Steele-John for the incredible work that he has done representing the disability community in this place. It is clear that this bill was not co-designed and properly consulted on by members of the disability community; if it was, this would not be the bill that we would have before this parliament. This bill is part of a repeating pattern from this government, and governments before it, where we have a royal commission into an issue, we find out the things that are going wrong, and then, rather than passing legislation that genuinely is co-designed with the people it affects and addresses issues raised in the relevant royal commission, the government instead uses it as cover to make budget savings. We've seen this in aged care. Under the cover of implementing the recommendations of a royal commission, we've had legislation introduced and, rather than improving aged care for older people, we're seeing people assessed by a tool that cannot be overridden by clinicians and humans. People are sometimes waiting more than a year to access care, and thousands of people are dying while waiting to access care. What we see in this NDIS bill that the government has introduced is a very similar pattern: a royal commission has said we need to address problems with the care and supports for people with a disability, but instead of having a co-designed bill that was properly consulted on and that looks at how to improve the care for people with a disability we have a bill that the government has unashamedly said time and time again is about cutting funding to the NDIS. The word 'sustainable' is code for 'cuts'. The Labor government egregiously went about a process of manufacturing consent in the community to make these cuts by convincing the community and by engaging consultants—then jumping on this idea that, if we just make everyone think that the NDIS is riddled with fraud, then we'll get consent from the community to cut people's funding. Yet the fraud that exists in the system isn't being committed by the people who need the help and support of the scheme. It's largely being committed by providers who are engaging in fraud, noncompliance and misconduct. Rather than bringing forward a bill that genuinely deals with that, we have a bill before us that's about cutting supports from tens of thousands of people, which they need to live. I note that I'll be moving a second reading amendment standing in my name which deals in particular with automated assessments. We have seen the damage that automated assessments have done in aged care, which was thousands of people being inadequately and incorrectly assessed by a system that has taken out human overrides so that they cannot get the support that they need. When did we decide that computers and algorithms were the way that we'd determine the care and support that humans with complex conditions and abilities would need? When did we decide that? I don't want to live in a world where an algorithm or a computer decides what care and support I need when I'm old or if my circumstances change and I acquire a disability. Is there a single person in this chamber who would want to be subjected to that? I don't think there is, yet we're standing here today debating a bill where all of us can potentially make the decision that our fellow human beings, our fellow Australians, with a disability can be subjected to an algorithm or a computer deciding their complex needs. How did we get here? We cannot, and the Greens will not, support a bill that leaves decisions about people's care and supports to an algorithm and a computer. That is immoral. We have heard a lot from the government saying, 'We need to make these cuts so that the NDIS is sustainable.' As my colleague Senator Faruqi said, only minutes ago, this is about choices. Why do the major parties always make choices that the people who have to pay for budget repair are the most vulnerable people in our communities, the people who require care and support? We've seen it in aged care, where we effectively have an algorithm that is cutting the assessed needs of older people. We've seen it in social services, where people living on welfare, on income support payments, are continually expected to subsist on a payment that is well below the poverty line. And yet the government is really fine with giving $268 billion to AUKUS. We see fossil fuel subsidies going out the door. We see a failure to honour taxing of the gas companies. And because the government doesn't have the courage to do those things, to make big corporations and billionaires and gas companies pay their fair share, it's turning around and saying, 'But, hey, you 160,000 people on the NDIS, we'll just cut your support.' We're a wealthy country; we should not be looking for budget savings from people who need our care and support. And it's a false economy, because those people who have their supports cut are going to end up in our health system. They're going to end up needing mental health care. Some of them are going to die. We know that. We're also going to see families and friends and volunteers who care for them removed from the labour market because when the government removes support, when the two major parties gang up together to pass this bill and remove those supports, the people who will step in are family members and volunteers in the community. They will be taken out of the labour market or they will be forced to try to keep their jobs and provide support. So many of those will be women. Women already carry a disproportionate care burden in this country. They're filling the gaps in aged care; now they going to be filling the gaps in NDIS. This is not a cost-free decision. It might save money for the NDIS budget bottom line, but we are going to pay for it. The people who get chucked off the NDIS are going to be paying for it in awful ways. That cost is going to flow through to the rest of our community. That's 94 million hours of annual paid care that will need to be replaced by someone else—families, volunteers, friends. That is not cost free. The government, when it introduced the NDIS, said that it was a scheme that was going to give people the reasonable and necessary supports that they needed to live a good life. That will no longer be the case if this bill passes. The government talked about the fact that it was a scheme that was designed to give people with a disability individualised support so that they could have dignity in living a life well lived. That will not happen for thousands of people if this bill passes. The Labor government talked about people with a disability having choice and control over their lives. That choice and control is going to be taken away from thousands of people with a disability if this bill passes. Not only will they have choice and control taken away, but there'll be computers and algorithms making decisions about the care that they need. Providing someone with a disability the support that the NDIS provides is not charity. It is what governments are supposed to do for members of our community. If these cuts pass, if this bill passes, we are taking away the agency and dignity of people with a disability. The NDIS was supposed to provide people with lifetime security if they had a disability. If this bill passes, thousands of people with a disability no longer have that security and will live with the fear and uncertainty of what is going to come next for them if they are kicked off the scheme. Looking after people with a disability is the responsibility of national governments. We have a responsibility in this place to make sure that as a community we collectively insure against people with a disability not having the care and support that they need. I want to return to a point that I made earlier. Every one of us in this place should imagine what it would mean for us if we were the person with a disability or we were caring for someone with a disability and this bill passed. I spoke to a father the other day who said they have an adult son with autism. Right now, they have the care that their son needs. It has allowed both of them to work. It has allowed their adult son to have a fantastic quality of life. They said the difference that it has made to their son's life compared to when the NDIS didn't exist is just incredible. They are nervous and they are worried about what it will mean for their son not to have the level of social and community support that they currently have. They talked about the fact that, for their son, removing that level of social and community support will actually increase the challenges that he will experience and the challenging behaviours that he and others will experience and the impact that that will have on them as a family, on their son and on their ability to work and what other supports that will ultimately potentially mean their son will need that will need to be made up for because the care that they currently receive will be reduced. (Time expired) 12:38 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The Greens strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, a bill that we view as dangerous for so many millions of citizens in our country. I want to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Steele-John. Thank you for your powerful speech this morning and your persistent and strong advocacy for people across our country, the families and the disability community. You've led the charge against a deeply flawed bill, and the disability community and so many Australians thank you for it. Labor's NDIS cuts are cruel, and they are unnecessary. They go so far to cut deep across our community into the disability community, and they are too fast. We do not have in place, as we are hearing from so many Australians, all the supports that are absolutely essential if this were to pass. They risk the lives of disabled people and their livelihoods, risk their freedoms and risk their independence. These changes risk undermining the supports that so many disabled people rely on. There's been no economic modelling, no workforce planning and no genuine consultation with the disability community about this change which will reach into people's lives and change them, for the worse. The NDIS is one of Australia's most significant social reforms in my lifetime. I remember being at the 2020 Summit that then prime minister Rudd led, looking for good ideas for our community—out of which the NDIS arose. There was real excitement about making a difference for people who are caught by disability, whose lives are changed by disability, and their need for the support that they deserve in a civilised community. The NDIS represents a commitment to uphold the rights and inclusion of disabled people. It was passed by the Gillard government, with support of the Greens, in 2013. The Greens strongly support the NDIS and its foundational principle that disabled people have the right to access the supports they need to live with dignity, independence and choice—three important words, three important aspects of life that make life possible for so many Australians. But for people with disability, they have special meaning. Dignity, independence and choice—they cannot be taken for granted for so many of our citizens, and they must be defended. The scheme has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians by providing access to essential supports—services, equipment and all the things that enable disabled people to participate fully or more fully in their communities and their education, in having a job and in being active participants in their family and community life. Labor senators stand here in this chamber proclaiming the benefits of this scheme while at the same time backing a bill that will strike a blow to so many people in relation to their support on the NDIS. These NDIS cuts are the largest cuts to a government services program this century, in the face of all the ways in which, in this civilised and very wealthy country, we could be raising revenue from people who are doing extremely well in our economy—the big gas companies making billions every year who we fail to tax for their exports, and the billionaires who have enormous amounts of personal income, assets and wealth, whom our tax system does not properly tax. The impact is instead placed on the most vulnerable people in our society—disabled people and their families—and the impact will be devastating. This bill will enable the removal of 241,000 people from the scheme by 2031. There are too many problems with this bill to name, including enormous sweeping ministerial powers and automated decision-making. Haven't we seen enough of that kind of maladministration which visits on people without proper recourse to defence? We should have already learnt the lessons from the failure, by using automation, to properly govern schemes like this. We are an international standout lesson on how not to do things with automation when vulnerable humans in particular are involved. There's real concern that this bill undermines the rights of disabled people. It clearly does. Just listen to the Labor chaired Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They said that this bill may constitute 'a significant interference with the rights of persons with disability, the rights of the child and the right to an adequate standard of living, equality and nondiscrimination, health, privacy and social security'. That is a lot of bells ringing, telling us that this is the wrong way to go. Earlier this week, the Australian Human Rights Commission urged the government to delay the bill until 'significant human rights concerns around process, accountability and the impact of the reforms are addressed'. The bill puts thousands of jobs at risk. The Australia Institute estimates that cuts to social and community participation supports could result in the loss of 51,641 full-time equivalent jobs, representing almost 94 million hours of care work. The government cannot cut billions from participation supports and pretend there will be no impact on workers—these workers who give so much to their efforts in the homes of people with disability and who deliver those supports. This bill will result in really significant job losses for health professionals and support workers—those doing the allied health work that we really desperately need, further reducing the capacity of the disability support workforce at a time when it's already under significant pressure. When funded support disappears, the work does not. We know where it goes: it's pushed onto families, and it's pushed onto the unpaid carers in our communities. That's why I foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name that goes to the heart of these issues in particular and calls on the government to withdraw this cruel and unnecessary bill. As my amendment points out, this bill will disproportionately affect women in an incredibly unfair way. Cuts to social and community participation funding made through this bill will reduce the capacity of women with disability to access support services. In their inquiry submission, Women with Disabilities Australia warned: For women with disability, who already experience higher rates of violence, these cuts risk deepening isolation and worsening conditions where violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation are hidden. We can't forget that First Nations women with disability are particularly vulnerable to domestic, family and sexual violence. Concerns about this bill are not coming from one organisation or one part of the disability community. I have heard from hundreds of South Australians about the horrific damage they are worried might arise from this bill: the impact on them, their families and their loved ones. I'll give you some direct quotes: 'If my supports were reduced or delayed, the consequences would be significant. I would experience greater difficulty maintaining my home and personal wellbeing, increased barriers to employment and community participation, greater dependence on family members who are no longer able to provide ongoing care and an increased risk of social isolation and declining psychosocial health.' Here's another: 'If I lose my supports, I'll be confined to my bed or my recliner. My husband and I are at a high risk of mental health issues and relationship breakdown if this bill goes forward.' Another says: 'You're putting me and other participants at high risk of falls; being restricted; housebound; suffering from pressure sores, unnecessary progression in my condition; and much more.' So many South Australians have called my office voicing their concerns about this bill. One mother in Adelaide, a sole parent of two adult sons and a teenager with significant disabilities and complex support needs, asked: 'What will happen to families like mine? Why is this happening when this bill will cause people to lose their lives?' Chloe, from regional South Australia, is the parent of a child with multiple disabilities, including a rare genetic syndrome, profound autism and epilepsy. She told my office that supports are not optional extras. They're essential to her daughter's dignity, safety, wellbeing and quality of life. She asked, 'What will happen to regional families like mine who are already struggling to access services before these cuts?' Sarah, an occupational therapist working on the Fleurieu peninsula sees firsthand that the NDIS does not fund the essential healthcare systems for our participants. It funds basic survival and safety. Participants are already going into crisis through the uncertainty that lies ahead. She said that the legislation threatens to dismantle the core principles of the NDIS. 'People will die,' she tell us. The cuts will force primary carers, who are often sacrificing their own health, wellbeing and employment, to absorb an unsustainable burden behind closed doors. We know disabled people must be at the centre of decisions about the NDIS. The inquiry into Labor's NDIS service cuts has seen the disability community expose just how cruel and dangerous these cuts really are. After months of Senate inquiry and evidence from all kinds of people, one thing is clear: these changes risk significant harm. As my colleague Senator Steele-John said this morning, history will show us what they do, and we will hold the government to account, as will the community and their families, for what these cuts do. The inquiry received over 4,000 submissions, and most of them were incredibly critical. An unprecedented level of opposition really underscores the concerns of our community. Participating in this process and putting forward your words and your experience requires real courage, real preparation and vulnerability—all the emotional work, particularly for disabled people. We've heard their stories over and over again and we have to honour their stories and their account of what this will mean for them. No-one should be removed from the scheme until foundational supports are fully implemented, evaluated and proven to meet the needs of people. I was at one of the hearings in Perth and the evidence was devastating—Jordan and I heard it together. Hayley, a witness with lived experience, told the committee: People can and will die if this bill goes through. We heard firsthand that mothers are giving up paid work in order to support their children already on a day-to-day basis. The inquiry made one thing abundantly clear: support needs do not disappear when funding does. They are pushed onto families, pushed onto households, pushed onto siblings and support workers and pushed onto the broader community. Disabled people have been subjected to months of public debate about the value of their lives and the supports they rely on. They deserve to be listened to, not treated as a budget problem. In that light, this bill needs to be chucked in the bin. The government has choices. The Labor government is planning to cut $37.8 billion from the NDIS over the next four years. Instead of cutting billions from the NDIS, we could have required gas exporters to pay their fair share. A 25 per cent gas tax would raise an estimated $31.8 billion more over the next four years than the total value of these cuts. Disabled people would not then be forced to bear the cost of failure to properly tax some of the most profitable companies in our country, who are selling our resources. Disabled people have the right to expect a parliament to tax properly to fund the essential services that we need. The NDIS isn't a cost to cut. Investing in disabled people strengthens the entire economy. Instead of ripping away essential supports, we could make gas exporters pay their fair share, properly tax billionaires and large corporations, and reconsider hundreds of billions of dollars going into AUKUS on the off chance we'll get submarines one day. The Greens believe disabled people should not be forced to carry the burden of balancing the budget. So we are fighting for the rights, dignity and autonomy of disabled people and we will not stop. These are cruel cuts. Today's Labor Party is unrecognisable to me from the one that created the NDIS—shame. Early this morning Senator Steele-John tried to strike this disastrous bill from the Notice Paper. There's no way it should be passed in this form. It needs to go back to the drawing board. (Time expired) 12:53 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is a disgrace and I utterly oppose it. I also want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues, in particular Senator Steele-John, who has been the most extraordinary advocate and has fought, and will continue to fight, this disgusting legislation all the way. This is a bill that should bring shame to this parliament, because, behind all of the language about sustainability, reform and safeguarding the NDIS, what this bill actually does is very simple. It takes away support from disabled people. It puts more pressure on them and on their families, and it does so without the alternative services in place to catch the people who'll be pushed out. Now, in this parliament, Labor and the Liberals—the corporate parties—are teaming up to do a dirty, cowardly deal that will throw disabled people under the bus. That's what it is, and I want to be very clear about what I find so repulsive about this legislation. It does not make disabled people safer. It does not make families safer. It does not make children safer. It does not even guarantee that the supports being removed will be replaced in time. It takes away support and tells people: 'Figure it out somehow. You'll cope.' It is abandonment. The NDIS is one of the most important social reforms this country has ever undertaken. It was built on a simple and important idea: disabled Australians have the same right as everyone else to live with dignity, independence, choice and inclusion. It isn't a line in a spreadsheet, as my colleague Senator Steele-John has articulated. It is not a budget problem. It is not an expense that can be cut whenever Treasury wants to find another few billion dollars. For hundreds and thousands of Australians, the NDIS is the difference between being trapped at home and being active members of the community. For a child, it can mean getting the communication support, therapy or early intervention they need to participate in school. For a parent, it can mean the difference between coping and completely breaking down. For a young person, it can mean being able to leave the house to see friends, study, volunteer or hold down a job. These are not luxuries; these are lives. This bill puts those lives at direct risk. To be clear, children are directly in the firing line. More than half of NDIS participants are 18 years old or younger. This bill is expected to see 241,000 people removed from the NDIS by 2031. That includes children with developmental delay. That includes children with disability who are expected to transition into this government's new Thriving Kids program, which is the mystery program that no-one seems to know anything about. The sector has told us, again and again, that the alternative supports are not ready. We don't know whether these services will be available; whether they will be consistent; whether they will be high quality, like these kids deserve; whether a child in Victoria will receive the same support as a child in Western Australia or Queensland; or whether these services will be like-for-like replacements for what children currently receive through the NDIS. Yet the government wants to remove these children from the NDIS and figure out what to do later. That's not good enough. You cannot ignore the hard questions until later. You deal with them. You are a government. You are meant to lead. This is not how you protect children. You do not take away a child's support and then cross your fingers that another service will manifest another solution. Families deserve and need to know what support their child will receive before their existing support disappears, and the state and territory disability ministers have told this parliament the same thing. They warned that, if the projected exits from the NDIS are not accompanied by clearly defined alternative supports, they'll create a risk of unmet needs and costs being pushed into the health, education and justice systems. They've said plainly that those systems are not equipped to absorb the demand and cannot deliver like-for-like NDIS services. So who is going to pick up the pieces: the hospital system, an already exhausted early childhood education system or, as so often is the case, mums and dads, grandparents or family who are already often at their breaking point? The needs do not disappear because the government stops the funding. The child does not become less disabled because their NDIS plan is cut. The family doesn't become less exhausted because Labor has moved the costs off its books. The need simply moves somewhere else. Thriving Kids cannot and must not be an excuse to cut first and build later. What happens when parental responsibility just means everything? This legislation wants to fundamentally change what families can expect from the NDIS. It introduces an extraordinarily broad concept of parental responsibility. Labor wants to say that supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support are things that parents should just be able to simply provide themselves. What happens when a child's disability means that those ordinary responsibilities become extraordinary, intensive and relentless? We all know those families who are in this situation already. They're struggling to survive with the NDIS supports in place. Imagine them and their predicament when this cruel bill passes. In the inquiry, we heard evidence about a parent whose son required constant supervision and that she couldn't safely leave him alone with his sister. She couldn't take both children out by herself. Friends stopped coming over, informal supports disappeared and she became exhausted and isolated. But when this family finally received funding for a support worker, everything changed. The child became more regulated; the family could go to the park, and the parent could cook dinner. That support didn't make this parent any less of a parent. It made it possible for that family to function. This bill takes that away. It's women and mothers who will be disproportionately forced to pay the price—women who already make up the overwhelming majority of primary carers. When the NDIS withdraws support, the need for care isn't taken away. It's given to unpaid carers, and women take it on. That's not a cost saving. That is making women subsidise this Labor government through unpaid labour. Shame on you! Then there is an attack on the independence of disabled people. The minister has indicated that social and community participation funding could be cut by 50 per cent. Think about what that means. It means that someone may no longer be able to get the support needed to go to work, to volunteer, to visit their friends, to go to the shops, to go to a medical appointment—to participate in society. We heard during the inquiry from a 22-year-old young person with a disability who explained that if their community participation funding was cut, they would probably lose their volunteer role, lose work, become isolated and see their mental health deteriorate. They said simply: 'I deserve to have a normal life. I deserve to have a life.' I cannot think of a more straightforward indictment of this legislation, because that is exactly what this bill is doing—making someone's life smaller and taking away the things that allow them to participate. They have the gall to say this is about sustainability. It's not sustainability. It is a message to disabled Australians that they do not matter. Who cares if they can get out and enjoy some of what makes life worth living—relationships or time in nature? This bill doesn't even do what Labor says it does. Labor has tried to wrap these cuts in the language of addressing fraud and increasing sustainability. Look at where the savings come from. Only about 13 per cent is attributed to fraud and compliance measures. The overwhelming majority comes from reducing participants' budgets and restricting supports. At least, stop the lies. If Labor wants to crack down on fraud, then listen to disabled people and crack down on fraud. If providers are ripping off disabled people, let's pursue them, absolutely. If there are administrative inefficiencies, fix them. God knows disabled people would like it to be easier to navigate the NDIS, but don't pretend that cutting the support of a disabled child is somehow the same thing as tackling fraud. What a load of garbage! Disabled people didn't create this fraud. They didn't create the administrative problems. They didn't create the budget pressures, and they certainly should not be the people forced to pay for them. The government wants to decide what treatment disabled people must undertake. It says a person may have to undertake all appropriate measures before their impairment can be considered permanent, but who decides what is appropriate? What happens if the treatment isn't available in your town? What happens if there's a two-year waitlist? What happens if you can't afford the gap fees? What happens if the treatment is harmful? What happens if you don't want it? The disability community has told us that the language in this bill is dangerously subjective, and yet the government wants to give itself the power to decide whether someone has done enough. That is deeply paternalistic and deeply offensive. Disabled people should not have to prove that they have exhausted every possible treatment before they're allowed to access the supports needed to live their lives. There is another way. The Labor government keeps telling us that it has no choice, that these savings are necessary, that the NDIS has to be made sustainable and that disabled people must be punished to balance the budget, but Australia is a wealthy country, and we have choices. Labor could impose a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports. That would raise an estimated $30 billion more over four years than the total value of these NDIS cuts, which is more than enough to invest in support, more than enough to properly build Thriving Kids before kids are pushed off the NDIS and more than enough to guarantee support so that disabled people are not forced to disappear from public life. So, when Labor tells us that there's no alternative, we reject that. The disabled community rejects that. Tax the gas corporations. Make the multibillion dollar multinational corporations profiting from our resources contribute their fair share and what they owe. Choose disabled people over gas profits. Choose children over corporate donors. Choose families over lobbyists. This is a political choice. Labor has chosen gas companies over disabled people. It is that simple. And the Liberal Party, of course, another corporate party, have backed it right in. These parties can disagree about almost anything. They can fight over tax. They can fight over climate policy. But, when it comes to making disabled people bear the cost of government choices, suddenly they find that beautiful common ground—unity. They've found a way to agree, and the people who will pay for that agreement are disabled Australians, children, young people, parents and carers. This is a disgusting, shameful, dirty deal—a deal that throws disabled people under the bus to protect the profits of just 10 gas export projects, and Australians are furious about it. For those reasons, I utterly oppose and reject this bill, and I foreshadow that I will move the Australian Greens second reading amendment circulated in my name on sheet 3978, calling for this bill to be discharged to the bin. 13:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Steele-John. I know he hasn't been doing this alone, but in this chamber, in some regards, he's been doing it alone—the person with the lived experience who understands what these cuts will mean for people with disability in this country, who is deeply connected with the millions of Australians who try to get by every day in a system that wants to exclude them and marginalise them. But I've got to tell you this: my colleague Senator Steele-John has done this work with immense courage, immense dignity and immense strength. Our party is grateful for the leadership that he has shown, but imagine if that leadership had been shown by the Prime Minister. Imagine if that leadership could be shown by whoever the hell is leading the coalition today. Imagine if that leadership could be shown by the government. What would that leadership mean? That leadership might mean that those gas lobbyists, who are wandering through these halls, would get stopped at the door of the Prime Minister's office for once. Maybe they would be turned around and get sent out through the security screens and into the cold of a Canberra winter. Instead of getting a warm cup of tea and a private meeting with the Prime Minister, maybe those gas executives would get an export tax—maybe they would get a 25 per cent gas export tax, like my colleague Senator Hodgins-May has been pushing for. Those gas execs could go out into a cold Canberra winter, sad that their donations didn't get them what they wanted and that they'd be paying a third of what Norway's gas exporters pay in tax. Maybe after those people got shown the door, people with disability could have been brought into the Prime Minister's office, like they go into Senator Steele-John's office and come into my office. Maybe, when they went in, if there'd been that leadership, the Prime Minister would have said to them: 'I made a choice today to tax the obscene fossil fuel profits that are blood soaked from a war in Iran. We're spending that money on the support you and your kids need.' Imagine if that kind of leadership had been shown. Could you imagine what that would demonstrate to this country right now, at a time when politics is considered to be utterly demeaned by corporate money, running to short-term polls and running to the lowest common denominator? Could you imagine what a different pathway would be open if that's how our politics worked? The gas lobbyists, the fossil fuel lobbyists, the gambling lobbyists, the defence industry lobbyists—imagine if they had the door shut on them and the people who need help in this country had the door opened. Could you imagine how much it would inspire people by what politics could do if they actually saw these decisions being connected? Then, instead of a set of talking points or an endless political fight on 'melongate' or half promises or gaslighting of the disability community, people could say: 'I was really despondent about politics. I was really worried that it was just here for vested interests, but I've watched the government, and they've redirected money from arms manufacturers into Medicare. Bloody hell! My kid got to see a doctor just like that, and it didn't cost me anything. Politics is good.' Or imagine if people with disability suddenly had these cuts removed and were told, 'This is happening because politics finally stood up to these big, vested interests and the donors—the gambling interests and the fossil fuel interests—and we taxed them, we put them in their place and we found the money for you because you need it for your life.' Imagine how different politics would be if there was that kind of leadership. Instead, this week, millions of people across this country, fearful of what these cuts will mean for them, their families, their loved ones, their neighbours and their work colleagues, are watching a different kind of politics—the politics they're so used to now. They're watching an ugly Canberra deal between these two political parties that keep pretending they're fighting: the coalition and Labor. They keep pretending they're fighting, but they just have the same interests. These two parties—no doubt with the cheering support of their One Nation mates—are coming in here and saying: 'Don't look at the gas companies and the billions and billions and billions of dollars they're stealing from the public by selling our public resources at war time for record profits and paying no tax. Don't look at them. Look at people with disability. They're the people who are attacking our budget. We can't afford to keep supporting people with disability. Did you see how much the NDIS cost the other day? Gee, it almost costs as much as the gifts we're giving the gas lobby.' Labor and the coalition, cheered on by One Nation, have been meeting in dark rooms in this place to cut the deal to drive 160,000 people off the NDIS, and to take billions and billions of dollars away from support that the people with disability use to go shopping, to a have a weekend break, to get the help from the physio when they need it and to be a part of our society. That's what's being ripped away here. The fact that it's being done in a grubby deal—no doubt they're going to roll in a bit of gambling grubbiness into the deal as well to bundle it together as some kind of sensible, essential financial reform. They're going to try to sell it to the public by saying: 'We needed to do this because we can't afford to help people with disability. The NDIS thing's got out of track. It's got out of whack. It turns out there are more people who need help than we thought, and we're not going to do it.' This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, is legislation that, at its core, smashes human rights. It just smashes human rights. That's why I'm going to move a second reading amendment that omits all words after 'That' and instead has the question before this house as follows: (a) notes that: (i) there are serious concerns that this bill undermines the rights of disabled people, (ii) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that 'the cumulative impact of the measures in the bill may constitute a significant interference with the rights of persons with disability, the rights of the child and the rights to an adequate standard of living, equality and non-discrimination, health, privacy and social security', (iii) the Australian Human Rights Commission's submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry expressed that 'this bill is regressive in the protection and realisation of the rights of people with disability, which is contrary to Australia's obligation regarding the principle of non-retrogression' under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and (iv) this bill also grants sweeping new powers to the Minister, reducing parliamentary oversight of key NDIS changes and limiting the ability of individuals to challenge or change decisions that affect them; and (b) calls on the Government to withdraw the bill". What did the Australian Human Rights Commission say about this bill from a rights perspective? First of all, they pointed out that the government's statement of compatibility—with legislation like this, the government has to put in place a statement about how this legislation is compatible with human rights. There is that statement in this legislation. There's quite a long statement, which has no doubt been drafted by bureaucrats in the department with active ministerial oversight. I'll tell you what that statement is: it's gaslighting. It is absolute gaslighting. This is what the Australian Human Rights Commission says about it: The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights … does not adequately assess the human rights impacts of the Bill and fails to capture its regressive effect on the rights of people with disability. While the Statement identifies relevant rights, including those under the CRPD, it largely frames the Bill as advancing these rights through aims such as sustainability, fraud prevention and consistency in decision-making. This framing is incomplete and misleading, as it does not meaningfully engage with the cumulative impact of the proposed amendments on the rights of people with disability. In particular, the Statement does not address how the combined measures in the Bill may limit the realisation of rights, including personal autonomy, the right to independent living, participation and inclusion in the community. As a result, there is insufficient evidentiary basis to support the conclusion that the Bill is compatible with human rights. Without an outcomes framework that incorporates human rights indicators, it is and will continue to be difficult to assess whether the NDIS is meeting its human rights objectives, or whether the proposed cost-control measures amount to impermissible retrogressive human rights impacts. Well, that's a polite way of the Human Rights Commission saying that the government is lying when it says that this supports human rights. This legislation attacks human rights. It attacks some of the most fundamental rights—the right to autonomy, the right to independent living and the right to participation and inclusion in the community. That's what this legislation takes away. When governments come in here with legislation that savages people's rights and put this tosh in it—this statement that pretends it's consistent with human rights—it degrades faith in government. Have the guts to say it. Show at least a small shred of integrity by not coming in here and saying that you're doing this because you care about people with disability or that you're attacking fraud because you care about people with disability. If you cared about people with disability, you would attack fraud. When I meet with the community, the strongest advocates for attacking fraud are people with disability, who hate to see money set aside for the NDIS going to any kind of dodgy operators. They are the government's best and most willing supporters in attacking fraud. But you developed this package without even talking with them, without even discussing it with them. If you really wanted to attack fraud, do you know what you'd do? You'd go and meet with people with disability and say: 'Tell me what's happening. Explain to me how the services are being provided. Let's co-design a system so that the money goes to you when you need it.' This was not co-designed. This was imposed on the community because the government knew that it was never about helping people with disability. We see the fraud thing being trumpeted in the media too. The media are doing the government's dirty work by frontlining fraud claims and trying to avoid the actual discussion about what it means to drive 160,000 people off the scheme. If the government were serious about fraud, they'd be funding the independent commission that's meant to be tracking down and prosecuting fraud. But, no, they don't fund that. There are bugger all prosecutions happening there. You use the fraud argument as a 'watch my hand' scenario: 'Watch the fraud over here while we literally steal support from people with disability over there.' Politicians come in and gaslight, and they gaslight the community, by saying, 'This is all about fraud and integrity,' when it's not about fraud and integrity at all. This is about a budget bottom line to take money out of the pockets of people with disability and to take away their support services so that this government can find more money to spend on weapons, AUKUS submarines, killing and whatever Donald Trump has asked them to do. They're making that choice between people with disability and Trump's killing toys because they're too scared to take on the gas lobby, the gambling lobby and corporate Australia, which is taking a record share of our country's wealth in the form of corporate profits. We see you, and, increasingly, the community sees you. When they see politics like that, is it any wonder that faith in politics is so low? I want to thank my colleague Senator Steele-John again. We need more of that leadership in this place. That's what we need. 13:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At its heart, this debate, this legislation and, in fact, the NDIS itself is about one thing. It is about disabled people and their right to lead a dignified life, just as everyone else has that right. When you cut through the politics, the spin, budget austerity and all the spurious reasons that the government has put up in its arguments that this legislation should be supported, this is about disabled people, and their voices must be heard in this debate. It's not as if there has been an absence of the voice of disabled people. It's not as if disabled people have not been loud and proud and passionate in this debate, because they have. Through the months of the Senate inquiry and through over 4,000 submissions to that Senate inquiry, overwhelmingly from disabled people, their voices are there. I want to say thank you to every single disabled person who showed the courage and the commitment to make a submission to the Senate inquiry and, in some cases, to actually show up and give evidence to that Senate inquiry. It takes guts and courage to do that. Some of the testimony that we heard was absolutely heart-wrenching. Some of the evidence that the inquiry heard about the impacts of these cuts should have caused the government to pause. It should have caused any non-government member of this chamber to make a decision to vote against this diabolical legislation. I want to acknowledge the work of many people in support of that Senate inquiry and, in particular, my friend and colleague Senator Steele-John, who's quite rightly had a lot of nice things said about him today. What a champion he has been and is and will continue to be for disabled people in this country—an absolutely true leader if ever I've seen one. At its heart, this debate is about disabled people, but it is also about political choice. This is a government that has chosen to take the easy way out—to punch down on disabled people in order to save themselves a relatively small amount of money albeit the biggest cut to a single program in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a relatively small amount of money compared to, I don't know, tax breaks for wealthy property speculators or the quarter of a trillion-plus dollars that they've committed to AUKUS submarines or the money they could raise from a gas export tax if they were prepared to stand up to their corporate puppeteers in the fossil fuel industry. No, they're not going to rain in the obscene tax breaks that property speculators still enjoy even post the reforms that were announced in the budget. They're not going to walk away from their joined-at-the-hip relationship with the United States, President Trump and those AUKUS submarines that will not only cost a motza but make Australia a more dangerous place. They won't impose a tax on gas exports because they're being instructed not to by the fossil fuel corporations. They won't even end public subsidies for burning fossil fuel while the planet's climate breaks down around us. They won't do any of those things, but they will introduce diabolical legislation on the basis of the big fat con that it is all about preventing fraud. It is a big con that this is all about fraud, because the overwhelming majority of the savings that the government is banking from this legislation are not coming from responding to fraud. They're coming from removing supports and services that help disabled people to lead dignified lives. That's where. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 ( ): It being 1.30, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Veterans 28 13:30 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia This morning, I had the privilege to stand with veterans, clinicians and organisations from across Australia as they launched the coalition of veterans' voices. They have come together because veterans are still fighting a system that is supposed to be supporting them. Their message this morning was clear: scrap the $5,000 allied health cap, give veterans the choice over their medical and assessment providers and fix a claim system that leaves veterans waiting far too long for the help that they need. The $5,000 cap should concern every single Australian. The government has effectively put a dollar limit on the support our veterans can receive after service. From 2027, that cap will apply to psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and rehabilitation—the services veterans rely on to manage the physical and mental injuries they carry from serving our country. For a veteran with a complex PTSD, chronic pain or serious service related injuries, $5,000 will not last anywhere near 12 months. If this cap cuts veterans off from the care they need, many have told me that they won't be a burden. This is going to cost lives. We've just had a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide, and we know what happens when veteran support becomes too difficult or too slow to access. It should not take more veterans' lives for Labor to take this seriously. This cap is dangerous, and it is insulting to those who have served our country. Veterans, clinicians and advocates travelled from across the country to stand with those who served, yet Labor minister for veterans' affairs Matt Keogh refused to meet with them, and that is a disgrace. I was proud to stand with the coalition of veterans voices this morning and colleagues from across the spectrum, excluding Labor. When we ask men and women to look after us, we must return that courtesy. (Time expired) Tasmanian Government 29 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I simply stand in this place unable to understand why the Liberal Party at a federal level in this chamber and in the Tasmanian parliament are refusing to support the project which is going to inject $142 million into Rushy Lagoon. It is good economics. It is what is needed in northern Tasmania at a time when we've been seeing so many job losses. This project alone will mean 190 jobs. It's about securing timber for our housing industry. It's about sustainable jobs. It's about investment in sawmills. It's about creating opportunities for locals living in the north-east of Tasmania. We need to support sustainable timber production and deliver significant regional economic benefits. That's what Rushy Lagoon investment is going to do. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has described Rushy Lagoon as a project that will create local jobs, support sustainable timber production and deliver significant regional development. The Liberals believe that they're all so much better at managing the economy. We know, in northern Tasmania, we have already lost 42 jobs from Boag's, which is closing down in Launceston. Liberty Bell Bay has closed, losing 240 jobs, and there's still the spend off from that as well. But we also know that the Tasmanian government have yet failed to reach an agreement with the supply of electricity to Comalco at Bell Bay. There are hundreds and hundreds of jobs there as well. They're failing in their leadership, and to have Senator Colbeck come into this chamber and try to move for an inquiry into this is really unfathomable. Tasmanians deserve better. (Time expired) Timor-Leste 29 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia In July, I was lucky enough to visit Timor-Leste, or East Timor, as part of a parliamentary delegation put on by Save the Children. It was a very important and very special visit. I'd never been to East Timor before, and seeing firsthand the country that I'd heard so much about was absolutely eye opening. The level of poverty in East Timor is extreme, and yet this is a country that's only an hour and 20 minutes flight from Darwin—one of our closest neighbours. It's home to people who fought alongside our soldiers during World War II. In fact, young East Timorese men—boys—saved the lives of many of our Australian Defence Force in World War II. It's a country that we abandoned for too long during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Now, today, it's a country that hangs in the balance because of a lack of development and aid support. One story really stood out to me. It was that 50 per cent of children in East Timor suffer from stunting. That means they are so malnourished that they simply cannot grow. It's one of the highest in the world—the top three. These children struggle so much to get enough protein that a handful of peanuts is what gets them through. Australia has been funding a $1.5 million peanut program and has just cut it, leaving these children— (Time expired) New South Wales: Roads 29 13:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I want to talk about the Great Western Highway and the lack of conversations we're having about the troubles on the way out there. Currently, the Central West remains the only major New South Wales freight region without a dedicated highway and connection to Sydney. That isn't good enough. It's not good enough for our people. It's not good enough for the people out there. Prior to 2022 there was a plan. Works were done from Hartley going out on a dual carriageway. There was a plan to go over a lot of the dual carriageway, a lot of the roads, from Katoomba to Medlow Bath and from Medlow Bath to Blackheath. That was funded with both the New South Wales government and the federal government committing funds, but it was cancelled shortly after this government was elected in 2022, and people were left with a road to nowhere. Many of you will have seen that the Lolly Bug at the bottom of the mountains there in Little Hartley has been isolated by the roadworks, without any benefit from what's going on. We've also seen, of course, Mitchell's Causeway and the problems caused by a causeway built back in the convict times. That was so important to Australia, carrying those big trucks, carrying everything down there, and there is no federal support for that going forward. It is time to give these people what they're asking for. The communities, the councils, the people and the businesses of the Central West deserve an investment. They deserve some certainty. They are lobbying. They are around this place asking for nothing more than a fair share. Restore what was getting done. They want us to assist in fixing Mitchell's Causeway. They want to deliver a third lane at Mitchell's Causeway so the trucks don't block that section when they have to turn there; to complete the missing dual carriageway sections, as I raised before; and to fund the long-term solution that was on the books when we got here. It is a massive build. I don't pretend it's not. But to say these people don't deserve it, when we're building the Western Sydney Airport and hoping that becomes a freight hub for the future, and we have a region just over the mountains that cannot get their products there, is a ridiculous situation. I support the Central West. I support the councils. I support the businesses. We should be giving them what they need. It is infrastructure that is needed. It shouldn't be cut like the Inland Rail was. Wages and Salaries 30 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Like so many young Australians, one of my first jobs was in the retail sector, and I'm a very proud continuing member of the SDA union. I rise to celebrate and recognise a fantastic magazine, the SDA News. I see in this magazine the faces of young people who've come to this parliament to campaign for fairness for all young Australian workers. I hear Senator Cadell talking about businesses. The irony is that some of these young workers, who are adult age and deserve an adult wage, are actually being paid proper wages in small businesses but are absolutely not in large businesses, which are the businesses we often use. When we go to Coles and Woolworths, we expect that people are being paid the right wages. This advance for young workers in retail, fast food and pharmacy has been a longstanding problem for Australia, where so many young people were treated as adults in every other part of their lives but not when it came to their workplace. That is not the kind of Australia that we all believe in. The great thing about this is that young workers in this really fantastic democracy of ours were able to stand up and lead the case. It was driven by them. Many of them described taking on adult responsibilities. Some of them are carers for their families. They were paying rent. They're buying food. They're saving while they're being paid less than older colleagues whom they were supervising. The fundamental injustice of that was met with a decision to ensure that the Fair Work court responded to that reality, and we are now on track to actually get the right outcomes for young Australians. The proposed timeline will mean that, at 1 July 2027, 18-year-olds will get 80 per cent of the pay, 19-year-olds will get 90 per cent and 20-year olds will get the full adult rate, and then we'll move towards 2029 for full adult rate for everybody who's over 18. That's a fair Australia. That's what we all stand up for. (Time expired) National Security 30 13:40 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia One Nation takes the safety of Australians seriously. That is why we are calling for the Labor government to ban immigration from countries that DFAT have designated as 'do not travel' because of terrorism and violence. One Nation is also calling on Labor to implement enhanced vetting for countries with sizeable 'do not travel' zones, like Pakistan. This would be a total of 23 countries that are subject to an immigration ban or enhanced vetting based on DFAT's assessment. In 2024-25, Australia saw over 35,000 in net overseas migration from these regions. There is no way that 35,000 arrivals were vetted sufficiently. Almost 10,000 of these arrivals were from Pakistan, the country that now tops the Global Terrorism Index. Pakistan accounted for 20 per cent of global terrorist deaths in 2025, with around half the country designated as 'do not travel' zones. How does Labor justify bringing in 10,000 people from a country that has bred so much terror? It is the reason ASIO assesses Australia as probable for a terror attack in the next 12 months. Labor knows the risks. Their own departments are screaming at them. If it isn't safe for Aussies to travel to these countries, we shouldn't be importing those countries to Australia. In the wake of the most horrific terrorism offence ever committed on Australian soil, now is the time to assess these threats with the gravity they deserve. Nothing is more important than the safety of the Australian people. They should be free to enjoy the peaceful life that this country has provided for generations. Let's not wait for the next tragedy to bring in these vital, sensible reforms. One Nation calls on Labor to implement these changes and put the safety of Australians first. Economy 30 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia If you needed any more proof that the Labor government had taken a chainsaw to the living standards of Australians, it came out again in the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. We see real wages going backwards yet again for full-time workers and, in fact, for all workers across the economy. This adds to a repeated failure of this Labor government to do what it promised to do, and that's to get real wages moving. They have failed because they are addicted to spending. In fact, Australians have gone backwards around five per cent since they came to power. That's just a number, but what does that mean? It means around $1,200 a week for the average Australian in terms of less money they have to spend in their pay packet. That is a lot of money for most average Australians. Australians are feeling poorer under Labor because they are. What do the economists say about this? Shane Oliver from AMP said: The relative stagnation in productivity and real wages since early 2023 is cleaner and indicative of the malaise in the economy over the last few years. Jeff Borland, from the University of Melbourne, said that the data was 'striking'. He said: Real wages have fallen for two main reasons: first, nominal wage growth has failed to keep up with price inflation; second, there has been zero growth in labour productivity … Martin Parkinson said: Where we are in the economic cycle, we should be running significant structural surpluses, and yet we've got a structural, and headline, deficit. Superannuation 31 13:44 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Well, well—Senator Hanson and One Nation have shown us their true colours yet again. Apparently, it wasn't enough for Senator Hanson to come after paid parental leave. It wasn't enough for Senator Hanson to come after early childhood educators. It wasn't enough for Senator Hanson to come after penalty rates. Now, Senator Hanson and One Nation are coming after hardworking Australians' superannuation accounts too. And what do the Liberal Party have to say about that? What do they have to say on superannuation? Well, on Senator Bragg's big day out just last week, he said that superannuation is—I think he called it 'a strange experiment'. Senator Hume this morning said that of course they would consider their policy, but that the most important thing for Australians in their retirement is owning their own home. It's back to the old days of the coalition, whose only solution to homeownership is asking Australians to raid their super accounts because it has no plan to help Australians get into their own home. Well, the Labor Party says that you can have both. You can have security in retirement because Labor created superannuation. We will always protect it. While One Nation, the Liberal Party and the National Party are teaming up to come after Australian superannuation, Labor says, 'Absolutely not.' We believe every Australian deserves security in their retirement, and superannuation is how we make sure that happens. Donations to Political Parties 31 13:46 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Most Australians are worse off in real terms than they were a decade ago. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. We're working harder, we're running faster and watching our paycheques buy less while billionaires get richer and multinational corporations post massive profits. It doesn't take a genius to ask why: multinational corporations and billionaires aren't just buying wealth; they are buying political power. The ALP, the coalition and One Nation are all on the take from massive corporations—'the corporate parties', we call them. When they all take donations from gambling interests, is it any wonder even modest gambling reform hasn't been achieved. When they all take money from big gas, is it any wonder we don't have a gas tax raising $17 billion a year. It is no surprise that people are looking for alternatives to the major parties. When the corporate media give One Nation a platform, you could be mistaken for thinking that they're your only other option. But—looking up here—young Australians know better. They know that neighbours, colleagues and friends from overseas are not the reason housing is unaffordable. They're not the reason groceries cost more and wages are falling behind. The real problem is multinational corporations and billionaires hoarding wealth and property while ordinary Australians struggle to get ahead. And the corporate parties—Labor, Liberal, One Nation—are not challenging the system; they are protecting the system, which is working exactly as they designed it to work. Young Australians are saying, 'Enough.' They've had a gutful. They're turning out on the streets—and good on them. We stand with them. We're fighting for an Australia where power belongs to people. You shouldn't even have to say it: power belongs to people, not to corporations. To those young Australians: we are fighting by your side. Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026, Abortion 31 13:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As I speak, outside Parliament House is a gathering of Christians and humanitarians, called to support Mr Llew O'Brien MP's introduction of the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026 in the House of Representatives. One Nation supports this bill. Our leader, Senator Hanson, and our deputy leader, Barnaby Joyce, are addressing the rally. There's no disagreement on the number of babies who are born alive from a failed abortion in Australia. The disagreement goes to the viability of the baby. Health authorities would say all these babies—around 70 a year—were not viable and lived fleetingly. Evidence from healthcare workers, though, would say as many as one baby a week was viable—a healthy human life extinguished, allowed to die alone on a cold steel kidney dish or in a biowaste container. The Left challenge this, although there's no logic to their argument. Dr Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, has stated there's no medical reason for a late-term abortion, a position that has not been disproven. In the event of a medical threat to the life of the mother, an emergency C-section is faster, safer and more effective than an abortion. Late-term abortions exist because the mother is demanding the killing of her baby, the death of her baby. It's that simple. The political Left mindset says any compromise on abortion risks all abortion. To these people, if one healthy baby a week has to be cruelly sacrificed, then so be it. If no child is suffering that fate, then pass the bill and it can gather dust. No, you prove my case. One Nation speaks for the infertile couples who will praise God for the gift of an adopted child, a life saved, a family created, a community enriched, a species enriched. I call on all party leaders to declare this matter a vote of conscience. Veterans 32 13:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Thank you to Senator Lambie, who's ceded her two-minute statement to me. My thoughts are with you, Senator Lambie. It's entirely appropriate, given that you can't be here today, that I talk about veterans. We had veterans here in the parliament earlier today—people who served in the Vietnam War, people who served in Iraq, people who served in Afghanistan—calling upon the government to axe the $5,000 cap on allied health care that was introduced in the last budget. They're calling on the government to axe the cap. It was very disappointing to hear from those veterans that they were unable to meet the Minister for Veterans' Affairs today. I would have thought there was nothing more important for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to do today than to meet those veterans. If he'd met those veterans, he would have heard their concern with respect to the application of this cap to their health care. They're concerned that, especially given the complicated natures of their ailments, their $5,000 will run out after two or three months, and then they'll be forced to apply to the government for a continuation of that health cap. I asked questions at the last Senate estimates of the department in relation to how this cap will impact the 25,000 veterans who exceed $5,000 of allied health care each year. I said: 'How are you going to process these applications? How much funding has been set aside?' I got the answer to my question just recently. The government's telling us $593,000 is being set aside to process those 25,000 applications. That means $23 per application. What do you think's going to happen? Delay in those veterans getting the health care they need. Axe the cap. New York Agreement: 64th Anniversary 32 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria This past Saturday marked 64 years since the New York Agreement between the Netherlands and Indonesia that saw the Dutch leave their colony of West Papua and transfer it to the United Nations. The agreement gave way to the UN transferring control of West Papua to Indonesia. Under the agreement, the people of West Papua were supposed to vote for either independence or integration with Indonesia, but this promise was never fulfilled. In 1969, only about a thousand people in West Papua were allowed to vote on the so-called act of free choice. This vote formalised Indonesia's control over the territory. Since then, West Papuans have fought for their independence and self-determination, and time and again they have paid the price with violence, oppression and their lives. On Saturday, peaceful demonstrations were met with police violence, including beatings, firing of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons, leaving demonstrators injured. The Labor government is silent on the oppression of West Papuans while at the same time strengthening its partnership with the Indonesian military. On the 64th anniversary of the New York Agreement, I stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in West Papua who demand their sovereignty be recognised, their right to self-determination upheld and to live free from fear. Labor must end its military relationship with Indonesia and do everything it can to ensure an independent West Papua. Indonesia: Earthquake, Indonesian Independence: 81st Anniversary 32 13:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Many Australians would have seen the devastation caused by the weekend's earthquake in Indonesia, in the Nusa Tenggara province, with at least 53 people reported killed and many more injured. I want to join with the Prime Minister in expressing our deep sadness at the loss of life and we extend our sympathies to all those affected by this tragic event. We stand with the government of Indonesia and the people of Indonesia at this difficult time. Today also marks 81 years of Indonesian independence. We congratulate our friends in Indonesia on this anniversary. President Prabowo often remarks that Australia was one of the early advocates for, and champions of, Indonesians struggle for independence. Australia announced de facto recognition of Indonesia's nationalist government on 9 July 1947. Shortly after, when the Dutch launched the first major military assault against the independent republic, Australia referred the matter to the UN Security Council. The council established a committee to settle the dispute and Indonesia chose Australia as its representative—a singular honour. We are proud of that history because we know that Australia's security lies in our relationships and our region. As the Prime Minister said, there is no relationship more important for Australia than Indonesia. Twenty years ago our two nations signed the Lombok Treaty, which enshrines an unwavering commitment to mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Today, the ties between our countries, as neighbours and as partners, are closer than ever. The Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security, signed by our leaders in Jakarta in February, underscores our commitment to deepen and extend our partnership and to act together to secure the peace and stability of the region we share. It is the basis of the next chapter in our relationship with Indonesia. The Albanese government has taken our ties with Indonesia to a new level, and we will continue to strengthen this important relationship in the years ahead. Indonesian Independence: 81st Anniversary 33 13:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I also rise to acknowledge Indonesia's Independence Day, Hari Kemerdekaan, and to extend the opposition's warmest wishes to the people of Indonesia, and to the Indonesian communities here in Australia, as they mark 81 years of independence. On this day in 1945 Indonesia proclaimed its independence. Today, Indonesia is one of the world's great democracies, a proud and diverse nation, and one of Australia's closest and most important neighbours. The friendship between Australia and Indonesia is one of enduring importance. Our countries are bound not only by geography but by deep ties between our people, our communities, our economies and our institutions. This year's celebrations, however, come at a time of profound sadness. Just days ago, a powerful magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck near Flores in eastern Indonesia. We know that more than 53 people have tragically lost their lives, many more have been injured, homes and public facilities have been damaged and thousands of people have been displaced. Rescue and recovery efforts continue in communities affected by landslides, damaged roads and ongoing aftershocks. On behalf of the opposition, I extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives. Our thoughts are also with those who have been injured, those who have lost their homes and livelihoods and, of course, the communities confronting the difficult task of recovery. We pay tribute to Indonesia's emergency services, first responders and volunteers who continue to work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. So as our Indonesian friends celebrate their Independence Day today, Australia stands with them in celebration, in friendship and, at this difficult time, in sympathy and solidarity. May the friendship between Australia and Indonesia continue to strengthen in the years ahead. Wages and Salaries 33 13:59 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The lowest gender pay gap ever recorded in Australia is 11.3 per cent. Down from 14.1 per cent when Labor took office, women working full-time now earn $325 more each week than they did in 2022. That is money back in women's bank accounts. We backed a minimum wage rise, we lifted wages in aged care and early childhood education and we expanded paid parental leave to six months. We put super on top of that. For too long women have been handed the bill for inequality: less in their pay packet, less while raising children and less in their retirement. Now, those opposite want to continue to hand them the bill, with Senator Bragg talking about how it's the biggest policy failure since Federation or comparing teens super to for super for cats and dogs. Senator Bragg 256063 You're corrupt. The PRESIDENT 112096 I didn't hear it, but, Senator Bragg, I'm sure that, if you said something unparliamentary, you will withdraw it. Senator Bragg 256063 I withdraw. Senator COX 296215 While they're on the unity ticket— The PRESIDENT 112096 It's now two pm. We'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Setka, Mr John 34 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On 30 July, the CFMEU administrator, Michael Crosby, was asked on ABC's 7.30 why John Sitka's membership was suspended for only five years. He answered: Because the rules limit me to a maximum period of five years. That's as much as I can do. Asked whether the rules need to be changed, he answered 'maybe'. Does the government accept the administrator's statement that five years is the maximum sanction available to him, no matter how serious the conduct? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can certainly indicate, in terms of expulsion, that Mr Setka has been expelled from the Australian Labor Party, and that occurred some years ago, and there is no five-year rule on that. In relation to what you have indicated, certainly what I would say is we cannot tolerate corruption, criminality or violence in any part of the construction industry. I've said before in this chamber that the government has taken concrete action to clean up the industry. I have also made the point that the Albanese government has taken concrete action to do this, and, in fact, the administrator has achieved more progress towards cleaning up the union than we saw in a decade. Multiple investigations are ongoing into the construction sector, following multiple referrals from police and regulators. In relation to any additional requirement of membership, obviously, the government will always consider carefully the advice of the administrator on these issues. We are committed to ensuring that corruption, criminality and violence are not part of the construction industry. I would also say, as strong trade unionists, we also believe that there is—we have no tolerance for criminality or corruption in any trade union. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Has the government received any advice, any correspondence or requests from the administrator concerning the adequacy of the disciplinary powers to him under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and, if so, has the government considered extending those powers, or would the Prime Minister be happy with the return of Mr Setka to the union? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As always, Senator Hume, you seek to go a little too far. The Prime Minister, as leader of the Labor Party, ensured that Mr Setka was expelled from the Labor Party. Senator Cash I0M What about the CFMEU? Senator WONG 00AOU Just let me finish. Again, he expelled Mr Setka from the Labor Party. I think he's demonstrated his strength of view on this issue, and he has acted. In relation to whether there has been advice provided, I am not briefed on whether there's been any further advice that might relevantly go to your question. I certainly can make some inquiries. If there's anything further I can assist you with, I will, but I again make the point that we have been very clear about our view about the very serious allegations of conduct in the construction industry. We've been very clear that any incidents of such behaviour are unacceptable, and we have acted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for answering has expired. Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Given the administrator's public statements on 7.30 that the rules may need to be changed, will the government amend the act and the administration determination to remove the five-year limit on expulsions and disqualifications? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia With respect, Senator Hume, I think that's actually the same question. I know that you might like to act only on what is on television, Senator, but I've said to you that if advice comes to government about any changes that are necessary, I'm sure the government will consider that very carefully, consistent with our view (1) that we don't tolerate criminality, violence or corruption in the construction sector and (2) that we have taken stronger action to combat this than any previous government despite the protestations of those opposite. It is, in fact, this government—in fact, at the time, I think it was Minister Watt—who took stronger action than any previous government. Women's Economic Security 34 14:05 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Before the introduction of compulsory superannuation under Labor in the 1990s, most Australian working women didn't have access to super. Today, superannuation is one of the largest pools of retirement savings in the world. It underpins the retirement of millions of Australian workers, but, on average, women still retire with less super than men. Why is compulsory superannuation so important, and what has superannuation delivered for Australians since it was introduced in the nineties? How has the Albanese Labor government continued to build on this important legacy while also delivering better super outcomes for Australian women? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Darmanin for the question and for her career spent supporting working people in this country and strengthening compulsory superannuation, particularly for women. The compulsory superannuation system is something this country should be very proud of: 18 million Australians have a superannuation account. Super makes up around a quarter of Australians' household wealth, and Australia's superannuation pool is the fourth largest in the world, at about $4½ trillion. The Albanese government has made a number of reforms to strengthen super since coming to government. We legislated the objective of super, which is to preserve savings and deliver income for a dignified retirement. We increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent after those opposite had delayed it. We introduced payday super so that workers receive their super when they are paid. For the average 25-year-old, that is worth around $6,000 more at retirement in today's dollars. When it comes to women, we know that, on average, women, as they approach retirement age, have 26 per cent less super than men of the same age. This is for a variety of reasons, including work interruptions for caring, as well as because women, on average, have earnt less than men. What are we doing about it? We're paying super on paid parental leave so that women get superannuation when they might be out of the paid workforce and playing that caring role. We're closing the gender pay gap, and we've also supported significant increase in wages for industries dominated by women so that they're getting the wages they deserve. That flows on to their superannuation balances over time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Labor built the superannuation system to give Australians an income for a dignified retirement. What would Australian women stand to lose if it were wound back, and who would be hurt most? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Women would be hurt most. They have lower balances, more interrupted contributions and longer retirements. We've also seen this movie before. During COVID, when there was early access to superannuation, there were a lot of concerns raised about withdrawals, particularly around coercive control of women removing super in higher numbers in terms of their overall balances. Because they had lower balances, they withdrew a higher proportion from those balances. As we seek to strengthen and address super for women through closing the gender pay gap, through wages and through paying super on PPL, we have all of those opposite on that side of the chamber campaigning against compulsory super. We had 'Braggie's big day out', followed closely this week by 'Senator Bragg stays inside' after his little outing again on Sunday. That taught everybody a lesson. But we will defend compulsory super on this side of the chamber— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, second supplementary? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senators Bragg and Chisholm! When I call order, I expect the interjections to cease. 14:09 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria This government has reformed the low-income super tax offset and, as of last July, has paid superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave. Why did the Albanese Labor government make those changes, and what will they deliver for women's retirement incomes? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Darmanin for that supplementary. More than 200,000 parents have benefited from super being paid on paid parental leave, with about $285 million paid into their accounts. On the low-income super tax offset, more than 1.3 million Australians, including 750,000 women and around 550,000 people under 30, will benefit from that. Again, those opposite voted against that. We know what those opposite think about compulsory super, and here are just a few gems: 'That's communism,' 'There'll be superannuation for cats and dogs soon'—Senator Bragg's big day out—'It's one of the biggest public policy failures since Federation;' Senator Hanson said, 'I think the whole system is broken and superannuation should be lightened up a bit;' and the shadow treasurer says it's a form of 'economic insanity' and a form of 'economic social engineering'. We will always support higher wages, compulsory super and looking after working people in this country. Housing 36 14:11 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Australia's largest home builder, Metricon, reports sales falling by 40 per cent in some markets and 'a complete evaporation in buyer confidence'. Labor's own budget forecasts that its tax changes will mean 35,000 fewer homes. How can your government seriously claim its housing policies are working when they are delivering a trifecta of fewer homes, higher rents and falling buyer confidence? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (): Thank you, Senator Collins. That question, if I may say, sounds very similar to a question that Senator Bragg asked me, but I suppose he's happy to have others ask questions for the moment. What I would say to you, Senator, is that we don't agree with many of the political assertions in your questions. First, our housing package will boost supply by at least another 30,000 homes and give 75,000 young people the chance to own their own home. We think that is a good thing. We are being clear that we are working to build more homes and we are working to back first home buyers. That is what not only the supply-side measures that the government has put in place do but also the tax changes, which tilt the scales back in favour of first home buyers for the first time in a generation. Second, more than 660,000 homes have been built since Labor was elected, and approvals are up three years in a row. I know that those opposite do not regard housing as something the federal government should focus on. We think it is something we need to focus on, and we have. Most of the people in this chamber have been able to realise that great Australian dream of owning your own home. Increasingly, younger generations have not been able to do so and have found it harder to do so. We think it is an imperative that we ensure more first home buyers can enter the market. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator McKenzie, you might not want more people entering the market. We do. We think more young families— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. Please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, Minister Wong's time has expired, so I'll hear you on your point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 If she's going to reflect on something I've said, she should do it accurately. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you need to inform me if you are standing on a point of order, and that is not a point of order. Senator Collins, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Investor loan commitments have fallen 8.6 per cent, the largest decline in 3½ years. Owner-occupier and first home buyer lending also fell. The Treasurer has called finance drying up across the housing market an 'encouraging sign'. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm sure that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are very much in agreement on this clear issue that we want more Australians able to own their own home and enter the market. Senator, I know in your first question you were making a range of assertions about the housing market. I would make this point. You're a senator for New South Wales. We have just under 75,000 people from New South Wales who have bought a home with a five per cent deposit. Do you support that? We have about 9,400 social and affordable homes being delivered in your state. Do you support that? We have housing and infrastructure investments of $514 million. These are some of the investments that the government is making in your own state. Senator, if you are so anti all of these, why don't you go and say to all of these constituents in New South Wales, 'We don't want you to have the five per cent deposit and we don't want more— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Collins, second supplementary? 14:15 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Investors finance 43 per cent of newly built homes. Developers warn that driving them away will mean fewer houses and apartments being built. Will the Prime Minister reverse Labor's destructive taxes before construction collapses and rents rise further, or are 35,000 fewer homes exactly what Labor intended? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If I can quote also from the market, from NAB, 'It's really owner-occupiers who are the winners in all of this, in that we are going to redistribute the ownership of housing in Australia away from investors and more towards owner-occupiers.' This is fundamentally the difference between the coalition and the Labor Party. We actually think that first home buyers should have a fair crack at owning their own home. I know that is a remarkable proposition—that you might actually say young Australians and their families should have a better crack at owning their own home. That's what we are about. You are against that. It's a very simple proposition. You want to protect an uneven playing field. We think the playing field should be levelled. It should be levelled so that first home buyers get a fair crack at the market. That is the difference between your side of politics and ours. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Bragg, you've had an awful lot of interjections this afternoon. Senator Bragg 256063 Sorry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Don't backchat me. You're not in a debate with me. When I call you to order, that is exactly what I expect to happen. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 37 14:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Two weeks ago, the secretary of the department announced their intention to resume welfare payment cancellations and suspensions from October. These penalties were suspended for two years after it was determined that private employment services providers were unlawfully breaching participants, causing automatic suspensions and cancellations with no accessible appeal or complaint mechanism because the decision-making process was concealed within the providers. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's December report set out several recommendations to remedy this misconduct. Minister, what specific actions has the department taken to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations and to prevent further misconduct by private employment services providers? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. I think for some time now we have had some dialogue in Senate estimates and elsewhere about the fact that there is a philosophical difference between this Labor government and the Greens political party when it comes to matters involving mutual obligation, and your question goes to that point. This government and the Labor Party for some time have had a policy supporting the concept of mutual obligation, wherein a government does have an obligation to support those out of work. I know that's something that is not supported by all members in this chamber, but Labor certainly respects that obligation. Equally, those who are out of work do have an obligation to seek work. Governments have a responsibility to assist people in that regard. But the matters that you are asking about go to suspensions of payments that can be made involving people who do not fulfil the obligations that they owe to the Australian public. I'm happy to obtain some further information for you on the specific question about the suspension of those obligations. I don't have anything in front of me at the moment, being the representing minister, but, if there is anything more I can provide, I'm happy to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary? 14:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Economic Justice Australia estimates that 310,000 people have been affected by unlawful payment cancellations and suspensions, although the precise figure remains unknown because the government has not undertaken a comprehensive investigation of the Targeted Compliance Framework. Why has the department not conducted its own review to determine the exact number of individuals impacted by the dysfunction of the Targeted Compliance Framework? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Allman-Payne, if there's anything that I can obtain for you that specifically goes to the question, I'll do so, but the issues that you're asking about generally around the Targeted Compliance Framework first came to attention when I held the role of Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. At the time, the department initiated a review of the system that I think was undertaken by Deloitte. It did make recommendations about changes that should be made, and, to the best of my knowledge, the department is in the process of implementing those. Of course, our government does not support those receiving social security payments being unlawfully deprived of what they are entitled to. That's, of course, not something that any government should support. I know that action has been taken by the department in order to do so. I think you did seek or refer to a particular number, and that's the matter that I'll need to come back to you on, if I'm in a position to provide any information. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The Antipoverty Centre, ACOSS, Economic Justice Australia and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services have jointly for called the abolition of the Targeted Compliance Framework and for compensation to be provided to every affected person. Minister, how can you reform a system founded on fear and compulsion and that relies on private providers to act appropriately when they are financially incentivised to breach participants? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Allman-Payne, this government does not support employment service providers undertaking action that is unlawful or that is based on fear. That is not how the system has been designed, and that's certainly not how we want to see it being implemented. What I'm advised of is that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has undertaken significant work to address findings from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other reviews into the administration of the Targeted Compliance Framework. The secretary of the department has provided the government with assurance about the department's work to strengthen safeguards and address outstanding issues. Our government's immediate priority is ensuring that the current employment-services system is operating as it should, and that's why we've provided funding to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to introduce additional safeguards in order to strengthen the integrity of the Targeted Compliance Framework. This work will ensure that every jobseeker's individual circumstances are considered before any compliance requiring decision to be applied— (Time expired) National Disability Insurance Scheme 38 14:23 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator McAllister. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has been life changing for so many Australians with disability. The Albanese Labor government knows that the NDIS must be safe for the people who rely on it. How is the government cracking down on fraud and better protecting participants? 14:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question, Senator Whiteaker, and I very much appreciate your focus on this life-changing scheme. You are right that this scheme must be safe, and it must operate with integrity. We have a very clear message for the people out there who think otherwise, and it is this: if you think that you can steal from the NDIS, we will come after you. It is why, when we came to government, we established the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and why we invested in the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The laws that we passed through this chamber earlier this year have given the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission even more powers and more teeth, and, in the last quarter alone, the commission issued 111 banning orders, the highest number ever recorded in a single quarter. The taskforce brings together elite intelligence, data, forensic and investigative powers to disrupt serious organised crime that targets government payment programs, and that is delivering results. Since the Fraud Fusion Taskforce was established, more than 2,600 providers that submitted incorrect claims have been disrupted, more than 600 investigations have been launched, 27 crooks have been convicted and $50 million worth of assets have been seized. In the last financial year alone, the Fraud Fusion Taskforce has sent 50 search warrants—investigating more than $118 million worth of NDIS claims—with 44 individuals referred for criminal prosecution, 16 fraud cases currently before the courts and 28 more being assessed by the CDPP. So it is a very clear message to shonks and to grifters: if you seek to drain the plans of people with a disability, you do not belong in the NDIS; you belong in prison, and that is where you will end up, because our crackdown on NDIS fraud is ramping up. We are reviewing more claims, conducting more investigations and prosecuting more fraudsters than ever before. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Participants and their families are the ones most affected when shonks and fraudsters seek to exploit the scheme. Can the minister explain why the Albanese Labor government's investments in fraud prevention are so important for the people the NDIS was built to support? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that should be supporting a person with a disability, and when we recover that money it goes back to where it always should have been, which is into a participant's plan. Tackling fraud isn't just about the money, because where there is fraud and exploitation there are also poor-quality services, there is violence, there is abuse and there is neglect and exploitation. It is why we have invested more than $1.35 billion to stamp down on fraud and protect participants. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce is uncovering more fraud, seizing criminal assets and putting more shonks and grifters before the courts, but we are not stopping there. There is a bill before this Senate which will give us more tools to protect participants, including with powers to issue warrants, issue fines, haul people in for questioning and request key data. The NDIS supports people with disability. It is not a 'get rich quick' scheme and it should never be a payday for criminals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia The Albanese Labor government has made record investments to protect participants and the NDIS from fraud. Can the minister explain why these investments were necessary and outline how the government is improving the system to secure the NDIS for future generations? 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales When we came to government, the NDIS had been left as a soft target by the government that came before. The compliance architecture that the scheme needed simply did not exist. A senior fraud investigator resigned in 2020 and said: It's simply too much fraud for too few people. The Australian National Audit Office said that the NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and noncompliance, and there were big gaps in the compliance system. Under those opposite, claims submitted between 4.30 pm and 6 pm on a weekday couldn't be reviewed in NDIS systems before they were paid. Claims made every second weekend couldn't be reviewed, and our government is fixing this. More NDIS claims are now reviewed each day than were reviewed in a year under the system presided over by those opposite, because we know that protecting the NDIS is not optional. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge. There's no Senator Shoebridge? Okay. Senator Waters 192970 Could I ask that we come back to Senator Shoebridge? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I will. Economy: Productivity 39 14:28 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Productivity fell 0.7 per cent in 2024-25, and the latest quarterly figures show it falling again. The latest ABS data shows GDP per hour worked fell 0.6 per cent in the March quarter and increased just 0.3 per cent over the year. Minister, can you identify a single year since Labor came to office in which productivity growth has reached the long-run average necessary to sustainably increase Australian living standards? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I welcome the question on the economy from the senator. What I would say first is that I think we all recognise the challenges that we face as a nation in increasing productivity. We know that we had a very large productivity push a number of decades ago. As the Treasurer has said, many what we would describe as low-hanging fruit reforms have been done, so we have to focus on more of a multifactor approach to how we increase productivity in this country, because the senator is— Senator Hume 266499 Lower taxes; lower energy prices. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from Senator Hume. The senator for higher taxes is now interjecting to say, 'Lower taxes.' The incoherence of the economic policy of those opposite is quite remarkable, really. What I would say is that productivity, as the RBA has identified, has been a longstanding challenge in the economy. That's why it was such a focus in the budget. In the budget, we delivered the broadest productivity push for many decades, with 15 reforms in the budget which are all about trying to increase productivity, trying to attract and absorb more investment, making it quicker and easier to build and slashing compliance costs. These include the better targeted research and development tax incentive and the incentivising investment and innovation package, which had $3½ billion in new measures that lowered taxes for business. I'm happy to go on reducing red tape by about $10 billion a year— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Blyth, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia I'm going to take it that there isn't one single year you can point to. Minister, you have repeatedly pointed to the government's productivity agenda and the measures announced in the budget. If those policies are working, why has the government been unable, after four years, to produce a sustained improvement in Australia's productivity growth, and by what date does the government expect Australians to see one? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I was going through the measures in the budget which are about pushing forward on productivity, which has been a challenge for governments of both political persuasions for some years. You might recall that, in fact, productivity went backwards under the Morrison government— Senator Hume 266499 It didn't go backwards. Senator Cash I0M No, it didn't. Senator WONG 00AOU Actually, it did four times: December 2018, March 2020, June 2020 and September 2021. So my point is that, if we can move away from perhaps the sorts of politics that you're trying to engage in here, I think we all agree productivity is important for the country because it is about future growth. That is why we have— Senator McKenzie 207825 You have done nothing on productivity since the roundtable. Senator Cash I0M During COVID, apparently. Senator McKenzie 207825 The mythical productivity roundtable. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators Cash and McKenzie, it's not a chat between the two of you. The Minister was on her feet trying to answer a question without interference. Senator WONG 00AOU That is why the budget includes the four packages I've described in relation to investment and innovation, red tape, barriers to trade and a single national market. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Blyth, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia Minister, you can't outline any year where productivity increased under your watch. You can't outline how, let alone when, any of your policies will have an effect. Minister, does the Prime Minister have a plan to address Australia's productivity decline that is cutting living standards and killing our economy, or do you admit that Labor isn't working for Australians? Senator WONG 00AOU First, I look forward to you leading the charge from inside the coalition to support some of these productivity measures, Senator, such as reducing red tape, which, as I understand it, the coalition has not yet backed in. I look forward to you participating and actually trying to improve— Senator WONG 00AOU Do you have to keep shouting, Senator McKenzie? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, come to order! Senator WONG 00AOU Those opposite voted against— Senator McKenzie 207825 This is an absolute joke. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, either listen in silence or leave the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU Those opposite come in here and complain about productivity but voted against the EPBC reforms, which are all about productivity. They voted against regulatory reform, which is all about productivity. Why don't you put up or shut up on this issue? Why don't you put up or shut up? You complain, but you always vote the other way. You and One Nation are voting against economic reform because you're too worried about the voters which are going with One Nation, instead of behaving like a party of government should. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going back to Senator Shoebridge now. Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion 40 14:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I apologise for missing the call, and I appreciate the indulgence. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established to give the community answers, including on the role of the security services, and as one of a number of measures, including a gun buyback, to keep the community safe. Can the minister confirm the government is treating this work with the seriousness it demands, including giving the royal commission the support it needs if it is to establish the truth? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government has made clear its support for the royal commission. The royal commission has very wide powers, substantial powers, that it can choose to exercise, and the conduct of the royal commission is a matter for the royal commission. You, as a lawyer—as you often remind us—would know that it is an independent office appointed by the Crown, and there are powers which reside in the commission which executive government would be bound by. We've made clear we will continue to respect the independence and the work of the commission. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales A former ASIO source with direct knowledge of the Bondi gunman has been denied a visa by your government to give evidence, despite the commission saying it's eager to hear from him. Will the government intervene to make sure this evidence reaches the commission and a visa is granted, or is a visa decision being allowed to override the royal commission that the Prime Minister himself set up? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make two points. The first is the royal commission is independent. The second is the government will continue to act on the advice from security agencies. I appreciate that you have a different view about intelligence and security matters to us— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 It's a question of relevance. My question was about Home Affairs. There has been no security assessment banning this individual from coming to the country. It's a red herring. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. As I've reminded you on previous occasions, a point of order is not an opportunity to debate the matter. The minister is being directly relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll again say what I said: unlike you, Senator Shoebridge, we will always work to act in the national interest—and that includes considering the advice of intelligence and security agencies. These are decisions which are made in accordance with the statutory framework, and the government respects the independence of the royal commission. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Phase 1 of the gun buyback, which was one of these safety measures, begins on 2 November, covering roughly a quarter of registered firearms in New South Wales. Apart from that, other states and territories are still not locked into a nationally consistent scheme. When will your government secure agreement from every jurisdiction, or do you accept that a patchwork of gun laws leaves this country as exposed as it was before Bondi? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure the extent to which that's a supplementary on a visa question, but I'll accept it as a matter of courtesy. I'll try and respond. We are pleased that New South Wales is working with the Commonwealth government in relation to the gun buyback, and we would urge all states to engage with the reform in the same way as New South Wales. Migration 41 14:39 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. The government's own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade tells Australians not to travel to numerous countries because of terrorism, kidnapping, violent crime, civil unrest and institutional collapse. One Nation says if those countries are too dangerous for Australians to visit, they are too dangerous to accept ordinary migration from on a business-as-usual basis. Why does Labor continue to accept migration from countries that you tell Australians are too dangerous to visit. 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Bell. I actually didn't know that, until Senator Paterson just interjected, but I understand what you're saying is that Ukraine is a 'Do not travel' country at the moment. So I presume that your policy would apply to Ukrainians seeking to move here, or is it only from certain parts of the world? Is it only certain migrants from certain countries that are 'Do not travel' that are banned from coming to Australia? I think we know what is going on here. One Nation is seeking to copy policies from certain other parts of the world and bring them into Australia. We know that those sorts of policies have been put forward by certain other governments in other parts of the world. Sadly, we often find that the Liberal and National parties then follow One Nation when they copy policies from other parts of the world. So I'll be interested to know how many days it is before the Liberal Party brings in this policy as part of their policy platform, as well. This government always bases our policies on the advice of security agencies. There is extremely strong vetting that goes on around anyone who seeks to migrate from Australia, whether they be a potentially dangerous individual from the countries that you're referring to or indeed potentially dangerous individuals who are seeking to come to Australia from other countries. I'm not sure why it is that One Nation doesn't have a problem with dangerous individuals seeking to come to Australia. Would One Nation stop Tommy Robinson from migrating to Australia, a serial criminal who sometimes associates with members of the One Nation party? Our policy is not racially discriminatory. It's about protecting Australians and encouraging the migrants who make a big difference to Australia. Your policy is simply copying policies from other parts of the world. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bell, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Australia's terrorism threat level remains 'probable', and One Nation has called for migration from 'Do not travel' countries to be stopped unless security agencies—your security agencies—can give Australians an absolute assurance of the safety of Australians. Why is Labor willing to warn Australians that countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are unsafe to enter while still accepting migration from those same places without adopting One Nation's security test? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not sure whether the One Nation party has actually ever sought to be briefed on these issues by our security agencies. I'm sure the minister would be prepared to offer that kind of briefing to One Nation if it chose to seek one. Again, I make the point that One Nation likes to look tough on these issues by talking about these sorts of policies but then is selective about which countries it applies it to. I'd be interested to know why One Nation wants to ban migration from certain 'Do not travel' countries but not others. Why is that? It's because One Nation are simply trying to base their migration policies on dividing Australians rather than bringing them together. That's something that this government will never seek to do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bell, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Minister Burke accepted country-specific visa restrictions when Labor suspended most subclass 600 visitor visas linked to Iranian passports on migration integrity grounds. If Labor can restrict visas from one country when it suits its political argument, why won't it back One Nation's call to restrict ordinary migration on national security grounds from every country DFAT says Australians shouldn't travel to? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My recollection, Senator Bell, is that the reason the government introduced the policy that it did regarding Iran was that it was an immediate response to the events that we were seeing in Iran at that point in time. It wasn't a blanket ban in the way that you are seeking to impose for some 'Do not travel' countries but not others. Senator Canavan 245212 Made an exception for Ukraine anyway! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 Senator Canavan, I would encourage you to think about how following One Nation has gone for your party, because you more than anyone in the National Party has enabled One Nation, and that has resulted in the National Party being almost eliminated from the political landscape. So, Senator Canavan, I'd think twice about backing in One Nation. It hasn't really gone very well for you. Senator Bell, one thing I can assure you of is that this Labor government will never take policy advice from the One Nation party. We won't be taking it on this issue and we certainly won't be taking it on things like your desire to abolish compulsory superannuation, cut wages and cut paid parental leave and all of the other cost-of-living relief we're providing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I advise the chamber that Senator Babet has passed his question to Senator Thorpe. Isocycloseram 42 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the minister representing agriculture, who I understand is Minister McCarthy. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA, evaluates, registers and regulates agrochemicals, including pesticides and herbicides. APVMA proposes to raise the maximum residue limit of a PFAS forever pesticide in berries and other foods 500-fold, despite it having harmful health impacts. When I wrote to APVMA about this, they replied that it is only their role to assess chemicals against legislative criteria and that it is the government's role to assess for safer alternatives and promote them. What is your government doing to phase out harmful PFAS pesticides so that our foods and bodies are not poisoned? 14:46 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for the question and for the advance knowledge of the question as well. Firstly, thank you for your work with PFAS and the Senate inquiry. I understand that the recommendations are before us. Can I say that, with the APVMA, clearly it is an independent regulator. They do make those decisions. But, in regard to the question specifically that you've asked, I understand that you will be also meeting with the minister in relation to the specific concerns that you've raised. On 16 June 2026, the APVMA proposed an increase to the MRL—the maximum residue limit—for the pesticide isocycloseram. Maximum residue levels are set at levels that pose no risk to human health, and the true safety limits are based on human health and are called 'acceptable daily intake'—ADI—or 'acute reference dose'. MRLs are set far, far below these health limits. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Reviews of APVMA have called out governance issues, industry bias and lack of independent decision-making, including relying on industry to provide their own toxicity assessment. Your government has done nothing to implement any of the recommendations to reform APVMA. When are you going to finally act to save people's lives who are being poisoned, particularly our children, who we give our berries to? (Time expired) 14:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I reject the assertion that the government is doing nothing in regard to this. Our minister is very vigilant across all areas of her portfolio and, in particular, this one, as I'm sure you will find when you have that meeting with her this afternoon. As I've said, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an independent regulator administering a scientifically rigorous, risk based regulatory system for agriculture and veterinary chemicals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria It's not independent when it takes money from the industry. The APVMA is the only chemical regulator in the world to be majority industry funded, relying on the value of chemicals sold, which means it puts chemical approvals before the safety of the population in this country. Why is your government not fully funding APVMA to ensure they can work independent of industry? 14:49 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Thorpe, the Australian government acknowledge issues raised in the reviews, and we are taking action to make sure the APVMA is a strong independent regulator with a clear understanding of its role and responsibilities. Throughout that reform process, the APVMA will continue to use the full suite of its regulatory powers to promptly finalise longstanding chemical reviews. Victoria's Big Build 43 14:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. With widely reported evidence of $15 billion of CFMEU corruption on Victoria's Big Build, the Commonwealth is providing $30 billion of funding towards Victoria's Big Build projects. When questioned at the finance and public administration committee, officials from the infrastructure and transport department said they would cooperate with the Victorian royal commission. Minister, will you commit that ministers in this government and Commonwealth agencies will cooperate with, if requested, and appear before the Victorian royal commission into CFMEU corruption on the Victoria's Big Build infrastructure projects? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm happy to attempt an answer here, but I'm not sure how it relates to my role as the Minister for Finance. The senator's asking me around, essentially, a government position about engaging with a royal commission. As Senator McKenzie would presumably know, the minister for infrastructure is the responsible minister who manages the agreements between states and territories around the delivery of infrastructure projects. The Department of Finance has a broad remit and a wide range of responsibilities, but, when it comes to infrastructure, the minister for infrastructure is responsible for that. I'm also not sure I'm in a position to answer what a royal commission might seek from the Commonwealth. These are matters that are usually then responded to by the Attorney-General not the Minister for Finance. I don't know how much more helpful I can be, because I don't think either of the elements of Senator McKenzie's questions relate to the portfolio matters which I am here to respond for. I can confirm that the minister for infrastructure has, in the federal financial agreement that is reached with the states and territories, sought transparency and accountability in relation to the Commonwealth dollars that are provided to states and territories and that delivery milestones in relation to those projects be provided to the Commonwealth, as you would expect in any provision of finances to a state or territory government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria (—) (): As raised last week, Geoffrey Watson told our Senate inquiry that no ministers or Commonwealth officials had approached him to discuss his evidence of up to $15 billion of economic corruption on Victoria's Big Build infrastructure projects. Given the Commonwealth is contributing $30 billion towards Victoria's Big Build projects and your portfolio responsibility is to ensure the prudent expenditure of Commonwealth taxpayer funds, what action have you taken as the responsible minister or have directed your department officials to undertake? (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU Point of order—President, with the supplementary question, I think the fact that the senator is asking the wrong minister has become patently clear. In fact, I have answered these questions before on behalf of the Prime Minister, referencing action that Minister King has taken. This is not a matter for the Minister for Finance. This is a matter that should either go to me for the Prime Minister or Senator McCarthy, who represents Minister King. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sure Senator McKenzie has heard that advice. Senator McKenzie, do you wish to redirect your question, or do you want me to call— Senator McKenzie 207825 I'm pretty sure Senator Gallagher signs the cheques. Senator Wong 00AOU That would mean that Senator Gallagher, as finance minister, has responsibility for the whole of government. That is not what the Westminster system does. We are all accountable in this chamber, where she's wonderful and outstanding. The Westminster system requires ministers to be accountable to the people through the parliament for matters within their responsibility. You are asking her a question that is not within her responsibility. I suggest you've been here sufficiently long, Senator, that you might ask the correct minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator McKenzie has heard that advice. Indeed, in her first answer, Minister Gallagher explained the involvement of her role as Minister for Finance. Senator McKenzie does not wish to redirect her question, so I'll invite the minister to answer the question in her capacity as Minister for Finance. 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There isn't a government that's done more than this government to respond to the issues that have been raised, particularly around the CFMEU and the construction industry. Indeed, appointing an administrator, for a start, and all of the work that has gone in around that was not anything that those opposite did when they were in government. They didn't do a single thing to respond to it. When it comes to what we have done—I think this is advice that you were given last week by Senator Wong—the infrastructure minister has written to state and territory ministers on multiple occasions, reinforcing their obligations under funding agreements to report instances of suspected criminal behaviour or corruption to the relevant regulator and the department. On top of that, we've taken concrete action to clean up the industry where the coalition and the ABCC had completely and totally failed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Victoria has 28 allegations of unlawful activity on the North East Link and 16 on the Suburban Rail Loop. What action have you taken to assure yourself that everything is being done to stop corruption on building sites and ensure federal funds are not being siphoned off to fund criminal gangs? 14:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said in my previous answer, I've outlined what Minister King has done as the responsible minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING Obviously, all ministers, including myself, work with Minister King. There is no place for corruption or criminals in the delivery of any infrastructure project anywhere in the country. For the Commonwealth, we have sought those assurances from the states and territories that deliver on behalf of the Commonwealth or where we are a funding partner in a project that is delivered by the state and territory. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator GALLAGHER ING There are responsibilities on the states and territories to respond to the Commonwealth, and that is the arrangement that Minister King has put in place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I would just ask if Senator McKenzie could stop shouting. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is there a point of order, Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, a point of order on disorderly behaviour. Could the senator please stop shouting while the question is being answered. The PRESIDENT 112096 You would have heard I have attempted to ask Senator McKenzie to stop being disrespectful. I will demand that of you again, Senator McKenzie, as I did earlier in question time. If you can't remain silent and respectful in here, please leave the chamber. Workplace Relations 44 14:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change for Australian workers by helping them earn more and keep more of what they earn. From today, new minimum workplace standards for workers in the gig economy come into effect as a result of this government's workplace reforms. Can the minister outline how many of these changes will benefit gig workers right across the country? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. I know you've spent a lot of your life campaigning for the exact changes that have come into force today. Today is a great day for the tens of thousands of people in Australia who work in the gig economy. From today, gig economy workers, such as those who do food and drink delivery, are finally going to get paid a guaranteed fair wage of $32 an hour as a minimum. What that means is that your food will taste better, knowing that the people who are delivering it are getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This is a direct result of Labor's introduction of world-leading laws which we passed to close the loopholes that meant these workers were being underpaid. Of course, we will never forget that these laws were opposed by the Liberals, the Nationals and the One Nation party, with Senator O'Sullivan at the time calling it the single worst piece of industrial relations policy for three decades. That's what the Liberals and their friends in One Nation think about workers getting a fair go. For too long, food delivery workers fell through the cracks without fair pay, sick leave or basic protections. Labor have now changed the law because every worker deserves a fair go. We legislated a model for minimum standards for these workers because it was clear their model of employment was not a traditional employee relationship, nor were they true independent contractors. As a result, they were falling through our country's workplace relations safety net. That's now changed due to the laws that Labor have passed. Importantly, we left it to the independent Fair Work Commission to decide when and how these minimum standards should apply in response to applications from parties. This approach gave the commission the flexibility to respond to the new ways of work we see emerging in our economy—by ensuring there are minimum protections in place—without trying to force workers into a standard employment relationship. Last week, the Fair Work Commission agreed that workers for the likes of Uber Eats and DoorDash should earn a safety net wage of up to $32 per hour. It also agreed that protection for these workers should be strengthened. That's a world first, and it's happened under Labor. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Fair Work Commission's minimum standards decision was enabled by the Albanese government's closing loopholes laws and is a milestone in delivering stronger protections and a fairer safety net for gig economy workers. Minister, how else is the government providing stronger protections for workers, and what are the biggest threats to this safety net? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. Well, on this side of the chamber, we believe that every Australian worker deserves fair wages and conditions as well as protection from unfair treatment. We've backed that up with real action, including getting more people into work, providing or advocating for wage rises, closing the gender pay gap, enshrining penalty rates in law and ensuring workers who do the same job get the same pay. But with One Nation now leading the Liberal Party on policy ideas, Australian workers' wages and conditions are under threat. We know that One Nation have consistently opposed wage rises for workers. They want to get rid of penalty rates altogether. And, of course, their leader, Pauline Hanson, thinks Australian workers are lazy. If you think it's all sounding a bit familiar, that's because it is. These are all antiworker positions that have been put time and time again by One Nation's allies in the Liberal Party. The Albanese Labor government is delivering the real change that Australian workers need. The only change the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation want for workers is to make life harder. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales This decision is a big step in delivering Australia's world-leading gig worker protections and means food delivery workers don't have to trade off flexibility for fairer protections. Minister, how else is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian workers to be financially secure not only throughout their working life but beyond it as well? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Labor is proudly pro-worker and proudly project-superannuation. How about that one, Senator Bragg? But if the Liberals and One Nation were to get their way on wages and super, it would absolutely decimate the economic security and retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers. And that's because the Liberals and One Nation share a divisive antiworker and antisuperannuation ideology; Australian workers would be much worse off under the Liberals and One Nation. In a recent interview on Sky News, as it then was, Senator Bragg was asked: 'On industrial relations, obviously we had the Work Choices debacle. Are you looking to go back in that direction?' And Senator Bragg's response was, 'It's time for some risk.' Well, we know that the only people at risk under the Liberals and One Nation are Australian workers. What those workers can be assured of is that the Albanese Labor government will always have their interests at heart because Labor is making sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, while the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation want to take it away. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion 46 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can provide some further information in relation to the question Senator Shoebridge asked me. I am advised that the Department of Home Affairs have indicated they are not satisfied the applicant has a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia, which is a requirement of the visa being sought. I'm further advised this individual has not been called to give evidence before the royal commission. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 46 15:04 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. We're seeing a slow-motion wreck of the housing market. National Australia Bank just reported today they've seen a 16 per cent decline in home loan applications. Westpac reported last week a 20 per cent decline in home loan applications. CBA had a 15 per cent decline, and ANZ had a 12 per cent decline. These are some of the biggest quarterly declines we've seen in the housing market. It's not just a case of buyers losing out here. As the National Australia Bank chief executive Andrew Irvine said today: It's not just owners, occupiers and investors. There's a whole supply chain of people who make their living in the housing market, and they're struggling right now. When the housing market suffers, the Australian economy suffers, and, more importantly, as house prices come down—which they are undoubtedly doing—it changes the economics of new builds and new constructions. It's less attractive for a private builder to enter the market if they're going to be able to sell the house for less, and with the high cost base they've got, all we can say is that this is going to further discourage new construction in the housing sector. What we have here is a loss of confidence in the housing market. Investors are staying on the sidelines. Buyers are not entering the market; sellers are not putting their houses on the market. We're seeing that in the decline in home loan applications across the board. But we're also seeing higher rents. In my own town of Sydney, the June quarter figures showed that rents increased by $50 a week, or 6.3 per cent. That's the highest increase there has been in four years in rents. If you're not in the market to buy a house but you're in the market to rent a house, you are worse off as well. We're seeing fewer homes. Labor's own budget papers—Treasury's authored budget papers—predict that there will be 35,000 fewer homes because of Labor's policy. We've got a situation where we've got fewer homes getting built, we've got higher rents for those who can't afford a home, and we've got a fall in confidence in the housing sector, which is discouraging new builders—and certainly investors—from entering the market. When you couple that with the low productivity growth we are seeing in the economy, and we've just seen from the RBA Statement on Monetary Policy last week that productivity growth has declined. Rather than growing 0.2 per cent through 2026, as they expected, they now think it will contract by 0.5 per cent over the year. Even just over a year ago, the RBA downgraded its long-range forecast for productivity growth in the Australian economy from one per cent to 0.7 per cent. We've got worsening productivity performance in Australia, and, as the Reserve Bank said last week as well, when the economy is as weak as it is, when productivity is not growing, that constrains the ability of the economy to grow anywhere above two per cent without generating high inflation. And that's what we've got in Australia at the moment. We've got inflation that has now been outside the RBA's target band for well over 36 months—still not within it. We've got inflation still running at well over three per cent. We've got people's real wages declining. If you look at the ABS stats from last week, average weekly full-time earnings grew 3.7 per cent over the year. Inflation over the same period was four per cent, and the higher nominal earnings mean they're paying more in tax. An average worker, on average full-time earnings, is worse off by about $570 a week. These are all design features of Labor's economic policy. A weakening housing market is a design feature. High inflation has become a design feature. High interest rates, which accompany it are a design feature. Low productivity growth is a design feature. Growing public sector spending is a design feature, and higher government debt—about $986 billion the last time I checked—is another design feature. These design features of the Australian economy are hurting Australian workers, and they're making our economy weaker. 15:08 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia There is a housing crisis in this country, but I can tell you what it isn't. It isn't that property investors have had their feelings hurt, and it isn't that they don't get a chance to make money hand over fist like they used to. The housing crisis is that young Australians can't get into homes, the housing crisis is that homelessness is rising in this country, and the housing crisis is that entire generations, from grandparents to parents to children, have given up hope about the future of their offspring having secure housing in the long-term. But the question today, and that first comment from Senator Sharma, gives away what they care about because the question said 'buyer confidence'.This is not about buyer confidence and it's not about investor confidence. Those are market terms. This is about getting ordinary Australians into their own homes and about them having housing security across their lifetimes. The reason it's so important is that we know that housing security is linked to so many other good outcomes across someone's lifetime, particularly as they age. We also know that women in our society are the most vulnerable to housing insecurity when they don't own their own home, particularly in retirement. That tells you where this Senate is divided. On this side of the Senate, we are keen to get people into their own homes and to reduce demand a little bit, particularly from investors, to ensure that prices in the market stabilise. That's our priority. That's why the policies we've introduced—including changes to taxation, and trying to build more homes in this country and get more homes approved to be built—are geared towards the two elements of the problem: reducing demand and stabilising prices and increasing supply. That's why the National Australia Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia have both said that these changes are for and to the benefit of owner-occupiers of homes—for people trying to get into their own houses—and not for investors. We're very proud of that. We're very proud of that priority we're setting, because we're dealing with a crisis. Over on that side of the Senate, they're such catastrophisers about the housing market. The reality is that, while you have a strong labour market in this country and a backlog that's now been around for more than a decade, demand for housing is not going to go through the floor. People need to get into their own homes. There's a kind of deep empirical and logical flaw about this, but it shows you what they are willing to do. They are always willing to take the negative position. They are always trying to look after their mates in the property industry, but the people they don't care about are ordinary working Australians—young Australians—who've been locked out of this market for far too long. I want to talk about our tax changes a little bit. The decision by John Howard in 1999 to introduce a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax has not only not addressed the housing problem; it's really made it a lot worse. What followed from that is that homeownership rates in Australia dropped by five per cent, and the number of renters increased as people were priced out of the market. It's also meant that the price of houses has gone up and up and up, because investors can afford to do this on the basis that they're going to get a return and that they've had super generous tax advantages for a very long time. In a practical sense, it's also meant that the situation we find ourselves in is one where 60 per cent of first home buyers have reported receiving some form of assistance from their parents. Most first home buyers can't really contemplate it unless they have the capacity to receive that assistance. We're really trying to stabilise house prices, increase supply and reduce investor demand so that people who need a home to live in have a chance in this market. They need a chance. The Labor Party is on their side to give them a chance, and the coalition is, once again, interested only in investor confidence and making money for their mates. 15:12 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales We've just heard from the government that they want to stabilise. We heard from our Foreign minister today in this chamber that all these changes to the housing market are about redistribution. I have never heard anything so socialist in all my life—redistribution, by this Labor government, of the housing market, of the wealth generated in this society. Senator Ghosh was just talking about not having feelings hurt for the investors. Let me tell you about the households that are feeling it right now. We asked the government about whether they are across the reality of their tax changes—a trifecta of fewer homes, higher rents and falling buyer confidence. They've absolutely got their heads in the sand over the reality of that. They think our assumptions are wrong. All you have to do is step out of Parliament House and go and see how people are hurting out there. It's not their feelings that are hurt; it's their pockets, wealth, aspirations and dreams. This government's taken all that away from them. Let's talk about a little bit of history from the 1990s and the Hawke-Keating government, when they had their head in the sand. They had a very deliberate policy to slow down the economy, and that went very, very badly indeed. It turned into a severe economic downturn, with unemployment of 11 per cent. But they weren't across that reality. They didn't step outside this parliament house, the Canberra bubble, and go and see how people are really feeling out there. They focused on structural change but not the brutal reality of their bad policy. But we know that, out there right now, there are no new loans for houses, confidence is down, no sales across weekends, no new builds, higher rents, higher prices and higher migration. It is the absolute perfect economic storm—redistribution. Of course, it gets worse than that. My colleague, Senator Blyth, asked some excellent questions about falling productivity. We asked whether Labor, since they came to office, could name one year in which productivity growth reached the long-run average necessary to sustainably increase living standards. Of course, it would be a very easy answer if there were a year they could name, but they couldn't. Instead, they talked about our voting record. That's very telling, isn't it. After four years, we asked: 'Where's the plan to raise productivity?' They don't really have one. All they can do is talk about our voting record. In fact, what we did hear from the leader of the Senate was, 'Put up, or shut up,' on the very serious issue of productivity. I don't see, in any world, where it is okay to tell an active opposition to a government to, 'Put up, or shut up,' with bad policy like that. It is very telling. They say we're anti housing, when here we are trying to hold them to account for their complete destruction of the housing market. We heard from the Reserve Bank how bad it's getting out there: Relative to the May forecast, a stronger population growth assumption has led to slightly higher GDP growth over most of the forecast period… It means that they're using population to cover up their bad productivity. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia This is a fascinating discussion that we're having here. Maybe I'm rising here to offend Senator Collins. It's not my intent, but claiming that those of us over here are stuck in a Canberra bubble and there's been so sales and no builds of housing is, quite frankly, blatantly untrue. This is the problem: the debate that we are having is one that is being characterised on one side, over there, by our colleagues, as one where nothing is happening and that we're trashing the market. Yet, what we are seeing is people getting an opportunity. We believe that a home should primarily be a home, not primarily for wealth generation, investment or a tax break. We believe that people deserve safe, reliable homes, whether that be rentals or whether that be a purchase. We have worked to rebalance the market. In fact, since we were elected in 2022, real, tangible progress has been made. We have shifted the dial. We put $47 billion on the table. That's what our plan has committed: $47 billion, while they over there, the coalition, didn't have a housing minister for most of the nine years they were in government. That's hardly a commitment. They built less than 400 homes. I hardly think that they've got much ground to stand on in this debate other than to perpetuate rubbish, which is what we have heard quite a lot of this afternoon. We know that the new ABS data is showing that building approvals have gone up by nine per cent in the last financial year. They're not down, not flatlining, but up by nine per cent. We're seeing the evidence of the turnaround on our investment. I might just take you to a very specific example in my home state of South Australia. I'm a very proud South Australian, and I think the work that the Albanese Labor government has done with the Malinauskas government in South Australia is leading this country. We know that it's not just about building the houses but about the enabling infrastructure. The announcement made earlier this year by our governments in the federal and the state space has unlocked 17,000 new homes. That's about understanding the environment—our urban fringe into our regions—where people need housing, but we need that enabling infrastructure to make it happen. With a solution focus, with a positive focus, with an overwhelming desire to help people find their own homes, to help them live in safe and secure environments whether they are renting or buying—this is the kind of outcome we need to see, and this is exactly what we've been doing. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of this chamber: have a long, hard look at the reality as opposed to the ideological political spin, because you are protecting your wealthy mates and your property investors, and you don't give a rat's pyjamas about the people on the ground who are telling us that this is exactly what they need. They are getting into housing, they are getting into rentals and they are actually starting to see the future. Grandparents and parents are actually now starting to see that their children are going to have an opportunity, which for years—almost a decade of that lot in government—they could not see, as this crisis loomed. (Time expired) 15:21 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia I'm going to pick up a little bit from what Senator Grogan was just talking about. I, too, am a very proud South Australian, but the reality is: you can make all of the housing announcements you like. You can announce 17,000 homes, but they still need to be built. They still need to be delivered. This Labor government is falling short on delivering for the Australian people. We have inflation in Australia out of control, and it has been for 36 months. We've got inflation that continues to rise, and real wages are not keeping pace. What that means is that people are working harder and they are keeping far less of what they earn. In reality, their wages are not just stagnant but actually going backwards. That is unacceptable in a country like Australia. The crazy thing is, this is all by design. The Labor government has designed the policies that are doing this in the Australian economy. Today, in question time, I was asking questions about productivity, and the Labor government could not point to a single year where we've seen productivity grow under their government over the last four years—not one single year. That is an indictment on this government. They're not taking responsibility and saying: 'Maybe we've got some of these plans wrong. Maybe what we're doing is not achieving what we believe or what we intend it to achieve.' No—instead of doing that, we hear from Minister Wong, saying that we need to put up or shut up. We, as opposition, need to put up or shut up. I would say to Minister Wong: we will happily take over government. I think the Australian people are fast coming to the conclusion that this government is failing them and that you cannot believe a single word of what this government tells the Australian people. This government is constantly making up mistruths and telling the Australian people that everything is fine, that wages have never been so high, that Australians have never had it so good. All you have to do is walk out of this building and go and talk to real Australians. Real Australians are trying to keep their businesses afloat. Real Australian business owners, rather than employing more people—because they can't afford it—aren't taking salaries, because their electricity bills have gone up so much under this Labor government. The transport costs for getting things into their restaurants, into their bakeries, into their businesses have also gone up, and then they've got to pay their staff higher wages. This is pushing businesses to the absolute breaking point, yet this government continues to tell them that they've never had it so good. It's never been so good under this Labor government. I think the Australian people are—rightly—calling them out on that. They aren't feeling it. They are feeling poorer. They are feeling as though they are working harder—and that is because they are. We've got families who cannot balance the household budget under this Labor government, and this government keeps saying, 'We've announced all of these houses.' The announcements are the really easy thing to do in government. It is very easy to go out and make an announcement; it's very difficult to actually deliver. We've got a whole lot of young people in Australia now who have negative equity in their homes because of this government's five per cent deposit scheme. These are young Australians who now owe more than what their housing asset is worth. They should never have been put in that position by this government. Things are going terribly, terribly wrong, and I say to them, 'It's time; Australians need a change.' (Time expired) Question agreed to. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 49 15:25 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to welfare payments. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation into unlawful automatic cancellations of welfare payments has documented significant evidence of harm arising from government decisions, but the excuse given by governments to justify this harm always seems to be financial cost and personal blame, never once acknowledging the costs born from the rot of privatisation. We've seen this across employment services, where private job service providers absorb billions of dollars of public money, churning people through the system to pad their own profit margins with little actual oversight. Despite the pervasive reports of provider wrongdoing, their funding never seems to get cancelled. Their payments never get suspended. In his response to my questions, the minister referenced a difference of philosophy between the Greens and Labor, but Labor's philosophy actually seems to contradict the evidence. Compulsory activities don't work. They don't get people into jobs—and the department knows this and the government knows this—but it's easier to blame ordinary people who are under immense financial pressure than to look at the systems causing unemployment. By resuming financial penalties, Labor are washing their hands clean of people's very real struggles to find work. What the government doesn't want you to know is that unemployment is purposefully manufactured. Michele Bullock, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, said: … if unemployment remains too low for too long, inflation expectations will rise … Unemployment is how the governor is trying to solve inflation and unprecedented cost-of-living increases, but higher unemployment isn't going to stop corporations price gouging everyone on groceries, power bills or bank fees. This Labor government is punishing people on welfare to distract from the corporations and decision-makers that Australians should be angry at. That's their philosophy. Australia is a rich country. Instead of giving billions of dollars in contracts to private employment service providers or in tax concessions to massive corporations, this government could build a social security system that puts people first. Instead, the minister made clear in his answers today that, in Labor's view, the system is working as it should, and punishing people on welfare is the point. Question agreed to. Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion 50 15:28 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Shoebridge today relating to gun buybacks. As a Victorian, I want to say plainly that our communities deserve better than what the state Labor government is dishing up on gun law reform. After the Bondi massacre, the Prime Minister said Australia needed a major national response to get dangerous and excess firearms out of our communities. But a national gun reform buyback only works if the states actually participate. New South Wales has signed up but Victoria hasn't. It has so far refused. At the same time, the then Allan Labor government rejected a recommendation from former police commissioner Ken Lay to cap the number of firearms a person can own. That means that we can have recreational hunters with dozens of guns and sports shooters with hundreds of guns, with no legislated cap on firearm ownership. Astonishing. This is not the leadership Australians were promised after Bondi and, frankly, it is a blatant capitulation of state and federal Labor governments to the gun lobby—a blatant capitulation. The federal Labor government needs to show the leadership that Victorians deserve, and Victorian Labor needs to stop making excuses for inaction. We should be removing excess and high-risk firearms from our communities not finding reasons why we can't do that. We need strict limits on firearm numbers, bans on rapid-fire and high-powered weapons, stronger and recurring licence checks, mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms and a properly funded national buyback. As a federal representative of Victoria, I want to see these dangerous weapons out of circulation. When it comes to keeping people safe, there should be no state border, no politics and no gun lobby veto. State and federal Labor, the people who voted you in are expecting leadership on this issue. They're expecting you to support this national scheme and to stop capitulating to the gun lobby, who, I might add, are a donor to the corporate parties, once again, and show some of the leadership that Victorians expect in this place. Question agreed to. Migration 50 15:30 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to migration. Firstly, I'd just like to address one of the points that the minister raised in relation to this policy, which was 'what about the Ukraine?' His question tells me something, and it tells me he's not actually across our policy. I suspect he hasn't even read it, as he's answering it, because, if he had, he would have seen that our policy actually says that these restrictions should not apply where the 'do not travel' country-wide rating is principally caused by foreign invasion and temporary external military escalation rather than domestic terrorism, criminal violence, state repression or institutional collapse. On that current DFAT advice, that exclusion applies to Bahrain, Kuwait and the Ukraine. The answer is there. He just hadn't read it. He wasn't across the detail on this issue, just like the Labor government is not across the detail on so many other issues. On this policy, I'll say again, One Nation's position is simple: the safety of Australians must come first. If the Commonwealth is telling Australians not to travel to a country because of terrorism, kidnapping, war, violent crime, state repression or institutional collapse, then the same government should not accept ordinary migration from that country on a business-as-usual basis. Labor cannot have it both ways. It cannot issue its highest travel warning to Australian families and then pretend those same risks disappear when people apply for visas to come here. As I said, Australia's terrorism threat remains probable. ASIO says there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore terror attack or planned attack in the next 12 months. That is what ASIO says. That is the threat we are currently facing. We believe stronger action needs to be taken, and we believe the Labor government is failing to do so. When we put forward policies or suggestions, the Labor government aren't even reading the detail, yet they'll stand up, and they will criticise them when they have very little or no idea as to what we've even suggested. That is putting Australians in danger. In this environment where the terrorism threat remains at a greater than 50 per cent chance, One Nation says migration from whole-of-country do-not-travel destinations should be paused unless security agencies can give Australians absolute assurance about identity and risk. Why is Labor prepared to act on migration integrity as One Nation has suggested but not national security? (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 51 NOTICES Presentation 51 BUSINESS 54 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 54 15:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026, on Wednesday, 19 August 2026; and (b) Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026, on Thursday, 20 August 2026. Question agreed to. NOTICES 54 NOTICES Postponement 54 15:35 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 55 15:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator McGrath for 17 August and 18 August 2026, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Nampijinpa Price from 17 August to 20 August 2026, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 55 MOTIONS National Security 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 15:36 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 20 August 2026, the legal advice referred to by the Minister for the Environment and Water in his answer to Senator Hanson's question without notice on 11 August 2026, when he said 'that any extension of the current laws around temporary exclusion orders or anything related to it would be knocked over by the High Court and that would actually put the safety of Australians at greater risk,' including any attachments to, enclosures with or documents incorporated by reference in that advice. Question agreed to. International Relations: Australia and Japan 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 15:37 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 20 August 2026, any documents concerning the valuation of the four Shizuoka Crown melons received by the Prime Minister from the Government of Japan in May and June 2026: (a) a copy of each entry in the official private register which was shown to representatives of news.com.au and referred to in the article 'Pauline Hanson grills Albanese over Japanese melon gifts as gaffe firestorm erupts', published on 12 August 2026, including the entry containing a photograph of a melon and the notation 'Valuation $200 each'; (b) all other documents shown or provided to news.com.au that record or refer to the value of any of the four melons or either of the two deliveries; and (c) all valuations, appraisals, invoices, receipts, price comparisons, correspondence, file notes or other records relied on to determine that each melon was worth $200 and that each delivery was a separate gift worth $400. Question agreed to. Taxation 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 15:37 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 20 August 2026: (a) all documents related to industry consultation referred to by the Minister for Finance in the Senate at 12.15 pm on 11 August 2026, when she said 'In addition, Treasury has been talking with all of the major lenders, as well as the customer-owned banking association, and they are clear about the policy intent and the banks have confirmed they can take account of the policy decision in the decisions they make without the law having actually passed the parliament'; (b) all correspondence and records of communications between Treasury and each of the major lenders concerning the policy decision; (c) all correspondence and records of communications between Treasury and the Customer Owned Banking Association concerning the policy decision; and (d) any documents recording or evidencing confirmation by a lender, bank or other financial institution that it could take account of the policy decision in its lending decisions before the relevant legislation had passed the Parliament. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that motion 593 in the name of Senator Bell be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:42]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

26 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. (Teller) Blyth, L. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 6 PAIRS Bragg, A. J. McCarthy, M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Watt, M. P. Lambie, J. Chisholm, A. D. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C.

Question negatived.

Personal Information and Privacy 56 Order for the Production of Documents 56 15:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on Thursday, 2 July 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 559, relating to documents held by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), with a compliance date of no later than Tuesday, 28 July 2026, (ii) on Thursday, 30 July 2026, the Minister representing the Attorney-General provided a response from the Attorney-General: (A) claiming that the documents contain sensitive information, and (B) raising public interest immunity claims on the grounds of legal professional privilege and that release of the documents would prejudice legal proceedings, and (iii) the order has not been complied with; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claims raised by the Attorney-General, noting that: (i) as outlined in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, the Senate has rejected government claims that there is a long-standing practice of not disclosing privileged legal advice and this claim is undermined by the fact that governments disclose legal advice when they choose to do so, particularly where the advice supports a government position, and (ii) the Attorney-General's response sets out the rationale for the doctrine of legal professional privilege in general terms but does not establish how disclosure of the particular documents could cause harm to individuals or how disclosure would prejudice pending legal proceedings; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to produce the following documents set out in paragraphs (a) and (e) of the original order, subject only to the redaction of information that may be reasonably capable of causing harm to an individual, by 5 pm on Tuesday, 18 August 2026: (i) the full text of the determination and the Australian Privacy Commissioner's reasons, and (ii) all correspondence between the OAIC and American Express Australia Limited, or its representatives, concerning confidentiality, publication or any restriction on disclosure. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Faruqi, M. Gatenby, C. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 23 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 6 PAIRS Bragg, A. J. McCarthy, M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Watt, M. P. Lambie, J. Chisholm, A. D. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C.

Question agreed to.

NOTICES 58 NOTICES Postponement 58 15:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in my name. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 To what day? Senator ROBERTS 266524 Mostly like until tomorrow—it's beyond my control! Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Procurement: ANL 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 20 August 2026, documents created, received or otherwise in the possession of the minister's office or the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts between 29 November 2024 and 30 July 2026 relating to the strategic fleet program and the contract or charter arrangement with ANL for the vessel ANL Kokoda announced on 29 May 2026, including: (a) contracts between the Commonwealth and ANL, including financial arrangements; (b) a schedule of milestone payments; and (c) the brief for approval of ANL as the preferred strategic fleet service provider, provided to the minister by the department. Question agreed to. Housing Australia 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:50 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on Tuesday, 30 June 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 546, relating to first home guarantees issued by Housing Australia for the 2025-26 financial year, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing (the minister) to comply by no later than midday on Thursday, 2 July 2026, and (ii) on Thursday, 2 July 2026, the minister provided an interim response from the Minister for Housing stating that additional time was required to respond to the order, and (iii) the order has not been complied with; and (b) requires the minister to comply with the order by midday on 19 August 2026. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:50 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on Thursday, 2 July 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 565, relating to executive salaries at Housing Australia for the 2025-26 financial year, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply by no later than midday on Wednesday, 8 July 2026, and (ii) the order has not been complied with; and (b) requires the minister to comply with the order by midday on 19 August 2026. Question agreed to. Minister for Home Affairs 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:51 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Duniam, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 7 September 2026: (a) all drafts and the proposed final text of the speech or address that the Minister for Home Affairs was scheduled to deliver at the National Press Club on 6 August 2026; and (b) all supporting data and written material prepared by, for, or provided to, the Minister for Home Affairs or his office in connection with that proposed address. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:51 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Duniam, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 7 September 2026: (a) all briefing notes, submissions and other documents held by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the department) concerning policy changes proposed to be announced by the Minister for Home Affairs at the National Press Club on 6 August 2026; (b) all documents received by the department from the Department of Home Affairs, Australian Border Force or any other Commonwealth department or agency related to the content of that proposed National Press Club speech; and (c) all documents prepared by the department for the purpose of briefing members of the Government on the policy changes originally scheduled to be announced in that National Press Club speech. Question agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 59 Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:51 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Sharma, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on 1 September 2026, an index of all work products produced under contract notice CN4105976, providing the title, date, length and format of the product. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 59 MATTERS OF URGENCY Prime Minister 59 15:52 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Cash has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Prime Minister's repeated failure to take responsibility for his crude and inappropriate conduct, his willingness to rely on senior female ministers making excuses for his behaviour, his habit of denying, minimising or rewriting the truth when caught out, and the growing pattern of broken promises, false assurances and misleading statements that has destroyed Australians' trust in his word. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Prime Minister's repeated failure to take responsibility for his crude and inappropriate conduct, his willingness to rely on senior female ministers making excuses for his behaviour, his habit of denying, minimising or rewriting the truth when caught out, and the growing pattern of broken promises, false assurances and misleading statements that has destroyed Australians' trust in his word. This motion goes to the heart of Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister of Australia—his character; his crude and inappropriate conduct but, worse than that, his refusal to take responsibility for it and, sadly, his willingness to rely on senior female ministers in his government to continue to make excuses for that crude and inappropriate behaviour; his habit of denying, minimising or rewriting the truth when caught out; and, sadly for the Australian people, the growing list of broken promises and false assurances that have destroyed any trust in his word. This is not just one incident; this is now a pattern of behaviour. Despite what he said, the Prime Minister chose to bring the Bush Deep podcast into the Lodge. According to the host of the podcast, Nikki Osborne, this was personal. She says she contacted the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, directly through his Instagram after noticing that he followed her account. He responded. He accepted the invitation to appear on this podcast, and she says he knew the show and he knew exactly what he was agreeing to. So I say to the Prime Minister: spare Australians the pretence that this was some media ambush. This was no ambush. This was a booking made by the Prime Minister which he personally embraced. What sort of program was it? You just needed to read Chris Kenny on the weekend; he documented it. Only weeks earlier, the same podcast the Prime Minister personally accepted an invitation to go on featured an adult content creator discussing in graphic sexual detail an encounter involving hundreds of men while the host re-enacted aspects of what was being described. That was publicly available. That was the program. So the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, either knew what he was walking into—and he thought it was appropriate for the Prime Minister of Australia to do such a podcast—or his office failed to do the most basic of due diligence. Take your pick because, quite frankly, neither says anything good about his judgement. Then, sadly, he joined in juvenile discussion involving accomplished Australian women and made crude remarks involving Japan's first female prime minister. They were choices. They were Anthony Albanese's choices. They were bad choices. And they were grubby choices. When the backlash came as it did, did he take responsibility? Did he say: 'Mea culpa. I am sorry, I got it wrong, I apologise'? No, he did not. Instead, senior Labor women went out and defended him, even going to the extent of denying that those vile, crude and disgusting remarks were sexist or disrespectful. These are the same people who delight in lecturing everybody else about respect, but when Anthony Albanese is the man under scrutiny, suddenly those standards disappear. Labor's respect agenda apparently has one giant exception: Anthony Albanese. This goes to the broader credibility problem that the Prime Minister now faces. As I said, it is now a pattern of behaviour. Before the election, what does he rule out over 50 times? Changes to negative gearing and changes to capital gains—to quote the Prime Minister, as he snapped at a reporter, 'For the 50th time'. That's 50 times, in his own words, and 50 assurances Labor would not change negative gearing or capital gains, and the Australian people voted on that. Then, of course, after the election, he merely said, 'Guess what? Despite those 50 assurances, I changed my mind.' Well, quite frankly, the problem he now has is: why would anyone now believe assurance No. 51? Australians know the pattern: poor judgement, no responsibility, denial, minimisation, broken promises and somebody else left to clean up the mess afterwards. Anthony Albanese's problem is no longer simply that Australians disagree with him; it's that they have no reason— (Time expired) 15:58 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania It may come as no surprise that I rise to oppose Senator Cash's motion today and to address the claim that there was a growing pattern of broken promises or false assurances and misleading statements. It simply doesn't stack up, given the Albanese Labor government's record of delivery. Australians judge governments not by slogans or personal attacks but by results. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has delivered real outcomes that are improving the lives of Australians. From 1 July this year, this government has delivered another tax cut for each and every taxpayer. We've introduced and we've passed our new $1,000 instant tax deduction, introduced to deliver simpler taxes for 6.2 million workers. We've supported real wage rises for around three million workers. We've had the introduction of payday super, which will increase the retirement income of working Australians. We've expanded paid parental leave to a full six months, and super is paid on top. We've got stronger protections against supermarket price gouging. We've made permanent our Medicare urgent care clinics as part of Medicare. More medicines are on the PBS, and we've got record public hospital funding. These policies are now being delivered because Labor is committed to keeping our promises and to making life easier for hardworking Australians. The economic results tell the same story. They demonstrate that Labor's commitments are not just promises made but promises delivered. Inflation is still lower than when Labor came to office and well below the peak. More than 1.3 million jobs have been created, and unemployment has remained historically low. Wages are growing faster than under the previous government, whose policy was deliberate wage suppression. In addition to this, new ABS data shows Australia's gender pay gap has fallen to 11.3 per cent, the lowest on record. When we came to government in 2022, it was 14.1 per cent. Since then, women working full time are earning an average of $325.50 more per week, and this hasn't happened by accident. It's the result of deliberate choices made by the Albanese Labor government and choices that we took to the last election—choices that we promised and delivered under the leadership of this prime minister, Anthony Albanese. We've also been delivering pay rises for minimum-wage workers. We've increased wages in early childhood education and aged care. We've expanded paid parental leave. Super is now being paid on paid parental leave. Each Australian is going to be $2,800 better off when they do their tax return thanks to our tax cuts that we have delivered. In addition to this, workforce participation remains near record highs. That commitment to delivery extends beyond the economy and into the everyday issues that matter most to Australian families. We've invested $182.6 million to reform the child support system to make sure that kids get the support that they are owed and that the system can't be weaponised to harm them. We've invested more than $4.4 billion through the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. We've introduced 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. We've expanded paid parental leave to six months, increased support for single parents, delivered significant women's health reforms and invested billions of dollars in pay rises for aged-care and ECEC workers. On housing, we've committed more than $43 billion through the Housing Australia Plan, including a 50 per cent increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance since May 2022, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, support for first home buyers and substantial investments in homelessness and crisis accommodation services. In health, Labor has delivered the largest investment in Medicare in decades. We've expanded bulk-billing incentives. We've opened up more Medicare urgent care clinics. We've listed new medicines on the PBS. We've reduced medicine costs. We've rolled out the first comprehensive national package focused on women's health, including menopause and endometriosis care. Labor, under Anthony Albanese, our prime minister, has not only kept its commitments but also delivered real improvements to the lives of Australians. Whether it's tax relief, higher wages, stronger Medicare, more affordable housing and greater support for families, our record is clear, and this prime minister's record is absolutely clear. Australians can see the difference between the rhetoric and results because we are delivering for them. (Time expired) 16:03 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia This prime minister's record is absolutely clear. His record of spending years lecturing Australians about standards, about integrity and about respect. This is the prime minister that said this to the Australian people: No matter who you support in politics, it is completely unacceptable to demean, objectify, belittle or offend women. It sounds like the Prime Minister can't even keep his own storytelling abilities straight. This is a prime minister who went on a crude podcast. He participated in a joke about melons at the expense of the female prime minister of Japan. He then decided to try and tell the Australian people: 'You've misunderstood. Perhaps this isn't quite what people thought it was.' He then sent out the female leadership of his own team to try and defend what were revolting comments and gestures from a prime minister—certainly not becoming of a prime minister of a country like Australia. These loyal servants of the Prime Minister went out—these are women who supposedly care about the rights of women and are completely offended when it is anyone else who is doing the offending. But, no—'We're going to double down, and we're going to protect the Prime Minister and his absolutely disgusting actions.' This goes to the character of a prime minister that has told the Australian people for four years that he would cut electricity by $275. That's a promise that he took to the 2022 election. I don't know about everyone else out there, but I'm still waiting for my $275 reduction. Instead, I think I've had about a 40 per cent increase. This is a prime minister who makes promises that he does not keep. He is gaslighting the Australian people every time he says: 'Oh, it's not what I meant. We've changed our mind.' This is the same prime minister who said more than 50 times that he would not touch negative gearing in Australia. Fifty times the Prime Minister said that, and then we got to see the budget that was handed down in May, and guess what? Well, he's had a change of heart. His word means nothing. This is a prime minister that is now coming after capital gains. This is also a prime minister who keeps telling the Australian people, as do senators from across the way—they get the talking points, and I'm not sure how they regurgitate them because it is absolutely sickening to sit there and say that Australians have never had it so good in this country. They talk about the fact that wages are rising. The problem is inflation is rising higher and faster than what real wages are, which means Australians are actually working more and earning less. Yet this government, this prime minister, goes out with a straight face and says to the Australian people, 'You have never had it so good.' The Australian people have had enough. You can tell that the Australian people have had enough because this prime minister is now one of the most unpopular prime ministers. His polling is going into the toilet. Australians watched the Prime Minister stumble off stage during the election campaign. The Prime Minister got up, after stumbling off the stage, and said, 'Oh, I didn't fall off the stage.' This is that prime minister who then says to the country, when he and Tony Burke were being heckled, that the reception was 'overwhelmingly positive' and there were just a few people who may not have agreed with him. This is a prime minister who says whatever he needs to say to the Australian people. You cannot believe a single word that this prime minister or this Labor government says. When the Prime Minister says to the Australian people that his word is his bond, the Australian people should rightly be very sceptical of that, because this prime minister has a track record for telling the Australian people one thing and then going and doing the exact opposite. You cannot trust this prime minister. You cannot trust the government that he leads, because when this prime minister is caught out, there is always an explanation. There's always deflection. Like any good gaslighter in any kind of toxic relationship, he always puts it back to, 'Oh, you must have misunderstood.' This is a prime minister who is sending out senior ministers to clean up his mess, and Australians have rightly had enough. You cannot trust the Prime Minister. (Time expired) 16:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too stand to speak on this urgency motion because last week we saw the latest example of a prime minister who can't tell the difference between the truth and fiction. This is a prime minister who says one thing when he's out hunting for votes and another thing when the voting is done. This is a prime minister who will call black 'white' and will call white 'black', despite the evidence clearly showing that the PM's version of events is nothing more than fantasy. As Senator Blyth just mentioned, last year, the Prime Minister quite clearly fell off the back of a stage. It was telecast around the country. There was no doubt whatsoever what actually happened. The PM's version of events was: 'I didn't fall off the stage. I just stepped backwards.' A couple of weeks ago in a really, really grubby podcast that he did, the footage clearly showed him making creepy, demeaning and sexist gestures about the Japanese Prime Minister. The PM's version was: 'I was misrepresented.' Every single other person in this country knew exactly what the Prime Minister had done, and yet for some reason the Prime Minister thought, if he just said he hadn't done it, somehow that was enough for him not to have done it. Prime Minister, the footage told a very different story. When he was asked about the comments and the gesture, he said he was unaware that he was going to get that line of questioning from the podcast presenter. Now we find out that it was actually the Prime Minister himself who contacted the podcaster and sought to go on her podcast. This is a PM who told Australians that his word was his bond. That can be proved to be quite clearly untrue. Ninety-seven times before the 2022 election, the Prime Minister promised Australians that they would get a reduction in their power bills of $275—not true. On becoming the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese promised that he would go to the Garma Festival every year—not true. Fifty times before the last election, the PM promised no changes to CGT or negative gearing—not true. Prior to the 2022 election, the Prime Minister promised to put the care back into aged care—not true. Today we see a prime minister waging a war on older Australians, including through his botched rollout of the aged-care reforms that see older Australians' care needs being assessed by a computer algorithm without any human override. This algorithm hasn't ever been tested in real life and is generating outcomes that are causing serious detrimental health impacts for older Australians. Then there is pushing pensioners into poverty to keep their private health insurance, the private health insurance they've paid all of their lives. Just at a time when they're likely to depend on that private health insurance, the Prime Minister is saying, 'We're not going to give you any support for that anymore.' With his cruel widows tax, he'll punish older Australians at the most traumatic time of their life, when they've just lost their husband or their wife or their partner. This is a prime minister who in 2022 stood up and talked to the Set the standard report, which was delivered by Kate Jenkins. What sort of a standard are you setting, Prime Minister, when you can't even take responsibility for your own actions? The Prime Minister made this comment: No-one deserves to feel unsafe or disrespected in any workplace, let alone our national parliament. Let us be the example for Australia that the national parliament ought to be. What about the national parliament of Japan? What about the Japanese prime minister? I've got to say the Prime Minister needs to start talking the talk. He said: We must, to put it simply, walk the talk. Prime Minister, you need to walk the talk because, quite clearly, you're not. You can't trust this prime minister to keep his promises. You can't trust this prime minister to keep his word. This prime minister said in June this year: No matter who you support in politics, it is completely unacceptable to demean, objectify, belittle or offend women. But he is now prepared to make his female cabinet ministers defend him when he makes demeaning, objectifying, belittling and offensive comments about the Japanese prime minister. 16:13 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I rise to oppose this motion. Australians expect us to focus on issues that matter. They expect us to spend our time discussing real challenges facing households and communities, not engaging in the political theatre that we've seen in this parliament over the last couple of weeks. But, if those opposite want to talk about women, I am more than happy to talk about this government's record. When it comes to women's safety, women's economic security and women's health, this government has delivered reforms that make a real difference in people's lives. Women's safety sits at the absolute top of our priorities. Since 2022, we have committed more than $4 billion to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, including support for 1800RESPECT, frontline services and the first dedicated First Nations plan to end violence. We have legislated 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave. We've invested in child support reform. We've delivered $3.9 billion in new funding for legal assistance services. We implemented every recommendation of the Respect@Work report. Senator Ruston asked what standard we are setting. That is the standard we are setting. We are investing in women and the things that keep them safe. These aren't slogans. These are practical reforms that improve safety, support and justice for women across our country. We've also strengthened women's economic security. We've cut the gender pay gap to a record low. Nearly 700,000 more women are in work today thanks to the Albanese Labor government. Women's workforce participation remains near record highs. Paid parental leave is now six months. We are paying superannuation on paid parental leave, which was precisely zero per cent under those opposite. It is now 12 per cent under us. We've introduced a three-day childcare guarantee. We have delivered more than $24 billion in wage rises for aged-care and early childhood workers, which are workforces that are overwhelmingly made up of women, the last time that I checked. When women earn more, save more and retire with more security, that is not an accident. It is the result of deliberate policy decisions that this government has acted on and delivered. We have also invested $792 million into women's health. We have opened 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, expanded menopause care and listed the first new contraceptive and menopause therapies on the PBS in decades. More than 900,000 women have already benefited, saving more than $149 million across millions of PBS prescriptions. This type of investment in women's health was just not happening under the former, coalition government. It is therefore quite extraordinary to hear those opposite come into this chamber and try to lecture us about women at all, because, when Australians compare the records, the contrast could not be clearer. Under the former government, there were zero days of paid domestic and family violence leave, there was zero superannuation on paid parental leave, there was zero childcare guarantee and there was no national gender equality strategy. Gender-responsive budgeting was abandoned. There were fewer women in full-time work and fewer women represented in this place. The difference is simple: this government has acted, this government has delivered and this government has invested in women. That is the difference between a government focused on outcomes and an opposition focused on headlines. While those opposite are focused on political stunts, Australians are focused on something else entirely, and that is the cost of living. They want politicians talking about household budgets. They want politicians talking about wages. They want politicians talking about health care, education and making life easier for families. Instead, those opposite have brought forward a motion that changes nothing and helps precisely no-one. While they focus on distractions, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job. We've cut taxes. We've done an instant tax deduction. Minimum- and award-wage earners have received a pay rise. Paid parental leave has been expanded to six months. Medicare urgent care clinics have become a permanent part of Medicare. This government is delivering for women. 16:18 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I've been listening to the contributions from those on the other side of the chamber, and I understand that it's very hard to defend the indefensible. It is very clear to all Australians, not just those people in this chamber, that the Prime Minister hasn't told the truth. That is a problem. That is not a point of political theatre. That is not a political stunt. It is the truth. The Prime Minister himself has changed his story around what happened here. The Prime Minister insists that he didn't know what questions he was going to be asked, but the podcaster tells us that those questions were answered. The Prime Minister has told us that he was sought out to do this podcast. The podcaster tells us that the Prime Minister reached out to her. Why does this matter? This matters because it's important for Australians to be able to trust their leadership. At a time when there is an absolute breakdown of trust in institutions around the world, as well as here in Australia, and a breakdown of trust in government, the last thing that Australians need is for their prime minister not to tell them the truth, and it goes to integrity. This prime minister has said that the truth is his bond. That hasn't happened here. He hasn't told the truth. Senator Dolega made the comment that our suggestion that there has been a series of broken promises doesn't stack up. It certainly does stack up, and I'll take the government's changes on negative gearing and CGT as exhibit A. This prime minister, 50 times, said: 'I've told you that I'm not going to make any changes. They're off the table.' But, after the election, when he was elected by Australians based on those false promises, he said that the government's position had changed. That's a broken promise. That is saying one thing to get elected and then, once you're elected, doing exactly the thing that you said you wouldn't do. That is not integrity, that is not telling the truth and that is not the act of a transparent government or a transparent prime minister. The reason I raise that is that it has now become a pattern of behaviour. Senator Ruston raised the issue of the Prime Minister falling off the step during the last election campaign. He couldn't even admit that that's what had happened. Why? Who cares? We can all take a bit of a tumble or a misstep. What difference does it make if you say you tripped, fell over or made a mistake? What the Prime Minister should've done here in relation to this podcast was say: 'You know what? I got it wrong. I shouldn't have participated in this podcast. I shouldn't have answered those questions. I shouldn't have had this podcast hosted in the Lodge, which belongs to all Australians of which any prime minister is simply a custodian, and it was a mistake to make vulgar and inappropriate comments about prominent females'—one Australian and one Japanese prime minister. It's not good enough. We expect better than that, and the fact that we have had the Prime Minister ducking and weaving in relation to that makes it even worse. I totally reject the comments that this is about political theatre or that this is a political stunt. This is about holding the Prime Minister of this country to account and telling him that, when you do not tell the truth to Australians, we will hold you accountable for that. Australians deserve to be told the truth. They don't deserve to be misled by their prime minister. They don't deserve to be made to think that they got it wrong or that they misunderstood what the Prime Minister meant. It is blatantly clear to anybody that watched that podcast what the Prime Minister said and what the Prime Minister meant, and I'm very sorry in particular to the women opposite that have had to defend it. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the urgency motion moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 23 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Whiteaker, E. 7 PAIRS Cadell, R. P. Wong, P. Cash, M. C. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Green, N. L. McKenzie, B. G. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Walsh, J. C. Scarr, P. M. McCarthy, M.

Question agreed to.

Human Rights 64 16:30 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Thorpe, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:30 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations. So-called Australia is signed up to all kinds of international human rights treaties, conventions and proclamations. It must have made the PMs and ministers of their time feel good and noble about themselves. But when it comes to protecting the human rights enshrined in all these conventions, this country is not doing quite as well. In the latest Universal Periodic Review, where countries are assessed on their human rights record, this country received 332 recommendations. Less than two months ago, the Labor government announced that they would accept just 128. They decided that they don't need to worry about recommendations from over 20 countries to raise the age of criminal responsibility and stop locking up children as young as 10. They decided not to worry about reducing the racist overrepresentation of First Peoples in prisons, which has led to higher and higher numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody. They decided to reject all recommendations on improving LGBTIQA+ rights. They decided not to worry about asylum seekers either. The government has signed up to all those human rights conventions on paper only. It means nothing. It is shameful that the colonial Constitution of this country does not protect people's human rights. In its absence, to actually ensure compliance with our international obligations, human rights instruments need to be enshrined in domestic law—something that all federal governments have shied away from. The Albanese Labor government is too scared to say it doesn't want a human rights act; that wouldn't look too good. Meanwhile, it actively violates human rights every day. We see women shackled to their beds while they give birth. We see children as young as 10 strip searched. There have been 83 deaths in custody this year alone, and the number is only rising. We see the most horrific police brutality again and again. We see children ripped from their family's arms into abuse and neglect in state care. Governments across the country, Labor and coalition governments alike, are causing more and more harm, emboldened by one another in the race to the bottom with more punitive youth justice laws, the removal of the Aboriginal child placement principle in the Northern Territory and a complete lack of responsibility on public housing, among other things. A national human rights act was first attempted in 1985. It was this chamber that ultimately abandoned it. Yet it has been recommended time and time again by report after report, inquiry after inquiry, not least of which were the National Human Rights Consultation in 2009 and the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework in 2024. In the past 12 months, the National Children's Commissioner's report on youth justice Help way earlier! recommended that the government introduce a federal human rights act. I've been travelling across the country to attend hearings for this current inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Witness after witness has talked about the systemic racism they have experienced, with the most chilling stories you could imagine—stories of assaults, harassment and ultimately death, and stories of state institutions turning their back on First Peoples and refusing to provide protection of our rights and most basic needs. This is why, today, I call on the government and everyone here in this chamber to make clear where they stand. If you care at all about protecting people's fundamental human rights in this country, you will support this motion and make clear it is time for a federal human rights act. 16:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on Senator Thorpe's urgency motion that reads: The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations. It can't be denied that Australia is regarded the world over for the strength of its legal system that protects the human rights and liberties of Australians. Ours is a strong legal system coupled with an enduring respect for the human rights and liberties of every Australian. Unlike other countries, the strength of Australia's system of legal protections lies in its multiple sources of legal heads of power and custom and not in a single legal source of power, as would be the case if a human rights act were to be legislated. The outcome and effect of our system is a protective one of human rights and liberties that ensures the balancing and, ultimately, optimisation of rights and responsibilities of Australian citizens. Those rights and responsibilities that fall on our citizens, fall our governments and fall on our community organisations ensure the strongest and most robust protection for human rights and liberties. As the Rule of Law Institute has expressed, the problem with rights granted by law is that they can just be easily taken away by law. The human rights and liberties of Australians are protected by a well-established, tried and trusted system of protections. Let me just run through what that ecosystem of protections is. Contrary to Senator Thorpe's assertion that ours is a colonial constitution, ours is a constitution that has served this country remarkably well. This year marks the 125th anniversary of our national parliament, a parliament that was born of the adoption in 1901 of the Australian Constitution. That Constitution protects liberties through a separation of powers, a federal system of distributed and devolved powers. It is a constitution that contains both explicit and implicit rights. Human rights in our country are protected by the common law. They are protected by statute. They are protected in international. They are protected by the principles of legality, and, importantly, they are protected by things like an open media. They are protected by things like a vibrant community and not-for-profit and charities sector. Ultimately, what Australia benefits from has best been characterised as a culture of trust and legal compliance by our citizens—a culture of trust and legal compliance that, in 125 years, has not let them down. If there is a virtue in Senator Thorpe's motion this afternoon, it's this: classical liberal and conservative senators should be very alive to the fact that there is a renewed push in this parliament, in the country, to enshrine a human rights act or charter or bill of rights in Australia. It's worth noting a couple of recent developments. The first, as Senator Thorpe was correct to identify, is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has just conducted an inquiry into whether or not the federal government should introduce a human rights act. Of course, it will not come as a surprise that a government controlled committee like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that a federal human rights act should be implemented. But this is not— Senator Shoebridge 169119 It was unanimous. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Well, I can't speak for the wisdom on these sorts of matters of House of Representatives members, Senator Shoebridge, but those House of Representatives members from the coalition who endorsed that report got it wrong. But the history of this issue is quite revealing. It's worth reminding ourselves that the Whitlam government tried to introduce the Human Rights Bill 1973, a bill that was happily discarded following the double dissolution election of 1974. In 1944, a referendum was held in this country. It was called the postwar reconstruction and democratic rights referendum. It contained 14 questions. It was a Curtin government initiative, and it was resoundingly defeated by Australians at the referendum, with no less than a 54 per cent vote against it. If that wasn't strong enough, in 1988— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 Thank you, Senator— Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 and 1988 is the more remarkable experience—69 per cent of Australians rejected a bill of rights. Thank you, Senator Scarr. 16:41 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania You can't stop him when he starts! I want to thank Senator Thorpe for her motion and for her continued fight for human rights in this country. We must all continue to push for change and ensure human rights are protected for all, equally and fairly, at all levels of government in this country. The Albanese government is committed to protecting and promoting human rights to ensure that all Australians are able to participate fully in our democracy, economy and society. Australia has a significant longstanding commitment to human rights and a long history of positive and constructive engagement with the international human rights system and civil society. Human rights in Australia are recognised and protected through a range of laws at the federal, state and territory levels, the Australian Constitution and the common law. Any improvement to human rights protections in Australia should be done in a way that unites rather than divides the community. This government has continued to prioritise meaningful reform to strengthen rights and to progress massive human rights reforms. The Albanese government appreciates the work in the previous parliament of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the member for Macnamara, to produce a report on Australia's human rights framework. The government is now actively considering that report. Whilst that status update is really exciting, you might be disappointed to know that the government does not support this motion. Instead, we're taking the time to carefully consider the joint committee's report, because we know how important human rights are to Australians and to our democracy. In the meantime, we have a really strong set of domestic frameworks. All jurisdictions have comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation that implements rights to nondiscrimination and equality. All jurisdictions also have a board or commission that oversees human rights and antidiscrimination. These have functions that include the determination or conciliation of complaints of discrimination brought under legislation operating in the jurisdiction. They also do human rights education and awareness raising. At the federal level, this includes federal antidiscrimination laws which make it unlawful to discriminate based on protected attributes, including sex, intersex status, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin in certain areas of public life, and the Australian Human Rights Commission, Australia's independent A-status national human rights institution. The Australian government has continued to prioritise meaningful reform to strengthen rights and to progress significant human rights reforms. This includes, for example, actioning all recommendations from the Respect@Work report; inserting a cost protection provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to promote better access to justice for those pursuing proceedings for unlawful discrimination; committing $6.9 million towards a review and modernisation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 as part of its response to the disability royal commission; legislating a merit based and transparent appointment process for the Australian Human Rights Commission, consistent with the international Paris principles; and passing legislation to ban life insurers from using adverse genetic testing to inform life insurance cover. As a government, we will continue to prioritise actions such as these that have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of Australians. Human rights protections are also maintained at the federal level through the parliamentary legislative scrutiny process under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. All government and non-government bills and disallowable legislative instruments must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility which assesses the compatibility of legislation with Australia's obligations under the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. To sum it up: thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your urgency motion. Personally, I understand your push to legislate the human rights act, but we need to take the time to consider the work that has already been done and consider the report provided to the government. The Albanese government appreciates the work in the previous parliament through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which produced a report on Australia's human rights framework. The government is actively considering this report and remains committed to protecting and promoting human rights to ensure that all Australians are able to participate fully in our democracy, economy and society. 16:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales If there's one phrase that should destroy any sense of hope that you have that something will happen, it's when the Albanese government says they're 'actively considering' something. Beware! If you actually want meaningful change in this country, if you want to actually produce some legislative outcome, protect a right or have something happen, the worst thing that can happen to you is to have the Albanese government actively consider it. They are specialists in active consideration, and they've been actively considering this unanimous recommendation for a human rights act for more than three years. No doubt they'll be actively considering it when summer comes, when winter comes and in the seasons that follow. They'll be actively considering it because that's what the Albanese government does: endless reviews and no action. One of the reasons why the public isn't pushing down the doors on this is that, when you survey the Australian public, half of them think we already have a human rights act. They assume that a country that's had a parliamentary democracy for over a century at a federal level at some point in the century might have got its act together and produced something that protects human rights. But, to its utter shame, this parliament has not done that. We keep hearing excuses from the Labor Party and the coalition and we hear resistance from One Nation to the idea of actually giving citizens rights. Do you know what I think people in this place are most scared of? They are scared that people will use those rights to protect themselves from crap laws passed by this place and use those rights to protect themselves from the reach of the surveillance state. They'll use those laws to protect their privacy from big tech coming in and sucking up their and their kids' data. That's what people in this place, outside of the Greens, are concerned about when they oppose a human rights act. They're concerned that they'll give citizens and people in this country the right to push back. I can tell you now, as a Greens senator, I fundamentally believe that we need to fix this country by giving vastly more rights to citizens and people in this country to push back against governments when they want to throw in the surveillance state, when they want to stop you at a roadside stop and suck down the data off your phone. I'm in the Greens because we are committed to human rights, and we're far more committed to the rights of people going about their business in this country without being monstered by the police and surveilled by the state. We have far more interest in the rights of citizens than we are in the rights of the state to come in and monster you. The reason why Labor and the coalition and their mates in One Nation oppose a human rights act is that they put the rights of the state to surveil you, to imprison you and to steal your data before the rights of the citizen. We put the rights of Australians—their right to not be monitored by the state—first. What's this about? Thankfully, we've now seen this coalition of some 170 human rights organisations come together and demand that this place live up to the commitments that Australia has made with international conventions and produce a human rights act. They don't want to see some bunch of bureaucrats actively considering it until we all shuffle off. Those 170 human rights organisations came out and said: 'Do something. Pass a human rights act'—which a unanimous committee in this parliament said should be made law. If we get through this parliamentary term having had the Albanese government actively consider a human rights act without passing a human rights act, that will be peak Labor. That will be peak Prime Minister Albanese. That will be another three years of actively considering—twiddling their thumbs, moving things from one bureaucrat's desk to another, getting their senators to come here and give these endless 'turn the wheels, but please, please don't do anything' speeches. That will be peak Labor. I don't want peak Labor. We've seen peak Labor. Peak Labor is the valley in which rights die. We want to see a human rights act. I'm in the Greens because we're a party committed to a human rights act, and, every time there's a vote on it, we're going to vote for the rights of Australians over the rights of this place to monitor you. 16:51 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by Senator Thorpe, and I wish to associate myself with the comments made by both Senator Thorpe and Senator Shoebridge. We are one of only a handful of democracies that does not have a human rights act. It should tell us something when the major parties in this place have indicated that they are going to vote down this motion. If a human rights act wasn't going to be effective at protecting people's rights, then they wouldn't care whether we had one or not. Senator Smith said that we have a system of rights protections, but numerous inquiries and committees have found that it is a system that is inconsistent, and it contains a patchwork of protections that are not comprehensive enough to protect the rights of everyone. Senator Smith also talked about the relevance of not-for-profits and charities in holding up people's human rights. Yet, we know that when not-for-profits and charities want to advocate for people's rights—particularly when governments are forming policy—they're regularly asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, shutting down their ability to advocate for the rights of people and citizens. The Human Rights Joint Committee that Senator Tyrrell referred to regularly raises issues with legislation that comes before this place, and it is regularly ignored. Sometimes legislation comes into this place before that committee has even considered it, so to assert that that is a protection that negates the need for a human rights act is false. The real value of a human rights act is that it requires governments and government departments to think about people's rights when they are designing policies and delivering services. That matters because government decisions are rarely experienced equally. People who rely the most on public systems—people on income support, people with a disability, older people, First Nations people, refugees, children and people in detention—are often the people with the least power and the least protection to challenge those decisions when they go wrong. We've seen what happens when governments and departments build systems around efficiency, compliance, cost cutting and punishment without putting people's human rights and their dignity at the centre. Robodebt is the clearest example of this. If we had a human rights act, it's questionable whether the systems that were put in place could have even happened. A human rights act would actually create a different culture inside our government departments because they'd have to ask, before they designed legislation: What rights are going to be affected by it? Are limitations justified? Is there a less harmful way of achieving the same objective? Have we properly considered the person who's actually going to have to live with the consequences of these decisions? As was alluded to by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, this is particularly important as governments increasingly rely on automated decision-making algorithms and large administrative systems. For the Greens, there is also a fundamental issue of basic equality here. Basic rights shouldn't depend on how much money you have, whether you can afford a lawyer, how articulate you are or whether you've got enough political influence to make a minister or a department listen to you. Wealthy corporations can employ lobbyists and lawyers to defend their interests, but think about an individual Centrelink recipient, an aged-care resident, a person with a disability or a refugee who can't. Human rights protections are important precisely because they put limits on the enormous imbalance of power between individuals and the state. Rights should not belong most strongly to the people who are best equipped to enforce them. They should provide a minimum guarantee of dignity and fair treatment for everyone, and that is why the Greens will always support a human rights act for this country. 16:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in support of this urgency motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing it to the Senate. I want to recognise her continued work in this area to continually remind the Senate about our obligations and our failures as a nation when it comes to so many of the rights that are not currently enjoyed by Australians, principally First Nations communities. It's been more than two years since the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended the creation of a national human rights act, a recommendation the parliament still hasn't acted on. As a middle power, Australia has long championed and been committed to human rights abroad. Australia played an important role in developing the international human rights system, including the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, Australia has ratified seven core United Nations human rights treaties and voluntarily undertaken international obligations that respect and fulfil the rights recognised to them. But there's a fundamental gap between the commitments Australia has made internationally—when we turn up on the world stage and say, 'Yes, we will do this thing'—and the protection of those rights received under Australian law. Many of them are simply in an agreement somewhere. Australia has no comprehensive federal human rights act. Our protections are spread across the constitution and the common law. The constitution protects only a limited number of rights. The common law recognises important rights and freedoms, but those protections remain vulnerable, as this parliament can override them through legislation, as we've seen happen on numerous occasions. The result is a fragmented system in which rights receive different levels of protection and are subject to different pathways for enforcement. We've accepted international human rights obligations and then not established clear, comprehensive domestic legal frameworks through which those rights are given effect to Australian citizens. This is clearly a gap that a human rights act would fill. It would be an anchor in Australian domestic law for our international human rights obligations. It would establish a coherent framework for recognising and protecting human rights, providing the bedrock from which Australia's international commitments could be given real, practical effect. This isn't just about what happens after a person's rights have been breached. A human rights act would require public authorities to act in a way that protects human rights and to properly consider those rights when making decisions. It would therefore move the consideration of human rights earlier in the decision-making process. As has been raised many times in the contributions today, yes, we have the committee on human rights, but how many times has a bill come here that has had only a very brief encounter with that committee or, in some cases, none at all? 'It's too urgent'—human rights be damned. While this would obviously benefit minority or vulnerable groups, human rights protections are not only about those groups. It matters to anyone who interacts with the government, relies on public services or is affected by government decision-making. Canada, the UK and New Zealand have all recognised the need for domestic human rights instruments, and a human rights act would bring Australia into closer alignment with these countries. We've made the commitment and we've accepted the obligations, but, as yet, we haven't put our money where our mouth is. As the parliament, we haven't stepped up and said: 'We've signed all these things. Most Australians assume that that is somewhere in legislation, but we have no overarching act that actually enshrines these things that Australians hold dear.' This is a real opportunity for this Albanese Labor government and for this parliament. So, again, I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this forward to the Senate for debate. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Consideration 69 BUSINESS 69 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 69 17:03 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to me for 20 August 2026, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, National Disability Insurance Scheme, Prime Minister 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 17:03 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the five per cent deposit scheme, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and correspondence with the government of Japan. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Membership 70 17:04 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: Education and Employment Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 Participating member: Senator Faruqi Education and Employment References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into Australia's early childhood education and care system Participating member: Senator Faruqi Question agreed to. BILLS 70 BILLS Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 70

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026

First Reading 70 17:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 70 17:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— CASH DISTRIBUTION FRAMEWORK BILL 2026 Today I introduce the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, another important step in the Albanese Government's plan to protect Australians' choice at the checkout and ensure no community is left behind as payments change. We have already made it mandatory for major supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for essential purchases, because Australians who want or need to use cash should not be forced out of the economy. This Bill backs that commitment with practical safeguards to keep cash moving, particularly for regional communities, older Australians, small businesses and those who rely on cash during emergencies and outages. Guided by recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators and the ACCC, it will ensure the cash distribution system continues to serve Australians for years to come. Cash plays an important role in promoting economic inclusion, payments system resilience and as a store of value particularly in times of uncertainty. But declining transactional cash use is placing pressure on the economics of storing, processing and transporting cash around the country. The Framework will keep cash distribution working in the public interest by promoting fair and transparent commercial arrangements between providers, financial institutions and Australian businesses while also supporting the long-term viability of cash distribution services. It will support the Government's cash acceptance mandate by helping businesses access cash at reasonable prices, so they can continue accepting it as a means of payment. And it will strengthen a system that remains essential for many Australians, particularly those in regional Australia. The framework has three key elements. The first provides powers to the Reserve Bank to designate entities that have a significant role in the cash system, or those that provide critical cash distribution services. Limiting regulation to critical entities will keep the Framework proportionate, targeting areas of greatest benefit while avoiding unnecessary burden on smaller providers or new entrants that do not provide critical services. The second enables the ACCC to oversee designated entities, including fair and efficient pricing of cash distribution services, which is essential to maintaining access to cash. ACCC oversight will support fair, transparent and reasonable pricing outcomes, while helping maintain the long-term economic viability of the sector. The Bill creates obligations for designated entities when negotiating cash distribution service and access agreements, and allows the ACCC to approve standard terms for classes of agreements. It also establishes arbitration to resolve negotiation disputes and enables the ACCC to determine dispute resolution requirements for designated entities. The ACCC is also empowered to establish service-level standards to support fair and reliable access to cash across Australia. These standards may cover factors such as availability and timeliness, with the ACCC having regard to the Bill's objects and the public interest. The third gives the RBA powers to ensure continuity of critical cash distribution services and help prevent disruptions before they occur. While transactional cash use has declined, many Australians would still face genuine hardship if cash became harder to access or use. That is why the Reserve Bank needs appropriate powers to act quickly and decisively to sustain critical services and resolve a crisis. The Bill provides the Reserve Bank with crisis and resolution powers, including directions, appointing a statutory manager, or transferring business assets or shares of a cash distribution service provider in crisis. It also enables up to $400 million in funding support to ensure the continuity of critical cash distribution services. Funding support is intended as a last resort, limited to situations where an entity's resources and recovery tools are insufficient to address losses or threats to cash availability. Any unrecovered funding would be recovered from major users of cash distribution services, recognising their role in enabling cash access for businesses and the community. The crisis and resolution powers are subject to clearly defined triggers for intervention and are distinct from the Reserve Bank's day-to-day monitoring and regulatory functions. They are consistent with crisis and resolution frameworks applying to other critical services in banking, insurance and clearing and settlement. The Bill also establishes criminal and civil penalties and provides information gathering and enforcement powers to regulators to support compliance. Together, these powers create a coherent framework to support the continued availability and long-term viability of cash as a means of payment in Australia. I thank the businesses and community members who engaged in the extensive consultation on the proposed framework. I note the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified in relation to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. As payment methods change, the Government is making sure the system works for everyone, not just those who can easily move away from cash. The Bill keeps cash available for the people and businesses who rely on it, while building a stronger and more resilient payments system. I commend the Bill to the House. CASH DISTRIBUTION FRAMEWORK (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2026 Today I am also introducing the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. This Bill makes consequential amendments and transitional provisions to support the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, which seeks to maintain access to cash across Australia and support businesses and financial institutions to continue offering cash services. Importantly, it gives the ACCC an interim transitional power to help ensure continuity of cash distribution services while the broader framework is implemented. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. For all the reasons I outlined in my remarks on the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, I commend this to the House. Debate adjourned. 17:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Question agreed to. Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 72

Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

First Reading 72 Second Reading 72 17:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australia's biosecurity system plays a critical role in protecting our environment, world-class agricultural and animal production sectors, economy, and way of life. It safeguards Australia's favourable pest and disease status, underpins domestic productivity, and provides access to international markets. That system, however, is now operating in a vastly more complex and challenging risk environment. Rising volumes of travellers and goods, changing disease profiles, climate impacts and increasing time pressures at the border require a biosecurity framework that is adaptive, intelligence-led, and operationally efficient now more than ever before. We regularly see how real these risks are. In 2025 alone, biosecurity officers inspected more than 280,000 commercial air and sea consignments and intercepted over 359,000 incoming travellers. More recently, in just the month of March this year, over 3,000 mail items and over 33,300 travellers were intercepted with biosecurity risk material. These efforts prevented tens of thousands of harmful pests and diseases from entering Australia. The Albanese Labor Government acknowledges this more complex and challenging environment means we must invest to ensure our nation's biosecurity effort is fit-for-purpose. That's why since coming to office we have delivered over $2 billion in additional resourcing to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system. We also understand that a strong biosecurity system relies on robust laws that enable efficient operations and informed regulatory decision-making. Today's border environment requires streamlined, better-informed decisions at the point of entry, while maintaining Australia's high biosecurity standards. This Bill responds directly to those needs by focusing on two specific deliverables. Firstly, it provides the first step to modernising the way travellers provide information through new methods, including the digital Australia Travel Declaration. By allowing information to be provided earlier and more accurately, it supports faster and stronger biosecurity decision-making. The Australia Travel Declaration pilot has already shown real benefits, including smoother passenger flows, reduced congestion and faster processing at the border without compromising our biosecurity standards. Biosecurity officers are able to access information provided by incoming travellers more easily, which allows them to focus their efforts on higher-risk travellers and goods. Secondly, the Bill improves transparency and fairness for biosecurity industry participants by introducing a clear notice of intention process for decisions relating to approved arrangements. This gives applicants the opportunity to respond before decisions are made, supporting a more consistent and transparent regulatory system. Together, these amendments strengthen operational effectiveness at the border, improve regulatory decision-making and support better engagement with industry, while maintaining Australia's uncompromising biosecurity standards. The Bill also makes a minor and technical amendment to the Biosecurity Act, to remove the use of a defined term. This removes ambiguity and assists in ensuring provisions in the Biosecurity Act are clear. Australia's biosecurity system is rightly regarded as strong and effective, but good performance in the past does not justify complacency in the future. Maintaining the trust of our farmers and international trading partners requires continuous improvement and innovation as risks, technologies and the operating environment evolve. Our biosecurity legislative framework must remain contemporary, adaptive, and proportionate. This Bill facilitates this by delivering a more responsive biosecurity framework that meets this expectation. It enables the long overdue transition from paper-based information gathering to modern digital options such as the Australia Travel Declaration. It improves procedural fairness for approved arrangements with greater clarity around regulatory decisions. Australia's biosecurity system is central to our ability to compete on a global stage. Forging stronger links between innovation, operational delivery and legislative clarity is essential to ensuring we remain resilient, adaptive, responsive, and trusted as a trading nation. This Bill reflects a practical and forward-looking approach to strengthening Australia's biosecurity system for the future. It supports innovation and ensures our biosecurity laws continue to make a meaningful difference for Australia now and into the future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 28 August 2026. Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 73

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

First Reading 73 17:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 73 17:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australian farmers, fishers, foresters and producers make an extraordinary contribution to our country. They feed us, they support regional jobs and communities, and they help drive our national economy. The latest ABARES forecasts show the value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry is expected to reach $110 billion in 2025-26. That reflects the hard work, resilience and skill of Australia's world-class producers. This Bill is part of the Australian Government's support for our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. The Bill will amend two Acts: the Wine Australia Act 2013 to provide Wine Australia with the function to conduct or arrange surveys of the grape and wine industry to support the operation of the Wine Act or the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and establish an information management framework to enable Wine Australia to disclose information for authorised purposes; and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024 to change certain aspects of how the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry manages information under the Act and make a technical change to the power to make rules in that Act to ensure it operates as intended. The amendments to the Wine Act will enable Wine Australia to conduct or coordinate surveys of the grape industry or wine industry to support the operation of the Wine Act, or the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in relation to the grape industry or wine industry. It will also support the government's response to the Review of regulatory options for the wine and grape sector, conducted by Dr Craig Emerson, which recommended stronger transparency in winegrape purchasing arrangements. The government has agreed to the Review's recommendation that winemakers should make earlier, binding offers for each grape variety they seek under contract from the Riverland, Murray Darling and Swan Hill, and Riverina regions, and that those offer prices should be made public. The measures in the Bill relating to the collection and disclosure of certain information will modernise and strengthen the Wine Act, while ensuring that protected information is afforded appropriate safeguards. The Bill will, for example, authorise entrusted persons to use and disclose relevant information obtained and collected under the Wine Act to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to support the regulation of the proposed mandatory code of conduct for wine grape purchases as announced by the Government. Without these amendments, the wine sector's ability to respond to industry challenges would be reduced, and the ACCC's ability to identify businesses captured by the mandatory code would be limited. The Government has undertaken broad industry consultation, including engagement with industry bodies to seek feedback on the proposed changes to the Wine Act. The amendments to the Collection Act will enable the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), to use and disclose personal information, particularly personal information collected via the agricultural levy and charge system for the performance of its functions, including research and data analysis. ABARES provides independent data, research, analysis and advice that informs public and private decisions affecting Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Since 2025, ABARES has been able to use and disclose certain levy and charge data for the purposes of performing its functions, except personal information. The changes will allow ABARES to confidentially disclose personal information to third party providers to assist ABARES in performing its function of conducting critical annual agricultural surveys. That is, ABARES could provide the contact details of survey participants to mailing companies to enable those companies to send survey approach letters and survey materials to the participants on behalf of ABARES. The changes will strengthen the quality of ABARES's agricultural surveys, improving research outcomes and delivering broader benefits across the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sector. Existing and new safeguards in the Act, as well as the department's existing privacy controls, will ensure that personal information is used, disclosed, stored and destroyed appropriately by third parties. The Privacy Act would also continue to apply to personal information handled by the department. The Bill will also make a technical change to the power of the Secretary of the Department to make disallowable rules so the provision can operate as intended. The department has consulted with representatives of levied industries, as well as research and development corporations and other levy and charge recipients, about the changes. These changes will strengthen the agricultural levy and charge system and, by strengthening ABARES's research and analysis capacities, provide lasting benefits to the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sector. These are practical changes. They will strengthen the ability of Wine Australia and ABARES to continue their important research work, support better decisions, and help industry keep building a strong future. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 74 Report 74 17:08 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia At the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provision of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and a related bill, together with accompanying documents. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 75 Reference 75 17:09 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on this committee referral of the approval of the sale of Rushy Lagoon, and I do so for a very good reason. Even though where I happen to live in Australia is about as far from Rushy Lagoon as you can get it doesn't mean that the events that occur in that part of Tasmania do not have direct implications both for the good governance of Australia and for an enlightening look at how this particular government operates when it comes to these sorts of decisions. But it also reflects much more broadly on the trend that is happening across agricultural land, when land is taken out of production and moved to basically a non-productive state, particularly when it comes to food production. I will preface this contribution by saying I am not opposed to foreign investment in Australian agriculture. The Esperance sand belt, which is one of the most productive parts of the Australian Wheatbelt, would not have been opened up the way it was but for foreign investment—in that case, from America. It's very interesting to note that, whilst that foreign investment was very important to the opening up of that Esperance zone, it is now almost universally within the hands of Australian farmers producing grain not just for Australia but for the world. It is, as I say, one of the most consistent and productive parts of Australia. So I am not rising to speak about Rushy Lagoon because it is a foreign investment alone, but I am rising with great concern about this entanglement of foreign investment, government funding, government backed schemes to value carbon units—Australian carbon credit units, as they're called—and the outbidding of Australian farmers by 30 per cent for land that should be in the business of producing food and fibre, not just for Australia but for the world. You can take any one individual property and say, 'Taking that out of production doesn't really matter.' But if you do it over and over again—and there are 225 examples of property being tied up with carbon unit production in the state of Western Australia alone—you will materially decrease our access to food and fibre both in this country and for export to the world. What has happened here with Rushy Lagoon is a very murky conflagration of a foreign investor buying a very, very large piece of Australian farmland—at one point in the near past, it ran something like 8½ thousand head of cattle and 22,000 head of sheep—taking it out of food production and putting it into trees. Again, we need trees. We need agroforestry. We need the production of timber in this country. But what makes this very, very murky is that a large chunk of the investment dollars in this project has come from a government instrument, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and seemingly, though I cannot say this for sure, a large part of the revenue model for this particular sale and the price paid—again, significantly above what local farmers were able to offer—comes through the supposed value in Australian carbon credit units. So we have a deal with a foreign business backed with Australian government cheap money—it's not cheap money; it's taxpayers' money, but, from the corporate world's point of view, it's cheap money because they don't have to contribute it—on the basis of Australian government regulated carbon credit units and done in a way which is extraordinarily non-transparent, particularly to the farming community in that area, who face the impacts of that land being taken out of production. Those opposite say, 'Oh, well, there'll be some trees planted, so there will be some forestry jobs created.' I'm a huge supporter of forestry jobs, and what the WA Labor Party did to the Western Australian forestry industry is an absolute disgrace. But the fact is—having been involved in agriculture myself, including in livestock production and timber production—that the jobs that disappear through the loss of livestock production are not replaced if that farmland is taken into timber production. They simply are not replaced. It's not just the direct jobs. The sheep industry is very labour intensive. The cattle industry is to a lesser degree, but the sheep industry is particularly labour intensive. You need the shearers. You need the veterinarians. You need the support services. You need the agricultural product supply in your local community. You need all these things which give life to communities, which give economic substance to communities. Replacing them with trees not only diminishes our ability to provide high-quality protein and high-quality natural fibre to the world but also weakens the economic base of those communities. There is no doubt about that. If you do a straight swap between livestock production and a timber producing enterprise, and if it were an Australian farmer who made that decision, fine. That's their right. That is absolutely their right. But this isn't an Australian farmer; this is a foreign company backed by government money on the basis of government regulated carbon credits. It's mind boggling. The fact that that company could come along and pay something like 30 per cent above market value—it's great for the seller, absolutely. But is it good for agriculture? Is it good for Australia? Is it good for that local community? The fact that the government instrumentality, the CEFC, is putting its money into it is what should make it a problem for this government, but they don't have a problem with it. They don't have a problem with it because they want to see these carbon units, these carbon credits, having some sort of a market. So they've got to shoehorn activity like this into the economy through a huge investment, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and other similar investments right around Australia—there are 225 in my home state of Western Australia—which means that companies like this foreign entity could outbid local farmers who are producing the food and fibre that Australia and the world needs. Recently in the media there have been question marks over how long Australia will actually be self-sufficient in terms of food production. That's shocking that that's even entering the debate. A very, very short period of time ago, we exported food and fibre to the world. We produced enough food and fibre for three times the population of Australia. We were massive net contributors to the world. We stopped people from falling into malnutrition. We stopped people from being at the point of starvation. We helped feed the world. Now, it's actually entered the public discourse that we are going to have to consider a situation where Australia is a net food importer. It's absolutely shocking and shameful, and it does reflect on government policy, which has effectively, in multiple ways, green-lit this particular project at Rushy Lagoon. It was the government, first of all, that had to approve the foreign purchase. It was the government, through its Clean Energy Finance Corporation, that funded the project. We haven't seen the business model, but the reporting that's out there says that it's the government that controls the carbon units and the system of carbon credits that is the business model of this project. So the government has its finger in this pie in every way it possibly can. It's got investment. It's the regulator. It's the decider on the foreign investment. That is just an extraordinarily murky and dangerous combination, especially, as I have said, when this is not a one-off event. This has brought it into the public spotlight, but these kinds of projects are cropping up right around Australia in high-quality agricultural land. It is simply not true that this is now happening in marginal country. This is happening in high-value rainfall land. It's happening in places like Boyup Brook in my home state of Western Australia. It's happening in Rushy Lagoon in Tasmania. This should be an issue that concerns every Australian. 17:21 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion, which One Nation strongly supports. Rushy Lagoon is Tasmania's largest agricultural property, covering 21,745 hectares in the north-east of Tassie. The property sold recently for $142 million, with settlement due last week. The new owner is a special-purpose vehicle called Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, TNAT, with three shareholders. The federal government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, contributed $69 million—almost half. This is taxpayer money, not government money. The remaining $73 million came from UK investment companies Gresham House and Aviva Investors. The latter has BlackRock as its largest shareholder. The previous owners were New Zealand's Pye family, who held the property for 30 years. In that time, the Pye family built the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, which, with dams and 11 centre pivots, provided irrigated cropping across 1,100 hectares. What an amazing achievement. This supported a massive dairy operation, with two automated milking parlours and substantial storage vats. The shearing sheds and stockyards supported 30,000 head of livestock. Improvements included grain and potato storage sheds to feed the world. The property has a main homestead and workers cottages. In short, until the Albanese Labor government got its dirty hands on Rushy station, the property was actively involved in growing food to feed Australia and the world with foresight and ingenuity. This sale is a perfect example of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush, including by covering prime farmland with industrial solar and wind installations, transmission lines and, in this case, pine plantations. For those who don't know—I learned this recently—nothing native grows under pine. Over the next five years, the new owners plan to plant roughly 12 million radiata pine seedlings across 9,000 hectares of the farm to generate an estimated 3.2 million carbon dioxide credit units—try eating them!—each production cycle. There it is. This ideology driven, delusional, dishonest Labor government is turning Tasmania's largest agricultural producer into a subsidised farm for carbon dioxide credits. In case the government wants to pretend this was nothing to do with them, the Albanese government provided an $8.8 million grant under the Support Plantation Establishment program before the land sale had been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board. It was a taxpayer funded grant. Turning productive farmland into a timber plantation was planned and financed through deliberate Albanese government policy. Taxpayer money is being used to destroy productive farmland. It is a measure in part justified through the timber production, which will eventually be used for housing, so they say, which could happen in 25 to 30 years time when the trees are ready for harvest. That's not going to help the people sleeping in cars, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in tents and sleeping in caravans right around Australia because of this government's policies. Given the miserable performance of this Albanese government in providing for the housing industry, we might still need the timber in 30 years time. By the way, those jobs Labor is claiming will be created are largely short-term jobs ripping out 100 years of farm improvements and then planting seedlings. That's it. The real, breadwinner jobs will occur during harvesting, and those jobs will be 25 to 30 years away. The local community will not survive until then, but Labor and the Greens don't care about that. This agenda is about sacrificing the bush to win votes in the city. It's about sacrificing the regions, which feed Australia, which are crucial for the income of this country, to satisfy the city. Until the trees are mature, all the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust will produce is woodchips, most likely to be burnt for electricity to earn Albanese government issued large-scale generation certificates. Let's review it so far. The Labor government spent $69.9 million to force the price of Tasmania's largest agricultural producer so high that local farmers could not afford to buy it. It knocked them out of the market. Then they spent another $8.8 million to encourage the new owners to grow timber, not food. Then they will spend more taxpayer money giving certificates for woodchipping those trees and in turn burning them for power. This is insane. Under this arrangement, the government is giving money to itself and destroying our best farmland and productivity in the process. The truth is that Australia does not need this timber. According to ABARES, there are already 271,000 hectares of timber plantation in Tassie alone, part of 1.6 million hectares of timber plantation right around Australia. Nine thousand hectares of timber going into the national estate of 1.6 million hectares is not going to make any difference to timber supply. This is a lie. If the government were serious about increasing our plantation area, it would look to the 800,000 hectares of native plantation forests that have recently been locked up to prevent logging, despite there being seven million hectares of suitable forests. It just gets worse and worse. Logging has never taken a large percentage of the national timber estate—just 10 per cent—and logging does not destroy those forests. They remain habitat for native fauna and flora because they're selective. Of course, this does not include old-growth forests, which One Nation would protect. I note the Greens and the Labor Party are actively clear-felling old-growth forests for industrial wind and solar installations and the related access roads and transmission lines, yet non-destructive logging is the problem, so they say. The real reason Australia's timber supply is falling is that timber mills can't pay their power and energy bills. Net zero power costs and intrusive bureaucracy are killing our precious timber industry. One Nation will lower power prices—we've given you the policies—remove the red tape, remove the green tape and remove the blue UN tape and encourage the Australian timber industry and the jobs it creates. We want jobs now, not in 30 years. Rushy Lagoon is about hollowing out the bush and hollowing out the regions. It's about this Albanese government's ideological war on red meat and dairy in the name of saving the planet from nature's harmless trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide. Importantly, the war on cows is based on supposed science that is fundamentally wrong. The methane cycle has no impact on the environment. It's a closed loop. A more important question is this: what are people going to eat if this Labor government continually destroys Australia's agricultural capability? Only last week, SunRice laid off 78 workers in the Deniliquin and Leeton food processing plants because this government is knowingly, deliberately, deceitfully taking irrigation water off farmers and sending it out to sea. Listen to this: last year, over 4,000 gigalitres of water were sent out to sea against a basin plan target of 2,000 gigalitres—double the target wasted into the ocean. Why? It was so irrigators could not use the water to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Go for it, Labor! You're destroying farming in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Labor is just one part of the uniparty. The other part of the uniparty, the Liberal-Nationals coalition, introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in their 2007 Water Act, which has a list of aims for the act, one of which is to enforce international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our water act? Farming industry body TasFarmers strongly condemned the buyout of Rushy Lagoon, calling it a 'disgraceful outcome' that locks up prime dairy and beef country into a 'monoculture pine plantation'. They nailed it on both. It is just so they can 'tick a carbon abatement box'. A TasFarmers survey revealed that 99 per cent of local community respondents oppose the sale—99 per cent. For this reason, the new owners are now talking about undertaking ecotourism and community projects to moderate the fallout, and the state Liberal government is now holding an inquiry into its own stupid decision to allow the purchase. I mean, this is farcical. One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia's best farmland is devoted to food production—to food. Australia's farmers have had enough of the Liberal-Labor-Greens war on the bush in the name of saving the environment, killing the environment in the name of saving the planet. One Nation will bring this agenda to a halt on day one of our government. 17:32 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Under the Albanese Labor government, productive Australian agriculture is being destroyed in pursuit of its net zero obsession. Rushy Lagoon should be a warning to every Australian. Tasmania's largest farm is being turned into another monument to Labor's obsession with economic vandalism. This is productive agricultural land. It grows food. It supports farmers and regional business. Now taxpayers are helping finance its purchase by a foreign-backed investment structure, and taxpayers are even paying for the trees that will take thousands of hectares out of agricultural production. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has put $69 million behind the purchase, and the Commonwealth handed over another $8.8 million towards establishing the plantation. Think about the madness of that. Australians are being made to help buy Tasmania's largest farm and they're being made to pay for the pine trees that will destroy the agricultural value of thousands of hectares of it, all so carbon can be counted, traded and turned into credits. We are literally subsidising the conversion of productive farmland into a carbon credit plantation, and the government expected Tasmanian farmers to have to compete with that. If Canberra was prepared to put $69 million behind Rushy Lagoon, why could they not be prepared to use that money to help Tasmanian farmers buy the property and keep it productive? Now, both federal Labor and the Tasmanian Liberals tell us they want to grow agriculture and train young people in agribusiness. Well, here they had an opportunity. Tasmania's largest farm came onto the market. They could have helped local farmers buy it, improve it and keep it productive. They could have backed irrigation, livestock technology and training. Instead, taxpayers are backing pine trees, carbon credits and a foreign-backed investment fund. Tasmanians have every right to feel sold out. The hastily rushed sale of Rushy Lagoon exposes something much bigger: carbon credits are changing what productive land is worth and how investors behave. If you create perverse investment incentives, you're going to get perverse outcomes. A farm can now be valued not only for the food it produces but for the carbon someone else can claim by planting poisonous trees on. The Albanese Labor government are creating this lunacy and financing it—again, with your money. They're taking your money and they're using it to destroy productive agricultural land. The consequences are obvious. With millions of dollars in taxpayer backing, productive farmland is now worth more to carbon investors than it is to a farmer who wants to keep producing food. That means agricultural land gets taken out of production with fewer opportunities for local farmers to expand and a direct threat to the future of farming communities so important to our nation's history, our nation's future. Our farmland is being destroyed. Rushy Lagoon shows exactly how that distortion works, but Labor is boasting about a $140 million economic return. We're not looking at the fine print on the jobs they create. These jobs are claimed over the lifetime of the project. They're not saying they'll create 190 permanent jobs from day one. Once again, they're being a little bit fudgy with the maths here. Meanwhile, productive agriculture supports an economy year after year—farmers, contractors, transport operators, vets, machinery businesses and local suppliers. Labor gives Tasmanians the big headline number, but the fine print tells a much different story, a much smaller story. And this is where Rushy Lagoon becomes part of a much bigger national argument. The Albanese Labor government have locked Australians into net zero and they're spending an extraordinary amount of public money trying to force the country to go along with it, trying to force the country into meeting arbitrary targets. They call it a transition, but a lot of people refer to it as a managed decline. Many Australians call it a massive government direct transfer of money into projects that fit Labor's net zero agenda. Just look at the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is what is underwriting these renewable projects. Rewiring the Nation commits billions to transmission, so-called green hydrogen gets its subsidies, and batteries are getting their subsidies. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation pours public capital into projects that fit the government's net zero agenda. Labor calls this investment, but Australians should remember whose money is being invested and who is carrying the risk, because ultimately this is your money that's being invested, and you're carrying the risk. If these projects fail, we're bearing the consequences. The Albanese government are spending like a drunken sailor to achieve net zero at any cost, except drunken sailors eventually run out of their own money. Labor have got a supply of yours that will last them quite some time until it runs out. But there is not an infinite supply of taxpayer money, despite how Labor are spending it. Now, if anyone wants to see how absurd this has become, just look at Tomago Aluminium. Tomago is Australia's largest aluminium smelter and one of the biggest electricity users in the country. It was built in New South Wales because this state once had abundant, reliable and affordable coal fired electricity. Now that smelter's future has been put at risk by the cost of power. So what's Labor's answer? They're forced into another taxpayer rescue. The Albanese and Minns Labor governments have announced a $2½ billion package to keep Tomago operating beyond 2028. Senator Ayres 16913 That's so dishonest; you're so dishonest. Why do you hate jobs? Senator BELL 319142 Have you got a point of order there? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres? Senator Bell, you have the call. Senator BELL 319142 I'm glad Senator Ayres is paying attention to this speech. He's paying a little bit more attention than the minister was paying to our press release on keeping Australians safe. It's good to see you paying attention. You are switching off now! We've got a Labor government breaking the energy system. Then who do they call when they've done this, when they've driven up electricity prices so high that once-profitable manufacturing businesses can no longer compete? Who do they call in? They're forced to go back to the taxpayer because the net zero obsession that they have has meant, for these once-profitable industries that provided jobs and security to the people of our country, to the people of the Hunter and to the people of New South Wales, they've destroyed them. We know that Tomago needs huge amounts of reliable electricity 24 hours a day. You cannot tell an aluminium smelter to wait until the wind picks up. You cannot shut the pots down when solar generation disappears. You need dependable power. After years of closing the reliable generation and forcing the system towards intermittent renewables, Labor is now spending billions to compensate a major industrial user for the cost of that policy. For that sort of money, Australia should be asking how much permanent, reliable energy generation we could have built instead. One Nation has been pointing this out. We've been calling on the government to invest in coal-fired power stations. But they've let the ones that we have fall apart. They've abandoned them. In doing so, they've abandoned the reliable, affordable, effective energy generation that powered things like Tomago. Now they're asking the taxpayer to power Tomago. There's no way to infinitely bail our way out. The promises they make about intermittent power are simply not true. Windmills and industrial-scale solar blanketing agricultural land is not the solution. Then they won't even consider things like nuclear. That's all because anything down that path destroys their argument, destroys their vehicle towards the targets that they have legislated and set for their net zero obsession. How many more industries could we have if we had even more coal fired power, if we had even more reliable generation? They're bailing out Tomago, but think about how much more we could have if we had even more coal fired power. The opportunity cost that we have witnessed and the amount of loss and decline we have seen from Labor's failure to secure reliable dispatchable power in favour of intermittency boggles the mind. That is Labor's net zero economics. Labor's obsession with making energy expensive is what's putting Australia's industry in danger. Senator Ayres 16913 You're a mind-boggling unit—that's what you are! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order, Senator Ayres! Senator BELL 319142 It appears that the Labor government does not want the people of Australia to hear what I have to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. Tomago and Rushy Lagoon look like different stories. They are not. They are both examples of governments using enormous amounts of public money to force economic activity to fit their chosen political target. At Rushy Lagoon, taxpayers helped a carbon investor beat agriculture. Tomago taxpayers are asked to rescue industry from the price of energy. They're asked to rescue industry from Labor—the same government that tells Australians the transition is delivering cheap power and stronger industry. They're the ones who have driven Tomago to the brink of bankruptcy. They're the ones that Australian jobs now have to be rescued from. They've lit the house on fire. They're spraying a bit of water on it and asking for a thankyou. You can't make this up. Much of this spending is also dressed up so it does not look like ordinary spending. Loans are called 'investments'. Risk is shifted onto public balance sheets. Guarantees are treated as if they're free. But there is no magic government money. There is taxpayer money, borrowed money and taxpayer risk. If these projects are as cheap and commercially irresistible as Labor claims, then why do they need so much taxpayer help? Why does this government have to underwrite them? Why are consequential loans required? Why does Canberra keep inventing new schemes to make their failed economics work? Australians are paying more for electricity while being told that the technology driving the transition is cheaper. Families do not care what a government model says electricity should cost. They care what appears on their ever-growing bills. Manufacturers care about whether they can keep operating. Businesses care about whether they can stay competitive. Tomago cares about whether it can get reliable electricity at a price that keeps the smelter open. Under Labor, they couldn't. That is the future that Labor created. That is the path that we are facing—a future where our manufacturing, our industries, our farms cannot stand on their own two feet. They don't have the power to run. The market has been perverted, and we see these outcomes which are so detrimental to our future productivity and the jobs in our regions. Then we get to the issue of the environment. The environmental hypocrisy is just extraordinary. Labor and the Greens lecture Australians—I'll give you a shout-out there, Senator McKim—about protecting nature whilst supporting the industrialisation of huge areas of regional Australia. Transmission corridors cut across farmland. Wind and solar disturb land and habitat. Roads, substations and other infrastructures have to be built. Apparently, environmental damage stops being environmental damage when it helps Chris Bowen meet a target. Regional Australians are the ones who are expected to wear it. The towers are not being built through inner-city streets. Large renewable intermittent developments are not being concentrated beside people writing the policies. It's regional communities who are forced to bear the brunt of the infrastructure that is forced upon them by this Albanese Labor government's net zero obsession—and Rushy Lagoon fits perfectly into that pattern. A productive farm becomes an opportunity to store up carbon. Taxpayer money is making it happen, and the people who are told this is all for their benefit are expected to applaud when it's their jobs being wiped out and their communities being destroyed. Other countries are already discovering that political climate promises eventually collide with economic reality. Canada scrapped its consumer carbon price. The European governments are reworking their climate policies because of competitiveness, industrial pressure and household costs. Eventually, the bill arrives. For many Australians, the bill is already here—and they are finding it very difficult to pay. Australia needs to learn that lesson. Instead, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen keep treating net zero as the organising principle of energy policy. In One Nation, we believe this is a fundamental mistake. That is why One Nation would scrap the net zero obsession. We would stop treating taxpayers as an unlimited source of risk capital for the politically favoured projects that Labor choose. We would not allow carbon credit schemes to distort the value of productive agricultural land. We would put reliability and affordability back at the centre of energy policy. We would stop pretending, like Labor does, that destroying productive capacity can somehow be called progress simply because someone's attached the word 'green' to it. That brings us back to Rushy Lagoon, Tasmania's largest farm—productive agricultural land destroyed by Labor. Tasmanians are the ones paying for it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Colbeck be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. McGrath, J. A. Mulholland, C. McKenzie, B. G. McCarthy, M. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

BILLS 81 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 81

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Second Reading 81 17:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the start of my contribution, I spoke at length about the fact that the NDIS is a beneficial scheme for people with disabilities, disabled people, and, of course, so it is. But it also benefits our community more broadly. Specifically, it benefits many people who are parents of disabled people. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record the views of two people who I know in my home state of Tasmania. They are parents who have two kids with intellectual disabilities, and both of those children are on NDIS plans, and that includes one of those two children who has Down syndrome. I spoke to both of those parents today. They're deeply concerned about the impact not just for them but for many, many other disabled people and parents of disabled people. They explained to me in the course of our conversations today how the NDIS paved the way for them to create a life that was specifically tailored to the interests of their child with Down syndrome and how he currently has an amazing life because the NDIS has enabled him to have an amazing life. They wanted me to be clear with the Senate about their view that the NDIS enables people to continue to be part of the broader community, and they wanted me to make sure that the Senate understood their view that the consequences and the ramifications of this legislation passing would be huge. They told me that the cutting of funding that facilitates and supports disabled people as proposed in this legislation was going to take us back into the dark old days when people with disabilities—or at least when more people with disabilities—were hidden and/or institutionalised. They made the point—this is critical—that people with intellectual disabilities often need the benefit of support workers to be able to interact with other people and to be able to establish their own social connections. They often need the benefit of support workers to have fun in their lives and to experience, in their own way, the life that many of us simply take for granted. They also asked me to make the point that, for them and for many other parents of people with disabilities, the support services are desperately needed to give the parent or the carers for people with disabilities some respite and that this cannot be underestimated as a positive social benefit to the NDIS scheme. They really wanted me to stress that this is about not only supporting disabled people and allowing and assisting disabled people to lead dignified lives but that disabled people have the ability to profoundly enrich the lives of everybody that they come into contact with. Having supports like those supports provided with the NDIS helps with that. Yes, it helps disabled people. Yes, it helps parents and carers of disabled people, but it profoundly helps the broader community because their lives are enriched many, many, many times when they come into contact with disabled people. They've also asked me to put on the record that funding that enables community participation or recreational activities gives people with disabilities, disabled people, a rich life outside of their family supports and, as I said earlier, allows carers, parents and other family members the time, mental space and other resources to replenish their own energies. This will have profound consequences for disabled people, parents and family members of disabled people and people who care for and support disabled people. They also wanted me to communicate that NDIS funding has enabled children to participate in what they describe as mainstream life to the extent that they can. For their son with Down Syndrome, this has meant the difference between having the very rich life that he does with NDIS support with an array of activities that suit his interests and keep him active and engaged and, alternatively, the future that they may be facing, which is some level of lesser support within a group situation that bears no resemblance to the life that most of us are able to lead. There are any number of good reasons why this legislation should not and must not be supported. The government's argument for this legislation is political spin. Absolutely, crack down on the fraud in the system that is perpetrated by providers. The Greens stand ready to work with the government because that fraud is taking money out of genuine supports for disabled people. We stand ready to work with the government on that. But let's not pretend that this is about fraud. This is about budget savings. When you think about budget savings, you have to think about the choices that governments make. This choice is to punch down on disabled people in the most catastrophic, diabolical way just to save some money that could easily have been saved by reining in the tax breaks for wealthy property speculators, that could easily have been generated by making the super wealthy pay a wealth tax in Australia, that easily could have been saved by walking away from the catastrophic AUKUS deal or that easily could have been raised by applying a gas export tax in Australia. The fact that, of all of the parties of government, the Labor Party, who brought in this great achievement of the NDIS, now seeks to gut it means that they will stand condemned not just by the Greens but by history. I foreshadow my second reading amendment. (Time expired) 18:04 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. In 2023, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability confirmed that the rate of disability in this country is nearly three times the rate of disability in the general population. It also found that the youngest children in the criminal justice system are most often Aboriginal children—people with neurodisability and those who are involved in child protection systems. The NDIS could be a part of the solution to stop the overincarceration of First Peoples and to stop the removal of our children. But this scheme has never lived up to its potential for First Peoples with a disability. First Peoples with disability are 28 per cent less likely to receive care via the NDIS than the rest of the population, and the government ignores the extended kinship networks in many Aboriginal communities that spread caring responsibilities across grandparents, aunties and uncles, older siblings and community members who contribute to the care of a person with a disability. These networks of care pick up the pieces where there are no appropriate services, yet they are unrecognised, undervalued and unsupported. These inequities will be made even worse under Labor's bill. I'm going to outline just a few of the ways that this bill is going to harm First Peoples with a disability. The bill requires that a person with disability confirms the disability is permanent and then goes to all lengths to demonstrate they have exhausted all possible treatments before accessing the NDIS. Apart from being entirely inconsistent with the concept of disability under the UN convention, this part of the bill means that so-called treatments are only accessible to people who already have the financial means and support systems to access them. This bill will allow a person's functional capacity, needs and plan to be assessed without considering their personal, social and environmental factors. This is despite the royal commission being very clear that the experiences of First Peoples with disability can't be separated from the ongoing impacts of colonisation, intergenerational trauma and racism. This same plea is included in several submissions by First Peoples to the inquiry into this bill. A person can be kicked off the NDIS if the government cannot contact them. It doesn't matter if they don't have a phone, laptop, internet access or are even living in the long grass. If they don't have the resources or an address—and most Aboriginal people are homeless on their own lands—then they have no hope. We know that most First Peoples who live remotely are excluded from internet connectivity, and this provision intentionally targets and punishes them further. This bill will make it much harder for Aboriginal community controlled organisations to become NDIS providers, with new burdens on administration. Community controlled organisations are already heavily regulated. With fewer ACCHOs providing NDIS supports to First Peoples with disability, there will be fewer culturally safe supports available. The burden this bill places on ACCHOs directly contradicts the government's claim that it will strengthen ACCHOs through Closing the Gap. This bill is going to mean fewer First Peoples with disability will get the support they need, and the available supports will lack cultural safety and geographic accessibility. This is just another way that the state will force my people off country to get the basic support they need to meet their daily needs. No-one would dispute that the NDIS, just like all government programs, should be run on principles of transparency, accountability, equity and fairness so that people who use the NDIS get the best possible supports given by the best providers. But this bill is not about strengthening the NDIS. Instead, Labor is treating people with disability as collateral damage for their own maladministration to cut hundreds of thousands of people from necessary supports. Minister McAllister's claim that people must be cut from the scheme because it was never designed for so many people is gammon. If policy can't be designed and changed to meet the needs of the people, what's the point of it? Of course, government spending on the protection racket that is AUKUS has never been questioned. AUKUS has never been subject to proper public scrutiny—even now that we are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for op shop submarines. In addition, the government magically found $52 billion for increased defence capabilities in the recent budget. The marginal cost to ensure the NDIS delivers to all who need it is nothing in comparison. If all the government cares about is the economic bottom line, they should know that, when run properly, the NDIS can save money by supporting people to participate in society. This is not just my opinion. The Productivity Commission, the Grattan Institute and Disability Advocacy Network Australia, among others, have all come to the same conclusion. The problem is not just the bill but the way that Labor has tried to ram it through this parliament. The Labor government has been dragged kicking and screaming to have an inquiry into this bill. At first, they insisted on only a three-day hearing into such significant legislation. Then, after massive community backlash, the inquiry was extended to 12 weeks. Still, the inquiry only heard from a handful of First People's organisations, and the inquiry's final 164-page report only mentions First Peoples with disability 27 times. Mostly these mentions are formalities, tick boxes and do not actually analyse the impact of this bill on my people in any substantial way. So even though we all know that First Peoples with disability will be most harmed by this bill—you've made sure of that—yet again, we have largely been ignored, sidelined and erased. I want to be very clear to every senator in this place that, if you vote to pass this bill, you are acknowledging that the bill will significantly impact all people with disability getting support to live everyday life, and it will disproportionately and severely harm First Peoples with disability; you are voting with the full knowledge that First Peoples with disability and First Peoples disability organisations have not been properly consulted about it nor given their free, prior and informed consent for it; and you are comfortable with the fact that the bill will breach the human rights of First Peoples with a disability by making it harder to access culturally safe supports. It will force many off country and disregard people's personal, social and environmental circumstances in making decisions about their capacities and needs. I hereby also foreshadow my second reading amendment to that extent. This bill must not pass in its current form. 18:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'd like to acknowledge and thank all of the senators who have spoken in this debate on the bill. There are few programs that have transformed lives as profoundly as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it stands alongside Medicare as an expression of who we are as a nation. We're a nation that believes every person deserves dignity, independence and the opportunity to participate fully in community life. Despite all that it has achieved, the future of the NDIS is at risk. Its growth is unsustainable, its market structure too chaotic, and it has deviated from its original intent. There is too much fraud, and, in many instances, the services which are offered to people with disability are not of the quality that we would expect. I have spoken to participants and parents and to providers and everyday Australians who worry that the scheme is becoming unsustainable. They worry that, without action, it won't be around for the long term. If we fail to act now to address this, we could lose one of Australia's greatest achievements—a program that has redefined what is possible for people with disability. It is our responsibility to safeguard and strengthen the scheme so it can continue to be one of Australia's most important social support schemes and so it will be there for Australians in the future. The NDIS must be sustainable. It must maintain the support of the community, but a scheme that will cost $70 billion in 2030 and $100 billion a year by the middle of the next decade risks undermining that support. Social and community participation supports, on their own, already cost as much as the PBS. This bill takes practical, measured steps to deliver on our responsibility to secure the scheme for future generations. It fights fraud and it stops the rorts. It slows rapid cost increases. It clarifies eligibility requirements. It delivers quality services for participants. It sets us up for a sustainable scheme into the future, and, importantly, it protects the NDIS for those who need it most. On this basis, we will not be supporting the second reading amendments that have been circulated thus far. I want to make special mention of fraud. One of my key priorities since taking on this portfolio has been improving the integrity of the scheme. I am grateful for the support of this parliament earlier this year to legislate new offences, new powers and new safeguards. There is more to do. Every dollar that is taken by fraud is a dollar that is taken from someone who needs it. The NDIS must be safe and operate with integrity. Those who defraud the NDIS are exploiting the hundreds and thousands of Australians who rely on the life-changing supports that the NDIS delivers. Since coming to government, we have invested $1.35 billion in tackling fraud and noncompliance in the NDIS, including over $800 million in this budget. Any claim that this bill does not deal with fraud is simply wrong and is made disingenuously. There are five schedules in this bill. Schedule 2, which is titled 'Fraud measures', is the longest of those five schedules. There are more pages in the legislation focused on fighting fraud than on any other measure. I hear senators' claims that there ought to be more savings to government from tackling fraud. This fundamentally misstates the problem. There are few savings to the budget because, generally, when we disrupt fraud, we disrupt fraudulent behaviour that takes money away from disabled people. When we disrupt it, we see that money returned to the disabled person, who needs that money. It doesn't go back to consolidated revenue. It doesn't produce a save. That is the wrong metric to measure our success or otherwise in tackling fraud. Members and senators know this, but they keep repeating this false claim. Integrity and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can pursue both at the same time, and that is what we are doing. Our focus is on tackling the crooks for the benefit of participants and for taxpayers, and it is what this bill does. I want to finish by thanking the many disability leaders, advocates and representatives who have continued to engage in constructive dialogue on these reforms. I know that this is a challenging debate. I have appreciated your practical proposals and your willingness and ability to work collaboratively with us to ensure that the drafting and the practical implementation arrangements reflect our policy intent. Our shared commitment to the NDIS will ensure that it continues to be part of Australia's social infrastructure today and for future generations. Like our government, disability advocates understand our responsibility to ensure that this debate, which has material impacts for people with disability, is conducted in a reasonable way and is based on the actual measures within the bill. We should not, in this place, unnecessarily stoke fear in the community while debating, in the robust way that is our tradition, in an appropriate way, the measures that are in the bill. I hope that this chamber can fulfil this responsibility in its consideration of this bill. After the passage of this bill, the NDIS will continue to be one of the largest per capita investments in support for people with disability in the entire OECD. It will remain the second-largest social program in the Commonwealth after the aged pension. It will continue to be a life-changing support for Australians. Most importantly, it will have a better chance of being part of Australia's social contract for the long term. Debate adjourned. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 85

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026

In Committee 85 18:21 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 00AOL The committee is considering amendment (1) on sheet TK115, moved by the government, to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 3803 to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. (Quorum formed)The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. 18:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 3790 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 7), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (line 10), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 20), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 24), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (6) Schedule 1, item 23, page 9 (line 6), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". (7) Schedule 1, item 28, page 10 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027". These amendments together are designed to bring forward the sunset date for the account takeover, data disruption and network activity warrants. Under the government's bill, the proposal is to have that sunset provision which would otherwise kick in in a few months extended until the middle of 2029. As always with this parliament, the sun never seems to set on covert surveillance powers, on additional powers that are given to ASIO. These powers are acknowledged by the INSLM, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, to be extraordinary powers. The INSLM has said that there is a small handful of cases where they can occasionally be of use to the AFP and ASIO. It delivered that report to parliament more than 12 months ago. But what the INSLM also said is that those powers absolutely should come with a raft of additional protections. Perhaps one of the most important protections, the INSLM said, is that when these applications are being assessed in chambers, not in open court, there needs to be someone to contest them and to test them. It should not just be done between a judge or retired judge or AAT tribunal member on one side and the AFP or ASIO on the other, all done in secret, all done on the papers, without anyone contesting it. The INSLM has said that someone needs to test this stuff. From my experience at a state level in New South Wales, there are compelling reasons to ensure that this kind of material is tested. There was a five-year-long ombudsman investigation in New South Wales into a police bugging scandal. Under New South Wales state law, the police could apply to the New South Wales supreme court for a covert surveillance warrant, and they would produce affidavits. When they started doing these applications for covert surveillance warrants, initially the applications were 10 pages long, and then the affidavits became 20 pages long, and then they became 50 pages long. By the time it got to 2015 or 2016, there were 200 or 300 pages of affidavits of abstract technical data—long, meandering affidavits seeking to justify, on one occasion, from memory, some 60 individual people to be targeted with covert warrants in a single affidavit and a single application that went to be sighted by a Supreme Court judge in chambers with nobody testing it. What had developed was a tick-and-flick culture with a couple of judges that would just do these applications, feeling very comfortable with them—'I've read this affidavit before. No worries. Bang, tick and flick'—giving the New South Wales police the power to covertly bug, basically, 60 people in a single go. The reason that became a scandal in New South Wales was because one part of the police force was using these secret bugging warrants to have a go at another part of the police force, and it ended up being used repeatedly to try and knock off contestants you thought might be going for your same deputy commissioner job. It was all happening in secret. The people who were being targeted by the covert warrants didn't even know it was happening. They'd turn up at a function with maybe 120 current and former police officers giving someone's farewell. Three people at the function might know that the covert warrants are happening and they're bugging 20 or 30 other police officers, all to try and knock off your opponent so you could be the next deputy commissioner. If you have an interest in this, you can have a look at Operation Prospect and the scandal that was the way in which those covert warrants operated. With that kind of history, the INSLM has said you can't just have these things operating as a quiet, clubby engagement between the AFP and some member of the AAT or ASIO and some member of the AAT happening in chambers, nobody testing it, just this tick and flick. You can't do that. You need a public interest monitor—somebody who is there to test the applications, test whether or not the scope of what is being sought is reasonable and be willing to say to the police and the tribunal: 'Actually, hang on. You are going way too far. How could you possibly justify this affidavit targeting 60 or 70 people in a single warrant?' That's the experience that I've seen at a state level, and it's reflected in what the INSLM is saying here: put a public interest monitor in. So, Minister, firstly, is your government aware of that experience in New South Wales in covert warrants in the absence of a public interest monitor? Secondly, is this government committed to putting a public interest monitor in, or are you quite comfortable with this just being a clubby operation between the AFP, ASIO and the tribunal? 18:33 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. For obvious reasons, I will keep my response pretty brief. I've answered the questions that Senator Shoebridge's questions go to. We don't support the amendment that's been put forward by the Greens. The government intends to further consider the framework for powers and recommendations of the INSLM's review as part of comprehensive reforms that the government is committed to. This bill seeks to extend the sunsetting date to 4 September 2029 to allow those very comprehensive and significant reforms to take place. 18:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just in relation to the amendment moved by the Australian Greens on sheet 3790, this amendment is aimed at cutting short the extension of the identity and disrupt powers. Instead of allowing the account takeover data disruption and network activity warrant regimes to continue until 4 September 2029, it actually, as has been articulated, brings forward the sunset date to 1 July 2027. It does that across the relevant provisions in schedule 1, including the associated emergency authorisations and transitional provisions. It was actually the coalition that introduced these powers, because serious and organised criminals were increasingly exploiting encrypted platforms, online accounts and sophisticated digital technologies. In 2026, when you look at where the world now is, I don't think one can actually say that those threats have gone away. In fact, one might say that those threats have actually got worse. It is the opinion of the coalition that bringing the sunset forward to July 2027 would create unnecessary uncertainty around capabilities that law enforcement agencies continue to rely on to disrupt serious offending. The coalition, of course, support proper scrutiny and safeguards, but we do not support arbitrarily shortening the life of effective national security and law enforcement powers. These warrant regimes were designed to give agencies the tools to intervene against serious criminal networks, and parliament should not force them back to the brink of expiry before, in particular, the broader electronic surveillance reform process is completed. 18:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This is yet again an example of this government failing to get the necessary reforms drafted and before this parliament. Some of these changes proposed by the INSLM—'ensuring that current or retired judges do it, not tribunal members'—you could literally draft in an afternoon. The changes to put in place a public interest monitor—you can look to examples in other jurisdictions that have a public interest monitor, and we could import them into the Commonwealth law. Yet again we're told that 'no, sorry, can't do this without a reform program that has a horizon going to 2029', and it's unfortunate that the coalition is giving the Labor government whatever time they ask for for their never-ending, never-to-be-completed, no doubt active consideration of the INSLM's monitoring. This is another active consideration moment from the Labor Party. They're going to actively consider three not incredibly complex pieces of legislative reform for another three and a bit years. I think it's really unfortunate. This is a moment where the coalition could have joined with the Greens to put some pressure on Labor to actually put in place a reform agenda that would complete within 12 months, but, instead, Labor's being given a 'get out of jail free' card by the coalition by not supporting this amendment. I think it's unfortunate, because the job is really to put some pressure on government when they're not doing their job. The job of this place is not just to do a tick and flick of what the government presents but to actually push back and put some pressure on them and say, 'If you want to have these extreme powers that the INSLM said should be limited, we're going to give you a horizon.' This has pushed this into the next parliament. That's what this proposal from Labor does. It pushes this whole issue into the next parliament. That's the reality of what's going to happen with this vote between the coalition and Labor, no doubt joined by their mates in One Nation. You've said: 'Actually, this reform issue won't be dealt with by this parliament. The recommendations to improve people's rights and to put some checks and balances on covert state surveillance will not be done by this parliament.' You're going to wait until after the next election, and maybe, at some point, we'll see what happens. I think it's a failure of this chamber to give that government that 'get out of jail free' card. 18:39 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Last week you told us that the current CDPP has not identified any conflicts of interest. Can you please give us some examples of where conflicts of interest have arisen in the past and any ways this act has not been optimal in the way it has functioned. 18:40 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I will have to take that on notice. I don't have in front of me, going back to the establishment of the DPP, where there have been conflicts of interest. What I can say to you is that I've been through, with you and Senator Cash, the current arrangements that are in place that would require the DPP to take leave. There is no conflict that has been currently recognised for that to occur, but, if it were to occur, that's the process that would be followed. 18:40 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales To be clear, there are no identified conflicts of interest that have arisen in the past where the act hasn't been able to deal with them, that you're aware of? 18:41 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Perhaps it's better to answer the question in this way. I guess the proposition in your question is that there were conflicts that weren't able to be dealt with. I don't think that's the evidence that's been given to you or this parliament. I think what we've suggested that this is a more effective way to deal with conflicts of interest. Rather than requiring the Commonwealth DPP to take a leave of absence, enabling certain functions, powers or proceedings to be dealt with by someone else is a much more efficient way to deal with it. I'm not entirely sure whether or not there have been particular examples, but the most important thing is that the current system is to take leave from the role entirely. We just don't think that is effective. That's the evidence I've given to the parliament before. 18:42 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales The CDPP is appointed by the Governor-General for a fixed term, and now these new parallel CDPPs are appointed by the Attorney-General for as long as the Attorney-General wants them. Which of these appointment processes is less susceptible to political interference and why? 18:42 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland In the first instance, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions would be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the minister. That's the normal way that those types of appointments are made, so I don't think there is a distinction between the two processes other than that there are provisions in the act that we're proposing to allow a variation to be made to a particular appointment—sorry; 'appointment' is the wrong word—where an arrangement has been made to allow for the performance of exercise of functions or powers by another senior member of the DPP to be altered or to be changed. That would obviously cease when that director ceases, because the conflict would cease. I hope that answers your question. 18:43 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Under what conditions would a conflict of interest cease? 18:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm not trying to be obstructive—I think the Caravonica State School fete probably got the best of me on Saturday—I'm trying to answer your questions in the most succinct way. A conflict would end in a number of ways. I'm sure that you're aware of how they arise. How they would end would be a proceeding would finish, or a particular issue around a conflict would end, if the term of the director ended. There are a number of ways. I think it's not really for me to hypothesise about that, other than to say the conflict would end when the conflict ceases. That seems like a bit of a circular way of putting it, but that is how the act envisions dealing with this. This is how conflicts are dealt with across a number of acts, through a number of agencies, and they are similar ways to the ways they are dealt with in corporate and legal life. We would make the point that, again, this doesn't change the fact that there's a method of managing conflicts; it just changes the way that they're managed. 18:45 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales To clarify the evidence that you've given, the CDPP is appointed for a fixed term. The parallel CDPPs can be revoked, at any point, when the minister decides that the conflict of interest is no longer applicable. That is your evidence—that the CDPP cannot have the appointment terminated before the fixed term is over? 18:46 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Can you just put the question again, Senator Collins? 18:46 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales The CDPP is appointed for a fixed term. The parallel CDPPs are appointed for as long as the minister determines that they should be there. Can the CDPP be removed from the CDPP's position, before the end of the fixed term, by the minister? 18:46 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Senator Collins, that's not relevant to this legislation. That would be a function under the act where—and I'm talking in very general terms across government now—there would be cause for someone to be removed from office. I don't have that information in front of me, but it would be something that would be referenced in the original act where the appointment has been made. 18:47 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales It is entirely appropriate because we are trying to compare the appointment processes of the CDPP and the parallel CDDPs that are not there permanently for a fixed term. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281503 The question is that the amendments on sheet 3790 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to. A division having been called for and it being after 6.30, we'll have to defer the vote to the next sitting day. 18:48 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Hanson, I move One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3897, as circulated, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Schedule 2, page 22 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3 — Meaning of hors de combat Criminal Code Act 1995 9 Dictionary in the Criminal Code (definition of hors de combat ) Repeal the definition, substitute: hors de combat: a person is hors de combat if: (a) the person is in the power of an adverse party; and (b) the person: (i) clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (ii) has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and is therefore incapable of defending himself or herself; and (c) the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. 10 Application provision (1) The definition of hors de combat in the Dictionary in the Criminal Code, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to: (a) any conduct engaged in on or after 26 September 2002; and (b) any legal proceedings that are commenced on or after that day, if the proceedings have not been finally determined before the commencement of this item. (2) In this item, legal proceedings include any proceedings before a court or tribunal, and include proceedings that are pending. 18:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition will be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Bell on behalf of One Nation, and I would like to put the context on the record. In 2024, the coalition supported the government's amendment to the definition of 'hors de combat' on the basis of clear assurances by the then attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, about what that change was intended to do. We sought assurances from the then attorney-general's office about precisely what the amendment would do, and, in my second reading contribution, I put those assurances expressly on the record, and I said: We have been assured that the changes avoid a potential unintended consequence but do not otherwise change the intended operation or effect of the definition. I also made clear in my second reading contribution that the coalition, in supporting that amendment, was expressly relying on the advice provided by the office of the former attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, about the intent and the effect of that change. The assurances mattered. The amendment was supported on the basis that it was a technical correction and, as I said, did not otherwise change the intended operation or effect of the definition. Sadly, as I have come to learn under this government, it has now become apparent that its effect was broader than the assurance clearly provided to us by the then attorney-general, and the coalition believes the appropriate course of action is to now restore the previous definition, which is what this amendment will do. Given that the assurances were given to me by the then attorney-general—and, as I said, I specifically referred to this in my second speech—it will greatly surprise me if the government has now come to a different view and the actual effect of the amendment put forward by the government at the time that was carried is actually inconsistent with what the former attorney-general put forward. It is on that basis that the coalition will be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. 18:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Unlike, it appears, either the opposition or One Nation, in 2024 the Greens read the legislation that has come before the Senate. We read the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum, and we looked at the law. The proposed legal changes were clarifying the way in which the Criminal Code Act 1955 works and the definition of hors de combat, and they were clarifying it consistent with longstanding international legal practice. Having read the bill, having looked at what the international law provided and wanting to ensure that the original intent of these criminal law provisions met our international obligations, we voted for the legislation. I find it remarkable that the opposition come in here and say they contracted all their thinking out to the Labor attorney-general. They didn't go through that onerous process of actually reading the law and looking at how the international legal framework applied. They didn't do any of that difficult stuff. They had a little chat with the former attorney-general and decided that was enough. That's how they legislate. How bloody remarkable! That's seriously the basis upon which they're supporting One Nation's amendment. That's the basis on which One Nation are coming down. One Nation haven't even said why they're doing it. They haven't even explained it, but the coalition are coming in here and saying: 'Oh, look, we forgot to read it. We had a little chat with somebody from the government, they said something, and we didn't bother ourselves with reading it. That was too onerous and a bit tricky. We didn't phone up anybody and get any advice, we didn't look at international legal precedents, and we just did a tick and flick.' That can't seriously be what they're saying, can it? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281503 The question is that the amendments on sheet 3897 moved by One Nation be agreed to. A division has been called for and, it being after 6.30, it shall be deferred to the next sitting day. I inform senators that we cannot at this point proceed with the amendments on sheet 3791 because they are in conflict with those on sheet 3897. If senators have questions of a general nature for the minister, we will proceed with those. 18:56 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I want to compare the CDPP appointment process with the parallel CDPPs that will be set up under the new act. The CDPP is appointed for a fixed term and the parallel CDPPs are appointed for as long as the Attorney-General wants them. Which of these appointments is less susceptible to political interference? 18:56 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I reject the implication in your question. I don't think the comparison is correct or even related to what we are seeking to do here, but I draw your attention to proposed sections 31A and 31B, which go through the requirements and functions of the appointment of authorised persons in place of the CDPP. That will step you through, Senator, all of the requirements that are in place. 18:57 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales You've told us there's no current conflict of interest and you can't recall any previous ones. So why are you trying to change the act? Why is this such a priority for the government? 18:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland First of all, it's been indicated by the coalition previously that they support this bill and these provisions. We have answered this question many times. We are seeking to make the process of dealing with a conflict of interest more effective for the purposes of the administration of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—a very important independent agency that does excellent work. We want to ensure that the powers and functions are performed adequately without a conflict interfering with that. This enables that to happen without a leave of absence occurring, which is the current definition. I've also put it on the record to Senator Cash previously that this change is not in response to any particular conflict or any particular proceeding that is on foot. We look forward to your support. 18:59 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales If a parallel CDPP is instructed to initiate a prosecution, when will that be reported to the parliament? 18:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Senator Collins, would you mind rephrasing the question so it relates to what the functions of the CDPP are. You said the word 'instructed', which obviously has a connotation. We want to make sure we get the right answer for you. You'll have to be more specific with your question. 19:00 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Minister, let me rephrase it this way: parallel CDPP is instructed to initiate a prosecution; will that be reported to the parliament? 19:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The CDPP doesn't instruct proceedings. They're an independent prosecution agency. If they commence a proceeding—perhaps that's the wording you're looking for, Senator Collins—they do that independently. They're not instructed by government. They don't give instructions to anyone else. 19:01 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales If a parallel CDPP is appointed by the minister regarding a conflict of interest, will that be reported to the parliament? 19:01 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland There's no requirement under the provisions in front of us for that to occur. Of course, that doesn't preclude the CDPP from being asked questions through the normal parliamentary processes, including estimates or questions through the chamber. 19:01 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales So, if it is not tabled at parliament, will we ever come to know if a parallel CDPP is appointed? 19:02 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I've just answered that question. Yes, we will, because I imagine senators in particular will ask that question of the CDPP, and they will answer it. 19:02 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales So your evidence is that at every estimates we have to ask the CDPP if the CDPP has appointed a parallel prosecutor because of a conflict of interest that the CDPP has identified themselves. 19:02 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland No. My evidence to you, Senator Collins, is that there's nothing in what we are proposing that requires that to be made publicly available. I'm not going to repeat my previous answer other than to say that all of the requirements for the authorisation are in the legislation. That's what we're proposing. 19:03 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales What is the current process for notifying people? 19:03 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland You'll have to be more specific: notifying who of what? 19:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think the point of the question is that, when a conflict is currently declared by the CDPP and another person is appointed in that place to discharge those particular duties, is there a current notification process whereby the parliament finds out or the public find out? And, in relation to the new notification process whereby it's the Attorney-General who's making the appointment, at the point in time when that is made, is there a requirement to notify the parliament and the public et cetera, or is it just something the Attorney-General appoints and, as you said, three times a year at estimates, we might find out that there was an actual conflict that the CDPP declared to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General has now formally appointed another person to take on the duties of the CDPP in relation to that matter? How do we find out? 19:04 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland There are no current notification requirements and there are no new notification requirements being proposed. The system is the same under what we are proposing. 19:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I note, Chair, your previous advice to the chamber that the amendments that are standing in the name of the Australian Greens on sheet 3791 are in conflict with amendments moved by the One Nation party on sheet 3897, which are unable to be determined at the moment because we are in a period in which the Senate has previously agreed that no divisions should occur. I want to be very clear that I do understand that. I also acknowledge that I raised some of the matters that are addressed, or that the amendments moved by the Australian Greens seek to address. I, again, thank the minister, who's the same minister who has the unfortunate short straw here today in relation to her chamber duty. I thank the minister for her responses to those concerns that I raised, and I acknowledge that she did, indeed, respond to a number of those concerns. In general terms, I want to, again, restate some of the concerns that are held by the Australian Greens about this legislation, specifically the changes to serious drug offences. I did say last week that I do understand that Commonwealth law, as it applies to serious drug offences, falls in a different area to state or territory law. However, the principles of natural justice ought to apply, whether or not we are dealing with Commonwealth law, state law or, indeed, territory law. I want to place on the record that the Greens believe that moving away from a purity based assessment is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Moving away from a purity based assessment means that the weight of cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substance that might be in the mixture get counted as if they were the drug itself. Cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substances that are cut into drugs are not the drugs themselves. This matters because there are absolute liability elements tied to drug quantity. Under an absolute liability offence, the prosecution doesn't have to prove any mental element about the quantity. Critically, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available. I heard part of the minister's response to this when I raised it last week. The minister, in part, responded to me raising these concerns on behalf of Senator Shoebridge and others in the Australian Greens by saying that some of these matters can be raised in a plea for mitigation. It is abundantly clear to anyone who knows their way around criminal law that a plea for mitigation is not made during a trial. A plea for mitigation is made after a trial. It is a sentencing matter, not a matter that can be raised. The fact that, under an absolute liability offence, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available and that the prosecution doesn't have to prove any mental element about the quantity gives rise to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice here. By miscarriage of justice, I mean a miscarriage of natural justice. This is fundamentally unfair. We all know how this goes. I've been in this place for 10-plus years. I've seen it time after time after time. People in law enforcement agencies or in agencies that sit within the security and intelligence complex in this country always want more powers. They always want more powers to surveil, they always want more powers to control, and they always want the scales tilted in favour of their agencies and their agendas. It is the people in this place who have a responsibility to stand up for natural justice and to acknowledge that, when the inevitable happens and people in law enforcement agencies security and intelligence agencies come to the government and, ultimately, to this parliament, and ask for an increase in their powers, our responsibility is to ask the questions: Is this a reasonable increase? Is this an increase that is in the best interests of the Australian people? Are the increases in powers that are being requested fair? Are they in line with the legitimate expectation of Australian people that the government will not take unreasonable powers through this Senate that will lead to a denial of natural justice? But, unfortunately, that is what is happening today, as happens so often in this place. It is the parties of government who always collude to remove fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia. While we have the opportunity, we will continue to raise concerns around the approach of moving away from purity based assessments, just as we will continue to raise concerns about the government's proposal, again, contained in this legislation to remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters. I do refer the government to National Legal Aid's view on these matters and raise the issue that this is an access-to-justice matter, and access to justice matters fall hardest on the people who can least afford it, because, for many people in this country, hiring a good lawyer is a minor inconvenience, but, for far, far more people in this country, hiring a good lawyer is somewhere between very, very difficult and impossible. Although there are outstanding lawyers working in the legal aid sector, they are overworked because the government underfunds legal aid. Money will buy you a lawyer who can focus their time and who has enough time to focus. When you are forced into the legal aid system, although there are many, many outstanding lawyers and practitioners working in that system, the sad reality is that, because that system is so grossly underfunded, those lawyers are under a lot of pressure. We have seen that in the community legal centres for far too long, not only during my time in this place but since well before I arrived. 19:15 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales We've established that there is no transparency when it comes to when these new powers will be used to appoint parallel CDPPs, and you've pointed us towards Senate estimates in order to ask whether these new powers have been used to appoint the parallel CDPPs. If the CDPP uses, for example, a public interest immunity claim to reject questions about conflicts of interest at Senate estimates, will the public ever find out if the minister is using these powers? 19:15 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland That's a hypothetical. I can't answer that question without knowing—it's something that might happen in the future, and I don't have the facts in front of me to be able to give the senator an appropriate answer. 19:16 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales To be clear, Minister, there is no recourse other than asking at Senate estimates as to whether these new powers have been used? 19:16 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I refer you to my previous answer. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281503 As there are no other contributions from senators and as the bill cannot proceed until votes can be taken I shall now report to the Senate. Progress reported. Further consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 92

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026

Second Reading 92 19:17 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I'll indicate at the beginning that the Liberal and National parties won't be opposing the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. It's a bill that does establish a reasonable but belated framework to deal with a change in the competitive cash distribution landscape. Our cash distribution scheme is incredibly important to people who have commerce going throughout Australia, but it's especially important in regional, remote and rural parts of our country, where it can often be very difficult these days to acquire cash in order to get the cash floats required for fairs, school fetes and the like. There is an increasing shortage of cash, which I'll get to in this contribution. The reason for that shortage is that the market has been shrinking in recent years as electronic forms of payment have increased in popularity. The impact of that is that those countries who distribute the cash through the country were, and still are, under economic strain and pressure. Because of that smaller market, almost three years ago, two of the main players in this space, the main private companies that distribute cash through the country, merged. Armaguard and Prosegur merged to create one entity, and they now cover something shy of 90-odd per cent of the cash distribution market. As I said, there were economic reasons for that merger: the decrease in the size of the market and the need to create efficiencies to maintain a viable distribution system. In normal circumstances, seeing two entities merge to create a 90 per cent market concentration would raise the hackles of the ACCC, and it may not have been approved. In this case, given the economic difficulties in the market, that merger was approved. However, it was approved with an important condition: that a temporary undertaking be put in place for three years while more permanent regulatory arrangements were being adopted to tackle the situation of such a large entity covering an extremely important part of our economy. That's why we're here; that's the back story to this. I'd just make the note that this merger occurred. Let me get this right. It was first proposed in June 2023. It was ticked off, or finalised, in September 2023. And, as I said earlier, the temporary undertaking was a three-year process, a three-year framework put in place by the ACCC. So it is a bit late in the day—in August 2026, just a month before the conclusion of this undertaking—that we're finally, in this place, settling the arrangements. Keep in mind that this bill was only presented to parliament, into the House first, a few weeks ago. It's not really clear why this wasn't brought forward a lot earlier, given it's been something we've known about for some time now; it's a bit late in the day. Just weeks after that merger was confirmed, the stark situation in the marketplace was highlighted with Armaguard approaching the government saying that it needed extra funding—otherwise it would go belly up by Easter of the next year, which was Easter in 2024. Some might recall there was a grave risk that cash would dry up across our country, and Coles paused delivery of cash and put restrictions on cash withdrawals in its shops. That made people face the real prospect of struggling to get cash over a holiday period. And it was that incident which finally caused the Reserve Bank and the government to act and provide a $50 million rescue for Armaguard. Now we have this overall framework, which does a few things to, hopefully, avoid us getting into that sort of sticky situation unexpectedly again. This bill puts a regulator in charge of the cash distribution system. As I mentioned earlier, a marketplace with 85 to 90 per cent market share certainly puts you into a category where some form of regulation would be wise. There is, in effect, a natural monopoly in this marketplace now. Given the smaller scale of the market and the cost of distributing cash, it really does seem efficient for only one entity, or largely one entity, to conduct that business. That being said, if that one entity were given unfettered power to set their prices and terms, given how important cash is to many businesses, businesses would have very little choice but to accept such terms and conditions. That subsequent market power would be in such imbalance that it could lead to quite inequitable outcomes for those businesses that need cash. So we fully support the establishment of a regulatory regime here to tackle that issue and treat the market like the natural monopoly it now is. Such regulation is not unusual in infrastructure markets where there's a clear monopoly, like ports, airports and railways and the like. The bill also creates an emergency regime such that, if a cash distributor is at risk of collapsing in the future, there's a process that can be engaged, and that process is similar to what we have in place for banks and insurance companies through the RBA, through APRA and through the general financial market regime. This makes sense because there are concerns this could happen again. I know Armaguard have written to me and others about their concerns about this, but there are these arrangements in place to ensure, in a considered way, that we continue to have viable cash distribution services in Australia. This bill also gives the ACCC the power to require some transparency in pricing and to set service level standards as well, to ensure that they are not compromised as a way of getting around regulation. Normally we would support free enterprise and hope for no regulation. But, as I said, sometimes there is a need for it in circumstances like this. While this is a positive step—and a belated step, as I've mentioned—that we're happy to support, I would take this opportunity just to point out that this does not solve all of the issues for the use and distribution of cash in our economy. We've got the trucks; hopefully, we'll continue to have the trucks there, and the armoured guards. But they need a place to deliver it, and too many places in regional Australia are now without banks. In a different role, as chair of the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, I chaired a Senate inquiry on the closure of banks in the last few years. There have been over 800 closures of bank branches since 2022. Our inquiry, which was tripartisan, played a pretty big role, if I can say so, in putting a stop to that. At that time, we saved a dozen branches that were on sale in your great state, Acting Deputy President Ciccone, from closing, as well as many in North Queensland and other places. Also, this process has led to a moratorium on closures of bank branches. That moratorium is due to end, though, next year, so we need to think about what is put in place next. This bill doesn't deal with those issues. The Senate committee then asked the government to negotiate with the banks or look at finding a funding stream, using the bank levy or other mechanisms, to encourage more banks to be opened and stay open. It looked like the government was very close at one stage to doing that and taking on that recommendation. They eventually settled for the extension of the moratorium, but, given that's coming up in the next year, it's time to revisit this. I would like to see us encourage more banking especially to incentivise those banks and financial institutions that are seeking to work to expand services, and to reward them. It's only fair that all Australians have access to adequate financial services, and as many as possible should have access to good financial services. The other thing this bill doesn't do is ensure that people can continue to be able to use cash if they can get hold of it, if they have a bank, a branch, and an ATM in their location where they live. There needs to be the ability to use it in store, and we are seeing, increasingly, the threat that some businesses will not take cash. We believe that there should be a degree of mandate here. It needs to be reasonable. Some small businesses shouldn't have this sort of burden placed on them, but larger businesses should be able to continue to take cash and give people the freedom to use that type of payment. I note the government has put in place a cash mandate, but we believe that it doesn't go far enough; it only covers supermarkets and fuel, and only up to $500, and is only between the hours of 7 am and 9 pm. It doesn't cover pharmacies, which seems pretty essential and important. We think it should be expanded. With that, I will not hold up the Senate any longer. As I said, this should have come before us sooner, so let's get it done. Let's hope we can put in place a framework that maintains a viable cash distribution system for our country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 Senator Canavan, a little birdie tells me you've got a second reading amendment that you might want to move. Senator CANAVAN 245212 I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) affirms that cash is critical national infrastructure, and that access to cash remains essential for millions of Australians, particularly older Australians and those in regional and remote communities; (b) notes that when a natural disaster strikes, the power goes out, or communications networks fail, it is cash that keeps working; (c) expresses concern that the Government has failed to act sooner, noting that: (i) the risks to the cash distribution system have been evident since the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) approved the Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd and Prosegur Australia Holdings Limited merger in June 2023, (ii) by Easter 2024 the system was brought to the brink of crisis, requiring an emergency meeting chaired by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia to secure a rescue package, and (iii) the Government has acted only in the final weeks before the ACCC's enforceable undertaking expires in September 2026, and that delay has placed the ongoing strength of Australia's cash system at risk; and (d) expresses further concern about the Government's ongoing failure to address bank branch closures, and its lack of any plan for when the moratorium on regional branch closures ends on 31 July 2027". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 Senator Dowling, welcome back. 19:28 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania It's great to be back and talking about cash. It used to be how we paid for pretty much everything. Cash was king, as they say. In 2007, about seven in every 10 payments were cash—pretty significant. Most payments were cash based. Most people in this chamber would remember the cash world. Some of our newer, younger members are probably unfamiliar with it at all, and some of our more experienced members probably grew up in a cash economy entirely. There's been a rapid evolution of how our payment system works in Australia, and by and large it's worked pretty well. If we compare our system of cash and digital to other economies, we have a stable currency and we also have a digital framework that allows and facilitates the rapid transfer of cash digitally when times require that. We saw it in no better case than when Australia needed to respond through the COVID period and provide people with rapid access to cash; we had that digital infrastructure to support it. The ecosystem we have works very well in Australia, but, today, cash is used for fewer than two in 10 payments. It was seven in 10 in 2007, but it's fewer than two in 10 today. They're not particularly averaged out; that doesn't really tell the story. The two in 10 are very overrepresented in certain parts of the country. It's a significant shift, and it does present us with a problem, because moving cash costs about the same whether the trucks—the Armaguard vehicles—are full of cash or nearly empty. The cost of moving that cash is the same. As cash use has fallen, the business of moving it has stopped adding up until the whole job came down to a single national carrier—one carrier moving all of Australia's cash. We know that when a market comes to a single provider it loses the ordinary discipline of competition—competition being the pressure that keeps prices fair and keeps service reliable. With several carriers, the loss of one is a setback that could be absorbed by the others, but, when you only have one, the loss puts the nation's cash at risk. It puts the entire economy at risk. It can put people's lives at risk. This bill treats cash as what it has quietly become: essential infrastructure. It doesn't just treat it as economic infrastructure but societal infrastructure. That infrastructure has to work for everyone, especially when other things fail. I'm a huge supporter of the digital economy and the future that that digital economy is building, the opportunity it provides and the platform it provides for people to participate and capture new economic opportunities. But I also know what that future does not yet reach. It does not reach the town where the phone signal drops out. It does not reach the checkout when the power goes down in a storm. It does not reach the person the app was never built for. When the digital system fails—and it does fail—cash is the backup that keeps the community going. We saw it in the last big network outage. The card machines went dark right across the country, and cash was the only thing that still worked. I referred to cash before as 'essential infrastructure'. It's essential emergency infrastructure. While payments in cash today might only be two in 10 payments, when the network was down, cash was 100 per cent of payments. It was cash or nothing. Making sure the systems people depend on and the backups behind them hold up wherever they live is what the Albanese government is all about. That's true in the cities, but it's just as true, if not more so, in the regions and remote communities. In my home state of Tasmania, that's not just a theory. In less than a decade, Tasmania has gone from 135 bank branches to just 84 bank branches, and the trajectory is clear. No-one is opening new branches. In town after town, the nearest one has become no longer within walking distance. The drive to get to the nearest bank has become further and further. It's not necessarily connected to a public transport route. Access to banking services has become challenging. You see it right across the state. A stark example is on the remote West Coast of Tasmania, in Queenstown. The last bank on the West Coast, the Bendigo Bank, shut its doors. It was the last one—and it was relied upon. Local businesses did their banking there. Local residents did their banking there. It wasn't just a place where you did transactions; it really became an important touchpoint for the community. It's hard to think that you might talk about a bank in romantic or nostalgic terms, but that's really what it was like for the people on the West Coast in confronting how they would operate in a town with no bank. I commend the local town's resilience in how they've gone about this challenge and, particularly, the University of Tasmania, which has gone in with a fantastic program around financial literacy, giving residents the confidence and capability to adapt from what they'd taken for granted and what their whole life was—that physical bank infrastructure—to having to move their business or their household finances to a hybrid or an entirely digital experience. That has been a real challenge. Queenstown's experience is shared by hundreds of communities across Australia that have had to move from a system of entirely face-to-face, largely cash transactions to that hybrid or fully digital experience. It's a similar experience on the east coast of Tasmania at St Helens, where the last branch closed. These are not especially small towns but they are not major cities, and the banks simply cannot find a way to make that stack up. Roughly one in 10 Australians still use cash for most of what they buy. One in 10 might not sound like much as a statistic, but it's millions of people. Millions of Australians still use cash for most of what they buy. They are more likely to be older, more likely to be on a lower income and more likely to live in the regions. These people deserve absolute consideration, and they must be front and centre when we discuss the payment system and the use of cash in our economy. We shouldn't be distracted by averages. We shouldn't say, 'It's only one in 10.' One in 10 is millions of people who rely on cash. For them, cash is not simply a preference—it's how they manage. It's how they get by when the power or the network lets them down, which we've seen firsthand too often. As I indicated in my very first speech in this place, I'm a strong believer in financial literacy and financial capability. I'm a strong believer in giving Australians of every age the skills they need to work and take part in a more digital age—giving people the tools, experience and confidence to navigate a modern economy. We live in the most complex digitised economy in the history of the world, yet the skills and capabilities we equip people with haven't kept up. That is a challenge that we must continually confront in this space: how we equip our citizens to navigate through that complexity. I also understand that, for some people, becoming financially literate and being able to navigate those challenges will not always be possible. Where that isn't possible, our economic infrastructure has to be built to include them and not shut them out. This bill keeps the system that delivers cash working. It gives the Reserve Bank oversight of critical providers and the power to step in if the supply of cash is ever put at risk, and that is absolutely fundamental. It puts the competition regulator in charge of fair, clear pricing and decent service. As I outlined at the start of this speech, market forces do a very good job where you have a lot of players, a lot of buyers and a lot of suppliers, but we used to have multiple providers in the cash transport business and now we only have one. So it's really critical now that the role the market used to play is now taken on by the competition regulator, to ensure that charge of fair, clear pricing and decent service, and that it does all of this in an orderly way before a collapse, not after one. The amendments before us make another important point clear: keeping cash moving should not cut across the protections of the people who move it. Road transport contractual chain orders exist to ensure that standards across transport supply chains are safe, sustainable and viable. Again, as we said, when we're in a market that doesn't have strong competition and dominance by certain players in the supply chain, safety, sustainability and viability are not necessarily things we should take for granted, so it's important that those standards are protected with these changes. Most of the time, these two systems will operate alongside each other without any problem. But, where an obligation under the cash distribution framework would conflict with one of those orders, these amendments provide a clear pathway to resolve it, and that gives certainty to the system about how it will work in times of stress. They make sure that worker protections are preserved. I commend the union movement, particularly the Transport Workers' Union, for making sure that those worker protections are recognised and strongly protected. They give businesses and regulators greater certainty about what their obligations are as well. This is not some adversarial approach. It actually ingrains a lot more certainty and predictability into the system about how things work, particularly under stress, under pressure, at times of crisis. Importantly, they do this without compromising the Reserve Bank's crisis powers. If the cash distribution system is at risk, the Reserve Bank must still be able to act quickly to keep critical services operating. That is a sensible balance, protecting the workers who keep the cash moving while protecting the system that keeps cash available. When we think about the payment system and how it operates, you can't look at it through the lens of a single stakeholder. You need to understand that the workers who work in that cash transport and distribution framework need to have their worker protections preserved, but we also need to have an efficient, sustainable business environment for those cash distributors to be able to operate their businesses. Similarly, we need wider economic confidence that, in times of crisis, cash will be available and in times when your telephone doesn't work, when your online banking system isn't working and when your credit card payment networks aren't working, there is still that last resort—cash is king—and we can make sure that the cash is transported to all parts of Australia, particularly those remote, regional places where particularly lower income households and older households have come to rely on cash for their everyday life. Millions of Australians still do the majority of their transactions using cash. This is a measured answer to a real problem. It's not a step back from the digital future. It is a way of making sure that the future leaves no-one stranded at the check-out. It sits alongside the cash our shops must now accept, and it backs the supply of cash that Tasmanians and Australians rely on every day. Therefore, I support this bill and the amendments. 19:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The fact is cash is king for retailers, sellers and buyers. The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 establish a regulatory framework for Australia's cash distribution system, with a particular focus on the cash-in-transit sector. The government's claimed intention is to support continued access to cash as cash use supposedly declines and the economics of distribution become more difficult, especially in regional and remote areas. Key measures include allowing the Reserve Bank of Australia to designate systematically important cash distribution entities, giving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission oversight of standard terms, pricing, service agreements, access arrangements and service level standards and creating good faith negotiation, arbitration and dispute resolution mechanisms. The bills introduce crisis readiness and resolution powers so that the Reserve Bank of Australia can intervene if a critical provider becomes financially distressed or services are disrupted. In effect, cash handling is moving from a commercial market service with many providers to critical national infrastructure. One Nation supports this bill. I would add that a main assumption in this bill is false. The use of cash is not declining. In 2016, when I first started campaigning to protect the use of cash, there was $70 billion of cash in the economy. Today it's $107 billion, a 53 per cent increase in cash. Cash use is now increasing from 13 per cent of transactions in 2022 to 15 per cent today. Around 50 per cent or half of Australians use cash weekly, and seven per cent use cash exclusively. I'll say that again: seven per cent of Australians use cash exclusively. Liberal-Labor uniparty governments have lost their war against cash because half of Australians disagree with ending the use of cash. Thank you, Australia. Reasons given for moving back to cash include the cost of electronic banking, which was always the plan—eliminate cash, and then banks can charge whatever they damn well like for electronic transaction fees, and consumers will be a captive market. We must keep cash. Secondly, an age-old budgeting trick is making a comeback. Withdraw your budget for the week in cash and, when it's gone, stop spending. Swiping a plastic card encourages people to overspend. This is a measure one wouldn't see making a comeback if everyday Australians were doing well. The truth is that the comeback in cash is directly linked to the cost-of-living crisis and the war on the middle class which the Liberal and Labor uniparty have been perpetrating for a generation. Increasingly, the use of cash is associated with privacy concerns. We know every purchase you make electronically is logged and then sold into the data market, often called big data. These companies have significant data files on every Australian, so much so that huge data centres are now necessary to keep track of it all and then exploit that data for the benefit of retailers and, of course, for the benefit of the government. The Australian Banking Association points out the rise in the cash economy. This is a valid point. There is significant use of cash payments in hospitality, among other industries. This is being driven by workers, not employers. I know one employer who advertised for bar staff and had emails from prospective employees asking what the rate per hour was for payment in cash. Foreign students are working their 20 hours legally and then working another 20 for cash. This is facilitating part of the $39 billion a year visa holders send back overseas. Recently, in Senate estimates hearings, I was given answers on this topic which suggested the amount foreign students earn each year was equal to the amount foreign students send overseas each year. So what are foreign students living on? Well, it's obvious: their cash work and tax avoidance, adding GST to their subcontractor invoices and then shooting through before the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, can catch up with them. I acknowledge that cash can facilitate a black economy, yet the answer isn't getting rid of cash; it's getting rid of the black economy. All of these things could be policed if the government really wanted to. It's chosen not to. Both this government and the previous Liberal government chose not to get rid of the black economy. I note the bill does not explicitly mention Australia Post outlets or Bank@Post. It really should have included a statement of support for providing cash handling to post offices. Australia's banking oligopoly, banking cartel, has badly served the bush. Local post offices are the last source of cash services for retail outlets in many rural and regional areas. The regulatory powers created in this bill must be used to mandate cash handling ATMs in areas that banks or post offices do not properly service so that business can still operate. Banks should earn their social licence to operate. In many ways direct and indirect, taxpayers protect the banks, and government favours increase bank profits and lower the risks banks face. Major banks today socialise losses and privatise profits. When things are going well, they're private. When things are going badly, they want help from the government. In return, banks should fulfil adequate services, including provision of legal tender, cash. This Labor government continues the uniparty policy of hollowing out the bush, replacing farmland with industrial solar and wind installations and transmission lines to feed power to their city voter base. Part of that is the policy of turning agricultural land into a wasteland in the name of carbon dioxide credits, wind turbines and solar panels. As one of many examples for proof, look up Rushy Lagoon, Tasmania, which the Senate is debating. It's 11,000 hectares of prime farmland turned into a pine plantation for carbon dioxide credits—for rubbish. Shame on you. You use taxpayer money to help these foreigners do it. You gave grants to yourself—grants to government entities. Australia's banks have been actively supporting the uniparty government's agenda to hollow out the regions, removing regional cash and banking services. This bill will provide a mechanism to restore the viability of cash handling in the bush, but I'm not convinced the government means a word of it. One Nation welcomes this new framework that we can use to restore cash handling in regions once we get into government. Armaguard is concerned about costs imposed in the bill making cash deliveries too expensive. This will result if the cost of regional cash services is charged on a cost-recovery basis. Banks, though, do not use cost recovery. They average operating costs across all their products. Yes, the city will pay for cash handling in rural regions. The bush though, right now, pays for the heightened cost of security in our crime ridden cities, the multiple armed guards on cash deliveries, the in-branch security and in-branch translation language services not needed in rural regions. Banks spend way more advertising in the city to get customers, whereas, when a bank has the only branch in town, that bank does not need to spend money advertising. In the growing number of regional towns with no bank, banks have no branch costs and simply give Australia Post licenced post offices a cheap fee to act as agent for the bank. By the way, the large majority of our country's export income and wealth comes from the rural regions, from the bush. Don't tell them in the bush they're sponging off the cities. It's the city's sponging off the bush. The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 allows the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to require Armaguard-Prosegur to provide access to their depots for smaller operators, while noting these operators already access their depots. This provision is actually not really new. Nonetheless, protecting access rights in legislation is useful, so thank you. Potential market entrants into the cash-handling market, such as NCR, expressed support for this provision. The Bills Digest discusses concentration of industry power in the hands of the merged Armaguard-Prosegur entity. This bill may create barriers to entry for new or smaller entities and thereby serve to cement the Armaguard-Prosegur monopoly. It's a fair point, although, once again, it goes to use of the powers in this bill not the creation of those powers. One power I am worried about, though, is the crisis-funding provision in the bill. Part 6 and 7 allow the Reserve Bank to declare a cash-handling emergency and may authorise up to $400 million in assistance to provide continuity of service while taking action that could include appointing an administrator. My concern is this provision can be triggered on a very low bar. One trigger provided in clause 90 is simply the entity asking for the money and the Reserve Bank of Australia deciding that, if the payment is not made, their operations may become unviable. From the very start, One Nation and I have been champions of the use of cash and critics of the banking cartel. In 2017, I was successful in creating the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, which I chaired, or rather, I should say, Senator Pauline Hanson was successful in creating the Senate select committee and appointed me as chair. The inquiry investigated unconscionable bank lending practices, default interest rates and predatory foreclosure behaviours that ripped off and traumatised Australian farmers and rural families and fishermen and loggers during periods of drought or financial hardship. Our inquiry found so much banking misconduct that Prime Minister Turnbull, at the time, was forced to call the royal commission into financial services that found widespread systemic corruption. Then the Morrison government tabled the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019, which was to introduce a $10,000 limit on cash transactions. When such provisions were introduced overseas, the $10,000 limit was quickly reduced. Greece now has a limit of 500 euros. France and Germany have a limit of 1,000. One Nation led the campaign against this obvious attempt to get rid of cash and force the public into the electronic banking system for the financial benefit of the banking cartel. They get to charge fees, and there's no alternative. Despite Liberals and Labor passing the bill through the House of Representatives, we were successful, in December 2020, in removing the bill from the Senate Notice Paper. It didn't go through the Senate. The banking cartel, though, did not give up. Recently, the Treasurer introduced the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025. This regulation destroyed the legal basis for cash. How? Very cleverly. It required only petrol stations and supermarkets to accept cash. Everything else did not have to accept cash. Petrol and supermarkets only had to accept up to $500 in cash and only between 7 am and 9 pm, so it was a furphy. That meant every other business—and every business, from 9 pm to 7 am—was not legally required to accept cash. The government justified this measure as guaranteeing cash, which was fundamentally a lie. Since Federation, the start of our country, cash has been legal tender. Businesses can only refuse cash in a narrow set of circumstances. The Albanese regulation was deceitfully designed to provide air cover for any business that wanted to move to card-only payment. That's the real aim—to get rid of cash. This is the reason I'm suspicious of the motives the government has in preparing this bill. The uniparty government has now tried three times to get rid of cash. In the hands of a One Nation government, this bill, though, will create a fair environment for the free market to thrive and for consumers to win. 19:57 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I feel well versed and well qualified to talk about cash and the economy, having run a significant-size multistore retail operation in Queensland. I take note of so many of the points that have been made in this debate, though I will call out One Nation taking credit for the removal of the government's bill on cash as being complete fantasy. But, that aside, cash is not an outdated relic of the past. It is a significant part of our economy. It's legal tender, and it's particularly important for parts of the world that are offline, that don't have internet connection or wi-fi coverage, that need to be able to transact. I think, most recently, of the Quamby Rodeo, where a significant amount of cash was taken—more than a significant amount—in order to allow that community to enjoy gathering together and the buying of drink tickets, food and so forth. It is only with the opportunity that cash provides that that can still go ahead. I was more recently in Richmond when the Telstra mobile tower failed, and vendors were unable to make transactions because the EFTPOS machines and terminals didn't work. Of course, there's the bigger example of floods and cyclones, where right across Queensland, certainly, we have examples of where there is no digital ability to transact. For those reasons, these requirements to be able to receive cash and to use it are absolutely critical. Certainly, in north and far western Queensland, people are quite used to having to store an amount of cash in order to get through those sorts of natural disasters, whether it be for fuel or food. I notice, though, that this legislation, the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, has a massive oversight in not allowing for medicines to be paid for using cash. And, of course, the matching part of this debate is not just the ability of people to get cash out but how we manage the requirement for business to take it. Despite cash being legal tender, there are many businesses that are now trying not to take cash at all—and I have some sympathy. You have to have an arrangement that's secure, to be able to get cash from your premises to a bank, and that— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT National Science Week, Artificial Intelligence 98 20:00 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria This week is National Science Week. When the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Tim Ayres, launched it at Questacon, he put it well: our scientific capability is critical to Australia's economic security, resilience and productivity. AI capability is, at its heart, a science and workforce story. Every serious AI system in this country will rely on starts the same way as scientific breakthrough—with researchers training and the patient work of building expertise. Our national conversation on AI has largely been focused on data centres, and the power they'll draw and the water they'll use. Those are all legitimate questions. The Albanese government's new AI framework, with mandatory standards and a new office of AI, responds to those concerns. But data centres are the foundation, not the finish line. The real goal is the ability to build, to govern, to audit and to adapt the AI systems within them. That's what turns a building full of chips into a national asset—the skills to run it and the standing to shape how it is used. That's sovereign capability, and it presents a genuine opportunity for Australia. When we invest seriously in scientific capability, in people as well as infrastructure, we grow leaders. That means investing in our universities and research institutions, and in the scientists and engineers who'll design and run these systems. That matters across three fronts. First is defence and intelligence, where surveillance, logistics and cyber are increasingly powered by AI. We need to trust these systems when it counts. Second is critical infrastructure. AI is becoming embedded in our energy grid, our hospitals, our ports and our financial sector. The expertise to audit, update and secure these systems should sit here with Australians, not offshore. Third is the integrity of our own information environment, which is increasingly shaped by AI systems that don't always operate in the interests of Australian citizens. A recent John Curtin Research Centre report, Defending Australia:A national artificial intelligence sovereign capability and security agenda for the 21st century, makes this point clear: Australia doesn't need to compete on frontier general purpose models, but we need sovereign capability where dependency carries the most risk, with systems suited to our own environment. As the report puts it, a system is only sovereign if Australians can govern it, not simply operate it—and, if we get this right, the benefits won't be limited to defence. The report argues Australia should become a trusted AI governance partner in the Indo-Pacific, exporting the standards and systems that we build here to partners seeking an alternative. Greater AI sovereignty will enhance our relationship with our allies, and being a trusted partner also means being a capable one. If Australia excels in AI, that makes us a much more attractive and much more versatile partner. This calls for sovereign models and computation capacity. It means data sovereignty for our firms and governments and it means investing in the workforce, because data centres are only sovereign if we run them. As assistant minister Andrew Charlton has said, engaging Australians with science is how we invest in homegrown innovation breakthroughs and advancement. That is why I was pleased to see the recent ALP National Conference back real protections for workers, including a fair share of productivity gains, further upskilling and safeguards against surveillance. Government, industry and unions all have a role to play, and we need to build an AI skills pipeline by leveraging our universities and TAFEs. National Science Week exists to spark the curiosity of the next generation. Our task is to make sure there's a serious career—we need to invest in the people—and a sovereign purpose waiting for our kids when they reach the workforce. AI is an inevitable part of our strategic future. Australia must build the capability to compete on our own terms or get left behind. The Albanese government is determined to ensure Australia leads, not follows, in the technologies that will shape our future. South Australia: Environment 99 20:05 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Wendell Berry, a novelist, poet, American farmer and activist, gave this quote: … Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do. Bird flu has arrived in South Australia. It threatens not only our farmers' production but native bird life and mammals. Possibly, at its worst, many might go extinct. South Australia has had little time to respond to the algal bloom, and now we have the immense threat to our natural world with bird flu. We learnt from the bloom that we need more scientific research in understanding our environment. Importantly, we also learnt that the destruction of our reefs and oyster beds meant that when an event such as an algal bloom arrived, we suffered more than we would have otherwise. We need a strong and healthy population of native birds and mammals to resist the bird flu. This is why we should invest in eradicating our invasive species and stop destroying our ever-diminishing habitat. We need to restrain our greed and our consumption and instead invest in wildlife resilience. I use the term 'invest' as Professor Dieter Helm does, in that nature can be invested in and seen as a productive capital, an asset that sustains our life. For me, the worth of nature is intrinsic, but as our economic settings and outlook have caused the consumption of nature at an ever-increasing rate, I adopt economic terms to try to protect nature's value. I joined the Invasive Species Council and called for an urgent investment of at least $200 million over two years in a wildlife resilience fund for species conservation and threat mitigation. This call has also been joined by the Murray-Darling Conservation Alliance. Their similar call is based on the need for further water flows of an environmental nature so that we can strengthen the resilience and health of our critical wetlands and bird habitats across the Murray-Darling Basin. That will allow more options for our birds to spread out, breed and survive the impacts of the bird flu. We must put nature at the heart of all our decision-making. As a conservative, my objective is to leave the planet in a better condition than when we inherited it. I support the calls for a wildlife resilience fund, and I ask you to do the same. West Papua, Middle East 99 20:08 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Yes to that, Senator McLachlan! Today I met with a delegation of people from West Papua led by Benny Wenda, the chairperson of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, who came here to Canberra to speak of the devastation happening right now in their homeland. West Papua is only 250 kilometres from Australia. There's more distance between Canberra and Sydney. This is not an issue we can close our eyes to. The briefing on West Papua told us that the songlines of First Nations people in Australia are related to and connected to West Papua. There's a shared ancient history. Currently the largest deforestation process in the world is happening in West Papua. At least 1.2 million hectares of beautiful ancient forest is planned for destruction. That's the size of all of Greater Sydney being destroyed. The total emissions of this project are in the hundreds and hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2, three times the annual emissions of Australia each year. It's a climate bomb that will go off and is already hurting our friends in West Papua. People have lived on that land for thousands of years—communities, culture, language, connections—and they are now being violently dispossessed and forced from the land, often with military force. And we've heard of the helicopters; we've heard of the violence. There are now over 100,000 displaced West Papuans, almost all of which are without a home because of the ecocide and the violence that is occurring. One of the delegates said very clearly that 'we all know someone who's been killed, we all know someone who's been raped and we all know someone who's been abused'. This is what is occurring to our neighbours. The government can act, and as a first step it can do what it's already promised and pressure Indonesia to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights into West Papua to investigate. It was in 2019 that Australia joined with over 100 other countries to demand this, and it still has not happened. I want to thank the delegation for coming to parliament. It's an historic delegation to this parliament. I want to thank all those parliamentarians who came to listen and learn. Together, we must not forget the people of West Papua. For eight days now, three Palestinian families have been under siege in their homes in Qusra, in the occupied West Bank. Israeli settlers surrounded the Abu Rida and Hassan families on 9 August, cut their water, cut their electricity and blocked their food from reaching them. There were 15 people, including children under seven, trapped by a mob while the Israeli military and police stood by. These attacks are on the minds of the Australian Palestinian community, and I thank them for sharing their fears with me as well as their concerns for their families and friends. They asked me to raise this today in parliament. On Thursday, instead of removing the settlers, Israeli soldiers forced the families out of two of their homes. The attackers stayed. This is not a fringe incident. Even the United States's own ambassador to Israel, who is a committed supporter of the illegal settler movement, called what's happening in Qusra an act of terror. Amnesty International has been clear that this is not isolated. It's part of a coordinated, state backed campaign of dispossession across the West Bank that's happened thousands and thousands of times. The settlers can no longer be meaningfully considered as separate from the Israeli state. Their actions are yet another reason we must sanction Israel. Labor will say: 'Don't worry. In 2024, this government sanctioned seven individuals, and one single hard-line youth group.' That was a start, but it falls so far short of what is needed right now. Sanctioning a handful of individuals while Australian trade, investment, imports and industries keep flowing back and forth into an economy built on illegal and violent occupation in the West Bank is nothing but a PR response to complicity in what is part of a growing genocide. We have serious unanswered questions about whether Australian made steel is finding its way into settler construction. We know it's being used for settler vehicles to displace people. We have questions about supply chains, and Labor has refused to act on these. Sanctioning a handful of individuals while the settlement enterprise expands is not accountability. Australia should be banning trade and investment that sustains illegal settlements, and this government should come to the chamber and tell us exactly what due diligence has been done on this government's supply chains. The families of Qusra need global solidarity and they need it now. Dental Health 100 20:13 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise today to recognise the important work being undertaken by the Australian Dental Industry Association and to acknowledge a recent visit that highlighted the difference oral health education can make in the lives of Australian children. In particular, I'd like to thank Dr Sarah Raphael, who is the director of policy and education at the Australian Dental Industry Association, for organising the visit and for her ongoing commitment to improving oral health outcomes across Australia. I would also like to thank Danielle Brock, who is the assistant director at Goodstart Early Learning Semaphore South, and her team for their generosity and hospitality. Too often, dental health is treated separately from our broader health, yet we know that good oral health is fundamental to overall good health and wellbeing. Poor dental health can affect a child's nutrition, speech, learning, confidence and quality of life. That's why the work of the Australian Dental Industry Association is so important. During my visit to Goodstart Early Learning Semaphore South, I had the opportunity to see the Bite Sized Beginnings pilot program in action. Delivered by the Australian Dental Industry Association—in partnership with Goodstart Early Learning; Primary Dental, which is a division of ForHealth Group; and Colgate—the program seeks to connect children and families with oral health education, information about the Child Dental Benefits Schedule and pathways to ongoing preventive dental health care. One of the highlights of the visit was seeing the children's engagement with Dr Rabbit, Colgate's long-running oral health education mascot, who helps make learning about healthy teeth both engaging and accessible for young children. What impressed me most was the focus on creating positive experiences around dental health. Early exposure to dental education helps build trust and confidence, encouraging regular check-ups and healthy habits that can last a lifetime. Research shows that early childhood is a critical period for establishing healthy behaviours, and programs like Bite Sized Beginnings help set children up for better health outcomes throughout their lives. It's important as well that this program not only raises awareness with children but helps to educate parents about the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which was introduced by the Labor government in 2014. The scheme provides eligible children with access to up to $1,158 in basic dental services over two consecutive calendar years, yet participation remains below 40 per cent of eligible children nationally. The benefits extend beyond the individual child. Better oral health means healthier families, fewer preventable health issues and reduced pressure on our health system. By reaching families through trusted early learning centres, this pilot program is helping more children access preventive care earlier and informing them how this approach can be expanded into more communities in the future. Importantly, as I said, it is about educating parents. It's about eating healthily. It's about cleaning your teeth and making the experience of visiting a dentist a lot of fun. That's where Dr Rabbit comes in. If children have their first appointments at a young age with dentists, before they need any work, they're less likely to have apprehensions and anxiety about going to the dentist again. I thank Dr Raphael, the Australian Dental Industry Association, Danielle Brock and the team at Goodstart for making me feel so welcome but also for the work that they're doing in ensuring that the children at their centre have an introduction in a very positive, fun way with Dr Rabbit, helping to create lifelong good oral health practices. I commend it, and I'd like to see this rolled out to all early childhood education centres so that those benefits reach all of the children that need that really good start. After all, if you look after your teeth from when you get your first set of teeth right through your entire life, your general health will be a lot better. We will save money, but it's about being able to prevent those terrible things that sometimes you go to the dentist for. (Time expired) Commonwealth Procurement 101 20:18 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Tonight I want to speak about the privatisation of the public sector via the big four. The partners in the big four consulting firms, PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte, are the high priests of turbocharged multibillion-dollar revenues. In so many organisations, they are the architects of privatisation by stealth, especially if we look at our history in the recent few decades. These are the well-heeled folks who, as big four partners, advise, audit and make up the one per cent. Their special skills are tax minimisation, working the revolving door, landing and expanding massive public contracts, and pushing services away from the public sector into a privatised world of massive profits. Despite Labor's promises, core government work is still being outsourced in our country at the Commonwealth level at an alarming rate. New Centre for Public Integrity data shows that the APS spent $742 million on consultancy contracts—that's over the $2 million disclosure threshold—in the last financial year, 2025-26. More than half of that money—$394 million—was for management advisory services or basic consulting. The government's own data shows that KPMG was the largest supplier of this work in the last financial year. That's KPMG, now infamous for its dishonest sharing of audit information to win massive new audit contracts. No wonder Labor's only chucked them in the fridge for three months! Labor is completely addicted to KPMG, and it looks like they may well be back into government contracting before too long, despite their enormous, and growing, clear sins. In recent decades, especially through the Morrison years and now the Albanese years, the big four have made billions from privatised public services—money that could have been building houses. We need to spend it on the things and the services that Australians really need: health, education, a roof over our heads, hospitals, transport and all those essential public services, including Commonwealth public service advice and service. They've pushed for the privatisation of services because that's where their money is made. They capture governments on everything from climate policy—even as their client lists includes the world's worst polluters—to the privatisation of aged care, child care and disability services, even as they advise the providers of these services on how to deal with the regulations they helped create. The big four have deliberately hollowed out and de-skilled our public sector, and they've cultivated dependency. They've aggressively mapped agencies, looking for the next highly profitable opportunity, and that's despite denying that they actually do this mapping and then farm these relationships so aggressively. They've made billions from 'land and expand' strategies where, once they're on the map, they cultivate and farm profitable opportunities. They bully, intimidate and overwork whistleblowers and staff. They lie to parliaments. They buy political influence through donations, and they make sure that they have a seat at every political table of influence. They appoint directors to fake roles that have no legislative responsibilities or penalties when they fail, unlike those that apply to independent directors in corporations. As huge partnerships, they pay no corporate tax and no payroll tax. The payoff for them is huge and lines the pockets of thousands of partners who earn 10 times more per year than a nurse or a firefighter. They've shocked parliamentary committee after committee with their lack of integrity, their cover-ups, their dishonesty and their pursuit of revenue at any cost. Last Friday's KPMG hearing revealed nothing short of a catastrophe. We heard gold-standard evidence that these firms are using law firms to hide behind, creating fake, narrowly scoped, so-called investigations. They use massive payouts of up to half a million dollars to silence whistleblowers—a number of whistleblowers—not just the latest very brave soul, but many of them. KPMG's deputy general counsel was visibly emotional when he told his colleagues in front of the inquiry that he had been misled by his own partners in KPMG when he tried to investigate leaked allegations. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 20:23