2026-08-20 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 20 August 2026

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026 1

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to my private senator's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. The Greens are proud to bring forward this bill because we believe that Australia's superannuation system should apply to every worker. It's time for young workers to be paid the super they deserve. Right now, workers under the age of 18 are only guaranteed super if they work more than 30 hours a week for the same employer. As we know, the vast majority do not. Ninety-three per cent of young workers do not work this much, mostly because of their school and study commitments and the casual nature of their employment. We want them at school. We want them to be studying, but we also want them, where they work, to get paid super in a fair way alongside everyone they work with. In practice, what's going on right now is that hundreds of thousands of young Australians who are under the age of 18 are missing out. Every year, 530,000 young teenage workers are denied the astonishing sum of $411 million in super for no reason other than their age. Young workers look after us in our cafes and supermarkets and shops, in hospitality venues and on construction sites in communities across our country. They cover weekend shifts, late shifts and public holidays. They pay tax. Yet many of them are denied compulsory superannuation contributions simply because of their age. Hundreds of thousands of young workers are being held back financially before they've even had a chance to get ahead. This discriminatory rule does not impact a marginal cohort. It's the typical experience of teenage workers. The Greens believe that young workers should receive the same financial rights as everyone else. If you earn a wage, you should earn super. It's that simple. Australia's world-leading superannuation system exists because generations of workers and unions fought for the simple proposition that people deserve dignity in retirement. It was built on the foundation of universality, but it's not universal. For too long, Australia's superannuation system has failed young workers. The continued exclusion of workers under 18 who work fewer than 30 hours a week is a clear case of legislated age-based discrimination that no longer has any defensible policy rationale. When compulsory superannuation was introduced in the early 1990s, this carve-out was justified on the basis that fees and insurance premiums would erode small balances. That's what people were told. That's what the discussion was about. But that justification has been overtaken by decades of reform. Today, fee caps and protections for low-balance accounts, alongside opt-in insurance settings for young workers, mean that even small super balances are preserved and grow over time. What remains is not a targeted safeguard but a blunt, discriminatory exclusion that denies young workers the same entitlement to deferred wages as every other worker. The rule draws an arbitrary line based on age and hours despite the fact that under-18s perform the same work for the same employers as their older counterparts. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people are working, earning and contributing to the economy without receiving the superannuation that they should be legally entitled to. Maintaining carve-outs of this kind undermines the integrity and the fairness of our system. Young workers are not immune from the rising costs of living. They are facing growing housing unaffordability challenges that are very severe across our country. They are especially insecure in their employment and they have massive and rising debt from the costs of education, which have changed so dramatically in the last few decades. Young women in particular are disproportionately affected by this age based exclusion. Women retire with substantially less super than men, and casual workers, part-time workers and workers in feminised industries—all the care sectors—are also accumulating lower retirement savings. When we deny young workers super, we reinforce inequalities that follow people throughout their working lives. The consequence of the current exclusion extends far beyond a teenager's first pay packet. Superannuation works best when contributions start early. It's essential that young workers receive super on every dollar earned from the moment they start work. Modelling shows that young workers could be $11,000 better off by retirement through the power of compound returns. This bill removes this unfair, outdated and discriminatory exclusion. It removes the existing legislative exemption that allows regulations to exclude employees that are under 18 from super guarantee coverage, and it repeals the associated regulatory provisions that currently deny super to too many young workers. It will ensure that all employees under the age of 18 are entitled to compulsory employer super regardless of the number of hours they work. There is strong public support for this change. Eighty-five per cent of Australians believe that anyone in paid work should receive super, which is a view shared across all parts of the community, and 73 per cent of Australians support changing the law so that workers get paid super at all ages. Only seven per cent oppose that. This bill supports the principle that every Australian worker should receive super contributions from the first dollar earned, irrespective of age or hours of work, and it aligns with our vision of a truly universal superannuation system. Young workers know this is unfair. Take Sarah, who is a young worker from Western Australia. She is 18 and has been working since she was 15. She works at a discount supermarket. Sarah's super balance would've exceeded $3,000 by now if contributions had been paid while she was under 18. It's nearly three times what she's actually holding in her super balance now. When she was asked how she felt about this, she said: 'Not good. That's a lot of money not paid, and I'm doing the same work. That's just not fair.' Right now, this exclusion entrenches a two-tier system of workplace rights, where age determines access to retirement savings and where some of the lowest paid workers are systematically left behind. This is not a rule supporting small business. It's a system that allows some of the most profitable multibillion-dollar, big corporations in our country to deny young workers their basic entitlements. It's a direct transfusion of money out of the pockets of kids under 18 into the bottom line of some of our biggest and most wealthy corporations. The question is no longer whether this is fair but who is it working for, and the answer is big businesses. This became clear earlier this year through a Greens initiated inquiry into this exclusion. This important inquiry showed that most large employers of young Australians do not provide their under-18 workers with this basic workplace entitlement, despite raking in massive profits on the back of their very cheap labour. Through the inquiry process, the committee wrote to a large range of Australian employers, seeking information, for the first time, regarding the payment of super to employees under the age of 18. The committee wrote to 41 companies that are the biggest employers of workers under 18 and asked them to give us their data. 'Tell us how you are treating your under-18 workforce and whether you are paying them super.' The committee received 37 responses, which are summarised in the chair's report. It makes interesting reading. Take the supermarket duopoly, for example. Coles, who employ around 12,000 workers under 18, do not pay them super regardless of the hours they work. Coles's their profits last year? $1.08 billion. Woolworths, who employ around 11,500 people under 18 in their enterprises, and another 1,150 in Big W, also do not pay super, regardless of the hours those young people work. And Woolworths' profits? $1.38 billion. These responses reveal a simple truth at the heart of the superannuation loophole for under18 workers: most of Australia's biggest corporations are denying retirement savings to the young workers who help generate their massive profits. This is not about whether big business can afford to pay super to young workers—they can; they clearly can. The fact that some employers, such as Bunnings, Aldi, JB Hi-Fi and Priceline, choose to pay their under-18-year-old workers super, regardless of how many hours they work, shows that this is possible. It is a matter of discretion to those big corporations. And they are pocketing those profits rather than doing the right thing like those companies, like Bunnings, that are paying their young people their super entitlements and what are fair super entitlements. Instead, the vast majority of large employers use a business model that relies on insecure, low-paid, low-hour teenage labour while denying these workers the same retirement rights as everyone else, as everyone over 18 who works alongside them working more than 30 hours a week. The biggest employers of young workers are large corporations that are making millions, and sometimes billions, in profit every year. They have no trouble finding money for executive bonuses and shareholder payouts but they are denying their youngest, most insecure, lowest paid workers their basic entitlements. So our position in the Greens is straightforward: if you're old enough to work, if you're old enough to pay tax, you're old enough to earn super. Billion-dollar corporations should not be building their massive profits on the backs of teenagers missing out on fair entitlement rights and their savings into their retirement, and the Labor government should not be letting them do it—as you well know. As multiple submissions to this inquiry made clear, there is no longer a credible policy basis for treating young workers differently. The inquiry's majority report was very clear: support paying super on every dollar earned, including extending superannuation to workers under 18 as part of a long-term pathway to universal superannuation. However, the chair's report, the conclusion, denied those young workers the fairness of this in their earnings. It's a classic major party play: agree in principle, promise more consultation and leave vulnerable people waiting for fair treatment and for long overdue reforms. Well, Australian workers don't want another roundtable; they don't want a consultation paper. They don't need that to decide what's fair in their workplaces. They've been waiting for decades. We have the evidence. Enough delay; it's time to act. This bill is the third time the Greens have had a go at pushing, in this chamber, to make this thing happen. We took this policy to the last election. Last year, we tried to amend the government's payday super bill to grant all young workers the right to super from their employers. Labor had a chance to back young workers then, but they decided to side with the very wealthy one per cent over ordinary young working people. And then, in July, we pushed again to partially allow this exclusion in regulations. And, again, Labor had the chance to back young workers. Instead, they partnered with the antiworker coalition over here, and One Nation, to block it. Now's their chance to make it right. It's time to stop boosting the profits of some of Australia's biggest and most profitable corporations by letting them continue ripping off young workers by taking money out of the pockets of those kids under 18 and putting it into the bottom line of some of our most wealthy corporations. From recent attacks on our superannuation system from the Liberals and One Nation, we can see it's clear we cannot take a backward step. One Nation points to the need for cash-strapped Australians to have easier access to superannuation. We can't trust this mob, One Nation, with our super system. The solution to Australians being cash strapped isn't to let them raid their super—unless they're in dire circumstances in which they can. It's time to make sure that their real wages actually increase and that we deal structurally with the problems of the cost-of-living crisis out there—something that One Nation has voted against in this parliament over and over again. In his Press Club speech last week, Senator Bragg called compulsory superannuation 'an illiberal experiment'. He also likened giving super to young workers to giving it to cats and dogs. Did the Liberal Party actually want to try and explain to a young person why they don't deserve super? Have a go at that. They have no argument, and young people will not be hoodwinked by that kind of rubbish. The Greens are the only party who've been trying in this chamber over quite some time to close this unfair loophole for young workers and give them the justice they deserve in their working lives. We want super extended to under-18s, no matter how many hours they work, and this bill will do exactly that. Super should be a universal right and it should be paid fairly. Every worker deserves their super, whether they're 16 or 60. Because of Greens pressure, Labor amended their national party platform just recently to explicitly support paying super on every dollar earned, including for workers under 18. Well, now's your chance. Don't hold back. Don't, for the third time, say 'no' to those young workers who know what's fair. I call on the Labor government to follow its own policy platform and support this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate. 09:17 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Thank you, Senator Barbara Pocock, for your passionate advocacy on this issue. Compulsory superannuation is one of Labor's greatest achievements and one of the most successful examples of long-term economic nation-building anywhere in the world. For more than three decades, compulsory superannuation has transformed retirement in Australia. Millions of Australians who would once have relied entirely on the age pension now retire with savings of their own. More importantly, more Australians are retiring with dignity—dignity that they deserve after their lifetime working contribution. Australians collectively own over $4 trillion in retirement savings, and, importantly, workers receive a fairer share of the wealth that they help create. That is why Labor has always been the party of superannuation. We created compulsory superannuation and we defended it when others opposed it—and we always will. We have continued to strengthen it whenever we have had the opportunity. Since coming to government, we have delivered a significant reform agenda in this area. We legislated the objective of superannuation. We have delivered the increase in the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We have strengthened the performance test. We have embedded superannuation in the National Employment Standards. We have ensured super is paid on government funded paid parental leave, and we introduced mandatory service standards because Australians deserve not only strong investment returns but quality service from their funds. That record is important because it demonstrates a very clear principle: Labor believes Australia's superannuation system should continue to grow stronger. We do not view superannuation as something to be wound back. We do not see it as a burden. We see it for what it is—an investment in the retirement security of working Australians. Labor built Australia's superannuation system. We have defended it when others sought to undermine it, and we will continue to strengthen it for future generations of Australian workers. Senator Barbara Pocock referred to our national conference recently. At the ALP National Conference in July, I was very proud to be the seconder, alongside Dr Mulino, the Assistant Treasurer, to continue this commitment to strengthening superannuation through equal representation, sponsor nomination and the profit-to-member model that has been central to the success of Australia's superannuation system. That reflects who we are as a party. We are never complacent about superannuation. We are always looking for opportunities to strengthen and improve retirement outcomes for working Australians. Yes, there is always more to be done on the pathway to universal superannuation. To that point, delegates at the national conference also unanimously supported the inclusion of a commitment in Labor's national platform to extend compulsory superannuation contributions to all workers under the age of 18, regardless of how many hours they work. We should be ambitious about strengthening retirement outcomes. We should be ambitious about ensuring every worker has the opportunity to build financial security in retirement from the very beginning of their working life. One of the most significant reforms the Albanese government has delivered in this space very recently is payday super. Payday super tackles a problem that cost Australian workers more than $6 billion in unpaid superannuation in the last financial year alone. That is $6 billion that should have gone into workers retirement savings. It is $6 billion lost from the retirement incomes of Australians, whether retirement is four years away or 40 years away. Earlier this year, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into the payday superannuation regulations. The committee heard from superannuation funds, unions, employer groups, payroll providers and businesses across the country. One of the issues raised during that inquiry was whether compulsory superannuation coverage should be extended to all workers under the age of 18. As Chair of the committee, I note that the committee recognised extending superannuation coverage to under-18 workers as part of the long-term pathway towards universal superannuation. I was very pleased to have that recognition in our report. The committee also recognised that payday super represents one of the biggest changes to the administration of superannuation in decades. Employers, software providers, payroll companies, superannuation funds and regulators are all currently focused on implementing those reforms. The committee therefore concluded that successfully embedding payday super should be the immediate priority. It also recognised that extending superannuation coverage to under-18 workers would require further consultation and detailed work with workers, employers, unions and the superannuation sector. We want this policy approach to be carefully developed, which is the same approach that we have taken throughout all of our reforms in this area. Labor supports stronger retirement outcomes and a fairer superannuation system, but we believe in getting major superannuation reform right. Superannuation reform, like all reform, works best when it is comprehensive, carefully designed and supported by proper consultation and analysis. Extending coverage to workers under 18 represents one part of the long-term journey towards universal superannuation. I'd like to thank superannuation funds and other advocates who've been working towards reform to see universal superannuation and a strong super system. Super Members Council research estimates that about half a million young workers miss out on superannuation each year because of this rule. They estimate that this amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost super contributions. For all workers, the younger you are when you begin working, the more powerful each dollar of superannuation becomes. The benefit of superannuation in your retirement is not simply the contribution itself; it is the power and the magic of the compounding returns over time. A contribution made at a younger age has decades longer to grow than a contribution made later in life. A relatively small amount contributed during your first job can, ultimately, be worth many times that amount in retirement. Time and compounding are extraordinarily powerful forces. That issue also has an important implication for women's retirement outcomes. I suspect that not too many younger workers are sitting at home watching the Senate today. But, if there's one thing I wish every younger worker understood about superannuation, it is the power of compounding returns. It might not sound particularly exciting when you're working in your first shifts at the supermarket, cafe or local shop, but the reality is that the earlier money goes into your super account, the longer time it has to grow. If anyone wants a straightforward explanation, the Moneysmart website has some excellent tools and examples that show exactly how compounding works. Once you understand the magic of compounding, you understand why starting early really matters. Last week I met with Dr Gemma Killen and colleagues from the Working Women's Alliance. I appreciate the time that they took to discuss these issues and the perspectives that they bring to this debate. They highlighted that young women are more likely than young men to work part-time jobs. They highlighted that women under 18 are more likely to be affected by the current exemption, and they highlighted the long-term impacts that missing out on superannuation contributions can have throughout a working life. We know that the super gender pay gap remains one of the biggest challenges facing our retirement income system. We know women retire with significantly less superannuation than men. Likewise, I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy of organisations such as Rest and the Super Members Council. Rest has welcomed Labor's commitment to include this reform in the national platform. Importantly, they have also stressed the need for careful consideration, consultation and staged implementation. The Super Members Council has similarly supported the objective, while recognising the importance of allowing businesses time to adjust. That is a critical point today, because supporting a policy objective is only one part of making good government policy. The other part is ensuring reforms are implemented successfully. Universal superannuation for under-18s is a principle supported across our party. As a party of government, we will take the time—Dr Mulino mentioned this in the National Press Club address that he made yesterday—to work through in consultation and through the budget processes. I very much look forward to being a part of this work within government and with all of the advocates to work through this issue. But let's not forget the threats on compulsory superannuation that we've heard just over the last week. We can talk and we can debate very well about how we want to improve the system, and we will always continue to do that. But we also have to think about the threats, because the super wars seemingly never end in this place. It's funny or it would be funny if it weren't so dangerous or, frankly, just flat out hypocritical. One Nation had the chance here to back workers and back a pay rise for award-reliant and minimum-wage workers just mere months ago. Yet where were they? They were nowhere. They flat out rejected the idea. They talk about measures to ease the cost of living yet don't back a pay rise for workers. They want Australians to fund today's expenses by sacrificing tomorrow's retirement. This beggars belief. These are the threats that we have to deal with while we are currently trying to debate how we might advance the system. We know, of course, that One Nation has a long history of not supporting workers in this country. They voted against same job, same pay. They called cutting taxes for all Australians 'a joke' but said that tax cuts for property investors were desperately needed, and they have called to get rid of penalty rates. Of course, the Liberals are a risk to all Australians when it comes to their retirement. At the Press Club last week—as Senator Barbara Pocock also identified—Senator Bragg referred to compulsory superannuation as 'a loss of liberty' and described super for young workers as super for cats and dogs. It's pretty easy to see whose side One Nation and the coalition are on, and it's not yours. It's clear that the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation are all the same in the end, and they will come after workers' wages, workers' rights and workers' superannuation. They all have the same agenda and are using the same tactics. Labor takes a fundamentally different approach. We believe that superannuation should be strengthened. We believe retirement incomes should be protected, and we believe reforms should leave Australians with more security, not less. Labor supports stronger retirement outcomes. Labor supports a fairer superannuation system, which is exactly why one of the most important things this government has done is to legislate the objective of superannuation. For the first time, Australia now has in law a clear statement of what superannuation is for. The objective is simple: to preserve savings, to deliver income for a dignified retirement alongside government support in an equitable and sustainable way. That matters because superannuation should never be treated as a short-term savings account, a political football or a source of funding whenever a new idea comes along. Superannuation exists for one purpose: to help Australians retire with dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work. By legislating that objective, Labor provided clarity to workers, certainty to superannuation sector and confidence for future generations of Australians saving for retirement. It also sends a very clear message about the future direction of superannuation policy in this country. We want to keep building and ending the super wars. As part of this, Labor supports continuing the conversation about how we expand opportunity and security for all Australian workers. But we also believe that reforms should be carefully designed, properly consulted on and implemented in the right sequence. That is why our immediate focus remains on the successful implementation of payday super. It is why we will continue engaging with unions, employers, young workers and the sector. It is why we will continue looking for opportunities to strengthen Australia's retirement income system. Labor created superannuation, Labor has defended superannuation and Labor will continue always to strengthen superannuation because Labor is and always will be the party of superannuation. Our record shows this, and we will continue to do so carefully and methodically to ensure that we have a well-supported universal system to ensure that this great Labor legacy endures for the very, very long term. 09:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia This morning I am proud to speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026, which was presented to the parliament by my colleague and friend Senator Barbara Pocock. This bill would ensure fair superannuation for young workers across the country, and it is a piece of legislation whose time has come. Corporations making billion-dollar profits, stealing from young workers—that ain't it, that ain't on, that's not okay. Yet in Australia, under the law as we currently have it, if you are under the age of 18 and work fewer than 30 hours a week, you don't have to be paid super by your corporate employer. That's cooked. That's wrong. That's so wrong. Let's be really clear: 530,000 young workers who are below the age of 18 work less than 30 hours a week, so they are not entitled to super in Australia right now. What will this mean for them? What does it actually look like? It looks like about $411 million that they will not receive in their superannuation because of this law, setting them back significantly in terms of their savings and security for the rest of their lives. This makes me so angry. We have had politicians in this debate contributing to this discussion. When asked about this issue, when young people, young workers, have said: 'This isn't fair. This isn't on. Where's our fair go?' the response of certain Liberal MPs has been to say: 'Well, if we pay workers under the age of 18 superannuation, what's next? Super for cats and dogs?' What a shameful, disgusting response to what is effectively legalised wage and retirement theft in this country. A lot of folks in this place probably don't take a lot of time to talk to young workers, to listen to young workers, about their experience, about what it's actually like to work in the industries dominated by young workers. But we in the Greens have, and Senator Pocock has, and their voices and demands are represented in this bill. Let me tell you, it's hard work. You're doing the cleaning up. You're stacking the shelves. You're dealing with the grumpy folks. You're working between your school hours, or you're working between TAFE—that's often the case for young carers, for example—to be able to put a bit more money in the pot to pay the power bill or to pay the grocery bill, often to the very parasitic corporation—or should I actually say 'fresh food people'—that you may be working for. These are the very corporations that proudly proclaim 'down down, prices are down' while your family is driven into the ground, because they cut your shifts unexpectedly or fire you after the holiday period is done. But you go back every time they put another ad out. You do as much as you can, for as long as you can, to contribute. You do all of this, and they don't pay your super because they aren't legally required to do so in Australia. There are some corporations that have, but the big ones don't. That's where the law should come in. That is where the government should act, because we know that if corporations are left to their own damned devices they will exploit their workers. I rather thought that a Labor government would understand that. You cannot make fairness and equality from an employer an optional extra. Yet, for so long, this government has sat idly by and let that be the case for young Australian workers. We have seen recently, at the Labor Party conference, the passage of a resolution calling on the government, and adopted by the party, to fix this problem. This is an urgent problem, and it is urgently needed that words are translated into action. We've heard contributions from MPs on the government side supportive of the idea. Words need to be put into action. The government needs to step up and take on these big corporations because they are ripping young workers off. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Very well pointed out, Senator Pocock. We have young workers in the gallery. There are folks right up there that may well be taking their first shift, or they're a couple of days or years away from doing that, for the first time. They should be paid their superannuation—same pay for same work. This is discrimination, and it's been allowed to go on for too long. It is not like these corporations can't afford it. Let me just remind everyone in here the profits of the big three in this space. Coles, in the last financial year, what was their bottom line—$1.08 billion? I bet they were quite disappointed that it wasn't $1.1 billion flat. It must be a tough time for the folks at Coles, for the corporate leadership. It's hard operating a monopoly that parasitically extracts wealth from the Australian public because they have an ability, at the stroke of a pen, to jack up the price of cheese whenever they want to make a quick buck. Woolworths made $1.38 billion profit in the last financial year. You're telling me they couldn't pay their young workers super? This is greed. Maccas had a global profit last year exceeding $13 billion. These are the corporations allowed by the loopholes in the law to get away with not paying young people their super. Shame! The Greens have a bill, right now, to fix this problem. Here's one we prepared earlier. I say to the government back the bill. Back the bill. Let's get this done. Let's get young workers the pay and the super they deserve. If there are some politicians on the fence about this, I would ask you to consider two things: firstly, that these massively profitable corporations are saying to Australian workers right now, 'Sorry, we're not going to pay you super,' and the government of the day is saying, 'Sorry, you don't qualify for compulsory super, so you've got to just kind of live at the whim of the employer.' Ask yourself if that seems fair to you. I'd ask you how you would feel, as members of parliament, if there were reform to your superannuation entitlements that meant that you didn't get paid super unless you turned up and could demonstrate that you'd done more than 30 hours a week of actual parliamentary work. I reckon you'd be a bit salty about that. I reckon you'd think that was unfair. Yet that is the situation politics has allowed to exist, and government has allowed to continue for young workers in Australia. I would also ask you to consider what it is actually like to work these jobs. It's hard work, disproportionately done by women. It's hard work in which not you're not only often on the front line of copping the frustration of many people with the corporate practice—the abuse at the till, the discriminatory comments. You're also then asked to do the hard, lonely work—the stacking of the shelves and the sweeping of the floors. If the air conditioner is broken or something has exploded somewhere and you've got to clean it up, you're the one asked to do that work. You do that work and you are, in some ways, relieved that you can do it because you can pay the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't hard. I was talking to an employee of Coles in WA just yesterday. He shared with me that they and their store understand very clearly why the cameras are installed in Coles nowadays. Overwhelmingly, they're not to look somebody nicking something or to generally keep an eye on people that might be buying things in the store. All the workers know the primary purpose, now, is to actually surveil the workers. There are really clear KPIs in place around how fast you've got to check things through the till, for instance—10 in a minute. If you do less than that, if the camera catches you even taking a breath, then you're pulled up. It builds this sense of anxiety of being watched constantly that is often the reason why people just cannot continue to take the work at these places anymore even though they really need the money. Many push through. I think some in here think that, if you're under the age of 18 and working less than 30 hours a week, you must be doing an hour here and an hour there, just for a bit of pocket money. That's not the lived reality of so many young workers. They are doing hard work, wearing the same uniform—often doing even the same tasks or harder tasks than those over the age of 18—because the boss thinks they can get away with giving the hard stuff to the younger worker. Yet they're not paid the same superannuation. I will comment and point out that still, in Australia, they're not paid the same wage either. We still have different wages in this country based on your age. The Greens want to see them eliminated. There's some work happening now to bring the minimum wage to those working in some industries from the age of 18, but we've got to wipe out age based discrimination in pay. It's just not acceptable. The government has a role to play here. The politics comes in because it is the Labor government who have decided to allow the loophole in the law to remain. The loophole must be closed. Young workers deserve the same fair pay and the same fair super. 09:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. Can I start at the outset by saying thank you very much to the Greens political party for introducing this bill. I do think it is an important issue that's worth discussing, and the coalition would like to, at first, put on the record that Australians should always be paid the wages and entitlements that they are owed. That includes young people. Young people should have every opportunity to be paid their entitlements, and they should also have the opportunity to get their foot in the door of the workplace in the first place. My concern with this bill is that the intention is very good, but, if you legislate an entitlement, you might also inadvertently at the same time take away an opportunity. I do think this is worth fleshing out, though, and I would hope that the Greens political party will take this bill to a committee so that it can be fleshed out in more detail. The coalition believes that our superannuation system needs to be flexible, it needs to be fair, it needs to be transparent and, it needs to be worked out in the best interests of all Australians. When I was minister for superannuation, one of the most important reforms that we delivered was abolishing the $450 monthly threshold. We did that with the support of the Greens, for which I was very grateful. That excluded many low-paid workers from compulsory superannuation. I want to point out what that $450 threshold was because I think it's such an arbitrary number. People don't really understand it. If you were paid less than $450 a month, your employer didn't have to pay you superannuation. It had been part of the superannuation system since the year dot—since, as Labor like to say, when they invented superannuation. They put that in as a deliberate design feature of the superannuation system. They said, 'If you are a low-paid earner, you don't have to be paid superannuation.' They did that because they understood that small businesses in particular that had people on a casual employment basis—maybe had somebody one day a week—were going to find the complexity of paying superannuation for those low-paid workers so onerous that they wouldn't employ them in the first place. That's why it was there. Unfortunately, it sat there as part of the superannuation system for years and years, overlooked by Labor when they were in government. It took a coalition government to overturn that rule, to make sure that low-paid workers were paid the appropriate level of superannuation. That wasn't a small deal, and we fleshed that one out at committee. The reason why we fleshed it out at committee was that small businesses were rightly concerned—still concerned—that even that small change was going to push them to the brink. It didn't, and I'm very pleased and very proud of that reform. It's something that I hang my hat on. That experience taught me that when we change the rules around superannuation we need to be mindful of what the consequences might be. This is not a dissimilar reform and why we need to carefully consider the bill. On the face of it, I agree the proposition sounds perfectly fair and reasonable. Under the Australian law at the moment, if someone is under the age of 18 and works more than 30 hours, they do receive superannuation. But, if they work fewer than 30 hours, they don't. The employer can decide whether to pay it or not. There are some very real questions about what that means in practice. Most young people under the age of 18 are paid an award. When you require an employer to pay superannuation on top of an award, that's an additional cost to the business. For large businesses, perhaps that might be manageable, and I know that Senator Steele-John mentioned some of those large businesses. But, for a small business, that can be quite an imposition. When you employ a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old in their first job, you're taking a risk. You might not be necessarily getting your value for money for those wages for many years, but you are investing in their future. So there are swings and roundabouts. We don't want to make it harder for businesses to employ young people and to give them their first chance, their first foot in the door. We want more young people to actually have a job. Youth unemployment is now double the national unemployment rate. It's now 10.7 per cent. When Labor came to office, youth unemployment was 8.8 per cent, so it is growing at a much more rapid rate. There are now 73,000 more young people unemployed than when the coalition left office in 2022. I think that that's something that should concern all of us. For many young Australians, their first casual job isn't about the pay packet. Of course, it makes you proud when you receive that first pay packet, and I think we can all remember it, but it is also about getting experience. It's about taking on responsibility. It's about learning to turn up on time, work in a team, deal with customers and take responsibility. It's about getting that first reference on your resume, and, importantly, it's about that first step in your career. So, when we legislate in this area, I think it's really important that we think about the incentives and disincentives that we create for employers to take on that young person. We don't want a situation where a small-business owner or a small-business manager says, 'I'd love to give this person a few shifts, but I simply can't afford that additional cost.' I think that would be a tragedy. We need to make sure that young people who want to work can actually get that job. Let me be very clear. The coalition will always support young Australians getting the wages and the conditions that they are entitled to. That is a priority. Make no mistake. I might add that Labor talk an awful lot about super. They talk about the fact that they own super. But what they don't talk about is the fact that superannuation belongs to the individual. It doesn't belong to them. The coalition has a very strong track record on making superannuation fairer and making sure it works for the individual—not working for government, not working for unions, not working for fund managers but working for you, the person that is putting their money away, whose deferred wages it is. When in government, we made super more flexible. We allowed Australians to catch up on the superannuation contributions that they might not have used, giving people greater control over their retirement savings. That catch-up contribution was a really important reform, particularly for women, who may have missed out on the opportunity to contribute to super when they've taken time away from the workforce. But, once they get back in, they have an opportunity to give in more, taxed effectively, helping their retirement savings and their balance at the end of their careers—a very important reform. That is a coalition legacy. We also made it fairer. We protected low-balance accounts from unnecessary fees and ensured that young Australians in particular weren't automatically paying for insurance that they didn't need. Making sure that low-balance accounts were fee free was a really important reform, particularly for young people, because you need that critical mass in your superannuation, without it being eaten up by fees, to get the effects of compounding. It was only a coalition government that made that happen. In fact, before we came to government, young people were seeing their superannuation eaten up entirely, to the point where they couldn't even get past a zero balance. You'd have a job when you were a young person, maybe stacking shelves in a supermarket, then you'd finish school and go overseas, and, by the time you'd come back to start your career again or go into another job, there would be nothing left in your superannuation, even though you'd been putting money away. That was disgraceful, but that was a deliberate design feature of the system that's gone now, thanks to the coalition. We also made sure that young people weren't having their balances eaten up by insurance premiums on assurances that they didn't need, that they never claimed on and that were cross-subsidising the claims of older Australians. We made sure that insurance on superannuation was opt in rather than opt out for people under 25, which was a really important reform for young people. We also gave Australians choice. You should never be told what superannuation fund you have to be in by your employer, but, again, that was the system that was invented by Labor. It was the legacy that we inherited, but we changed it. From now on, no longer can your employer or your union tell you what superannuation fund you have to invest in. That's outrageous. If you're going to mandatorily put away and defer 12 per cent of everything you earn, how dare somebody else tell you where you must invest, but that was Labor's legacy in superannuation. The coalition abandoned that. We also made sure that you couldn't have multiple accounts. This was the ultimate dirty little secret of superannuation funds. Many of them, some of the bigger funds, actually had multiple accounts within their own fund for the same member—two sets of fees and two sets of insurances. No wonder people's retirement savings weren't growing at a pace fast enough. We in the coalition got rid of that as well. We made sure that you only had one account. We made super much fairer through 'protecting your superannuation' reforms. Low-balance accounts—we made sure you couldn't be charged fees for switching funds. Again, that was another dirty little secret of the superannuation industry. When you changed from one fund to another, they clipped the ticket on the way through. No, that's entirely unfair. If you're a young Australian, you have a small superannuation balance. Every dollar matters, and the coalition has the track record to demonstrate that we have been the only party that has protected your rights in superannuation—lower fees, no switching fees and making sure that you're not paying for insurances that you don't need. That's the legacy of the coalition in superannuation. Most importantly, we also gave Australians better control over their financial future. We allowed a maximum number of members in self-managed super funds to increase from four to six. That means that self-managed super funds—people who want to control their own superannuation—have the opportunity to look after their entire family in a superannuation fund. Again, it's all about fairness and it's all about choice. It's also all about efficiency, though, because it's your money and it's your retirement. We also took action to make sure that Australians received the superannuation that was owed. The penalties on superannuation that wasn't paid were so high we found that many employers were holding back and not paying, even when they inadvertently realised that they had messed something up. The employment system is complicated. Superannuation is complicated. They go, 'Whoops, I might have underpaid an employee.' They held back because they were so frightened of the penalties. We gave them a one-year amnesty which put thousands of dollars into people's superannuation accounts. If people intentionally withhold superannuation, throw the book at them, I agree, but, if it's inadvertent because our employment system is so complicated and if the penalties are too high, you will simply encourage bad behaviour, and that means less money at the end of the day in people's superannuation funds. We also stopped duplicate accounts. I told you that dirty little secret of superannuation funds, but there was another thing that, I think, was really important, and that is stapling—having your fund move with you from employer to employer, rather than opening up a whole new fund every time you started a new job. Again, a dirty little secret of the superannuation industry that is no longer. Now you are stapled—it's very bad word, isn't it—to one fund, or one fund is stapled to you. When you change jobs, your new employer has an obligation to look and see what superannuation fund you already have rather than open up a new fund on your behalf, which is so much more efficient. I'll tell you the reform that I'm most proud of. Actually, there are two. It was a performance test—making sure that those underperforming superannuation funds had to tell their members that they'd underperformed, and, if they'd underperformed two years in a row, then they weren't allowed to accept new members. We were holding those superannuation funds to account. The ones that were hiding under the radar, surviving on the fact that compulsory super means that they get more money in the door every single month. It's disgraceful. Most of those superannuation funds have now merged with others or have exited the system. Thank goodness because Australians are richer for it. That was a very good reform. Labor want to weaken the performance test. Do not allow that to happen. We cannot go back to the dark days of superannuation where people sat in a fund that was underperforming. Most importantly, we have said that superannuation funds must act in the best financial interest of members—no more donations to political parties, no more advertising at football games that can't be justified as in the best financial interest of members. Every decision a superannuation fund makes must be in the best financial interest of members. This is the legacy of a coalition government and its approach to superannuation. We want it to be fair, we want it to be flexible, but, most importantly, we want it to work for the member—not for the Labor Party, not for the unions and not for the fund managers but for the member. Labor want to talk about superannuation this week. I can understand that; they've had a terrible fortnight. It's a terrible fortnight for you guys. I can understand that, when you don't like what they're saying about you, you want to change the conversation, but I'm happy to take on this conversation because the coalition has a proud legacy in superannuation. We put the members first. We put the retirees first. We put young people first. We put their interests first. Superannuation is not a national asset, as the Prime Minister said. It doesn't belong to him, it doesn't belong to the Treasurer, and it doesn't belong to the unions. It's not there for the Labor Party to use for whatever national priority it has on its agenda today. They're your retirement savings, and they should always be your retirement savings. Let me give you this guarantee: under a coalition government, we can guarantee that your superannuation will always work for you; it won't work for Labor. That's the coalition's superannuation guarantee. 10:02 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. I want to begin by acknowledging something important about this bill. There is a good idea at the heart of it. There is a legitimate question about whether a young Australian who works, earns a wage and contributes to their workplace should also be building superannuation from the very first stages of their working life. It's an important question, and it's one that Labor takes seriously. In fact, only last month, at Labor's national conference, we carried a motion calling for superannuation payments for workers under 18 regardless of the number of hours that they work, so this should not be portrayed as a debate between people who care about retirement savings of young workers and people who do not. The question before us today is whether this particular bill is a sound way of achieving that objective. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that objective without some unintended consequences. When you're dealing with something as important and as interconnected as Australia's superannuation system, it's really important to get the detail right, and Labor does understand that better than most. We built compulsory superannuation in partnership with the union movement because we believed working Australians deserve the dignity and security of knowing that a lifetime of work would be rewarded with a more secure retirement, and we spent decades strengthening it. The superannuation guarantee has now reached 12 per cent. We've legislated the objective of superannuation. We are paying superannuation on government funded paid parental leave, we've legislated for payday super, and we've increased support through the low-income superannuation tax offset and better targeted concessions at very large balances. Around 1.3 million Australians benefit from the changes to the low-income superannuation tax offset, including around 750,000 women and around 550,000 Australians under 30. We've legislated the survivors law, so that convicted child sexual abusers cannot simply use parts of the superannuation system to shield assets from compensation owed to victims-survivors, and we are working to strengthen the retirement phase so that Australians are supported not simply to accumulate superannuation but to use it effectively and confidently in retirement. That is a substantial reform agenda, but there is a theme running through those reforms. They have been considered. They have involved consultation. They have required engagement with workers, with unions, with employers, with super funds themselves, with regulators and with the people who actually have to make these systems work—because the superannuation system is too important to approach in any other way. That brings me to young workers. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of co-chairing a financial capability roundtable here in Parliament House, and we brought together people from across the financial capability sector, people involved in education, regulation, consumer advocacy, financial services and the community sector. There were different views around the table, as you'd expect, but one thing came through very clearly: the earlier we can get young Australians thinking about their financial future, the better. Financial capability is not simply about teaching someone how to make a household budget when they turn 30. It's about building the knowledge, the confidence and the habits that allow people to make good financial decisions throughout their lives. And those habits are best started early. If we think about a 16-year-old getting their first job—it might be a weekend shift at a cafe in Hobart, stacking shelves after school in Launceston or working in a tourism business on Tasmania's east coast during summer—that first payslip is one of those very important occasions where a young person begins to understand the connection between work, income, tax and saving. It's an opportunity to start learning what superannuation is, to understand that money going into their super account belongs to them, to see that it is invested, to learn about compound returns and to understand why fees matter, why investment choices matter and why keeping track of your super matters. That is financial capability in practice, and there is an intergenerational element to this as well. Younger Australians are rightly asking questions about housing, the cost of living, their future tax burden and whether they will have the same opportunities as generations before them. And superannuation is part of that equation. The earlier a person begins accumulating retirement savings, the longer those savings have to grow. So I do have considerable sympathy for the objective that this bill is pursuing. Where the government parts company with the Greens is on the legislation before us, because the bill does considerably more than simply remove the rule that currently applies to workers under 18 who work 30 hours or less a week. If it were all it did, this would be a much more straightforward debate, but it's not. As drafted, the amendments interact with the wider superannuation guarantee framework, and they risk creating uncertainty about the operation of exemptions and carve-outs which have existed for reasons entirely unrelated to the treatment of young workers. There are longstanding technical arrangements within the superannuation system, including arrangements connected with international social security agreements and other specific exemptions. The concern with this bill is that its drafting may affect the way some of those arrangements apply, where the employee happens to be under 18. That is clearly not the stated purpose of the bill, and I don't believe that is what the bill is seeking to achieve, but legislation has to be judged not just by intentions but by what its consequences are. It has to be judged by the words on the page and what they actually do. If we end up with exemptions operating one way for a 19-year-old worker but potentially operating differently for a 17-year-old worker in otherwise identical circumstances, we have actually not simplified the superannuation system. We've made it complex, we've made it more complicated, we've created uncertainty for employers, we've created uncertainty for the funds and for the regulators, and, most importantly, we've created uncertainty for the very workers this bill would be intended to help. There's another element to this. The bill restricts the capacity for future regulations to provide exclusions applying to workers under 18. Again, that extends considerably beyond the straightforward policy proposition that young people should generally receive superannuation on their wages. There may ultimately be a strong case for reforming the treatment of under-18 workers, and Labor's own national conference recognised that case, but that makes it more important that we get the reform right. We should understand how the change interacts with the entire superannuation guarantee framework. We should understand what that means for international arrangements, for payroll systems and for small employers and the consequential amendments that may be required. We should make sure that the young worker who is meant to benefit actually receives a simpler and more reliable entitlement at the end of it. That is what responsible reform looks like. There is also a practical question of timing. Payday super commenced on 1 July this year, and it represents a major change to the way employers meet their superannuation obligations. It moves the system from quarterly payments to contributions being made alongside wages. Employers, payroll providers, superannuation funds and regulators are undertaking substantial implementation work around this. That does not mean we stop reforming superannuation—far from it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 In accordance with standing orders, the debate is interrupted. Pursuant to order, we shall now move to government legislation. News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026 11

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026

First Reading 11 10:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland 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 11 10:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to three of 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 speech es read as follows— NEWS JOURNALISM PAYMENTS BILL 2026 Introduction Journalism matters. It matters to our democracy, to the health and cohesion of our communities, and to Australians who rely on trusted reporting to understand what is happening locally, nationally and around the world. But quality journalism does not happen on its own. It is reliant on skilled journalists, strong newsrooms and sustainable news organisations. In a 24-hour news cycle, people expect news to be accurate, timely and available—wherever they live. To deliver this, Australia needs more journalists, not fewer. Because journalists are the lifeblood of Australian news. They tell our stories, hold governments and institutions to account and provide Australians with the information they need. The News Bargaining Incentive is not intended to raise revenue. Its purpose is to encourage commercial deals between digital platforms and news publishers, as was envisioned under the previous News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. To be clear—the government's firm preference is that platforms do deals with publishers. News content contributes to engagement, trust and the overall value of major digital platforms. It enriches their feeds and drives revenue. And that is why platforms should make a fair commercial contribution to sustaining it. If they don't—they will end up paying more. The incentive responds to the imbalance in bargaining power between large digital platforms and Australian news publishers. That imbalance is particularly acute for smaller publishers, which do not have the same resources or commercial leverage as larger organisations. If digital platforms decide to pay the charge instead of making commercial deals, there must be a fit-for-purpose mechanism to return that revenue to Australian journalism. That is what this bill does. Any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive will be used to support the sustainability of news and journalism in Australia. The bill establishes the News Journalism Payment Scheme, which will distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations, supporting a sustainable, diverse and independent news sector. It will use a statutory, formula-based model to provide stable, transparent and proportionate funding based on investment in public interest journalism. Context A high-quality and trusted journalism sector is fundamental to Australia's democracy and the way we live. A rich and diverse media landscape keeps Australians informed, connects local communities, helps combat misinformation and disinformation, and supports social cohesion. Local journalists report on the decisions and events that directly affect the people they serve. They cover councils, schools, courts, businesses and neighbourhoods. But quality journalism is costly to produce. And the economics of producing news has changed. The commercial revenue that once supported news production is diminishing. Advertising income has been significantly eroded by the shift to online—a market dominated by the same digital platforms that do not compensate Australian journalism. Between 2006 and 2022, the commercial broadcasters' share of Australian advertising expenditure fell from 43 per cent to 17 per cent as advertisers moved their spending online.[] That decline threatens Australians' access to quality public-interest journalism. That is why the government is creating a statutory solution to support public-interest journalism and the journalists who produce it. Key Provisions of the Bill The News Journalism Payment Scheme will distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations. The Australian Communications and Media Authority administers the Register of eligible news businesses under the News Media Bargaining Code. News businesses will need to be registered to apply for a payment under the News Journalism Payment Scheme. There will be two payment periods following the collection of any revenue through the News Bargaining Incentive. Payments will be allocated according to the number of journalists an organisation employs, including freelancers. Put simply: the more journalists an organisation employs, the larger its payment will be. Eligible roles will include journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, and editors and producers involved in producing core news content. Using journalists as the basis for payment recognises the vital work they do investigating, analysing, compiling and reporting the stories that matter to Australians. A 20 per cent increase will apply for journalists working in regional and remote areas, journalists employed by small-to-medium news organisations, and journalists working in news organisations that serve diverse communities. This recognises the challenges of employing staff in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures experienced by small-to-medium publishers. It also supports publishers serving communities that are underrepresented in Australia's media landscape. Those communities deserve news services that understand their experiences and report on the issues that matter to them. Payments made under the News Journalism Payment Scheme will serve a clear and valid public purpose: supporting ongoing investment in Australian news and journalism. The bill will therefore impose obligations on payment recipients to maintain their journalists in respect of the payment received across the relevant period. The scheme is not about providing payments without obligations. It is about supporting journalists to remain in the jobs that are vital to the production of public interest journalism. Additional support for small publishers and start-ups I take this opportunity to thank the many news organisations, broadcasters, academics and other stakeholders that participated in public consultation on the News Journalism Payment Scheme. Their feedback has informed the final design of the scheme. One of the clearest messages from consultation was that additional support is needed for very small publishers and start-ups seeking to establish core news services online. That need is particularly acute in areas where there is currently insufficient news coverage—often described as news deserts. The bill therefore provides for a special allocation of five per cent of any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive for a separate grants program. That program will focus on supporting small publishers and start-ups to build their businesses and produce news for local communities. This support matters. Smaller publishers often operate with limited resources and face a disadvantage when dealing with the world's largest digital platforms. Yet they can also be the organisations closest to the communities they serve. They report on local issues that may never make national headlines and provide a voice for people who might otherwise go unheard. Additional support for Australian Associated Press Australian Associated Press plays a unique and vital role in Australia's media landscape. Through its wholesale news service, AAP provides its newswire service to more than 400 Australian news publishers, with more than 300 of those located in regional areas. For many news organisations, particularly those with limited resources, AAP's reporting helps supplement local coverage and ensure Australians continue to have access to trusted news. That work delivers benefits well beyond any single publisher. AAP supports the production and distribution of quality journalism at scale, helping to strengthen the diversity, reach and resilience of the Australian news sector. Under the Bill, AAP will receive a dedicated allocation of five per cent of any revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive, acknowledging the essential role it plays in supporting public interest journalism and news organisations across Australia. Conclusion News and journalism are critical to the proper functioning of Australia's democratic system of government, the health and cohesion of our communities, and keeping Australians informed. Australia must continue to have a free, diverse and independent news sector. But news is costly to make. The government's News Media Assistance Program is already providing much-needed funding to news organisations, including by supporting the ongoing employment of thousands of journalists across Australia. We want journalists to be able to focus on providing Australians with high-quality journalism without having to worry about the stability of their jobs. After all, it is people who produce public-interest journalism. We need more journalists reporting from our cities, from regional and remote Australia, and from communities that have too often been underrepresented. This bill builds on the government's commitment to Australian jobs, quality journalism and a sustainable, diverse and independent media sector. NEWS JOURNALISM PAYMENTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2026 Introduction This Bill accompanies the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, which will establish the News Journalism Payment Scheme to distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations. The News Journalism Payment Scheme will support a sustainable, diverse and independent media sector, and forms part of the broad package of Bills related to the News Bargaining Incentive. The News Journalism Payment Scheme requires consequential amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These amendments are necessary to support the creation of the News Journalism Payment Scheme and its eligibility requirements. This Bill provides those consequential amendments. Key Provisions of the Bill The Bill will enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to share information with the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, as the administrator of the Scheme, regarding changes to the registration of news organisations. Under the News Journalism Payment Scheme, news organisations will be required to register on ACMA's Register of eligible news businesses to participate in the Scheme. The provision of timely information by ACMA regarding any changes to a news organisation's registration will support the efficient and effective administration of the News Journalism Payment Scheme. NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 2026 The News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 forms part of the Government's commitment to support a strong, sustainable and diverse Australian news media sector. At its core, this Bill is about a simple proposition: if large digital platforms benefit from Australian news, they should make a fair contribution to sustaining it. Australian journalism matters to our democracy, informed public debate and local communities that rely on trusted reporting. But the economics of journalism have changed. Advertising revenue that once helped fund Australian newsrooms has shifted substantially to large global digital platforms. At the same time, Australians continue to rely on news businesses to create quality news content that requires journalists, editors, photographers and producers. That imbalance is not new. It was why the Parliament supported the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code in 2021. The Code was an important reform. It helped secure commercial agreements, supported investment in public interest journalism, and recognised the bargaining power imbalance between large platforms and the news organisations whose content helps inform, engage and retain users. But the Code has a limitation. A platform can seek to avoid bargaining obligations by withdrawing or reducing the availability of news content. That is not good enough. Australian journalism should not depend on whether a large digital platform chooses to carry news, and platforms should not avoid contributing by simply walking away from it. That is why the Government is acting. This Bill establishes the administrative framework for the News Bargaining Incentive. The purpose of the incentive is clear. We want platforms and news businesses to do commercial deals. That is the Government's preference, the market-based outcome this legislation is designed to encourage, and what will best support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector. The Bill applies objective criteria to identify the largest digital platforms with significant search or social media services and substantial Australian digital advertising revenue. It is targeted at those platforms with the greatest market power and the greatest capacity to contribute. The Bill establishes a charge and offset mechanism. In-scope digital platforms will incur a liability based on their digital advertising revenue attributable to the operation of a significant search or social media services in Australia. But platforms can reduce, or fully extinguish, that liability through eligible expenditure under commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. In other words, platforms have a clear choice. They can do fair commercial deals that support Australian journalism. Or, if they choose not to, they will pay the charge. This is not about raising revenue for the Government. Any revenue raised will be returned in full to the Australian news sector through the News Journalism Payment Scheme. The incentive is deliberately focused on encouraging deals. The offset is generous, recognises commercial agreements, and provides enhanced incentives for agreements with small and medium news businesses. That matters because media diversity matters. This reform is not only about major media organisations. It is also about independent publishers, regional outlets and smaller newsrooms that serve local communities and add to media diversity. The Bill encourages support to be spread across the sector, rather than concentrated among a small number of large organisations. Platforms will need eligible agreements with at least eight different news organisations to obtain the offset. That requirement reinforces the central purpose of the scheme: more deals, with more news organisations, supporting more Australian journalism. The Government has consulted extensively on the design of the News Bargaining Incentive. We have listened to feedback and made targeted refinements to better align the legislation with its policy objective. Those refinements include narrowing the charge base to Australian digital advertising revenue from significant search and social media services, strengthening the incentives for commercial agreements, and providing greater support for small and medium publishers. The result is a practical and targeted reform. It strengthens the News Media Bargaining Code, responds to changes in digital markets, backs Australian journalism, and ensures large digital platforms cannot avoid making a fair contribution to the news content from which they derive value. Public interest journalism is not free to produce. It takes journalists on the ground, editors, producers, photographers, newsrooms and a sustainable commercial foundation. Australians should be able to access trusted information about their communities, economy and democracy, told through Australian eyes and with an Australian perspective. That is what this Bill supports. The Government wants large digital platforms to enter into and maintain fair commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. Where they do, they can reduce their liability. Where they do not, they will pay a charge that goes back to supporting Australian journalism. That is fair. That is practical. And it is the right thing to do for the long-term sustainability and diversity of Australia's news media sector. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING CHARGE BILL 2026 This Bill accompanies the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill to impose the charge and establish the rate of charge that underpins the News Bargaining Incentive framework. The charge is set at 2.75 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue generated from significant search and social media services operated in Australia. The charge works with the offset mechanism in the Administration Bill, to create a clear incentive for commercial agreements to be made by digital platforms to support a strong and diverse Australian news ecosystem. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING) (CONSEQUENTIAL) BILL 2026 This Bill accompanies the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill to make a range of consequential amendments necessary to support the operation of the News Bargaining Incentive. These amendments provide the supporting aspects of the framework required for administration, collection and enforcement—ensuring that there is appropriate interaction with existing tax laws. They are an important component needed to effectively deliver the policy objective to support the sustainability and diversity of Australia's news media sector. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. 10:12 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the news media bargaining incentive package of bills. I start by saying that the coalition supports a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. Quality journalism, Australian journalism, journalists telling Australian stories—that is one of the foundations of our democracy. It informs public debate. It holds governments and institutions to account. It gives voice to communities which might otherwise go unheard, and it ensures Australians have access to accurate, reliable and diverse sources of information. Of course, this is particularly important in regional Australia, where the local newspaper, radio station or digital outlet may be the only local source of detailed reporting on issues which matter to those communities. This package of bills before the parliament establishes the news media bargaining incentive scheme, following the Albanese Labor government's decision to walk away from the coalition's world-first news media bargaining code. As we consider these bills today, it's very important to be cognisant of the work of the coalition in holding the digital platforms to account—ensuring that they could not publish Australian news content on their platforms without providing appropriate compensation. It was the coalition that first recognised this growing imbalance between the global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. It was the coalition which commissioned the ACCC to investigate the problem and to support our work to come up with a solution. When a voluntary scheme was first proposed in 2019 and the digital platforms did not cooperate, this led to the news media bargaining code. That was incredibly important in bringing Meta and Google to the table to conclude more than 30 commercial agreements reportedly worth around $250 million annually to Australian news organisations. But I have to make this very important point. In April 2024, Meta—pretty disgracefully, I might add—walked away from the news media bargaining code. It abandoned its obligations, in breach of the law. It threatened to take news off its digital platforms: Facebook and Meta. This could have been resolved. This could have been resolved in a number of ways. The code could have been amended, and this was very much the view of former ACCC chair Rod Sims. It could have been amended by way of a deeming provision. Irrespective of whether or not an applicable or relevant digital platform published news, the code could have been amended to deem that the digital platform indeed was publishing news, to stop them playing games, pulling tricks and compromising our Australian media sector. Unfortunately, the government decided not to try and bring forward sensible amendments to the code in light of Meta's reprehensible conduct. That was in April 2024. It's now August 2026. It's taken more than two years for this to be resolved. In those two-plus years, the Australian news media sector has really suffered because Meta walked away and abandoned its responsibilities. It breached the law. Of course, the government did nothing. So, in the case of Meta, these deals were abandoned. Then, in the case of Google—Google delivered around 70 per cent of the total number of commercial deals under the news media bargaining code—those deals continued on to a large degree, but they were allowed to wilt on the vine. That's not good enough. If there is an issue, Australian media is so important to our democracy and to our rule of law. The viability of our Australian media organisations, our newsrooms and our journalists is critical. They are under increasing pressure as more and more advertising dollars are drained from Australian media onto digital platforms. It is deeply regrettable that it has taken so long for these bills to come into the parliament. There was so much mucking around. I don't know what the communications minister and the Assistant Treasurer were doing for more than two years, but I will say one thing: the news media organisations have paid a very heavy price. They have lost very substantial amounts of revenue, and that is simply not good enough. We now have this package of bills: the news bargaining incentive scheme. This delivers a number of different components. I'm very pleased to say that, after a lot of advocacy from the coalition, digital platforms will face a 2.75 per cent charge based on Australian digital advertising revenue if they avoid making direct commercial agreements with Australian news media organisations. That was 2.5 per cent, and, as the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Mulino, explained, that would deliver about $200 million to $250 million in total revenue, by way of those commercial agreements, to the Australian media sector. That's a big concern because, although they're commercial and confidential, we know these deals were at least $250 million back in 2021. How could the government deliver a scheme that would take Australian news media organisations backwards? Treasury estimated that the total amount to be captured would be between $200 million and $250 million. More than $250 million per annum was captured back in 2021. From our point of view, that was unacceptable, and there was quite a bit of cage rattling behind the scenes in relation to increasing the charge. I am pleased that an amendment went through the House yesterday, which was agreed to by the coalition, and that charge is now 2.75 per cent. Platforms must complete at least eight commercial deals to meet the scheme's conditions and offset liabilities that would otherwise apply. I think that's been a welcome change. I do note the very positive response from the likes of Country Press Australia, which represents many small rural and regional media organisations. They were concerned about the original proposal for only four media organisations to be included in this scheme. This is an important change. When the exposure draft was first released, there was a lot of criticism, and it just again goes to show that the government did not do its homework on the consultation. The fact that it would seek to cut out bodies such as Country Press Australia, which represents so many important and vital small rural and regional media organisations and the like, was pretty regrettable. That now, of course, means that a much larger number of news organisations are potentially eligible to enter into a deal with the digital platforms. The bills have also reinstated the pre-deal cap of 25 per cent, meaning no single publisher deal can offset more than 25 per cent of the platform's total levy obligation. If any digital platform decides to do a dirty trick, like Meta did in April 2024, they will be required to pay a charge, the charge of 2.75 per cent, which cannot be offset, so they will be required to pay more money—unless we see more fun and games, and I'm not confident that won't happen. Those funds that are collected will be distributed in accordance with a statutory formula based on the number of editorial staff at a news organisation. We would like to see the definition of editorial staff expanded to include those who primarily fulfil the roles of providing commentary or opinion because, often at news organisations, very senior journalists take on the role of opinion writers as well as reporting straight news. So we would certainly like to see that definition changed. As part of this distribution scheme, five per cent will be offset for Australian Associated Press and five per cent for small publishers by way of grants. I think the other pleasing part of the scheme is that, apart from Google and Meta—and, of course, Meta has both Instagram and Facebook—we expect that, given the threshold that applies, which is a minimum of $250 million, TikTok will be captured as will Microsoft's LinkedIn because professional social media platforms are now also captured. It's been a pretty tawdry journey to get to this point. It's been very regrettable that these bills have taken so long to be resolved. Unfortunately, even when the exposure draft was released, it did not cut the mustard. That has now been corrected not just in the bills that came into the parliament. Again, more work was required to lift the charge, and that amendment went through the House yesterday, as I mentioned. I do want to note we are concerned about the distribution of grants to media organisations. We raised concerns because of similar media grants programs, particularly those awarded by the Department of Home Affairs. We uncovered that a number of those grants had gone to media organisations which platformed extremists and undermined social cohesion. So I am very concerned about the track record of the government. There's also concern about journalism grants under other funding programs. The Journalism Assistance Fund made grants available to advertising agencies, events companies and, frankly, media organisations that were not in the business of news and public interest journalism. There was a lot of rubbery due diligence done by the government in relation to some of these grants. There was also a very specific decision to exclude News Corporation and News24. I think that was disappointing because they also have many important newspapers and other media outlets right across this country, so that was most regrettable. So, when it comes to trusting this government to deliver grant funding with integrity and appropriate due diligence, I certainly don't have a high degree of confidence. I would trust and hope that, in relation to any other media grants that might be distributed through this scheme, the appropriate due diligence will be completed. Let me just reiterate that the coalition remains committed to ensuring those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We're not going to let big tech off the hook. We're simply not going to do that. That is what drove the coalition's world-first news media bargaining code. We were sick of seeing the digital platforms ripping off the news content, the hard work of Australian journalists and producers and subeditors and photographers and everyone else who worked so hard to deliver Australians their news. This is an important step forward in remedying the very significant vacuum over the last two years. We support funding for journalism, particularly regional journalism, which is vital for our democracy. We support a framework which encourages genuine commercial agreements rather than just dependence on government funding mechanisms. We are strongly committed to supporting Australian journalism and the importance of Australian stories being told by an Australian media sector, and I do hope that this package of bills does deliver what it's intended to do. 10:27 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia I think most Australians can agree that having good journalists around is very useful. They sit through council meetings most of us would struggle to get through. They spend days digging through documents. They turn up to court. They talk to people, check claims and work out what's happening. They come into this building and ask politicians questions that we may or may not be thrilled to answer. That is their job, and our democracy is much better for it. The problem is that doing all of that costs money, and the way journalism has traditionally paid for itself has changed a lot over the last 15 years. Advertising used to provide a huge amount of the revenue that kept newspapers and newsrooms going. Over the past couple of decades, more and more of that advertising has moved online, and a very large share of it now goes to a small number of global tech companies. At the same time, Australian news organisations have been trying to work out how to keep paying reporters, especially in smaller and regional newsrooms, where the margins can already be pretty tight. This legislation is about dealing with this reality. If large digital platforms are operating in Australia, making substantial advertising revenue here and benefiting from an online environment where Australian journalism is shared, searched for and consumed, we think it's fair that they contribute to keeping that journalism going. Australia has actually been working on this for a while. The news media bargaining code was introduced in 2021 and was genuinely world leading at the time. It encouraged digital platforms to reach commercial agreements with Australian news publishers and brought a significant amount of money back into Australian journalism. But we've also had five years to see where that system could be improved. One of the biggest problems became pretty obvious when Meta announced that it would not renew its commercial agreements with Australian news companies, which were estimated to be worth around $70 million a year. Under the existing arrangements, platforms also have the option of responding to regulation by removing news from their services altogether. We saw Meta do that briefly in Australia in 2021, and we have since seen it happen in Canada. That gives a company with enormous market power a pretty handy bargaining tool. If the rules become inconvenient, it can threaten to stop carrying news. The news bargaining incentive has been designed so that strategy no longer gets them out of paying their fair share. The new incentive will apply to major social media and search platforms with significant Australian audiences and more than $250 million in relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. For platforms that meet these thresholds, there will be an equal charge to 2.5 per cent of that relevant advertising revenue. But we would much rather see that money going directly into commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. That is how the scheme has been designed. If a platform enters eligible commercial agreements with Australians news organisations, that spending can be used to offset the charge. The standard offset is 150 per cent, rising to 200 per cent for agreements with small and medium news businesses. So there is a pretty strong incentive to sit down with Australian publishers and reach a deal. There are also rules to make sure those deals are spread across the media sector. A platform needs agreements with at least eight eligible news organisations to get the offset, and no single agreement can account for more than 25 per cent of its total liability. This is important because Aussie journalism is much bigger than just the handful of big mastheads everyone knows. Some of the most important journalism in this country happens in small newsrooms. It's the journalist covering their local council every week and knowing when something does not quite add up, or a journo covering a bushfire, a local hospital, a school closure or a development proposal. It is a reporter who knows the community they're writing about and knows who to call when something happens. When those jobs disappear, we feel the difference. There are communities around Australia that have already seen local newspapers close or shrink to a fraction of what they once were. Sometimes there is nobody left whose job is to turn up to the council meeting, follow a local issue for six months or ask why a decision was made. Those stories are probably never going to trend nationally, but they still matter a lot to the people who live there. That is why this scheme gives platforms an extra incentive to make agreements with small and medium publishers rather than concentrate all of their spending on the biggest media companies. The same thinking carries through to what happens if a platform decides to pay the charge. Every dollar connected to the news bargaining incentive will go back into the Australian news industry through the News Journalism Payment Scheme and grants. I really like that the payment scheme has been built around the people actually producing journalism. Payments will be linked to the number of journalists an organisation employs, including freelancers. The definition also reflects what a modern newsroom looks like. It covers journalists, photojournalists, data and visual journalists, editors and producers directly involved in producing core news content, because journalism has changed. A reporter today might be writing an article, recording an interview, filming something for social media, working with data or producing a podcast. Plenty of excellent journalists freelance across organisations. This legislation recognises that. There will also be a 20 per cent uplift for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations, journalists working in regional and remote Australia, and organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally diverse communities. Those organisations often face higher costs and smaller potential audiences, but the work they do is incredibly important. If you live in a regional town, you should be able to find out what your local council is doing. If you're part of a community that rarely sees itself reflected in mainstream coverage, there should be room in our media landscape for journalism made by and for that community. If we want those services to exist, there have to be journalists there to produce them. That is also why organisations receiving payments will have to maintain their editorial capacity over the payment period. The scheme is designed to keep journalists working. There is separate support for really small publishers and startups as well. Five per cent of revenue raised through the incentive will go towards grants for small publishers and new organisations trying to build local news services. That is a great part of the package because we should be thinking about how new journalism grows as well as how existing organisations survive. There are parts of Australia now being described as news deserts, where local coverage has become extremely limited or disappeared altogether. And, when you think about what that means in practice, it is pretty concerning. If there are no local journalists, who is regularly sitting in the council chamber? Who is following up when a government project is delayed? Who is covering the local court? Who knows enough about a story to realise that the explanation they are being given does not quite stack up. Social media can tell you that people in town are angry about something. A local journalist can actually find out why. The legislation also provides a dedicated support for the Australian Associated Press, with five per cent of revenue raised going towards the AAP. AAP is one of those organisations that most Australians probably do not think about very often, even though they come across its work constantly. Its newswire provides content to more than 400 Australian publishers, including more than 300 in regional areas. It does a huge amount of the basic reporting that keeps the wider Australian media system functioning, and recognising that role makes sense. The government has also made sure that good-faith commercial agreements entered into since 1 January 2025 can count towards offsets under the new system. The policy was announced in December 2024, so companies that responded to the announcement and reached agreement should not be disadvantaged for getting on with it. Meta has called the policy a digital services tax. Industry groups representing major US tech companies have made similar arguments. I'm pretty sure there has never been a company in history, when told they have a new financial obligation, that has said: 'Perfect! That is just what we were asking for!' They can make their case, but we also have to look at what has happened to the Australian media market. The advertising market has changed dramatically. Global platforms now capture a huge amount of the digital advertising revenue generated in Australia while news organisations are trying to fund the expensive work involved in producing original journalism. The government has come up with a system that encourages those platforms to negotiate commercial agreements and gives extra incentives for deals with smaller publishers. This is very reasonable and, for people my age and younger, the whole debate is happening alongside another massive change in the way we consume the news. A lot of young Australians are not buying a newspaper every morning or sitting down to watch the six o'clock news. We see a headline on Instagram; someone sends us a story in a group chat; we hear something on a podcast and we google it; we see a TikTok clip and then maybe search for the full interview. Sometimes the first hint that a major world event has happened is a meme about it or the Betoota Advocate making a joke. There are some genuinely great things about that. We have access to more information and more voices than previous generations could have imagined. But we also have access to a crazy amount of false information. Someone can make a very confident 60-second video about an issue they learnt about that morning and by lunch it has a million views. False information moves incredibly quickly. AI-generated material is becoming easier to produce. People are seeing real reporting mixed into the same feeds as advertising, opinion, conspiracy theories and whatever their algorithm has decided will keep them scrolling for another 20 minutes. In that environment, having people whose actual job is to check things becomes really important. Journalists make phone calls. They speak to the other person involved. They check documents. They ask for evidence. They have editors who ask whether the story stacks up. They can be held accountable when they get something wrong. All of that takes time and money. We cannot spend years worrying about misinformation and declining trust in institutions while ignoring whether the people producing reliable information can afford to keep doing it. There is also a pretty direct democratic consequence when newsrooms shrink. A journalist who loses their job does not just disappear from a payroll spreadsheet. There are stories that would have been covered that now will never be written. There are questions that will not be asked. There are meetings nobody will attend. There are discussions that will receive less scrutiny. And there are communities that will know less about what is happening around them. Governments should care about that, even when journalism is inconvenient for us—especially when it's inconvenient for us. I'm sure every politician in this building has had the experience of seeing a journalist walking over, and suddenly remembering we have a very important meeting somewhere in the opposite direction. But that is part of the job. We are supposed to be questioned. Governments are supposed to have their decisions scrutinised. Businesses should be scrutinised too, along with courts, councils, institutions and everyone else who exercises power in this country. For that to happen, Australia needs journalists who have the time and resources to do the work properly. Australia will be better for it. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate today. I understand that this legislation will pass this morning. I think we need to be really clear about the state of media not just in Australia but around the world. Things have changed rapidly in the last few years. As big tech, social media companies and big AI are flooding the zone and using not just the work of others but the spread of mis- and disinformation as part of their currency, we've got to be really serious about what we do to ensure public interest journalism survives, thrives and is defended. There are some in this place who have little regard for the work of journalists. There are some in this place who would like to pick and choose which journalists and which media companies show up to their press conferences. Those people are the same people who are trying to tear our democratic institutions down. When you look around the world, Australia is not unique in this. The rise of far-right politics is a direct threat to democracy. One of the biggest threats to democracy, and how you undermine it, is the undermining of the role, the job and the legitimacy of journalism. In order for democracy to be strong, to be trusted and to have authority to deliver what it should—which is for the people who decide, the citizens, the voters, the community—we need a strong public interest journalism sector. It is not a coincidence that the same right-wing forces that wish to tear down our democratic institutions are also the same people who want to lock journalists out of their press conferences. It is also not a coincidence that these very same politicians also want to roll out the red carpet for big tech and the billionaires who run AI. They don't want any regulation on big tech. They want to hand Australian land over to people like Elon Musk and they want to be able to pick and choose which journalists they'll take questions from. The main culprit that wants to tear down journalism and democracy in this country is of course Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation, and why is that? It's because they don't like people asking the tough questions. They don't want to be held to account for their lunatic policies that do more to protect the interests of big tech and billionaires than to help people who are struggling right now. When Pauline Hanson stood at the National Press Club and outlined her suite of policies, from crazy to bad, who did she attack? She didn't just attack migrants; although, she had a good swing at them. She attacked women. She attacked young people. And she attacked journalists because she doesn't like them asking the tough questions. Fast forward a few weeks later and One Nation is locking journalists and media companies out of press conferences. This is authoritarian stuff happening on our watch from people within this parliament, which is a democratic institution that only gets to exist because of the belief that we will be held to account, not just by the public square but by those that are skilled and trained and whose job it is to hold us to account. These bills goes some way to giving media and journalists in this country a fair crack at sustainability in a world where big tech wants to hoover everything up, make massive profits and shut out the real humans doing the real work and who ask the real tough questions. But it's not a silver bullet. If we don't defend public interest journalism, if we don't defend our public broadcasters and if we don't defend the freedom of the press to come to press conferences—whoever is hosting them—ask questions and expect that they'll be answered, then we are not doing our job. I think it is absolutely galling that somebody can be elected, come into this place, earn hundreds of thousands of dollars on the taxpayer's dime and then think they should be able to pick and choose who holds them accountable. It's arrogant, it's dangerous and it's cowardly. There's a reason that Pauline Hanson and One Nation locked journalists out of their press conferences. It's because they're running scared. The people of Victoria deserve to know what One Nation will do if they're elected. Guess what news the majority of people who live in rural and regional Victoria and the rest of the country rely on for their public interest journalism? They rely on the ABC, and of course Pauline Hanson wants to gut them. She doesn't just want to shut them out of her press conference but wants to cut them. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation are so scared that people will know what they really want to do that they think they can ban journalists whenever they like. It is a bad, slippery slope. Public interest journalism—the pesky questions from journalists—is a fundamental foundation to our democracy, and it must be defended. These bills are not perfect. There are elements that I think could have gone in a way that supported more independent and smaller players. But I've been pleased to help push the government to increase access for smaller players and independent players to these funds. The other problem we have in Australia is a very concentrated media landscape. The big players—News Corp, Nine, Seven West—dominate not just our television screens but the written word, the press and our radio waves. We need to find better and more important ways to support new players and media diversity in this country. I'll be keeping a very, very close eye on how this scheme rolls out. I'm disappointed that the government has failed to put on the table a mechanism for forcing AI and big tech, who are using AI technology to hoover up the content of journalists and news organisations for their own profits—they're not paying a cent. That is not covered in these bills. AI is not tackled in this piece of legislation, and it should have been. The government is now on notice because it's not just social media companies that are taking the work of journalists, flogging it off on their own platforms and not paying a cent; AI is doing it every day. We need a mechanism to force the big-tech companies to pay Australian journalists and creators for the work that they are stealing. Big tech has become so humongous. These big-tech companies, these big AI companies, have become so humongous that it's near impossible for an Australian media company to have a fair go in any negotiation—and that is only going to continue to get worse. The Australian government has to do something about that quick smart. These companies are mostly US companies. Look at the trust deficit in the United States right now amongst their public—the trust deficit in politics, media and news. It is rock bottom. We cannot afford to allow that to happen here—it already is, arguably, and we have to stop continuing down that US path. I urge the government: don't sit on your hands waiting for some silver bullet. You're going to have to do the hard work. It's taken years for the government to put this on the table, and it's cost journalists jobs in Australia already. If you roll over for the big AI companies, it's going to be very, very hard to get things back on track. I know the government is currently trying to work through those issues, but I am fearful that you're not strong enough to stand up to big AI. I am fearful of that. I don't think you've got the guts, but I want to be proven wrong. I want to see this government work with this parliament to stand up to AI and force them to pay for the work that they are stealing. If we don't have public interest journalism being used, shared and distributed, then we end up with politics and media flooded with lies and rubbish, AI slop, misinformation and disinformation. Who benefits from that? The very people who sit in this corner, who want to tear democracy down. It will cost us all. It's not just about the jobs of journalists. It will cost us the strength of democracy. You've got to stand up to AI, and you've got to stand up to the right wing who sit in this very corner, in this chamber, who are doing the bidding for big tech, for the big billionaires and for themselves. They are doing nothing about helping Australians. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) acknowledges that the biggest gap in this legislation is that it neglects to address the artificial intelligence platforms that are rapidly becoming the biggest tech companies in the world; (b) notes that artificial intelligence companies take the work of Australian journalists, news organisations and content creators to feed into their large language models without paying rights-holders for it; and (c) calls on the Government to urgently consult on pathways to ensure artificial intelligence companies are also forced to pay for the journalistic work that they take and use". 10:56 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The coalition is proud to support a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. It's important that a strong, independent, sustainable media holds government and institutions to account, gives communities voice and gives access to accurate and diverse sources of information. That's especially important in regional communities. Media has been under attack for years. As a former professionally trained working journalist, along with my colleague Senator Henderson, I've seen that change firsthand: the sustained job cuts and the threat posed by AI and big tech. Niche media and public interest journalism are important because at the end of the communication line are the audiences—Australians—who rely on that information, and they mustn't be shortchanged. Quality journalism is the backbone of an informed, connected Australia, and nowhere is that more true than in regional and remote communities. Local newsrooms cover everything that national outlets overlook, from local meetings to court cases and community events. In doing so, they keep local democracy accountable and communities connected. They cover the stories that are important to the people in those local communities. It is local media that Australians trust most and rely on for potentially life-saving information during disasters, floods, cyclones, fires or local emergencies, because the coverage comes from people who know the area. It is local media that understands what residents actually need to know, and they have the bandwidth to provide that critical information. As newsroom capacity across the country continues to shrink, with dozens of communities now classified as 'news deserts', we must ensure digital platforms contribute fairly to the journalism they profit from, helping sustain the regional and independent outlets that so many in Australia depend on. But we are here today because the Albanese government abandoned the coalition's news media bargaining code unnecessarily, and it has taken years to get here. That is on Labor. These bills create a new news media bargaining incentive following the Albanese government's decision to abandon the coalition's news media bargaining code. The coalition laid the groundwork for this original framework. In 2019, the coalition asked the ACCC to tackle the growing imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers who were having their content used without being paid as they should have been. When voluntary negotiations failed, the coalition delivered the world-leading news media bargaining code in 2021. The code recognised a simple reality: Google and Meta had become unavoidable gatekeepers between publishers and their audiences. The coalition's code delivered more than 30 commercial agreements, reportedly worth around $250 million to Australian news organisations. The problem was never that the code failed. The problem was that the government failed to use it and failed to monitor it. When Meta walked away from the negotiating table in April 2024, Labor chose to dismantle the framework rather than amending the existing code for changing circumstances. It took the government more than two years to resolve the impasse, and news media organisations and journalism, meanwhile, paid a heavy price. The government sat on its hands for far too long. There was no urgency from Labor. When it did act, what Labor did was change for change's sake. We know they're good at that: duplication of effort, wasting taxpayers' money and looking like they're actually doing something when in reality they've done very little—lots of effort, lots of money, missing on the big stuff like AI and big tech, and not much to show for the money or the effort. And, while that has gone on, those outside of Canberra are impacted, and not in a good way. If you ever wondered why Australia now has a $1 trillion debt, look no further than this Labor government and how it does its work. These bills establish the framework for the news bargaining incentive scheme and the associated news journalists payment scheme. I'll mention just a few of the key features. There's a levy that is a 2.75 per cent charge if the users avoid making direct commercial agreements with Australian news media organisations and reinstatement of a pre-deal offset cap of 25 per cent, meaning no single publisher deal can offset more than 25 per cent of a platform's total levy obligation. On fund distribution, any charges collected where commercial deals aren't made are redistributed in full to support Australian journalism under a statutory formula tied to journalist numbers, with five per cent set aside for grants to small publishers and five per cent for the Australian Associated Press. The scheme applies to major digital platforms earning $250 million or more per year—currently, Google, Meta, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Microsoft's LinkedIn. Professional networking platforms like LinkedIn are now captured. A problem, though, that should have been obvious is that AI platforms are excluded. Labor is asleep at the wheel on AI and its impacts and implications—on everything. The scheme depends on accurately calculating Australian digital advertising revenue. If revenue is understated, liabilities are understated and support for Australian journalism is diminished in turn. The Australian Taxation Office has the powers needed to verify revenue claims and prevent avoidance. Big techs must be held accountable, and that starts with properly measuring their revenue so Australian journalism is protected for generations to come. The coalition remains committed to ensuring that those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We support sustainable funding for journalism, particularly for regional journalism, which is vital to our democracy, and a framework that encourages genuine commercial agreements rather than depending on government funding mechanisms. While we did not back the government's original proposal, we are pleased the coalition's work in rattling the cage has delivered a strengthened news incentive scheme with an increased charge of 2.75 per cent. The objective of these bills is clear: a strong, diverse and independent Australian media sector that can continue to serve Australians for generations to come. 11:04 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Journalism is an essential pillar of Australian democracy, helping to strengthen social cohesion and uphold democratic accountability. But quality journalism is costly to produce. While the commercial revenue that has traditionally supported news production has declined, digital advertising has shifted to a small number of global platforms like Facebook and Google. These global players now collect massive digital advertising revenue while many Aussie news businesses remain under financial pressure. That just isn't right, and it isn't fair. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, reducing media diversity, public-interest journalism and democratic accountability. Without media diversity and public-interest journalism, our democracy grinds to a halt and people can't easily find news reporting based on facts without plugging an agenda. We've seen it happen overseas. Australians can't afford to only get their news from shock jock, uninformed YouTubers instead of qualified rational journalists. That's a recipe for disaster, a disaster for our critical thinking skills, for us as individuals and for us as a democratic country. So how do we fix the problem? We have to fix the bargaining imbalance between platforms and Australian news businesses. The News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills tackle that bargaining imbalance through a carrot-and-stick model. These bills finally crack down on the platforms and push them into doing the right thing—making commercial agreements with Australian news publishers. This means platforms like Facebook pay Aussie news publishers in return for making money off their content. It seems pretty fair, I reckon. Essentially, digital platforms like Facebook will be charged 2.75 per cent of their digital advertising revenue attributable to Australia, but platforms can reduce this charge and offset it through eligible commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. In other words, either they do the right thing and make deals or they have to pay up. If platforms make money from Australian news, they should help sustain it either by investing directly through commercial agreements or by paying the incentive charge. These agreements are expected to deliver around $225 million to $275 million each year to support public-interest journalism and Australians' access to quality news and local reporting. Any revenue collected through this incentive charge will be returned in full to the Australian news industry, and this will help sustain a diverse news ecosystem and ensure Australians continue to have access to quality news and local reporting. Payments to the news sector will be allocated based on the number of journalists an organisation employees, recognising that the more journalists employed, the greater the investment in public-interest journalism. But what I love about this bill is that it's also designed to help the small publishers that don't have many journos employed yet. Five per cent of the revenue will be dedicated to a separate grants program focused on supporting small publishers and start-ups to grow their businesses and produce news for local communities. It's designed to help grow our news sector so that it's more diverse. I've spoken with many amazing organisations over the years who have pushed for changes like this—organisations like LINA. I also want to call out and celebrate that a 20 per cent uplift will apply for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations in regional and remote Australia. It'll also apply to news organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This recognises how hard it is to employ journalists in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures facing smaller and community focused publishers. It is a massive win for all our journalists and news organisations down in Tassie. I also want to recognise that these bills are the result of a heap of work over a number of years. Public consultation occurred back in 2025 and on the exposure draft legislation earlier this year. I want to call out the amazing work of the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, and Assistant Treasurer, Dan Mulino. I also want to call out both of their respective departments and the public servants who helped navigate the complex beast and their persistence over many years to make it happen. These bills are a really good news story, helping the Australian journalism sector and our broader democracy whilst holding the international digital platforms to account. To the digital platforms I say do the right thing and enter into commercial deals with our Aussie news publishers, and to my fellow senators I say support the bill, support commercial investment in Australian journalism and help a secure, sustainable, diverse and independent news media industry for the future. 11:10 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to speak against the News Media Bargaining Charge Bill and the consequential amendments. This is not the first time. We've been here before. In 2021, the news media bargaining code promised to rebalance the relationship between platforms and publishers and that it would sustain journalism across the country. What actually happened? The money went to the three or four biggest incumbents already dominating the market. The political establishment in this building loves the mainstream media. Whether you're from the left or you're from the right, there's a news outlet for you. What they hate are the independent platforms and podcasters because they owe nothing to no-one, as they say. This should tell everyone in this building what they need to know about this bill. This is just a subsidy dressed up as a bargaining mechanism. There's no requirement for a single dollar to be pushed back towards public interest journalism. There's no transparency mechanism. There's no public interest test on spending. As I said, the money flows to the big incumbents not the struggling local small outfits. Smaller publishers receive fragments. Some receive nothing at all. There's no requirement that the money goes towards actual journalism. In fact, the inclination is that it just tips into general revenue where it could go for shareholder returns or executive largesse. This also assumes that the legacy media is inherently more valuable than it demonstrably is. It's absolutely laughable to suggest that the legacy media retains some sort of unique, irreplaceable democratic value that justifies government intervention on its behalf. It's just comical to suggest that. The assumption that the legacy media provides a superior democratic value is therefore highly contestable, and the internet and the digitisation of the market have diversified the public debate, breaking the monopoly on the debate which was previously held by the old world media, leading to the emergence of new dedicated influencers and podcasters. This bill is really nothing more than a legislative attempt to put that monopoly back together. Government should be encouraging innovation and ensuring that digital markets remain competitive based on merit rather than engineered bailouts. It rewards decline rather than adaptation. The scheme was triggered specifically because platforms concluded news content wasn't commercially worth carrying. There's no opt out for hosting less news, because the levy applies whether the news appears on the platform or not. This is nothing more than insulating an industry from a market signal that it should have responded to. This is protecting incumbent power not journalism, and the policy fits a pattern of government tendency to protect existing power structures. It's a rhetorical nod to reform while structurally protecting incumbent power, framed as being tough on big tech, who's actually preserving the incumbents's position. I won't be supporting these bills. I ask that other colleagues also look past the rhetoric and ask the question that matters, which is who's actually getting the money and why are we protecting an industry that is demonstrably withering on the vine. 11:13 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania Every day, Australian journalists do the hard work of finding facts, testing claims and telling the stories that matter. Reporters knock on doors, sit through council meetings, attend court hearings and spend weeks or months investigating issues that impact our local communities. They even sit in this place and have the hard job of making sense of what's happening and reporting back to their audiences through articles, live crosses and live blogs. Editors check the facts and photographs, and camera operators capture the moments that help us understand what's happening around us. This work is not free. Good journalism takes skill. It takes time and resources. It requires newsrooms willing to pursue the truth, to ask difficult questions and to stand behind their reporting. While the story can appear on a social media feed in seconds, the work behind it often takes days or weeks and sometimes months. The Albanese Labor government recognises that a healthy democracy depends on that work. Australians need reliable information so they can make informed decisions, hold governments to account and understand the issues impacting their lives. Strong journalism helps strengthen our communities, shine a light on wrongdoing and provide a voice to people who might otherwise go unheard. The news media bargaining incentive bills incentivise commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses, with platforms able to reduce their liability through eligible deals rather than pay the charge. We've introduced this because we believe Australians deserve access to news that is independent, diverse and locally produced. Debate interrupted. NOTICES 24 NOTICES Presentation 24 COMMITTEES 24 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 24 Report 24 11:15 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia At the request of Senator Sheldon, I present report no. 10 of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 10 OF 2026 20 August 2026 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip) Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator Kerrynne Liddle Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 10 OF 2026 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 19 August 2026 at 7.11 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Commonwealth Land (Affordable Housing) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2026, (b) the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 October 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral), and (c) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 October 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics Discrimination Commissioner) Bill 2026 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026 Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025 Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025 Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026 Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025 Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026 Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025 National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026 Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 Right to Protest Bill 2025 Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2] Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025, and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026. 5. The committee considered the following bills but could not reach agreement: Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 Housing Australia Amendment (Transparency and Reporting) Bill 2026, and Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. (Tony Sheldon) Chair 19 August 2026 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Name of bill: Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shacking during Childbirth) Bill 2026 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider the circumstances, extent of and impact of shackling during childbirth and arguments for ending the practice by calling on expert witnesses and lived experience for considering detailed evidence Possible submissions or evidence from: Women's legal and support services Health services Psychologists Correctional facilities Law enforcement agencies Lived experience Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legat and Constitutional Affairs (Legislation) Committee Possible hearing date(s): September 2026 Possible reporting date: 7 October 2026 (signed) Senator Lidia Thorpe Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutiny of legislation Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legat and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): August-September Possible reporting date: 2 October 2026 (signed) Maria Kovacic Senator GROGAN 296331 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add ", and the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 and the Housing Australia Amendment (Transparency and Reporting) Bill 2026 not be referred to committees". 11:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 October 2026". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Duniam to the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 10 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. 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. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. 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 Blyth, L. Sheldon, A. V. Canavan, M. J. Mulholland, C. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McKenzie, B. G. Smith, M. F. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 11:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 10 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES 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. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. 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. 5 PAIRS Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Canavan, M. J. Sheldon, A. V. Blyth, L. Smith, M. F. McKenzie, B. G. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.

 11:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2026". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. 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. Whitten, T. 21 NOES Antic, A. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 6 PAIRS Ayres, T. Hume, J. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Canavan, M. J. Sheldon, A. V. Blyth, L. Smith, M. F. McKenzie, B. G. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.

 11:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2026". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee 29 Appointment 29 11:30 The PRESIDENT 112096 A message has been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concurrence a resolution relating to the formation of a joint select committee on artificial intelligence. The House of Representatives message read as follows— Message no. 217, dated 20 August 2026—Proposed Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution: That: (1) a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) to lift Australia's resilience, productivity growth, economic competitiveness, and living standards; (b) the opportunities for the benefits of AI to be spread across Australia's suburbs and regions; (c) the opportunities of AI and robotics to drive research and innovation, new industries and business, and export opportunities, including in sectors of Australian comparative advantage such as agriculture, resources, health and medical research, advanced manufacturing, financial services and defence industry; (d) the rate and extent of AI adoption across the Australian economy, and the barriers to adoption, faced by small and medium businesses and family businesses; (e) the opportunities for Australian sovereign AI capability, including the measures required to build, retain and commercialise domestic capability, grow research and development, and attract and retain investment and talent; (f) the importance of data sovereignty, and the opportunities presented by narrow, domain-specific AI models trained on Australian data in areas of Australian sectoral expertise; (g) the workforce and skills implications of AI, including the adequacy of Australia's education system, job creation and displacement, and the effects on the quality and security of jobs; (h) the adoption of AI by Commonwealth departments and agencies to improve services for Australians, and the transparency and accountability measures that apply to AI use; (i) the adequacy of Australia's existing laws and regulatory frameworks as they apply to AI and whether there are any gaps that warrant reform; (j) the interaction of AI with existing intellectual property and copyright laws, including the use of Australian creative, cultural and media content in the training of AI models; (k) the risks and harms arising from AI, including fraud and scams, deepfakes and risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and vulnerable Australians; (l) the national security and cyber security opportunities to protect Australians, as well as the foreign interference risks, associated with AI, including the security and resilience of supply chains and of systems supporting critical infrastructure; (m) the implications of emerging AI capability for Australia's national security and strategic resilience, including the ability of regulators, the Australian AI Safety Institute and the intelligence and security community to identify and respond to emerging risks; and (n) any other related matters; (2) the committee present its final report by no later than 30 November 2026; (3) the committee consist of twelve members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator; (4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the committee's final report is presented or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier; (6) the committee elect: (a) a Government member as its chair; and (b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant; (7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote; (9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (10) the committee: (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; (11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and (15) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. The Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher), by leave, moved—That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. 11:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 31 BUSINESS Rearrangement 31 11:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion No. 634 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 31 NOTICES Postponement 31 Withdrawal 31 11:31 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for today. COMMITTEES 31 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 31 Reference 31 11:32 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2027: The role of social housing in Australia, including public and community housing, with particular reference to: (a) the economic and social benefits of investment in social housing, including its impact on housing access, affordability, renting, homelessness and housing security; (b) historical levels of investment in social housing, and public housing in particular, including the reasons for its decline as a share of Australia's housing stock; (c) the case for establishing a target for social housing as a proportion of Australia's housing stock, including consideration of what an appropriate target may be; (d) the impact of current Commonwealth and state and territory government investment in social housing, including through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Social Housing Accelerator, in view of the current scale of need; (e) the role of modern methods of design and construction in building more social homes and creating communities with a high quality of life; (f) the benefits of a steady pipeline of social housing investment for the development of Australia's modern construction industry; (g) opportunities for further investment in public and community housing, including consideration of direct public spending along with different delivery and investment models in Australia and internationally; (h) appropriate governance and administrative arrangements to deliver social housing at a scale to meet current and future need; (i) the efficacy of rent to buy schemes; and (j) any other related matters. Question agreed to. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 32 Reference 32 11:32 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Antic, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2027: The prevalence and use, or anticipated future use, of systems or technology including software, hardware and/or artificial intelligence to profile or analyse the identity, history, characteristics or habits of individuals in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) the nature and extent to which individuals are, or in the future could be, subject to systems which analyse: (i) biometrics, (ii) facial expressions, (iii) gait, (iv) posture, (v) mood, (vi) psychological state, (vii) behaviour, (viii) travel habits, (ix) spending habits, (x) socioeconomic status, (xi) communication habits, or (xii) political leaning; (b) the use or extraction by such systems of any data related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a); (c) the transmission, storage or processing of such data including: (i) whether the transmission, storage or processing of such data is carried out in Australia or overseas, (ii) whether the transmission, storage or processing of such data is carried out by third parties, including private entities or Australian or foreign government agencies, and (iii) the privacy implications of the transmission, storage or processing of such data; and (d) any other related matters. Question negatived. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 32 Reference 32 11:33 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2027: The operation and administration of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility, with particular reference to: (a) the extent to which the facility impacts investment in fertiliser production or importation, processing, storage, transport and distribution; (b) the facility's contribution to national food security, regional economic development and the continuity of essential services; (c) the accountability and effectiveness of financial assistance provided for fertiliser through the facility; and (d) any related matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Bell, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. 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. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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 Canavan, M. J. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Mulholland, C. Hume, J. Ciccone, R. McKenzie, B. G. Ghosh, V. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 NOTICES 33 NOTICES Withdrawal 33 11:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I withdraw general business notice of motion 589. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 33 Order for the Production of Documents 33 11:40 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 7 September 2026, all correspondence, meeting notes, briefing papers, minutes, agendas and other documents relating to meetings, briefings, discussions or other engagements held from 1 to 18 August 2026 between representatives of the Australian Government and Santos Ltd, including, but not limited to, any such meetings or engagements involving the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion 619, standing in the name of Senator Hodgins-May, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 27 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 34 BILLS Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026 34

Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026

First Reading 34 11:43 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes. Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026. Question agreed to. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 34 11:44 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Introduction I rise to commend this bill to the Senate. The amendments proposed in the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026 are sensible and non-controversial, but they are also meaningful improvements that will advance Australia's mission to uphold and enhance human rights -both here and around the world. Organ trafficking is a uniquely appalling violation of the dignity of the individual, defined by the unethical removal, transfer, or commercialisation of human organs for transplantation outside of legal frameworks. The matter of organ harvesting and trafficking has been the subject of discussion and inquiry over many years. Features of this bill derive primarily from inquiry and recommendations made by the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism, which wastabled in November 2018. This report recommended a mandatory reporting scheme, where medical professionals would carry an obligation to report any knowledge or suspicion of a commercial transplant taking place. It is, however, important to balance the need to report data that can be used to counter organ trafficking practices internationally with the need to preserve an individual's right to reasonable medical privacy. That is why this bill proposes the mandatory reporting of overseas transplants be undertaken on arrival into Australia via the Incoming Passenger Card. What the bill does The amendments provided for in this bill: add a requirement to Australia's migration framework, via additional questions on the Incoming Passenger Card, that requires mandatory disclosures from all persons seeking entry to Australia of any organ transplants outside Australia within the last five years; and where a transplant is disclosed, the individual will be required to report the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred, and the town and/or city and country of the facility. The resulting data will then be made available to the responsible Minister, who will be required to table an annual report in the Parliament detailing: the number of times persons entering Australia have answered that they received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years; and the town or city and country where the organ transplant took place, and the number of times each place was specified. These measures are purposefully designed to assist in global efforts to prevent organ trafficking. Australia's approach thus far In 2005, the Australian Government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and, in 2013, strengthened the Commonwealth Criminal Code by introducing four stand-alone organ trafficking offences. Australia's organ trafficking offences criminalise the movement of people to, from, or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs. An organ does not have to be removed for an organ trafficking offence to be committed. In addition, Australia has several non-legislative measures in place to complement the legal framework and ensure a holistic approach to address organ trafficking. The Australian Government conducts training programs for officials in law enforcement, immigration compliance, the Fair Work Ombudsman, and diplomatic and consular positions, to increase awareness of the indicators of organ trafficking. The Commonwealth Criminal Code also stipulates that organ transplant tourism constitutes an organ trafficking offence if a person organised or facilitated the transport, or proposed transport, of the donor to, from or within Australia. The incidence of organ harvesting and trafficking When organs are provided to recipients through illicit means of coercion or compulsion, the result is a tragedy in which one human life is prized more than another. This represents an egregious attack on the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment contained within it that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Every time a person is pressured to sell an organ to another, or when a prisoner of conscience is executed and their organs harvested, this principle of universal human equality and dignity is transgressed. Importantly, the clandestine nature of both harvesting and trafficking makes the trade in human organs difficult to quantify. However, concerns about the occurrence and scale of organ trafficking are justified given the significant imbalance between the number of patients globally who are awaiting an organ transplant and the limited availability of consensual, legal organs for transplantation. Several recent events have made the need for remedies to this international crime more urgent. In September 2021, the Australian Government responded to the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism report, describing the issue of organ trafficking and related crimes as "a complex, evolving problem, encompassing many countries". This evidence—procured from a variety of global bodies, governments, and NGOs—coincides with increasing reports and examples of organ trafficking and harvesting across the world, with concern the scale of the activity is more widespread than previously imagined. Importantly, the bill fulfils a number of recommendations of the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism report, including: recommendation 2—the need to monitor transplantation practices of other countries with regard to consistency with human rights obligations, including with regard to the use of the organs of executed prisoners; and recommendation 4—the need for suitably anonymised data regarding the participation by Australians in overseas commercial transplants. Of relevance here is recent evidence provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by the Australian Government in response to questions raised about the Government's position on revelations regarding organ harvesting in our region. The Australian Government's evidence cited the June 2021 report of the 12 UN Special Procedures experts, which identified "credible evidence" that ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be subject to organ harvesting in our region. In addition, Deakin University has reported that the number of people waiting for an organ transplant globally outweighs the number of organs available for ethical and legal transplantations. This deficit is estimated to have resulted in a black market of more than 10,000 unethical transplants a year, or more than one every hour. Consistency with international efforts The amendments in the bill complement efforts taken internationally to respond to the growing prevalence of organ trafficking. In May 2021, the United Kingdom House of Lords amended the Human Tissue Act 2004 following passage of the Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill and it awaits debate in the House of Commons. The Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill prohibits citizens and residents of the United Kingdom from travelling internationally to receive material for a transplant that was obtained without the consent of a donor and a donor's next of kin. The House of Lords bill is aimed at preventing the rising prevalence of organ tourism, characterised as the practice by which citizens of a country that has a rigorous legal framework preventing unethical transplant travel to countries with weaker legal frameworks to receive an illicitly purchased organ. In December 2022, the Canadian Parliament amended the Canadian Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs and to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the appropriate Minister is of the opinion that they have engaged in certain activities relating to trafficking in human organs. The penalty for breach of the Canadian organ trafficking offences is 14 years in prison. While there are limitations regarding the extent to which we, as Australians, can prevent human rights violations abroad, Australia maintains a responsibility to do everything within our parliamentary mechanisms to uphold the inviolability of universal human dignity. It is not enough to be a signatory to international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Genocide Convention, without doing what we can to ensure the tenets of these conventions are upheld globally. The amendments proposed in this bill are a step forward toward that eternal and noble goal. Conclusion This bill is designed to implement practical and least intrusive tools to support global efforts in combatting organ trafficking. This bill should be seen as a sensible and timely initiative that adds to the suite of measures that have already been incorporated in the law and supports other non-legislative actions being used by Australian authorities. I commend this bill to the Senate. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Aged Care 36 Order for the Production of Documents 36 11:45 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Ruston, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than Tuesday, 25 August 2026, any documents or briefing materials including emails that record or provide the total number of people who died while on the National Priority System waiting list for a Support at Home or Home Care package during the 2025-26 financial year. Question agreed to. Climate Change 36 Order for the Production of Documents 36 11:45 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Henderson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than Friday, 28 August 2026: (a) all correspondence issued by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to heads of government and heads of state respectively concerning attendance and participation at pre-COP in Tuvalu; (b) all correspondence returned by those to whom correspondence was sent; and (c) a list of all civil society/non-government organisations who have been invited by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to attend pre-COP in Fiji. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business No. 635, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. 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. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. 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 Canavan, M. J. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Mulholland, C. Hume, J. Ciccone, R. McKenzie, B. G. Ghosh, V. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 Capacity Investment Scheme, Cheaper Home Batteries Program, Rewiring the Nation, Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme 38 Order for the Production of Documents 38 11:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Henderson, I move general business notices of motion Nos 636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 636 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, all documents from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water that have been provided to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy over the past three months that update him on: (a) the delivery of the social licence benefits associated with contracted Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) projects; (b) the status of CIS projects, including the execution of CIS agreements; and (c) the financial and fiscal impact of the CIS. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 637 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, the following documents which relate to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program: (a) all 'Ministerial Update—Clean Energy Regulator Battery Inspection Program Action Plans' provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date; (b) all Clean Energy Regulator battery inspection reports provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date; (c) the latest iteration of the question time brief with the reference number QB26-000014; (d) all correspondence received by the minister from Ms Roslyn Baker, Chief Executive Officer of Solar Accreditation Australia, concerning the operation of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program from 1 July 2025 to date; (e) all documents produced by the Industry Advisory Implementation Committee which have been provided to the minister and documents which contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the committee's work; and (f) all documents produced from the intergovernmental sub-group on batteries which have been provided to the minister, and documents which contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the sub-group's work. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 638 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Friday, 21 August 2026, the latest two iterations of a back pocket brief produced by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, titled 'Rewiring the Nation Details (EC26-000178)'. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 639 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than Friday, 28 August 2026, any modelling and accompanying or subsequent analysis undertaken by the minister's department which concerns the expansion of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme from 100 kW to 1 MW. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 640 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 7 September 2026, all email correspondence between the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, between 1 July and 31 December 2025, which concerns fires from installed batteries under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 standing in the name of Senator Henderson and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. 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. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. 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 Canavan, M. J. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Mulholland, C. Hume, J. Ciccone, R. McKenzie, B. G. Ghosh, V. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 AdStop 39 Order for the Production of Documents 39 11:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 21 August 2026: (a) any documents, notes, briefings and correspondence from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts to the Minister for Communications and their office, and the Prime Minister and their office, relating to the Government's proposed AdStop register; (b) all correspondence from the department showing any evidence that AdStop would work; and (c) all correspondence from the department showing how AdStop will function. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion 641, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 26 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 40 BILLS Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 40

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

Second Reading 40 11:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to reaffirm my opposition to this terrible bill. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 is a deeply flawed bill. I set out my reasons when the bill was last considered by the Senate in May, and nothing since has changed other than the fact that I and, I'm sure, most of my colleagues in here have received a lot of calls and emails from people that they are here to represent, raising concerns about the overreach in this bill and raising concerns about the government, without enough justification, having extraordinary powers over Australian citizens. I'd like to take some of the time I have left in my second reading speech to read out excerpts from some of the correspondence I've received from Canberrans. A concerned Canberran who lives in MacGregor told me, 'I object to the frightening level of overreach sought in the name of security with this bill.' A Canberran in Wanniassa said, 'Australia is not and has not and should not be violating our rights by stripping them away without oversight or access to representation if detained per due process.' A concerned Canberran in Gungahlin said, 'I do not believe powers this grotesque and dangerous should be available to any organisation within a democracy.' The views of Canberrans seem aligned with the Law Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and so many experts and advocates raising alarm at this bill. This bill, in its current form, does not have a place in our democracy. Today, I'll be voting on behalf of Canberrans and experts against this bill. Just today, I was at a press conference where Amnesty International and the Human Rights Law Centre and other organisations tabled a petition of over 50,000 Australians calling for a human rights act in this country. I thank the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, for his tireless work on a human rights act. He has introduced three bills that would establish a human rights act in this country. His latest attempt was modelled on the government's own work in the House committee that recommended a human rights act two years ago; that was unanimously backed by the parliament. In those two years, we've seen no moves from the government. It's when you see bills like the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 come through that you realise why the Albanese government thinks a human rights act is a great thing in opposition but not so great in government—because it'd be very hard to ram this sort of legislation through via guillotine and not have Australians not only take exception but assert their rights in law. I think this is a time where we should be saying it is time for a human rights act in this country. It's one thing having egalitarian ideals and wanting people to be judged on their character rather than on the colour of their skin, their age or their gender—but that's not in the law in this country. A human rights act would do that. I commend all those Australians who've been pushing for a human rights act, and I say to the government: you have 94 seats in the other place and you have a Senate crossbench urging you to get to work on a human rights act. Now is the time. 12:01 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus—all are victims of radical Islamic ideology and Islamic terrorism. More Muslims die at the hands of Islamic extremists than at the hands of any other ideology. Australia, Britain, America, Africa, Asia, India, Europe and other continents and countries are targets and victims of radical Islamic ideology. Iran sees tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of radical Islamic ideology, killing the Islamic caliphate's own citizens, yet this bill fails to mention Islam anywhere—and this bill is supposedly about terrorism and security. The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, set up after the Bondi terrorist attack, recently delivered its interim report, saying on page 8 that there is no time urgency for any reforms in relation to the Bondi massacre: No material or advice from any agency identified any gap in the existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent, or respond to, an attack of the kind that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. No Commonwealth or state intelligence or law enforcement agency has suggested that it was prevented from taking prohibitive actions before or on 14 December 2025 by the then current legislative and authorising framework. In these respects, no issue requiring urgent or immediate action has been identified. Any attempts to tie this ASIO bill to the two Islamic extremists who perpetrated the Bondi terrorist attack should be dismissed with extreme prejudice. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025—this bill—originally sought to make extraordinary powers permanent, removing the sunset clause, thereby weakening important safeguards designed to protect civil liberties, accountability and parliamentary oversight. We acknowledge that Labor has agreed to restore the sunset provision as one step to making it less odious. That's a welcome first step from Labor. We acknowledge many, many constituents across our country—thank you to them—who've pleaded with us to oppose this bill, including its many powers. We hear you loud and clear. Government has three core roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Everyone agrees on the importance of keeping Australians safe, and our intelligence agencies play a critical role in that. Omitting and ignoring extremist Islamic ideology, though, means the Albanese Labor government is ignoring all three core roles—especially protecting life. Islam is an ideology, a way of structuring society—just like communism, socialism and Nazism. It's often used to control through being extremely punitive. It uses control of thought, belief and action using fear, violence or threats. Examples of punishment include the suppression and killing of women, killing non-believers, killing homosexuals, beheading, caning, female genital mutilation and stoning. Radical Islamic ideology goes against Australian values and Western civilisation. It is not compatible with civilised Western society. Right now, in 2026, Iranians want civilisation. They want progress. They want an end to the Islamic caliphate and its Islamic ideology. Britain, France and many other countries are experiencing high crime rates, lawlessness, mass rapes, brutality and declining living standards due to Islamic enclaves that do not assimilate and that instead seem determined to change their new country into a British caliphate. Stop calling Islam what it is not. It is not a religion of peace. In fact, Islam is an ideology of punitive control rooted in fear. Tell the truth. Stop pandering to political correctness. Call it for what it is and restrict immigration. Protect Australian values, culture, laws and lives. Parts of Britain, France and Europe are now lawless. We need to be proactive and stop Islamic mass immigration into Australia, and we need to specifically name radical Islam in this bill as a real and existential threat to the security of Australians. I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins's words: Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry. Kicking out the 230 terrorists who are currently in Australia would be better than supporting legislation that impinges on law-abiding Australians' freedoms. Deport those 230. Send them home now. This is about protecting life, property and freedom, which are all vital for Australians' safety and for human progress. Yet many of this government's members of parliament, including its most senior ministers, actively encourage inhuman, anti-Australian radical Islamic ideology. This shows, clearly, that this bill is not about protecting Australians against the No. 1 terrorism threat to Australia, Australians and the world. It reveals, clearly, that this bill is about giving government agencies added control over Australians. Ironically, since the introduction of the original legislation in 2003, 23 years ago, only 20 questioning warrants have been issued. We know that ASIO did not use its full powers leading up to Bondi. We know that Liberal and Labor uniparty prime ministers Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese together removed and stole basic human rights and freedoms during COVID and in loosely worded censorship bills as recently as last year. The suite of control bills and policies in which both have had a hand include the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023; the Digital ID Act 2024 for government digital ID; the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the censorship bill; internet controls for under-16s; and the massive curtailing of cash. Did I mention the Reserve Bank's work on developing digital currency linked to a global digital currency? It was in answer to my questions at Senate estimates. Combined, these six initiatives and bills enable a social credit system to control Australians. To return to this latest bill, which reeks of control, if the Senate agrees to pass our One Nation amendment to specifically include and name radical Islam in the bill's provisions, we could reconsider our current position to oppose this legislation. Including radical Islam will show that Labor is fair dinkum about security. If not, Labor is not serious about security. Labor's real agenda is control of law-abiding Australians. We have concerns about many of the bill's provisions. Let me name some: forced questioning without criminal charge; no independent judicial approval process; expanded questioning powers beyond the original terrorism focused rationale, broadening the circumstances in which these powers may be used to matters involving sabotage, promotion of the broadly defined 'communal violence', defence system attacks and territory security threats; and reduced transparency and limited public accountability. The inclusion of 'communal violence', to use your term, is especially concerning because the government's definition expands this beyond violence to say: promotion of communal violence means activities that are directed to promoting violence between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth. That definition is so vague and so open ended. Some commentators have said that One Nation's stance on immigration, being to the benefit of Australia, leads to fear and violence in the community—that we couldn't protect Australians. One Nation's amendment will remove this vague definition from the matters towards which these powers can be used. There's another issue. Some aspects of compulsory questioning powers with minors as young as 14 have some merit, but I'll leave the last word to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who, in his second reading speech on the original ASIO bill in the House of Representatives on 27 May 2003, quoted Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich Marshal, at the Nuremberg trials: Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. Anthony Albanese continued his speech with these words: This legislation— referring to the original ASIO bill— is without precedent in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians … This was Anthony Albanese talking about the basis of today's bill. He went on: In fact what this legislation represents, indeed, is a threat from the inside. It represents a threat to the very democratic values which we say, quite rightly, distinguishes us from authoritarian, undemocratic regimes. Yet now, as prime minister, he wants to add harsher powers to control law-abiding Australians—to control! This bill erodes the rights of all Australians regardless of whether individuals have a desire to commit an act of terrorism. One Nation wants to protect all Australians. That requires specifically identifying and including radical Islamic ideology that drives Islamic terrorism. Once powers like those in this bill are introduced and made permanent, they're almost never wound back; they're here to stay. That's why we oppose it. What's the point of security with no personal freedom? 12:13 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to oppose the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This bill doesn't merely fine tune existing arrangements. It breaks in new powers and makes permanent extraordinary intrusions on the liberty of Australians which were always intended to be temporary. In doing so, it flies in the face of the rule of law. Let's be clear about what is being proposed here, about what these powers actually are and what they do. Compulsory questioning warrants allow ASIO to compel a person who may never have been charged with an offence or may never be charged with an offence to appear and answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Failure to answer in itself becomes a criminal offence. Telling your family, your friends, your wife or your husband about the situation becomes an offence. These are not ordinary investigative tools. They sit well outside the framework of the traditional criminal justice system. The original incarnation was introduced in the shadow of 11 September 2001 as a temporary measure to fill a specific gap in our security services. Parliament since then has repeatedly extended them under successive sunset clauses precisely because they are so exceptional. As it currently stands, the bill removes that sunset clause entirely, and I understand there may be a push to return that sunset clause, which is a good thing, but it is also, in the framework of this bill, a very small thing. Powers that were meant to expire becoming a permanent feature of the legal landscape is a problem. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary. History shows that temporary emergency powers have a long and chequered history and habit of becoming permanent features. Worse still, the bill actually expands the reach of adult questioning warrants. Currently, that framework is limited to espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference, but the definition of an adult questioning matter will now be broadened under this bill to include sabotage and, most alarmingly, the promotion of communal violence. There are other categories of attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to territorial and border integrity. Some of these new categories are concerning in their breadth and vagueness. 'Promotion of communal violence' is particularly elastic. What does it actually mean? What does it capture? Does it capture passionate political speech, advocacy that offends certain groups, legitimate protest or religious expression that crosses an often ill-defined line? In a free society, the state shouldn't be handed an open ended power to compel citizens to answer questions about speech or association that falls short of actual criminality. Vague drafting is the enemy of the rule of law. Citizens should be able to know with reasonable certainty where the line is drawn. This bill, on any measure, blurs that line and makes it very difficult for people to understand whether they could simply be detained and questioned against their will. The bill also retains the capacity to subject children as young as 14 to these processes. On its surface, that alone should give this chamber reason to pause. Yes, this legislation makes some amendments to prescribed authorities and reporting, but they're modest and they don't cure the fundamental problem, which is the absence of robust, independent judicial oversight. There always should be a tension between compulsory interrogation and the right to silence. That is something which underpins the very nature of our adversarial system of justice. National security is obviously vital, and I think no-one disputes that ASIO has a very difficult and a very important job. But security which is purchased at the price of permanent, expanded and coercive powers that can sweep up people who have committed no crime is a false bargain. The rule of law requires that the state's most intrusive rules remain exceptional, tightly confined, regularly scrutinised and subject to genuine sunset or renewal by the parliament, not just quietly normalised and not just quietly allowed to creep into the norm. So I simply won't support a bill that entrenches extraordinary powers at the behest of becoming ordinary. Those powers expand the scope with vague language and treat the fundamental protections of the law as optional. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary, and I simply will not support this bill. 12:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This is extraordinary, isn't it? We're seeing the Labor Party join up with the coalition to guillotine laws and ram them through this parliament without proper scrutiny on the last day of a sitting week. They're trying to hide it behind other business. They're ramming through laws that are going to supercharge the ability of ASIO to literally pluck you off the street, hold you in secret detention for 24 hours, interrogate you and force you to answer every question with a threat of going to jail if you don't. You don't even have to be suspected of anything. You just might be someone they want to talk to. They're ramming this legislation through to expand the reasons, almost indefinitely, for which ASIO can just pluck people off the street. They're ramming it through today with a guillotine to try and get their dirty business of the security state through and their dirty business of granting ASIO whatever power it wants. They want their dirty business rammed through under a guillotine while no-one's watching. Do you know what? Look around this chamber, and look at the speakers list, there's no-one from Labor coming in to defend this. It's indefensible. The speaking list has collapsed from Labor because they know that coming in and talking to this is like going for a bath in toxic waste with the public. The coalition, the ones who come here and trumpet about individual liberty and fighting against the state, are in it up to their necks. They agreed to the guillotine, to ramming it through. This is a demonstration, exhibit A, in what is wrong with this place. We're meant to be here protecting democracy. We're meant to be here protecting freedoms. We're meant to be here protecting people on the street from, let's be frank, this place—what Labor does in this place and what the coalition does in this place. Instead, this place is doing a job on the people of Australia and trying to do it in the dark. That's what the guillotine's about. That's why no-one from Labor will come out and speak to it. They want it to go through without anyone watching what they're doing. It's a downright bloody disgrace. The Greens voted against this legislation when the coalition and Labor first brought it in, in 2003. We voted against it when they tried to constantly have the sunset never set, to extend the sunset time after time after time, and we're voting against it today. We are the only party that has stood in this place not to back in ASIO and secret state and secret detention. We're the only party that stood in this place every single time and said: 'We're on the side of liberty. We're on the side of the Australian public.' We're doing it again today, and Labor and the coalition are on the side of secret detention powers. They're on the side of plucking you off the street and having you interrogated in the dark. Get this: if this extension of the power goes through, they can pluck you off the street with a warrant. They call it a warrant, but let's be clear: it's a piece of paper. And do you know who's going to sign off on ASIO's powers? People might be thinking: 'Surely, there would be a judge there, right? Maybe even a magistrate. Surely, there's someone independent of government. Surely, this couldn't be done by a politician, could it?' But, no, the person who signs the bit of paper to have you plucked off the street by ASIO and put in a dark room for 24 hours is the Attorney-General, a politician. That's what's being proposed here. Politicians can have you plucked off the street and secretly interrogated for 24 hours by ASIO or the AFP, and they want to expand the reasons why ASIO can do that. They want to expand it to include this concept of 'promotion of communal violence'. Read the definition of 'promotion of communal violence' in the bill, and do you know what it says? It says 'whatever the bloody hell ASIO thinks it is'—that's what the definition says. You could drive a bus through the definition. When we look at other countries, at history and at how we lost democracy and freedoms, it happens with actions like this. Governments say: 'We need to do this. We need this extreme power over you to protect you. We need to be able to decide whenever we want, however we want, whoever we want. We can just monster them to protect you. Don't you worry, it won't be you. Oh no, it's that lot over there.' Maybe this month, they're coming after people seeking freedom for the Palestinian people. Maybe next month, they'll come after some First Nations activists who are demanding their land back. Maybe next month, they'll decide to go full on against our neighbours and our friends in the Islamic community here. Maybe after that, they'll come after unionists. Maybe after that, they'll come after the Greens—maybe they'll put the Greens higher up the list. That's what's at stake here because that's what history shows us: you give governments these extreme powers, and they use them. You may not think they're coming after you first, but don't you worry; you're on the list. When will we say 'no' to this? When will this parliament not back in ASIO, the secret state, the security state—whatever the hell the government of the day wants. When will we back in the right of Australians to go about their lives and not fear their own government? If this legislation gets through, Australians will have a right to fear their own government—because whenever the government chooses to it can pluck you off the street. What happens in these secret detentions? I gave a speech a few months ago in this place about a woman who finally felt that she could talk about her experience of being pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest in the city. She had been fearing being put in jail if she told anyone about it—she'd been fearing this for over a decade. She'd been plucked off the street in 2003, and she'd been fearing that if she told anyone—her mum, her dad, her kids, her friends—she'd be put in jail. She could finally speak about it and tell me about it because she was going to take her own life, because she had terminal cancer—that's when she felt she could talk about it. She'd been keeping this fear inside of her for two decades that, if she told anyone about how she was pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest, she'd go to jail. It was the only time she could speak about it—and in her last moments on this planet what was in her mind was telling the truth about what happened to her and being able to finally talk about it. She didn't fear the consequences, not because the law had gone away but because her life was about to end. And Labor and the coalition want to extend these powers and do that to even more Australians. That woman was never suspected of anything; she was just a witness they wanted to interrogate. What happens under this law? ASIO decide your brother or sister might have gone to a protest, might have signed a petition or might have had a chat in the pub, and they think, 'Well, we don't suspect you of anything, but you might have some information about'—what is it—'promotion of communal violence', or whatever the hell ASIO says. Maybe you're thinking about doing some disruption for a climate protest. Maybe you're thinking about protesting ASIO—I don't know. But they think that there was a discussion there about promoting communal violence. They will go to the Attorney-General and say: 'Look, this is a problem. This person doesn't like ASIO; they're going to have a go at ASIO,' or, 'This person doesn't like Woodside; they're going to go at Woodside.' And they say to the Attorney: 'We want to drag him in and find out who they know, who they talk to. We want to get their emails. We want to get their socials. We want to drag them in.' The Attorney-General signs a piece of paper and, bang, you get a knock on your door, or you get pulled out of work or you get pulled over on the street, and they take you into a room and they can question you for 24 hours. You can bring your lawyer in at the start, if you can contact them—they don't necessarily give you any time. But if they don't like what your lawyer's doing, they just boot your lawyer out. You are there without a lawyer. You might be worried that something you say could get you in trouble, because you're not sure what the hell—there are no charges in front of you; you haven't been told what it's about. You're just being questioned. You say, 'I don't want to answer that.' They say, 'If you don't answer it, we're going to charge you and put you in jail for up to five years.' Then, after 24 hours of this—and I think they have to give you a little bit of sleep at some point, and they have to give you some water. They give you a bit of sleep, give you a bit of water, wake you up again and question you again, and they spit you out after 24 hours. You go home. Your partner comes out and says, 'Bloody hell, where were you?' You say, 'I can't tell you.' Your kids are saying: 'Dad, Mum, where were you? What's happened? You missed the soccer. What the hell happened?' You're shaken, you haven't had any sleep and you're in the same clothes you were in. 'I can't tell you. If I tell you, I go to jail. I can't tell you and I can't tell you why I can't tell you.' That's the law you're backing in here. Who the hell does that? Those are some of the most repressive laws you could do. Who could do that to a citizen? They don't even have to be suspected of anything. You lot want to extend this by extending the sunset clause, forever. You want to increase the grounds on which ASIO can come and do this. Is there any wonder you're trying to slip it in in a guillotine? I look at the speaking list, and there's not a bloody Labor politician on it. The only coalition member who speaks on it is one of— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to mind your language in this chamber. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I withdraw that word starting with 'b'. There's not a Labor member on the speaking list, and the only coalition member is one of them who has the actual guts to come up and say no. But the coalition machine is voting for this, and none of them are willing to even put their name to it and come and explain to the public why they're doing this. You can't explain; if you were to tell the truth, you'd say, 'We're craven, craven to the security state, and we'll do whatever the security state wants'. You've done it every time. The Prime Minister, the great shrinking man of Australian politics who, in 2003, when this legislation first came here, said, 'Never do that', said: This legislation is without precedent— I'm quoting him here; it's on his website, even— in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians. That's why he voted against it in 2003. Those were his words. Then he went on and he said: An ideological struggle in favour of democracy and freedom cannot be won by giving up democratic values, freedom and respect for civil liberties. This is not a new struggle. Way back in 1800, British parliamentarian Edmund Burke told parliament: 'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny'. That statement is as true today as it was when such a far-sighted legislator first uttered it. Those were the words of the current Prime Minister, a person who has shrunk in office to a degree that he's hard to recognise. The same bloke who said that in 2003—that these laws are a threat to our civil liberties and that they are the worst of tyranny—is now leading a government that wants to supersize them. And no-one from Labor has the guts to explain how that happened; none of them. Of course, their poodles in the coalition trot along behind them and say: 'Security state? No worries! We'll give it to you.' What's the point of you? Well, the point of you, it turns out, is to take freedoms from Australians, to take liberty from this country, to supersize the security state and to do it in the dark and under a guillotine. You haven't got the guts to actually have a committee discussion about this or to be interrogated in the parliament about your powers. You're happy to interrogate the people of Australia in secret and in the dark, but you won't even stand up in this place and answer questions in committee. That's what the guillotine does. What a disgraceful bunch of hypocrites you all are. We will oppose this law today, like we opposed these supersized security laws in 2003, like we oppose them every time you tried to extend the sunset clause, because the Greens fundamentally believe that the people in this country deserve rights to protect them against their government. Not only do we say it; we vote that way, we vote on principle, we vote on our policies and we're going to do that today. I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate rejects the bill and is of the opinion that the compulsory questioning warrant scheme is a draconian and unjustified departure from the rule of law that should be repealed". And I also seek leave to withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 3796. Leave granted. 12:34 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria First of all, I wish to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, who I think laid out exactly what is wrong with this complete power grab happening today under the cloak of darkness. Once again, this week, we are seeing Labor and the coalition team up to do a dirty deal to ram this bill, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, through the Senate today, with debate being limited to just one hour. That's one hour to debate the biggest expansion to ASIO's coercive interrogation and detention powers in more than two decades. One hour! That is not democracy. This is an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process, and people in this place, on both sides, should hang their heads in shame. I see they're not even in here to listen to this debate or to engage in this debate. If this legislation is so defensible— Senator Green 259819 On a point of order, the senator is reflecting on other senators' presence inside or outside of the chamber. Senator Shoebridge also made comments about people being on or off the speaking lists which were misleading the Senate. I'd ask the senator to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hodgins-May, can you please withdraw those comments. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860   I withdraw. Members of the coalition and the Labor Party know that these powers will alarm Australians. That is why we're not having a debate. That is why debate is being limited to one hour. That is why this bill isn't going to committee. This overreach is exactly what parliament is supposed to prevent: governments accruing extraordinary powers without proper scrutiny or without public debate. They do it while the public's attention is elsewhere. The public are grieving the fact that 230,000 people are going to be kicked off the NDIS. The public are grieving the fact that, despite years and years of advocacy to strengthen gambling laws and gambling advertising laws in this country to keep people safe, they got a dog's breakfast that won't work. People are distracted. On the final hours of sitting, on the last day of the fortnight, the government and coalition are teaming up for another dirty deal. Shame on them. This timing, of course, isn't incidental. They are trying to bury a deeply controversial expansion of secret state powers underneath other major political news. The substance of this bill should alarm everyone who cares about democracy and who cares about freedom of speech and the right to protest—fundamental principles to a healthy, functioning democracy. Under these laws, ASIO can detain and interrogate someone who has not been charged with a crime. They don't even need to be suspected of committing a crime. You cannot make this stuff up. You can be compelled to answer questions, and refusing to answer can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. That's five years in prison for failing to answer questions, and you haven't even been suspected of committing a crime. As my colleague Senator Shoebridge articulated so clearly, you are prohibited from telling your family, your lawyer or anyone else about what happened—why you were plucked off the street, why you were detained. Imagine those powers being exercised against someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong. How intimidating. How terrifying. Imagine being taken away, interrogated by a secret intelligence agency, denied the opportunity to speak publicly about it and face five years in prison if you refuse to answer questions. That's not the Australia we know. That's not the Australia we're in here to protect. These are not minor administrative powers. They go directly to the relationship between the individual and the state. A 14-year-old could be detained and questioned by ASIO without a lawyer and without court oversight. This should absolutely horrify us. The new politically motivated violence trigger makes that even more alarming. That phrase risks drawing legitimate political movements, protests and dissent into the national security apparatus. We've already seen the Palestine solidarity movement subjected to extraordinary political and national security scrutiny. Who knows where else this will go? Senator Shoebridge raised some examples, but what about welfare recipients? What about disabled people, who are the very people that this government has shown it is willing to beat down on time and time again? Well, let's see where these laws end up and who they end up interrogating. People have a democratic right to march, to organise, to campaign, to criticise governments and to demand political change. Freedom of speech is not just the right to say things that the government likes. Freedom of speech matters most when people are saying things that governments find uncomfortable—thin skins. The right to protest matters most when people are protesting against those in power. If people start worrying about whether participation in a protest could put them on ASIO's radar, then you've already begun to chill democratic participation. If that power can be exercised secretly, with limited ability for the person affected to challenge it, of course that danger is even greater, and it is unacceptable. This is why parliamentary scrutiny matters so much, and the fact that you've sidelined that today is an indictment. Today, Labor and the coalition have decided Australians deserve one hour of debate on this power grab. There is something deeply perverse about using the guillotine to rush through legislation that gives itself, the state, greater powers to restrict people's freedom. The government should be making the case for these powers in the sunlight, not passing them in the shadows. There is a particular hypocrisy here. In 2003, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke against the expansion of these sorts of ASIO powers—how much changes in 23 years. The Greens are trying to remove the worst elements of this bill, and we will oppose any expansion of these dangerous powers. National security should keep Australians safe. It should not become a back doorstep for suppressing dissent. The real test of democracy is not whether the government can exercise power; it's whether they're willing to constrain their own power. Today, Labor and the coalition are dismally failing that test, and Australians will remember this political cowardice, this power grab and this dodgy deal with the coalition—one of many this week—at the next election. 12:42 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to add my voice to the chorus of opposition to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Community members, civil society and legal experts share the Greens' opposition to the major parties' continued efforts in this legislation to undermine our democracy and our civil liberties. I want to associate myself with the excellent speeches from Senator Hodgins-May and Senator Shoebridge. These two parties, the coalition and the Labor Party, were not satisfied by screwing over millions of people this week. They want to tighten the screws even further. All you can do and all you can think about is how we can harm more and more people who live in this country. Why are you here? What is your purpose? Pack up. Get out. What we have before us are amendments that lock in and expand the worst of the extraordinary Howard-era laws that allow ASIO to force someone who isn't accused of any crime to immediately submit to secret questioning for up to 40 hours. If you're lucky, you're allowed a lawyer during questioning. But ASIO can get approval to strip you of that very basic right too. Where are we living now? Think about what you are doing. If you do get a lawyer these powers will still hamstring them. ASIO can redact their copy of the original warrant, prevent them from asking questions or boot them from the interrogation altogether. This is the gravity of what this legislation is going to do. How much time do we have, Senator Shoebridge? We've got one hour to debate this. The two sides are very quiet on this because they just want to push it through. All of this is without any judicial oversight of the warrant issue. It's just the rubber stamp of whichever of Australia's notoriously compliant Labor or Liberal attorneys-general happen to be in government and on the ASIO director's speed dial at that particular time. It's clear that these powers should never have existed in the first place. That's a view I know was shared on record by many Labor members in this place before they decided that they preferred the admiration of national security hawks and warmongers over protecting the democratic rights and civil liberties of ordinary citizens. The government's quiet move to reinsert the sunset clause is a symptom of their confused approach to these powers and this legislation. The Labor Party doesn't know who they are any more. That's pretty clear. It was reckless in the extreme to attempt to bake in the worst of the existing legislation's attacks on Australians' human rights by removing the sunset clause that should have seen these laws expire long ago. It's good that it will stay in, but we maintain that these laws should still be allowed to lapse and should be subject to rigorous parliamentary oversight and regular independent review in the meantime. In this spirit of recklessness, the bill expands the list of matters on which people can be compulsorily questioned to include the very nebulous 'promotion of communal violence' and 'protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats'. ASIO and Home Affairs told the government they didn't think the latter was necessary. We know who is going to be cracked down on by these laws. It is those fighting for justice for Palestine. It is those fighting for climate or for anything else that the government doesn't like. The submission of the councils for civil liberties to the PJCIS inquiry puts clearly the alarming consequences of these changes, saying that they create 'an incentive for the executive to conduct fishing expeditions against individuals who could not otherwise be investigated under ordinary criminal procedure'. Given the breadth of the concept of political violence, the councils are concerned that the effect of the division is to transform ASIO from an intelligence agency into a secret police force. This is what is happening here. You are making a secret police force. The president of the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties said a few weeks ago: The expanded scope of ASIO powers proposed in this bill could theoretically capture activities related to political protest and represents a massive overreach of emergency anti-terror laws that has long been warned against. But you guys never pay heed to any evidence or anything the experts tell you. You just do what the hell you want to, and, nine times out of 10, it is bad. It is bad for communities, it is bad for people, it is bad for migrants, it is bad for those who want to use their democratic right to protest, and it is bad for this country. History teaches us that the only reliable way to prevent governments from using such powers to suppress political dissent is for them not to have them in the first place. We know that suppression always comes for the marginalised and people of colour first, and it will again this time around. I am opposed to any effort to infringe on the rights of people to associate, to organise or to protest. The lack of transparency and accountability in this legislation falls far short of the basic democratic expectations. That Labor feel they can rush it through the Senate in just one day shows how confident Labor and the Liberals are in having normalised secrecy and national security excess over the last two decades, as they've marched in lockstep to the US drums of war. The Greens don't for one second buy the major party view that what is done in the name of national security should be done without criticism or care for the path down which the country is being led. So we will be vocal and we will be loud and proud against attacks on democratic rights for communities and people that live here. We will not shy away from that. This bill is, of course, just another example of Labor's slide to the right on democratic freedoms. We see it in their willingness to cosy up to the United States and its far-right leaders. While we say Australia should be a voice for peace and justice not a lapdog for militarism, the government are all too happy to put the imperial interests of our so-called allies ahead of the civil liberties of Australians. We see Labor's slide to the right in the culture of secrecy that results in Labor teaming up with the Liberals to evade scrutiny on AUKUS. We see it in the deals they cut—at least three we've seen it just this week in the deals that they cut. We see it in the deals that they cut, again, with their pals—who but the Liberals—to rush through legislation that is chilling political debate, protest, civil rights and people speaking up about civil rights abuses across the world, especially justice for Palestine. We saw it as Australia fell in line behind the United States and Israel as devastating wars were waged on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, killing and maiming tens of thousands, displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying entire communities. Instead of standing up instead of standing up for civil liberties at home and standing up for international law and human rights around the world, Prime Minister Albanese and his government toe the line for war-mongering countries and egomaniacal leaders. That's what the Labor Party of today is about. What Australia's defence and intelligence organisations need is more transparency and accountability, not the impunity granted by this legislation. At their heart, these laws represent a threat—a threat to our democracy and civil liberties. I'm so proud to join my Greens colleagues in voting against these threats to communities who want to use their democratic right to protest and to speak out and in voting against this bill. 12:53 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's been a pretty dire week here in the Senate, and I dare say many of the people impacted by the events in this chamber this week would describe it as diabolical. We have got disabled people punched down on. We've seen pathetically weak gambling laws rammed through this place, and, now, we are seeing, again under a guillotine—the third in three days—a bill that massively increases the power of the intelligence and security apparatus in this country. What's the common theme between all these three things—punching down on disabled people, passing gambling laws drafted at the behest of the big gambling corporations and creating extraordinary new powers for the security industrial complex in this country? What is the common theme? That's right—the so-called parties of government in this place. Let me give a warning to the parties of government. Firstly, if you rise to the head of a police force, a security group or an intelligence organisation like ASIO, you are primarily concerned with things like law and order, security and safety. That is an obvious statement. But let's be very clear about what our job is here in this place. Our job is to question when we get asked whether new powers are necessary. Our job is to ask the question. When we get told by the head of ASIO or the head of the AFP or the head of any of the other myriad law and order and security organisations that exist in our country that we have to give them new powers, our job is not to say, 'Of course, here you go,' as the parties of government do every single time in this place. Our job is to question the need and to balance a genuine need that people be kept as safe as possible in this country with the fundamental rights and freedoms that we used to go to war and fight and bleed and die to protect. That is our job in this place, and that job and that responsibility is being abrogated, as it is so regularly, by the so-called parties of government in this place. So, of course, here the Greens find ourselves yet again standing for fundamental rights and freedoms—in the complete absence, I might add, of a charter or a bill of rights in this place, in the complete absence of the rights of citizens of this country being enshrined in the Constitution, which is where they actually should be enshrined in a country like Australia. In the complete absence of those things, it is left to the Greens, as we do every single time, to run the balance argument, to run the reasonable argument. I want to associate myself with the words of Senator Shoebridge in his excellent contribution to this debate, as well as Senator Hodgins-May's and Senator Faruqi's excellent words. We should be really scared about what these powers allow ASIO to do. You can be literally dragged off the street for secret questioning, no crime required. You don't get a lawyer of your choice and you don't get a right to silence. This can apply to children as young as 14—kids! They get dragged out when they're walking home from school and dragged into ASIO for questioning. They don't get a lawyer that they might choose or that their family might choose. In fact, they may well not be allowed to tell their family what's happened. Certainly if you're an adult you won't be able to tell your family what happened. It'll be a crime to tell your family what happened, where you were and what you were asked. These are draconian, coercive questioning powers. It is a disgrace that in a so-called liberal democracy like Australia we are even thinking about creating and extending powers like these. Of course, the Prime Minister, back in the day, was right when he opposed these coercive questioning powers when they were first introduced and said: Its provisions— the provisions that underpin the provisions that we are debating today— potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians. He was right about that. But I'll tell you what—the office of Prime Minister empowers some people and diminishes others, and this current prime minister is someone who has been abjectly diminished by the office of Prime Minister. He has shrunk in office, as Senator Shoebridge said. He's a deeply unimpressive Prime Minister. A mediocre— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to be mindful of reflecting on other members of this parliament. Senator McKIM JKM On the basis that you were directing that towards Senator McKim— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 My apologies. Senator McKIM JKM I will indeed consider that. We need to understand what some of the detail is in this legislation. Let's be clear about who can sign the warrants here. The warrants can be signed by the Attorney-General. The warrants don't have to be signed by a judge, as is overwhelmingly usual in our justice system. To make the obvious point, the Attorney-General—so that I don't fall foul of reflecting on a particular person I'll say any Attorney-General—is a political appointment. The Attorney-General is a political appointment made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's how we end up with an Attorney-General. They're not an independent person who is going to dispassionately and reasonably apply the law; they're a political appointment. And yet it's the Attorney-General who can sign warrants. The Attorney-General—give me a break! We've seen what attorneys-general have done over the years. Without even casting my mind very far back, we can look at the case of Witness K—a prime example. We can look at the case of Mr Collaery—another example. Senator McKIM JKM And, as Senator Shoebridge reminds me, more recently Mr David McBride. And what about when we bugged the Timor-Leste embassy, which of course gave rise to the circumstances that Witness K and Mr Collaery found themselves in. Australian history is literally littered with examples of attorneys-general behaving in a highly questionable ways. Senator McKIM JKM Yes. As Senator Shoebridge also reminds me, they're doing the government's dirty work. Our history is littered with it. And then you bring in a bill that's going to let the Attorney-General sign a warrant. They don't have to suspect that you did anything wrong; they could just be putting the shakes on you. Shaking you down, squeezing you for information. This is absolutely police state stuff, surveillance state stuff. And people know that they are living in a surveillance capitalist society where you get surveilled by corporations like Coles when you go to the supermarket. They've got a contract with Palantir, one of the most evil corporations that exists anywhere in the world—one of the most dangerous corporations that exists anywhere in the world. They know they're going to get surveilled, that digital recognition software will be deployed. They get you in the aisles; they get you in the check-outs. People understand that's happening in the capitalist parts of our society, the big corporate controlled parts of our society, and people need to understand it's happening with regard to the state. Do you remember the absolute uproar when a former Labor government tried to introduce the Australia card? How far down the road to a surveillance state have we travelled since those days? Quite rightly, Australians back then were concerned about the government centralising information that the state held on individual people. There was an absolute uproar about it. Well, here we find ourselves, because of the curtailment of these debates by the so-called parties of government, where these laws are being smuggled through this parliament. There was no committee, no public inquiry and no opportunity for these laws to be scrutinised even in the committee stage of the Senate. Here we are, again, where fundamental rights and freedoms that Australians, fought, bled, killed and died to protect back in the day, including family members of mine and ancestors of mine who died in wars against totalitarian and fascist states. Here we are becoming one. It's pathetic. It's mostly pathetic from the so-called parties of government in this place, where we have a Labor Party that has completely lost its way, captured by fossil fuel interests, captured by Zionist interests, captured by the Five Eyes security— Senator Paterson 144138 Really? In the middle of an antisemitism crisis? Senator McKIM JKM Mate, you're captured by Zionist interests as well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Kovacic. Senator Kovacic 306168 Those remarks must be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Feel free to put the point of order. My issue is the disorder—yelling across the chamber. Senator Kovacic 306168 My point of order is on the comments made by Senator McKim. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator McKim, will you please withdraw those comments? Senator McKIM JKM I withdraw the comment I made about Senator Paterson— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 No, I don't think that was quite the point. Senator McKIM JKM Well, I don't know what the point was. Senator Kovacic 306168 It was both. It was in relation to what is occurring now in our country and the comments in relation to Senator Paterson. Senator McKIM JKM I have withdrawn the comments made in relation to Senator Paterson. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator McKim— Senator McKIM JKM I'm entitled to say that Zionist interests— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 You are, but you are entitled to have an orderly debate within this chamber, and it is my role here to keep that order. There have been wide-ranging comments so far this morning, some of which have been offensive to others. You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to continue on this debate, but I will ask you to do it in a respectful and inoffensive fashion. If you can withdraw those comments, please. Senator McKIM JKM I have withdrawn the comments I made in regards to Senator Paterson. I'll leave it there. I will make— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 I feel like you are completely missing the point intentionally. Senator Paterson. Senator Paterson 144138 In the interest of being helpful, to assist Senator McKim so he has the time to reflect on this, we have a royal commission right now into antisemitism. Standing up in this chamber and accusing other people of being 'captured by Zionist interests' is a dangerous and reckless thing to do. I encourage him, in the spirit of good debate in this chamber, to reflect on the consequences of language like that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you, Senator Paterson, this is not a further debate. I am conscious that you have time left and you have a right to continue your contribution. For the orderly conduct of this chamber, I would ask you to consider withdrawing those comments so that we can proceed. Senator McKIM JKM If I might address the point of order, then, if you're going to make such a ruling. I'm not certain what standing order Senator Paterson is alleging that I've broken— Senator Paterson 144138 Good judgement, class, taste, decency. Senator McKIM JKM Good judgement? I'm not aware of that being part of the standing orders. I'm happy to reflect on what Senator Paterson has asked me to reflect on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 That would be much appreciated. Senator McKIM JKM In the very short time I have left, because of the dirty deal between the Labor Party and the coalition—by the way, I will provide the minister with two or three minutes before the 1.15 guillotine because I am genuinely curious at how the indefensible is going to be defended by this minister or at least the attempt to defend the indefensible will be rolled out. I will make the point again: these are bad laws, they're bad for the country, they're bad for the values—they offend the values—of this country, and they are bad for the people of Australia. They not only offend the values of this country now, they offend the values that we used to go to war for and fight to protect and enhance. Here we find ourselves actually becoming the very thing that we fought against for so long in this country. The Labor Party should stand condemned for being captured by so many vested interests in this place, including the military industrial complex. The coalition should and does stand condemned for the same thing. The Australian Greens will proudly vote against these terrible provisions. We will proudly stand up for the people of Australia against a political duopoly that is determined to turn this country into a police state and a surveillance state. 13:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland In the 4½ minutes left for this debate, I was hoping to address the content of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 in depth. I was hoping to also talk to the government amendments that have been moved with regard to the sunsetting clause and the PJCIS. I'm going to address the nature of the debate first, though, because we have allowed Greens members to be added to the list to speak today and we haven't closed off debate, but the commentary from that end of the chamber has been not just misleading of the Senate but wilfully misleading of the Senate. To say that there are no government speakers on the list is wrong and untrue and wilfully misleading. To say that this is the only opportunity to debate is wrong. The bill was debated in May. It's been on the list since 2025. To say there's no committee process while also taking up time to avoid a committee process is not just wrong; it is disrespectful to the Senate. And it was said that we have quietly introduced amendments. I wouldn't call providing something with notice in the Hansard, with detailed information about why we're introducing those amendments, 'quietly'. The truth is the Greens political party seek to talk about the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the erosion of democracy while at the same time disrespecting this institution and disrespecting democratic institutions, the Public Service and our intelligence agencies in a way that erodes democracy. You cannot, on one hand, talk about the fact that democracy is being eroded while you are actually actively seeking to do that. That is what the Greens political party do every single time they come into this chamber, and they should be held accountable for that behaviour. That's why I wanted to address that debate now before moving on to the substantial notion of the bill. There is one other political comment that I need to make before I move on, and that is the voting intention of One Nation. We have heard so much commentary from One Nation, particularly the leader, Pauline Hanson, but also other members of One Nation, about how they are so black and white when it comes to supporting national security and protecting Australians from terrorism. But today what they will do is seek to water down this bill and, if they don't get their amendments up, they will vote against a piece of legislation designed to protect our national security. That's exactly what One Nation does. They say one thing outside of this chamber, and then they come in here and do the exact opposite, every single time. And now we have them here again doing exactly the same thing. The government will be seeking to move amendments that ensure that a sunset clause exists for these powers and to ensure that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security statutory review of operational effectiveness and the implications of the compulsory questioning powers occurs two years after the commencement of this bill. On the nature of the rest of the amendments, I won't go into them, but I will remind my colleagues that the Director-General of Security stated in his annual threat assessment in 2025: Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats. ASIO need the powers to ensure that they can protect Australians from the threats to security. We heard comments about the Prime Minister from these people at the end of the chamber, and I want to put on the record that the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He is the person who has spoken and met with people who have been harmed by extremist violence in our country. He has met those victims and he has talked to them personally. The Prime Minister is committed, above all else, to protecting Australians and keeping them safe and ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers that they require to do that exact thing—keep Australians safe. Debate interrupted. News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026 51

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026

Limitation of Debate 51 13:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order agreed on 18 August 2026, the time allotted for consideration of 12 bills has expired. I'll now put the question on the remaining stages of the bills. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 4012, to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 and related bills, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 29 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 I advise senators that, if further divisions are required, there will be one-minute bells. The question is that these bills be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's amendments on sheet 4007, to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, be agreed to. Opposition's circulated a mendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 — (1) Clause 11, page 12 (line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; or (c) providing opinion or commentary on core news content. (2) Clause 11, page 12 (line 30) to page 13 (line 4), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) However, a role is not an eligible editorial role if the role is primarily any of the following: (a) narrator, anchor or presenter; (b) sports commentator; (c) actor (including actors involved in re-enactment); (d) effects or design professional.  

The Senate divided. [13:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cadell, R. P. Walsh, J. C. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hanson, P. L. Smith, M. F. Hume, J. Mulholland, C. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Green, N. L.

Question negatived.

13:30 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3999, to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, and on sheet 4006, to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, be agreed to. Australian Greens ' circulated amendment to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 — SHEET 3999 (1) Clause 20, page 23 (line 15), omit "one-quarter", substitute "17%". _____ Australian Greens ' circulated amendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 — SHEET 4006 (1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 23 to 26), omit the paragraph beginning "Also, 5% of the revenue", substitute: (2) Clause 40, page 39 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (3) Clause 44, page 43 (line 7), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (4) Clause 93, page 87 (line 5), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (5) Clause 93, page 87 (lines 8 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "5% of collected charge revenue", substitute: (6) Clause 94, page 88 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In deciding which eligible entities (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Secretary must give priority to eligible entities that are not approved participants for the payment period during the which the grant under subsection (1) would be paid. (7) Clause 94, page 88 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of eligible entity, substitute: annual income, for an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate, means the amount for the individual, partnership, trust or body corporate that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition. eligible entity means an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate (other than corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies) that has an annual income of less than $20 million. (8) Clause 95, page 88 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In deciding which eligible grant recipient corporations (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Secretary must give priority to eligible grant recipient corporations that are not eligible corporations. Note: For eligible corporation, see section 7. (9) Clause 95, page 89 (before line 1), before the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation, insert: annual income, for a corporation, means the amount for the corporation that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition. (10) Clause 95, page 89 (line 4), omit paragraph (c) of the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation entity, substitute: (c) that has an annual income less than $20 million. (11) Clause 100, page 90 (line 25), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters". (12) Clause 100, page 90 (line 27), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters". (13) Clause 100, page 91 (line 3), omit "half", substitute "one-quarter".  

The Senate divided. [13:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 34 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. G. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:33 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that clauses 98 and 99 on sheet 4010 of the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 stand as printed. Senator D avid Pocock's circulated amendment to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 202 6 — (27) Clauses 98 and 99, page 90 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.  

The Senate divided. [13:33]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments on sheet 4011 and the remaining amendments on sheet 4010, as moved by Senator Pocock, be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 — (1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 23 to 26), omit the paragraph beginning "Also, 5% of the revenue", substitute: Grants Administrator means the body established by the Minister under section 105A. (3) Clause 9, page 11 (lines 11 and 12), omit "if the corporation is an eligible low-revenue corporation—the FTE number", substitute "the FTE number". (4) Clause 11, page 13 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (3) To avoid doubt, a role that is an eligible editorial role under subsection (1) does not cease to be an eligible editorial role merely because the role also involves being a narrator, anchor or presenter, so long as the role is not primarily that of a narrator, anchor of presenter. (5) Clause 16, page 16 (lines 21 and 22), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation". (6) Clause 16, page 16 (line 32) to page 17 (line 7), omit paragraphs 16(1)(e) and (f). (7) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 10 and 11), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation". (8) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 15 to 22), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The rules may provide for the FTE number of an eligible volunteer to be nil for the whole of the payment period. (9) Clause 18, page 19 (lines 23 and 24), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation". (10) Clause 40, page 39 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (11) Clause 44, page 43 (line 7), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (12) Clause 71, page 66 (lines 26 to 30), omit paragraph (3)(e). (13) Clause 93, page 87 (line 5), omit "10%", substitute "20%". (14) Clause 93, page 87 (lines 8 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "5% of collected charge revenue", substitute: 15% of collected charge revenue is available for making grants, under sections 94 and 95, to certain entities and corporations with an annual income of less than $20 million, with priority given to entities that are not otherwise eligible to receive payments under the scheme. Any amount unspent in a payment year is available for spending in a later payment year. (15) Clause 94, page 88 (line 3), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (16) Clause 94, page 88 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In deciding which eligible entities (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Grants Administrator must give priority to eligible entities that are not approved participants for the payment period during the which the grant under subsection (1) would be paid. (17) Clause 94, page 88 (line 12), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (18) Clause 94, page 88 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of eligible entity, substitute: annual income, for an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate, means the amount for the individual, partnership, trust or body corporate that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition. eligible entity means an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate (other than a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies) that has an annual income less than $20 million. (19) Clause 95, page 88 (line 19), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (20) Clause 95, page 88 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In deciding which eligible grant recipient corporations (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Grants Administrator must give priority to eligible grant recipient corporations that are not eligible corporations. Note: For eligible corporation, see section 7. (21) Clause 95, page 88 (line 26), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (22) Clause 95, page 89 (before line 1), before the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation, insert: annual income, for a corporation, means the amount for the corporation that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition. (23) Clause 95, page 89 (line 4), omit paragraph (c) of the definition eligible grant recipient corporation entity, substitute: (c) that has an annual income less than $20 million. (24) Clause 96, page 89 (line 6), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (25) Clause 96, page 89 (line 11), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (26) Clause 97, page 89 (line 28), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator". (28) Clause 100, page 90 (line 25), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters". (29) Clause 100, page 90 (line 27), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters". (30) Clause 100, page 91 (line 3), omit "half", substitute "one-quarter". (31) Page 92 (after line 6), at the end of Part 8, add: Division 3 — Grants Administrator 105A Establishment of Grants Administrator (1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, establish a body (the Grants Administrator) to: (a) administer this Part; and (b) exercise any powers and perform any functions conferred on the Grants Administrator by this Act or by the Minister under section 105B. 105B Composition, powers and functions of Grants Administrator (1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify the composition of the Grants Administrator and the powers and functions of the Grants Administrator. Note: The Grants Administrator also has any powers and functions conferred on it by this Act. (2) In specifying the composition, powers and functions of the Grants Administrator, the Minister must ensure that: (a) the Grants Administrator is independent of the Commonwealth and of any single news business corporate group; and (b) the Grants Administrator's governing body includes persons with substantial experience in the Australian news industry, including in small, regional and independent news businesses. (3) Before specifying the composition, powers and functions of the Grants Administrator, the Minister must consult news businesses or bodies representing news businesses. Senator David Pocock's amendments to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 — (1) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of amount, insert: annual income, of an entity for a financial year (the principal year), means: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent financial year (being the principal year or an earlier financial year) for which such accounts exist; or (b) if the entity has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent alternative 12-month financial reporting period (being a period that ends at or before the start of the principal year) for which such accounts exist. (2) Clause 6, page 7 (after line 6), after the definition of significant social media or search service, insert: small news business corporate group, in relation to a financial year, has the meaning given by section 11A. (3) Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 11, insert: 11A Meaning of small news business corporate group A news business corporate group is small news business corporate groupfor a financial year if the sum of the annual income of each member of the group for the financial year is less than $20 million. Note: For how to determine the annual income of a member of the group for a financial year if the member has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period, see paragraph (b) of the definition of annual incomein section 6. (4) Clause 15, page 18 (lines 7 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to an offset", substitute: To be entitled to an offset, the service group must have new eligible expenditure for the financial year in relation to at least 8 different news business corporate groups, and at least 12.5% of that expenditure must be in relation to news business corporate groups with an annual income of less than $20 million. (5) Clause 17, page 19 (line 12), omit "financial year.", substitute "financial year; and". (6) Clause 17, page 19 (after line 12), at the end of subclause 17(1), add: (c) the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year, in relation to groups that are small news business corporate groups for the financial year, is at least 12.5% of the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year in relation to all news business corporate groups. (7) Clause 18, page 20 (line 12), after "directly", insert "or indirectly". (8) Clause 30, page 32 (after line 6), after subclause 30(1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the operation and effect of the condition in paragraph 17(1)(c), including: (a) whether the 12.5% figure mentioned in that paragraph remains appropriate; and (b) whether the $20 million combined annual income threshold in relation to small news business corporate groups (see section 11A) remains appropriate. [charge offset — small news business corporate groups]  

The Senate divided. [13:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 33 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 58

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

Limitation of Debate 58 13:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. When the bill was last considered, the votes on the amendments moved by Senator Shorebridge and Senator Bell were deferred. I will put those questions first before dealing with the remaining amendments. I will begin with the amendments moved by Senator Shoebridge. Australian Greens ' circulated amendments— (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". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments on sheet 3790 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 33 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments moved by Senator Bell. One Nation's circulated amendments— (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. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments on 3897 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES 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. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cadell, R. P. Walsh, J. C. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hanson, P. L. Smith, M. F. Hume, J. Mulholland, C. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Gallagher, K. R.

Question negatived.

13:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 3791. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed. The Australian Greens' circulated amendments— (2) Schedule 2, page 16 (line 1) to page 22 (line 12), to be opposed.  

The Senate divided. [13:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 As that matter was resolved in the affirmative, the consequential amendment on sheet 3791 will not be put. The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [13:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. 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.
Bill read a third time.

 Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 61

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

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

Limitation of Debate 61 13:53 The PRESIDENT 112096 I further remind senators that the order which was passed in the chamber earlier in the week allows for question time to start at a later time. I'll begin with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Canavan to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3969 be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bills read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the committee-of-the-whole amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 on sheet 3967 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— (1) Page 164 (after line 4), after Subdivision A, insert: Subdivision AA — Protections for employees 162A Powers must not be exercised to lessen employee entitlements The Reserve Bank must not take action in accordance with this Part in relation to a designated entity if: (a) the action would result in the entitlements of an employee of the designated entity being less beneficial than they were immediately before the action was taken; or (b) each of the following are satisfied: (i) there is an employee (the current employee) of the designated entity immediately before the action is taken; (ii) the action would result in the engagement of a person (the new employee) to perform the same, or substantially the same, work as that performed by the current employee; (iii) the entitlements of the new employee would be less beneficial than the entitlements of the current employee.  

The Senate divided. [13:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026 62

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026

Limitation of Debate 62 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026. I'll begin with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3919 be agreed to. One Nation 's circulated amendments— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the Australian timber market is becoming a dumping ground for inferior timber, often from China and containing Russian timber, (ii) the timber industry is Australia's sixth largest manufacturing sector, (iii) Australian timber jobs and businesses, primarily located in regional areas, are at risk from this dumping of inferior imported timber, and (iv) Australia is in the middle of a housing crisis and COVID-19 showed that we cannot rely on imported timber, demonstrating the need for Australia to become self-sufficient in timber and wood products; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) protect the Australian timber industry from dumped imports; and (ii) introduce country of origin labelling so Australians can make an informed choice about where their timber comes from".  

The Senate divided. [14:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 4 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hanson, P. L. Sterle, G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Grogan, K.

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 14:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 64

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026

Limitation of Debate 64 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3860 be agreed to. One Nation's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) organised crime now accounts for up to 80% of sales of tobacco products, (ii) law enforcement is overwhelmed by the scale of the illicit tobacco industry leading to widespread violence and property damage, (iii) law-abiding citizens and small businesses in proximity to illicit tobacco outlets are in physical and financial danger, (iv) organised crime is facilitating cigarette sales to children, and (v) the very high rate of tobacco excise has broken the compact between the government and the public to each treat the other fairly; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) reduce the excise rate of tobacco products by 75%, effective immediately, (ii) maintain the lower rate until organised crime has been controlled, (iii) cancel indexation of the excise rate for three years, (iv) direct the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to use their existing powers to take down websites offering direct sales of illicit tobacco products, and (v) return tobacco excise to a more sensible level once organised crime has been controlled".  

The Senate divided. [14:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 4 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hanson, P. L. Sterle, G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Ayres, T.

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 14:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026 65

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026

Limitation of Debate 65 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. 14:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table. 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment on sheet AD128 be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment— (1) Page 40 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add: Division 5 — Foreign research projects Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 95 After Division 6 of Part 5 Insert: Division 6A — Foreign research projects 55A Requirement in relation to foreign research projects (1) An Australian university must maintain policies and procedures for: (a) identifying research projects conducted by researchers employed or engaged by the Australian university with researchers employed or engaged by foreign entities; and (b) assessing whether such research projects: (i) adversely affect, or are likely to adversely affect, Australia's national interest; or (ii) are, or are likely to be, inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy; and (c) managing risks identified through those assessments. (2) The Australian university must take reasonable steps to implement the policies and procedures. (3) In this section: Australian university means a university that is a State/Territory entity under paragraph 7(e).  

The Senate divided. [14:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. Wong, P. 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.

14:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [14:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. Wong, P. 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.
Bill read a third time.

 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 67

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

Limitation of Debate 67 14:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. I'll begin with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3789 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [14:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 27 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 14:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.  

The Senate divided. [14:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 14:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table. 14:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments on sheet SV144 be agreed to. Government' s circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 34JF Omit "7 March 2027", substitute "the third anniversary of the commencement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 8), omit "third", substitute "second". (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 10), omit "2025", substitute "2026". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that part 2 of schedule 1 and item 1 of schedule 2 on sheet 3815 stand as printed. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 19), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (lines 4 to 7), to be opposed.  

The Senate divided. [14:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

14:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendments on sheets 3795, 3798, 3799, 3800 and 3816 be agreed to. Australian Greens ' circulated amendments— SHEET 3795 (1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "and additional reporting". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 34JF Repeal the section, substitute: 34JF Periodic review of this Division Inspector-General to conduct reviews (1) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must conduct periodic reviews of the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Division. Timing of reviews (2) The first review must be completed before the end of 3 years after the commencement of this section. (3) Each later review must be completed before the end of 3 years after the completion of the previous review. Attorney to be given report of review (4) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must give the Attorney-General a written report of the review. Attorney to table report (5) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of the report of each review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Attorney-General receives the report. (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), after item 1, insert: Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 1A After subsection 35(2C) Insert: (2CA) The Inspector-General must include in a report referred to in subsection (2) the Inspector-General's comments on any activity of the Inspector-General, during the period to which the report relates, relating to Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. _____ SHEET 3798 (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 22), after Part 3, insert: Part 3A — Appointment of judges as a prescribed authority to be preferred Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 4A After subsection 34AD(1) Insert: (1A) In making appointments under subsection (1), the Attorney-General must prioritise and give preference to the appointment of persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection. _____ SHEET 3799 (1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after Part 5, insert: Part 5A — Warnings before removal of lawyers Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 6A Subsection 34FF(6) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Removal of lawyer for disrupting questioning (5A) If the prescribed authority considers the lawyer's conduct is unduly disrupting the questioning of the subject, the prescribed authority may give the lawyer a warning in relation to the conduct. (6) If: (a) after giving the lawyer a warning under subsection (5A), the prescribed authority considers the lawyer's conduct continues to unduly disrupt the questioning of the subject; and (b) the prescribing authority is satisfied that removing the lawyer is the best way to deal with the disruption to the questioning; the prescribed authority may direct a person exercising authority under the warrant to remove the lawyer from the place where the questioning is occurring. _____ SHEET 3800 (1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 24), after Part 4, insert: Part 4A — Lawyer to be given copy of warrant Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 5A Section 34FE (heading) Omit "may request", substitute "to be given". 5B Subsection 34FE(2) Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,". 5C Subsection 34FE(3) Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,". _____ SHEET 3816 (1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after Part 5, insert: Part 5A — Lawyers cannot be removed Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 6A Paragraph 34FA(2)(b) Omit "or subparagraph 34FF(7)(c)(iii)". 6B Subsections 34FF(6) and (7) Repeal the subsections.  

The Senate divided. [14:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 28 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

14:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with amendments circulated by the United Australia Party. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3788, circulated by the United Australia Party, be agreed to. United Australia Party 's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 34JF Omit "7 March 2027", substitute "1 May 2028".  

The Senate divided. [14:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

3 AYES Bell, S. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 37 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. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

14:32 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with amendments circulated by One Nation. They are on sheets 3807 and 3809. I have been asked to consider them separately. If it suits the chamber, I will deal with the amendment on sheet 3807 first. The question is that One Nation's amendment on sheet 3807 be agreed to. One Nation's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 13), omit subparagraph (a)(iv) of the definition of adult questioning matter in section 34A.  

The Senate divided. [14:33]
(The President—Senator Lines)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Bell, S. (Teller) Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 27 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

14:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the last One Nation amendment, on sheet 3809. The question is that One Nation's amendment on sheet 3809 be agreed to. One Nation's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 15), after subparagraph (a)(vi) of the definition of adult questioning matter in section 34A, insert: (vii) serious threats from radical Islamic extremism;  

The Senate divided. [14:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 4 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hanson, P. L. Tyrrell, T. M. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Dolega, J.

Question negatived.

 14:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments on sheet 3787, circulated by Senator David Pocock. The first question is that items 7 and 9 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (lines 17 to 19), to be opposed.  

The Senate divided. [14:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 14:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining amendment on sheet 3787 be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment— (3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 7 — Legal representation and repeal of minor questioning warrants Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 12 Section 34A Repeal the following definitions: (a) definition of minor questioning matter; (b) definition of minor questioning warrant; (c) definition of minor's representative. 13 Section 34A (definition of questioning warrant ) Repeal the definition, substitute: questioning warrant means an adult questioning warrant. 14 Section 34AA Repeal the section. 15 Subsection 34B(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Request for warrant (1) The Director-General may request the Attorney-General to issue, in relation to a person, an adult questioning warrant. 16 Paragraph 34B(4)(e) Omit "person; and", substitute "person.". 17 Paragraph 34B(4)(f) Repeal the paragraph. 18 Sections 34BB and 34BC Repeal the sections, substitute: 34BC Warrant has no effect if person under 18 A questioning warrant has no effect if the subject of the warrant is under 18 years old. 19 Paragraph 34BD(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) subject to subsection (3A), authorise the Organisation to question the subject of the warrant before a prescribed authority by requesting the subject to give information, or produce a record or other thing, that is, or may be, relevant to intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter; and 20 Subsections 34BD(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections. 21 Paragraph 34BE(3)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a record or other thing is found during the search that the officer reasonably believes is relevant to the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter; 22 Subsection 34BE(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Warrant may request production of records or things (4) Subject to subsection (4A), a questioning warrant may request the subject of the warrant to produce, before a prescribed authority: (a) a specified record or other thing; or (b) a specified class of record or other thing; if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the record or thing, or class of record or thing, is, or may be, relevant to intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter. 23 Paragraph 34BH(2)(e) Repeal the paragraph. 24 Subparagraph 34CB(2)(a)(ii) Repeal the subparagraph. 25 Section 34CB (note) Omit "and, if the warrant is a minor questioning warrant, to also contact a minor's representative". 26 Paragraph 34CC(5)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the police officer conducting the search reasonably believes that the record or other thing is relevant to the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter; and 27 Section 34DD Repeal the section. 28 Paragraph 34DE(1)(c) Omit ", 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)". 29 Section 34DG Repeal the section, substitute: 34DG Direction that persons under 18 not be questioned If: (a) the subject of a questioning warrant appears before a prescribed authority for questioning under the warrant; and (b) the prescribed authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the subject is under 18 years old; the prescribed authority must, as soon as practicable, give a direction that the person is not to be questioned. 30 Paragraph 34DJ(6)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 31 Paragraph 34DJ(7)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the extension will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter. 32 Paragraph 34DK(6)(c) Repeal the paragraph. 33 Paragraph 34DK(7)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the extension will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter. 34 Paragraph 34DL(a) Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD". 35 Subparagraph 34DL(b)(v) Omit "or 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)". 36 Paragraph 34DN(3)(a) Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD". 37 Paragraph 34DO(4)(a) Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD". 38 Paragraph 34DO(5)(b) Omit "or 34DD". 39 Subdivision F (heading) Omit "and minor's representatives". 40 Section 34F (heading) Omit "or minor's representative". 41 Subsection 34F(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Right to contact lawyer (1) At any time after the subject of a questioning warrant is given notice of the warrant in accordance with subsection 34BH(2) or (3), the subject may contact a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the warrant. 42 Paragraph 34F(2)(c) Omit "or 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)". 43 Subsection 34FA(1) Repeal the subsection. 44 Paragraph 34FA(2)(b) Omit "or subparagraph 34FF(7)(c)(iii)". 45 Sections 34FC and 34FD Repeal the sections. 46 Section 34FE (heading) Omit "may request copy of warrant", substitute "to be given copy of warrant etc.". 47 Subsection 34FE(2) Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,". 48 Subsection 34FE(3) Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,". 49 After subsection 34FE(3) Insert: (3A) Subject to subsection (4), a person exercising authority under the warrant must give the lawyer such other information as is requested by the lawyer and is sufficient to allow the lawyer to advise the subject on the legality of the warrant or anything done in exercise, or purported exercise, of authority under the warrant. 50 Subsection 34FE(4) Omit "subsections (2) and (3)", substitute "subsections (2), (3) and (3A)". 51 Subsection 34FE(4) After "subsection (5)", insert ", or refuse to give so much of any information requested under subsection (3A)," 52 Subsection 34FF(3) Repeal the subsection. 53 Subsection 34FF(5) Omit "subsection (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (4)". 54 Subsections 34FF(6) and (7) Repeal the subsections. 55 Subsection 34FF(8) Repeal the subsection. 56 Section 34FG Repeal the section. 57 Subparagraph 34GE(3)(a)(i) Repeal the subparagraph. 58 Subsection 34GF(5) (paragraph (f) of the definition of permitted disclosure ) Repeal the paragraph. 59 Paragraph 34GF(6)(b) Omit "or". 60 Paragraph 34GF(6)(c) Repeal the paragraph.  

The Senate divided. [14:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 26 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Kovacic, M. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 14:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to, and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [14:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 77 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 77 14:48 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, can you confirm reports in the Australian newspaper that today, for the first time in Australia's history, national debt has hit $1 trillion? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Sharma for the question, and I would make two points. The first is the government is transparent on the nature and extent of government debt. The second point is that, if the coalition had stayed in power, debt would have crossed the trillion dollar mark three years ago. If you had been in charge, gross debt would be nudging $1.2 trillion so— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Sharma was heard in silence, and the minister's response will be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I know it's an uncomfortable truth for them. It's an uncomfortable truth that gross debt is, in fact, lower every year of the forward estimates compared to that which we inherited. I know that fact is hard for those opposite to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Sorry, Senator Sharma, I was aware you were on your feet, but I was also aware that your side were being so disruptive it was pointless calling you. I will call you now, Senator Sharma. Senator Sharma 274506 President, a point of order on relevance. My question was quite straightforward and direct, seeking the minister's confirmation of reports that gross debt has reached $1 trillion. That's all I was after. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Sharma. The minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen carefully. Thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU The budget statements were very clear. Budget statement 1 made clear: As at 30 June 2027, gross debt is $1,051.0 billion, $18.0 billion lower than at MYEFO and $173.0 billion— below the 2022 PEFO. We know there is a great deal of work that—sorry, I thought you were standing. We know there continues to be work to be done when it comes to the budget and fiscal sustainability. The government has made a set of decisions that have actually improved the budget position compared to what it would have been under the coalition's forecasts and under the trajectory that the coalition had us on. I trust, as someone who I know is interested in these matters, that you would actually look at the Treasury documents— Senator Cash I0M You always love to be demeaning! Senator WONG 00AOU I wasn't actually meaning to be demeaning. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister— Senator Cash I0M Yes, you were! Senator WONG 00AOU You can't tell me what I was thinking! The PRESIDENT 112096 the time for answering the question has expired. Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators! We are just on the first supplementary and I've had to stand already to get order in this chamber. Senator Sharma was on his feet, ready to ask his question, and he couldn't because of the disorder in this chamber. Senator Sharma, your first supplementary? 14:51 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, the medium-term budget outlook shows that interest expenses are one of the fastest-growing areas of government spending. Will the Prime Minister and your government continue to irresponsibly add to this by continuing to increase the national debt over the forward estimates, as the budget papers show? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have been in this chamber for a number of years and I have listened to Senator Gallagher make that point precisely, that interest payments are one of the largest components of expenditure in the budget and why it was so important that Labor delivered the surpluses that we delivered and ensured we had a lower trajectory on debt than we inherited. Senator, it is true—yes, we do live in a time where we know, with the ageing of the population and the nature of the demands that are rightly made of government, fiscal sustainability is a challenge. I would make the point to you that the Treasurer, Treasurer Chalmers, and the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher, have handed down budgets that include two budget surpluses. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, a second supplementary? 14:53 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, in the interest of directness and transparency, how high do you expect gross government debt under your government to reach? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are two points I'd make. The first is this is transparently reported in the budget papers. The second is that our debt position is lower than it would have been under you. Employment 78 14:53 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia 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 Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. A key part of that is ensuring that unemployment remains low by historical standards. Minister, can you detail the ABS labour force data, which was released this morning? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Ghosh, as a matter of fact I can! Today's labour force figures demonstrate that Australia's labour market remains resilient, despite some softening. This is particularly the case when we compare Australia's jobs market to other advanced economies and, by historical standards, with more than 1.3 million jobs added to our economy since the election of the Albanese Labor government—and doesn't Senator McGrath look happy about that fact? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you to direct your comments to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 President, can't you observe Senator McGrath's happiness about the 1.3 million jobs added to our economy under the Albanese Labor government? The unemployment rate did increase marginally over the month of July, but this remains low by historical standards. While employment decreased by 15,800 in July, we've seen an increase over the year, with more than 190,000 more Australians in work than a year ago. Encouragingly, full-time employment rose over the month, with a record 10.2 million Australians in full-time work in July. The underemployment rate also fell marginally in July, which means that more Australian workers are getting the hours that they want. While the participation rate decreased slightly over the month to 66.9 per cent, it remains a fraction below its record high of 67.2 per cent. These figures released today demonstrate the resilience of Australia's labour market against the backdrop of global economic challenges, including the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. There will, of course, continue to be challenges across the global economy, and we are not immune. However, since 2022, employment growth in Australia has outpaced all other major advanced economies, including the US, Canada, Italy, France, Germany, UK and Japan. Of course, with the ongoing global uncertainty, our government is taking practical measures to shield our nation and household budgets from the worst of this. These figures come after ABS data released yesterday showed real wages grew in the June quarter, and annual nominal wages have now grown above three per cent for four years under this Labor government. We are delivering real change for Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Minister, the unemployment rate remains low by historical standards, and participation rates remain high. While the government has made a lot of progress, we know that many Australian workers are still doing it tough. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting workers dealing with cost-of-living pressures? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese Labor government understands that many Australians are under pressure at the moment due to the global inflation shock, and that's why we're taking action by helping to address inflation. Senator McKenzie 207825 Made worse by your lack of decision-making. Senator WATT 245759 I'm not sure why Senator McKenzie is piping up. I imagine she's looking forward to getting back to her electorate, where she'll meet even more National Party members who've joined One Nation. I imagine that's why she's happy at the moment. We are taking action. Senator Cash I0M You live rent free in his mind. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash is also looking forward to getting back and meeting the Liberals who've gone to One Nation. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Senator Colbeck's looking forward to getting back and meeting One Nation members who used to be Liberals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, that outburst by you and Senator Henderson was incredibly disrespectful. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 The idea that respect wouldn't be shown to me, I find abhorrent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, order! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie and Senator Henderson, if you can't sit respectfully in this chamber and show respect to me, leave. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, we're taking action to combat the global inflation shock. We're also rolling out more cost-of-living relief, including higher wages and more tax cuts. At the same time, our government is responsibly managing the budget, tackling inflation and strengthening our economy. It's worth remembering that every action we've taken to help Australians has been opposed by that coalition of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia According to the ABS, female participation is close to a record high, which is good for families, communities and the economy. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support women in the workforce, and are there any obstacles to ensure women are supported in their jobs? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm afraid to say there are obstacles, Senator Ghosh. The Albanese Labor government— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Hello! There's one there. There's another one there, and there's one right there. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please direct your comments to me. Order on the left. Senator WATT 245759 The Albanese Labor government, led by Minister Gallagher, the Minister for Women, has put women's economic equality at the centre of our government's agenda. It's encouraging to see we're making progress in the right direction. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, order! Order across the chamber! Senator Henderson, I will name you. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 The Albanese government is tackling the gender pay gap from every angle, including by delivering pay rises for minimum wage workers, boosting wages in the early childhood— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. It's incredibly disrespectful when I call order for senators on the front bench of the left-hand side of the chamber to call out and completely disregard what I say. I am serious. I will name you. Senator WATT 245759 We're expanding paid parental leave and we're paying paid superannuation on paid parental leave in addition to those wage rises for the carers and aged-care sectors. Of course, not everyone supports women's workplace rights. We've previously seen Senator Cash claim that family and domestic violence leave would be a perverse disincentive to women's employment. We've seen Senator Canavan describe the gender pay gap as 'complete nonsense' and Senator Hanson call the gender pay gap 'smoke and mirrors'. That is the danger that Australians face under a Liberal-Nationals-One Nation coalition. (Time expired) Veterans 80 15:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Veterans affairs minister Matt Keogh has lost the trust of the veterans community because he has treated them with contempt and without empathy. Now Labor parliamentarians are privately leaking to the media that Minister Keogh should be sacked, with one MP complaining about his refusal to meet with veterans in these terms: 'People deserve to be heard. That's what we get paid for.' When will Prime Minister Albanese listen to the veterans community and his own Labor colleagues and sack Minister Keogh? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I again go back to what I have said, I think, on multiple occasions this week—that those who have the courage to serve our country deserve our respect and our care when they return. All governments should ensure that veterans are treated with respect and with care. The country should ensure that. That is why this government has invested more in veterans affairs than any previous government, including to deal with the backlog, which was causing pain and concern. Senator, I acknowledge the concerns which have been raised publicly by veterans groups and others, and I would say to you that Minister Keogh has acknowledged—I think I read this out yesterday—that he did the wrong thing in not taking the meeting initially, he has subsequently engaged with veterans and he will continue to talk with the veterans community and, indeed, will do so more. That is as it should be because consulting with veterans about changes which are made is something that we take seriously. I know the Prime Minister has the greatest respect for the veterans community and engages with the veterans community regularly, and we will continue to seek to treat veterans with the respect and care they are entitled to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, first supplementary? 15:03 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Given the veterans community and his own Labor colleagues are calling for Minister Keogh to be sacked, why does Prime Minister Albanese retain any confidence in this minister for veterans affairs? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again say that the government does have the greatest of respect for our veterans. They deserve our thanks. We honour their service to the country and we will continue to invest in veterans affairs and supports and do our best to ensure they receive the care that they deserve. In relation to this minister, I would make the point that Minister Keogh has worked hard to deliver additional funding, including some $2 billion in funding to support initiatives in response to the royal commission. This is one of the most significant investments in veterans' wellbeing in the country's history, and that has occurred under Minister Keogh. We have already implemented what the commission has deemed the most important recommendation, which was the independent oversight body, the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission, which Senator Lambie and the veterans community have been campaigning for. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary? 15:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Has the Prime Minister asked Minister Keogh to resign, or has Minister Keogh offered his resignation to the Prime Minister? 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think I was asked yesterday whether the Prime Minister had confidence in the veterans' affairs minister. My answer was yes, and I don't have anything further to add. International Relations: Australia and Israel 80 15:04 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong. Minister, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and six of her colleagues were hunted and murdered by the Israeli army. For over two years, your government has insisted on allowing the Israeli government to investigate itself. Now—no surprises—the war criminals have ruled that they have no case to answer. You were warned repeatedly that relying on murderers to investigate themselves would never deliver justice, yet somehow you believed that words would compel a state engaged in genocide—a state that has killed 20,000 children, a state that kidnapped and assaulted Australian citizens aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla. Minister, does your government accept any responsibility for not getting justice for Zomi? How much more humiliation will you put this country through before you take action? 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have made clear that this outcome, and the circumstances in which it was announced, is outrageous and insulting. Importantly, and a lot of Senator Faruqi's points are to me, I say it was outrageous and insulting to Mal Frankcom, Zomi's brother, and the whole of the Frankcom family, and also to Australians. There is a lot of anger in the Australian community about this, and I share that. I've made clear publicly today, and privately to the Israeli ambassador, our views about the announcement that was made, which is that the IDF or Israeli government investigation will not occur. There will be no investigation into the criminal liability associated with the deaths of not just an Australian citizen but, in fact, in total, seven humanitarian workers who were killed in a strike. They were struck by the IDF not once, not twice, but three times. Australians deserve answers and, most importantly, Mal Frankcom and the Frankcom family deserve answers. I will continue to engage with the family, as I did yesterday. We announced an award in Zomi Frankcom's honour on World Humanitarian Day to honour her work on the day where we dedicate ourselves to honouring humanitarian workers. We commend not only those who have lost their lives but all those who do the best of humanity, which is to deliver aid to those who need it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 15:07 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, the Israeli ambassador has the audacity to say that any loss of innocent life is a tragedy. According to the UN figures released yesterday, 186 aid workers were killed in Gaza last year. The ambassador has attempted to gaslight World Central Kitchen. Do you accept the ambassador's account that Zomi and her colleagues were somehow responsible for their own deaths, or do you believe that the ambassador is lying? 15:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia No, I do not accept any assertion that sheets home responsibility for the deaths of seven aid workers, including an Australian citizen, on whose behalf I will continue to advocate in the circumstances that I have outlined. In relation to the Israeli ambassador, he does not speak for Australia; he speaks for the government of Israel. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 15:08 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, in 2010, the Labor government of the time expelled an Israeli embassy official over the misuse of Australian passports. Sixteen years later, the Israeli army has killed an Australian aid worker and failed to hold anyone to account, and yet there have been no consequences from your government. Minister, are you outraged enough yet to expel the Israeli ambassador? 15:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We maintain diplomatic relations with countries not as an endorsement of others. In a fair-minded assessment of what has happened over these last years, you would see that we have very different views to the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has made that clear. We maintain diplomatic relations to advance Australia's interests and to be able to put our view directly to other countries, as I did today with the ambassador when he was called in. Indigenous Australians: Early Childhood Education and Care 81 15:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Quality early learning gives First Nations children the very best start in life. It helps them learn, develop and thrive and lays the foundations for success at school and beyond. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest progress towards closing the gap in early childhood education and how the Albanese Labor government is working with First Nations communities to build on that progress? 15:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Great question, Senator Stewart, and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of Indigenous Australians and all Australians. We do have good news to celebrate when it comes to helping First Nations children access the benefits of quality early education. More than 95 per cent of First Nations children are now enrolled in preschool, and there has been improvement in every state and territory. What that means is that, together, we have met for the first time Closing the Gap target 3. It is a landmark achievement because quality early learning does give children a great start in life. It helps them arrive at school ready to thrive. We know there's more to do, but this achievement really shows what is possible when governments listen to First Nations communities and work in genuine partnership with them. I was really proud to mark this achievement alongside Minister for Indigenous Australians Senator McCarthy. I recently joined Minister McCarthy at Garma on Yolngu country. There we listened to communities. We heard their ambitions for their children, and our government is backing that ambition. With Labor's three-day guarantee, every family now has access to at least three days of child care subsidy each week, and First Nations children can access five days. This has been a game changer. The data shows us that more First Nations children are using early learning as a result, more children are getting the opportunity to learn and grow in their early years, and more parents are getting the practical support they need to make life work and to build a strong future. It was First Nations communities who advocated to make it possible, and we have listened. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 15:12 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Meeting this Closing the Gap target is an important milestone, but, as both you and I know, there is more work ahead. How is the Albanese Labor government partnering with First Nations communities to help more children start school strong? 15:13 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria (—) (): We should celebrate this milestone and do more to ensure that First Nations children are supported to develop, thrive and be ready for school. We know what works—early-learning centres that are community led, that are culturally safe and that are trusted by families. I saw that in Derby where I met Rowena Mouda and the Nganga women. For years, they ran playgroups in local parks and halls for children to play and learn together, but they wanted more. They had a vision for a permanent home and a quality early-learning centre. We listened and we backed them. Our government is investing $9 million from our Building Early Education Fund towards a new service operated by those very women, the Nganga women, and we'll invest in more ACCO led services like this too, because this is how we close the gap. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 15:14 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Every child deserves the opportunity to benefit from quality early learning. How has the Albanese Labor government listened to the concerns of First Nations communities about previous approaches, and how have we responded? 15:14 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We believe that children shouldn't miss out on early learning because of their parents' circumstances, but that is exactly what the coalition's activity test did. If a parent lost their job, their child could lose access to early learning. If a parent couldn't find enough work, their child could lose access to early learning. The coalition locked out children for things that they had absolutely no control over, including the children who had the most to gain from early learning, including First Nations children. We changed that, and we're proud of that. We said that access should be about the child, not their parents' work roster, not whether their mum could pick up another shift. Our three-day guarantee is now in place, and First Nations children can access five days of subsidised early learning each week. We delivered this, it is working, and every child, including First Nations children, deserve a great start in life. Fuel 82 15:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. What additional costs at the petrol bowser will Australians be slugged under the government's new proposed carbon tax on fuel? 15:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There isn't one. I would make the point that, when it comes to fuel, the government has worked particularly with our partners to ensure that fuel supplies have continued into Australia. Fuel, fertiliser and related products have continued into Australia, notwithstanding the disruption to global energy markets as a consequence of the closure the Straits of Hormuz. What that experience has confirmed is a number of things. One is the importance of good partnerships in our region and a joint approach—a regional approach—to economic resilience. The second is the sovereignty point to ensure we have more capacity to provide for ourselves in critical supply chains in our country. If you are discussing low-carbon liquid fuels, the point I would make is that that is a policy that seeks to grow and diversify supply chains, including for Australian made fuel made in Australia from Australian feedstock. That is an important aspect of what is being currently discussed. We do think Australian farmers and ethanol producers can protect Australia from the vulnerability that has been on display not just in energy markets but at the bowser. What has happened when you see the spikes to energy prices and the global price of oil spiking as a result of the constriction in demand— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU We saw why we need to look at how we ensure our fuel resilience. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, first supplementary? 15:18 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales The government's position is clear on page 45 of the consultation paper that the cost of the proposed carbon tax on fuel will be paid by the end consumer. How much does Labor's carbon intensity tax on fuel add to the cost of a tank of diesel for Australian truckies? Senator McKenzie 207825 The end consumer pays! 15:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia President, through you, it used to be that the Nationals were regarded as the farmers party, but it does appear that they are not interested in the views of farmers. If Senator Cadell is referring to the release of the consultation paper on Tuesday, I would make this point. The National Farmers' Federation has welcomed the Australian government's release— Senator WONG 00AOU I know this is very upsetting for you, Senator McKenzie, because you don't speak for them anymore. It's upsetting, isn't it? The National Farmers' Federation has welcomed the Australian government's release of consultation papers on establishing the Australian fuel security reserve and proposed measures to strengthen Australia's fuel resilience, including increasing the minimum stockholding obligation—wait for it, Senator McKenzie—and low-carbon liquid fuels. It's so upsetting, isn't it, when your scare campaign— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I am quite frankly over calling your name. Senator Cadell, second supplementary? 15:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Minister, you've been unable to tell Australians how much more they will pay in two answers now. Why is the government withholding from the Australian public the modelling showing the costing of how much they will pay on the new carbon tax on fuel? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence across the chamber. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, 'order' applies to you. 15:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, the government has put out a consultation paper that that is what we are discussing, which has been welcomed by industry, not just the NFF but also GrainCorp. The second point I would make is that the allowable level of ethanol that can be added to petrol is already established under Australia's fuel quality standards, and the government does not have plans to change or increase these. You want to construct a scare campaign. It's unfortunate the facts don't support it, isn't it? And it's unfortunate that some of those who you purport to represent are actually not joining in the circus, because, really, who do you represent? You don't represent farmers. You don't represent grain producers. Who do you represent now? Just the people of Elwood. Medicare 83 15:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. The Albanese Labor government believes in a simple principle. We believe that, no matter where you live or where you come from, Australians should have access to affordable health care. I, like all my colleagues, want Australians to see a doctor without a hit to their hip pocket. How is the government strengthening Medicare to help Australians get the care they need for free? 15:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Brown, who, of course, is a staunch advocate for public health and for Tasmania. When we are talking about access to health care, the Albanese Labor government's proposition is very simple: when you're sick, the only card that you should need is your Medicare card, and we are delivering real change for Australians. With just a Medicare card, more Australians are seeing a GP for free—with just a Medicare card. Under those opposite, bulk-billing was in freefall. But, thanks to this government's historic investment in Medicare, bulk-billing has now risen to 84 per cent, and that means parents don't have to worry about taking a sick child to the doctor. It means that workers don't have to choose between seeing a GP and keeping more of what they earn. And that's not all. With their Medicare card, Australians can get free urgent care at one of 137 Medicare urgent care clinics around the country. Four out of five Australians live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic. Those opposite, of course, call this wasteful spending. We know that it is an essential part of an available, accessible, affordable healthcare system, and it's why we've made Medicare urgent care clinics permanent. The thing is, senators, you don't have to take my word for it. We can ask, in fact, any Tasmanian senator, Senator Brown, because when their Liberal deputy premier, Guy Barnett, needed urgent care after a game of tennis, where did he go? Well, he went off to the Medicare urgent care clinic, one of eight Medicare urgent care clinics right across Tasmania. That is what Medicare looks like when it is working for all Australians, and that is what Labor governments do. Senator Scarr 282997 Why are you disclosing his personal medical information? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, come to order. Senator McALLISTER 121628 They strengthen Medicare, they make health care more affordable, and they deliver real change for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, it is not the role in here for a senator on the opposition backbench to try and out-yell a minister. I asked you to come to order. You were so loud I don't even think you heard me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, I do not need to hear from you. Senator Brown, first supplementary? 15:24 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for that response. The PBS is a key pillar of Australia's universal healthcare system, because Australians shouldn't have to choose between paying for the medicines they need and paying the bills. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper medicines for more Australians? 15:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, PBS medicines are now the cheapest they have been in 20 years. The last time medicines were this cheap was in 2004. Thanks to our investments in cheaper medicines, Australians have saved more than $2.9 billion since July 2022. But we should be clear about the history of this. If the Liberals and the Nationals and One Nation had their way, the maximum PBS co-payment would be more than $50. Under those opposite, families right across Australia would be paying twice as much for their medicines as they are today. We are adding more medicines to the PBS so Australians can access the treatments they need at a price they can afford. Just this month, we listed the first new treatment in 20 years for a rare brain cancer—a treatment that can slow progression of the disease. Australians shouldn't have to choose between their health and their hip pocket. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brown, second supplementary? 15:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The minister has clearly set out how the Albanese Labor government is delivering real change and helping Australians get the care they need. Can the minister outline whether anything stands in the way of the government's approach? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Colbeck, I haven't even called the minister, and already you are being disrespectful to me and to the minister by interjecting. Either leave the chamber or listen in silence. 15:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We on this side of the chamber built Medicare. We back the PBS. We built universal superannuation. Those opposite are always trying to tear down those essential safety nets, but there is one safety net that those opposite are always very good at protecting. It's not Medicare and it's not super; it is in fact the great Liberal Party safety net. This is a safety net which ensures that those opposite will always be looked after, whatever befalls them. The senator for higher taxes, Senator Hume, is now the shadow minister for finance. The shadow minister for housing is comparing teenagers to cats and dogs. He sees communism wherever he looks. The member for Goldstein has become the shadow treasurer, and that actually requires no further elaboration. On the evidence, the great Liberal Party safety net is one of the most effective pieces of social protection in the world. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 84 15:27 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Watt. A recent media report has highlighted that on 475 occasions since 23 March the ART set aside visa cancellations for people with substantial criminal records. Sixteen of these people were found guilty of child sexual offences. At least 10 of these decisions were made under Minister Burke as home affairs minister. How many of these cases did the home affairs minister intervene in to ensure that child sex offenders did not retain Australian visas? 15:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously I don't have those precise numbers with me as the representing minister, but if there is anything I can provide, I'll certainly do so. The question you're asking, I think, goes to actions of the ART to overturn decisions by the minister or his department to cancel visas for people who've committed very serious criminal offences. What that demonstrates is that the minister and his department have cancelled a visa of a criminal offender. They have taken the action that they can take to cancel those visas and deport those individuals, which is exactly what should be happening. Of course, the ART, on occasion, will make a different decision. In our previous term of office, you might recall, we changed the ministerial direction that set out the conditions that the ART should take into account—another step taken by our government to ensure that Australians are kept safe. But, as I think you've suggested in your question, if the ART does make a decision to set aside the minister's decision to cancel a visa, that will go back to the minister for reconsideration. I know that in many, if not most, cases, the minister has made a second decision to cancel someone's visa. What that demonstrates is that this government is taking every possible action that is available to ministers to cancel visas where that needs to be done. We, of course, do provide direction to the ART about the government's position on these issues. They are an independent body. We don't always agree with the decisions that they make. From Minister Burke's point of view, he has consistently taken strong action to ensure that those individuals who don't deserve a place in Australia have their visas cancelled. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whitten, first supplementary? 15:30 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia A report in the Australian on 18 August referred to the case of a man in his 50s, who was convicted of multiple child sex offences, having his visa cancellation overturned by the Federal Court. This is a man that, according to the tribunal records, assaulted a 16-year-old boy at a bus station, forced him to a hotel and attempted to rape him. This was not an isolated incident. He had other convictions involving underage children. What personal action has the home affairs minister taken in response to this court decision? 15:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think I'm aware of the particular case that you're referring to, Senator Whitten. As I've said, the Australian government and Minister Burke take our and his responsibility to protect the Australian community from risk of harm by non-citizens very seriously. That's why, as I've said, the usual course in these situations is that ministers or departments have cancelled visas for individuals in similar situations to the one you're describing. The reality is that a decision to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa application is open to some forms of review. While I can't speak to the specifics of this case, I can confirm that the decision of the Federal Court is being examined. If we are talking about the same case, you are correct that the Federal Court did overturn a previous decision. I think it was either by the minister or the department. That decision by the court is currently being examined and whatever action can be taken will be. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whitten, second supplementary? 15:32 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia The Minister for Home Affairs inherited ministerial directive 110 from the previous minister. It's a directive that has allowed hundreds of people with substantial criminal history to stay in the country, with at least 10 of those people being convicted of child sex crimes. Now we have the Federal Court overturning the ART's decision. These are people that have failed the character test and must be removed from the country. Will the minister commit to making a more substantial directive to the ART, strengthening migration laws and protecting the Australian people? 15:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Whitten. I would certainly want to check those figures you've cited to ensure that they are accurate. As I've already stated, in our last term of office, the ministers at the time did create a new ministerial direction to the ART to make even more clear the government's expectations as to the sorts of things they would take into account when they're considering these types of matters. The reality is that we do have an independent ART, which makes these decisions about review applications that are made. I think the government has made very clear what its expectations have been, and, indeed, we strengthened those expectations in our first term. I might remind you, Senator Whitten, that there have been occasions where the One Nation party—despite its constant claims to toughen up on people—has actually voted the other way. We all remember that, after the terrible Bondi atrocity, when this government tried to strengthen legislation to deport hate preachers, One Nation voted against us. Wages and Salaries 85 15:33 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia My question is to the minister for youth, Senator Walsh. Young Australians want the same opportunities as the generations before them: a good job, fair pay and the chance to build a secure future. The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change by getting wages moving, strengthening workplace protections and helping young Australians keep more of what they earn. What does the latest wage data tell us about our progress in improving the economic security of young workers? 15:34 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for your question and for— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order! Senator WALSH 252157 Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for all of your support for young workers in WA and workers across the country. This week's data confirms that wages are growing under Labor. Wages are up by 3.2 per cent over the year, and real wages are up in the quarter as well. That matters for young workers. The young Australians who are starting— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU President, my point of order is about the disruptive behaviour from those opposite. This is a question about young Australians, and I think people would like to— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong 00AOU It would be a bit of courtesy and respect for young Australians if the minister could at least be heard. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, you would be aware that throughout this question time in particular I have called to order and I have reminded senators that I'm quite prepared to use standing order 203. I should not have to do this. I expect the minister to be heard in silence. Minister Walsh. Senator WALSH 252157 We support the young Australians who are starting their first job, building their skills, building their careers, building their future and getting ahead. The Albanese Labor government is committed to helping them do just that. How? This way—on our watch, the minimum wage is now more than $12,000 a year higher, and it is $1,000 a week for the first time. That's because we've backed five consecutive increases to the minimum wage— Senator WALSH 252157 And I'll take the interjection. You think that is a joke? We think that is progress for Australian workers. As the Prime Minister said, we absolutely back higher minimum wages for Australians— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Order! Senator McKenzie, if you interject any more during the remainder of question time, I am going to name you under standing order 203. If you don't think you can keep quiet for the remainder of question time and you don't want to come under standing order 203, leave the chamber. I am serious. I'm over the interjections. I'm over the rudeness. I'm over the disrespect. Minister Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 Our government will never walk away from young workers. As the Prime Minister has said, we absolutely back higher minimum wages for Australians—unlike all of those opposite—and that includes young Australians. It's why we back penalty rates. It's why we've locked them in with legislation. It's why we back making wage theft a crime, and we have. It's why we back abolishing junior rates, giving young workers in retail, fast food and pharmacy a pay rise. Before I entered parliament, I was proud to represent young hospitality workers, so I know that the biggest beneficiaries of these changes are our nation's young people. This is what Labor is delivering—higher wages and higher weekly earnings. Our government has got wages moving. We know you all love low wages. We back Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary? 15:38 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Young Australians make an important contribution in workplaces across our economy. They deserve wages that properly value their work and give them the opportunity to get ahead. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to lift wages and deliver fairer pay for young workers? 15:38 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Labor listen to young people and we act on what they tell us. I recently met Brayden, Prachi, Genita and Misha, four young workers from the SDA who stood up for fair pay. They campaigned for 18- to 20-year-olds working in retail, fast food and pharmacy to be paid the same as their older co-workers. It's not too much to ask. It worked, and it's only fair. We on this side of the chamber will always back a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and that includes for young Australians. Their contribution deserves to be valued. They never got that under the coalition government. The coalition called low wages a deliberate design feature. We call this a deliberate choice to make wages higher. When young workers stood up, we stood with them, and, together, we are delivering fairer pay. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary? 15:39 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Young Australians deserve these higher wages and improved conditions, but our progress so far cannot be taken for granted. What obstacles stand in the way of delivering fair wages and greater economic security for young workers? Opposition senators interjecting— 15:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We're hearing from those obstacles right now. The biggest obstacle is all those opposite, who always oppose higher wages for young Australians. Everybody knows what young people got from the coalition government. They spent a decade deliberately keeping wages low—and they were proud of it. One Nation are cut from the same cloth. They don't back young workers either. They opposed increases to the minimum wage. They want to scrap penalty rates. They want to make it easier to sack workers—and we know who goes first; it's young workers. They tried to block better job security for casuals. They voted against— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, resume your seat. Withdraw that, Senator Hume. Senator Hume 266499 You can't just make stuff up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator Hume 266499 But they're making stuff up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume— Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 resume your seat. Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, you do not sit in your seat and withdraw; you stand up. Senator Hume 266499 I've withdrawn twice. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, you haven't withdrawn twice. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, I'm running the chamber, Senator Hume, not you. Senator Ayres, resume your seat. I'm going to remind those across the chamber: if you make a remark, which is disorderly, you withdraw it respectfully. You don't add to it. You don't make comment. You simply stand up and withdraw, and you do that when I ask. Senator Hume, please withdraw. Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH 252157 I was talking about One Nation. Senator Hume may want to run protection for One Nation because they are really two sides of the same coin. They all oppose higher wages for young workers. One Nation oppose better protections for gig workers. They oppose making wage theft a crime. They oppose better job security for casuals. On this side of the chamber— (Time expired) Economy 87 15:42 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. With $1 trillion in government debt, how much is the Commonwealth currently paying on interest on this debt each minute? 15:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the shadow minister for finance for the question. It gives me the opportunity to reflect on the complete and utter hypocrisy of those opposite when they raise the issue of the concern and the hand-wringing around Australia's debt— Senator Chandler 264449 Point of order: relevance. I didn't ask for the minister's reflection. I asked a very tight question that I would like an answer to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister had just stood to answer. I note that the interjections on my left started immediately. I remind you that you need to listen in silence. If the minister is not relevant to the question, I will draw her to that question. Senator GALLAGHER ING The complete and utter hypocrisy of those opposite when they come in here and hand-wring about Australia's public debt, because it— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M I'm going to go with direct relevance. It was a very tight question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, the minister had just stood. She started referring to debt. I will continue to listen to her answer. Senator GALLAGHER ING I can assure the shadow minister for finance that the debt we are repaying—most of which was accrued under those opposite from 2013 to 2022, if you go back and have a look—is less than it would have been had they been left in charge. We have paid down debt, and because we've paid down debt we are paying lower interest on that debt. They are the facts—two surpluses, returning upward revision to revenue to budget and finding savings. Debt is lower in every year that we have been in government than what it would have been if we had followed the path of those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 15:45 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, with $1 trillion in government debt, how much has the Commonwealth paid in interest on this debt in total since Labor came to government in May 2022? 15:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would remind those opposite that when we came to government, gross debt was forecast to be $977 billion. That was the figure for the 2020-23 fiscal year that you were responsible for. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 On direct relevance, that's an answer to a completely different question. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being directly relevant to Senator Chandler's question. Senator GALLAGHER ING I am merely drawing to those opposite's attention the history and the facts of this matter, which is that the majority of the debt that we are managing now and managing in a much more responsible way was accrued under those opposite when they were in government. They doubled the debt before the pandemic hit— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a point of order? Senator Cash I0M Again, it is direct relevance. I'm not quite sure how much tighter we can draft our questions. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind you that the first part of Senator Chandler's question asks 'since this government was elected'. That was directly relevant. I can't be any clearer. As you know, I can't direct the minister to answer in the way that you might see fit, but your question is on relevance and direct relevance, and the minister is being both. Senator GALLAGHER ING As we outlined in this year's budget, debt is lower than what we inherited and interest payments on that debt are lower— Senator Chandler 264449 No, it's not! Senator GALLAGHER ING In terms of the forecasts that we were provided, it is lower, and interest on that debt is lower because of the budget decisions that we have made. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary? 15:47 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, under your government, Australians have suffered the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. There have been 15 interest rate rises and now a trillion dollars of government debt. This year, $28 billion will be spent just on the interest to that debt. That could be spent on 200,000 nurses or 400,000 aged-care packages or a thousand kilometres of regional highway upgrades. How can you claim that things are getting better when Labor's debt is wasting billions that could be helping Australians? 15:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The point I'm making is that we are managing the debt burden in a much more responsible way than those opposite. In fact, in this year, debt is $7 billion lower than it would have been under those opposite, who went to the last election promising higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. Since the election, they have made a whole range of new promises that will mean that debt will be even higher going forward. So how are you going to pay for your income tax cuts? How are you going to pay for repealing all of the tax reform that we've done? How are you going to pay for the EV tax discount? How are you going to pay for removing better targeted super concessions? How are you going to pay with your defence spending? How are you going to pay for removing the HAFF? There is a whole range of areas. What about inland rail? What about the inland rail that you've promised to build? You have to explain how you're going to pay for that. Housing 89 15:48 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities, Senator Ayres. For too long, too many Australians have felt that the housing market is fundamentally broken, that the system is stacked against them and that homeownership is just too far out of reach. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help more Australians into homeownership? 15:49 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you to Senator Tyrrell for that question. I can only assume, following Senator Ruston's interjection, that I've been asked to answer a question just to get everybody to calm down a little bit. It's been a little bit noisy. Poor old Senator Gatenby has only been here for a week! He has been trying to interject all afternoon, and you lot have been bellowing over the top of him. We want to hear the quality of his interjections over here! We are really looking forward to an improvement in the quality of the interjections. This is a government that understands how important housing is to Australians and understands what has happened and what has changed the experience of Australians in terms of the way that they feel about their chances of getting their first home or getting a fair rental deal, getting the opportunity for the security of housing. As a government we have delivered real change, no matter how tough it is. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 I'll come to the policy development unit over there in a minute. It makes a real difference; it's real change for Australians—$47 billion housing package; five per cent home deposits; thousands of social and affordable homes constructed and thousands more on the way; tax changes that fundamentally change the housing market and mean that young Australians, for the first time in a generation— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. My goodness, I am well and truly over the interjections. The rudeness shown, particularly by senators on my left, is quite extreme today. I've called you personally to order. I invite you to leave the chamber. Quite frankly, I've had enough of calling you out. It is disrespectful to me as President. Senator AYRES 16913 I think the sound you just heard was my train of thought being derailed, President! I'll sit down and wait for the supplementary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 15:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Let's get you back on track; we'll get the train back on track. More Australians now finally have a real opportunity to get into homeownership. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make sure that homes are safe, decent and affordable, whether they're for first home buyers or renters? 15:52 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think I've outlined the sum of our effort in terms of home construction. But Senator Ruston interjects to say, 'What does "decent" mean?' Decent means standards in housing that mean that we have swimming pool safety and barriers; standards around stairs, balustrades and fall prevention; drinking water safety; sanitary plumbing and sewerage; wastewater disposal; ventilation; smoke alarms and emergency exits; bushfire, flood and cyclone prone standards—standards that go to the decency of housing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Ayres, resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I called you during that first supplementary and you completely ignored me, once again showing disrespect to me as the President. I invite you to listen quietly or leave the chamber. Senator AYRES 16913 We have seen around the world, including in the United Kingdom, in the Grenfell housing disaster, what it means when you cut housing standards and think it's okay to put ordinary people, working people, into substandard housing, as Senator Bragg suggested just a few days ago. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 15:53 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Albanese Labor government is delivering safe, secure and affordable homes around the country. Can the minister outline what approaches to Australia's housing standards might risk the safety and security of prospective Australian homeowners and renters? 15:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I did wonder whether we'd come to alternative approaches. It seems like just a few days ago that the policy development unit of the Liberal Party was providing his report to the National Press Club. There's more policy development happening over there. For just a few moments, just for these few days, it had a positive effect. It was a little ray of sunshine. The Liberals, who have spent the last 12 months backgrounding against each other, suddenly were backgrounding against one person only just for a few days. What a sense of relief Mr Taylor must have felt. The Liberals finally united against this trickled down wolf in teal clothing over here, Senator Bragg, who— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, withdraw that comment. Senator AYRES 16913 I withdraw. He did say, 'It's hard to make perfect judgements all the time, but I do my best.' (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper, President. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 90 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 90 15:56 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Unfortunately for Australians, the economic news is all bad. Australia is now tipping into $1 trillion worth of national debt. Unemployment is now on the rise. Inflation remains outside the RBA's preferred range of two to three per cent. Australians are living with 15 interest rate rises under Labor. Living standards are falling. And there is no plan from Labor to reverse this economic bad news. It's official. Australia has now tipped over the $1 trillion mark for national debt. Why should people be alarmed about that? In just 12 months, that represents $27 billion in interest rate payments alone. What does $27 billion buy you? It could buy you 200,000 nurses. It could buy you 400,000 high-care aged-care places. It could deliver $1,800 in tax relief to every Australian taxpayer—a trillion dollars' worth of national debt, with $27 billion worth of interest payments in one year alone. Rising levels of national debt, especially when they trip over the $1 trillion mark, are bad news for Australians for two primary reasons. The first reason is that that debt bill shackles young Australians to higher taxes in the future. Think about that. If you're a young Australian, you should be both alarmed and alert to the fact that we have now tipped over $1 trillion worth of national debt because that is your debt. They are your future tax increases that you and your young families will be responsible for. There's another reason why we should be concerned about $1 trillion worth of national debt—and growing—and that is that it reduces the fiscal capacity of this country to respond to unforeseen events like global conflicts that interrupt our supply chain or global pandemics which put Australians and Australia's prosperity at risk. There is no way the government can make this $1 trillion national debt story into a good news story. It is all bad and it's particularly bad for young Australians. But there is an alternative that will fix the economy and protect our way of life. There's an alternative for lower taxes, a plan for cheaper power, a plan for less migration and more homes and a plan to put Australians first. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Smith, please don't use props in the chamber. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 That plan to fix the economy, to protect our way of life, is a plan that will pay down Labor's trillion dollars worth of national debt. It's a plan that puts Australians first. It's a plan that gives a future brighter than the one that Labor offers to young Australians. It's a plan that gets this country back in shape. It's a plan led by Angus Taylor and the coalition—in contrast to Labor, who have no plan. Labor's plan, unfortunately, is rising levels of inflation, rising levels of unemployment, rising interest rates— (Time expired) 16:00 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Labor has a plan. We're implementing the plan, we're in government with the plan and it's a pretty good plan. We don't need a prop to demonstrate that plan. The plan is the reality of the life that we are living in government. While I welcome the return to a focus on the economy in question time—it's something which tends to escape the attention of those opposite a little too frequently—the fact is that, under those opposite, gross debt would have crossed the trillion-dollar mark three years ago. We know, if we put the facts on the table, that, if the coalition had been in power today, gross debt this year would already be approaching $1.2 trillion. Labor's responsible economic management has helped get debt down from what we inherited from those opposite, and, as a result, Australia is avoiding more than $70 billion in interest payments. The international rating agencies Moody's and S&P Global have this month both reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating, noting Australia's low debt levels. Our responsible economic management has delivered one of the strongest budgets in the developed world while continuing to deliver meaningful and ongoing help with the cost of living, like five tax cuts, more Medicare and more bulk-billing. The Liberals took a plan to the last election for higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debts. In contrast, we took a plan for lower taxes that invests in the things that matter—like critical cost-of-living support, because we know that Australians are doing it tough right now. We took a plan to invest in people's wages because we believe that high wages are a good thing. We believe that people being paid fairly for the work that they do is a good thing. We believe that early childhood care workers, who do one of the most important jobs in our country—caring for our nation's children in a critical period of their development—and are supporting participation in the workplace and supporting productivity, deserve to get paid fairly for the job that they do. For too long they were underpaid and undervalued. It's the same with aged-care workers. Aged-care workers do one of the most important roles in our community. Everyone who has a parent or a loved one in aged care, as I do, knows how much we rely on the amazing and extraordinary dedication and care that those workers provide to our loved ones. They deserve to be valued for the work that they do. But the fact is they've been working in an economy which has undervalued what they do—and which has undervalued women's economic contribution. So we have proactively worked to reform that. We have proactively worked to ensure that their wages go up. Of course, we're investing in things that matter like Medicare, with urgent care clinics right across the country making an enormous difference in people's lives. Anyone who's got a kid who's broken an arm or sprained a foot—in those instances they don't need to be in emergency at a hospital or in a waiting room; they can get that care in an urgent care clinic. We're investing in cheaper medicines, $25 scripts, which is making an extraordinary difference to the hip pockets of Australians right around the country, and we're making sure that they can get longer prescriptions as well. Our investments are about prioritising the things that matter. We have an Australian economy which is gathering momentum in the face of global economic uncertainty. We're focused on cost-of-living relief because we know how important that is for Australians, as well as investing in homeownership and trying to level the playing field so more young Australians can have that opportunity to own a home, like the generations before them. 16:04 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's hard to imagine how much $1 trillion is. The people of Australia now owe $1 trillion for the first time in our history, under this Labor government. One trillion dollars equates to 14,000 tonnes of $100 bills; $1 trillion equates to 1,400 kilometres if you stacked $100 bills from the floor of this Senate chamber on the way to the moon. That's what $1 trillion means. It's one million times one million. It's hard to get your head around, but that's what the Labor government has delivered for the Australian people. Not only that; it's delivered higher unemployment. We learned today the unemployment rate has hit 4.5 per cent, and, as Senator Smith said, the inflation rate is 3.8 per cent, outside the RBA's band of between two and three per cent. So we have $1 trillion in debt, the highest unemployment rate since the COVID pandemic and 3.8 per cent inflation, outside the RBA range of two to three per cent. That's one hell of a trifecta. This raises three concerns. First, it's a moral issue, because this level of debt is a betrayal of future generations, of our children and grandchildren, who'll have to pay it back. Second, the interest burden on that $1 trillion of debt, the interest that's got to be paid before we pay back the principal, is $29.6 billion a year. That's more than what we pay for JobSeeker, more than what we pay for our PBS system, more than what we pay to sustain our Army. That's what we've got to pay in interest. And, third, because of that level of debt, they've got to impose more taxes, such as the capital gains tax increases and the taxes on discretionary trusts used by hundreds of thousands of small businesses across Australia. That's the issue. As Senator Smith said, in the coalition's plan released by Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, this is recognised: 'Less debt, better government.' That's on page 26. I want to read this in terms of our values—and our values, I think, are the values of the Australian people: For Australians to have the means to live, government must live within its means. It makes sense. So what are we going to do? We're going to put a limit on spending such that government spending can't increase at a rate greater than the economy. It's got to be connected. We're going to establish a future fund so that, when we get a huge increase of revenue from iron ore, from coal, from oil and gas, we actually store some of that for future generations instead of squandering it. And we're also going to introduce a tax back guarantee for Australians, so, when Australians are pushed into higher tax thresholds because of inflation, the tax thresholds go up. That's the fair thing to do for the Australian people. We should be a country that lives within its means. This is a moral issue. We shouldn't place the burden of unsustainable debt on future generations. 16:08 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The coalition asked about interest costs on Australia's debt. I think that that's a fair question, but, before I answer it, I want to tell the chamber what that money was spent on, because I think that's really important context, the money that those opposite characterise as wasteful spending. It was spent on five tax cuts. From 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer got a tax cut, not just some. The average worker will be around $2,800 better off thanks to that spending. It was spent on cheaper medicines. The PBS co-payment has fallen to $25. Labor has expanded the PBS listings for cancer, kidney disease and cystic fibrosis treatments—absolutely life-changing drugs priced so people can afford them. That's what the money was spent on. It was spent on 137 urgent care clinics. It was spent on strengthening Medicare through the tripled-bulk-billing incentive. More Australians can see a doctor for no cost. No Australian should have to make the decision between putting food on the table and taking care of their health, and that's what Labor's spending has assured for Australians. It was spent on the workers who care for Australians—a historic 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, backed by a $3.6 billion spend in government funding. We spent $17.7 billion supporting the Fair Work Commission's pay rise for 400,000 aged-care workers. These are the people who look after our kids. These are the people who look after our elders. Their work was undervalued for decades, and Labor is fixing that. It was spent on a full six months of paid parental leave, with superannuation paid on every one of those weeks so that mums and dads are not robbed of retirement savings for making the choice of raising their kids. It was spent on free TAFE. Even while spending this money on Australians, this Labor government delivered the first back-to-back budget surpluses in nearly two decades. In four years, Labor has delivered more than a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar improvement to the budget bottom line. This is what those opposite are calling wasteful. Let me turn to the debt itself, because I think those opposite are hoping that everybody else has short memories just like them. In September 2013, when the coalition took office, Australia's gross debt was $280 billion. By May 2022, when they left office, gross debt had climbed to $881 billion—so 60 per cent of the trillion-dollar debt was added under the coalition government. And here is what those opposite don't want Australians to hear: if the coalition were still in power today, gross debt would be approaching $1.2 trillion. If they think a trillion dollars is eye-watering, imagine what $1.2 trillion would make them do. Australia's gross debt would have crossed the trillion-dollar mark 2½ years ago, not this year—that was Treasury's projection. Under this Labor government, gross debt is $173 billion lower than the coalition's 2022 projection. I commend this Labor government's economic management under Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher to the chamber. 16:12 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In 1996, Labor and Paul Keating bequeathed Australia $96 billion of debt. I thought that was a pretty big number. But Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party are bequeathing Australians a trillion dollars of debt. As Senator Scarr said, it's a million million dollars. I was interjecting—which I know is disorderly. I was asking various Labor ministers, 'How many zeros are there in a trillion dollars?' There are 12 zeros in a trillion dollars. But more worrying than the number of zeros in a trillion dollars is the interest payments. I shall be speaking for four minutes this afternoon. In the four minutes that I am speaking, our debt will have gone up $208,000—that is $52,000 a minute. That's a $27-billion-a-year interest bill. What are this government going to do about it? The first thing they're doing is blaming everyone else. They're blaming the previous government. They're blaming world affairs. They're blaming Robert Menzies. They're saying that the dog ate the homework, that the cat ran off with the iPad. Everyone else is to blame except this Labor government in coming to terms with their massive incompetence when it comes to fiscal management. There's an old saying that, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I am not using this as a prop, but there is a plan that has been put out by the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor, and the leader of the National Party, Matt Canavan— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator McGRATH 217241 I'll take that interjection. This plan— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McGrath, unless you are reading from the document, I ask you to put it on your desk. Senator McGRATH 217241 I am going to read from the document, because I'm going to read the table of contents of this document, which is allowed to be read. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Chisholm, are you on your feet with a point of order? Senator Chisholm 39801 Yes. My understanding was that slogans on materials are not appropriate for the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I will check with the clerk. Senator McGrath, you can—as I believed—read from the document, but I would ask you to do it in such a way that you are not using it to display a visible slogan. Senator McGRATH 217241 I would never do something like that—to display a visible slogan. I would encourage people to go to the coalition's plan to put Australians first. I would encourage Australians to go to page 26 of this document. It is a very thorough document. This document outlines our plan to reduce government debt and also to have better government. That is something I think all Australians want. They do want a better government. They don't want this prime minister, who's rarely in the same room as truth. They want a government who understands that there is a huge crisis out there at the moment. There is a cost-of-living crisis, and it is being driven along by excessive government spending. In the 31-minute speech of the Treasurer, whose political heroes are Wayne Swan and Paul Keating—heaven help us!—the government has realised that this treasurer is going to go down as the worst treasurer this country has seen because of the trillion dollars of debt, and they have no plan. This is the point that I'd ask those who are listening to remember: this government has no plan to pay down the trillion dollars of debt. The coalition do have a plan. They do have a plan to fix the economy and to protect our way of life, because Australia is worth fighting for, and we've got to get rid of this government to make it a better place. (Time expired) Question agreed to. International Relations: Australia and Israel 93 16:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Australian-Israeli relations. What a horrifying performance we saw from the Israeli ambassador today outside this very building, with no apology for the family of Zomi Frankcom and gaslighting us into believing that the humanitarian aid workers of the World Central Kitchen were somehow responsible for their own deaths. This is an ambassador who continually conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism—a man who engages in genocidal denial, a man who denies anyone was harmed when Israel kidnapped and sexually assaulted Australians attempting to deliver aid to Gaza. Let's not forget who ran the investigation that found it innocent. The Israeli military investigates itself. The war criminals are responsible for deciding if they should be found guilty of war crimes. What a complete and utter farce! Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din revealed that less than one per cent of complaints against soldiers in the West Bank lead to charges. They state that the rarity of punishments translated into IDF soldiers being able to act with impunity, and that is exactly what we have seen here. This was not an accident; it was murder to send a message that no aid to the Palestinians would be tolerated. How else can we explain nearly 200 aid workers killed by Israel just in 2025? It is no wonder that the June 2026 Pew Research Centre Global Attitudes Survey found that 79 per cent of Australians hold an unfavourable view of Israel. Only 19 per cent expressed a favourable opinion. Here's the thing: I don't expect any different from the Israeli government. The Israeli ambassador's entire job is to defend the genocide of Palestinian people. What makes me angry is that the Australian government lets them get away with it every single time. At every turn, they have acted more decisively to shut down, ridicule and attack those that seek justice for the victims of Israel rather than take any action against Israel. I am really sick of your outrage, Senator Wong. I am sick of your meetings, your press releases and your empty, meaningless words. I'm not sure if it is incompetence or indifference that has driven this government's complete lack of action on this issue that has got us to where we are today. Minister, you have called the timing of the decision, on World Humanitarian Day, especially insulting. Yes, it is. It is humiliating. But come on, minister. This is a message from Israel. The message is: 'We will do whatever we want, we will kill whoever we want, and there is not a single thing that you can do about it.' Today has shown that they are right. Today has shown this weak government will do nothing to protect its citizens. Question agreed to. National Security 93 16:22 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by Minister Watt to a question without notice I asked today relating to national security. One Nation is the party that puts the safety of Australians first. This Labor government has forgotten that the protection of Australians is their primary concern, not their compliance with UN treaties and not the wellbeing of foreign criminals but the Australian people. Instead, what we get from Labor is gaslighting. We get excuses. We are told there is nothing to be done: 'We have obligations under the law; that's why we can't send rapists, murderers and paedophiles home. That's why we have to let terrorists back to our shores after they've joined the most barbaric terrorist organisation on the planet.' No more excuses. The Labor government is trying to appease a voting bloc that they are relying on—that the Minister for Home Affairs relies on in his electorate. Their migration strategy is purely political. It ignores their obligation to look after the safety and peace of this great nation, and they do it all while screaming across the chamber that One Nation are racists. Let me tell you what One Nation is. It is the party that is providing solutions to the problems Labor is creating. We're not motivated by race; we are motivated by the safety and security of Australia. First, we have provided legislation that would provide powers for the minister to exclude terrorists from returning to Australia. This legislation has been carefully considered and endorsed by constitutional experts, not by a newspaper article, Minister Watt. We have done the work that Labor, with their hundreds of staff, refuses to do. With all those resources, the best they can come up with is the line, 'We aren't providing any assistance to that cohort.' They use all that time and money on excuses. We've given you the answer, use it. Next, One Nation has announced a policy that would allow DFAT's assessments and ban immigration from countries that are listed as 'do not travel' and require advance vetting for countries that have large areas designated as 'do not travel'. These are your departments. Are you seriously telling us that they are advising 'do not travel' zones based on racism? We aren't motivated by race. We are motivated by the safety of all Australians. It is high time the Labor government started taking this seriously. One Nation is providing sensible, developed solutions where Labor is providing the inside of a doughnut. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 94 Additional Information 94 16:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales At the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, a related bill and an addendum to the committee's report. BUDGET 94 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 94 16:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales At the request of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present additional information relating to estimates. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 94 Report 94 16:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales At the request of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the advisory report on Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Works Joint Committee 94 Report 94 16:26 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present the fifth report of the 2026 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. DOCUMENTS 94 DOCUMENTS Tabling 94 16:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table a deed of settlement and release and a statement from Fiona Brown. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 94 Scrutiny Digest 94 16:27 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present Scrutiny digest 10 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 10 of 2026. The digest contains the committee's consideration of 13 bills introduced during the period of 11 August to 13 August 2026. The committee has also concluded its consideration of one previously introduced bill. I wish to draw senators' attention to the committee's consistent scrutiny concerns relating to coercive powers. The committee draws attention to this matter under Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(i), which requires the committee to scrutinise whether bills unduly trespass on personal liberties and rights. The committee's consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 demonstrates the relevance of such concerns. The bill would extend by three years significant counterterrorism measures in the Criminal Code Act 1995 that are due to sunset on 7 December 2026. These measures include powers that authorise a police officer to stop, question and search a person or seize items in a Commonwealth place or prescribed security zone without a warrant. The bill would also extend the operation of the control order regime under which a court may impose conditions on, or restrict the activities of, a person without charge. The committee has a well-established history of questioning the repeated extension of these measures since their enactment in 2005. The committee has once again requested advice about the appropriateness of the deferral of sunsetting in this instance. The bill would also repeal provisions in the Criminal Code that limit control orders imposed on children aged 14 to 17 years to three months. This amendment would extend the maximum duration of control orders for children within this age group from three to 12 months, in line with adults. The committee has noted that a robust assessment of any anticipated detriment that may be caused to children should be addressed in an explanatory memorandum and has sought further information from the minister. Finally, the bill would seek to expand monitoring and surveillance powers to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 when consideration is being given to seek a control order against a serious terrorist offender. These powers may only be exercised under a warrant that is issued by a judicial officer or certain members of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The committee has reiterated its consistent position that warrants or orders authorising the use of coercive powers should be issued only by judicial officers and has drawn this matter to the attention of senators. Where a bill would confer coercive powers such as those proposed in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to set out why those powers are appropriate, the safeguards that exist and whether the approach taken is consistent with the Guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers as published by the Attorney-General's Department. The committee considers it essential that coercive powers be tightly controlled with sufficient safeguards to protect individual rights and liberties. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 10 of 2026 to senators. Question agreed to. Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Northern Australia Joint Committee 95 Government Response to Report 95 16:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present six government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Dear President, I am writing to advise you that the Australian Government responded to Recommendation 2 of the Australian Greens' Dissenting Report to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025 through debate in the Senate on 1 July 2026. I have enclosed the relevant Hansard extract from 1 July 2026. I have copied this letter to Senator Marielle Smith, Chair, Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Yours sincerely, Senator Clare, Minister for Education _____ Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report: Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 AUGUST 2026 Introduction On 5 February 2025, the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 (the Bill) was introduced into the Senate by Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator for Tasmania. On 12 February 2025, the Senate referred the Bill to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (Committee) for inquiry and report. The inquiry lapsed at the end of the 47th Parliament. Following the 2025 federal election, the Bill was reintroduced into the Senate and referred again to the Committee for inquiry and report. The Committee received seven submissions. On 18 March 2026, the Committee tabled its report titled Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025. This Committee recommended that the Senate not pass the Bill. The Committee's report includes dissenting recommendations from Senator Lambie. This document provides responses to Senator Lambie's recommendations. In addition, the Government notes that, on 15 April 2026, the independent Remuneration Tribunal issued a public statement that it will undertake reviews of remuneration arrangements for secretaries and full-time office holders. As part of its public statement, the Tribunal said that it recognises the strong public interest in the remuneration of senior public officials and is committed to ensuring arrangements remain fair, transparent and aligned with contemporary expectations. The Tribunal intends to complete the reviews by mid-2027. Dissenting Report Recommendations—Senator Lambie Response: Noted The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Auditor-General is an independent officer of the Parliament. Under section 8 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 (the Act), the Auditor-General has complete discretion in the performance or exercise of their functions or powers, including audits they chose to conduct. The Act also provides that, in performing or exercising their functions or powers, the Auditor-General must have regard to the audit priorities of the Parliament as determined by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). In addition, the Auditor-General receives requests for audit from individual members and senators of the Parliament. The Auditor-General responds to requests and publishes the request and response on the Australian National Audit Office's website. The JCPAA is also notified of each request. Response: Noted The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Remuneration Tribunal is an independent statutory authority established under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. The Tribunal consists of three part-time members, and is responsible for determining, reporting on or providing advice about remuneration for a range of key Commonwealth offices within its jurisdiction. The statutory independence of the Tribunal ensures that matters relating to the remuneration of public offices are determined at arm's length from government, parliament and the judiciary. The Tribunal plays a critical role in providing transparency and confidence to the public relating to remuneration arrangements of key Commonwealth offices, while ensuring the public sector can attract and retain the right people for these important roles. The Australian Government respects the independence of the Tribunal, including in relation to its operations. _____ Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report: Access to Australian Parliament House by lobbyists 2026 The Government notes all recommendations in the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report: Access to Australian Parliament House by lobbyists. Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends the Australian Government commission an independent review of the Lobbying Code of Conduct to consider: an expanded definition of a lobbyist introducing legislation to require all lobbyists to adhere to the Lobbying Code of Conduct and maintain registration on the Register of Lobbyists, and the most appropriate body to administer the Lobbying Code of Conduct and the Register of Lobbyists at a Commonwealth level. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services and the administrator of the Lobbying Code of Conduct explore opportunities for regulatory interoperability to improve the effective regulation of lobbyists including appropriate procedures for managing respective notifications received, regardless of whether the Lobbying Code of Conduct is a voluntary or legislated scheme. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services restore the unescorted day pass for persons who require only occasional access to Australian Parliament House. Response: Noted. The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's report. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, wrote to the Presiding Officers to express the government's clear view that there should be greater transparency and rigour around sponsored passes, particularly for professional lobbyists. That letter was tabled in the Parliament. The Government notes the Presiding Officers approved revisions to the Australian Parliament House Private Area Access Policy in June 2026. The new policy acts on the government's calls for greater transparency and rigour. This reform is the most significant of its kind. It goes beyond any measures implemented since the opening of Parliament House over 35 years ago. It is fair, transparent, and in line with community expectations. The revised policy sets the standard for anyone who is conducting business or lobbying activity in parliament house. This is not a short-term fix; it is a considered and enduring reform. Access to Parliament House and Australia's parliamentarians plays an essential role in Australia's vibrant democracy. Arrangements for access to Parliament House are a matter for the Presiding Officers. Lobbying is a legitimate and important part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for individuals and the community as a whole. The Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) promotes trust in the integrity of government processes and ensures that contact between third-party lobbyists and Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty. This includes making clear to government representatives who are approached by third-party lobbyists whose interests the lobbyists represent so that informed judgments can be made about the outcome they are seeking to achieve. The Code sits within a broader integrity and transparency framework, including the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the Public Service Act 1999 and APS Employment Principles, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act2018 (which also regulates lobbying activities), the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), disclosure requirements for political donations in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The revised policy strengthens regulatory interoperability between the Code and sponsored access passes for third-party lobbyists. Under the revised policy, third-party lobbyists who have a business need to access private areas of Parliament House are required to apply for a Federal Registered Lobbyist Pass. Eligibility for this pass includes registration on the Australian Government Register of Lobbyists and ongoing compliance with the Code. Labor Senators Additional Comments Recommendation 1: Labor Senators recommend that the Presiding Officers oversee the Department of Parliamentary Services to ensure that orange pass applicants are made aware of the Register of Lobbyists and can consider if the Code applies to their activities in Parliament. Recommendation 2: Labor Senators also firmly support the restoration of the unescorted day pass for persons who require only occasional access to Australian Parliament House for the reasons outlined in the Chair's report. However, Labor Senators believe their restoration needs to be weighed up by Presiding Officers alongside a current assessment of any arising security risks or concerns. Response: Noted. Access to Parliament House and Australia's parliamentarians plays an essential role in Australia's vibrant democracy. Arrangements for access to Parliament House are a matter for the Presiding Officers. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, wrote to the Presiding Officers to express the government's clear view that there should be greater transparency and rigour around sponsored passes, particularly for professional lobbyists. That letter was tabled in the Parliament. The Government notes the Presiding Officers approved revisions to the Australian Parliament House Private Area Access Policy in June 2026. The new policy acts on the government's calls for greater transparency and rigour. This reform is the most significant of its kind. It goes beyond any measures implemented since the opening of parliament house over 35 years ago. It is fair, transparent, and in line with community expectations. The revised policy sets the standard for anyone who is conducting business or lobbying activity in parliament house. This is not a short-term fix; it is a considered and enduring reform. The revised policy strengthens regulatory interoperability between the Code and sponsored access passes for third-party lobbyists. Under the revised policy, third-party lobbyists who have a business need to access private areas of Parliament House are required to apply for a Federal Registered Lobbyist Pass. Eligibility for this pass includes registration on the Australian Government Register of Lobbyists and ongoing compliance with the Code. The Attorney-General's Department is continuing to work with the Department of Parliamentary Services to improve awareness of Code obligations among pass holders and applicants. Dissenting report from Senator David Pocock Recommendation 1: The definition of lobbyist should be expanded so that all lobbyists, including in-house lobbyists, are on the Register of Lobbyists and subject to the Lobbying Code of Conduct. Recommendation 2: The Lobbying Code of Conduct should extend to include interactions between lobbyists and all parliamentarians. Recommendation 3: The Lobbying Code of Conduct must be legislated and include appropriate penalties for breaches. Recommendation 4: An independent regulator should be appointed and properly resourced to oversee the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Lobbyist Register. Recommendation 5: Details of sponsored passes should be published, included the name of the passholder, the passholder's employer and the identity of the sponsoring parliamentarian. Recommendation 6: A model should be developed for monthly publication of Ministerial diaries. The starting point for design of that model should be the system currently in force in Queensland. Recommendation 7: Establish a Whistle-blower Protection Authority to ensure that whistle-blowers using parliamentary privilege are adequately protected. Response: Noted. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, wrote to the Presiding Officers to express the government's clear view that there should be greater transparency and rigour around sponsored passes, particularly for professional lobbyists. That letter was tabled in the Parliament. The Government notes the Presiding Officers approved revisions to the Australian Parliament House Private Area Access Policy in June 2026. The new policy acts on the government's calls for greater transparency and rigour. This reform is the most significant of its kind. It goes beyond any measures implemented since the opening of Parliament House over 35 years ago. It is fair, transparent, and in line with community expectations. The revised policy sets the standard for anyone who is conducting business or lobbying activity in parliament house. This is not a short-term fix; it is a considered and enduring reform. The revised policy strengthens regulatory interoperability between the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) and sponsored access passes for third-party lobbyists. Under the revised policy, third-party lobbyists who have a business need to access private areas of Parliament House are required to apply for a Federal Registered Lobbyist Pass. Eligibility for this pass includes registration on the Australian Government Register of Lobbyists and ongoing compliance with the Code. The Code promotes trust in the integrity of government processes and ensures that contact between third-party lobbyists and Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty. This includes making clear to government representatives who are approached by third-party lobbyists whose interests the lobbyists represent so that informed judgments can be made about the outcomes they are seeking to achieve. The Code sits within a broader integrity and transparency framework, including the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the Public Service Act 1999 and APS Employment Principles, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act2018 (which also regulates certain lobbying activities), the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), disclosure requirements for political donations in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Ministerial diaries may be published under the FOI Act. Access to Parliament House and Australia's parliamentarians plays an essential role in Australia's vibrant democracy. Arrangements for access to Parliament House are a matter for the Presiding Officers. The Government is committed to strengthening protections for Commonwealth public sector whistleblowers through staged reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act). The first stage of public sector whistleblowing reforms in 2023 made significant improvements to the PID Act in line with the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. On 10 September 2025, the Government released an exposure draft Bill for public consultation on a second stage of reforms. The exposure draft Bill proposed establishing a new Whistleblower Ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, clarifying and strengthening protections for disclosers who act within the PID framework, and ensuring that that the rights, obligations and procedures in the PID Act are clear and accessible. The Treasury is also conducting a statutory review into Australia's tax and corporate whistleblowing frameworks contained in the Corporations Act 2001 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The review will consider whether current protections available to whistleblowers are adequate. _____ Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's Inquiry report: Current and Proposed Sexual Consent Laws in Australia AUGUST 2026 Introduction The Australian Government is grateful to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (the Committee) for its Inquiry into current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia. The Australian Government is committed to an Australia that is free from sexual violence. The Australian Government thanks the committee for identifying several areas where improvements can be made to strengthen the legal frameworks in relation to sexual consent and to support victim-survivors of sexual violence through clearer processes and better services. The report makes 17 recommendations. The Government has carefully considered these recommendations and agrees to one recommendation, agrees in principle to five recommendations, and notes 11 recommendations. This whole-of-government response to the Committee's 17 recommendations was coordinated by the Attorney-General's Department (AGD), with contributions from: Department of Social Services (DSS), Department of Education, the Office for Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, Universities Australia and the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission (DFSV Commission). The Australian Government's response has been endorsed by the Attorney-General, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP; the Minister for Women, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher; the Minister for Education, the Hon Jason Clare MP; the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP; the Minister for Communications, the Hon Anika Wells MP the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Tony Burke MP; and the Assistant Minister for Social Services, the Prevention of Family Violence, the Hon Ged Kearney MP. On 6 August 2026, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, the Hon Patrick Gorman MP approved the response for tabling in the Federal Parliament. Together, our response to these recommendations reaffirms the Australian Government's ongoing commitment to work collaboratively with states and territories to strengthen and harmonise laws relating to sexual assault and consent, and to improve justice outcomes for victim-survivors across Australia. Furthermore, with commitments made under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, its associated Action Plans and Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices: National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Plan to End Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 2026-2036, we affirm our collective commitment to a country free of gender-based violence—where all people live free from fear and violence and are safe at home, at work, at school, in the community and online. In addition, the Australian Government recognises that respectful relationships education is a key long-term prevention measure to change harmful attitudes and increase understanding on issues such as consent and healthy, safe relationships. Australian Government response to the recommendations of the Inquiry report _____ Australian Government response to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's First Report on the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool August 2026 Introduction On 11 October 2022, the then Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, the Hon Stephen Jones MP, referred an inquiry into the operation and implementation of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool (the pool) to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia (the Committee). The Australian Government acknowledges the Committee's first report on the pool released in March 2023. The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC) has been operating the pool since 1 July 2022, as legislated by the previous Government. The pool is designed to improve the affordability of household, strata and small business property insurance policies in cyclone-prone areas, which are primarily located in Northern Australia. Treasury is currently undertaking a legislated review of the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act 2003 (the Act). The Australian Government's response to the first report reflects that the statutory review of the Act is ongoing and has had regard to some of the report's recommendations. Consideration is also ongoing as to how best to tackle the interrelated issues of rising natural hazard risk and insurance affordability, in the context of the Australian Government's other priorities such as its housing agenda. The Australian Government has implemented several reforms related to these policy areas, including: Establishing the Disaster Ready Fund, to deliver $1 billion over 5 years from 1 July 2023 on projects to support communities to reduce risks and better prepare for natural hazards. This flagship program is ensuring that Australia is better prepared and more resilient in the face of more intense and more frequent weather events. Founding the Hazards Insurance Partnership, to facilitate insights between the insurance industry and Government and create a shared understanding of natural hazard risk and appropriate risk reduction measures across Australia. Forming the Insurance Affordability and Natural Hazard Risk Reduction Taskforce (IANHRRT), led by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to advise on measures that could help reduce risk and improve insurance affordability and coverage. The Government is considering the advice of IANHRRT and working with relevant agencies and stakeholders on how it can further improve natural hazard risk and insurance affordability. The Government is also undertaking measures to improve consumer outcomes in home insurance. The Government announced as part of Budget 2026-27 that it will develop and consult on options to improve clarity around the basis of home and contents premiums and it will legislate standard definitions of natural hazard terms used in property insurance contracts. Response to the recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that future releases of modelling are provided well in advance of key dates in the ongoing roll-out of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review: the availability and coverage of insurance in Northern Australia, specifically the insured versus the uninsured, including non-participation; and the impact of the 48-hour clause on the cost of insurance premiums for Northern Australians, and the availability of insurance in the region as part of the built-in review in 2025, and adjust this clause if necessary. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Treasury is currently undertaking a review of the Act, which includes in its terms of reference to review whether the cyclone reinsurance pool is meeting its purpose of improving insurance access and affordability for households, small businesses, and residential and commercial strata with medium to high cyclone and related flood damage risk. It is also considering whether the 48-hour clause should be extended. Treasury will provide a report to the Government in due course. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to monitor the cyclone insurance markets in Northern Australia, and report on: instances where thin markets may be impacting both insurance coverage and cost; and market participation, specifically under-insurance and the issue of lack of insurance in some areas Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been directed to monitor the prices, costs, and profits of home, contents, strata, and certain commercial insurance policies, before and after the cyclone reinsurance pool was introduced. The ACCC collects data and information from insurers to: evaluate the impact of the cyclone reinsurance pool assess whether savings are passed through to policy holders. The ACCC is required to provide a report on their monitoring at least once each calendar year from 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2026. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government announce a position on the inclusion of marine insurance in the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. In September 2025, the Government announced that small business marine property insurance policies will not be included in the cyclone pool because modelling shows it would have a negligible impact on affordability and potentially lead to an increase in costs. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate a coordinated approach to land use planning, building codes, mitigation and disaster resilience that includes the National Emergency Management Agency and other levels of government. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government supports improving resilience, access to risk information and insurance outcomes for all Australians. The Australian Government is considering how best to address the interrelated issues of reducing natural hazard risk, improving emergency management and improving insurance affordability. The advice of the IANHRRT and the Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding (Colvin Review), and analysis such as the National Climate Risk Assessment, are all part of these considerations, as are other Government priorities such as its housing agenda. The Australian Government will continue to work with relevant departments and stakeholders to ensure further initiatives in relation to these policy issues are well calibrated. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government's 2025 review of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool consider: evidence and data on whether to 'sunset' the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool's coverage of policies for new builds past a certain date; and how to reinforce the policy objective of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool to move to parity of cost and access for all Australians. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government is currently undertaking a review of the Act, which includes in its terms of reference consideration of the objectives of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool and in consultation questions whether new builds should be excluded from the pool. Treasury will provide a report to the Government in due course. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that future reviews of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool consider the sum insured limit under the business property policy. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is currently undertaking a review of the Act which includes in its consultation questions whether the sum insured limit for SMEs remains appropriate. Treasury will provide a report to the Government in due course. _____ Australian Government response to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia: Final Report on the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool August 2026 Introduction The Australian Government acknowledges the Final Report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia (the Committee) on the operation and implementation of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool (cyclone pool). The Committee was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 3 August 2022 and resolution of the House of Representatives on 4 August 2022 to inquire into and report on matters relating to the development of Northern Australia, as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister. On 11 October 2022, the then Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, the Hon Stephen Jones MP referred to the Committee to inquire into and report on the operation and implementation of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool. The Committee held public hearings on 25 November 2022, 19 April 2024 and 7 February 2025. The Committee tabled its Final Report in March 2025. The Australian Government commenced a review of the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act 2003 on 30 September 2025, which includes the cyclone reinsurance pool. Treasury will provide a report to the Government in due course. The Australian Government's response to the final report reflects that the statutory review of the Act is ongoing and has had regard to some of the report's recommendations. Consideration is also ongoing as to how best to tackle the interrelated issues of rising natural hazard risk and insurance affordability, in the context of the Australian Government's other priorities such as its housing agenda. The Australian Government has implemented several reforms related to these policy areas, including: Establishing the Disaster Ready Fund, to deliver $1 billion over 5 years from 1 July 2023 on projects to support communities to reduce risks and better prepare for natural hazards. This flagship program is ensuring that Australia is better prepared and more resilient in the face of more intense and more frequent weather events. Founding the Hazards Insurance Partnership, to facilitate insights between the insurance industry and Government and create a shared understanding of natural hazard risk and appropriate risk reduction measures across Australia. Forming the Insurance Affordability and Natural Hazard Risk Reduction Taskforce (IANHRRT), led by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to advise on measures that could help reduce risk and improve insurance affordability and coverage. The Government is considering the advice of IANHRRT and working with relevant agencies and stakeholders on how it can further improve natural hazard risk and insurance affordability. The Government is also undertaking measures to improve consumer outcomes in home insurance. The Government announced as part of Budget 2026-27 that it will develop and consult on options to improve clarity around the basis of home and contents premiums and it will legislate standard definitions of natural hazard terms used in property insurance contracts. Response to the recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government must proceed with the planned legislated review of the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool in 2025. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government commenced a review of the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act 2003 on 30 September 2025, which includes the cyclone reinsurance pool. Treasury will provide a report to the Government in due course. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government publish modelling on the cost and benefits of the inclusion of marine insurance in the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. In September 2025, the Government announced that small business marine property insurance policies will not be included in the cyclone pool because modelling shows it would have a negligible impact on affordability and potentially lead to an increase in costs. The Australian Government published modelling to support this decision. Recommendation 3 The Committee strongly recommends that the Australian Government support an ongoing, national resilience program on a permanent basis. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider a range of measures to improve resilience and mitigation of high-risk homes in Northern Australia, including: providing targeted tax offsets for eligible households in Northern Australia; and providing direct subsidies to eligible households in Northern Australia. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes these recommendations. The Australian Government established the Disaster Ready Fund to deliver $1 billion over 5 years from 1 July 2023 on projects to support communities to reduce risks and better prepare for natural hazards. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, in its insurance monitoring role, investigate the impact of current taxation methods on insurance premium pricing. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to continue its insurance monitoring role until at least 2030. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund and expand the remit of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to examine the extent to which insurers are reducing insurance premiums in response to mitigation and resilience measures. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes these recommendations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been directed to monitor the prices, costs, and profits of home, contents, strata, and certain commercial insurance policies, before and after the cyclone reinsurance pool was introduced. The ACCC collects data and information from insurers to: evaluate the impact of the cyclone reinsurance pool assess whether savings are passed through to policy holders. The ACCC is required to provide a report on its monitoring at least once each calendar year from 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2026. Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government publish the report of the 2025 scheduled review into the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act 2003 once the report is finalised. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Treasury will provide a report to Government in due course. The Government will consider its response upon receiving Treasury's report. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 114 Report 114 16:31 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia On behalf of Senator Collins and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Effectiveness of sanctions against the Russian Federation, together with accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senators' Interests Committee 114 Report 114 16:32 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia On behalf of Senator Kovacic, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, I present the Register of Senators' Interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 January and 30 June 2026. I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. Senator LIDDLE 300644 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 114 Additional Information 114 16:32 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Senator Blyth, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into offshore processing and resettlement arrangements. I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 115 DOCUMENTS Consideration 115 COMMITTEES 115 COMMITTEES Consideration 115 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 115 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 115 DOCUMENTS 115 DOCUMENTS Order for the Production of Documents 115 16:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to 11 orders for the production of documents as listed in the document available in the chamber. COMMITTEES 115 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee, Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Parliamentary Standards Joint Committee, Women's Health Select Committee 115 Membership 115 16:40 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 16:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Liddle Appointed—Senator Gatenby Artificial Intelligence — Joint Select Committee — Appointed—Senators Cadell, Dolega, Duniam, Sheldon and Marielle Smith Economics Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026 Participating member: Senator McKim Economics References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into social housing Participating member: Senator McKim Parliamentary Standards — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Liddle Appointed—Senator Kovacic Privileges — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Liddle Appointed—Senator Kovacic Women's Health — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Marielle Smith, Stewart, Waters and Whiteaker Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Ananda-Rajah, Brown, Ciccone, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Dowling, Faruqi, Ghosh, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, Mulholland, O'Neill, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Sterle, Tyrrell and Walker Question agreed to. BILLS 116 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 116

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

First Reading 116 16:41 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 116 16:41 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— COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2026 I move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Albanese Government's first priority is the safety of all Australians and protecting the values we all hold dear. Terrorism is a unique threat. It is intended to impact not only its direct victims, but the community as a whole. It strikes at our social fabric and attempts to stop celebrating the successful multicultural, respectful and vibrant democracy we've built over generations. The devastating terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in December 2025 demonstrated the profound harm that acts of terror can inflict on individuals, families and communities. Fifteen innocent people lost their lives in an act of terrorism motivated by hate and extremism. We will never forget those fifteen innocent people, nor the deep and lasting wounds inflicted on our community—particularly for Jewish Australians. The unique threat posed by terrorism requires corresponding legislative responses. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is part of that response. This Bill would make a targeted set of reforms to key counter-terrorism powers to keep Australians safe—and importantly—to ensure that those powers remain available, effective and proportionate. Over time, Australia has developed a broad suite of legislative measures to combat terrorism. This includes offences relating to terrorist acts, terrorist financing and terrorist organisations. It includes bespoke police powers to investigate and prevent terrorism, supplementing the ordinary powers available to law enforcement. Importantly, it also includes a range of orders to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. As the threat environment changes, our laws must evolve accordingly. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must have the powers they need to respond. As the Director-General of Security recently observed, Australia's security environment is becoming increasingly dynamic, diverse and degraded. Terrorist threats are emerging from a broader range of ideologies. Individuals are being radicalised more rapidly. And acts of violence can occur with little warning. This Bill I introduce today would extend the sunset date for key counter-terrorism police powers and order frameworks. It would make amendments to streamline and rationalise the control order and post-sentence order frameworks, and ensure those frameworks operate effectively to address the current terrorism threat -including the threat posed by high-risk terrorist offenders. It would also make technical amendments to the framework for listing terrorist organisations. Finally, the Bill would also amend Division 71 of the Criminal Code to give effect to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Control orders, post-sentence orders and other counter-terrorism powers The Bill would extend the sunset provisions for several critical counter-terrorism frameworks for a further three years until 7 December 2029. Specifically, the Bill would extend the sunset date for the control order, preventative detention order and post-sentence order frameworks in Divisions 104, 105 and 105A of the Criminal Code respectively. It would also extend the sunset date for police powers in Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act that support the prevention of, and response to, terrorism-related threats. These powers remain an important part of Australia's counter-terrorism framework. Extending their operation ensures that law enforcement agencies retain access to key tools to protect the community from terrorism and to manage risks posed by serious terrorist offenders. The Bill would also make important reforms to the control order and post-sentence order frameworks in Divisions 104 and 105A of the Criminal Code. The Bill would streamline and simplify the existing order frameworks to establish control orders as the primary Commonwealth mechanism for imposing conditions on serious terrorist offenders in the community. Positioning control orders as the primary mechanism to impose conditions on serious terrorist offenders reduces the duplication between the control order and post-sentence order frameworks. It ensures there is one primary Commonwealth mechanism to impose conditions to manage the risk of terrorism. It also reflects current practice. To implement this, the Bill would remove the ability for the AFP Minister to apply for an extended supervision order, while enhancing the control order framework in its application to serious terrorist offenders. It would remain open to a State or Territory Supreme Court to issue an extended supervision order where the court is not satisfied a detention order is justified. The Bill would make several technical amendments to the control order framework to enhance its effectiveness in relation to serious terrorist offenders. Importantly, these amendments would not affect the eligibility or thresholds for control orders. These orders are already available in relation to high-risk terrorist offenders. Instead, these amendments would align certain elements of the control order framework with certain processes that currently apply to extended supervision orders. The Bill would also amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The amendments would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants for electronic surveillance when considering whether to request a control order in relation to a serious terrorist offender at the end of their custodial sentence. These amendments are intended to ensure that law enforcement have the powers they need to support the use of control orders as the principal mechanism for managing high-risk terrorist offenders in the community following their release from custody. Warrants of this kind are currently available in relation to extended supervision orders. Enlivening these powers for a limited subset of control orders is not a significant expansion of powers. Instead, these amendments would ensure agencies maintain necessary investigative powers to inform the management of serious terrorist offenders at the end of their custodial sentence. In addition, the Bill would strengthen information sharing provisions in the control order and post-sentence order frameworks to ensure decision-makers have a more complete picture of the risk posed by an individual. The amendments in the Bill would allow state and territory authorities to voluntarily disclose information to the Commonwealth for control order purposes. This would provide decision-makers with access to relevant information to support them in making informed assessments about the risk a person poses to the community. These amendments would support the crucial relationships between Commonwealth, state and territory agencies that underpin Australia's efforts to combat terrorism. The Bill would also expand the range of criminal information available to inform control order and post-sentence order applications and proceedings. Specifically, the Bill would amend the Criminal Code and the Crimes Act to enable information about findings of guilt where no conviction is recorded to be considered for the purposes of the post-sentence and control order frameworks. Findings of guilt form an important part of a person's criminal history. This information is likely to be highly relevant to assessing the risk a person poses to the community and tailoring the approach to managing that risk. The Bill would also strengthen the application of the control order framework in relation to young people. The Director-General of Security and the AFP Commissioner have both commented publicly on the disturbing trend of young people being radicalised. An increasing number of minors are being investigated for, and charged with, terrorism-related offences. It is important that there are measures available to the Government to address the risk posed by these young people outside of the criminal justice process. In response to this trend, the Bill would extend the maximum period for which a control order can be imposed on a person between 14 and 17 years of age from 3 months to 12 months. Control orders are an effective and proportionate mechanism to manage terrorism risks short of prosecution. Importantly, control orders enable the court to impose a wide range of conditions, including therapeutic and rehabilitation conditions and conditions to prevent online access to violent extremist material. Extending the maximum duration of control orders would enable law enforcement to facilitate youth participation in integration and rehabilitation programs for a longer period of time. This would provide courts with greater flexibility to impose orders that appropriately reflect the risks posed by a young person and the circumstances of their case. It would enable these orders to operate more effectively to respond to the growing cohort of young people who pose a serious threat to the community. Importantly, 12 months would be the maximum duration for a control order against a young person. It would remain a matter for the court to determine the appropriate duration of a particular control order, having regard to a range of factors including the best interests of the young person. De-listing terrorist organisations The Bill would also strengthen the operation of the terrorist organisation listing framework in Division 102 of the Criminal Code. The listing of terrorist organisations remains a critical part of Australia's counter-terrorism framework. It enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt terrorist activities and imposes significant criminal penalties on terrorist organisations, and those who support them in specified ways. Importantly, these amendments would not change the scope of organisations that can be listed. It would remain the case that an organisation can be listed only if it meets at least one of the criteria for listing. That is, an organisation can only be listed if it either engages in, prepares, plans, assists, or fosters terrorist acts, or advocates terrorist acts. Instead, the amendments would clarify certain elements of the framework and support its efficient operation. The amendments in the Bill would ensure an organisation must only be de-listed if the AFP Minister ceases to be satisfied that the organisation meets at least one of the criteria for listing, regardless of the criteria of which the Minister was satisfied at the time the organisation was listed. This amendment would remove any risk that an organisation would need to be de-listed in circumstances where it is still engaging in, or advocating terrorism. The Bill would remove the ability for an individual or an organisation to make an application for an organisation to be de-listed. This would ensure that the decision to de-list a terrorist organisation is driven by intelligence and threat assessments, rather than by public applications. Numerous safeguards would remain to ensure organisations are de-listed if appropriate. Most notably, the Minister must maintain ongoing satisfaction that the organisation meets one of the criteria for listing as a terrorist organisation. In addition, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can review the listing of a terrorist organisation at any time, and provide comments and recommendations to Parliament. The Bill would also clarify that a de-listing declaration is a notifiable instrument and is not subject to disallowance. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel In addition, the Bill would expand protections for United Nations and associated personnel in Division 71 of the Criminal Code. Division 71 contains a range of offences for harmful conduct against UN and associated personnel engaged in UN operations. The Bill would extend these offences to apply to additional types of UN operations, including for the purpose of delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding activities, and for the purpose of delivering emergency humanitarian assistance. These amendments would give effect to Australia's obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The amendments would reinforce Australia's commitment to protecting those who undertake critical humanitarian, peacebuilding and development work in some of the world's most challenging environments. The amendments would also align with Australia's leadership in developing and implementing the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, and are an important demonstration of Australia's continued commitment to international law. INSLM Review into Division 105A Finally, I acknowledge the work of the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Grant Donaldson SC, on his Review into Division 105A (and related provisions) of the Criminal Code Act. In developing the Bill, the Government has carefully considered the report and its recommendations. States and Territories The Commonwealth also acknowledges the constructive engagement of the States and Territories in the development of this Bill. Parts of the Criminal Code are underpinned by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws, and to that end, I acknowledge the agreement provided by First Ministers of the majority States and Territories to progress this legislation. The Commonwealth also acknowledges the constructive engagement of officials through the Legal Issues Working Group of the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee. This is the Federation working at its best to keep Australians safe. Conclusion As the terrorism threat facing Australia continues to evolve, so too must our counter-terrorism laws. This Bill would maintain critical counter-terrorism powers and ensures that Australia's counter-terrorism laws remain effective, proportionate and responsive to evolving threats. The Bill is an important part of the Government's continuing and holistic efforts to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism. The Government will today refer the Bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for consideration and report. I thank the Committee for its important work, and the Government will work constructively with the PJCIS as it conducts its review. I commend the Bill to the Chamber. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 12 October 2026, in accordance with standing order 111. Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 119

Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

First Reading 119 16:42 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 119 16:42 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— ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2026 I move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART) commenced operation on 14 October 2024, replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal as Australia's primary federal merits review body. The ART provides an independent mechanism of review of government decisions made under over 400 Commonwealth Acts—a function that is critical to Australia's system of government. The Government established the ART to ensure that members of the community have an avenue to seek review of government decisions in an effective, efficient and fair way. The Government recognises that not every review is the same, and that the ART should provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the case. The Government is therefore committed to ensuring the ART has the tools and the flexibility it needs to deliver these objectives. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) (Division 2) also plays an important role in hearing and determining judicial reviews of certain government decisions, including decisions of the ART. It is important that the FCFCOA is well-equipped to perform this function, which is critical to our system of government, and promotes public trust and confidence in government institutions. Merits and judicial review processes should be proportionate. The time and resources expended to determine a matter should reflect the complexity of the issues, and the importance of what is at stake. Efficient review procedures are important to reduce delays in decision-making, provide genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, and strengthen the integrity of administrative and judicial review systems. The purpose of the Administrative and Judicial Review Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the migration review framework by supporting the ART and FCFCOA to more effectively respond to their significant and increasing caseloads. The Bill would also support the ART to manage its significant workload across case-types, through measures that would create efficiencies, improve processes, and increase flexibility. Improving ART efficiency and operations The Bill makes amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) and other Commonwealth legislation to expand Tribunal powers, improve Tribunal processes, increase efficiency, avoid administrative delays, and aid the management of caseload surges and backlogs—particularly in migration matters. The Bill will enable the ART to give reasons for a decision orally—rather than always in writing—with written statements of reasons to be given at the request of a party. These changes ensure that ART resources are not unnecessarily expended to produce written reasons when parties do not require them. These changes apply to matters in the ART's migration caseload, as well as other caseloads where written reasons may not always be required. The Bill provides safeguards for vulnerable applicants of the ART, and will not apply these changes to reviews relating to social security, veterans' entitlements, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or aged care, where written reasons may play an important role. The changes will also not apply to other reviews that may be prescribed by regulations. The Bill would, among other matters: enable the President of the ART to authorise registrars to exercise additional powers, including to reinstate applications in certain circumstances, and to dismiss applications if satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of success. permit any member (or other authorised person) of the ART to correct an obvious error in a decision or statement of reasons for a decision made by a registrar. allow for additional matters to be considered when the Government is progressing the re-appointment of a non-judicial member of the ART, and allow for the Government to more efficiently change the appointment status of members; and introduce a requirement for an application to the ART for review of a reviewable migration or reviewable protection decision to be made using an approved form, to ensure the Tribunal has all the information it needs to consider a matter. Protecting the integrity of the protection and migration review svstem The Bill would introduce a new requirement for the verification of the identity of an applicant for merit or judicial review of a prescribed protection or migration decision in the ART and FCFCOA. The particulars around when, where and how the identity verification process would operate would be set out in regulations under the Migration Act. Failure to comply with the identity verification requirement in ART proceedings would result in the Tribunal being required to dismiss the matter. As an important safeguard, the existing reinstatement powers already available to the ART would continue to operate in circumstances where a matter should not have been dismissed in the first place. Applicants who fail to comply with the identity verification requirement in FCFCOA proceedings would require leave of the Court to continue proceedings. Where leave is not granted, the FCFCOA would be able to dismiss the proceedings. The FCFCOA would also be able to reinstate proceedings which had been dismissed. The difference in approach between the ART and FCFCOA reflects the constitutional limits arising from the status of the FCFCOA as a court established under Chapter Ill of the Constitution. Courts must retain a high degree of discretion in the management of proceedings. This means that the FCFCOA will also be able to extend time for satisfying the identity verification requirement or dispense with the requirement altogether where appropriate. This new requirement would ensure applicants are genuinely engaging with the merits and judicial review processes by establishing a mandatory engagement point between the applicant and the review pathways. As a regulation, it would of course be open to the Parliament to scrutinise and consider the arrangements—and disallow them if appropriate. This proposal ensures genuine applicants understand precisely what it is they are seeking to do, and that the ART and the FCFCOA can have confidence an individual seeking review is who they say they are. It will provide an important touchpoint, and a further opportunity to protect the integrity of the merits and judicial review systems through identification checks. Conclusion Taken together, these reforms will support a more efficient, effective and robust review framework by encouraging active participation in the process, and dissuading frivolous applications—while ensuring appropriate balances are in place. The ART has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. The FCFCOA has a crucial role in providing an avenue to review the legality of government decisions. This Bill will support the tailoring of ART procedures and operations to the different circumstances of the cases before them. It will also support the ART and the FCFCOA to address significant caseloads, enhance efficiency and avoid administrative delay, ensuring that decisions can be made in an efficient and timely manner. I commend the Bill to the Chamber. Debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 121

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 121 MOTIONS 121 MOTIONS International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 121 16:43 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move the motion, which I will read out: That the Senate— (a) notes that, over the past week, United States (US) President Donald Trump: (i) has threatened to 'bomb the s***' out of its ally Oman, (ii) has said he will declare the Strait of Hormuz US territory, (iii) has put further sanctions on the International Criminal Court in an effort to dismantle the organisation and prevent it investigating Israel's attack on Gaza, (iv) has said of the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, 'I understand him; he understands me' while cutting back on cooperation with South Korea, and (v) is requiring a multi-billion dollar redesign of US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers because he doesn't like the look of them as he wants the conning tower moved forward to look more like World War II designs; and (b) calls for an urgent reconsideration of Australia's military relationship with the United States given this increasingly erratic and dangerous behaviour by the US President, including in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the US military. We have been watching the behaviour of Donald Trump. The Australian public has been watching the behaviour of the US President, Donald Trump. We've been watching what the US military has been doing. We've been watching the actions of the US state. But it appears that, while the Greens have been watching, while the Australian public has been watching, none of you in this place—the Albanese Labor government, their comfortable mates in the coalition benches over there and their cheer squad in One Nation—have been watching. That list I just read out of erratic, bizarre, violent, dangerous behaviour by President Donald Trump is just from the last seven days—just the last seven days. All you mob—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—pretend that it's all normal. You pretend that we can just keep going down this path, saying: 'The US is our indispensable ally. We share values with them. We're going to share our military with them. We're going to open up bases with them.' You pretend that none of this is happening. What is wrong with you all? Let's deal with just the last week. Oman has been a long-term ally of the United States. It has US bases in it. It's been critical for the US in the US and Israel's current illegal war on Iran. It's put itself at risk. It's received attacks from Iran because it's a US ally. The US isn't protecting it from those attacks from Iran. Its economy is in a downward spiral because it is sitting there as an ally of the United States, just off the shore, just across the way from Iran, where the US and Israel are engaged in a joint illegal war. You would think that, at a moment like that, the United States, as an ally of Oman, would be showing concern, would be doing what they could to protect it, would be saying: 'I'm sorry all those US bases that we have in your country are meaning you get attacked and bombed. I'm sorry about destroying your economy. You're an ally.' But no. Donald Trump came out—I'm sorry for the unparliamentary language, but it's the language of the US President in relation to one of the US's longstanding allies—and said that he would bomb the shit out of Oman. It's his ally. It's a US ally. It's taking hits. He was concerned that Oman, who is facing all of that, is having some negotiation with Iran to try and prevent the chaos happening in its region and to itself. The mere fact that Oman was acting with some agency so angered the United States that the US Commander-in-Chief said, 'Now I'm going to bomb the shit out of you.' What happened in here? What happened with Defence Minister Marles over there in Russell? Nothing. They think it's normal. It's not normal. It's crazy and dangerous and erratic. Then the same bloke—the chief of the US military, the US President, Donald Trump—came out in the same week, the last seven days, and said that he intends to declare the Strait of Hormuz US territory. He's going to declare it US territory—to just take control of it. How he's going to make that happen in reality—it's a fantasy in his head. It's an utter fantasy in his head. To make that statement, that you're going to make another part of the world, where you're engaged in a brutal, illegal war—he doesn't have control of it, but he's making this statement that he's going to turn it into some kind of overseas colony of the United States. Again, what do we hear from our defence department, from the defence minister, from the foreign affairs minister, from the opposition foreign affairs minister and from the US cheer squad in One Nation? Nothing. They think it's normal. You all think it's normal. I've got to tell you: this is not normal. This is wild, erratic, dangerous behaviour. Then, in the same week, in the last seven days, the United States has come out and put further sanctions on judges and prosecutors in the International Criminal Court, because the International Criminal Court is doing its job and investigating allegations of genocide and war crimes by Israel in Gaza. They're doing their job; they're investigating war crimes. They're investigating the most serious crimes, I think, on the planet—genocide. The United States, to try and stop the International Criminal Court doing its investigations, has ramped up new sanctions against the ICC and key members of the ICC, to try and stop them doing their job to investigate breaches of international law. What did our Foreign minister say about that? Zip, nada, nothing. What did the opposition say? They actually kind of cheered it on. So did One Nation, they thought, 'This is great.' They want this to happen. They don't like the International Criminal Court. I've got to tell you, this is not normal behaviour. This is destroying international norms, destroying international law, making it next to impossible to prosecute the obscene crime of genocide. It causes no reconsideration, not even a wrinkle of doubt in the Labor Party, the coalition or One Nation—not even a ripple of doubt. Then, in the same week, in the last seven days, Donald Trump comes out and says of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un: 'I understand him. He understands me.' He radically shortens the military cooperation—the military exercises that are held annually with South Korea. He radically shortens them in order to appease North Korea. South Korea has structured its defence around some kind of guarantee of US support for it, in the event of a threatened military or nuclear attack from North Korea, which now has nuclear weapons and a massive military presence barely a dozen miles from Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Then they find out that the guarantee that they thought they had is not worth the paper they've written it on, because it turns out that Donald Trump, the commander-in-chief of the US military who is meant to be giving some protection to South Korea, has got a bromance with the leader of North Korea and that he's more interested in developing his bromance with the leader of North Korea than living up to decades-long commitments to South Korea to keep them safe. It is an extraordinary destabilising action from the United States, causing deep consternation not just in South Korea but also in Japan and in other allies. It's extraordinary. I say again: this is not normal. Maybe you have all become desensitised to this, but it is not normal for the head of the United States military to direct that exercises with the South Korean military get curtailed because he wants to progress his bromance with the leader of North Korea, who's pointing nuclear weapons at South Korea. That is not normal. Yet what does Labor, the coalition and One Nation say? Nothing, not a ripple! They love AUKUS. You'd love more US bases here. You want to make our military interoperable with them. You pretend. This is not normal. Then—to show the utter irrationality of the chief of the US military and the President of the United States—he then came out last week and said, to his own military, that he wants them to engage in a multibillion-dollar redesign of their Ford class nuclear aircraft carriers, these massive US$22 billion-dollar machines. He wants them to engage in a multibillion dollar, multi-year redesign and refit of them. And do you know why? It's because he doesn't like the look of them. He thinks that they're not aesthetic. He much prefers the look of the aircraft carriers the US built in World War II, the Essex class carriers, because the conning tower was more in the middle of the aircraft carrier, not at the back. He's given a direction to his military to spend countless billions of dollars redesigning and refitting the US's nuclear aircraft carriers to meet his aesthetic feel. That is also not normal. That is wild, out there, crazy stuff. And because these aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, that work—the redesign and refitting to meet the aesthetics of Donald Trump—is going to throw even more work into the shipyards, which are there to pump out other nuclear powered boats and ships in the US, including Virginia class submarines. It's going to push that work back even more and make the AUKUS submarine project even more of a fantasy project—all because that bloke over there doesn't like the look of them. Again, that is not normal behaviour. That is not the behaviour of a standard ally. Yet Labor, the coalition and One Nation just pretend that nothing is happening. We need to radically revisit our relationship with the United States. Labor is in the process of destroying any kind of sovereign independence for our military. They want to make it a little subunit of the US military. That's what the AUKUS submarines are for. That's what they're doing by inviting even more US military bases. That's why Labor is building the United States an $8 billion nuclear submarine base off Fremantle at Australian taxpayers' expense. That's why they have allowed the US to extend RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, to have nuclear capable B-52 bombers there. That's why they're allowing the US to station thousands of marines in Darwin. That's why they're expanding Pine Gap and North West Cape. That's why they're proposing to build the United States another nuclear submarine base on the east coast. That's why they're storing US military equipment in northern and north-regional Victoria. And that's why they're proposing the US have all of these storage depots for remote air facilities all across northern Australia. And do you know what Labor is doing with all of that? They are inviting the front line of the next war the United States has to be right across Australia. You're inviting the front line and a war to the shores and the centre of our continent. I don't know how to describe that other than deep, deep betrayal. We live in perhaps one of the most geopolitically secure parts of the world, down here in the bottom part of South-East Asia, and war will only come to our shores if we invite it—like those who have US bases in the gulf, who have invited wars to their shores. Having US bases here—being tied to an erratic, bizarre ally like this—is one of the most dangerous things we can do. You're pretending this makes us safe, you're selling out our sovereignty, you're denying our ability to defend ourselves, and you're making the worst bed in history. That's why we want to end AUKUS. 16:59 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I want to begin by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Shoebridge on this issue. Nobody is more across their brief and nobody understands this issue more than him in this place. His concerns reflect the concerns that so many Australians have with this AUKUS deal that is tying us ever closer to the United States and is, in fact, making us less safe. It's not only that but a staggering waste of public wealth and fundamentally betrays Australia's interests. There is a stultifying consensus in this parliament, and amongst DFAT and Defence—and much of the Australian media, I might add—on our defence and foreign policies. This hinges on an unquestioning belief that the United States is our indispensable ally, that we share values and interests and that US bases and AUKUS make us safer. I want to put on the record, along with Senator Shoebridge, that the Greens do not share these beliefs. While that might make us lonely in this place, we know that we are increasingly joined by supporters across the community. The community is watching how the world works. They are seeing US aggression, lawlessness and wars, and they are asking questions—that are never answered—about what that means for our alliance with the United States. We need to ask ourselves: Why did the United States actually sign the AUKUS deal? What are their interests here in Australia? The United States has lost its hegemony in the western Pacific. Its string of bases, from South Korea through Japan, to Okinawa, to the Philippines and out to Pacific islands such as Guam, are increasingly vulnerable in any major conflict with China. Because of this vulnerability, the United States has decided to locate a far more significant portion of its military assets and military forces here in Australia. That's what's behind Labor's decision to spend $8 billion to build the United States a nuclear submarine base at HMAS Stirling, off Perth, and its plans for another base on the east coast. It explains the location of those thousands of marines in Darwin, the expansion of Pine Gap and North West Cape's spying communications stations, the nuclear capable B-52 bombers being stationed at RAAF Tindal in the NT and the prepositioning of US weapons stockpiles in regional Victoria. This expansion in Australia is not a sign of US strength. It's actually the clearest statement of declining US power and increased US vulnerability. And who is paying the price for that? Australians are. We're in a housing crisis right now. We need a massive build of public housing, but, instead of spending money on public houses for Australians, the first thing the government did when they came back after the election was to pass a bill to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building houses for US military personnel. That's not looking after Australians. The billions of dollars that are going to AUKUS that, as my colleague Senator Shoebridge has pointed out, are not going to make us safer are, in fact, going to make us less safe. Every dollar of that money that goes to AUKUS is a dollar that doesn't get spent to reduce the aged-care waiting list, to lift the people in this country on welfare out of poverty, to increase the pension or JobSeeker, to provide the money that we need to encourage the states to implement rent caps, or to get dental into Medicare. I'm certain that everyone out there in the community knows what they would rather spend that money on than sending billions of dollars to the United States. People have watched, on their phones, ICE agents dragging people out of their homes. People have watched, on their phones, what US support for Israel has done in Gaza. People have watched, on their phones, the fallout of the US starting a war with Iran—a war that we did not need to have. People see on their phones every day the unhinged comments and statements that the Commander in Chief of the US makes every single day. This is the president who, upon coming back to power, pardoned every single person involved in trying to stage a coup on the US government. This is a president who repeatedly implies that he might like to seek a third term, even though it's not in the US constitution. This is a president who has gutted virtually every public service department in the capital and installed sycophants. If any of you have spent any time watching any of the hearings that take place when the people that he has installed in security and defence come before congress and senate committees, surely you can see that they are all unhinged and that they don't respect the rule of law. They definitely don't respect international law. A president and a government that respect international law do not put sanctions on judges in the International Criminal Court. This is the government that our government and the coalition and One Nation want to join us to at the hip. For the privilege of that, we get to give them over $300 billion. What a crock! It'd be farcical if it weren't so serious. Senator Shoebridge, in great detail and very clearly, has set out in this debate why we should all be concerned about this. You talk to anyone in the community about AUKUS, and it doesn't have a lot of friends. The people who are championing AUKUS are the government and the coalition and One Nation in this place. But out there, out in the community, people can see it for what it is. Prime Minister Morrison got sold a pup, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed up to the same pup. A prime minister and a government that had the courage to stand up to bullies would have turned around and taken the opportunity, when they came to government, to reassess this whole deal, but instead they are blindly continuing down a path that makes this country less safe. It's the same pattern we see when they won't stand up to the gambling industry or the fossil fuel industry. It's cowardly. And the people who will pay the price for this cowardice are Australian citizens. You can't come into this place and genuinely and legitimately stand here and say that a government's highest duty to the public is to keep them safe and continue down the path of AUKUS. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge for bringing this motion into this place. I'm not surprised that members of the government and the coalition and One Nation aren't here to speak to it. Senator Shoebridge 169119 They're in hiding. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 They're in hiding because they have signed up to a dud deal that takes money out of the pocket of every single Australian and stops them from getting the things that they really need—cost-of-living relief, secure housing, fully funded schools, well-funded health and hospitals, timely aged care and not getting chucked off the NDIS. Every one of those decisions is a government decision to make a saving while billions of dollars go out the door for a dud deal that makes Australians less safe. 17:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Greens political party's endless condemnation would not get Australia very far. The Greens have long wanted Australia to end the alliance with the US; that is what this motion is about. Labor knows that, as a middle power, Australia is more secure with as many robust relationships as possible. Australia approaches today's global challenges with more resilience and more options because, since we came to office in 2022, the Albanese government has been doing the hard work of building common ground in more diversified relationships. Australia will continue to invest in these diversified partnerships, especially in our region, at the same time as we continue to engage with traditional partners like the United Kingdom and the United States. We have always understood that President Trump envisages a different role for the United States in the world. Nevertheless, the United States remains the world's largest economic and military power, with daily influence over international events that have consequences for Australia. This reinforces why being active in shaping our alliance is in Australia's national interest. The United States is our closest ally and principal strategic partner, and our alliance with the United States is fundamental to Australia's national security, expanding our strategic options and enabling Australia to pursue our national security interests beyond what we could achieve alone. Australians know we don't always agree with other countries, and they expect their government to engage and manage disagreements in a mature, calm and respectful way. If it were up to the Greens, we would cut ties with most of the world and we wouldn't have a functioning Defence Force. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOL The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. A division is required. It being after 4.30 pm, the matter will be adjourned until the next day of sitting. ADJOURNMENT 125 ADJOURNMENT Superannuation 125 17:12 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Few reforms have done more to improve the lives of working Australians than compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor government, led by Paul Keating, that created superannuation. It remains one of Australia's greatest nation-building reforms. It exists because every worker deserves a decent retirement—not just those fortunate enough to inherit wealth or accumulate assets during their working life. For millions of Australians, superannuation is the difference between retiring with dignity and retiring into an uncertain time as they age. That is why Australians should be deeply concerned by One Nation's latest attack on our superannuation system. Senator Hanson has described superannuation as 'broken'. One Nation is now pushing for Australians to be able to access more of their retirement savings early to deal with cost-of-living pressures. Let's be absolutely clear: One Nation proposes to let Australians raid their superannuation whenever they choose. It is reckless, short-sighted and fundamentally wrong. Superannuation is not a rainy-day bank account. It is not meant to be treated as spare cash for political slogans. It is the foundation of a dignified retirement for millions of working Australians. People contribute to their superannuation over decades so they can retire with confidence, independence and, most importantly, dignity. Every dollar invested today grows over time and helps build financial security for tomorrow. If those savings are drained early, Australians do not lose just what they withdraw; they lose years of investment growth. They lose future security. They lose part of the retirement that they have spent a lifetime building. That is the danger of One Nation's recent thought bubble. It pretends to offer freedom, but in reality it risks leaving Australians worse off later in life. It shifts the burden from today to tomorrow and asks future retirees to pay the price. This shouldn't really surprise anyone. One Nation has consistently opposed measures to help working Australians build economic security. They opposed all the cost-of-living measures. They opposed cheaper child care. They opposed cheaper medicine. They opposed stronger workplace reforms. They opposed early childhood educators. They opposed an increase to aged-care workers. They opposed Labor's reform to deliver superannuation on paid parental leave, a reform designed to improve retirement outcomes particularly for women. Time and time again, when Labor has acted to strengthen financial security, One Nation has stood in opposition. The Albanese Labor government has taken a different approach. We have strengthened workers' rights. We have backed their wages. We have expanded paid parental leave for parents, and, for the first time, we're paying superannuation on paid parental leave because parents should not be punished in their retirement for raising children. Labor built superannuation just like we built Medicare. We have always worked to strengthen superannuation as we've worked to strengthen Medicare, and Labor will not stand by while One Nation with their friends over there on that side, the Liberals and Nationals, seek to undermine what we have been successful in building for Australian workers. We need this reform in this country. I think that people who work in retail, teachers, apprentices, tradies, hospitality workers, aged-care workers, early childhood educators, the cleaners who clean late at night and the shearers out in the paddock all deserve to have a secure retirement, and we will stand with them every day in this place because we're the only government, a Labor government, which will always stand up for workers. We know what the others did leading into the last election. They wanted to increase taxes. We are the government who will defend and support Australian workers, because the Albanese Labor government actually delivers real change. We deliver real change for Australians. (Time expired) China: Human Rights 125 17:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise this evening to draw the Senate's attention to a deeply concerning development that extends well beyond the borders of the People's Republic of China and reaches into migrant communities here in Australia. The Chinese Communist Party's new ethnic unity laws, particularly article 63, have prompted serious concerns from the United Nations and human rights organisations because of the very real risks they pose for transnational repression. The United Nations has warned that these laws allow Chinese authorities to prosecute individuals for actions undertaken outside China that are deemed to undermine national ethnic unity or create ethnic division. The problem is that these concepts are so broadly defined and so vaguely defined that they give authorities extraordinary discretion to target peaceful speech, cultural expression and political advocacy. This should concern every Australian. Australia is home to vibrant Tibetan, Uyghur, Hong Kong and other diaspora communities, who come to this country seeking freedom, democracy and the protection of the rule of law. They should never have to fear that exercising those freedoms in Australia could place them in harm or harm their families overseas. Yet evidence increasingly suggests that this is exactly what is happening. The term 'transnational repression' refers to the efforts of authoritarian governments to silence critics living abroad through surveillance, intimidation, coercion and threats. The People's Republic of China, with others, has become one of the world's leading practitioners of these tactics. For members of the Australian Tibetan community, simply voting in elections for the Tibetan government in exile, standing for community office, publicly supporting the Dalai Lama or expressing their cultural and religious identity could potentially be interpreted by Chinese authorities as conduct falling within these sweeping laws. That is an extraordinary proposition. Reports indicate that Tibetan community leaders in Australia have been monitored at protests and cultural events. Chinese state linked individuals have allegedly photographed participants, monitored speeches and reported information back to authorities in the People's Republic of China. Many Tibetans also fear that family members who are living in Tibet may be interrogated, threatened or punished because of activities undertaken by relatives here in Australia. Others have reportedly experienced online harassment, coordinated disinformation campaigns, doxing, visa refusals to return to Tibet, and intimidation designed to silence legitimate criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. Even more concerning are reports of attempts by individuals linked to the Chinese Communist Party's United Front Work Department to infiltrate community organisations, create divisions and discourage public advocacy. These tactics strike at the very heart of Australia's democracy. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and the right to peacefully assemble—these are not privileges granted by government. They are fundamental freedoms protected by our democratic institutions. Foreign governments have no right to intimidate Australians on Australian soil. This is therefore not simply a human rights issue; it's a national sovereignty issue. If Australians cannot freely participate in public debate without fear that an authoritarian foreign government is watching them, then our sovereignty is being challenged. That is why Australia must respond clearly and confidently. First, the Australian government should recognise transnational repression as a genuine national security threat and ensure that agencies responsible for countering foreign interference actively engage with communities most at risk. Second, Australia should consider targeted sanctions, including Magnitsky-style sanctions that freeze assets and ban travel, against individuals responsible for organising or directing overseas repression and intimidation. Third, the government should publicly and consistently condemn acts of transnational repression whenever credible evidence emerges and reaffirm Australia's unwavering support for those communities seeking to exercise their democratic rights peacefully. Fourth, our law enforcement and security agencies should continue to strengthen their capability to identify, investigate and respond to foreign interference targeting diaspora communities, particularly at protests, religious gatherings and cultural events. Australia has long been a refuge for people fleeing persecution. That tradition imposes responsibilities on us. We cannot allow fear to cross our borders. We cannot allow authoritarian governments to export censorship into our communities. Our democracy demands it. Our sovereignty requires it, and this is what the parliament must always defend. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 126

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

17:22 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Today, in this place, the war parties teamed up to strip the rule of law from Australians. The ASIO amendment bill will massively expand ASIO's coercive questioning and detention powers. This is the largest expansion of secret interrogation and detention powers this country has seen in over two decades. Under these laws, which were rushed through the Senate today without debate, you can be locked up and interrogated on Australian soil without ever being charged or suspected of a crime. Anyone can be detained and questioned by ASIO with no oversight. You won't have the right to a lawyer in this scenario. You won't have the right to refuse to answer questions, and, if you stay silent while questioned, you can be shipped off to prison for up to five years. If that's not scary enough, you won't even be allowed to tell anyone what happened to you after the fact, as you can also go to prison. Where is the freedom-of-speech crowd when it comes to very real questions of accountability and transparency in something as crucial as our justice system? Make no mistake, governments will use these broad and overreaching national security powers against people who criticise the government and against people marching for freedom. One Nation, Labor and the coalition have given themselves the power to strip people of their freedoms in secret, with no ability to challenge it in court. It's very telling that this deal was struck between Labor and the coalition on the day all the news cameras were pointed at the devastating deal they struck for NDIS cuts and watered down gambling legislation. They didn't want you to know it was coming, but now you do. Stop me if you've heard this story before: a Labor government taking isolated examples of provider fraud or overcharging, then turning around and only punishing the people who rely on these services and are victims of this price gouging. Over and over again, people's essential health services are capped and cut by this Labor government. Allied health care is essential health care, especially for our veterans. Labor's proposed $5,000 cap on allied health services for veterans is a slap in the face. Telling veterans that they need to go through review after review while begging some bureaucrat in an inaccessible department for extra funds to see a physiotherapist or a psychologist is going to put lives at risk, and veterans have told you as much. Veterans are still waiting for the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to be implemented. The final report, with its 122 recommendations, was presented in 2024. The commission identified 2,007 suicide deaths among ADF members between 1985 and 2021. That is a shameful statistic. Ex-serving males were 42 per cent more likely to die by suicide than the general male population, and for ex-serving females the figure was 107 per cent higher. How can the government sit here and do nothing or take things backwards when they're presented with these statistics? The government needs to heed the call of the veterans community. They need to abandon its proposed annual $5,000 cap on allied health services for veterans and they must instead turn back to the royal commission and get to work on making support for veterans easier, faster and more affordable. Australian Society 127 17:27 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I rise this evening to talk about values in Australia—those values that represent the best of our country. As we see around the world the nativist and racist sentiments that have gained traction in political systems and the appeal and willingness to exploit anti-immigrant and antimulticultural views, we must reflect on what makes this country great. In Australia, too, we have seen political parties and political actors attempt to exploit concerns about migration and multiculturalism for base political gain. We see that in the existence and now the continuation of the party of One Nation. But the danger to our country is not just their electoral success; it is the temptation for mainstream political parties to adopt their language, validate their premises and normalise their politics. Of course the Australian story is always more complicated, and it is potentially more hopeful. Concern about the level of migration is not the same as the rejection of migrants. Anxiety about housing is not the same as hostility to multiculturalism. We should be careful not to treat every concern about migration as an equivalent to racism, but we should be equally careful not to allow legitimate concerns about housing, infrastructure or services to become a permission slip for racists. Many groups in Australia, vital members of our community, feel unjustifiably scapegoated at the moment. They feel that their sense of belonging to our country is somehow contingent or impermanent. There is a risk in this moment that we lose Australia's pluralism—one of the most important, long-term, sustainable and renewable national assets that we possess. The economic benefits of multiculturalism and migration are well established. Migrants have filled skill gaps, have contributed to productivity, are more innovative—and more dedicated in many ways—and have contributed tax revenue in this country over generations. But there is also something dispiriting about defending multiculturalism by calculating its economic return. Migrants should not have to earn their place in Australian society by producing a sufficiently impressive profit-and-loss sheet. The case for a multicultural Australia is larger than economics. It is about what kind of country we are and what kind of country we want to be and become. What then do we mean when we talk about multicultural values or the values of our communities? We mean the values that Australia's many communities carry with them from every corner of the world and, more importantly, the values that recur across those communities regardless of where they started. When I think about multicultural values, I don't have to look very far. I think about my parents, who migrated from India and were welcomed by the spirit of generosity that defines Australia. I think about the faith they placed in education, I think about the importance they place on family and I think about how hard they've worked, how willing they were to contribute to our society and how important it was to them to feel part of the community—a community that they have continued to help build and contribute to. Above all, when it comes to multicultural values, I think about optimism. I think about the optimism to make a life in a country far from one you once knew. Migration is, almost by definition, an act of optimism. You do not leave behind the familiar and begin again somewhere else unless you believe that your future can be better than your past. Australia's success will continue to be built as a multicultural community. If we were ever to attempt to create a monoculture, as if that were even possible, Australia would be poorer in every sense. There is no older, purer Australia waiting for us to return to. There is only the Australia we have built together and the Australia we choose to build next. For me, there could hardly be a better expression of that optimism than Australia's multicultural story—every family that came here believing they could build something better, every parent who sacrificed for a child so that they had opportunities that they didn't have themselves. I'm proud of my parents, I'm proud of the communities represented across this country and in this parliament, and I am optimistic about Australia because I know that our future does not require us to choose between different histories. Those histories are part of the same Australian story. (Time expired) Yazidi Australian Community 128 17:32 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to spend a short period this evening thanking and recognising the great contribution of the Yazidi community to our country, particularly a section of that community from Coffs Harbour who travelled to Canberra last week to meet some members of parliament, including myself, and recount to us some of their life stories, which are harrowing and difficult but promising too, given the promise that Australia has offered these refugees for a fresh start to their life and new hope. They are great Australians. I want to thank the member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan, who helped organise this delegation and who I met with. They came at this time of year because it was in August 2014 when some of the most horrific and barbaric attacks ever inflicted on people on this earth were conducted by the ISIS caliphate against a minority group of people which we know as the Yazidi people. The Yazidi people are a proud people that share a relatively unique religious belief, and that has caused them, as a minority group, to be subject to bouts of persecution over their history. This persecution though, this genocide that occurred 12 years ago, was perhaps the greatest and most severe that they'd ever experienced. Again, I do want to thank the honesty and bravery of those who came to Canberra, including Hadiya, Milan, Ilyas, Tamar, Ibrahim, Bahin and Murad. They recounted to me their personal experience. It wasn't third-hand. They witnessed many of these atrocities themselves: the kidnapping of men and boys; the forced conscription of many of them into caliphate units, military units; and the sexual abuse of women and girls. And, of course, many people lost their lives as well. There have, in fact, been over 1,300 confirmed deaths as a result of this genocide and almost 2½ thousand orphaned children. There have been 96 mass graves discovered to date, and 120,000 Yazidis have had to emigrate abroad as a result of this persecution. Australia should be proud that we are a welcoming country to people who face persecution such as this. We have taken in over 4,000 refugees from the Yazidi community, and many have made the northern New South Wales coast their home. I know the people of Coffs Harbour have welcomed them there, and they are making great contributions now to our country. They came to Canberra for that recognition. I want to place that on our parliamentary record tonight and affirm the Australian government's recognition of this genocide. But they also had some humble requests for us as well. They are requesting and seeking some relief on the migration of family members to Australia. I know there are heightened concerns about migration in this country, but, in my view, we must maintain a humanitarian program for those that are persecuted overseas. We can do that while still maintaining a responsible migration program, as we have clearly done in this case with this community and many other persecuted communities in our history. So I think that request should be considered strongly by the Australian government. Likewise, while they spoke glowingly of their new country of Australia, which they now call their home, they are concerned themselves about the rise of Islamic extremism that they were on the receiving end of so brutally 12 years ago. They're concerned about the rise of that here. They particularly were concerned about the entry of so-called ISIS brides or what have become known as ISIS brides. The very people who participated in and were associated with their persecution are now coming back to Australia. Understandably, then, they have heightened concerns about that. Once again, given their persecution, given their contribution to this country, given that they are now one of us and part of our country, they deserve those concerns to be listened to. But, overall, I do want to thank them for the bravery they have to go through experiences like that and be able to come out the other side and participate fully as they do, come to their nation's parliament, speak so eloquently and speak so highly of the strength of their community and their peoples. I thank them for coming to Canberra and sharing their experiences again. Economy 128 17:37 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Nobody wants a pay cut. I can say that pretty safely. But that's exactly what Labor's inflation has delivered over the last four years. It is more than just rising prices. It is the erosion of the economic security and living standards of every Australian. When prices rise faster than wages, households cannot afford what they could before. Savings lose their value, especially when the interest earned cannot keep pace with rising inflation. The damage doesn't stop at household budgets, though. Businesses face higher costs for wages, energy, materials and their financing, making investment and expansion more difficult. Uncertainty about the future increases the risk of making long-term decisions, reducing productivity and reducing economic growth. Inflation also forces the RBA's hand, pushing interest rates higher to bring price growth under control. That means higher borrowing costs, more expensive mortgage repayments and higher costs for businesses already under pressure. The result is a vicious cycle: less investment, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Australia's inflation has been made so much worse by Labor's addiction to spending your money. Look no further than Chris Bowen's home battery subsidy, a net zero scheme budgeted at $2.3 billion that has already blown out to more than three times that cost. Truth is, if high rates were simply the cost of a tough global environment, every OECD country would be stuck paying them and paying the same price. Instead, 35 of the 38 member countries still found room to cut their interest rates. Australia, under Labor, is one of just three that didn't. Labor's high inflation and high interest rates hit young Australians the hardest. It's harder to save. It's harder to buy a home. It's harder to dream of owning your own small business. It's harder to raise a family. The great Australian dream is being crushed by years of Labor's economic mismanagement. Senate adjourned at 17:40