DOCUMENTS

2026-09-07 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 7 September 2026

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 2 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Tasmania 2 Senators Sworn 2 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2 10:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move that today, before government business is called on, Senators may make statements of not more than five minutes each for not more than one hour in total relating to the flooding in Nepal and Tibet, China without any question before the chair. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 2 STATEMENTS Himalayas: Floods 2 10:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The devastation we have witnessed in Nepal and Tibet, China has been catastrophic. We have seen the terrifying force of floodwaters tear through towns and villages and homes, roads and bridges swept away. The scale of the destruction is almost beyond comprehension. Families have lost loved ones. Thousands of people remain missing, and amongst them are 36 Australians. I want to acknowledge how distressing this time is for their loved ones and how much harder this becomes with every day that passes. Every hour without news is another hour of waiting, of hoping and of fearing. The Australian government is doing all we can to find Australians who remain unaccounted for to support loved ones and to assist in the disaster response. We have deployed almost 50 officers to the region to support search, rescue and recovery efforts. Officials in Kathmandu, Beijing, New Delhi and Canberra are working around the clock to establish the whereabouts of Australians, meeting directly with family members who have travelled to Nepal desperate for information; seeking answers from local authorities, tour operators, hospitals and other organisations; and pursuing every possible avenue for information. Dedicated case officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Federal Police have been assigned to support the next of kin of those missing, giving families a consistent point of contact in an unimaginably difficult time. In addition to this, two Services Australia social workers arrived in Kathmandu last night and a dedicated family support hub is being set up by our embassy. From the outset, the Australian government made clear that we stood ready to help Nepal, including on search and rescue efforts, and we continue to offer assistance to China. Specialist Australian drone operators have now travelled to Nepal as part of a 15-person disaster assistance response team drawn from Fire and Rescue NSW and the Queensland Fire Department. They bring advanced technology capable of rapid mapping, imaging and supporting searches in extraordinarily challenging terrain. AFP disaster victim identification specialists are also deployed to Nepal, and we have provided telecommunication data to Nepali authorities with the hope that this may narrow the last known location of missing Australians. We know that most of the unaccounted for Australians were last known to be in the Gyirong and Syabrubesi areas. Nepali search and rescue teams are on the ground in both areas, and we are working directly with the authorities to gather any information we can. Australia has committed $11 million in humanitarian assistance, supporting emergency shelter, food, clean water, sanitation, health care and other essential supplies. A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 has delivered almost 24 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Nepal, and Australians have responded with characteristic generosity, donating $4.5 million of their own money to the Emergency Action Alliance. We have matched the donations from the Australian people with a $5 million contribution from the government to the EAA. Colleagues, we know the grief and anxiety of this disaster reach deeply into our communities. Australia's Nepali community is grieving for family, friends and communities in the region. Members of Australia's Tibetan community are also experiencing great anguish. For many Hindu Australians, including those with connections to the pilgrimage routes and the sacred places of this region, this disaster has brought deep sorrow. To each of these communities, we extend the sympathy and solidarity of this parliament. The search, rescue and recovery response continues, and we know the road ahead will be long. Infrastructure must be rebuilt, communities will need shelter, and essential services will need to be restored. Families will need support long after the immediate phase of this emergency response has passed. We will continue to stand with Nepal through that long road of recovery, ready to provide further search, rescue and recovery assistance where needed. Today, this Senate mourns all those who have lost their lives, and we hold close those still waiting for news. We thank the responders in Nepal, in Tibet, China, and from Australia who continue their work in very difficult circumstances. On behalf of the Australian government, I express my deepest sympathies to all those affected. 10:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the coalition to contribute to this motion. On the morning of 26 August, high in the Langtang range on the border between Nepal and Tibet, part of a glacier gave way. What came down was not a flood as we here understand the word to be. It was a wall of ice, rock and mud, moving with such force that seismometers on the other side of the world recorded it as an earthquake. It ran for close to 100 kilometres. Villages that had stood for generations were gone within the hour. More than 1,300 people are confirmed dead, and thousands more remain missing. This is the deadliest disaster Nepal has suffered since the 2015 earthquake. Communities that were reachable by car a fortnight ago cannot now be reached at all. Tibetan communities are also suffering. Thirty-six Australians still remain unaccounted for. They were travelling in separate pilgrimage and tour groups. The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Ted O'Brien, made clear how deeply concerned the coalition is for those Australians and the families waiting for a phone call. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Taylor, emphasised, after meeting with the Nepalese Australian community in Western Sydney, this is a terrible tragedy that cuts so close to home. Mr Taylor shared that his very first international journey nearly 40 years ago began in Nepal, where he first came to know the extraordinary warmth, generosity and resilience of the Nepalese people. He and Mr O'Brien have both made clear on behalf of the coalition that our desire to help these communities get back on their feet rises above politics. Australia is actually now home to one of the fastest growing Nepalese communities in the world, in my own state of Western Australia as much as anywhere else. They work hard and they look after their own. Many send money back to their parents and villages, and for the past fortnight they have been raising money for a country they currently can't get home to. To every Nepalese Australian listening today: you are not grieving alone. We know that the physical distance from home right now only deepens the agony of uncertainty. One moment, though, says something about both countries. The Nepal cricket team was here in Australia when the flood came. Before their match in Darwin, the ground fell silent for a minute. Those young men were a very long way from home with no idea whether their own families were alive, and an Australian crowd stood up with them. That is the sort of thing this country does without being asked. Behind the headlines, we must also recognise the sheer scale of the hardship continuing on the ground today. In rugged valleys cut off from the outside world, rescue teams are navigating treacherous terrain where bridges have vanished and roads have been swallowed by miles of thick mud. The physical toll on local responders has been immense. I record the coalition's thanks to the consular officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have been working tirelessly on the ground and behind the scenes, to the Australian Defence Force and to the disaster response team now working on the Nepalese-Tibetan border. We acknowledge, too, the Nepal army and the Nepalese police, who have carried the overwhelming weight of this and lost people of their own in doing that. To the government, the people of Nepal, the families in Tibet who have suffered alongside them and every Australian family still just waiting on that phone call, the coalition extends its deepest sympathy. 10:16 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On behalf of the Australian Greens, we send our love and our solidarity to the Nepalese community and everyone impacted by the catastrophic flood disaster. We stand with communities across the Himalayas in their grief for this devastating loss. This is a disaster that is inexorably linked to the climate crisis. Others have spoken to the scale of this disaster. More than 1,300 people are confirmed dead across Nepal and Tibet. More than 5,000 are still missing. More than 50,000 have been driven from their homes. Those are the numbers. Behind each of those is a family, including Australian families—pilgrims coming home from Mount Kailash, trekkers, students, a serving member of the RAAF and families from Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne who set off on the trip of a lifetime. I cannot imagine the terror they felt as those floodwaters came rushing down. One Australian family has already had the news that I know many others are dreading. To Michael Keats's partner, his family and his friends and the whole Mollymook community: we're so deeply sorry for your loss. To every family still waiting by the phone: we're holding on to hope with you, and we're grateful for every Australian found safe over the past fortnight. I want to thank the people doing the finding: the Nepal army and police, the guides, the porters and the villagers who were digging with their hands before official help arrived; Australia's disaster response team; the Queensland and New South Wales fire crews; the AFP identification and family liaison teams; and the DFAT consular staff who were the voice on the other end of the phone. Thank you. I thank the government for moving quickly on aid and on people, and I urge it to keep going, because the need will outlast the news cycle. Australia knows climate disasters better than most nations, and our help should match the scale of this one. To the Nepalese community in Australia and the families who've held vigils in Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne while their own relatives are unaccounted for: we see you and we grieve with you. Every condolence motion in this place carries a commitment to learn the lessons. Let me speak to them plainly. Nepal's glaciers have lost a third of their ice in 30 years. The Himalaya is warming faster than the global average. The UN's own climate chief said last week that a warming climate driven by burning colossal amounts of coal, oil and gas is making tragedies like this one more likely. It was not unpredicted, and, sadly, it very likely won't be the last time that we're standing here in this place offering condolences for this sort of climate disaster. There is an injustice at the heart of it. Nepal produces a 10th of one per cent of the world's emissions, and yet it is the people of Nepal who are pulling their neighbours out of the mud. I know some will say that a condolence motion is not the time—I've heard that after every bushfire and every flood—but if when a glacier falls on a village is not the time, then when is? Scientists will take time to fully attribute this event, and they should, but Nepal's Foreign minister has spoken plainly about why this disaster happened, and we should too. We honour the dead with what we do next. Nepal has written to the global loss and damage fund, asking for emergency help. Australia has put $50 million into that fund, and we should be the loudest voice backing Nepal's request. This is an important start, but we owe it to all those affected to stop making the next disaster more likely—by keeping our coal in the ground and our gas in the ground here now. We can do it and we should do it. To Nepal: you've welcomed Australians into your mountains for generations. You're not alone in this. We're with you today and we will be with you for the long road back. 10:20 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I would like to briefly echo the condolences that have been provided here to the people of Nepal and to everybody who has lost their lives or lost loved ones through this shockingly tragic natural disaster—especially to the 1,300 people who did lose their lives with almost no warning and no ability to prepare. It's one of the worst natural disasters in modern times, and the whole world has expressed its condolences, as we do here in the Australian Senate today. There are still over 5,000 people missing, showing the scale of this event. I too want to recognise the efforts of all of those seeking to find and rescue those who are missing in what are still seemingly very treacherous conditions and putting their own safety and lives at risk. I especially want to recognise the one Australian who's lost his life, Mr Michael Keats. The thing that has struck me about this natural disaster is how many people we have lost who were in the prime of their lives. This seemingly was quite a remote and adventurous part of the world and clearly attracted a lot of people in the prime of their lives to have an adventure in what looks like a stunningly beautiful but hard-to-get-to place in the world. Mr Keats was on his own adventure there—a spiritual retreat, apparently—in the prime of his life and leaves behind a partner and family. We express deep condolences to them for their loss. There was great news that two Australians had been found, so I thank again all those people who have been tireless in their efforts in seeking to have the better outcomes prevail. But I do recognise, too, that 36 Australians are still missing, and our thoughts go out to those families waiting for the news. We hope very much for the best. I thank the Australian government for putting forward some humanitarian assistance and some funding. I believe a humanitarian team of Australians are there, deployed with drones, with new technology, to seek to find people. It's great to see Australia helping out in these times of difficulty as we always do. We will, as a country, be there not just at this time—it will take a lot of rebuilding for the people of Nepal. I'm sure we and the Australian government will do all we can to help the people recover from and rebuild after this tragic event. Once again, I just wanted to briefly express my condolences to all of those who've lost their lives and to the families that are left behind. While we're making this short recognition here today, we need to make sure we don't forget as people seek to recover in what is a tough and difficult part of the world. 10:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to add my condolences about the floods in Nepal and Tibet. We have seen extraordinary images of water taking everything in its path: whole villages, roads, bridges, homes. More than a thousand people have died, and we know that many thousands more are still missing. A loss of this scale is hard to take in. We know that there are many Australians still unaccounted for. Many family and friends will be sitting with deep grief at the moment, and this grief is being felt here in Canberra, home to thousands of Australians who have Nepali family and friends. The Nepali community is woven right through this city now. For a lot of those families, this has been an awful week, one spent getting on with normal life on the outside while quietly waiting for news from home, desperately worrying about loved ones and not knowing whether the people they love have survived. Over the past week, I've spoken with members of the Nepali community here in Canberra. They are desperate for news. They have watched the devastation from afar with a real sense of helplessness, of wanting to be able to help out but knowing that they simply cannot. They are trying to get in touch with loved ones and sending their prayers and hoping for the best but really grappling with the reality of the scale of the devastation. One of the things that were raised with me is the huge impact on communities and the environment now, but people are aware of the long, long road ahead when it comes to some sort of recovery and rebuild and the uncertain future that people in this part of the world and indeed across the world face with our changing climate, as the climate begins to break down and we see more and more of these events happening. They've urged me to relay to the government concerns about being there as the rebuild happens and ensuring that there is ongoing support for a country that, on its own, will very much struggle to rebuild after this sort of event. The thing that stayed with me is how much people are holding each other up. Families who are frightened for their own loved ones are still checking in on neighbours still sitting with those who have had the worst news and are still finding ways to raise money for people back home. Many senators have talked about that spirit. It's at the hardest of times that we see the human spirit rise and people looking after one another. That is who this community is here in Canberra, and we are lucky to have them. To the Nepali community here in Canberra, on behalf of Canberrans, I say we are deeply sorry. You're not on your own in this. If you're worried about someone caught up in the floods, please get in touch with DFAT. Those numbers are online. Get in touch with my office, and we'll do everything we can to help point you in the right direction. Obviously, the Senate's thoughts are with the people in Nepal. 10:28 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I rise today to offer my condolences arising from the devastating floods and landslides that have affected communities across Nepal, Tibet and parts of China. My thoughts are with the families of the 36 Australians who remain unaccounted for following this disaster. While six Australians who were missing have now been found safe, there are still dozens of families waiting for answers, and the uncertainty they face is unimaginable. This is an extremely distressing time, and every hour that passes it only gets harder. This tragedy is being felt particularly strongly in my own community of Glenroy. Glenroy is the home to Victoria's largest Nepali community, some of whom I'm lucky enough to call my friends. The raw heartbreak of this disaster is being felt right across our community. Many families are searching for answers right now and have spent the past weeks desperately trying to contact loved ones or searching for information about family members in affected areas. Across our community, there is an enormous sense of grief, anxiety and uncertainty. I want the Nepalese Australian community in Glenroy and right across Australia to know that we see your pain and we stand with you. You do not face this difficult time alone. We mourn with you, we hope with you and we will continue to support you. At least 1,300 people have lost their lives, and thousands more remain missing. Entire communities have been devastated. Homes, roads, bridges and critical infrastructure have been destroyed. Search and recovery efforts continue under extraordinarily difficult conditions, with damaged communications networks and many areas remaining inaccessible. In the face of this tragedy Australians have shown remarkable generosity. Communities across the country have come together through vigils, fundraising events and community gatherings. Australians have donated more than $4½ million to the Emergency Action Alliance appeal, with the Australian government matching those donations through a $5 million contribution. That generosity is something we should be proud of and reflects the deep connections that exist between Australia and Nepal, and it reflects the compassion so many Australians feel for those affected. The Albanese government is continuing to support search, rescue and recovery efforts, and Australian officials in Kathmandu are working around the clock to locate unaccounted-for Australians and to support their families. They are working closely with the Nepali authorities, hospitals, tour operators and emergency services while dedicated case officers continue to provide updates and support next of kin. Australian crisis response specialists have been deployed to Nepal alongside a disaster assistance response team that includes specialist drone operators from Australian emergency services, and their expertise and technology are assisting Nepali authorities in search and rescue operations. Australia has also provided telecommunications data that may assist in identifying the last known locations of missing Australians. Beyond the immediate response, Australia has committed $11 million to support urgent relief and recovery, delivering emergency shelter, food assistance, essential health services, hygiene kits, solar lighting and other critical supplies requested by the government of Nepal. Royal Australian Air Force aircraft have delivered almost 24 tonnes of humanitarian supplies to Kathmandu, including solar lights, generators and community support equipment. Of course these measures are important, but today I want to return to the people at the centre of this tragedy. To every member of the Nepalese Australian community carrying the weight of uncertainty and each of the 36 families waiting for news and to those gathering in prayer, attending vigils and supporting one another through this difficult time: please know that Australia stands with you. Our thoughts remain with those who are missing, with those who have lost loved ones and with the communities working to recover and rebuild. And to the people of Glenroy and the wider Nepalese community in Victoria and our country: we are thinking of you, we are standing with you and we are hoping alongside you for answers, for healing and for the safe return of those still unaccounted for. 10:32 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales The devastating natural disaster that struck Nepal and parts of Tibet on 26 August has left a gaping hole in the hearts of many in Australia and of course many in the region. Lives have been lost, communities have been swept away and a nation has been left broken in many respects. I want to join with my colleagues in expressing my most sincere condolences to the people of Nepal and the people of Tibet for their terrible loss of life and most particularly to the Australian Nepalese community, who have lost many of their families and relatives in this terrible disaster. This is a disaster in which over 1,300 people so far have been confirmed dead and some 5,000 people are still missing and unaccounted for, including 600 foreign nationals from many nations across the world, because Nepal is a country that has opened its hearts and beauty to so many foreigners who are intrepid and adventurous, including many Australians. Sadly, they have now found themselves in the eye of this disaster. Thirty-six Australians still remain unaccounted for and, sadly, one death has been confirmed—that of a New South Wales resident. But I know that many of the families whose loved ones have been caught up in this and who are yet to have news are in an incredible state of distress and uncertainty, and I feel for them very deeply. The generosity of the response that has been seen has been remarkable and true to our spirit. We've seen Australians open not only their hearts but also their wallets to support the Nepalese community. I've been contacted by a number of people in my community desperate to send assistance to the people of Nepal and finding every potential way they can help. I know the Non-Resident Nepali Association, the NRNA, has been helping to coordinate assistance. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned, there's been $4.5 million donated already to the Emergency Action Alliance to support these efforts, and I commend the government for their generosity and the promptness of the humanitarian assistance that has been offered. That enjoys bipartisan support—$11 million in disaster relief but, as importantly, the dispatching of experts to help with the disaster assistance response, to help seek and identify those missing and to help with the search and rescue efforts. I wanted express my support here for Fire and Rescue NSW, for the Queensland Fire Department and for the Australian Defence Force, who've all been involved in this assistance effort—but also for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the many consular and development assistance staff both involved in this effort on the ground in Nepal but also supporting operations back here in Australia. This natural disaster, the worst Nepal has suffered in well over a decade since the earthquakes in 2015, has left a terrible scar upon the Australian Nepalese community—one of the most generous, vibrant, involved and engaged communities we have in Australia. I joined with other parliamentary colleagues for a vigil in Martin Place just two days after that devastation, and there have been similar vigils held all around the country hosted by the Nepalese community but with many non-Nepali Australians in attendance, showing the level of support that the Nepalese community has. I have a simple message for the Australian Nepalese community and those Australians whose families have been caught up in this disaster. Firstly, we mourn alongside you in your grief and we share your anxiety, your uncertainty and your suffering. We join your prayers for the safety and location of those of your loved ones who are still missing. As importantly, we will stand alongside you in the long effort to rebuild Nepal to the country it was, to help these devastated communities to recover, to help heal the wounds from what has been a horrific natural disaster by any measure, and to help the people and the nation of Nepal recover. 10:37 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I express my deepest condolences and solidarity with the people of Nepal and Tibet. To every person who has lost a child, a parent, a grandparent, a partner, a sibling or a friend; to those whose homes and communities have been swallowed up by mud and debris; and to the families here in Australia living through the unbearable agony of knowing that their loved ones may not come home, my heart is with you. The immense grief so many are feeling right now cannot be an excuse for silence about why catastrophes like this are becoming more frequent, more extreme and more devastating. This was not some random, unforeseeable tragedy. Nepal hardly contributes to global warming, yet they are now paying the price of the insatiable appetite of others to extract and burn fossil fuels. For decades, climate scientists have warned us: keep digging up and burning coal, oil and gas. The planet will cook, glaciers will melt, and fires, floods and droughts will become more frequent and more extreme. Those who contributed the least to and benefited the least from the destruction of our planet are suffering the most. While billionaires drink cocktails on superyachts, build luxury bunkers in New Zealand and sit in boardrooms with Labor, the Liberals and One Nation—plotting how to squeeze more money from more data centres and more coal and gas that will suck the earth dry—ordinary people, mostly in the Global South, are paying with their lives. With the glacier collapse in Nepal and Tibet, more than a thousand people have been swept away and buried, while thousands are still missing. In Indonesia and Malaysia, millions are choking on toxic smoke from enormous wildfires. In Sudan, a country already devastated by war, drought is destroying crops and deepening the threat of extreme famine. This is climate breakdown. This is colonialism in action. The empire never really died. This is capitalism turbocharged. Climate breakdown looms large on the landscape of global inequality, whether it is gender inequality or economic inequality; such disasters are magnified for women and girls and for those living in poverty. And, where colonialism is involved, racism is lurking right there, and it is writ large in the impacts of climate change. While those on billionaire lists—dominated by white men—get richer and richer and protect themselves from the worst consequences of climate breakdown, black and brown communities across the Global South are being flooded, burned, displaced, starved and buried, and the world looks away. We see racism even in how this tragedy is being mourned. Look at the response to Nepal. Australians are still unaccounted for. Australian families are living through unimaginable grief. But many of those Australians have brown faces, so there has been a deluge of racist comments across social media, parroting far-right white supremacist lines about who does and doesn't get to be Australian. Climate racism is not only about who is hit hardest by floods, fires and famine; it is about whose suffering the wealthy world notices. Australia is one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters. We cannot send condolences with one hand while feeding the climate crisis with the other hand. The Prime Minister doesn't want to talk about climate change at the exact time that it needs to be talked about, but the Labor government is fine, at this time, to approve coal and gas project after coal and gas project—at a time when the world is facing these climate disasters. The people of Nepal and Tibet did not create this crisis. The corporations that made billions burning our planet did, and the political parties right here, who have been bought by these very corporations, are complicit. You've sold your soul to coal and gas corporations, and you enable every climate catastrophe that happens around the world. It is way past time to act to end fossil fuels and to end profit fuelled by extraction. Otherwise, the apocalyptic scenes that we have been seeing over the last couple of weeks are only going to get worse, and it will be on you. (Time expired) 10:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My colleagues from the coalition and I rise today to stand with the people of Nepal and with the Nepalese Australian community following the devastating flood that struck 12 days ago. We grieve for the more than 1,300 that have been confirmed dead and for the thousands that are still missing. The footage from the ground is so confronting, and the scale of loss is just unimaginable. Now is the time to stand with our Nepalese friends, with support and with mateship. This tragedy will extend beyond this moment, with countless lives and livelihoods upended by this tragedy, and it will be felt in the months and years ahead. This is not a distant disaster for Australia. There are 36 Australians that remain unaccounted for. We mourn Michael Keats of New South Wales, the first Australian who was confirmed dead, who reached the border crossing just minutes before the flood struck. We give thanks for those that have been found safe, including Cara Severino, and for the rescue crews, both Nepalese and international, that are working around the clock. Also among those that are still waiting for news are Australian families of foreign nationals, including Abhijit Bhide, who is the chairman of the Australian Hindu Community. His sister and brother-in-law, both Indian nationals, both doctors in Mumbai, were crossing the border the morning that the flood struck. Theirs is one of the thousands of families trapped in agonising anticipation, waiting for a name to appear on the list of the rescued. We should also recognise the Australians that have answered the call, none more so than Professor Arnold Dix, who helped free 41 workers from the Silkyara tunnels in the Himalayas. He's now lending that expertise to Nepal's flooded hydropower tunnels. Professor Dix insists that this remains a rescue and not a recovery. His refusal to give up hope, I think, speaks to the best in us all. We also recognise DFAT, the crisis officials on the ground, and acknowledged that the Australian government has committed a further $3 million in aid, as well as some of the families who have flown to Nepal to search for their own. This is Australia playing its part in a global community, as we always have, as we always will and as we always should. We should all seek to extend our support to those who need it, when we can and where we can. To the people of Nepal, Australia mourns with you and we hope alongside you. To the families still waiting, including the families of Australians that are still missing, this parliament holds you in its thoughts and we will not give up hope. 10:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The floods that happened in Nepal and Tibet were absolutely devastating. The scenes that the world saw are apocalyptic and can only be described as everyone's worst nightmare. My thoughts are with all those that have lost loved ones or still don't know what happened to them. I can only imagine the pain you must be going through and want you to know that we are with you, we feel you and we hurt with you. The world is thinking of Nepal, and support for the rescue and clean-up efforts is being sent, as it should be. Sadly, we know much less about the impact the flood has had on Tibet, though it is likely just as catastrophic, possibly even more so, due to China not releasing information or allowing support in. Independent international aid groups and journalists are prevented from entering Tibet, and I'm sure this is only just aggravating the situation. My thoughts are with the communities in Tibet and the Tibetans all over the world who fear for the lives of their loved ones but remain in uncertainty, not knowing when there will ever be certainty. Sadly, I'm certain this will not be the only incident of this kind. We are headed for a world where these catastrophes will become more and more common—and it affects all of us. The government says now is not the time to talk about climate change, but actually now is exactly the time. We have no time to lose, or there will be more lives lost, more regularly. Scientists have said that increased temperatures have led to glacier melting, which resulted in the huge volumes of water that we saw last week. With global heating, mountainous areas are at risk of further glacial lake outburst floods and erratic rainfall, which in turn will increase flood and landslide risks. Just last week, a landmark UN report was released which clearly stated the world will overshoot the 1.5 degrees climate target within the next few years—and this government has been mostly silent about it. In fact, no-one speaks about caring for country any more. It's like the world has reached a point where it's in the too-hard basket, and so it's easier that we just ignore there is a problem at all. But we know that, if we look after country, country will look after us. We see the Labor government supporting more gas in the Beetaloo basin, where we know that's going to have devastating effects on not only the land and the water but the people themselves, where people will be forced to drink poisonous water—where you could light the water on fire—from fracking. And we have Minister Watt standing up getting his selfies, proud of the climate bombs he approves. It's the same with Murujuga, and the list goes on and on. We must act on global heating. I see a lot of babies around this parliament today. It's a special day for those babies. What decisions get made in this place will affect their lives and their children's lives. That's how we as Aboriginal people think. We're here to serve our people of tomorrow. But the people in here don't give a damn about the people of tomorrow. All you care about is raping and pillaging land and water, which will ultimately kill us all off. We have to act and do everything that we can with everything that we have so that these climate catastrophes don't happen. We must phase out all fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop the delusional reliance on coal and gas. The people who have lost their lives must not have died in vain. 10:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I too rise to support this condolence motion. Let me say at the outset that it is a great sign of respect and affection for our wonderful Nepalese Australian community that the first item of business of this Senate as it returns after the disaster that happened in Tibet and Nepal is this condolence motion, and that is fit and proper. On 30 August 2026, I attended a candlelight vigil which was hosted by the Nepalese Association of Queensland in King George Square, in my home state of Queensland. Also in attendance were my friends from the other side of politics the Hon. Milton Dick MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Hon. Shayne Neumann, who's the federal member for Blair. All three of us, as federal representatives, were there in solidarity with our wonderful Nepalese Australian community, and all three of us have in the past attended festivals and celebrations which have been hosted by the Nepalese community of Queensland. These include traditional celebrations and sports days involving family members. We've seen the Nepalese Queensland community at times that have been happy and joyous, with a welcome extended to everyone in the community to participate in their festivals. So it was fit and proper that we be there with the Nepalese Queensland community in their time of need. The Nepalese Australian community is part of the Australian story. They are part of the Australian story and they make a wonderful contribution to our country through their small businesses; through their employment and professions, working in our aged-care homes as nurses and in our hospitals; through their community sponsorships; and through opening up their hearts to everyone in the Australian community. They're really a great blessing for our Australian community. So now is the time for the Australian community to wrap its arms around our Nepalese Australian community. We are there for you, we are there with you, we feel your pain and we are here to give our Nepalese Australian community all of the support we possibly can. I'd like to commend the government on the contributions it has made in terms of both financial support and on-the-ground support in trying to find as many survivors as possible in the aftermath of these horrific events. I would like to put something on the record as part of this condolence motion—the words of a leader of the Nepalese Queensland community. These are the words of Mr Tikaram Sarma, president of the Nepalese Association of Queensland: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION On behalf of the Nepalese Association of Queensland (NAQ)and the Nepalese community across Queensland and Australia, I sincerely thank everyone who stood with us during the Candlelight Vigils for Nepal in Brisbane and across Australia. We are deeply grateful to the Australian Government, governments at all levels, emergency services, multicultural communities and the wider Australian community for their compassion, solidarity and support. We also sincerely appreciate the financial, logistical and technological assistance, as well as the support of expert rescue personnel sent to Nepal to assist those affected by this devastating disaster. At a time of great sorrow and uncertainty, your kindness and solidarity reminded us that we are not alone. We respectfully appeal to the Australian Government to consider extending technical and financial assistance to support Nepal's recovery and reconstruction once the immediate rescue and relief efforts are complete. Thank you for standing with Nepal and our community. Sincerely, Tikaram Sarma President Nepalese Association of Queensland Inc. ( N AQ) You can donate to the recovery efforts through the Nepalese Association of Queensland, and I've put a link on my website to their fundraising efforts. Lastly, I want to commend the leadership of the Nepalese Australian community, including Tikaram. In many cases they have loved ones who they have not heard from. They're not sure what has happened to their own loved ones but, at the same time, they're providing support to members of their own community and reaching out to other parts of the Australian community. So my deepest, deepest respects go to Tikaram and to all the other leaders of the Nepalese community. 10:55 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise again today, like so many others in this place, with a very heavy heart. I express my grief and my sadness at the news of the devastating mass floods that we have witnessed in Nepal and in Tibet. My heart aches for the more than 1,300 people whose lives have been lost, for their families and their communities, for the 5,000 people, their communities and their families, who are waiting for news, who are hoping, and we share their hope. We know this is a crisis which has destroyed the homes of 50,000 people in Tibet and in Nepal. It will be a long road back to recovery for these communities. I want to acknowledge the pain of the Nepalese and Tibetan communities here in Australia. We share every year ceremonies with these communities, and we share here in the parliament concerns by the Tibetan community about their loved ones back in Tibet, their ability to communicate with them and be confident that their human rights are protected. I say to those people: 'You're not alone.' In South Australia, at vigils, South Australians have been contributing to the kinds of funds and support that we know will be essential to rebuild those communities. We're especially concerned about our friends in Tibet, where the flow of information has been tightly controlled by China. As the Greens co-chair of the parliamentary friends of Tibet group, I'm lucky to have met so many wonderful members of the Tibetan community here in Canberra, in Adelaide, in other places around the country, who have made Australia their home and made Australia the better for being here and joining us. Tibetans have a right to know what is going on for their loved ones and their communities at home. They have a right to know that they're receiving the aid and support that they need in this devastating flood. The people of Nepal and Tibet are the blameless victims of the rapidly changing climate. Scientists have been warning us for decades that events like these lie ahead. They've been telling us that the climate would contribute to floods, to fire and to other devastating events we are now witnessing. They have told us that the poorest people in the world, those who are not the source of the fossil fuel and pollution that is in our climate and causing the kinds of devastation we are witnessing, pay the highest price for the climate change which is causing such devastation, a high price for their families and communities. Nepal's prime minister, Balen Shah, said that the flood in the Bhote Koshi River was not an 'ordinary flood'. He recognised the contribution of the climate crisis, while our own prime minister wants us to turn away from calling it, naming it and recognising it. Nepal's prime minister, Balen Shah, said: This is the biggest disaster in the Himalayan region caused by an avalanche of snow and rocks. This incident indicates that the risks we face in the Himalayan region are increasing with climate change. It is time for us to strongly raise the issue of the disasters we are facing due to climate change before the international community. The leaders of these nations are asking us to recognise what is happening and the consequences for those communities, and yet we fail to act. Labor continues to open new fossil fuel entities. It continues to add to the climate crisis. I came to this Senate, like so many others, to fight—to fight for action on climate change and to fight for future generations. Today, my four-year-old grandchild and their parent, Indi, are here in the parliament, and I want to be able to look to them and their generation and say, 'I did everything I could and I worked in this chamber to do everything I could to stop the kind of terrible event we have witnessed in Tibet and in Nepal.' I think of all the grandparents who have lost their grandchildren in this crisis, and I think of all the children who've lost their parents and their grandparents in this crisis. The community will bear the scars of this for a long time, for many decades ahead. This is a crisis that we must learn the lesson of: we need to make sure we stop contributing to making the climate crisis worse. In our sympathy and condolence, we need to take the action we must to end the crisis that fossil fuels—and our own Australian fossil fuels—continue to contribute to in larger and larger numbers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 That concludes the debate. BILLS 11 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 11

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

First Reading 11 11:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria 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 11 11:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I table a revised explanatory memorandum and 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— This Bill amends Treasury legislation to strengthen the integrity of the tax profession, make a range of improvements to our tax system, deliver targeted refinements to Australia's merger regime, and give force of law to current national competition principles. Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to strengthen the Tax Practitioners Board sanctions regime as part of the Government's response to the PwC tax leaks matter, announced on 6 August 2023, to crack down on tax advisor misconduct and rebuild people's faith in the systems and structures that keep our tax system and capital markets strong. The reforms also implement recommendations from the 2019 Independent Review of the Tax Practitioners Board. The reforms complement a broader suite of Government reforms to strengthen integrity and accountability across the tax system and professional services sector. This includes work to progress further targeted exceptions to tax secrecy rules and enhancements to the Australian Tax Office and Tax Practitioner Board's information gathering powers outlined in the 2026-27 Budget, and just yesterday we released an options paper into the regulation of accounting, auditing and consulting firms in Australia. It builds on earlier reforms, such as: Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Act 2023, which strengthened the TPB's powers and improved transparency within the profession. Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Act 2024, which expanded the ATO's ability to target promoters of tax exploitation schemes, increased penalties, enabled referrals of misconduct to professional bodies, and strengthened whistleblower protections. The Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024, which enhanced obligations on practitioners and lifted baseline standards for practitioner behaviour. These reforms will enable the Tax Practitioners Board to impose a suite of new and expanded regulatory sanctions, that escalate in severity in response to more serious contraventions of the law, and respond to misconduct, including poor and unlawful tax advice, in a timely way. The changes include new criminal penalties for unregistered preparers, new civil penalty provisions and increased maximum civil penalty amounts for tax practitioners and unregistered preparers, new powers that enable the Tax Practitioners Board to issue infringement notice penalties, enter into enforceable voluntary undertakings, and impose contingent and interim suspensions of registration, and an increase in the maximum duration of terminations of registration from 5 to 10 years. These reforms will improve protections for taxpayers by driving better behaviour, addressing and deterring misconduct, and maintaining community confidence in the integrity of the tax system. Schedule 2 to the Bill strengthens the foreign resident capital gains tax (CGT) regime. This reform ensures foreign residents pay their fair share of tax when selling assets with a close economic connection to Australian land and our natural resources, while providing generous concessions for investments in renewable energy as set out in Schedule 3. The Schedule has four elements. First, it clarifies the definition of 'real property' on which foreign residents are subject to CGT. This confirms that assets with a close economic connection to Australia—such as energy infrastructure, transport and telecommunications assets, and water entitlements—are in scope of the foreign resident CGT rules. This responds to a longstanding area of uncertainty which has been compounded over time by the absence of a clear definition of 'real property' in the Commonwealth tax law. It also addresses the interactions with state and territory property laws, which have increasingly produced unintended outcomes, with infrastructure assets being taxed differently depending on the jurisdiction in which they are located. From commencement, this measure will ensure the Commonwealth tax law determines which assets are subject to the foreign resident CGT regime. This will support certainty and ensure consistent tax treatment across the nation, so investors can make long-term decisions with confidence. It also restores the integrity, fairness and sustainability of the tax system. Second, the measure confirms when the Commissioner of Taxation can amend a past assessment for matters relating to the foreign resident CGT regime. The legislation limits the ability of the Commissioner to amend an assessment where the taxpayer's limited amendment period has ended, except in cases of fraud or evasion or where the taxpayer objected to their assessment prior to 10 April 2026 (which is the date of the exposure draft consultation for this Schedule). This effectively means that where a foreign investor had previously paid and settled a historical CGT liability, they will be unable to have their assessment amended because the Commissioner will not be able to extend the review period. This will protect existing revenue by preventing foreign investors from seeking opportunistic windfall gains by taking advantage of recent Federal Court decisions to reduce their previous tax payments. Third, the Schedule introduces a new requirement for foreign investors to notify the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) before they dispose their interests in an Australian entity, when the transaction is valued at $50 million or more. This ensures the ATO has more visibility over high-value transactions in which a foreign resident claims they are not subject to CGT because they are disposing a non-Australian real property interest. This new notification supports tax compliance. And fourth, the Schedule enhances the integrity of the Principal Asset Test. This test determines whether the value of a foreign investor's interest is mainly from Australian land or land-like assets, and therefore subject to CGT. Foreign investors are now required to apply this test at any time during the 365 days before the CGT event, instead of just at the time of disposal. This is consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s practice. The Schedule includes two instrument-making powers to balance compliance costs for investors. It is intended that these powers would be used to exempt certain foreign investors from having to notify the Commissioner of certain public transactions, and to provide an alternative testing approach for certain investors in how they value their interests in complying with the Principal Asset Test. These details will be subject to consultation. Schedule 3 to the Bill is a transitional concession for foreign investors in the renewable energy sector. It provides a 50 per cent CGT discount on the disposal of eligible assets until 30 June 2030. This recognises the importance of foreign investment in the renewables sector, helping support our clean energy objectives. This concession balances ongoing Government support for Australia's practical action on climate change, with the need to ensure the tax treatment of these assets aligns with the treatment of other assets in the longer term. The targeted, time-limited concession will apply to grid-scale renewable assets such as battery storage systems, wind turbines and solar panels. Schedules 2 and 3 were informed by extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Schedules will commence on the first quarter after Royal Assent. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to deliver targeted refinements to Australia's merger regime. The Government has heard from businesses, advisors and regulators about how the regime is working in practice and what needs to be fine-tuned. First, the amendments adjust the legal consequences when merger parties fail to notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) when they should have, by making such acquisitions voidable instead of automatically void. This minimises unintended consequences, especially for innocent third parties, where the existing voiding provisions would otherwise automatically unwind transactions, while still preserving the incentive for parties to notify when appropriate. Second, the amendments introduce a mechanism for merger parties to seek extensions from the ACCC for the period in which they can put an approved acquisition into effect. The extensions can be up to 6 months each. Multiple extensions may be granted. This will also apply to transactions already approved in the 12 months prior to commencement of this Bill. Third, the amendments better target when an acquisition needs to be notified. Parties will not need to notify acquisitions that are unlikely to result in a practical ability to influence competition, as originally intended. For example, it will benefit venture capital investing in start-ups. Overall, these amendments will reduce the regulatory burden on industry while preserving the integrity of the regime. They support a faster, more transparent and risk-based regime. These amendments also reflect the Government's commitment to listening and responding to stakeholder experiences to ensure the merger regime continues to promote competition and economic activity in the interests of Australians. Schedule 5 to the Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Productivity Commission Act 1998 to give legal force to the current National Competition Principles and regulatory structures, which were agreed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories in November 2024. The measure substitutes references to the Conduct Code Agreement and Competition Principles Agreement, from 1995, with references to the 2024 Intergovernmental Agreement on National Competition Policy, and introduces definitions of public interest test and competitive neutrality arrangements. To future-proof these amendments, the measure also introduces powers for the Minister to specify any new agreements to be the NCP Agreement and new arrangements to be the competitive neutrality arrangements. Schedule 6 to the Bill amends the tax law to specifically list the Ross House Trust, Tanarra Social Purpose Ltd and the I4give Foundation Ltd as deductible gift recipients, and extends the existing listing of the Australian Academy of Law and Cambridge Australia Scholarships Limited. Schedule 7 to the Bill amends the tax law to change the name of the philanthropic funds known as ancillary funds to giving funds. This better reflects the purpose of these funds and implements a recommendation of the Productivity Commission's philanthropy inquiry. Schedule 8 to the Bill makes minor and technical amendments the tax law to give effect to the Australian Taxation Office's current administrative treatment to ensure tax credits arising from amounts withheld from the disposal of Australia real property can be claimed in an assessment for the same income year that the disposal is recognised for tax purposes. Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to amendments in Schedule 4 to the Bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. 11:02 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland There are lots of industries struggling in this country right now under this government. Lots of areas are doing it quite tough with the economy not doing well with the government raising taxes and with the price of everything going through the roof. Lots of small businesses I see are doing it really tough. So it's a surprise that the government has brought forward a bill—well, maybe it's not a surprise—that's going to provide a tax break to some. What is surprising is that it doesn't go to any small businesses. It doesn't go to any of the people in the housing market that are suffering from the greatest reduction in housing values we've seen for a generation or more. It doesn't go to those manufacturing businesses struggling under some of the highest energy prices in the world. It doesn't go to families struggling to pay their bills after 15 interest rate rises and the price of everything—groceries—going through the roof. It doesn't go to any of those groups. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026, provides a massive tax break to—wait for it—large-scale wind and solar investors. That's where it goes. You've got to ask yourself: what are the government's priorities? Are their priorities the Australian families doing it tough right now? Are their priorities the small businesses that are struggling to keep their doors open. Are their priorities those people who've just taken on large mortgages with not much equity and who now find themselves owing more to the bank than the house is worth? They should be; those people should be our government's priorities right now, given how tough people are doing it in our country. Instead, the priorities of the government are not just to bring forward this tax break but to rush through this tax break to large-scale investors, often whom a foreign owned, so that they can pursue their net zero agenda, which has been completely failing. That's what this bill does. It's a massive tax break for some of the biggest businesses, biggest investors, biggest super funds in our nation. Maybe they're doing it tough too, but I don't think they should be at the front of the queue if we can afford a tax break for some. I think we should be looking after the average Australian that's doing it tough. I think we should be questioning whether or not this whole pursuit of net zero is delivering what was promised. It's not delivering what the government promised. They promised that installing wind and solar—pursuing net zero—would lower your power bill by $275, and the Prime Minister promised that almost 100 times on the election trail. That hasn't happened. Power bills have gone through the roof. The government promised that pursuing net zero would create over 600,000 jobs—604,000 jobs, in fact, according to their economic modelling and their plan. And now we have to spend billions upon billions of dollars just to maintain the jobs we did have—forget about new jobs—at smelters and refineries and keep them on taxpayer funded life support, because right now if we didn't do that those jobs would go overseas. Those smelters and refineries would shut down, given the astronomical electricity prices that this government now presides over. But none of these things have happened. They promised net zero. They promised we'd have low interest rates, too. They promised that if we pursue this net zero idea the rest of the world will love us and they'll swamp us with capital, and that will lower interest rates. Now, consistently, Australian government debt—a 10-year government debt—has been at the highest interest rate in the developed world for the last year or so. The UK has just pipped us in recent weeks, after their troubles, but we have consistently been at the highest bond rate in the developed world—massive surges in the cost of government finance. Those higher interest rates flow through to your mortgage, too. That's one of the reasons you've seen those 15 interest rate rises, and people are doing it tough. Yet the government comes here and not just introduces it but, as I said, rushes it through. They're rushing through, in a deal with their friends in the Greens, a tax cut for these large businesses, and they're trying to hide it. You might have been a bit confused, if you were listening and paying attention: 'Hang on; the name of this bill is Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill.' The words 'other measures' do more heavy lifting in this bill than I've ever seen. If you just read the title, the bill is about strengthening accountability for tax adviser misconduct. That seems like a reasonable thing, and we do support aspects of the bill, which I'll get to, that do that. But then you've got this 'and other measures'. You might ask, what are those other measures? They are a big, big tax break for large-scale businesses and investors who can't make their sums add up right now because the net zero agenda is failing. So the offending provision of this bill, the 'other measures' part, introduces a change to the way capital gains are taxed here in this country. That's a legitimate issue. Typically only capital gains on real property have been taxed, and generally speaking attached land has not been included in that property, under various tax rulings. So we have seen that companies that build pipelines, factories, and solar and wind investments on land have typically been judged to not be subject to the capital gains regime. This bill changes that and redefines it. It puts a proper definition on what property is for capital gains tax purposes and fixes up a little bit of a gap. We're not against that as a concept. It makes some sense—although I would add that most of those assets are depreciating assets, such as pipelines, infrastructure et cetera and are unlikely in and of themselves to make any large capital gains. Be that as it may, it seems consistent to include them in a regime that seeks to tax any capital gain on assets. But then the government, having done that, having made this reasonable change, exempts investors in solar and wind—not anyone else, not anyone who might be, I don't know, building an oil refinery so we can have fuel security again in our country; they're not exempt. The government's running around, cap in hand, subsidising oil and gas production in other countries, but they don't get an exemption. What about somebody who wants to increase steel production here so we don't have to import so much from overseas? Nope: they don't get the exemption—only people who invest in wind and solar. As I said, those are the government's warped priorities right now—that they are more interested in pursuing this idea of net zero that's not working than they are in providing relief to Australian families or targeting the real issues that face this country, like fuel security, where we are so reliant on other countries for a basic commodity. The government had proposed in the budget that it would fix this capital gains tax loophole. It would exempt solar and wind. We were pretty aghast at that. They were going to exempt them for five years, and then they'd be brought in—even the solar and wind investors would be brought into the regime—but, to ram this bill through, the government has done a deal with the Greens to extend the exemption out to 2040 for those who happen to be in a protected class that invests in renewable energy. It doesn't apply for everyone else. Small businesses don't get it. Small businesses invest in these things in their own businesses. They're captured. They get taxed. I'm really interested to hear how the government can justify why someone starting up a cafe is subject to this new regime, but a multibillion dollar investor from Europe or North America building massive solar and wind turbines somehow gets off scot free. I'm particularly interested in why they're giving this tax break because, just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was in Dubbo—I was there—at the Bush Summit, and he faced a lot of people. He went out and saw a lot of people who were opposed to having 300-metre towers next to their houses and communities. That's understandable. People don't want their rural setting industrialised by these things. They faced a bevy of opposition from them. In front of them and in front of the nation's cameras, he told them that these investments have to have a social licence to operate. They should get a social licence. 'They should get local support,' in effect, he was saying. This is his first day back. This is the government's first day back in Canberra, in parliament, since the Bush Summit in Dubbo a few weeks ago. What is the first thing the government do? They introduce laws to give these investments a tax cut, not to impose new requirements on them to receive that support, which they're clearly not getting right now. These things in rural New South Wales, wind and solar investment, are about as popular as the Queensland Maroons rugby league team right now. They are deeply unpopular. People don't want them in their community. You can understand why. Does anyone want a 300-metre tower? If anyone here in this town or in an urban setting decides they want to build a multistorey apartment complex, opposition goes straight up, understandably. People don't want their local community changed like that. Likewise those in a rural setting don't want it. They don't want it imposed on them with no benefit, just an interruption in their lives, the destruction of their ambience and sometimes impacts on their health too, if they're too close to these things. They're very noisy. None of that's being factored in here. This government's come back to Canberra after whispering sweet nothings to people in the bush out in rural New South Wales and actually slipped through, in a dodgy deal, this tax cut. What clearly should have happened here, with such a massive exemption to some of the largest and richest investors in our country, is that we should have had a Senate inquiry on this issue. We should have subjected this to some degree of scrutiny, particularly given this has changed considerably since the government announced in the budget this extension of the tax break to 2040. This should have been subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, but again—because the government is obviously a bit embarrassed about these deals they're doing with some of the biggest, largest investors in our nation's country not helping out our ordinary Australians—they want to rush it through without really any scrutiny. We will be moving a second reading amendment that I'll flag that will seek this bill to be referred to a Senate inquiry so we can get to the bottom of who's going to benefit from this tax break and exactly why it's needed, because we were told these wind and solar investments were so cheap and so efficient. Why do they need this? Why do they need another subsidy? They're getting billions and billions of dollars of subsidies already from you. For those listening, Mr Acting Deputy President and all the listeners here, you're paying them billions and billions of dollars. The government won't provide us the precise figures, but they get massive amounts of subsidies, and now they're getting a tax break on top. Why do they need that if they're that much cheaper? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Canavan, are you moving that amendment? Senator CANAVAN 245212 I'll move that now. I may as well move that amendment now: At the end of the motion, add ", and: (a) the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 October 2026; and (b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported". Before I finish up, I did want to get back to the name of this bill, which is 'strengthening accountability for tax adviser misconduct'. There are many parts of this bill that we can support. We can't support the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. We can't support massive tax breaks to select few of the government's pet projects and not those small businesses in particular that are suffering in this country. There are eight schedules in this bill. We support things like strengthening the Tax Practitioners Board powers in schedule 1 and increasing civil penalties and new criminal offences. We have seen some pretty poor conduct in this sector, and we can support that. We do support schedules 4, 5, 6 and 7, which provide some technical amendments on the merger-control regime, which updates competition law to reflect the 2024 national competition policy agreement. Schedule 6 grants tax-deductible-donation status to some new entities. We're not opposed to those things. Schedule 7 implements part of a Productivity Commission recommendation to rename things that are called 'ancillary funds' to 'giving funds'. Again, that is something we can support. Schedule 8 provides an administrative fix to the ATO to align the law with existing ATO practice on withholding credits from policy disposals. All of those things, as I say, are fairly what we would call 'non-contro', or non-controversial, and could have been included in a bill like this. But what is objectionable is how the government has used those legitimate, sensible and largely technical changes to hide a broader agenda where they provide preferment to some select businesses in this country while the rest of the economy is suffering so badly. It's really suffering. I've spent the last two weeks on the road. As I said, I was at the Bush Summit in Dubbo. I had a couple of days around there and a wonderful evening in Trangie where over 100 people came along and there was a lot of engagement from people. I had a few days down in northern Victoria with the member for Nicholls, Sam Birrell, in Shepparton and Echuca. I spoke to many businesses suffering from sky-high electricity costs—really struggling. I spoke to a lot of businesses in that area and farms in that area that are struggling with the government buying back water right now, taking away that opportunity that they would have to grow food for our nation and increase our productivity and wealth. That's being denied to them; it's being hollowed out from that. There's a lot of engagement out there. I've never seen people so worked up in our country, and it's understandable why they are—because this government has presided over the biggest decline in economic living standards in our nation's history. In recorded history, there's never been a bigger fall in real wages, a bigger fall in productivity, a bigger fall in living standards. That should be the No. 1 focus of this government if it wants to listen to the Australian people. Instead, we're providing tax breaks to multinational companies. It shows how off track this government is. 11:17 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. With it having a title like that, you could be forgiven for thinking this is going to be complicated. It's fair to say that Treasury has once again resisted the temptation of a short title. But the questions underneath it are much simpler and much more important: (1) Can Australians trust professionals who handle their tax affairs? (2) If someone makes a gain from Australian land and resources, are they paying the tax they should pay here? and (3) Are our competition laws strong enough to protect consumers while still being practical enough to let investment happen? They're pretty simple questions, and they all go to one thing: trust. Trust is part of the infrastructure that makes an economy work. You can go back to the father of economics, Adam Smith, who understood that markets cannot function on self-interest alone. In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, he described justice as 'the main pillar that upholds the whole edifice'. That is an important insight. Markets work because we expect contracts to be honoured, we invest because we expect property rights to be respected, we hand sensitive information to professionals because we expect standards to be enforced, and we pay taxes because we expect other people to meet their obligations too. Trust does not replace rules. Good rules create the conditions under which trust is possible. That is what this bill is about. Now, most Australians do not spend much time thinking about the Tax Practitioners Board; nor should they have to. They should be able to go to an accountant or tax adviser, hand over some of their most sensitive financial information and trust that the person sitting across from them is properly regulated and acting professionally. The PwC tax leaks matter showed what happens when that trust is abused. Confidential government information about proposed tax laws was misused for commercial purposes. It was a serious failure of professional standards. But the weakness in the regulatory system did not suddenly appear with PwC. We can go back to 2019, when the independent review of the Tax Practitioners Board identified a significant gap in the regulator's sanctions framework. At one end were cautions and education, and at the other were suspension, termination and court action. A regulator should not have to be forced to choose between a slap on the wrist and the most serious sanction available. This bill gives the Tax Practitioners Board a more graduated and practical toolkit. It introduces infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and new suspension powers. It creates new civil penalties for breaches of the professional code and new criminal offences for people providing or advertising tax services for reward when they are not registered. And, where registration is terminated for misconduct, the maximum period before a practitioner can reapply doubles from five years to 10. That is not about treating every mistake as misconduct; it is about giving the regulator the ability to respond proportionately to what is actually in front of it. It is worth remembering who benefits from that. The overwhelming majority of tax practitioners do the right thing. For a small-business owner, a good accountant can mean more time running the business and less time at the kitchen table trying to work through tax paperwork. Those professionals should not be undercut by people who are prepared to operate outside the rules. Good regulation protects consumers, but it also protects honest businesses from competitors prepared to cut corners. The same principle of fairness applies to foreign investment. Australia needs foreign investment. Tasmania needs foreign investment. It finances projects, helps businesses grow and supports jobs. We should welcome it. But welcoming foreign investment does not mean surrendering Australia's right to tax gains that are properly connected to Australia. The foreign resident capital gains tax rules have been affected by uncertainty about what counts as real property, including the interaction between Commonwealth tax law and state and territory property law. This bill makes the Commonwealth rules clearer and broader so that assets with a close economic connection to Australian land and natural resources are treated consistently. There is also a fairly simple economic principle underneath all of that: tax law should follow economic reality. If the value being sold comes from Australian land or resources, the tax outcome should not depend on an ingenious choice of legal wrapper. The bill also introduces some sensible integrity measures. Where a foreign investor sells an interest worth more than $50 million and takes the position that the gain is not taxable, the ATO will need to be notified, and the principal asset test will look across 365 days rather than only a snapshot at the point of sale, reducing the scope to temporarily alter an entity's asset mix simply to change the tax outcome. There is also a useful lesson in how these reforms were developed. The initial exposure draft proposed retrospectivity, and stakeholders raised serious concerns about this. The government listened, and a substantive expansion in the bill before us applies prospectively. That is what consultation should do. It should not merely provide people with an opportunity to speak; it should improve the policy where the evidence warrants it. Schedule 3 shows the same practical approach. At the same time as strengthening the foreign resident CGT regime, the bill provides a targeted 50 per cent CGT discount for eligible foreign investment in renewable energy assets including wind, solar, hydro and large-scale battery storage. And, after further consultation, the government amended the bill in the House to extend that concession from 2030 through to 2040. That matters, because major infrastructure is not planned, financed, approved or built overnight. If Australia wants long-term capital, our policy settings have to recognise real-world project timeframes. For Tasmania, this is especially relevant. Clean energy has been part of our economic story for generations. Our hydro resources have supported Tasmanian industry for decades, and our renewable energy advantage gives us an opportunity to attract another generation of investment in storage, generation, transmission and energy-intensive industry. The opportunity is to use that energy advantage to attract businesses, expand existing industry and create more skilled jobs. But investment needs certainty, so the combination in this bill is deliberate: strengthen the integrity of the tax base while providing a targeted and time limited transition for renewable energy investment. These objectives are not contradictory; good economic policy should be capable of doing both. The same principle applies to competition policy. Competition can sometimes sound like an abstract economic concept, but it certainly is not. For households, competition means having somewhere else to go when prices rise or service gets worse; for small businesses, it means a genuine chance to win customers from a bigger competitor; and, for the economy, it means businesses have to keep improving instead of relying on market power. That is why the government strengthened Australia's merger laws. Since 1 January, acquisitions meeting the relevant thresholds must be notified to the ACCC before they proceed. But good regulation is not set and forget. When a major new regime starts operating, government should pay attention to what happens in practice and fix unnecessary friction when it appears. The early evidence shows the new system can be both rigorous and timely. The ACCC expected around 80 per cent of acquisitions to be dealt with within 20 business days through an early decision or a notification waiver. Across the 2025-26 data, in fact, 92 per cent of notification and waiver determinations were assessed within the timeframe. This bill also now makes several practical refinements. A transaction that should have been notified will no longer automatically become void. Instead, the ACCC will be able to ask the Federal Court to declare the acquisition void where that is appropriate. The bill also clarifies control rules so that investments that are unlikely to give an investor meaningful competitive influence are not unnecessarily captured. Not every minority investment is a takeover in disguise, and that matters particularly for venture capital and startup investment, where an investor can acquire ordinary governance rights without actually gaining control of the business. Where an approved transaction legitimately takes longer than expected to complete, the ACCC will be able to extend the period for completion rather than forcing parties, unnecessarily, back through the process. None of that weakens the central purpose of the merger regime. The ACCC still needs the ability to stop acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. But being serious about competition does not require us to be enthusiastic about unnecessary red tape. The remaining schedules make a number of smaller but worthwhile changes. They update the Commonwealth law for the 2024 National Competition Policy arrangements, provide or extend deductible gift recipient status for several organisations, replace the obscure term 'ancillary funds' with the clearer 'giving funds' and fix the timing of foreign resident CGT withholding credits so taxpayers are not pushed into unnecessary duplicate returns for the same transaction. Having worked in economics and business, I've never found the argument about whether we need more regulation or less regulation particularly useful. That is too crude a test. A rule can be tough and still be badly designed. A rule can appear light touch and still impose enormous costs if nobody can understand how it actually works. The real question is whether the rules are doing their job. Are they protecting people and allowing honest businesses to compete? Are they stopping misconduct without creating unnecessary barriers? Are they giving investors enough certainty to make long-term decisions? When experience shows that a rule is not working as intended, our government's prepared to fix it. That is the approach that is reflected in this bill. If you handle another person's tax affairs, you should be accountable for how you conduct yourself. If you make a gain from Australian land and resources, you should meet Australian tax obligations that properly attach to it. If you run a business, you should have a fair chance to compete on the quality, price and value you offer customers. And, if you're prepared to invest capital in Australia for the long term, you should have confidence that the rules will be clear and workable. This bill strengthens the rules where they need to be stronger, it closes gaps where they have emerged, and it fixes unnecessary friction where experience shows the system can work better. That is good economic policy, and I commend this bill to the Senate. 11:30 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026, and we're very pleased that, in order to secure our support, the government agreed to extend the current 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for renewable assets from 2030 to 2040. Obviously, that amendment has been moved and accepted by the House, and today—or, at least, at latest, sometime this week—it will no doubt be agreed to by the Senate, with the government and the Greens ensuring that that is the case. The extension of the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount from 2030 to 2040 for renewable assets is a big deal, because somewhere around 70 per cent of investment into renewables in Australia is from overseas, so the way that we tax international investment into our renewable energy sector is critical in order that we do everything that we can to ensure an accelerated rollout of renewables in this country. Renewable technology in Australia is facing many, many headwinds at the moment: low wholesale prices, high interest rates, a performance test in our superannuation sector that does not do enough to encourage superannuation funds to invest in renewable energy, climate misinformation and climate disinformation funded by international fossil fuel conglomerates and United States billionaire climate deniers, which is driving some community opposition to the construction of renewable energy assets. So, when we had a chance, in that context, to do something significant to ensure that we did not put yet another significant barrier in the way of international investment into renewable energy in Australia, the Greens took the chance, and we're very pleased to have come to an agreement with Labor to extend the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount in relation to renewables from 2030 to 2040. I spoke about the blockers to renewable energy investment in Australia. I want to speak more about that, because, even though some of those issues, including international supply chain constraints, are largely out of the control of this parliament and state and territory parliaments in Australia, one thing that is in the control of politicians and political parties in this country is the fact that state governments keep extending the lives of their dirty, ancient, clunker coal-fired power generators. At the same time, we have a federal Labor government, who love to pretend they're all about climate and all about renewables, opening new coal and gas mines hand over fist. The Labor Party has opened 37 new coal and gas projects since it came into office about four years ago. They are running at about 10 new approvals per year for coal and gas—in the context of a disaster in Nepal and Tibet that has claimed the lives of over 5,000 people. Why did these people die? Because psychopathic governments keep opening new coal and gas mines. Because psychopathic governments keep logging and burning native forests. You cannot claim to care and take action on climate while you are still destroying native forests and while you are still approving, hand over fist, new coal and gas projects. When you are doing those things, you have blood on your hands—the blood of innocent people who are going to die in their droves this century because psychopathic, cowardly governments, in thrall to the fossil fuel corporations and the psychopaths that run them, are opening new coal and gas mines, destroying nature, and clear-felling, logging and burning our forests. What a time we find ourselves in here, colleagues, when the Prime Minister says now is not the time to talk about climate change. Well, if we don't talk about it now, when are we ever going to talk about it? When will we ever tell the truth? If you're not prepared to tell the truth in the wake of thousands of people dying in Nepal and Tibet, when will you ever accept the reality of what the science is telling us? It's like the National Rifle Association in the US on another school shooting, another school massacre—'thoughts and prayers'. That's all we're getting from our prime minister: 'It's time to think of the families.' Yes, it's time to think of the families, but you know what else it's time to do? Take action on climate change. Stop approving new coal and gas projects. That's what it's time to do. Be honest with people about the utter catastrophe that is coming down the line because of your actions as a government. It makes me sick to even think about the calamity that is facing not just this country but every country in the world. Of course, you know who's going to pay the highest price. It's the Global South—poor people, brown and black skinned people, people of colour. They are going to pay the price for this government's sociopathy, this government's cowardice and this government's hypocrisy. Thankfully, we've been able to take a small step by fixing Labor's mistake in this legislation which would have potentially frozen or significantly disincentivised investment into renewable energy and made our current predicament worse. I want to be very clear about one aspect of our current predicament: Australia is not going to reach our 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. That is abundantly clear. The sooner the government admits that the better. The percentage of renewables in our grid, just like the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, does not buy political spin. Political spin does not matter to thermodynamics. Do you want to know what the scariest graph in human history is? The scariest graph in human history is the atmospheric CO2 level graph. I'll tell you why that's the scariest graph in human history. It's because it's a dead straight line heading for the heavens. We haven't even slowed down the rate of growth in our atmospheric CO2 and CO2-equivalent levels. Despite all the COPs, all the agreements, all the political spin and all the investment in renewable energy, we're not even slowing down the rate of growth of carbon in our atmosphere. Thermodynamics does not care whether we agree to do things or we disagree to do things. It doesn't care what our percentage of renewables is. It doesn't care about anything except the levels of CO2 and CO2-equivalent gases in our atmosphere. That is what is driving climate catastrophe, and that is the scariest graph in human history. We can't even slow down the rate of growth. Decades after Kyoto, the atmospheric CO2 levels are heading in a dead straight line upwards—1.5 degrees is gone. I suspect two degrees either is gone or will shortly be gone. The Gulf Stream is collapsing. There's a record El Nino coming. People are dying in their droves. Tragically, we ain't seen nothing yet, Collins. We ain't seen nothing yet. When the history is written about this time, the people who facilitated the destruction of our ecosystems, our climate systems and our natural systems will be portrayed in the same way as some of the great villains of human history—because that's what you are. You are some of the great villains of human history. History will not be kind to you, and it should not be kind to you because you are the facilitators of death, misery, war and famine. You are complicit in the looming deaths of billions of people. It won't make anyone feel better that history judges you in that way, but you should all know that that is exactly how you will be judged. 11:41 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's a pleasure to make a contribution on this very important piece of legislation. Even though it's a little esoteric and inaccessible to many, many people, this is an example of the kind of legislation that is necessary by governments that want to make sure that systems are in place to manage the quality of what's happening in our financial sector and in the economy. This particular matter before us for consideration is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I see we've got a few people from the Australian public who are here in the parliament. Perhaps it's the first time they've been—welcome, if it's the case—and perhaps others have been before and have acquired a taste for the strange things we do here on your behalf. A lot of what we do seems incredibly inaccessible. When I say that title, people go, 'Well, what's all that about?' I will put on the record some of the context of why this stuff actually matters. Senator Scarr, you have a role with me on the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I'm sure the Australian people will be very grateful for the hard effort of that unified committee, and I acknowledge also in the chamber, soon to make a contribution, my colleague from the Greens party. The Liberal and National parties, the Labor Party and the Greens party have been working in shock and horror and with a collective, values based response to making sure that our financial markets work in the interests of ordinary people. There are bad people out there who want to take your money from you, and there are bad people out there who will act unethically and will rip off people left, right and centre. Some of them are very highly skilled. Some of them even have very highly vaunted qualifications, like the term 'accountant' or the special brand of the accountancy part of that environment which is auditors. I'm sure that some of you here today and some who might be listening anywhere around Australia will have heard about the shameful behaviours of a couple of the big auditing companies in this country. They actually operate all around the world. It's like a franchise model, but it's not McDonald's. They don't say, 'Would you like fries with that?' but they certainly say, 'Would you like to pay more for that?' They cost us an awful lot of money to provide the services that they need to provide. Auditors are like superspecialist doctors. You have to open your whole company. Registered companies have to be wholly open so that people can go in and have a look and see what's going on, and they need to tell the truth. Two of the big ones are PwC and KPMG—there are another two: EY and Deloitte—but lot of the work of my colleagues here in the chamber and on our committee, which I'm honoured to chair, has focused on those two particular ones. The reason this legislation has come about is due to the work of senators working together to flush out what was going on in these very powerful and highly resourced entities that had a veil of secrecy. In PwC's case, there was a tax leaks matter. You might have heard about it. Essentially a very, very smart person in the tax division of PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC Australia, was invited by the then Treasurer, Mr Hockey, to come and help create great laws so that international companies would pay their fair share of tax in Australia so the burden didn't fall just to hardworking Australian taxpayers. His name is Peter-John Collins. Instead of keeping that confidential, though he did sign a non-disclosure agreement—a secrecy document; he wasn't supposed to share that information—he took it back to PwC, promptly wrote it up and sent it to six jurisdictions around the world and said, 'Hey, guess what? I've got a product that can make us a lot of money.' Basically, he didn't care that it was going to cost the Australian taxpayer. That's the kind of behaviour of people who act unethically, jettison their professional responsibilities, fail to acknowledge the damage that they do when they misuse the intellectual powers and the professional skills that they have and use them, in that case, against the country to hurt every Australian taxpayer. We need to do something about these problems. The Treasurer, Mr Chalmers—I'm sure there'll be many headlines around these people and what they do, and the leaders of these parties, but the real grunt work is actually changing things like the legislation that's coming in here. The fine now for doing what Peter-John Collins of PwC did is multiplied by a factor of 100, so we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of fines to stop that kind of behaviour. Today we're not talking about quite the same thing. But what we saw with that PwC matter were the limitations of the current regulatory settings for tax practitioners and the broader system in which they operate. We know that there could be dodgy people. I mean, I'm a very law-abiding citizen, but I have to say that sometimes, if I'm in a car, I could be distracted and might be inclined to speed a little bit, so a reminder that the police might catch me is a very important thing in containing my behaviour. Who are the police for tax practitioners? How do you get to be a tax practitioner? Well mostly, tax practitioners are accountants, but they've got some people working for them who've got a special name: unregistered preparers. You see all the ads come out, particularly around May and June as we're going into tax season, saying, 'Come and use my company, and I'll get you a lot of things back from the government.' But there are people out there who are claiming on behalf of Australians, who haven't got the skills and aren't doing the right thing and they're putting their clients in a bad situation. There are people, even amongst those, who are getting returns and keeping money that should be going to Australians. They're doing the wrong thing. I'm sure that somewhere down the track somebody will call this 'red tape'. But, for me this is about protecting ordinary, hardworking, decent Australians who understand that the local roads won't get better, their schools won't get funded and they won't be able to go to hospital when they need to unless they pay a fair amount of tax—a fair amount; no more, no less—and certainly not be ripped off by the person who's providing tax advice to them. In response to the PwC matter, the government consulted on what should happen around the policing of the tax providers, the tax agents. That is an entity called the Tax Practitioners Board. We consulted about a way to enhance what's happening with the Tax Practitioners Board, and there's a sanctions framework that needs to come in from December 2023 to 2024. Subsequently, we announced the reforms to the regime of the 2025-26 budget, as part of the enhancing tax practitioner regulation and compliance receipt measure. That very boringly named thing is part of what we're doing here today. Following the passing of these laws, you should be more confident if you go to a tax agent that what you're being told you're being offered is in accordance with the law and that there's a policeman on the beat, the Tax Practitioners Board, with the powers to really clip the kind of behaviour that is illegal and rips off ordinary Australians. I think there are about six or seven schedules in this particular bill, but, in the first schedule, the first part of the bill—the first chapter of a book, almost, if you want to think about it in that way—is a new regulatory toolkit of skills, opportunities and surveillance mechanisms for the Tax Practitioners Board to make sure that people are doing the right thing. The first thing is a new criminal offence for unregistered preparers so they don't do the wrong thing. We've also in this piece of legislation, after consultation with the sector, increased the maximum civil penalty amount. So, instead of it being easy for somebody to do, they need to think twice—that it could cost them some money and that they will have to pay a penalty. There will be new civil penalty provisions for breaches of the code of professional conduct by registered practitioners, and there also will be penalties for people who create false or misleading statements, even if they're unregistered preparers. You can't have somebody who's in charge with these unregistered preparers around them say, 'It wasn't me; it was just them.' Often, unregistered preparers sit around a central person who has a higher degree of qualification. That being said, there are other pretty creative and somewhat damaging individuals who just set themselves up and say, 'I'm a tax agent; I'm a tax preparer.' They might have the word 'agent' small on a sign that nobody might notice, but unsuspecting Australians go to unregistered preparers and pay. If you're paying for something, you should be paying for the service that you think you're paying for. This is to clip the wings of those con artists who might be abusing the opportunity when they see your particular financial situation and take advantage of it. To deal with that, there will be the establishment of an infringement notice regime—'We've noted you've done the wrong thing, Mr Jones or Mrs Matthews or whatever'—and there's a notice regime that will follow to let people know. There's another thing called enforceable voluntary undertakings, which is something I had no idea about before I came to the parliament. Deputy Chair Scarr and Senator Pocock, we've certainly seen a large number of enforceable undertakings put onto different companies and partnerships by another cop on the beat called ASIC. So the Tax Practitioners Board will be able to say: 'Okay, we've seen all of this. You're doing all this stuff wrong. We are going to enforce a certain set of practices on you. We're going to be watching you more closely. There might be fines attached. But you're going to agree that you did the wrong thing, and there will be consequences.' That's an enforceable undertaking. I guess we have to accept the fact, though, that, for whatever reason, whether it is that they are morally vacuous or, perhaps, caught in the throes of an addiction—that can be a driver of corruption, bad behaviour and exploitative behaviour—there will be contingent and interim powers to suspend registration. People can lose their registrations completely. Another of the things I didn't know before I came to parliament was that people who are registered might have a banning period for a short period of time and can then come back. So, to make sure that there's actually a disincentive for people to do the wrong thing once caught, we have in this legislation proposed—and I hope we'll have the support of the Senate today—to extend the prohibition period for a reapplication following a termination from five years to 10 years. They're the specific things that are being advanced in this piece of legislation before the Senate today. The reason why we think this is so important is it's going to strengthen just not just the registered practitioners but the unregistered preparers to ensure that misconduct is both identified and addressed earlier and more effectively. The measures I'm talking about here complement a broader suite of government reforms that are about strengthening integrity and accountability across the tax system and across the professional services sector. There's a couple of other bills. An earlier reform we pushed through that has made changes to improve the powers of that tax practitioner board, that cop on the beat, is the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill. That was about those powers and about improving transparency within the profession. This piece of legislation is also enacted alongside obligations under the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024. That is about lifting the standards of those professional practitioners and their behaviour, and it further aligns with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Act 2024. That one expanded the ATO's ability to target promoters of tax exploitation schemes, increased penalties and referrals of misconduct to professional bodies, and strengthened whistleblower protections. That is just schedule 1 of a bill that has to deal with matters related to tax in Australia that go to schedule 5 and maybe even to schedule 6, 7 and 8. So it's a big piece of work. In the 40 seconds that I have remaining to me, I want to draw your attention to an options paper for which consultation has just closed. It's about the regulation of accounting, audit and consulting firms in Australia. At the beginning of my remarks I talked about how important these people are to Australia. Every person here who's a working Australian has superannuation. Your superannuation is invested in by yourself or by others. You need to make sure the people who are telling the truth about these books do the right thing, and that is our auditors, so we're working on that as well. 11:56 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I rise today to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I will foreshadow a second reading amendment to be moved by Senator Hanson on behalf of One Nation, and I'll get to that shortly. But, firstly, I will say that, like much of what Labor proposes, in this legislation there are parts that we could support but there are definitely parts that we simply cannot support. First, looking at schedule 1—the addition of five criminal offences for unregistered preparers, increasing the civil penalties with two additional civil penalty provisions, and allowances for the assurance infringement notices for civil penalty provisions—we have no issues with that. Schedule 2, which creates a definition of 'real property' in the ITAA 1997, retains the ordinary meaning of the commencement of this schedule. If you look through it, it's designed to broaden the tax base of foreign resident owned assets by including assets that have a close economic connection to Australia, consistent with the OECD model of taxation. The point of this, we believe, is to define real property, which previously took its ordinary meaning from the state or territory laws, which was related. Again, we have no issue with that. But then we get to schedule 3, which is the main issue that One Nation has with this bill. This schedule allows for a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount on the sale of renewable energy projects. This was extended from 2030 to 2040 in, we believe, a deal with the Greens to push this bill through. One Nation is strongly opposed to this. It's quite fascinating that, when it comes to delivering capital gains discounts, Labor looks to strip it away from some but then deliver it wholeheartedly to their mates. One Nation will strongly oppose this, and we will propose an amendment to have this schedule removed. Ultimately, if we cannot have it removed, I do not see us being able to support this piece of legislation. However, let's just look at the second reading amendment to be moved by Senator Hanson, which I foreshadowed. This is a motion to talk today about and bring into this legislation something else that is extremely important—a way to address the ever-rising suffering Australians are facing as a result of the poor decisions made by this bad Albanese Labor government. We ask that the Senate note that Australians are working harder and still struggling to get ahead; that interest rates are continuing to rise; that rents are continuing to climb to new records; that groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance are taking more out of the family budget; and that superannuation is an asset that belongs to working Australians, not to the government. We are calling on the government to allow Australians paying rent or mortgages the choice to take three per cent or one-quarter of their future compulsory super contributions as a tax advantaged pay rise for up to three years to help them survive the cost-of-living crisis that has been inflicted upon them by this government. Australians are struggling to pay for the life that they're living as a consequence of the decisions made by this government and especially as the consequence of the actions taken through its terrible budget. Rents have gone through the roof. Mortgage repayments continue to climb. Power bills are going higher and higher. Groceries are costing more and more. You go through the supermarket and pay for your groceries, and, every single time you do, there's the shock that you feel when faced with the cost of groceries. It must be so devastating for Australians to feel that. Insurances are up; rates are up. Aussie families and Aussie households are being squeezed from every direction. That is why One Nation feels that it is important that we look at how we can help people ease that suffering they are feeling now. The government is insisting that 12 per cent of workers' wages must be diverted into superannuation and locked away for decades. But, for someone struggling to make the payments on their mortgage this month or someone whose rent has jumped by another $100 a week, money locked away ostensibly for their retirement may not be where they need every last dollar going right now, which is why One Nation will be moving this second reading amendment calling on the government to give Australians paying rent or mortgages a choice. For up to three years, they should be able to redirect three percentage points of their future superannuation contributions—one-quarter of the current 12 per cent contribution—into a tax advantaged increase in their take-home pay. This is a temporary measure. It would apply only to future contributions and be available only to people paying rent or a mortgage. It would be opt-in; no-one would be forced to take it. People happy with the current situation can leave it exactly as is. But we believe you should have the option to help ease that suffering, if you are suffering as a result of the cost-of-living crisis inflicted upon you by this government, if you feel that an additional sum of money in your bank account could help you pay for groceries or your mortgage, help you feed your kids, or mean that perhaps you don't have to skip a meal or can afford to eat—because your mortgages have gone up because of inflation and been driven up by this government or because so much of your paycheque has been chewed up by your electricity bills that continue to go up because of the choices made by this government. We believe that this measure is fair and compassionate. To continue to allow Australians to suffer now cannot be allowed to continue. As we said, if you want every dollar of your compulsory contribution to continue to go into super, that is exactly what would happen. If that is what you want, that's what would happen. But, if you are under pressure now, you should be able to decide whether part of your own wage would do more good in your bank account—more good for your family—or take that stress away from your mortgage. It may help. Maybe it'll help you keep the house that you want to have for your retirement. If you believe that your money would be better spent there, then we believe you should have that right. You should be able to decide whether part of your own wages would do more good there than sitting in a super fund for the next few decades. We don't believe this is a controversial idea, because this is your money. Superannuation has become so large that this government is now talking about it in terms of national investment priorities, and we're starting to hear language which treats this superannuation pool almost as a piggy bank for the Labor government to sort of do with as they see fit. Labor, we believe, is increasingly eyeing off superannuation as though this enormous pool of money belongs to them and they have a right to decide how it should be used. But it doesn't. It's not Labor's money; it is yours, and the government needs to remember that. Compulsory superannuation might be mandated by law, but that doesn't somehow transform a worker's money into public money. The fact that the government forces it into a particular account does not give the government ownership of it. Yet we've seen a growing interest in directing superannuation towards the government's priorities—often their energy transition priorities—and towards whatever else happens to be on the political agenda of the day. We think that the Australian people, if they feel that feeding their families or servicing their mortgage is their priority, should be respected. We believe they should be aided and assisted in that. The purpose of superannuation is to help the person whose wages paid for it. It should never become a convenient pool of capital for government policy—as much as that might upset the Labor government. The purpose of super, at the end of the day, is to help the people whose wages paid for it. It's their money. It is not yours. If this Labor government is planning to lecture Australians about the importance of retirement savings, they should also recognise that financial security doesn't begin at retirement. It matters today. For many, many Australians suffering through the effects of this cost-of-living crisis that's been inflicted onto them by this Labor government—higher grocery costs, higher electricity costs—financial security and the wellbeing of their families is something that matters today. Owning a home when you retire matters. Servicing that mortgage matters today. Keeping your home before you retire and avoiding high-interest debt matters. Keeping up with the rent matters. Being able to pay the electricity bill without putting groceries on a credit card or going without eating matters. There are Australians today building up their super balance while falling behind on their mortgage. There are renters watching thousands of dollars a year go into super or borrowing money simply to cover basic living expenses. There are families paying credit card interest rates because they don't have enough cash flow, while compulsory super contributions continue to be deducted from their wages. You can't look at that situation and pretend retirement saving exists in isolation from the rest of someone's financial life. If a person loses their home because they couldn't keep up with repayments, that will have an enormous effect on their retirement. They build up tens of thousands of dollars in high-interest debts. That affects their fundamental future too. So we believe Australians should be given the choice, to assist them in dealing with those critical matters now. Again, it's opt-in, and it's only for three years, to help them weather the worst of the financial strain, the result of the cost-of-living crisis they're dealing with as a result of the decisions by this Albanese Labor government. If an Australian spends years moving from rental to rental because they couldn't quite keep up with the cost of servicing a mortgage, that matters too. There's no point pretending a person is financially secure simply because one column on their super statement is going up. What this amendment recognises is that people's circumstances are different. Take someone earning $80,000 a year. Three per cent of that income is $2,400. For someone earning $100,000, it's $3,000. For a couple earning $80,000 each, the amount involved could be $4,800 a year before the proposed tax treatment is taken into account. Over three years, it means thousands of dollars staying in that household budget. For mortgage holders, that money would help absorb higher repayments. For a renter, it would cover a rent increase. For a young family, it could mean keeping food on the table and electricity and insurance bills off the credit card. And, because we are proposing a tax advantaged treatment, the idea is that people would actually receive meaningful relief in their take-home pay rather than simply having that redirected amount swallowed up through the ordinary marginal tax system. The principle is simple: if the government is going to force workers to defer part of their wages for retirement then, during a serious cost-of-living crisis, there should be some flexibility for people facing genuine housing costs. It's a pressure valve. It's desperately needed. I mean, the Albanese Labor government has spent years talking about cost-of-living relief. They've talked about rebates, subsidies, payments and schemes and temporary measures of every description, and all of those involved government collecting money, designing a program and then deciding who gets some of it back. This proposal works differently. It lets Australians keep more of their own money in the first place—no new spending program required, no new grant scheme, no application process where Canberra decides whether you qualify for some special form of relief. It would be the worker's decision to make a choice about what to do with their own money. If they need the money now, they can take part of the future compulsory contribution as a higher take home pay. If they don't need it, they leave their super exactly where it is. That is what choice looks like. We're allowing workers to use their money where they feel they need it. Now, I suspect this is where Labor will struggle with the idea because, to us, it appears Labor's instinct is always that government knows best, and increasingly government wants a say in how the enormous superannuation pool of money is invested. We think we should have a more sensible discussion than that, and that is why this proposal does not touch existing balances. It doesn't create an open-ended access. It's not going to do some of the things that we've heard the Treasurer say today, using alarmist, hyperbolic language. It simply recognises that, during a period of severe housing and cost-of-living pressure, some Australians would benefit from having more control over part of their future wages. We believe that's a very reasonable proposition. If someone wants to keep that contribution at the full 12 per cent, they can. If someone needs breathing room, they should have that option too. Let the worker keep a little more of what they earn if they wish. Superannuation is not your piggy bank; it is their money. It's your money. 12:12 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I'll be speaking in particular to schedule 1, which solely relates to reforms to the Tax Practitioners Board. The Greens support the strengthening of the Tax Practitioners Board and stronger penalties for tax adviser misconduct. We recognise the good work of many people in the TPB. The PwC scandal would not have surfaced if not for the diligence and the determination of the TPB, in particular, Mr Michael O'Neill, who was tenacious in his tracking down and bringing into the public view a range of scandals and their concealment. The TPB was crucial in acting against former PwC partner Peter-John Collins for his rotten and dishonest behaviour. Mr Collins monetised confidential government information to help some of the world's biggest multinational companies avoid tax, earning at least $2.5 million in revenue for PwC as a result. At its core, the PwC tax leaks scandal was not a story about one individual behaving badly. It exposed the ability of a powerful consulting firm to gain access to confidential government information about future tax policy and then use that information to profit its multinational clients. It's a story about greed. It's about a business model where greed, deception and corruption trump ethics and decent behaviour at every turn. This is one of the most egregious breaches of public trust in recent memory but it's far from the latest or only scandal in this sector. As I said in my additional comments to the first consulting inquiry's report in 2024, the scandals in this sector are frequent. They are global in nature and many never see the light of day, so I want to acknowledge again the journalists who have worked very hard over recent years to uncover sin after sin within the rotten consulting sector and the big four, as well as the whistleblowers, without whom these scandals would never have come to the attention of our two consulting inquiries. I want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator O'Neill, Senator Scarr and Senator Colbeck to the two consulting inquiries. They worked together to bring to the attention of the parliament and the public the nature of the litany of disasters—conflicts of interest, appalling governance, ethical failures, state capture and regulatory weakness—that have unfolded across the larger consulting sector and parts of the public institutions that deal with it. The ongoing KPMG scandal is a story about not one mistake or one individual exercising poor judgement but a laundry list of people and repeated instances of unethical governance and accountability failures, years of cover-ups and aggressive resistance to telling the truth. KPMG's sins are multiple in our most recent experience. Senior partners have been misusing confidential client information to win extremely lucrative audit work. We've seen breaches of audit independence and multiple instances of cheating on internal exams. We've seen examples of lying to the Senate about the firm not power mapping to really expand their footprint within the public sector they're consulting in, when in fact they did and continue to do that practice. We've seen them overcharging Defence while raking in billions of dollars. We've seen mistreatment and harassment of multiple whistleblowers, including Brendan Lyon of the TAHE matter in New South Wales and the more recent experience of a brave new whistleblower and other whistleblowers who are making contact with senators regularly, queuing up to bring forward new and other disasters, both in KPMG and across the big four. We've seen people attempting to use legal professional privilege to obstruct and slow the work of this parliament and regulators. We've seen failure to notify corporate clients and the Department of Finance of recent developments and incidents, as required by contractual obligations. The list is long, and it goes on. While we welcome measures like these in this bill to strengthen our regulators, we know we need bigger and bolder structural reform. Schedule 1 of this bill will give the TPB a greater range of options when responding to tax adviser misconduct. These sanctions are really important. We know that, despite being a frontline regulator, the TPB does not currently have the same powers and regulatory tools as other regulators like ASIC. The independent James review commenced by the former Liberal government in 2019 found that the TPB could only apply relatively minor sanctions, such as written cautions, or high-level sanctions, such as suspension, termination of registration or civil penalties. What's missing is a proportionate range of tools in between, which this schedule fixes. The bill introduces new criminal and civil penalties and gives the TPB the power to issue infringement notices and accept enforceable undertakings. It also increases the amounts of existing penalties and introduces interim suspension measures for egregious breaches. It extends the prohibition period from five years to 10 years following the termination of registration for misconduct. The Greens support these measures because deterrence really matters. If a consulting firm can make millions—indeed billions—of dollars from misusing confidential government information while facing only a relatively small regulatory penalty, then the penalty is no deterrent; it's the cost of doing business. These changes also have wide support from stakeholders. There's broad consensus that the TPB needs stronger enforcement powers. CPA Australia have said that this is a balanced approach that strengthens confidence in the tax system while protecting ethical practitioners. They said it would have little impact on those who are ethical and compliant. The TPB has said that, following the passage of legislation, they will undertake further consultation on guidelines and administrative policies. Many of these recommendations came from the independent James review of the TPB and the Tax Agent Services Act, but this report made its recommendations six years ago. The report predates the PwC and the KPMG scandals. It's taken a long time to get to this point where we are today, and there is still a lot more to do. Here we are legislating some of the basic tools that a modern regulator should have possessed in the first instance. We support increasing the penalties available where people deliberately undermine the integrity of our tax system, but the job doesn't stop there. We know the TPB is an important regulator, and these are welcome changes, but it's nowhere near enough to address the core problem here. These reforms are a step forward, but they are modest in their scope and size in response to multiple mass scandals that expose something much bigger, a fundamental problem with corporate power, regulatory capacity and accountability in Australia, especially in relation to the big four. Australians were outraged by the PwC and the KPMG scandals, and they expect parliamentarians in this place to take it seriously, and we are. It's good to see that the government is considering options to reform the accounting, audit and consulting sectors and that they've brought forward an options paper, but this options paper was largely written before the most recent KPMG scandal, and it narrowly focuses on audit, leaving the broader issues for the big four around their multidisciplinary, very broad based activities outside it. Hopefully we don't spend too much longer trying to get action on those issues and the broad range of services, behaviours and business models of the big four. We need to see faster action. PwC and KPMG scandals have united the parliament, and two major inquiries have made multiple clear recommendations for reform. Reform needs to be driven by the public interest, not by what's easiest or acceptable by the big four in terms of accommodating change. The big four have lost their social licence in Australia, and the government should be using this as an opportunity to make ambitious structural change. The big four have shown Australians who they are and the main forces that create their business model. Last Friday, ASIC told the joint corporations committee, which Senator O'Neill chairs, that they have identified 551 internal complaints about audit and related misconduct at the big four firms over the last three years. There is a lot of water to flow under the bridge as these internal complaints, 500 of them across the big four, are investigated for what they did, what they mean and who they have affected. This is an astonishing number. What will they reveal as they are closed down and investigated? How many more scandals do we need before we see real action by Labor to limit and control the broad scope of big four activities? The big four dominate our economy. They are the parents of privatisation. They have driven so much change in our institutions, our health system, our education system, our universities and the way our public sector works, yet they have much weaker transparency and accountability than big corporations. It is time to end their special treatment. Australia needs a strong, independent and trusted audit assurance and professional services sector. We know that self-regulation has failed and that the big four cannot be trusted, so we need to do a few things in my view. Firstly, we need to end the licence of self-regulation for the big four. We need to have a similar regulatory body on the beat for audit just like the TPB. Secondly, we need to separate the conflicts that are inherent in running a business that does audit, tax and consulting for individual clients. There is too much farming opportunity for business, which is unethical and compromises the integrity of audit. Thirdly, we need to renovate the governance of these large corporations. At present they have a bunch of cosplay 'directors' who they term independent but in fact, as we have recently seen in KPMG, are not actually pushing for independence of governance in any way. We need public disclosure requirements, we need a strong whistleblower obligations, and we need the same taxation obligations for the big four as large corporations in our country face. We need to see real consequences for audit misconduct, and we need to make sure we look after whistleblowers across the big four. Finally, we need to make sure that they have the same insurance and liability responsibilities as other players in the field and that there's a level playing field in relation to insurance for liabilities. Finally, there's a lot to do in the field of consulting. We need to regulate consultants, we need to debar those who practise poorly or breach guidelines and protocols, we need to target a fall in consulting by federal government, we need to ban political donations, and we need to do something about the revolving door which sees politicians go so profitably from inside this chamber to outside, advising very, very significant contracts, not least in Defence. We need to remove the special treatment of partnerships in this country. How much evidence does this parliament need, does the Labor government need, to take real steps which make a difference and break the model of agreed lack of transparency that we see in the big four? The big four are critical to auditing the largest companies in our country yet are not subject to the same transparency, reporting, tax and whistleblowing obligations as those big corporations. So the question for me now is: having assembled, and in continuing to assemble, the evidence, what will this parliament do, what will this government do, to meet the incredible outrage across our Australian community, to reel in the big four, to regulate them, to root out their destructive and very, very costly impact on our public services? The Greens support the measures in this schedule. We've previously supported reforms to the TPB, and we secured an amendment to the previous bill that banned partners from the big four firms from sitting on the board. This is very, very important, but we all continue to push the government to go further. We want to protect those whistleblowers. We need a comprehensive response to the consulting sector's failures rather than a series of narrowly targeted legislative amendments that leave the underlying concentration of power in these very large partnerships. These reforms are a good step forward. They close some gaps by increasing penalties and increasing accountability. But it does not guarantee that another scandal cannot happen. It doesn't guarantee that, and how many of these scandals are we going to have to put up with before we see action? We need to see transparency, we need to see strong regulators and independent oversight of these places, these partnerships, and, above all, what we need to see is the political courage to stand up to these very powerful vested interests, who are present at every table of influence around our country and, too often, in our parliament. The lessons of the PwC and KPMG scandals are that we can't stop here. We need a tax, auditing and consulting sector that's fair, transparent and rigorously enforced. Australians want regulators that are strong enough and bold enough to take on the big end of town. It's time for Labor to act. 12:27 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. Specifically, I want to address the 'other measures', which is often where the government hide the measures they would rather Australians did not notice. Let me be absolutely clear: One Nation supports holding dishonest tax advisers to account. Australians have every right to expect that people who deliberately exploit the tax system, facilitate misconduct or help others avoid their tax obligations face consequences. There is nothing controversial about that, but this bill is another example of the government using an omnibus bill to bundle together different measures and bury a very different agenda within it. That agenda is found in schedule 3, and—surprise, surprise—schedule 3 is not about dodgy tax advisers. It is about giving eligible foreign investors a special capital gains tax deal for renewable energy projects, and One Nation will not support it, because what we have here is a Labor-Greens deal that asks Australian taxpayers to subsidise the profits of foreign corporations, global investment funds and wealthy investment structures. It's a special deal for a favoured industry, and Australians deserve to know about it. This is what schedule 3 actually does—let us strip away the bureaucratic language. Schedule 3 provides eligible foreign investors with a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax when they dispose of certain, qualifying renewable energy assets in Australia. That can include major renewable energy infrastructure, such as wind, solar, battery and hydro projects. These are not backyard projects; we are talking about large-scale commercial investments involving substantial amounts of capital, land and infrastructure, and the government wants to make the tax treatment of those investments more generous. Let us be clear about who benefits. This is not primarily a tax break for an Australian family trying to get ahead. It's not a tax break for a local farmer or a small Australian business. It's a tax concession specifically designed to encourage investment in large renewable energy assets, including investment by foreign interests. An Australian investor selling an ordinary asset remains subject to the applicable tax rules, but an eligible foreign investor selling a qualifying renewable asset can receive a 50 per cent CGT discount. This is a remarkable proposition! At a time when the government is changing capital gains tax arrangements affecting ordinary Australians, it is creating a special concession for eligible foreign investors in renewable energy. So I ask the government why a 50 per cent CGT discount is too generous for Australians but appropriate for foreign investors in renewable energy. That is the question Labor needs to answer. Labor tells Australians that the tax system needs reform, Labor tells Australians that the capital gains tax needs to be treated differently, Labor tells us that difficult decisions have to be made to repair the budget and Labor tells us that foreign investors should pay their fair share of tax on Australian assets. Those principles may sound reasonable, but schedule 3 undermines them, because schedule 3 gives selected foreign investors a substantial tax concession when they realise capital gains from qualifying renewable energy assets. Labor is tightening the rules in some areas while simultaneously creating a special concession in another. It is one set of rules for everyone else and another set of rules for the renewable energy industry. That is not tax neutrality, that is not consistency and that is certainly not fairness. The government tells Australians that revenue is tight. It tells us the budget needs repair. It tells Australians that everyone has to contribute. But, when wealthy international investors and global corporations come looking for a concession in renewable energy, suddenly there is room for a special tax deal. Australians are entitled to ask: where is the fairness in that? This is a subsidy. The government may prefer to call this an 'investment incentive', but let us call it what it actually is: a tax concession is a form of subsidy. If the government changes the rules so that an investor pays substantially less tax than it otherwise would, the government has provided an economic benefit. The Treasury receives less revenue. The investor keeps more of the capital gain. The Australian public carries the costs through forgone revenue. The money does not magically disappear. It remains with the investor rather than being collected by the Australian government. When that investor is a foreign corporation or global investment fund, we have to ask whether Australian taxpayers are getting a sufficient return for the concession they are providing. Then, there is the political deal behind this legislation. The original proposal was supposed to end in 2030. The Greens demanded more, and Labor gave in. The concession has now been extended to 2040. That is not a short transitional arrangement; that is 14 years of preferential treatment to eligible renewable energy investors. And that tells Australians something important about how the Labor government and Greens arrangement works. The Greens like to present themselves as opponents of big business. They talk about corporate power and wealth inequality. But, when it comes to large renewable energy projects, suddenly they are advocating for the interests of the global capital. They want more projects built faster with more investment, and they are prepared to support special tax treatment to make it happen. At the same time, these projects can require enormous amounts of land, transmission, infrastructure and government support. Regional Australians are often the people who have to live with the consequences—more transmission lines, more infrastructure, more industrial-scale development, more pressure on land use, more disruption to regional communities—yet the financial returns can ultimately flow to large corporations, international investors and investment funds. That is the contradiction. Who carries the risk? The government wants Australians to believe these projects are private investment, but increasingly the public is being asked to carry more and more of the risk. Government subsidies, government backed schemes, government contracts, government funded infrastructure, government mandates and now preferential tax treatment—at what point does the taxpayer stop being the taxpayer and become the venture capitalist? If the project succeeds, the private investor receives a return. But, if the government has guaranteed the conditions around that investment, the Australian public carries much of the risk. That is not the free market; that is government intervention dressed up as private investment. If renewable energy is competitive, let it compete. Let me be clear: One Nation is not saying renewable energy should be banned. If a company believes that a wind farm is profitable, it should build it, but not if the community doesn't want it. If a company believes that a solar project is profitable, it should build it, but not on our valuable farmland. If a company believes that a battery project is profitable, it should build it, but not where there is a risk of fire. But let the investors take the risk. If the project succeeds, they receive the reward. If it fails, they bear the loss. That is how investment is supposed to work. What we should not do is manipulate the tax system to guarantee that a particular class of investment receives preferential treatment. If renewable energy is genuinely competitive, it should not need a special CGT deal. Where is the promised benefit? This is the question that is almost never asked. What does Australia actually get in return? We are told that these projects represent billions of dollars of investment. Fine, but investment alone is not the objective. The objective should be economic benefit. Do electricity prices fall? Does reliability improve? Does productivity increase? Do Australian manufacturers become more competitive? Do households become better off? Does the taxpayer receive a return greater than the cost of the subsidy? Those are the questions that matter, because spending billions of dollars does not automatically make Australia billions of dollars richer. Schedule 3 is therefore not just a tax provision; it is part of a much larger policy direction. Labor has committed Australia to net zero. That commitment requires enormous changes to our energy system, which in turn requires enormous amounts of investment, and government increasingly has to intervene to make that transition happen: subsidies, targets, mandates, investment schemes, infrastructure and tax concessions. It becomes a cycle: the government sets an expensive target, the target requires expensive investment, the investment requires government support, and taxpayers are asked to pay. We should stop that cycle, scrap net zero and leave the Paris Agreement. Scrapping the net zero target does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility or refusing to invest in innovation. It means refusing to cripple Australian households and industry in pursuit of a political target regardless of the cost. Energy policy should focus on what Australians actually need: affordable energy, reliable energy and secure energy. If a technology delivers those things, let it compete. If it does not, taxpayers should not be forced to prop it up. Australia should also withdraw from the Paris Agreement. We should be able to determine our own energy policy based on Australian circumstances and choose technology based on cost, reliability and security. We should be free to change direction when policies fail, rather than allowing international communities to become a permanent justification for increasing costs for Australian households and businesses. This brings us back to schedule 3. The fundamental issue is fairness. The government is changing the CGT arrangements that apply to Australians, yet it is proposing a special 50 per cent CGT concession for eligible renewable energy investors. This is not some temporary measure lasting a year or two. After pressure from the Greens, the concession has been extended to 2040. That should concern every Australian taxpayer. If the government believes that tax concessions are necessary to encourage investment, it should be able to demonstrate exactly what Australians receive in return. If the project is commercially viable, why does it need the concession? If it is not commercially viable, why are taxpayers being asked to make it viable? And if foreign investors are already willing to invest billions in Australian renewable energy, why should they receive a special tax advantage when they eventually sell? These questions have not been adequately answered. This bill may be presented as a bill about tax adviser misconduct. One Nation supports holding dishonest tax advisers to account. But Australians should look beyond the bill's title. Look at schedule 3 because schedule 3 is where Labor's real agenda becomes clear—a 50 per cent CGT discount for eligible foreign investors in renewable energy assets, a special tax treatment for an industry already receiving substantial government support, a concession extended to 2040 following the Labor-Greens deal and a policy that risks leaving Australian taxpayers carrying the cost while foreign corporations and global investment funds receive the benefit. At the same time, Labor is changing the CGT arrangements applying to ordinary Australians. So again I ask: why is 50 per cent too generous for hardworking Australians but appropriate for foreign renewable energy investors? That is the question Labor must answer. One Nation believes the rules should be fair, the tax system should be predictable, investors should take their own risks, businesses should compete on their merits and Australian taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise investments simply because the government has decided those investments fit its preferred energy policy. We should reject schedule 3, we should stop using the tax system to pick energy winners, we should end the endless cycle of subsidies and mandates, we should scrap net zero, we should withdraw from the Paris Agreement and we should allow every form of energy technology to compete on a level playing field. If renewable energy can deliver cheaper, reliable and secure electricity, let it prove it in the marketplace. If it can, it will succeed. But, if it needs subsidies, mandates, government backed schemes, taxpayer funded infrastructure and a special 50 per cent capital gains tax concession to make the investment attractive, Australians are entitled to ask: where is the gain for us? The Australian taxpayer should not be the investor of last resort, the Australian electricity consumer should not be the customer of last resort and Australian families should not be expected to pay more so that foreign investors can receive a better tax deal. One Nation will not support that. Australians deserve better, and Australia deserves an energy policy built around affordability, reliability, security and economic growth, not subsidies, special tax deals and political targets. 12:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is being sold as legislation to strengthen accountability for tax adviser misconduct and hides a poison pill that will hurt everyday Australians. One Nation supports holding dishonest tax advisers to account. I'll say that again. One Nation wholeheartedly supports holding dishonest tax advisers to account. Australians have every right to expect that people who exploit the tax system face consequences. Sadly, though, this is another Labor-Greens omnibus bill. Labor has bundled together unrelated measures and buried a very different agenda in schedule 3. Schedule 3 is not about dodgy tax advisers; it is about giving foreign investors a special capital gains tax deal for so-called renewable energy projects like solar and wind—parasitic projects. This is more Labor-Greens deceit, waste and hypocrisy. It is a Labor-Greens deal asking Australian taxpayers to subsidise the profits of foreign corporations, global investment funds and billionaire backed trust structures. One Nation will oppose that measure. So what does schedule 3 do? Schedule 3 gives eligible foreign investors a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax when they sell certain renewable solar and wind energy assets in Australia. It applies to assets including wind turbines, solar factories, battery projects, hydro projects and related renewable energy infrastructure. Let us be clear about who benefits. This is not a tax break for an Australian family trying to get ahead. It is not a tax break for a local farmer. It is not a tax break for a small Australian business. It is a tax break targeted to advantage foreign companies and foreign trust structures—foreign!—and an Australian investor selling an asset pays the ordinary tax rate for capital gains. Under this bill, a foreign corporation selling a qualifying renewable energy asset can get a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount—half! This is a better deal for foreign interests than it is for Australians—a much better deal. Labor says it wants foreign investors to pay their fair share of tax in Australia. Deceit! You don't want that; your actions show otherwise. The Treasurer has repeatedly argued that foreign investors should not be able to avoid taxes on Australian assets, yet schedule 3 does exactly that. It gives a selected group of foreign investors a generous discount when they cash out of solar and wind energy assets. Labor is tightening rules for foreign investors generally while creating a special escape hatch for foreign renewable energy investors—solar and wind. It is one rule for everyone else and another rule for the so-called energy industry—the parasitic solar and wind industry—because it cannot survive without subsidies and favours and because, without these, possible investors are walking away from investing in parasitic solar and wind projects. They're already walking away. The Albanese government is telling Australians that revenue is tight, the budget needs repair and difficult decisions must be made. Yet, when wealthy solar and wind energy investors come knocking, Labor finds hundreds of millions of dollars for a special deal. Consider the Greens's deal. The original proposal was supposed to end in 2030. The Greens demanded more. As usual, Labor gave in. The concession has now been extended to 2040—another 10 years of parasitic behaviour on Australian taxpayers. This is not a short transition period; this is a 14-year tax entitlement thieving from taxpayers. It shows exactly how the Labor-Greens arrangement works. The Greens posture as opponents of big business and defenders of ordinary Australians, everyday Australians. Yet, when it comes to wind factories, solar factories and battery projects, they become the advocates for global investment funds. They want the projects built faster. They want more land cleared. They want more transmission lines pushed through regional communities and native bush. And now they want foreign investors to receive a tax break when they sell out. Australians should ask why Labor and the Greens are so determined to protect the profits of foreign solar and wind investors—parasites. The cost to taxpayers is huge. The original concession was estimated to cost taxpayers $425 million over the forward estimates. That was before Labor extended the policy another decade. The government has not properly explained what the extended concession will cost. They're not accountable to the Australian people, they think. Australians deserve to know how much revenue is being handed away to foreigners. Every dollar lost through this tax break is a dollar that cannot be spent on hospitals, aged care, roads, regional services, policing, defence, cost-of-living relief or infrastructure for future projects. Labor tells Australians, 'There's no money,' but there is always money when the beneficiaries are big solar and wind projects and foreign investment funds and trusts. This is not responsible economic management. It is not honest economic management. It is corporate welfare. It is handing foreigners a gift. Regional Australia pays the price. The renewable energy projects, solar and wind, that this concession covers are not abstract figures on a Treasury spreadsheet; they are projects being imposed on regional communities with government might. They are wind turbines across productive farmland. They are solar factories swallowing up agricultural land. They are thousands of kilometres of transmission lines cutting through farms, bushlands and communities—28,000 kilometres. They are projects that divide neighbours, create uncertainty and place enormous pressure on local roads, services and infrastructure. Regional Australians are told they must carry the burden for the national interest. They are told to accept the towers, the access roads, the clearing, the noise, the visual impact, the health impact, the mental health impact, the smashing of the environment, the smashing of community. They are told their concerns are simply the price of the transition, yet the people carrying that burden are not receiving special tax deals. The tax deal goes to the foreign corporation that owns the project. The profit can be sent offshore and is being sent offshore. The community is left with the disruption, the division, the disorder. That is the real Labor-Greens deal, the real Labor-Greens model. Local communities carry the costs and the burdens while foreign investors collect the tax concession. There's no guarantee for Australians. There is nothing in schedule 3 that guarantees lower power prices. There is nothing that guarantees reliable power. There is nothing that guarantees Australian ownership of projects. There is nothing that guarantees local manufacturing. There is nothing that guarantees jobs for local workers. There is nothing that guarantees compensation for host communities. There is nothing that guarantees agricultural land will be protected. There is nothing that guarantees native habitat will be protected. There is nothing that says the tax break must be passed on to Australian families already struggling with electricity bills. Labor and the Greens are asking Australians to give foreign investors a 50 per cent discount without demanding any real return for the country, to cut it in half—stealing from the Australian taxpayers. If the government wants to subsidise an industry, it should at least be able to explain what Australians get in return. On this measure, the answer is clear: foreign investors get the benefit while Australians get the bill. Australians get the burden. The government claims this measure will attract investment. Yet the tax concession is triggered when an investor disposes of an asset. It rewards selling. It rewards cashing out. It rewards the transfer of Australian solar and wind assets from one investor to another. It does not guarantee the construction of a single new project. It does not require a single additional megawatt of reliable power. It does not guarantee one lower power bill for an Australian household—none. If Labor wants to make the case for investment, it should address the real barriers: planning failures, grid constraints, connection delays, community opposition from poor consultation, lack of reliable transmission and uncertainty created by governments making policy on the run. These are facts. Instead, Labor has chosen the easy option: give a tax break to foreign investors, call it 'energy policy' and wipe your hands of it. One Nation supports genuine accountability for tax advisers who break the law, mislead clients or abuse the system. We do not support hiding a foreign investor tax concession inside a bill about tax adviser misconduct, and we will not support that provision. These measures should have been separated and put to the people honestly, not deceitfully. The Senate should be allowed to vote clearly on tax adviser accountability. We support that. The Senate should be allowed to vote clearly on whether foreign investors in solar and wind energy deserve a special capital gains tax discount—making the parasites even fatter. Labor has bundled the measures together because it knows schedule 3 cannot stand on its own, and the Greens support that. If this was such a good policy, the government would proudly put it in a separate bill. It would tell Australians exactly what this provision costs. It would explain why foreign corporations deserve a better tax deal than Australians do. It would explain why regional communities should accept industrial-scale renewable solar and wind projects while the profits and tax concessions go offshore—money being transferred from the Australian taxpayer to foreigners. But Labor can't do that, because this deal is not defensible. It cannot explain itself. Australians are doing it very, very tough. In every major provincial city in Queensland—Cairns, Townsville, Bowen, Whitsundays, Proserpine, Mackay, Rocky, Gladstone, Maryborough, the North Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Brisbane itself, Ipswich, Beaudesert, Boonah—there are homeless people sleeping in cars. There are whole families sleeping in cars. There are good working families sleeping in cars, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in tents and sleeping in caravans. Since 1996, families and small businesses have been paying more for groceries, mortgages, rent, insurance and electricity due to Uniparty Liberal and Labor policies based on climate fraud. Small businesses are struggling with power bills needlessly. Farmers and regional communities are being asked to absorb the consequences of Labor's reckless solar and wind rollout needlessly. Yet Labor and Greens have found room in the budget for a tax break for foreign renewable energy investors—inexcusable. Australians pay full freight, as always. Foreign funds get half-price capital gains tax—inexcusable. Regional communities get the wind factories, the solar factories, the transmission lines and big batteries. Offshore investors get the profits—not the definite profits but the conjured profits, through parasitic subsidies and tax breaks. One Nation says enough. We've had enough. The Australian people have had enough. This has been going on since 1996. We support accountability. We support fair taxation. We support Australian ownership and Australian jobs. We do not support taxpayer funded concessions for foreign billionaires and global investment funds. One Nation opposes Labor-Greens deceit, waste and hypocrisy. That hypocrisy, deceit and waste carry over from them both pushing net zero and the Paris Agreement—as do the Liberal-National coalition. Dishonesty, deceit, waste, hypocrisy—One Nation opposes schedule 3. We make that very clear. 12:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'd like to thank senators for their contributions to the debate. Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to include a new and expanded regulatory sanction toolkit for the Tax Practitioners Board to respond to misconduct in the tax profession and by unregistered preparers, including poor and unlawful tax advice, in a timely way. The schedule introduces new criminal offences for unregistered preparers, new civil penalty provisions and increased maximum civil penalty amounts and new powers that enable the Tax Practitioners Board to issue infringement notice penalties, enter into enforceable voluntary undertakings, impose contingent and interim suspensions of registration and impose an extended maximum duration of terminations of registration of 10 years. The amendments improve protections for taxpayers by driving better behaviour, addressing and deterring misconduct and maintaining community confidence in the integrity of the tax system. These changes form part of the government's response to the PwC tax leaks matter and implement recommendations from the 2019Independent review of the Tax Practitioners Board. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the tax law to strengthen the foreign resident capital gains tax regime. It ensures Australia can tax foreign residents on direct and indirect sales of assets with a close economic connection to Australian land more in line with the tax treatment that already applies to Australian companies. It will also improve compliance with the existing foreign resident CGT withholding rules and increase the Australian Taxation Office's oversight of transactions where a foreign resident self-assesses that they do not have a taxable interest in Australian real property. This supports the integrity and sustainability of the tax system and was informed by extensive engagement with stakeholders. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the tax law to provide a transitional 50 per cent CGT discount for foreign investors on the disposal of eligible renewable energy assets until 30 June 2040. This reflects the importance of foreign investment for Australia's electricity transition while ensuring the tax treatment of these assets aligns with the treatment of other assets in the longer term. The 2040 timeline acknowledges that renewable infrastructure assets can have a long construction and development phase. Schedules 2 and 3 implement the government 2024-25 budget measure and will commence prospectively on the first quarter after royal assent. Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to deliver refinements to support a faster, more transparent and risk based merger regime. The government has heard from businesses, advisers and regulators about how to fine tune that regime. First, the amendments adjust the legal consequences where parties have not notified the regulator, the ACCC, when they should have by making such acquisitions voidable instead of automatically void. This minimises unintended consequences, especially for innocent third parties, where the existing voiding provisions would otherwise automatically unwind. The amendments still preserve the incentive for parties to notify when appropriate. Second, the amendments introduce a mechanism for merger parties to seek extensions from the ACCC for the period in which they can put an approved acquisition into effect. The extension can be up to six months and may apply where there are reasonable delays in putting an acquisition into effect. Multiple extensions may be granted. This will also apply to transactions already approved in the 12 months prior to the commencement of the bill. Third, the amendments better target when an acquisition needs to be notified. Acquisitions that are unlikely to result in a practical ability to influence competition will not need to be notified as originally intended. This will benefit venture capital investing in startups. Combined, these amendments improve regulatory certainty and reduce unnecessary compliance burden. They also achieve the regime's original key objectives of a faster, more transparent and risk based regime that promotes competition and supports economic activity. Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Productivity Commission Act 1998 to give legal force to the current national competition principles and regulatory structures. The measure substitutes references to the 1995 National Competition Policy agreements with references to the 2024 Intergovernmental Agreement on National Competition Policy, the NCP agreement, and introduces definitions of 'public interest test' and 'competitive neutrality arrangements'. To futureproof these amendments, the measure also introduces power for the minister to specify any new agreement to be the NCP agreement and new arrangements to be the competitive neutrality arrangements. Schedule 6 to the bill amends the tax law to specifically list the Ross House Trust, Tanarra Social Purpose Ltd and i4Give Foundation Ltd as deductible gift recipients and extends the existing listings of the Australian Academy of Law and Cambridge Australia Scholarships Ltd. Schedule 7 to the bill implements a recommendation of the Productivity Commission's philanthropy inquiry by changing the name 'ancillary funds' to 'giving funds'. The new name better reflects the central role that these philanthropic funds play in supporting charities. Schedule 8 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the tax law to give effect to the Australian Taxation Office's current administrative treatment to ensure that tax credits arising from amounts withheld from the disposal of Australian real property can be claimed in an assessment for the same income year that the disposal is recognised for tax purposes. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Canavan be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. 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. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 8 PAIRS Brockman, W. E. Tyrrell, T. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Mulholland, C. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Grogan, K. O'Sullivan, M. A. Walsh, J. C. Paterson, J. W. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

13:11 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) Australians are working harder and still struggling to get ahead, (ii) interest rates continue to rise, (iii) rents continue to climb to new records, (iv) groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance are taking more out of the family budget, and (v) superannuation is an asset that belongs to working Australians, not the government; and (b) calls on the Government to allow Australians paying rent or a mortgage the choice to access their own money and take 3%, or one quarter, of their future compulsory super contributions as a tax-advantaged pay rise for up to three years to help with the cost of living crisis". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

4 AYES Bell, S. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 40 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Gatenby, C. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:17 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the second reading of the bill be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 4 NOES Bell, S. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

BUSINESS 33 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 33 13:19 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion relating to the instruction to the Committee of the Whole as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator BELL 319142 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me immediately moving a motion relating to the instruction of Committee of the Whole. Let's just be clear about what is occurring and why this is something we need to deal with urgently. This instruction to the Committee of the Whole is to divide the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 to incorporate schedule 3 in a separate bill and add the enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and provisions giving effect to the amending schedule. That is because so separate is that particular element from the rest that it should be dealt with separately, and it's urgent that we do so because we are flying through this process at lightning speed. I think it's very interesting to see where people are landing here. Let me just remind people so they understand why this is so urgent. Schedule 3, which is a huge issue with this legislation, allows for a 50 per cent capital gains discount on the sale of intermittent energy projects owned by foreign corporations. That is what we are talking about. The bill, as I said, is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill. Yet here, as we are pointing out and which we are asking the Senate to deal with urgently, is the crux of the matter. Right now, the Senate is about to vote to pass a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign owned intermittent energy. One Nation will never accept that. We will never support it. Anyone in this place who says they are opposed to Labor's net zero obsession would be agreeing with us. They'd be sitting here and voting against it. What we've got is Labor moving with urgency to increase your taxes. They're moving with urgency to increase taxes for Australian companies. Yet here we find them seeking to rush through a capital gains discount for their mates with their intermittent swindle factories that are rolling through Australia, rolling through regional and rural areas and driving up the price of electricity. Unless we act urgently to stop it, energy prices will continue to go up. Your bills will continue to go up. So what we are asking is that this be split. It should be dealt with as a separate bill. Let's deal with those other elements, which we can support and which everyone can support, but move with urgency to turn this piece of legislation into two separate ones because that is how we get accountability. That is how we get true transparency. We don't attach a tax handout to a bill that's supposed to be about strengthening accountability for tax adviser misconduct. We don't attach a discount to Labor's mates—the intermittent energy sector, wind and solar—rushing through rural and regional areas, destroying property rights, driving up electricity prices— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bell, you have drifted from the urgency that you are seeking. Senator BELL 319142 We are asking for this to be done because, if we don't do it today urgently, then this legislation will fly through. It'll go into committee stage, they'll ask a few questions, and then it will become law, unless the parliament, the Labor Party, the Greens and the crossbench come together and accept that we cannot be allowing this process, of handouts to intermittent foreign owned companies who are rushing out wind and solar across rural and regional areas, to go forward. If anyone were seriously concerned about scrapping net zero, which was One Nation's position, they would be urgently coming to support us. They'd be sitting in this chamber next to us supporting this motion. This is the reality: when One Nation says we are going to scrap net zero, we will do everything in our power to make sure that occurs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you'll withdraw that remark. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I withdraw. Senator BELL 319142 In the short time I have left, let me repeat that right now this parliament is about to wave through a massive tax concession for foreign owned corporations that are assisting in their work driving up electricity prices. That is not right, and we should be moving to stop it. 13:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. 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. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. 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. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 8 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Mulholland, C. Kovacic, M. Tyrrell, T. M. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Grogan, K. O'Sullivan, M. A. Walsh, J. C. Paterson, J. W. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

13:32 The PRESIDENT 112096 It being after 1.30, we'll move to statements by senators. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 35 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Western Australia: Agricultural Shows 35 13:32 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to talk about regional shows in Western Australia. It was my absolute pleasure over the last couple of weeks to attend the Beverley Agricultural Show in Beverley and the York Show in York. These are both small country towns about an hour and 45 minutes outside of Perth. They're both grain growing and sheep farming areas. It's an absolute credit to those local communities to see these country shows not only supporting their local communities but thriving, growing and attracting new audiences every year to remind people that our food and our fibre don't miraculously appear out of thin air. It takes farmers and a strong agricultural sector to make sure that we have food on our plates and clothes on our shoulders. Not only does it take a strong agricultural sector but it also takes strong, thriving country towns. These towns have been under so much pressure by not only the growth of technology but also the demographic changes that have occurred in the bush. So many towns are under pressure. Country shows are a way for the communities to come together to support each other and showcase the great local things that these towns have on offer. To the organising committees of both the York and Beverley country shows, who are volunteers, I say thank you from the bottom of my heart. It's a great opportunity to get out into the bush to meet so many hundreds and thousands of people and to be part of these great regional events. Parliamentary Friends of Financial Capability 35 13:34 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania In the last sitting fortnight, I stood in a packed Mural Hall alongside more than a hundred experts from across industry, education, consumer and community organisations, regulators and researchers to launch the Parliamentary Friends of Financial Capability. Financial literacy matters because the consequences of getting money decisions wrong can follow people for decades. Recent research shows that, among teenagers, more than half of males and around three-quarters of females could not directly answer basic questions on interest, inflation and risk. We expect too many Australians to simply figure it out—to understand debt after taking out a loan, to understand super after years in the workforce, to recognise a scam after the money is gone. That's why I often compare financial capability with sex education or learning to drive a car. We would never seriously suggest sending young Australians into adulthood and not telling them how it actually works—'Just figure it out for yourself.' Money should be no different. Financial capability is a life skill, and it matters throughout life, from a first bank account and a first pay packet through to borrowing, buying a home, investing, managing superannuation and planning for retirement. The good news is we're not starting from scratch. There's great work already happening across Australia, but it remains fragmented. Our opportunity is to bring that effort together and build on what really works. Tuesday night showed there is real momentum behind this issue and a remarkable breadth of people willing to work together to progress it. I thank Assistant Minister Dr Andrew Leigh for delivering the keynote address; Assistant Treasurer Dr Daniel Mulino for his closing remarks; my co-chair, Senator Jess Collins; and our launch partners, Vanguard, Ecstra Foundation and the Financial Basics Foundation. Now the task is to turn that momentum into a more financially capable Australia. Himalayas: Floods 36 13:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak of the horrible situation that has unfolded in Nepal over the last two weeks. We know that the death toll is currently at over 1,400, and there are still over 5½ thousand people missing and 65,000 people directly affected, including 22,000 children. Roads and bridges have been damaged, and livelihoods are gone. So many communities have been cut off by this disaster. Not only is the rebuild going to be horrific and hard and treacherous; all of this is hindering what is most urgent right now, which still is the rescue mission. These floods were triggered when the glacier in the Himalayas collapsed due to unprecedented levels of warming in the region. I think we really need to take stock of that. For years, scientists have been telling us that, as the globe warms—as global warming takes hold—and the climate crisis gets worse, these types of disasters and catastrophes will become more intense and more frequent. The saddest part about all of this is that these types of disasters fall at the feet of the world's most vulnerable—the poorest in the world. Nepal is a country that has contributed very little to the pollution that is driving this crisis, but countries like Australia should be and can be doing more. We export a lot of the world's fossil fuels. We're the third largest exporter of the pollution that is driving this crisis. We now must take heed and do something about it. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 36 13:38 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak to a number that should not exist: 68. It is 68 women and children whose lives have been taken by violence since 1 January this year. Behind every number is a person with their own personality, hopes and dreams—with a favourite song that won't be sung anymore, a favourite food they won't eat anymore and a favourite joke they won't make anymore. Each had people who loved them, and each loved one now faces the unimaginable task of living without them. These women and children deserve to be more than numbers we hear, lament and then move on from; they deserve to be remembered as the people they were. Time allows me to speak of only a few. We remember Sophie Isabelle Quinn, who loved adventure and was carrying her unborn little one, Troy. We remember Sophie's aunty, Nerida Quinn, who was known for making people laugh. We remember Perth brothers Leon and Otis Clune, who loved being in the swimming pool, and Annmarie O'Reilly, described by her brother as the nicest woman you'd meet and the best mother to her children. But remembrance without action is not enough. We must refuse to accept violence as inevitable. We must call it out, intervene when we see the warning signs, support those seeking help and hold perpetrators accountable. That responsibility belongs to all of us. It belongs to governments, communities, families—to every one of us. We owe these 68 lives more than our grief; we owe them our resolve to prevent another name being added to this terrible list. May they all rest in peace. Victoria: Manufacturing Industry 36 13:40 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I rise today to speak about the incredible industry in regional Victoria, particularly in Shepparton. That is in, of course, one of the greatest states in the country. Shepparton is northern Victoria's manufacturing hub, with over 350 sites generating $5.5 billion in manufacturing and 6,200 local jobs. It is home to Australia's largest fruit processor and 10 per cent of the nation's metal fabrication businesses. This region doesn't just feed the nation; it manufactures for it, too. Last Tuesday, I spent the day in Shepp, hosted by the Committee for Greater Shepparton. I visited six businesses adapting to 21st century challenges on their own terms. At Noumi, a world leader in lactoferrin for baby formula, the constraint isn't demand; it's finding engineers and electricians. At Unilever's Tatura site, which employs more people than the town has residents, a green steam zero carbon system will pay for itself in three years once Powercor finally installs the meter to unlock it. At Complete Power Partners, the cheaper batteries program has grown 200 per cent in a year thanks to Labor's battery program, and they need electricians too. At Plunkett Orchards, this fourth-generation family business manages orchard logistics nationwide, processing 200 million pieces of fruit to export worldwide, yet energy use, down a fifth, still costs the same. At Gouge, 500 staff process 800 tonnes of laundry a week, but laundries don't qualify for gas transition grants. At JMB modular, the Briggs family is scaling toward 500 units a year, held back by state-by-state certification. I grew up in regional Victoria, so I know how much it matters to have someone who turns up, listens and understands what local people need. And, as a senator, it's my job to make sure that I do. (Time expired) Cost of Living 37 13:42 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Australians are suffering right now through a cost-of-living crisis inflicted on them by the Albanese Labor government, which is why One Nation has a proposal. It is the super pay boost, a lifeline to Australians who are in trouble now. It comes without another billion dollar government program and without adding a dollar to an employer's wage bill. One Nation believes in giving renters and mortgage holders the choice to redirect a small part of their future super contributions for up to three years. There was something missing from Treasurer Jim Chalmers's kneejerk and hyperbolic response to our very sensible and compassionate proposal: compassion. There's no compassion for the Aussies doing it tough now. Too many Australians, especially younger Australians, are staring at a bleak future where owning a home is slipping further out of reach. What use is telling them that they'll have a healthy super balance at 67 if, at 35, they cannot keep up with the rent or hold on to a mortgage? One Nation believes in helping people before they hit the wall—before Labor's cost-of-living crisis drags them into poverty. The Labor government fundamentally misunderstands the proposal. This isn't new money created by government spending or a new wage increase imposed on employers. It's existing money—your money—being relocated by you if you choose. Again, as I said, the hyperbolic kneejerk reaction from the Labor government shows that they do not understand or they do not care. Employees still pay 12 per cent, existing balances remain untouched, at least nine per cent keeps going into super and it lasts only for a maximum of three years. The real attack on workers has been falling real wages and soaring housing costs. One Nation has this proposal because we understand that the cost-of-living crisis is hurting Australians now. We want them to keep a roof over their head today so that they actually have a home to retire in tomorrow. Kojonup Memorial Hall 37 13:44 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Kojonup Memorial Hall, which was built in 1926 by the local community to honour those who served and sacrificed in the First World War. A century later, the community has gathered again to ensure that no-one is forgotten. Fourteen servicemen whose names had been missing from the memorial have now been added to its honour roll. Local historian Robert Sexton helped identify those men, whose omission may have resulted from poor communications or their families having left the district. Around 70 men from Kojonup lost their lives across the two world wars, an enormous sacrifice for a small farming community in Western Australia. Many of those recently added to the memorial were killed in action and have no known grave. As Kojonup shire president Roger Bilney observed, adding their names to the hall is in a sense a homecoming. I was particularly struck by the words of 99-year-old Kojonup resident and former shire president Arnold Bilney, who said, 'Your future is controlled by your past.' There is great wisdom in those words. War memorials are more than stone, marble and names. They connect generations and ensure sacrifice is not diminished by the passage of time. One hundred years after the Kojonup Memorial Hall was built, 14 servicemen have finally taken their rightful place alongside their mates. Their names are home, their service is honoured and they will be remembered. Lest we forget. Australian Curriculum 37 13:46 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Last week, when Senator Canavan told the country that boys are sick and tired of the feminisation of our curriculum, I was reminded of the words of the late Gloria Steinem, who said, 'The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn but to unlearn.' I think that Senator Canavan has some unlearning to do. The word 'feminisation' assumes that anything historically seen as feminine is weak or soft or not worth anyone's time. We should be really clear that there's nothing wrong with that word. Many of us grew up as girls being told, 'If a boy is mean to you, it probably means they like you.' But what does that sentence teach kids? It tells girls that hurt comes from a place of affection, it tells boys that they're entitled to behave that way and it tells both of them that this is just the way the world is. Women of my generation have had to unlearn that, and we've promised ourselves that we won't pass it on to our own children. I think about this a lot, raising a little boy. How do we raise boys who respect women? How do we stop teaching kids that colours and toys and jobs belong to a particular gender? How do we teach consent to girls and boys so that our children know how to keep themselves and each other safe? Senator Canavan calls consent education 'anti boy' and blames teachers, but this simply means that those who are to blame get away with their behaviour. We're seeing the peddling of dangerous messages to young boys and men online, and that is where the blame firmly lies. Its message is more dangerous than it has ever been, and we all have a responsibility to hold them accountable, not blame our hardworking teachers. Australian Curriculum 38 13:48 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Forty-nine women have been killed this year. In the past few weeks, two groups of teenage boys have been charged over the gang rapes of young girls. A 16-year-old girl died following a suspected sexual choking act. Sydney Swans players are being investigated over allegations of sexual assault. The coalition's response—'we can't make boys feel bad'. Matt Canavan and Angus Taylor have decided the real crisis is boys being taught to respect girls. Women are being assaulted and murdered left, right and centre, and these men are concerned about respectful relationships curriculum. The scale of the gender based violence crisis cannot be overstated. New research from the University of Melbourne found that young people are significantly more likely than older generations to hold hostile attitudes towards women. Almost a quarter of boys aged 13 to 17 believe feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted with violence if necessary. Boys are being funnelled into an online sewer of misogyny that harms us all. Teaching boys about consent and equality is not antiboy. Telling boys they are not entitled to women's bodies is not an attack. Raising young men who are respectful, sensitive, kind and feminist makes everyone safer. The coalition is upfront about its contempt for women. Labor says all the right words, wrings its hands and then sits on them. While the coalition whines about boys being taught respect and Labor fails to take action, women and girls are paying the price with their bodies and their lives. Migration 38 13:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Every year 230,000 people leave Australia, mostly PALM agricultural workers, backpackers and students at the end of their visa, and Australians retiring, working or staying with family overseas. Every year new people arrive to take their place, including Australians coming home after moving overseas. None of these are migrants. This is where the confusion is. Net overseas migration from the Bureau of Statistics includes anyone coming here for 12 months out of 16, even if their visa does not allow them to stay permanently. For clarity, One Nation love backpackers and PALM workers. The bush couldn't live without them. We're happy to replace one leaving with one arriving as needed. We're happy to have a limited number of foreign students coming here, as long as they're genuine students competent in English and not bringing their family with them, because that makes them a migrant. Student numbers will reduce to make room for Australian children thriving from One Nation's 'teach don't preach' education policy. That brings us back to our 130,000 figure for actual migration. It's a cap. In the first few years we will deport anyone who's broken their visa conditions and any family tied to that visa—hundreds of thousands of people who will not be replaced—freeing homes and hospital beds, making room in schools, healthcare and NDIS, and reducing crime because we will deport the illegals, the criminals. We will allow new skilled migrants with verified qualifications and work history, people we know, to grow our economy and get all Australians out of the mess in which successive Liberal and Labor uniparty governments have dumped us with. Growth through infrastructure, increasing productivity and wealth for everyone are how we absorb genuine arrivals who deserve to stay in limited numbers. That's part of One Nation's migration policy. Labor Government 38 13:52 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Over the last fortnight I've had the privilege to spend time in the best place in Australia, regional Queensland. The Albanese Labor government is delivering for regional Queenslanders, and I've had the chance to see that first hand over the last two weeks. We've been delivering better health care, more housing, stronger communities and the infrastructure that North Queenslanders deserve. In Cairns, I was proud to open a brand new, fully bulk-billed GP clinic alongside federal member Matt Smith, making it easier for locals to see a doctor without worrying about the costs. We know how important access to affordable health care is, particularly in regional communities. That's why Labor is strengthening Medicare and delivering more bulk-billing so your Medicare card, not your credit card, is all you need to get the care you deserve. In Cairns alone, we've had 10 new bulk-billing clinics open since our policy started. In Rockhampton. I was thrilled to stand up with the mayor and the community and announce that more than $31 million will be delivered to create 40 new crisis and transitional houses for young people facing homelessness as part of the new youth foyer. These homes will give young people at risk of homelessness not just a roof over their head but the stability and support that they need to a better future. It's being funded by the HAFF, something voted against by One Nation and the Liberals. In Yarrabah we announced $10 million to help deliver the community's first ever dedicated retail and commercial precinct. It means a better supermarket, better access to essential services, jobs and training, and a place for the community to come together. This is about delivering real change for regional Queenslanders—better health care, better housing, better infrastructure. It's not slogans, just solutions. Cybersafety 39 13:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In 2024, during the Senate inquiry on the social media ban, I and other senators asked the big tech industry body what they were doing about their nasty algorithms. The big tech rep said that algorithms were key to making online space safer, and the algorithms were already working to protect our kids. What a joke that was and what an absolute lie. When I said, 'That's fine, but can't you just have the safety algorithms and get rid of the bad algorithms?' and asked why they didn't do that themselves, they didn't have an answer for that. They just said that there was a principle of duty of care which was needed—which is rubbish—even though they admitted that there was already a safety expectation. Big tech love these nasty algorithms because they are designed to keep our kids in online so they make more money. They don't give us stuff about our children out there. We've got to come down hard on these guys. Governments of both stripes let social media get out of control; now we're playing catch up. Two years ago, when senators were telling the Labor government what a problem algorithms were, you ignored us. Then the government got rid of an independent advisory body stacked with the best minds in AI from Australia. You got rid of him and then turned to big tech. Big tech is now advising them. It's big tech all the way. Now, two years later, the government has finally woken up—now it's all about algorithms. Don't tell me these nasty algorithms are about free speech, because that's rubbish as well. There is a difference between free speech and using algorithms to pump ugly content to our kids. A large study from the Melbourne University found that pornography consumption is the online behaviour that most consistently links with attitudes that normalise, minimise and excuse violence against women. I look forward to seeing the detail of the government's latest attempt to control big tech. I want to see whether you've actually got some courage this time around, because this government doesn't have a great reputation when it comes to protecting our Aussie children. Look at what they did on gambling reforms. They did the least possible, and I expect they'll do the least possible again when it comes to going up against the big tech because, once again, they lack the courage. You lack courage. (Time expired) Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 39

Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026

13:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Children's bodies don't belong to the state. Last month, I introduced a private senator's bill, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, to ban strip searching of children. Strip searching is child sexual assault perpetrated by the state. I want to share some words from proud Yuin woman Aunty Vickie Roach. She said: When the state takes bodily autonomy from children, it can shape how you understand your body, intimacy, consent and control long afterwards. We cannot teach children about consent while maintaining laws that allow adults in authority to override it. We cannot decide that some children deserve bodily autonomy while criminalised children do not. Kids must be protected from the system. A child's body belongs to that child. Not to the police. Not to a prison. Not to an institution. Not to the state. The inquiry into my bill is taking submissions until 14 September 2026—one more week—however, the Labor dominated committee, who decide on who gets to run an inquiry and have hearings, have shut it down. They shut it down. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee shut down an inquiry on strip searching and sexual assault against children in this country. Shameful. The government are obviously trying to hide that we are strip searching ten-year-old children with disabilities in this country. They don't want you to know. What child gets strip searched in this country at 10 years old and with a disability! How can you let this happen? Why won't you let people with lived experience come and tell their story? It's because you are complicit. You are complicit in the sexual assault of children in prisons and in any place of detention. When are you going to stand up for those babies? Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, Veterans 40 13:58 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales This week, you may have noticed a lot of the ADF personnel embedded into parliamentary offices, and I want to welcome them. I'm privileged to have a commander of 30 years service. I want to thank everybody who's here this week and thank them for their service. But we have also had the Coalition of Veterans' Voices visit parliament again today, and I am absolutely ashamed that they've had to come back and beg for help. I went down to the lawns this morning and watched them put their medals on the ground to give their medals back to this government that has abandoned them. I'm absolutely ashamed. Senator Cash I0M Sick! Senator COLLINS 297964 It is sick, and I am absolutely ashamed. I'm so sorry to the veterans that feel that they have to do that. The system is so broken. We are in a crisis right now. We have a Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel that has been grossly rude to them, refused to meet with them and refused to shake their hands. He refuses to acknowledge and listen to them. I say to the minister, if he's not prepared to listen, if he's not prepared to respond, then that minister has to go. He has to move on. We need to scrap the cap. We need to fix the DVA. We need to have an investigation into this problem. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time has expired. DELEGATION REPORTS 40 DELEGATION REPORTS Acknowledgement 40 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the National Diet of Japan, led by His Excellency Mr Sekiguchi, President of the Senate. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite President Sekiguchi to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Sekiguchi was seated accordingly. 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—on behalf of the government, I welcome His Excellency, the President of the Senate, President Sekiguchi, and his distinguished delegation. We welcome you to Australia. We, again, reiterate our commitment to our partnership and our friendship. If I may say also, the ambassador who is here is an outstanding representative of his country and a very good friend of Australia. MINISTRY 40 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 40 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm advising the Senate of changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Watt will be absent from question time today and tomorrow for ministerial business, and ministers will represent portfolios in his absence in question time in accordance to the letter I've circulated to the President, party leaders and independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Veterans: Health Care 40 14:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, today a group of Australian military veterans laid down their medals outside Parliament House in protest to your government's cuts to veterans health services. They laid down their medals. What more do these men and women, who so served our country well, need to do to get your government to reverse your cruel cuts? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I have on every occasion on which I've been asked about these issues, I want to start by expressing my personal respect and the respect that our government has for our veterans. We respect their service, we respect the sacrifices they and their families have made and we recognise the responsibility of ensuring they are appropriately supported after serving our country. I understand that a number of changes have been made as a result of the concerns raised by veterans. I also understand that Minister Keogh has started formal consultations, following the release of a consultation paper. We recognise that more work needs to be done engaging with veterans community on these issues. I would indicate that last week the minister did advise that the $5,000 threshold, which has been the subject of much focus, will not apply to those who are on the special rate disability pension or the totally and permanently incapacitated pension or those who have been determined to be catastrophically injured. I know that the minister is engaging with the RSL and veterans' representatives on these issues, and we will continue to do that respectfully and appropriately in order to deal with the concerns that have been raised. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, respect is shown by actions, not by pathetic, hollow words that this Senate has just heard from you. Fourth-generation soldier Andy Cullen today told the media that he had met with Minister Keogh and was told by Minister Keogh that he wanted 'wider veteran community consultation'. This is what Andy Cullen said: 'Leaving that meeting, I felt disappointed. To be honest, I felt betrayed.' Minister, why has your government betrayed Australia's veterans? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I would make the same point I have made from the beginning. I don't regard expressing respect for veterans as empty words. I'd make that point first. The second point I'd make is that if you are keen to point the finger I hope that you or one of the people in the cabinet who did not back the 42,000 veteran compensation claims where there was a backlog—42,000— Senator Cash I0M This is about you, Senator. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash is now very, very concerned about this issue. I wonder if, in the cabinet, she was one of the people who ensured— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash, you just accused me of something personal, and then you react when I respond. I hope that you, in the cabinet, were one of the people who argued for more funding for Veterans' Affairs, because 42,000 veterans had compensation claims that weren't even looked at by someone. So let's be clear about the approach that was taken over there. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary. 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Fourth-generation soldier Andy Cullen said he is discouraging his 18-year-old son from joining the ADF because he doesn't trust the Albanese government to look after him should he get injured. Will the Prime Minister admit that his government has catastrophically failed our brave veterans when a fourth-generation soldier is discouraging his own son from serving our great country? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would say that the government has heard the concerns raised by veterans. I want to say that the government takes this very seriously. We recognise the obligation that all governments have to veterans. That is why we have invested some $169.7 million in allied health provider fees, the largest investment in more than a decade, in response to recommendation 71 of the royal commission. But we do understand that very substantial concerns have been raised, and we will continue to engage with veterans on their concerns, including through the consultation process Minister Keogh has outlined. And I'd reflect again that some changes have already been made, and we understand that more work needs to be done. Women's Health 41 14:07 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister the Health, Disability and Ageing, Senator McAllister. This week is Women's Health Week, which is an opportunity to focus on the health of women and girls across Australia and a timely reminder that women must be supported in our health system. Australian women have been telling governments that their health concerns need greater attention, whether it is endometriosis, menopause or better access to contraception. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare to deliver more choice and lower costs for Australian women and girls? 14:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank the senator for her question and her tireless work on women's health. For too long women have had their pain ignored. They have had to fight to be heard, and they've paid too much for care that they need. This government believes that this is not good enough. Australian women deserve a health system that listens to them, that takes their concerns seriously and provides them with affordable care that they need. That it is why the Albanese Labor government delivered a record $792 million women's health package. It was to give women more choice, lower costs and better care. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, and Assistant Minister Rebecca White in the other place, who have worked so hard to roll this program out. Already more than one million women have saved money on contraceptives, IVF, and endometriosis and menopause medicines. I can tell you what this means in practice. It means that a woman who is trying to a start a family can access more IVF medicine for less, because it is now listed on the PBS. It means that a woman who is going through menopause can get affordable relief, with hormone therapy treatments now listed on the PBS. And it means that a woman choosing contraception has more choice and less of a hit to the hip pocket. For the first time in more than 30 years, new oral contraceptive pills, including Yaz and Slinda, have been listed on the PBS. This matters. It is earlier and more affordable access to treatment at a time when every dollar matters, and these changes have a simple purpose: women getting the care that they need sooner and at an affordable price. This is what a government that believes in Medicare and that backs women looks like. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, every woman deserves to have her pain taken seriously and to get the care that she needs when she needs it. Endometriosis affects at least one in seven Australian women, but women can wait years for a diagnosis. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare to help women who are experiencing endometriosis and pelvic pain get earlier care and support? 14:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales For many women, getting help for pelvic pain has meant having their pain ignored, dismissed or put in the too-hard basket. On average, as you say, Senator Smith, women wait seven years for an endometriosis diagnosis. That is seven years of pain, seven years of uncertainty, and, for some women, seven years in which their health, their work and their fertility can be affected. This government is changing that. We've delivered a stronger Medicare that works for women, with 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across Australia. These clinics are helping women and girls get an earlier diagnosis, better support and a clearer pathway to treatment. They also provide perimenopause and menopause care, recognising that women should access specialist support at different stages of their lives. Australian women asked us to listen. We listened, and we're delivering. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia On this side of the chamber, we know that strengthening Medicare means making sure it works for the health needs of all Australians, and of course this includes women. Can the minister outline why the Albanese Labor government's investments in women's health care were needed? 14:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Labor knows that Medicare is strongest when it works for everyone. That is why we delivered the first new contraceptive and endo medications on the PBS in 30 years. It's why we listed IVF on the PBS. It's why we're rolling out endo and pelvic pain clinics across Australia. We know that these investments need defending, because there are forces in our society that don't think these issues are a priority. They think they are an indulgence—a waste of public resources—in the same way that they think that women who are domestic violence victims routinely make allegations up. Labor takes a different approach. We will support women's health care. We will support public health care. We built Medicare. We protected it, we expanded it and we are improving it so that it meets the healthcare needs of all Australians, including women. Housing 42 14:13 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the Property Council says Labor's housing taxes have driven buyer confidence to an all-time low, with new housing supply dropping off a cliff. Why is the Prime Minister persisting with taxes that are making Australia's housing shortage worse? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Bragg, and I do welcome your re-engagement in the Senate after— Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm wondering if they'd like the party room, to have this argument amongst themselves. I'm very happy to give them that time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 The point of order is on relevance. The minister's gone nowhere near the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. There is no point of order. I've been trying to get order in the Senate. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Bragg, you know that this government— Senator Cash I0M Here we go. Here's something. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have called for order in the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm very interested in the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate's taking such an effort to interrupt my answer to Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg, I'd like to answer your question. The first point I'd make to you is that we are a government that has been very focused on increasing supply, and that is why we put in place a $47 billion Homes for Australia plan—almost 10 times more than your government did in a decade. That is why we have also changed the tax arrangements. We do not believe that our tax system should continue to be skewed towards investors rather than enabling first home buyers to have a fair crack at their own home. I would also say to you, Senator, we have a situation where we have—through the range of things that we are doing, we are now seeing approvals up three years in a row, 8.9 per cent higher than a year ago and the highest level since 2021, and commencements are 15.2 per cent higher. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Property Council says Labor's tax changes are making new projects harder to finance and presell, resulting in fewer homes being built and additional pressures on renters. Why should renters pay higher rents because Labor has made new building projects harder to build? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I'm afraid we just—I simply don't accept the propositions that are in the question. I know you have a particular view on this, but I would make this point: we are investing in more supply; we are making regulatory changes, including to the National Construction Code through the EPBC; and we are building more local infrastructure so houses can get built sooner. And it is working. If you look at approvals and if you look at commencements, you will see that they are improving. There is a long way to go, but it is undeniable that there are more approvals and more commencements as a consequence of the changes this government has made and is making. I know, Senator, that you have a view that the market should just determine how this is approached and that government doesn't have a role. We do not have the same view. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:17 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Property Council, again, says that Labor's assumption that its tax changes would reduce house prices growth by only two per cent is 'demonstrably wrong'. Whilst the Treasurer has admitted these taxes are contributing to falling prices, how much more damage does this prime minister want to see before he admits that Labor has this housing policy wrong? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, you know that there are a range of factors which contribute to changes in house prices. There are a range of factors that contribute to changes in house prices. The Treasury assumption that you reference is an assumption over a couple of years that house prices will continue to grow but slightly slower than before the budget. But what I would say to you, Senator, is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, you've asked your question. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, which bit of 'order' doesn't apply to you? Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, we do have a situation in this country where, until the government's tax changes, the reality was that there was not a level playing field as between first home buyers and investors. We think there should be more Australians who are able to own their own home, in the way that probably pretty much everyone in this chamber does, and that the next generation of Australians should be able to access the dream of homeownership. We make no apology for making that a priority. (Time expired) Climate Change 43 14:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Last week, the Albanese government approved another fossil fuel project, an extension to a coal mine in Queensland. On the very same day, the UN issued its first prediction that the world will not be able to constrain global warming to 1½ degrees. Minister, can you confirm that 37 coal and gas projects have been approved by this government since May 2022 and explain how this is consistent with the government's alleged commitment to a safe climate? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to the UN reports, I have looked at those and, yes, I think all of us should look very closely at what is being told to us, what is being reported. I would also note that the El Nino event, which the globe is currently experiencing, is projected to be the worst in many centuries, so I am not one that you have to convince about the importance of acting on climate and the importance of changing your economy to deal with changing climate and to deal with the imperative of reducing emissions, which is why one of the great tragedies in history was when your party voted with Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi and Nick Minchin. You can put your head in your hands but that is the reality, because that actually would have changed the Australian economy, and we all understand the way you betrayed the climate for short-term political gain. You lined up with Tony Abbott. Can you believe it—the Australian Greens lined up with Tony Abbott! That is your legacy. That is your legacy when it comes to climate. I will also give you another number. Guess how many renewable energy projects as at 7 September 2026—146 renewable energy projects. Oh dear, Senator Henderson's going to get very upset at that now—146 renewable energy projects. The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Minister Wong. Senator Waters. Senator Waters 192970 A point of order on relevance. My question asked whether you can confirm that there were 37 coal and gas projects approved by your government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Excuse me, Senator McKim! I remind you that not only are interjections disorderly but that the minister is entitled to respond to them, so I would urge all of you in this chamber to just not say anything once you've asked your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I didn't actually hear which project you were talking about, but, if it is the Saraji mine, I would make two points: this is not a new coal mine and it is already covered by the safeguard mechanism with its baseline declining to zero by 2050. I would just make the point— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The catastrophic flooding that occurred in Nepal was triggered by a glacier collapse driven by the climate crisis. Yet on his recent trip to the Pacific, the Prime Minister was asked about the role of climate change in the Nepal disaster and he said 'now is not the time'. My question is: if now is not the time, when is a good time to talk about the fact that Australia is fuelling disasters like this by being the world's second-largest fossil fuel exporter? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thousands of people missing, hundreds of people dead and 36 Australians still missing, and you want to play politics with this issue? Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim JKM Thoughts and prayers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, which bit of 'order' doesn't apply to you? Senator Waters. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, come to order. Minister Wong. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Waters, a second supplementary? 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On the very day your resources minister was in the NT cutting the ribbon on Tamboran's enormous Beetaloo gas fracking project, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology warned about the upcoming super El Nino. Can you explain to the Australian people who are waking up to bushfire warnings today and preparing for a deadly summer ahead why you are continuing to put corporate profits of the big polluters ahead of the safety of people and nature. 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say to Australians and what I do say is we are committed to reducing our emissions. We are committed to transforming our economy. We are committed to ensuring that we transition one of the world's most carbon intensive economies to a much more low emission economy. We recognise that that is a challenge, and we recognise that that is not something where you can simply flick a switch. It requires thoughtful and considered economic policy, environment policy and energy policy. What I would say to them is that we are committed to that. Opposite us, we have people who still rail against renewable energy, and down there to our right we have people who are much more interested in outrage than outcomes, who think that policy is all about politics. (Time expired) Cybersafety 45 14:25 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. Australia is leading the world when it comes to online safety, specifically the online safety of our kids. The Albanese Labor government is taking steps to increase the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to ensure Australian children are protected online. Can the minister outline how the government is leading the world in keeping kids safe online. 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Can I issue my welcome to Ambassador Suzuki and his colleagues who have just left the room. I thank Senator Ghosh for his question and the great work that he does on behalf of the people of Western Australia in this parliament. Australia is proud to be leading the world when it comes to protecting children online. More than 20 countries are taking Australia's lead and looking at putting in place similar laws to ensure young children are protected online from the harms of social media. The Albanese government will always prioritise keeping Aussie kids safe, and we've had the backs of Australian families through our social media minimum-age law. These laws can evolve and change as technology changes. We need to be agile and vigilant to protect our kids and deliver for the Australian parents who have led this global movement. That's why we introduced laws in parliament in June to ensure an independent regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, has the tools that she needs to help keep kids safe online. These laws will strengthen the investigative powers of the eSafety Commissioner and will double the fines for noncompliance to more than $109 million. The eSafety Commissioner will also be able to ask for more information from social media companies and, critically, from the age-verification companies and other parties. The Albanese Labor government is leading the world in its effort to protect young children online and will continue working to do that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia We know that there are proven harms of social media for young kids, and we know it impacts young children's wellbeing and their ability to achieve their full potential. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government's world-leading social media minimum-age law putting Australian kids' safety first as well as backing Australian families? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ghosh for his first supplementary question. By delaying under-16s' access to social media, we're giving more of them time to build real world connections, to build resilience and awareness and to develop better digital literacy about what awaits them online. This is what Australian parents have asked us for, and we are backing them. Australians deserve to be proud of delivering these changes which are unashamedly focused on keeping kids safe. The Albanese government is on the side of families and kids, and we will continue to back them through these world-leading laws. That's why we have laws in the Senate right now to further strengthen the social media ban, which will deliver more protection for Australian kids. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Western Australian families I speak to have been incredibly supportive of the Albanese Labor government's social media minimum age laws. Minister, why is it important that the independent regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, has all the tools it needs in order to ensure our kids are protected from the pervasive pull of social media, and what risks are there to this approach? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, President. You wouldn't be surprised at all that Western Australian families are so supportive of Senator Ghosh and what he's been doing over there. We've always said that these laws, which are the first in the world, must continue to evolve and develop, and that's why, when the eSafety Commissioner asked for additional powers to ensure this law could be policed effectively, we acted without delay. The coalition and the Greens, of course, ignored the pleas of parents who want social media companies to be held to account. I'm calling on the coalition and the Greens to act in good faith, put politics aside and pass this bill this week. That's what Australian families deserve. These laws passed with bipartisan support originally, and I call on those opposite to do the same again. The Albanese government will continue delivering on its commitment to protecting children online. Defence 46 14:31 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. Reporting from the Guardian and the Nautilus Institute released today has revealed that the US has either direct control of or access to over 100 Australian military bases. This includes US surveillance and intelligence gathering, troop deployment, pre-positioning warfighting assets, fuel hubs, munitions caches and more. The US has made Australia into a forward operating base. Why have you signed us up to the next US war like this, where, whoever they go to war with, we will inevitably be involved? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make a few points. Senator, I think you've made no secret of your personal views, and also I think they reflect the Greens political party in that you don't want an alliance with the United States; you want us to not have an alliance with the United States. I think we should start with clarity around the different positions we take. We are of the view that the US alliance contributes to Australian sovereignty. It enables us to have access to a range of capabilities that Australia would not have access to. I would make the point that the sovereignty arrangements under the facilities that you outline remain so that they are Australian facilities. As with all US force posture activities, access to and use of Australian facilities and areas are on a rotational basis, mutually determined and at Australia's invitation. These are Australian bases under Australian command. I know, Senator Shoebridge, you have a different view. You're entitled to that view. You want us to cut ties with most of the world, and most of your policy would ensure we wouldn't have a functioning defence force. Nevertheless, you are entitled to those views. The government doesn't agree with them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We have all seen US bases being targeted and attacked, and I've heard from people living near US bases here, whether it's in WA or in the NT, who are scared about the growing US footprint and what it means for the safety of them and their families. These bases obviously make Australia a target when the US decides to start its next forever war, don't they, Minister? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's a comment, Senator. You're making a set of assumptions about conflict. Everything I do and everything the government is doing is working to deter and avert conflict because we understand, through the history of experience and also what we can see around this world, the potential consequences for our country and our people of a conflict in our region, and everything we do, both in the strategic and military domain and in my domain is about averting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 My point of order is on relevance. My question was about US bases making Australia a target, and the minister has not touched it. I know it's awkward, but she hasn't touched it. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I know it's embarrassing. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, what is embarrassing is the position that you take, which is to pretend that we can avert our eyes from the strategic circumstances of our region. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, show us your mettle. Can you provide a single example where the Albanese government at any time during your government has said no to the US having access to Australian bases? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, we ensure that Australian sovereignty is maintained in relation to the framework of US rotational force posture. I would say to you that sovereignty decisions are always front of mind for how we operate in relation to these force posture arrangements. There's a fundamental difference. You want to cut ties with the US. We believe that the alliance— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 My point is again on relevance. My question was simple and straightforward—has there been one instance where this government has said no?—and the minister refuses to answer it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a point of order is not an opportunity to make a statement. I've reminded you and other senators of that many times in this chamber. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU I again say to you what I've said before. Access to and use of Australian facilities and areas under SRF-West is on a rotational basis. Senator WONG 00AOU You really want to interrupt the whole time. It's mutually determined and at Australia's invitation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I worked very hard to make sure that your question was heard in silence. That same respect and courtesy is to be applied to the minister. Senator WONG 00AOU These are Australian bases under Australian command. That is the case under this government, and it will remain so. (Time expired) Tobacco Control 47 14:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Minister, last week I visited the once vibrant and thriving Victoria Street in Richmond, in Victoria, where 10 small businesses were burnt to the ground due to the firebombing of an illicit tobacco shop. I met with Ha, Andrew and Nok and another group of business owners who have all been affected by the organised crime behind the tobacco wars, and their fears and frustrations are very real. Illicit tobacco now accounts for around 80 per cent of the market. At the same time, consumption has risen by around 30 per cent. Can the minister admit that the Prime Minister has failed small businesses by allowing Australia's illicit tobacco market to become a serious organised crime problem? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll make a few points. First, it is the case that illicit tobacco is not just a health problem and not just a revenue problem; it is a serious organised crime crisis. It's a major source of funds for serious and organised crime, which also is used to fund other harms and crimes. I would make the point that the government does not believe we should be surrendering to either organised criminals or big tobacco. I would make the point that the government has committed more than $365 million to enhance border detection, seizure and joint enforcement activities with states and territories to target illicit supply chains and retail operations. We would also make the point that the only way to stamp out the black market is for states and the federal government to work together. It is the states that regulate the sale of tobacco. We do need strong momentum across states, territories and the Commonwealth to fight the black market together, and the government is contributing to that response. I can also advise the chamber that the government has set up the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group. It's a first-of-its-kind, whole-of-government capability to target and disrupt criminals and enablers operating in the illicit tobacco market. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, you're right on some things. In my home state of Victoria, there have been more than 200 tobacco related arsons in the past three years alone. Organised crime is making an estimated between $4 billion and $7 billion a year from illicit tobacco. That money has been funding the firebombings, extortions, drugs, scams and violence that we see in the news every week. Can the Prime Minister look small-business owners in the eye and commit that his government will put a stop to the organised crime behind illicit tobacco that is destroying their businesses? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, we again say that the only way in which we can fight the black market is by states, territories and the Commonwealth regulators and governments working together to confront the black market. I want to be very clear about that. Second, we don't believe that some of the changes that have been proposed, including by those opposite, are sound. We are concerned about the message and behavioural impact that that will have on, particularly, children and the increase in smoking rates that that could lead to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, the current system is also bleeding the budget. Tobacco excise revenue has halved from around $16 billion to $8 billion while organised crime has collected billions instead. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that the coalition's package, which includes cutting the tobacco excise by 80 per cent, will improve the budget by around $8 billion over four years. This will bring sales out of the black market and back into the legal economy. Does the minister agree that the current system is broken and more must be done? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think, Senator Hume, that we agree that more must be done, but we don't believe that the answer to it is to simply reduce the excise and to make access to these products cheaper. We do know—I think we all are aware of this—that there's been an explosion in vaping, which is a huge challenge in schools, in families and in our communities. What the government does not want to see is another generation of Australians become hooked on nicotine. Superannuation 48 14:42 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australians are being crushed by rent, mortgages, groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance under this government. Under One Nation's three per cent super pay boost, a worker earning $90,500 could get an extra $44 a week by choosing to take three per cent of their future super contributions as take-home pay. Their existing super stays untouched. It is limited to three years. Minister, it is their money. If Australians are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage, why won't you let them use a small part of it now? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for the question. The government will not support the policy that you announced this morning. We've seen it from those opposite a number of times, where they want to attack superannuation and end superannuation. This is the party that built superannuation, and we will fight to protect it. That's, in a nutshell, the government's position. We don't support the weakening of a system that is there to ensure that people are able to live a dignified retirement and not be dependent on the aged pension. It is a long-term investment. It starts when you enter the workforce. You are able to build up over time retirement savings that give you that dignified retirement and don't require you to live or exist on the aged pension, and that is worth fighting for. We over on this side of the chamber have done whatever we can to support people with cost-of-living pressures, whether it be in energy bill relief, rebuilding Medicare, cheaper medicines, building more housing, making sure people can get into housing in a more affordable way— Senator GALLAGHER ING It's no surprise to me that you're laughing, Senator Henderson, because you opposed us on housing, just like the rest on that side of the chamber have opposed everything we have done to increase housing supply and to make housing more affordable for Australians. We've fought to implement those policies, and we will continue to protect superannuation from those whose political ideology is to end superannuation, to reduce and weaken superannuation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, One Nation has never advocated to get rid of superannuation. Minister, your government calls Australian super a 'national asset'— Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Hanson; please resume your seat. Senator Hanson has the right to put her question in silence. Please continue, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 One Nation says, 'It is their money.' Our plan is voluntary. It lasts for only three years, applies only to future contributions and leaves existing super untouched. Labor thinks Australian super belongs to the government instead of the people who earned it. Are you planning to dip into Australian super funds to pay down your trillion-dollar debt? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory A couple of things there—debt was forecast to be $977 billion in the year we came to government, so let's just put that on the record as a fact. In relation to superannuation, yes, it is workers' income. It is workers' money and it should be protected so that those workers, who have worked hard all their lives, when they finish working, can have a pool of money that is available for them to have a dignified retirement. That is what Labor fights for, for superannuation. And I would say this to those who say that they care about workers' wages: well, support workers' wages to increase right now. I haven't seen One Nation do that. Support tax cuts right now. I haven't seen One Nation do that. Support the changes we made to make it more affordable for first home buyers to buy a house. You didn't support that either—because that would make a difference right now, Senator Hanson. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you've accused One Nation's policy on superannuation of being inflationary. What modelling do you have that shows letting Australians access a small part of their own future super would be inflationary, or is this just another Labor lie? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, withdraw that last part of the question. Senator HANSON BK6 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson. 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I haven't said that, Senator Hanson, but I caught a small part of your press conference where that was put to you, this morning, and you confirmed that seven million Australians would be eligible to withdraw money out of their superannuation. I think the journalists asked you the question: 'Well, if seven million can do that, without any eligibility around that, to pay rent or to pay a mortgage, then isn't that inflationary?' That was a proposition put to you in a press conference. People have different views about that, but, depending on a whole range of factors, there is the potential for that to be inflationary. But I had not used that. I am simply standing here, saying, 'We will protect superannuation from those who want to end superannuation.' It was built by Labor, it's been strengthened by Labor, and One Nation, clearly, from the policy announced today, want to weaken it. The PRESIDENT 112096 I advise the chamber that Senator Babet has passed the next question to Senator Roberts. Employment 49 14:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Australian Bureau of Statistics produce a measure called the 'underutilisation rate of Australian workers', which is people without a job or those who have a job yet need more hours than are available. In June 2022, at the start of the Albanese government, there were 1.35 million Australians underutilised in the workforce. In June 2026, this had increased to 1.68 million Australians. This is a significant increase on both an actual and percentage basis. Minister, why has the Albanese government brought in so many new arrivals when there is already insufficient work for 1.68 million Australians and rising? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This government is all about increasing employment opportunities for Australians, and I think the last figure I saw was over a million jobs which had been created under this government. Unemployment has remained very low, and participation rates are at record highs. That is our record on employment across the economy. Your question I think links to migration and some of the debates that you've been having around this in One Nation. You would know, Senator Roberts, that we have reduced net overseas migration by about 45 per cent compared to the post-COVID peak. We did see a pull forward after the COVID years, essentially after the borders reopened, and net overseas migration has been tracking down since then. We are a country that relies on migration to support the economy and have historically, and indeed in recent months, in response to some of the policies that you've been outlining, we are seeing more and more businesses and industry raising concerns about those policies and the impact they would have on our economy. We have unemployment sitting in the low fours. We've got jobs created under our government the most that we've seen in government over a sustained period of time. We've got participation rates at record highs. We've got wages up. Women are working more and working more hours because of some of the work we've done to support wages in the feminised sector and to ensure that the childcare system works for them. On all of those metrics, Senator Roberts, I think you can see where we stand, which is about making sure that there are choices and opportunities for Australian workers in this country, and we'll continue that approach. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary. 14:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Underutilisation predicts wage movement. The more workers desperate for extra hours to keep their head above water, the less employers need to pay to secure that labour. The wage price index, an ABS measure, shows Australian workers have gone backwards 1.5 per cent since this government came to power backwards. The data is in. Your policy of mass immigration is creating a glut of labour, pulling down real wages. Minister, why is your government undermining Australian workers' wages? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think there is only one party in this chamber that supports increasing wages for working people. You can see that in every test that's brought to this chamber. In every single test that's brought to this chamber where you get a vote on it, more often than not, you all vote together over there to oppose working Australians getting good and reasonable wage increases. That is what we've done in government. We have supported increases to the minimum wage, increases to highly feminised low-wage industries like aged care and child care. When we have had those debates on this floor, those who sit on that side of the chamber have tended to oppose them. I think Australians know that it's this government that will always argue for better wages, better conditions and better protections, including through superannuation for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary. 14:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector. This statement is deceptive. Over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Minister, 1.68 million underutilised workers, 1.5 per cent fall in real wages and now a Ponzi job scheme—will you admit your immigration invasion is a disaster for taxpayers, workers and their families? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I want to distance myself from the content and the language used in that question, for a start order. In relation to jobs in the non-market economy, Senator Roberts, if you need any kind of care in a hospital, aged care, disability or child care, those are legitimate jobs. They are hard jobs. The people who work in those jobs put their body on the line. They are physical jobs. They are emotional jobs. They are difficult jobs. I have worked in that sector. I don't know whether you have, but I don't think you would be trivialising them if you had worked in those sectors. They are legitimate jobs, and more and more our community relies on them. We have an ageing population, and we have parents with children who have a disability, who expect their child to be cared for and provided support in the way that any other parent would. We have working parents who need child care. These are legitimate, good jobs, and they should be valued. (Time expired) Economy 50 14:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister told the Queensland Labor conference that his goal 'is to make our economy work for people, not the other way round'. After three interest rate increases this year and further rate rises likely, a record 1.79 million Australians are now at risk of mortgage stress, and their house prices are collapsing. Who exactly is Labor's economy working for? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We know that Australians are doing it tough with cost-of-living pressures, and we know that includes the impact of inflation and the impact of decisions that the Reserve Bank makes independently. And that is why the government continues to be focused on delivering real cost-of-living relief, helping Australians under pressure here and now, whilst continuing to build the economy and our resilience for the future. Senator, I understand that most of the cost-of-living measures that we have put before this chamber have been opposed by you, whether it was higher wages for workers in early childhood education and care, the protection of penalty rates and all the reforms which are about giving young Australians a fair crack at getting into their homes. This is about acting on the cost of living. We recognise that these are times when people are under pressure, but we do not believe the answer is the sort of answer that you and your mates in One Nation seek. We don't think that sacking workers or cutting wages or scrapping paid parental leave or hacking into workers' superannuation or gutting Medicare and bulk-billing or giving more tax breaks to property investors is the way to respond to these circumstances. Senator, the problem for you is you are so busy chasing Senator Hanson, you are so busy looking to that part of the electorate, you've actually forgotten what it is to be a mainstream party of government, because you're so interested in covering up your Right flank. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, before I call you for your supplementary, I'm going to remind you that, when you asked the question to the minister, you could have heard a pin drop in this place, because that is the respect and courtesy which was shown to you. The minute the minister got up, the interjections from you and other senators started. Despite me calling order, they continued. I ask you to reflect on that when you ask your question and when the minister gets up to respond. Senator McKenzie. 14:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Prime Minister also told his Queensland comrades that his government should ease the financial pressure on Australians. After more than four years of Labor, why are more Australians under mortgage stress than when you came to power? I do note in your previous answer, Minister, you didn't touch the question of mortgage stress. I give you the opportunity to now. 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I did respond directly to it, because I talked about what it is the government is seeking to do to support Australians at a time where the cost of living is very high. Mortgage payments are part of the reason that people have cost-of-living pressures—I think we all understand that—and one of the reasons why the government has been so intent on ensuring a range of tax cuts: five rounds of tax cuts. If I might remind you, Senator, despite the fact that your party is supposedly the party of lower taxes, you went to the last election with an economic policy to increase taxes. Senator McKenzie 207825 Interest rates are rising. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I think most Australians out there, if you want to talk to people about the cost of living, recognise that tax cuts are a part of how we can respond to cost-of-living pressures, including higher interest rates. You opposed those tax cuts. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Does the Prime Minister seriously believe an economy with record mortgage stress and falling house prices is one that is actually working for Australian families? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, Senator, through you President, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a party that advocates for higher taxes and higher deficits is capable of managing the Australian economy. I don't think Australians believe that a National Party, which is so much more focused on the politics of One Nation and their voter base than on outcomes that are actually good for Australians, are capable of managing the challenges in the Australian economy. On that point, President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 51 15:02 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips. 15:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. In particular, I want to address the answers that were given to the questions put by Senator Cash concerning the treatment of our veterans and the decision of the Labor Party to place a cap on allied health services. This morning, I was at the front of Parliament House along with Michael McCormack, the shadow veterans' affairs minister, Senator Collins and Senator Blyth. We were there on behalf of the coalition to meet with veterans who had come to parliament to raise their concerns about the cap being placed on allied health services—an arbitrary cap. These men and women laid down their medals at the front of Parliament House. Now, these medals are not something you find in a packet of rice bubbles or when you get an ooshie from Woolies; these medals are for honour, they're for service and they're for bravery. There were no Labor Party politicians at the front of Parliament House to meet with the coalition of veterans groups. It was coalition MPs and senators, because we understand the service that these men and women have given to this country. It is very sad, and it is pathetic. The responses given by ministers in this place in relation to questions put to them by coalition senators, particularly the questions that were put by Senator Cash this week and in the previous sitting week, were answers returned in the form of a word salad, talking about engagement. It was the type of language you would hear from a management consultant rather than from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister in this country who cheerfully breaks his promises. He cheerfully, at election time, will say one thing and, as soon as the voters have finished voting, will then change his mind. And we have a Minister for Veterans' Affairs—the worst Minister for Veterans' Affairs since the department was created in the mid 1970s—who clearly does not want to be the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who clearly does not like veterans, who clearly does not like meeting with veterans or veterans groups. We only have to look at how he treated the veterans in the previous sitting fortnight, when he sat there rolling his eyes, refusing to shake their hands, folding his arms. He was very annoyed that he was missing out on having coffee at Government House. We have a Minister for Veterans' Affairs who prioritises social engagements over dealing with the fundamental issues that impact veterans and their families. That is what we have with this veterans minister, with his decision to place a cap on allied health services. And we're talking about health services to help the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. We're talking about providing health services to veterans. But with this government, 'Computer says no.' This government has no empathy towards these veterans. It comes at them with malice. It comes at them with the demonic look of accountants who are concerned about saving money rather than saving lives. And I say, shame on this minister. He should resign or be sacked. (Time expired) 15:06 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to take note on a couple of questions that were put today, if I have time, but first I want to talk about illicit tobacco. And I want to clarify, for the record, that I was a smoker in my previous life. If I hadn't had my three packets of cigarettes a day between Perth and Darwin and back, there was something wrong. Thankfully I don't partake anymore. But I want to talk in layman's terms about driving through the suburbs in the best part of Australia—where you and I are from, Deputy President Brockman—and every fifth or sixth shop is a tobacco shop. And I see, like every other senator travelling through this great country, in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, tobacco shops everywhere. And I think to myself that it doesn't matter who you talk to—if you're on a plane, if you're in the airport, if you're at the train station or if you're at the footy—everyone relates these tobacco shops to the underworld, to the crooks, to the thieves, to the worst of the worst of society and the trash that is left in the distribution of illicit tobacco. Yet—and this might get me into a few pickles with some of my own, but I really don't care—as a hardworking taxpayer and Aussie for 50-odd years in this nation, I can tell you, if I broke the law in my previous employment as a truck driver and I happened to go past a policeman in my truck and I was doing a little bit more than five kay over, I got pulled over and I copped a fine; I got a good whack. And trust me, I got quite a few good whacks on my way home. And I can say this to every hard worker in Australia: it gets a little bit hard to accept that these crooks under everyone's noses can keep getting away with it. But I will defend this spend from the government. I've got to do that, because there is a good spend. But for crying out loud, is it that hard to go in and shut it down? Is it that hard to go and get these crooks? The ABF are doing a magnificent job on our borders, and good on the ABF, and I see some of the figures here. There's a kilotonne of illegal tobacco. In my world, you got paid by the tonne or by the cubic metre. Think about a thousand tonnes of tobacco. If a kilo of tobacco fell on your head as you walked past a building site, it wouldn't hurt. But if a kilo of bricks fell on your head as you passed a building site, it damn well would hurt. So start thinking about the volume of a thousand tonnes of leaf, let alone the 3½ million vapes and all that sort of stuff. The ABF have cut these crooks off at the borders, and good on the ABF, as I said before. But for crying out loud. I listened to Minister Wong's response, and it's a very encouraging response. But as she said quite clearly, it can't be done just by us in federal Labor. This is about the states. From my hard work in industry, where I come from, if you made a mistake in your logbook—and I'm not going to hang the regulator out to dry here; they just enforce crap laws—you're going to get a good fine. If you make a spelling mistake in your logbook, a poor old truckie on your way to work or on your way home, you're going to cop a damn good fine, too—around 800 bucks, for a spelling mistake. We can't get this trash off the streets. We can't get around to these illegal shops. I'll tell you what: Why don't we do something different in this nation? Why don't we actually put some laws in place and send the mongrels off to jail? Give them a damn good kick in the backside. That's the way to penalise the underworld—lock them all up. I've had an absolute gutful that hardworking decent Aussies always get targeted—the easy ones. It's so easy just to go out there and get the lowest common denominator, the low-hanging fruit. For God's sake, grow some, and put some laws in this nation that locks these mongrels up and get this crap off the streets. And as for reducing the excise, you people are on another planet. You're on drugs. (Time expired) 15:10 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Well, in the least surprising news of anything this week, it appears that an all-expenses-paid trip to Fiji with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change, Minister Bowen, is not all that enticing to world leaders all over the region and the planet. I think there have been invites put out to all of— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Antic, we do need to be relevant to the questions that were asked by the coalition. Senator ANTIC 269375 The economy, yes. Senator Cash I0M It's relevant to the economy. Senator Scarr 282997 He's just getting started. Senator ANTIC 269375 It is relevant though. Deputy President, I appreciate your diligence and knowledge of the rules, but I have just started. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 It seemed to be a fair way off, but I will listen with interest. Senator ANTIC 269375 Well, of course, the point of the exercise is that, in order to facilitate it, there has been the proposed expenditure of $20 million of Australian taxpayer money. You would think, when it came to legitimate spends in our economy, that would be not the highest priority for this government right now. It is $20 million at a time when Australians can't pay their mortgages, can't pay their rent. Some can't turn on their lights because of the energy costs in this country—the $275 rebate that never was. But of course, what it does remind us of is that, despite this incredible spending, we're talking about spending something like a trillion dollars in the coming years over transmission lines. We heard news this week that Australian marine scientists are releasing their annual audit of the Great Barrier Reef, which shows that, in actual fact, despite all that spend in an economy which can't afford it, the coral reef is steadily growing across the system. In fact, in the last 40 years, despite the incredible spending that this government has put into this area, the last five years have been the best five years for the reef. So what is this government talking about when it comes to spending money on going to Fiji for an all-expenses-paid trip? Let's just repeat that, by the way: the last five years of the Great Barrier Reef have been the best five years in terms of the growth of the Great Barrier Reef. It's like the scientists measured it, nature shrugged and the apocalypse failed its performance review. Models in 2012 predicted that the coral would vanish by 2022, and here we are. Newspapers wrote the obituaries. Governments wrote the cheques. Magazines declared the reef officially deceased after 25 billion years. Cue the sad violin music, cue the spending spree from government, but none of it is eventuating. The coral apparently hasn't subscribed to the right journals over the last few years. It went on a growth spurt. Now, you can hear the government saying, 'Well, you know, that may be true. It may be true that the coral is growing. It may be true that we've got more coral than ever. But the outlook looks very poor notwithstanding that, so let's pack ourselves off to Fiji.' It'll probably be just the three of them by the time they get there. 'Let's put $20 million worth of taxpayers' money into the back pocket, and let's take ourselves over there.' Governments all across the world have spent billions of dollars over the last few years on this area of so-called climate change. It's almost like it's gone silent, though, as a result of the intervention of the AI data centre theme.It's like the memo hasn't been picked up by Minister Bowen, who still thinks that this is a way he can write a cheque for himself and his friends to turn up in Fiji in Hawaiian shirts and take the taxpayer largesse as if it were his own money and as if he were writing his own cheque. So let's check back next August and see how the coral's going. The planet's funeral keeps getting delayed because, of course, climate change is the real conspiracy theory. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I will just remind all senators that we do need to be relevant to the questions asked and answered. We do allow wide-ranging debates, but they need to be linked to the questions. 15:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales One of the questions that was asked this afternoon in question time here in the place where we're supposed to be focusing on the Australian people and what's really happening for the Australian people was a question about the economy. I just want to take note of an interjection that was made. I don't know if it was recorded by Hansard or not. As Senator Wong stood to make her contribution with regard to the fact that it is a difficult economic environment and that Australians are under some pressure, the comment from Senator McKenzie across the chamber was, 'Oh, empathy—tick!' as if she's got some sort of a checklist about the performative nature of what goes on here, because that is the only currency that that senator understands. I won't tarnish all of the senators in this place with that, but the behaviour we see day in and day out from Senator McKenzie was absolutely on display in an insulting way to every single Australian who is doing it tough, with smart-alecry, as if what we do doesn't matter. The reality is this government is hearing the challenges that face Australians. We do know that there have been difficult times, and we delivered tax reform that is about delivering tax cuts for workers, giving a fair go to first home buyers and better aligning the treatment of work with income earned in other ways. So far, rather than just a 'tick for empathy', we deserve an awful lot more acknowledgement for the changes that have actually happened in a positive way for Australians in their lives. It doesn't mean that everything's been fixed; that would be a foolish statement to make. But the fact is, as we stand here and we speak to this matter of the economy and the Australian people, this government has reduced the tax burden on 13 million Australians. If we're doing it tough today, we would have been doing it a lot tougher if those opposite had got their way, because they have resisted every single reform. That is the party over there, asking the questions about the economy, who wanted to go to the last election with a higher-tax agenda. That would not have been good for Australians. Labor policy understands how tough it is to get into a house, and that's why we're supporting 75,000 more Australians to get into the housing market. And all you hear from the other side is the whingeing, the moaning, the smart-alecry and the cynicism. I know cynicism is very fashionable. I know it gets eyeballs. I know it sells papers. I know it makes you look like you're smart and clever. But do you know what? Cynicism, in my life—I've never seen it build a single thing. I've never seen smart-alecry deliver one good thing for someone in need—never. Cynicism is a crime. Cynicism builds nothing and destroys everything, including hope and including the unity that this country needs. The knives being thrown at unity in this parliament through the types of questions that are asked and in the language that is performed, not just on the back benches but on the front benches, are pitting one Australian against another. The standard we see here day in and day out is a disgrace and inflicts further pain. It inflicts further pain on ordinary Australians who need their government to stand up and help them with practical things like those this government is delivering—tax cuts, higher wages, Medicare. (Time expired) 15:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I agree with Senator O'Neill that there is an issue of cynicism, and, as Oscar Wilde said, the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I accept that. But I also think, when you bring about such fundamental changes to the taxation system as we saw through the Labor budget, the responsible thing to do—for those who are closest to the impact of those changes and those who are seeing the impact on the property market and consumer confidence on the ground—is to listen. That's not cynicism. That's actually listening to the people who know most about what's happening. I want to quote from the Property Council of Australia chief executive Mike Zorbas as quoted in the Australian Financial Review. He's urged the Labor Prime Minister and state and territory leaders to 'take urgent steps to revive confidence and ensure the continued delivery of housing'. He refers to it as a 'falling knife' market where 'buyers are wary of investment risks', and he goes on to say that 'buyer confidence is at all-time lows and new housing supply is dropping off a cliff'. We want new housing supply, but the consequence flowing from the Labor Party's budget has been that new housing supply is falling off a cliff. The Labor government should listen very carefully to those who are most connected with what is happening on the ground in terms of the property market. Some veterans attended parliament today, and I compliment Senator Cash on her question in relation to the action the veterans took. In doing so, I want to remind everyone of a few fundamental facts. There are 25,000 veterans each year who exceed the $5,000 allied health care cap—25,000. The biggest question I'd raise is: how are you going to process 25,000 applications by veterans who go over that $5,000 cap? The discussion paper that's been released—and I've printed out a copy of it—has a proposed model for additional services. It's got six steps here, and it asks the veterans how the process should work for veterans with complex or ongoing health needs. The department's asking the veterans: 'Tell us how the system that you don't want should be implemented.' All I see in this discussion paper is bureaucracy and the potential for delays and the potential for veterans to lose out on the health care they need. The Labor government should reconsider this $5,000 cap. I don't think it's going to work in practice. I think you've made a rod for your own backs, and I think you should strategically withdraw and say that this was a mistake. I don't think it's going to work in practice. In relation to excise, I compliment the sentiments of Senator Sterle. When I drive home from my office, I see—and we're all seeing—this extremely large increase in the number of tobacconist shops that are opening everywhere. It's in fact impossible for law enforcement to keep on top of it. That's the reality. Organised crime is earning between $4 billion and $7 billion a year from this illegal trade because excise has gone up too high and everyday Australians can't afford to buy cigarettes unless they go to the illegal providers. The system needs to change. The system's broken and the excise system needs to change— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Climate Change, Defence 54 15:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) and the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today. It was an extraordinary response from Minister Wong on Defence bases. The minister said: Everything I do and everything the government is doing is working to deter and avert conflict. That came from Minister Wong, the foreign minister in a government which was the first government on the planet to back in Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's most recent war of aggression on Iran—their war of choice on Iran—which has thrown the world's energy supplies into chaos, driven up inflation here and seen job losses in Australia, global insecurity and hundreds of Iranian children killed in the first 24 hours. That's the war that Minister Wong and her government supported. That's the war that the Albanese Labor government supported. Then we get Minister Wong coming in here and having the gall to say that everything she does and everything the Albanese government is doing is working to 'deter and avert conflict'. They cheered this war in. Then, when pressed on the hundred-plus US bases that are in Australia—either total US bases or bases to which they have guaranteed access—Minister Wong came out with this doublespeak, talking about 'inviting' a foreign military into a hundred bases in this country. This is a foreign military—not ours. This is another country's military, and Minister Wong said: … we ensure that Australian sovereignty is maintained in relation to the framework of US rotational force posture. What absolute gumph that was! The force posture agreement signed between Australia and the US, apparently with 'full respect for Australian sovereignty', also contains in it a provision that says it gives US forces and contractors 'unimpeded access to and use of' Australian facilities. That's what this government does in a hundred-plus military bases around this country. Then, when we asked, 'Will you concede that putting up these US bases puts a target on us?' we got a complete failure to engage with that from the government, because they know it does. It's not just the Greens saying it—and my whole party is saying it. Look at what Dr Emma Shortis from the Australia Institute has said. The Director of the International and Security Affairs Program at the Australia Institute, in relation to the attacks on US bases, says this: Trump has demonstrated that it's all contingent, it's all insecure … And what he has also highlighted—particularly with his illegal war in Iran—is the way those US bases themselves become targets. It doesn't matter what you do, it doesn't matter how much you give him, you can literally give him a plane, and it's not enough, he will not defend those bases. When it comes to involving us in the next war, Emma Shortis says this: Instead of having the option of saying 'no' to involvement in United States wars, involvement becomes the default position. That's what Labor has delivered—inviting the wolf here and putting a frontline of the next US war right through this continent. Senator Waters asked a critical question about what this government is doing to stop pumping in the carbon pollution that is leading to disasters around this world. To Labor's shame, when asked about the obvious connection between the melting glaciers and the disaster in Nepal and the links to carbon pollution—Australia is the second-largest fossil fuel exporter, and Labor has an appalling record of having approved 37 new and extended coal or gas mines—Minister Wong said, 'Don't play politics.' Well, the Greens see Labor playing politics every time they put their hand out and take money from the fossil fuel industry. We see Labor playing politics every time they try and deny the connection between the increasing disasters we see around the world—the extreme heat in Europe, the wildfires in North America and this appalling disaster in Nepal. Our Foreign minister denies it, but perhaps Minister Wong could listen to what Nepal's Foreign minister, Minister Khanal, said: … we are paying the ultimate price for a global crisis we did not create. The rapid melting of glaciers and these catastrophic mountain tsunamis are direct consequences of global climate change. Nepal's Foreign minister gets it; it's just a crying shame that Australia's doesn't. Question agreed to. Superannuation 55 15:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to superannuation. Today I asked the government about superannuation and One Nation's proposal to have a superannuation scheme where workers have the ability to take one-quarter or three per cent of their super out of their existing fund or moving forward. Australians are working hard, yet rent, mortgage payments, groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance keep swallowing more of their pay. One Nation believes Australians need relief now, not decades from now. Our three per cent super pay boost will give renters and owners-occupiers a choice. For up to three years, they can receive one-quarter of their future compulsory super contributions as tax advantaged take-home pay. Employers will keep paying the full 12 per cent. At least nine per cent will remain invested for retirement, while three per cent can be paid directly by the super fund into the member's bank account. Existing super balances will remain untouched. Participation will be voluntary and limited to people paying rent or a mortgage on a home they live in, not investment properties. The payment will retain the concessional tax treatment it would receive inside super. A full-time worker earning about $90,500 could receive around $2,300 a year or $44 a week after tax. A working couple earning $168,000 could receive about $4,300 a year or $82 a week. Employers face no payroll changes, new reporting or extra costs. Australians should decide whether their money helps them in retirement or keeps a roof over their heads today. One Nation trusts Australians with that choice. Labor believes superannuation is their piggy bank. Industry super funds collect billions of dollars in fees from workers comp compulsory retirement savings, while millions of dollars flow from those funds into Labor Party coffers. Labor is not acting in Australians' best interests. It is protecting the super fund fee machine and the flow of donations into its own party coffers. One Nation has never, ever advocated to get rid of super or make changes to it. We support it, and we support superannuation. What Labor isn't saying is that most people who retire don't even touch their superannuation. So you're best to help the Australians now who are struggling with the cost of living. I'd rather see those people keep the roof over their head, not lose their home. Support them now rather than what happens about 30 or 40 years down the track. Question agreed to. NOTICES 56 NOTICES Presentation 56 CONDOLENCES 59 CONDOLENCES Margetts, Dr Diane Elizabeth 59 15:32 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 16 August 2026, of Dr Diane Elizabeth (Dee) Margetts, a senator for the state of Western Australia from 1993 to 1999. I understand that arrangements will be made to move a motion of condolence at a future date. BUSINESS 59 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 59 15:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, on Wednesday, 9 September 2026; and (b) Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, on Thursday, 10 September 2026. Question agreed to. NOTICES 60 NOTICES Postponement 60 COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 60 BUSINESS 60 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 60 15:33 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Nampijinpa Price for 7 September 2026, for personal reasons; (b) Senator McGrath for 8 September 2026, for personal reasons; (c) Senator Colbeck from 7 September to 10 September 2026, on account of parliamentary business; and (d) Senator Chandler from 7 September 2026 to 30 April 2027, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. BILLS 60 BILLS Diplomatic Appointments (Selection Process) Bill 2026 60

Diplomatic Appointments (Selection Process) Bill 2026

First Reading 60 15:34 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a selection process for certain diplomatic appointments, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator PAYMAN 300707 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 60 15:35 Senator PAYMAN 300707 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. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026 60

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

First Reading 60 15:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I present the bill 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 61 15:37 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 in relation to the bill. Leave granted. I seek leave to have the second reading incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill proposes a straightforward solution to a growing problem affecting millions of Australians, across the breadth of the country and its many different communities. It does exactly what its title suggests: incentivising companies to donate surplus food to food relief charities by providing them with a tax offset in relation to the expenses they incur. We know too well that the nation is grappling with a protracted cost-of-living crisis, driven largely by inflation, which has seen a sharp rise in household expenses—from rising rents and mortgages to energy and groceries. Food is, of course, among the most pressing of these issues for Australian families struggling to manage their financial commitments. As a result, Australians who have never before experienced food stress are joining what is now a deeply concerning statistic. The most recent Foodbank Australia Hunger Report published in 2025 found that in the previous 12 months, almost 3.5 million, or one in every three, households had experienced food insecurity. The cost-of-living remained the single greatest contributor to food insecurity, as cited by 79% of food insecure households. Many Australians are experiencing this significant challenge for the first time, with Foodbank reporting in 2025 that 70% of Australian households who faced food insecurity in the last year reported it as their first encounter with such a situation. In 2022 Foodbank reported that 59% of those presenting to the charity for food assistance had a job, and nearly a quarter had a mortgage—neither had previously been a characteristic of their clients. This spike in food insecurity is, unfortunately, taking place amid a culture of widespread food dumping and wastage. Australia domestically produces enough food to feed the country three times over, yet it is reported that 7.6 million tonnes of food are being wasted each year. This both costs the economy an estimated $36.6 million annually and deprives those in need of what is largely edible food. In fact, about 70% of discarded food is fit for consumption, but is generally being thrown away because it is cheaper than finding other alternatives—including donating it to food relief charities. That is precisely why this Bill, which makes relatively minor amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, is being introduced. The model was initially developed by Foodbank Australia and its partners and was subsequently modelled for its economic impact by KMPG, whose recommendations were published in reports from 2020 and 2023. It has subsequently been built upon in close consultation with Australian charities and other impacted sectors, but still closely resembles the original model with a view to efficiency and simplicity. To be eligible for a tax benefit, companies must be constitutional corporations engaged in donating or selling food to registered charities or providing services to charities in relation to food donation and have a receipt from the charities concerned. Where payment is received by a company for its food donation activities, only the shortfall between the payment and costs incurred is claimable. The tax offset covers the costs incurred by the company in its food donation activities in an income year. The tax offset is capped at the lower of $5 million or a percentage of the food donation costs. The percentage is based on the company's aggregated turnover. For those with a turnover of less than $20 million, it is a refundable offset of 45% of costs incurred. Companies with a turnover of $20 million or more but less than $50 million are eligible for a non-refundable offset of 40% of costs incurred, while those with a turnover of $50 million or more are eligible for a non-refundable offset of 30% of their costs. This initiative is not aimed at, or intended to be taken up by large operators, who already undertake significant food donation work. Therefore care has been taken to restrict companies that are classified as a large retailer, a large wholesaler, or a very large retailer, from accessing the scheme. The Bill is specific about what can be claimed regarding food donation-related expenses, including food production, storage and transport costs—and what cannot, including business overheads, insurance, visas or work permits, and marketing for the food donation activities. It also contains a suite of integrity measures, among them limiting the claimable amount for goods and services purchased from entities not at arm's length from a company to their market value. Importantly, this is a temporary measure, capable of being extended if needed based on both economic circumstances and efficacy. It contains a sunset clause at three years, at which time an independent review of the benefit of an extension or not must be ordered by the relevant Minister and tabled in Parliament. There is a genuine need for an incentive of this type that presents suppliers with a viable option to donate food, rather than disposing of it. Unsurprisingly, it enjoys wide support across all relevant sectors. Foodbank Australia has received endorsements from the other major Australian food relief services and 58 other prominent food and grocery producers, sector groups, charities and companies—among them the National Farmers' Federation, Australian Food and Grocery Council, National Retail Association, Anglicare and Catholic Social Services Australia. This is a simple, proactive policy, introduced on behalf of Australian households struggling with food insecurity and the food relief charities working to support them through the cost-of-living crisis. It is a Bill for our times and circumstances, representing a practical solution to a crisis presenting very real challenges for many Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 62 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment (Income Management and Enhanced Income Management) Instrument 2026 62 Disallowance 62 15:38 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That items 1 and 3 to 5 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment (Income Management and Enhanced Income Management) Instrument 2026, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2026L00828]. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2 be agreed to.

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

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 24 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) 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. Walker, C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Animal Welfare 63 Order for the Production of Documents 63 15:45 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 17 September 2026, all animal welfare incident reports generated by abattoir management personnel and/or on-plant veterinarians at, during and after transport to export-registered abattoirs between 1 January and 31 December 2022. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 25 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) 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. Walker, C. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MOTIONS 63 MOTIONS International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 63 15:48 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 A vote was not taken on the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge on Thursday 20 August 2026, general business notice of motion No. 634 on Australia's military relationship with the United States. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 28 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) 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. Walker, C. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 64 MATTERS OF URGENCY Climate Change 64 15:51 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 15 on today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Labor government to stop approving coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis, with their 37th coal and gas project approved as a climate disaster unfolds in Nepal and Tibet. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 It being supported, with the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Labor government to stop approving coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis, with their 37th coal and gas project approved as a climate disaster unfolds in Nepal and Tibet. The world watched in horror as a wall of ice, rock and water tore through the Himalayas—more than a thousand people confirmed dead, thousands more still missing, whole villages erased. A glacier collapsed because the planet is heating, and the planet is heating because of the burning of coal and gas. Nepal's foreign minister put it plainly this week—Nepal's share of global emissions is less than a tenth of one per cent. Then he asked the question that every wealthy, polluting country now has to answer: 'How fair is it for the Nepali people and people of the Himalayas to bear the burden of climate change, where we've had very little contribution to it?' How fair is it? It's not fair. It's obscene, and Australia, one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters on the planet, is helping to cause it. When the Prime Minister was asked about climate change and this disaster, what did he say? He said, 'Now is not the time for that debate.' Well, tell that to the families digging through the mud to find their children. If not now, when? After the next glacier? After the next town is swept away? This is what 30 years of kicking the can down the road looks like. The harm is now impossible to ignore, and still the polluters keep profiting and shovelling the risk onto ordinary people, and this Labor government is a willing accomplice. While the Prime Minister was in the Pacific, talking up Australia's climate credentials, his minister for resources was cutting the ribbon on the Beetaloo basin gas fracking project, and, days later, they waved through yet another coal mining expansion in Queensland—the 37th new fossil fuel project approved by Labor. Pacific leaders have called out that hypocrisy to our faces. Every one of those approvals is a choice: fossil fuel profits over the survival of those nations. And it's coming for us too. The United Nations warned last week that the coming El Nino is expected to be the strongest since records began. We are six days out of winter, and, in my home state of Queensland, there are fires burning in the Lockyer Valley and you wake up to bushfire warnings on the morning radio. Flying into Canberra last night I watched the smoke and the red glow of bushfires from the plane—six days out of winter. The UN's climate agency says the world is in a danger zone of extreme weather and that we are on track to blow through 1½ degrees. For Australia, that means more bushfires, more floods, more cyclones, more heatwaves, more homes lost, more lives lost, and more wildlife, more reef and more country gone for good. The climate crisis is not coming. It is here. It is destroying nature now. It is killing people now. And it is driven by pollution from coal and gas. Every new approval this government signs has a body count. It looks like floodwaters raging through the Himalayas. It looks like Black Saturday. It looks like 35,000 heat deaths across Europe. This is not some impossible problem. Keep the goddamn coal and gas in the ground. Stop letting your donors—Woodside, Tamboran, Adani—buy you off with donations and jobs for when you leave parliament. Stop working for their corporate interests while you're in here. People are dying. The planet is on fire, and this government keeps pouring fuel on it. The government could stop it now, so do it. Stop approving coal and gas. 15:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Once again, I'd like to emphasise, to our wonderful Nepalese Australian community, that this parliament stands in solidarity with you. Our Nepalese Australian community is one of our fastest-growing diaspora communities, and we see the wonderful contribution they make through the work they do in professions, in businesses, in small businesses and in our health sector. In every aspect of our community we see the contribution that is made by our Nepalese Australian community. In that respect, I also want to note that I've attended a number of events with our Nepalese Australian community. They've opened up their festivals to all Australians, including in my home state of Queensland. I'm sure Senator Waters would agree with respect to that matter. To be open, I don't feel comfortable debating an issue such as this urgency motion at this point in time. That's my own personal position. I think the focus needs to be on providing our support, our solidarity with our Nepalese Australian community. I understand and appreciate that the Greens have a different perspective, but from my perspective it should be all about working out what we can do to support that community. In that regard, I congratulate the government with respect to the support it's provided to date in response to the disaster. I also note that members of the Nepalese community have contacted me and have provided their desire to contribute to the relief efforts occurring in Nepal. I think one thing the government could consider in the medium to longer term as Australia continues to provide its support to the Nepalese Australian community is how we can use the human bridge between our Nepalese Australian community and the people of Nepal to provide assistance to Nepal in the medium to long term. And I advocate for that assistance to be provided in the medium to long term. In that regard, I welcome the fact that Angus Taylor, the opposition leader, has provided his support for measures the government undertakes to support the Nepalese Australian community and to support Nepal as it goes through the rebuilding and restructuring process. We're still in the phase of trying to rescue everyone who's able to be rescued. Again, I provide my compliments and support to those engaged in the rescue activities, including many Australians. It is extraordinarily heartwarming and inspiring to see the efforts that are occurring on the ground. Every day, including just yesterday, we hear of new survivors being rescued so many days after these catastrophic events, and that is heartwarming. I want to provide my solidarity to the Nepalese Australian community. I want to provide my support to those engaged in the rescue and relief efforts. And I want to advocate for the Australian government, whoever's in government—it doesn't matter—to commit whatever supports are necessary in the short term in support of the rescue efforts and the relief efforts but also to commit the assistance Nepal will need in the medium to long term as it seeks to rebuild after this catastrophe. The government has the support of the opposition and the opposition leader. One of the reasons for that is the wonderful contribution that is made by our Nepalese Australian community. We see it every day. They are part of the Australian story and will always be part of the Australian story. At this very difficult time, they should know that the Australian people have their arms wrapped around our Nepalese Australian community in solidarity and support. I once again thank those leaders of the Nepalese Australian community who are providing such great leadership, even at a time when they're going through their own personal pain. 16:01 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia What has occurred in Nepal is catastrophic, and the scenes that we see on our television sets in the evening are horrific. I express my condolences to the people of Nepal, Tibet and China as well as the families of Australians impacted by this incredibly confronting natural disaster. Thousands of residents, visitors and pilgrims are missing, and there are at least 36 Australians among them. Our thoughts are with their families. I can't imagine the agony that family and friends feel at the moment with missing loved ones or knowing that loved ones have been seriously injured or killed. Today is a national day of mourning in Nepal, and we join in that mourning for those who've suffered as a consequence of this disaster. The situation on the ground is incredibly difficult, and the road to recovery is going to be long and challenging. I am very proud of what Australia is doing to assist in that, and I commend all those involved in the efforts, not only from around the world but also from Australia, who are on the ground right now. Almost 50 Australian officers have been deployed to the region to support search and rescue efforts; specialist Australian drone operators are in Nepal now, using rapid mapping and imaging technology to support searches; and the AFP's disaster victim identification specialist unit are also on the ground to assist. The Australian government has committed $11 million in humanitarian assistance, and a Royal Australian Air Force C-17 has delivered almost 24 tonnes of humanitarian aid to date. I would echo the comments of Senator Scarr in terms of the role Australia has to play in this and the bipartisan and indeed multipartisan efforts needed to support people in our region when they're faced with disasters. I think that's not only an instrumentally good thing to do as a neighbour but also a moral obligation, and it's one that Australia has always taken very seriously and continues to take seriously today. I also share some of the discomfort raised by Senator Scarr about the bringing on of this motion in this way today. There is no doubt that the causes of this disaster will become more evident, and I think we can all accept as a starting point that climate change is making natural disasters worse and more frequent. But I think that trying to link these two things in this kind of motion is not really appropriate at this point in time. It really is an attempt to score political points in the midst of a tragedy, and I think that is disgraceful. If you want to have a debate about how climate policy is unfolding in this country and whether the speed of that transition is fast enough or too fast, I think that's an appropriate thing to do. What I would also say is that I'm proud of the Albanese government's efforts in terms of taking strong action on climate change. There's a commitment to changing the entire Australian energy system. There's a commitment to net zero, and that commitment has been backed up by real policies that are seeing real action now. Climate change is real, acting is important and this government has taken significant action to bring down emissions. The latest quarterly update of Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory shows a 7.5 million tonne drop in emissions over the year to March 2026. The same report shows coal fired power in the national electricity market is down four per cent, gas is down 17 per cent and renewables are up by 13 per cent. Compared to 2005, emissions in Australia are down 25 per cent, and the government has committed the country and is moving the country towards a significantly reduced emissions profile as we transition to net zero. We've had a number of these motions in this place, and we've debated it a number of times. This transition is one that is also going to be facilitated by the use of gas as a firming fuel. There are lots of different ways on lots of different models you can move to a complete transition to net zero and move to a clean energy grid. One of them, the one that the government has begun to implement, is to transition as much of the grid onto renewables as is possible and to have that firmed up by gas generation. That means that gas is still going to have a role as the electricity system moves towards 82 per cent renewables in the short term, because gas generation can be used rapidly, turned on and turned off when required, to support grid reliability. It's an important part of how we achieve that, not just as grid-firming and back-up but also as system stability, because intermittents are exactly as they say. They're not always certain, and gas turbines provide crucial system support to stabilise grids as more variable renewables are integrated. I think this motion is misguided, but I'm proud of the government on actions both on Nepal and on climate change. (Time expired) 16:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Obviously, scientists will take time to look at exactly what happened in Nepal, and we should not get ahead of them, but we do know that there are tipping points, and I fear that we are starting to see some of these tipping points in the news. Just as climate scientists are warning us about this future that we are beginning to live, the Albanese government is going down a different path. They are continuing to approve extensions of projects at an extraordinary scale, at a time when we know that we have more than enough for the transition and when the International Energy Agency and others have been very clear that, if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, we cannot continue to expand the coal and gas industry. We should use what we have for the transition and get serious about that transition, doing it in a way that actually improves the lives of Australians, that reduces energy prices, that increases resilience in communities, that looks at both mitigation but also as adaptation. Adaptation is something that is sorely missing in terms of focus from both of the major parties. It's no wonder that the Albanese Labor government continues to hide the Office of National Intelligence's climate and security risk assessment. They don't want anyone to know just how bad their assessment is for the Pacific, for our neighbours and for our region, and what that will mean when we start to see cascading climate fuelled disasters and just how hard it is going to be to keep pace with that. (Time expired) 16:08 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria We are in the teeth of a climate emergency. In Australia, we're all too familiar with fires and floods. In fact, I think these have become dangerously normalised. What we witnessed in Nepal was something else altogether. This was an apocalyptic event. It was much more than the floods that we're familiar with here in Australia. I think this was not just a glacial collapse, but it was the liquefaction of a mountain. This is what happens to mountains in a warming world. If this was a wake-up call, it was a wake-up call in the worst possible way, but it was followed soon after by another wake-up call, and that was the UN report. The UN have clearly stated now that we are on track to breach 1½ degrees, and we are heading towards a world of 2.6 degrees. That is an unliveable planet. But I take heart from one thing and I take heart from history. Back in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, the world was on track to hit four degrees. In fact, we've managed to shave over one degree from that target. We're not going to reach four degrees at all. In fact, I think it'll be far less than that. So nothing is preordained when it comes to climate progress. In fact, what this emphasises to me is that we need to double down, redouble our efforts, when it comes to climate action. As a federal government, I will use this urgency motion to talk about our climate action because I think it is fine to stand in solidarity with the people of Nepal and provide emergency assistance, which is what we are doing now. But I think it behoves us to also talk about what we are doing as a federal government on climate action, and I'm very happy to speak about our track record. In 2022 we were the first government in Commonwealth history to legislate the Climate Change Act, and that was done in collaboration with the Greens political party. What it did was drive a stake into the ground. We ran up our colours on that mast and we said that we mean business. Australia is open for business but we mean business. We are committed to net zero by 2050. So while Senator Scarr had absolutely heartfelt sentiments towards the Nepalese people, what we really lack from those opposite in the coalition is a commitment to net zero. In fact, they've walked away from that commitment, and what message does that send to poor countries that do not have the means to actually drive climate action? These are not the people who are responsible for the climate crisis but they are the ones most at risk. From our perspective, we have seen real progress in climate action in this country. When we first came to government in 2022, we had 33 per cent renewable energy in our main grid. We now have 51 per cent renewable energy. We are also using less gas. In 2021-22, we used 2.7 terawatts of gas. In 2025-26, we have dropped that down to 1.5 terawatts of gas. So as more renewables enter the grid, our gas usage falls, and this has largely been driven by Aussie households. They have taken up rooftop solar in droves. Over 500,000 home batteries have been deployed through households throughout this country, and electric vehicle sales are surging. They are booming. When we first came to government, EV sales were at two per cent. They are now at 50 per cent. If you told me that four years ago, I would have said 'you are crazy' and 'you are joking'. We have backed this in with an additional $40 million towards building out kerbside infrastructure so that people can charge their cars from poles that also supply light. But this is not all we're doing. We realise that we need to have alternatives to petrol and diesel and that is why we have committed $1.1 billion towards developing low-carbon fuels, things like biodiesel, sustainable aviation fuels and e-fuels that come from the produce, the feedstock, in our regions—sorghum, canola, sugar cane, bio waste like tallow. Right now we export $4 billion in feedstock like canola to places like Europe, where it is then returned to us as biofuel. We believe that that market will be in the order of $40 billion by 2050 if we can get this going. So you can see how climate policy is also industrial policy in this country. (Time expired) 16:13 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The tragedy in Nepal is a climate warning written in death and destruction. Of course, the people of Nepal, who are paying such an unbearable price for that tragedy, committed almost none of the emissions that have caused it. Here in Australia, a prime minister, whose government is approving coal and gas projects just as fast as it possibly can, says 'now is not the time' to talk about climate change. So when does the Prime Minister think it is okay to talk about climate change? When the eastern seaboard of Australia is on fire again, destroying communities and ecosystems, when Brisbane and Lismore are under water again, can we talk about climate change then? When another Australian community is wiped off the map, is that enough time or an appropriate time, according to the PM, to talk about climate change? When Labor approves another coal or gas mine, are we allowed to talk about climate change then? Labor know exactly what opening new coal and gas projects is doing to our climate, but they approve them anyway. At some stage, when politicians knowingly fuel a crisis that has killed thousands of people just in the last couple of weeks, they have to be called what they are: climate criminals with blood on their hands. Today, Senator Wong accuses the Australian Greens of playing politics by raising these issues. Of course, climate change is political. Opening new coal and gas mines and approving them as fast as you can is political. A Labor minister opening the Beetaloo Basin carbon bomb with a goofy smile on her face, which happened last week, is political. Labor members leaving politics to take board positions and consulting gigs with the corporations who are cooking this planet is political. Ignoring climate science so your mates at Santos and Woodside can make more obscene profits for longer is political. These climate disasters do not arrive through some mysterious force beyond human control. They are being driven by decisions made by governments and made by corporations. Climate change is political. What Senator Wong wants is the right to express sorrow for victims while demanding silence about the decisions that killed them. We're not going to have a bar of it. (Time expired) 16:16 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Ten days ago, a glacier collapsed over the Nepal and Tibet border. Within minutes, walls of water swept away villages, bridges and hydropower tunnels. More than 1,350 people are confirmed dead, and more than 4,000 remain missing. I extend my deepest condolences to everyone who has suffered and has been affected by this disaster. This is what happens when glaciers collapse, when mountains thaw, when the climate crisis stops being a PowerPoint slide and becomes a body count. Yet, this week, the Labor government approved its 37th coal and gas project since 2022. The Saraji mine expansion in Queensland will dig 55 million tonnes of coal, release 120 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and keep burning until 2055. That is more pollution than Australia's entire transport sector every year. How do we explain this to a mother in Nuwakot pulling her child's body from the mud? How do we tell the people of Nepal, who are now demanding climate compensation from the world's biggest emitters, that Australia cares about the Pacific, cares about climate justice, cares about anything other than the next export contract? You can't claim climate leadership while signing off on climate destruction. The crossbench has been prosecuting ideas gathering dust in Labor platform documents—a windfall profits tax on gas exporters, making multinationals pay their fair share and reinvigorating manufacturing—so that we are not simply digging up and shipping off our future. None of this is revolutionary. None of it is radical. It is what the people demand. Pragmatism cannot mean approving coal mines while the world burns. 16:18 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria My heart goes out to everyone in Nepal and Tibet who has lost a loved one, a livelihood or a home and to those still desperately waiting for news. I lost my mum in the 2009 tsunami, and I know something of the grief that a disaster that arrives suddenly and changes everything can bring. My heart breaks for every single family experiencing that grief today. But, as we mourn them, we owe it to them to be honest. We need to be honest about what is causing these disasters and what is making them more and more devastating. There is nothing natural about fossil-fuel-driven climate change melting glaciers, destabilising the Himalayas and making floods and landslides more dangerous. The cruellest part of all is that the people living through this crisis contributed the least to it. Nepal has contributed almost nothing to the emissions driving global warming, yet the Nepalese are paying the ultimate price. And what is Australia doing? We are throwing fuel on the fire. Last week, Labor approved another coal project, the 37th new coal or gas project since coming to power—37 too many coal and gas projects. At the same time, Labor is celebrating new fracking in the Beetaloo Sub-basin, with the Minister for Resources grinning from ear to ear, while the Prime Minister was in the Pacific talking up Australia's climate leadership. I mean, what a contradiction. What a disgrace. People see through this doublespeak. Pacific island leaders, civil society, people on the front lines—they see through this. Thoughts and prayers simply do not cut it in 2026. Those thoughts and prayers will not stop climate disasters. You cannot offer condolences with one hand and cut the ribbon for new fossil fuel projects with the other. How many more people need to die? The climate crisis is here now, but Labor's leadership is nowhere to be seen. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

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

Question negatived.

Tobacco Control 69 16:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Cash, which is shown at item 15 on today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's failure to stop the explosion in illicit tobacco that has handed billions to organised crime, fuelled firebombings and violence across our communities, and the need to smash the gangs, destroy their business model and restore the rule of law. Is consideration of the proposal from Senator Cash supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's failure to stop the explosion in illicit tobacco that has handed billions to organised crime, fuelled firebombings and violence across our communities, and the need to smash the gangs, destroy their business model and restore the rule of law. It is a fact, sadly, that Australia has an organised crime crisis. What is worse, though, is that the Albanese government has allowed this organised crime crisis to flourish. What Labor did was they kept hiking up the tobacco taxes. What then happened was the legal market collapsed, the black market exploded, the gangs made billions and Australians, sadly, got the violence. That is the Albanese government's shameful record. Today, a legal packet of cigarettes can cost around $50—even more. An illegal packet can cost between, say, $10 and $15. You don't need to have an economics degree to work out what happens next. Labor has handed organised crime a huge price advantage, and, sadly, the organised crime gangs have driven a truck through it—billions that they have made that fuel drugs, money laundering, extortion, violence, firebombings. In Victoria alone, there have now been almost 200 tobacco related arsons and six homicides in this trade. Shops have been firebombed. Businesses have been threatened. Communities have been terrorised. This is not some harmless black market. This is organised crime in Australian suburbs, where mums and dads live, and, sadly, the reality is—and this can't be denied, because the statistics actually support this—it has exploded under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's watch. But, as we saw in question time today, when questions were posed to Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister, it's always someone else's fault. Senator Wong's response was effectively, 'Well, if the states don't come to the party, there's not a lot that the Commonwealth can do.' There it is again. This is what this government does. The statistics are there in front of them. We have an organised crime crisis in Australia that has allowed the illegal tobacco trade to flourish, and what has Labor done? They sit back and they say that it's someone else's fault. They blame the states, blame somebody else, make an excuse—anything but take responsibility. I have a message for the Prime Minister: Australians are not interested in your excuses. They actually want their shops to stop being firebombed. They want someone to put organised crime out of business. And they expect the Commonwealth government to lead. Meanwhile, another reality that's happened under Anthony Albanese is that tobacco excise revenue has collapsed. It peaked at around $16 billion; it is now around $8 billion. Who would have thought—Labor taxes tobacco harder; the government collects billions less! The gangs, on the other hand—the organised crime gangs in Australia—make billions more, and Australians get the firebombings. Only Labor could tax something more, raise less money and make organised crime in Australia all the wealthier. That is not policy success. That is a catastrophic policy failure. And still Labor refuses to admit the obvious: its approach has failed. We've made it very clear. The coalition is not going to sit by and watch this government destroy Australia. We will do what Labor has been too weak to do and too stubborn to do. We will smash the business model of organised crime. We will cut tobacco excise by 80 per cent, because you cannot smash a black market while guaranteeing the criminals a massive profit margin. Cut the price advantage, cut their customers, cut their profits and then, of course, you've got to hit the criminals with the full force of the law. We will put forward $200 million in terms of a national law enforcement surge—more raids, more seizures, more arrests, shut the illegal shops, follow the money, seize the products and dismantle the organised crime networks behind this trade. Then, we will replace Labor's failed approach to vapes and nicotine with a properly regulated market. The fact of the matter is this: Labor's policy has failed. The black market has exploded, the gangs cashed in, the taxpayer lost billions and Australian communities got the violence. That is the record of Anthony Albanese. Australians got the violence; Labor gave them excuses. The coalition will smash their business model. 16:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania As chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I'm acutely aware of the challenges associated with illicit tobacco importations and the effect they're having across the country. The illicit tobacco trade has become a significant concern in Australia, undermining decades of progress in tobacco control and threatening the safety and wellbeing of communities across the nation. As criminal networks expand their operations, the consequences are felt not only through lost government revenue but also through increased violence, intimidation and harm to honest retailers and workers. Recognising the seriousness of these issues, the Albanese Labor government has reaffirmed its commitment to cracking down on illicit tobacco, positioning this initiative as a cornerstone of its broader efforts to safeguard public health and uphold the integrity of Australian tobacco control policies. Firebombings and other destructive acts are increasingly reported as criminal attempts to control the market and silence those who oppose their operations. Intimidation and threats are used to coerce honest retailers and workers, forcing them to comply or risk their livelihoods and personal safety. The Albanese Labor government recognises the urgent need to address these harms, ensuring that communities are protected and that offenders are brought to justice. As a government, we are acting strongly against these acts, rebalancing the risk-to-reward calculations for criminal actors by raising offence penalties to match the severity of the harms being caused by the illicit tobacco trade and enhancing Australia's proceeds-of-crime regime to ensure it can more effectively target criminal profits generated by illicit tobacco. The government acknowledges that illicit tobacco is not a minor issue; it is a complex problem that demands coordinated action from law enforcement, regulatory bodies and policymakers through increased funding for enforcement agencies, legislative reforms and enhanced cooperation with state and territory governments. The Albanese Labor government is working to dismantle the networks responsible for bringing illicit tobacco into Australia and distributing it across the country. I want to put on record the Albanese Labor government's record in this space. Since 2023-24, the Albanese Labor government has provided $346 million in funding for the Australian Border Force to crack down on illicit tobacco and vaping products. The government also appointed the first-ever illicit tobacco and eSafety Commissioner, with $21.3 million allocated in the 2025-26 budget to help coordinate national effects to combat this illicit trade. Collaboration with state and territory law enforcement is vital in ensuring a unified approach to tackling the problem at every level. The government's focus on legislative reform aims to close loopholes that criminals exploit, making it harder for illicit tobacco to enter and circulate within Australia. Ongoing reviews by enforcement practices ensure that strategies remain effective and responsive to emerging threats. By taking decisive actions against criminal networks we are sending a clear message that we want to put an end to this. We know that Border Force and the Australian Federal Police with the state police are doing what they need to do and are working every single day to stem the flow of illicit tobacco and vapes into Australia. They have enhanced detection, disruption and destruction of illicit tobacco and vapes at the borders and within the community. There is better connection and coordination of efforts across the Commonwealth and the states and territories, including the establishment of the national disruption group. Since January 2024, 14 million vape products and accessories have been seized by Australian Border Force. In just the last six months of last year, more than a billion illicit cigarettes were also seized. We're seeing change in action with more tobacco and vapes seized at the borders, more stores shut down and more criminals convicted. We know there's still more to be done, and we've seen the work in action by this disruption group—led, as I said, by Border Force, bringing together the Commonwealth and the states and territories. We need a coordinated effort. Vapes are not a safe alternative to smoking. Vapes are highly nicotine potent, and there is clear evidence linking vaping and cancer. People who vape are five times more likely to end up smoking. We are committed. We don't accept tobacco donation at elections. It just seems to be ironic that those in the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation who are taking their— (Time expired) 16:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This week the Liberal Party promised an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise after One Nation promised 75 per cent. One Nation first called for a reduction in excise in June 2024, in a Senate debate where I said continuous tax increases would not stop people smoking and would instead fuel the black market, shifting revenue from the government to organised crime, endangering shopping centres and small businesses. And that's exactly what happened. In estimates last December I asked Minister Watt to at least accept that high excise was driving law-abiding citizens into the hands of organised crime. He denied that was the case, a position that flies in the face of reality and truth. Cigarettes do not maim and murder innocent people. They do not firebomb buildings, nor do they destroy innocent businesses. Criminals do all of that, criminals the government are unable to control. This isn't an argument about smoking. It's an argument about crime. For Minister Plibersek to say that our policy to cut the excise will lead to more children smoking shows just how out of touch this government is. Children are already smoking because illicit tobacco cigarettes are already cheap. Do you think a criminal tobacco shop will ask a child for ID? Of course not. They're criminals. The quit smoking lobby are, of course, opposing the measure. These are the people the government funds to hold the line, despite smoking and vaping rates reaching 17.4 per cent and rising—data from Roy Morgan. Recent wastewater testing from the University of Queensland shows smoking rates have increased 150 per cent over the last seven years. This is a combination of new smokers and increases from existing smokers. The only responsible, sensible course now is to reduce the excise, eliminate the criminals and get back to harm cessation. The latest budget has tobacco excise down from a peak—of revenue, that is—of $16 billion in 2019 to $3.5 billion this year, which is lower again over forward estimates. Even the Treasury thinks we're going to lose the fight against organised crime. Years ago, Canada reduced their excise by 65 per cent to combat crime, and government revenue went up, not down. People did the right thing and moved back to the legal product, so will Australians. The World Health Organization first demanded these obscene taxes, and the quislings in government and the health bureaucrats jumped to their command. Meanwhile in Geneva, WHO bureaucrats, World Health Organization bureaucrats, can buy cigarettes with half the duty you have in Australia. Loose tobacco is a quarter of the same excise One Nation are proposing. UN bureaucrats in New York pay just $6.85 a pack in excise. That is less than Australians would pay after our 75 per cent excise cut. Vapes are available in both countries. Those UN hypocrites can access vapes as a smoking cessation, yet we cannot. I call on the government to cut the tobacco excise and tell the UN World Health Organization to get stuffed. (Time expired) 16:41 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia This is an important debate about illicit tobacco. I thank Senator Cash for bringing this important issue before the Senate. What we know is that, across Australia, suburban shopping strips have been firebombed, businesses are being threatened and sadly people are being killed because criminal gangs have often been allowed to take control of the tobacco market. What began as a public health challenge has become a lucrative market for organised crime. The illicit tobacco trade is estimated to be generating between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion for criminal organisations. Those profits do not remain behind the counter of illicit stores; they fund drugs, drug trafficking, drug dealers, scams, money laundering and violence throughout our community. In Victoria alone, there have been almost 200 tobacco related arsons and six homicide crimes linked to the trade. Yet the Albanese government continues to protect the very business model that makes this criminal enterprise so profitable. A legal pack of 20 cigarettes now costs around $50, with approximately $30 of that price made up of government tax. One illicit pack can be sourced in Asia for less than $5 and then sold locally here in Australia for somewhere between $15 and $20. That enormous price difference makes Australia a serious target for organised crime. Every time a customer is pushed from a legitimate retailer, more money flows out of the legal country and into the hands of criminal gangs. Labor's approach has not eliminated demand; it has simply gifted criminals with a highly lucrative market. The coalition's plan will attack the gangs where it hurts: their profits. We'll cut tobacco excise by 80 per cent, reducing the excise for a standard packet of 20 cigarettes from around $30 to just over $6. This will dramatically narrow the price gap between legal and illicit tobacco. It will bring revenue back to Australian businesses and strip billions of dollars from organised crime. But excise reform is not enough. We will back it with a $200 million nationwide law enforcement surge. That means more raids, arrests and seizures; shutting down the illegal tobacco stores; intercepting shipments at the border; and following the money through the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. We will also legalise, regulate and tax vapes and nicotine pouches for adults. Labor's prohibition model, like all of these models, failed. It failed dismally. It has not eliminated these products; it has simply placed their manufacture and sale in the hands of criminals. Australian adults should be purchasing regulated products through legal businesses with strong safeguards preventing their sale to children. This policy is not about encouraging smoking. We want fewer Australians smoking and vaping. That's why our plan includes a $60 million public health campaign. The government cannot pretend that its present approach is succeeding. I ask them: what is your plan? Tobacco consumption has increased substantially since the end of 2021 while the legal market has collapsed and criminals have prospered. The consequences for the budget are equally stark. Tobacco excise revenue has fallen from around $16 billion in 2019-20 to around $8 billion. The coalition analysis indicates that, if Labor's repeated revenue writedowns continue, tobacco excise receipts would fall to zero by 2029-30. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that our package will improve the budget by around $8 billion over four years and more than $20 billion over a decade, principally by bringing tobacco sales back into the legal economy. We will also direct the ACCC to monitor tobacco prices and report publicly, helping to ensure that the excise reduction is passed through to consumers. You cannot defeat organised crime while preserving its competitive advantage. Australians deserve more than a government that watches excise revenue collapse while illegal tobacco shops multiply and criminal violence escalates. They deserve a government prepared to confront the cause of the crisis, not merely manage its consequences. The coalition has a comprehensive plan to restore Australian control of this market, protect legitimate businesses, safeguard our communities and smash the gangs. (Time expired) 16:46 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It should come as no surprise to anyone that I rise to oppose Senator Cash's motion. As the deputy chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I heard evidence on this exact issue, and there seems to be an awful lot of convenient leaving out of facts. The illicit tobacco market did not begin in 2022 when we took government, but it seems like that's the framing we've got in here today. If we want to get into the business of finger pointing, the illicit tobacco market has been growing for years, and it grew because enforcement was allowed to fall behind on the coalition's watch. If those opposite are looking for somebody to blame, all they need to do is look in the mirror. What this government inherited was an absolute mess, and what we have done over on this side is act. The Albanese Labor government has committed more than $365 million since 2024 to crack down on illegal, illicit tobacco before it arrives, when it arrives and after it arrives in the country. We are seeing the impact of that work. More tobacco and vapes are being seized at the border, more stores are being shut down and more criminals are being convicted. We know that states and territories have a role to play too. They need long-term closure orders and landlord penalties. When states have these powers, that can have a real impact in this space. What we are seeing is that states and territories with strong rules and effective powers to shut down illegal sellers are having success. For example, in Queensland and in South Australia, more than a thousand shops have been shut down thanks to their robust enforcement regime. The government is also working with states and territories to tackle the problem. That is why Minister Burke has taken a range of actions, including creating the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group to combat the illegal tobacco trade. The NDG, led by the Australian Border Force, uses intelligence and enforcement powers from various federal, state and territory agencies to target the entire supply chain, from importers and distributors to street-level sellers. We also continue to strengthen legislation to combat the illicit tobacco trade. Senator O'Sullivan's in here asking what we've done. Last month—he might have been asleep—the government passed the Combating Illicit Tobacco Bill, which increased penalties for importation, possession, buying, selling, supply, production or manufacture of illicit tobacco and strengthened powers for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate illicit tobacco related offences. That sounds awfully a lot like action to me, and that is exactly what we've been doing. We will continue to introduce legislation that cracks down on the illicit tobacco trade, including increasing monetary and imprisonment penalties, nationally consistent protective order powers for restraining order applications, and expanded law enforcement powers to target proceeds of crime, unexplained wealth and tainted property. But those on the opposite side must also remember that this issue is about more than just illicit trade; it is also about public health, community safety and protecting Australians, particularly young Australians, from nicotine addiction. This government will not surrender our health policy to organised crime and we will not surrender it to the tobacco industry either. The coalition and One Nation have tried to suggest that one way to solve this problem is to reduce the tobacco excise. There was not a single piece of evidence, no clear evidence, that suggests that reducing excise actually leads to reduced crime in illicit tobacco—zero. With that policy, any shred of credibility the Liberals and the Nationals claim to have has gone up in smoke. Excise used to be a bipartisan policy. Let's not forget that the coalition raised the tobacco excise by over 215 per cent while in government. The best way to crack down on the illicit tobacco trade is through compliance and enforcement, working closely with the states and territories. That is exactly what we are doing. (Time expired) 16:51 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Now, if we are serious about tackling the illegal tobacco sector in this country we need solutions based on evidence, not political posturing. The Australian Greens believe that the illicit tobacco market must be tackled decisively. We support stronger enforcement, better data sharing, tighter supply chain controls, tougher penalties, and, importantly, a national track-and-trace system to stop illegal tobacco from entering the market in the first place. But we strongly reject the idea that the answer is as simple as making legal tobacco cheaper. Some members in this place have just participated in a Senate inquiry into illegal tobacco. As a member of that committee, I heard evidence first-hand, and the evidence presented to that inquiry simply does not show that lowering the cost of tobacco taxes would reduce the illicit market. In fact, experts warned us clearly that tobacco excise reductions would likely see an increase in the illicit market and would, in fact, see big tobacco companies make millions more in profit from the death of Australians. Let's be absolutely clear what is actually going on here. This is an argument being run primarily by a party who, according to the latest donations data, took no less than $137,000 from Philip Morris and a further $88,000 from American British Tobacco, and who are now in here advocating for a reduction in the tax paid by those same corporate merchants of death. The illicit tobacco issue in Australia must be tackled. Doing the bidding of corporations that profit from the death of Australians cannot— (Time expired) 16:53 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales There you have it—the Greens in all their glory. They'd rather see money and profits going to organised crime than corporate businesses. This is where we go with this. We hear all the stories. We heard 'there have been four years' and, 'We didn't create this problem. We didn't have this problem from the other side.' But imagine if you had a leaking tap and your tap's dripping when you come into the house. You call your plumber. Four years later, it's not dripping anymore; it's rushing out. But you say, 'No, we spent two $365 million on it, we appointed a commissioner, we had an inquiry, we looked at it and we did all that. It's not our fault your tap's now rushing.' That is what we get from this side. It was dripping. There was illegal tobacco coming into Australia four years ago but now it's rushing in. Why? Because this government has become the facilitator, the marketing arm, of serious organised crime in the tobacco industry. There have been more than 200 fire bombings in Melbourne. There have been 51 organised crime shootings in New South Wales. This is because there has never been more money on the table with less penalties there. They go: 'We've got a residential. You sell it on your property. We're going to shut it down. We're going to put a thing.' I'll tell you what happens. They put a sticker on the shutters of your door. You scan the sticker and someone will deliver the tobacco to you now. It's even better because that's what's going on. This is the reality of the world. It's not what we like to think. They say: 'But tobacco use is going down. Cigarette use is going down.' It's because they're taking retail sales data. I tell you what, serious organised crime doesn't take part in too many business surveys. They don't leave a 'rate me' on any of these things and say, 'How was your illegal transaction today?' Double Happiness cigarettes don't exist anywhere but the illegal market, and I can buy merch for it. I can be out there and do this. The reality is: billions and billions of dollars fuel organised crime because no-one stands up and says 'enough'. We saw it on vapes. We see it on tobacco. Who knows what goes into these properties? If it is a corporation that sells these products in Australia, I can sue them. I can tax them. I can hold them to standards. We saw the vapes coming in with arsenic and rumours of Chinese cigarettes that had all sorts of things in them—arsenic again but also radioactive elements. Who do you sue when the organised crime family sells you this stuff? Who do we go after to make them liable? No-one. This is what we're stuck with here: 'Trust me. It was all our problem four years ago.' Well, it is not. It is on our doorsteps. A staff member of mine couldn't get a building they own insured four doors up from a tobacconist. Imagine that. You're not a tobacconist. You're not next door to a tobacconist. You are four doors up, and you can't get a building you own insured because of the threat to it. This is the reality. When you're looking at tobacco use and when you're looking at smoking use, look at the things on sewerage outlets. Look at the indicators on the wastewater. It is up, and it is up because cigarettes are cheaper. It is up because all of this absolution—'no, we can't do it'—has failed. They are coming into the country. There are slaps on the wrist for importing this stuff. What we're trying to do is have a way where we take that profit motive out so the risk actually exceeds the rewards. At the moment, the rewards are so great. We look at it in the vaping industry because this will have touched this. Before, I could go and buy a vape from any place even though I've never vaped in my life. If I went into a place dressed like this, like a bit of a square—I wouldn't sell to me; I look like a narc if ever there was one—I could still buy one for 30 bucks. I go to the same place today, and I can still do it. I was going to bring in a prop, but I know you wouldn't appreciate that. Eighty bucks—I can still buy it. It just costs more. That is the reality of prohibition. We are driving more money to crime. We are driving more money to other bad ventures and to firebombing. We saw the guy burnt to a crisp in Melbourne the other day. It is wrong. What we want to do is find a way to stop that. With the price of vapes now at about 80 bucks, the kids that we were worried about before are going and smoking now because it's cheaper. They can get their Double Happiness hit, get their tobacco hit, for $15 or $20. How in the perverse world do we think the policy that is driving billions to organised crime and driving young people to cigarettes and pouches instead of vapes is right? How do we think that policy is working? When we've heard the numbers that have gone down, we've halved the income to the government from tobacco. One thing this government does get is how to take money. This needs to stop. We need to do this, and this policy should go. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:03]
(The President—Senator Lines)

24 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. 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. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 10 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Mulholland, C. Cash, M. C. Farrell, D. E. Chandler, C. Dolega, J. Colbeck, R. M. O'Neill, D. M. Hume, J. Cox, D. McDonald, S. E. Gallagher, K. R. McGrath, J. A. Watt, M. P. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Wong, P. Paterson, J. W. Whiteaker, E. Ruston, A. Tyrrell, T. M.

Question negatived.

NOTICES 75 NOTICES Postponement 75 17:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate motion No. 1 until the next day of sitting. Leave granted. PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 75 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS Liberal Party of Australia 75 17:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I am pleased to inform the Senate that Senator Liddle and Senator Gatenby have been elected as deputy opposition whips, and I would like to thank Senators Blyth and Collins for their service as former deputy opposition whips. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash, and, on behalf of the Senate, we congratulate both those senators on their election to the position of whips. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Consideration 75 Workforce Australia, Infrastructure: Land Transport, Minister for Home Affairs, Fuel Security, Aged Care 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 17:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning employment services reform, land transport infrastructure projects, the Minister for Home Affairs's National Press Club address, the Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator and home-care waiting lists. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Intergenerational Housing Inequity Select Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Productivity in Australia Select Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Women's Health Select Committee 76 Membership 76 17:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Discharged—Senator Antic Appointed— Senator Gatenby Participating member: Senator Antic Community Affairs References Committee— Appointed—Senator Gatenby Economics Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Intergenerational Housing Inequity — Select Committee — Discharged—Senator Kovacic Appointed—Senator Gatenby Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Productivity in Australia — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Scarr Appointed—Senator Gatenby Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gatenby Women's Health — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Kovacic and Ruston Participating members: Senators Antic, Blyth, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Collins, Duniam, Gatenby, Henderson, Hume, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Scarr, Sharma and Dean Smith Question agreed to. BILLS 77 BILLS Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 77

Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

First Reading 77 17:09 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 77 17:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table a revised explanatory memorandum related to the bill and 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— On election night four years ago the Prime Minister talked about opening the doors of opportunity. The great mission of Labor Governments. He said, "I want every parent to be able to tell their child no matter where you live or where you come from, in Australia the doors of opportunity are open to us all." "And like every other Labor government, we'll just widen that door a bit more." More than anything else, it's education that does that. That opens doors. That changes lives. That changes countries. And that's what the changes we are making to the education system are all about. The changes to early education that get rid of the barriers that have stopped a lot of children from poor families from accessing early education and care. That's what the three day guarantee does. We changed the law to guarantee access to three days a week of government supported early education and care for every child who needs it. We did that because we know it's kids from the most disadvantaged backgrounds who get the most out of early education and care. And who are the least likely to get it. The way the law used to work meant their parents couldn't get the subsidy. And so their kids couldn't get the sort of early education that other kids get. They were shut out. That's now changed. The three-day guarantee started a few months ago. And for those kids it opens that door of opportunity a little wider. So does what we are doing in schools. In particular fixing the funding of our public schools. These are the schools that do a lot of the heavy lifting. That play an outsized role in educating the most disadvantaged children in this country. The children who are the most likely to start behind or fall behind. The children who need our help the most. And these are also the schools that are the most underfunded. Until now. Until this government. Until the agreements we've struck with every State and Territory. It means an extra $20 billion into our public schools over the next decade. But it's more than that, because this funding is tied to reform. The sort of reform that's needed to help more kids catch up, keep up and finish school. That's what things like evidence based teaching, phonics checks, numeracy checks and small group tutoring are all about. They all help to open those doors of opportunity wider. And that's what this Bill does too. Today close to 50 percent of Australians in their thirties have a university degree, but not everywhere. It's about half that if you grew up in a poor family or in the regions. It's even less in the bush. Basically young people who grow up in poor families or outside our big cities are less likely to get a crack at uni than other Australians. And if they start it, they are less likely to finish it. I want to change that. The Universities Accord says we need to change that. The Accord is the biggest review of our higher education system since Bradley almost 20 years ago. It's a blue print for the next twenty years. What it says is that by 2050 we are going to need a workforce where 80 percent have a TAFE qualification or a uni degree. And that the only way to do that is if we break down the barriers that stop so many young people from poor families and the regions and the bush from getting to university. That's what this Bill is about. It's the seventh Accord Bill I have introduced. The first six created the Student Ombudsman, Paid Prac, and Fee Free Uni Ready Courses. They cut student debt by 20 percent, changed the indexation and repayment rules for HELP loans. And established the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. This Bill implements two more important changes recommended by the Accord. The first will help more people from poor families and the regions and the bush get into university. In simple terms, if you get the marks, or you've got the skills, you've got what it takes. You will get a place. A Commonwealth Supported Place. We have already done this for Indigenous students. We passed that legislation in 2023. This will do the same sort of thing for all students from poor families, from the regions and from the bush. It's part of the new Managed Growth Funding System created by this Bill. There are more Australians at university today than ever before. And it is going to continue to grow. Next year there will be 16,000 more places for more students in the system. The year after that there will be another 16,000. The year after that another 16,000. In 2030, this increases to 19,000 additional fully funded Commonwealth supported places. Over the next decade, we expect to fund an extra 230,000 commencing students at university. This Bill gives the ATEC the tools it needs to manage all of this growth. To grow the system where it's needed. As part of this it will end the hunger games that exist at the moment, where, in the desperate competition for students, some universities enrol students they don't get Commonwealth funding for. Something the Accord said is undermining the whole system. This is how the Bill works. It gives the Minister for Education the power to set a Total Allocation Pool. That's the total number of fully funded Commonwealth Supported Places allocated each year. It gives the ATEC the responsibility for allocating these places to universities and other eligible providers. Because this is about managing growth and building a bigger and better and fairer system, the total number of Commonwealth Supported Places each university receives will be made up of two things. First, what's called their Core Student Load to make sure they do not go backwards. And second, an Additional Growth Allocation. This gives the ATEC the ability to allocate additional places where it thinks they are needed, including for students from low SES backgrounds and from the regions and the bush. The ATEC will do this every year. It's this second part, the Additional Growth Allocation that really gives the ATEC the ability to open the doors of opportunity to more Australians. And if the ATEC believes that the Total Allocation Pool isn't big enough to meet the demand from students from poor families, from the regions and from the bush, they can ask the Minister to increase it. Effectively uncapping the system for these students. If you have got what it takes, you get a place. The Bill also provides support to assist universities to transition to this new system. Under enrolled universities will be able to access a temporary funding floor to the end of 2031. Over enrolled universities will be able to keep student contributions above their cap, but only up to a maximum amount. As part of fixing this, the ATEC anticipates it will allocate approximately 20,000 more Commonwealth supported places to over-enrolled unis next year where they currently only receive the student contribution. The second part of the Bill puts in place Needs Based Funding. Think Gonski for universities. The school funding system provides schools with extra funding based on where they are located and the needs of the students they educate. Students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds receive additional support. So do schools in the regions and the bush. The Accord recommends we do the same for universities. And it does that for a reason. The evidence tells us that students from low SES backgrounds and students from the regions and the bush aren't just less likely to start a university degree. They are also less likely to finish it. The data indicates they are up to twice as likely to drop out after their first year at university than other students. That's why needs based funding is important. It will provide funding for things like tutoring, mentoring and other academic support, and direct financial assistance like scholarships and emergency grants. There were previous programs like HEPPP that did this. But funding for those programs was capped. This is different. Like needs-based funding for schools, this will be demand driven. The more students a university has that meet the criteria, the more funding they will receive. The more students there are at a regional campus, the more funding that university will receive as well. To give you an idea what it will mean in practice, under the old HEPPP the average amount provided to universities per student last year was $600. Under this new Needs-based Funding system it will be more than double that. The Bill sets the base equity amount at $1,535 and the base regional amount at $1,398. Both will be indexed each year. It's not just extra funding. It's what it will be used for that helps more students who start a degree to finish it. It is real reform. The Bill does one more thing. It sets out a framework for the ATEC to exercise its existing power to allocate international student numbers. As members would know, the Government currently manages international student numbers through an annual National Planning Level. Under the National Planning Level, the Government sets indicative allocations of new overseas student commencements that may start at individual universities. These indicative allocations are used to guide the visa processing work of the Department of Home Affairs. There is currently no statutory cap on international students, and this legislation does not change that. But we are putting the power to set international student allocations for higher education providers into the hands of the independent ATEC. In other words, where the Government sets a National Planning Level, the ATEC will allocate places to individual universities and other higher education providers. The Minister will do this by making an 'international allocation pool determination', setting out the overall number of planned commencements. The Minister's determination may also require ATEC to take into account Government priorities, such as student housing and market diversification, when they make their allocations. However it will be ATEC that makes the decision about allocations to universities, in consultation with the universities through the process for negotiating mission-based compacts. This change responds to feedback from our universities. They told us that this power—to set individual allocations within the National Planning Level—should be exercised by the independent ATEC. And I agree. To help the ATEC with this work, the ATEC will be given access to international student and provider information collected under the ESOS Act. The National Student Ombudsman will also be provided with access to this information. The Bill also enables information collected by the Ombudsman and TEQSA to be share with the ATEC to inform their work. This is an important Bill. It is the engine the ATEC can use to bring the Accord to life. To make the big structural changes the Accord talks about. And to open the doors of opportunity. Talent is everywhere. It's opportunity that's not. This Bill will help change that. It will mean more young people from poor families and from the regions and the bush get a crack at university. And that they get the support they need when they get there. It will change lives. For universities it means more students. And more funding. For the whole system, it means an extra $3.6 billion over the next decade. Is it everything we have to do? No. There is a lot more we need to do make our education system better and fairer. But this is the next step. It will help to open the doors of opportunity wider. The Bill is commended to the Chamber. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 81

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

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

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 81 COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee 81 Membership 81 BILLS 81 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026, Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, 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, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026 81

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

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

Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

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

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026

National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026

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

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

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

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026

Assent 81 COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Legislation Committees 81 17:12 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia At the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2026. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 81 Report 81 17:12 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia (): At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Stewart, I present the report of the committee on the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. BILLS 82 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 82

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

In Committee 82 17:15 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4000 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1, 2 and 3", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2". (2) Schedule 3, page 42 (line 1) to page 46 (line 14), to be opposed. Once again, we see the poison pill tactics of the Labor government. This bill is ostensibly about bringing dodgy tax advisers into line in the wake of the PwC tax adviser scandal, and One Nation has no issue with those parts of the bill. Tax advisers who do the dodgy should be punished. White-collar crime is not dealt with harshly enough in this country. But, instead of getting to focus on what works in this bill, Labor, with their coalition mates the Greens, have buried a 50 per cent capital gains tax concession for foreign owned renewable energy projects in this legislation. Labor must stop this practice. Stop the poison pills. Let us debate the core issue of your bill separately. If you're so proud of your swindle factories, set aside these tax changes in a separate bill. We're moving to strike out schedule 3 so that you can bring it back for debate honestly. I'll even give Labor the title: 'Treasury laws amendment (tax cuts for foreign investors and swindle factories) bill 2026'. Let's look at the schedule in isolation. Labor is handling foreign swindle-factory owners a CGT discount that was too generous for your everyday mum-and-dad investor or for struggling small businesses. That includes foreign owned renewable companies getting a 50 per cent discount. But hardworking Australians are paying the full tote. Labor is ripping Australians off while looking after foreign shell companies. It is a testament to their unwavering commitment to the green energy transition at the expense of the Australian people. Schedule 3 was originally drafted by Labor to apply until 30 June 2030. That was until their favourite coalition partner, the Greens, stepped in and had it extended out to 2040—more votes-for-sale shenanigans. This is at an estimated cost of around $325 million to the taxpayer. But what do Labor and the Greens care? They removed the CGT discount for individuals precisely to pay for this kind of spending—to prop up their failing, faltering transition. Our amendment would remove schedule 3 from this bill, removing this ridiculous CGT concession for foreign owners, and reinstate fairness for Australians. But the Labor-Greens alliance is more interested in looking after offshore companies than the Australian people. Labor told Australians that its changes to negative gearing and CGT would level the playing field and help young Australians buy their first home. Instead, it is tanking the housing market, with no evidence that first home buyers are having any more luck—probably because they're also fighting against the inflation and collapsing real wages that are part and parcel of this Labor government's economy. This schedule of the bill is only going to make life harder as more public money is tipped into the renewable energy black hole. If these swindle factories were worth a damn, they wouldn't need to be propped up by tax concessions. Labor is more interested in driving our electricity prices sky high and looking after the needs of foreign owned wind turbine outfits. They continuously tell you that they are lowering the wholesale price of electricity, but Australians are paying retail prices, and they feel the pain every time they open their power bill. Every Australian household, pensioner, school and hospital is paying the retail price—the price that includes the ideological green fantasy, the network and transmission costs and the endless subsidies. One Nation is going to scrap net zero. We are out of the Paris Agreement. The climate change department will be gone—no more of Minister Bowen's secret Capacity Investment Scheme. We will save the budget billions every year. If their spending isn't enough, let's shed some light on these foreign companies that will benefit from the 50 per cent CGT concession from Labor. Foreign owned wind farms are set up as special purpose vehicles. If the wind farm owned by the foreign SPV fails, goes bankrupt or becomes legally liable for noise nuisance and fire damage to neighbouring farms, the creditors in many cases cannot seek reimbursement from the foreign parent company. The Labor government is already pouring subsidies into these SPVs through renewable energy certificates, carbon credits and the Capacity Investment Scheme at a cost of who-knows-what. Much of this spending is shrouded in the commercial-in-confidence mist. What are we paying for each of these turbines? There are estimates of up to $1 million a turbine, so, if a wind farm has 100 turbines, these foreign owned SPVs could pocket tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds every year, and now the government is giving them a 50 per cent CGT concession when they change hands as well. The Labor government is quite happy to crash the housing market with tax grabs while keeping the renewable gravy train going. On top of the trillion-dollar transmission upgrade required to reach net zero and the 35,127 wind turbines spread over four million hectares of our country, foreign companies responsible for the destruction of our forests and farmland are getting a 50 per cent concession. What is Labor doing to this beautiful country? What are you smoking over there? I implore everyone in this chamber to use our review powers properly. We should not be passing consequential legislation as an add-on to a completely unrelated bill. Separate the bill, debate it and vote on it in its own right on its own merits. Our amendment to this bill will remove schedule 3, thereby ensuring that foreign companies pay their CGT and levelling the playing field for Australians. Remove this schedule and let us debate it separately. Give it the light of day that Labor has so desperately starved it of. Come on, 'party of transparency'. You can do it. 17:21 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales (): It's been explained to me procedurally why we're dealing with this a second time. It's too complicated. Let's be open about it. I'm not capable of explaining to you why we're doing this discussion again, but we are doing it again. Government will oppose this amendment. We are committed as a government to supporting rebuilding Australia's electricity sector. The concessional arrangement in schedule 3 recognises the value of that contribution and the necessity of rebuilding the moribund, underfunded, underinvested-in electricity system that this government inherited in 2022. While I'm on my feet, I want to say that what you say when you repeat Mr Joyce's slur— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 I remind you to go through the chair. Senator AYRES 16913 Not that you would say something like this, Chair, but if one were to say it, to repeat Mr Joyce's slur against thousands of decent, honest, hardworking, blue-collar Australians, like riggers, sparkies, concreters, metal fabricators and steelworkers, who are engaged in this work—oh, you don't like it, do you? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts on a point of order. Senator Roberts 266524 Mr Joyce has never slurred workers. He's always tarnished the parasite— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to raise your point of order, not just go into a debate. You'll have your opportunity to follow the minister after his contribution. Then you can debate the minister. You need to raise a point of order. Senator Roberts 266524 The minister is misrepresenting Mr Joyce. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order. Senator AYRES 16913 It is a slur against decent Australians in every regional centre who work in that sector with the proud nation-building work of rebuilding our electricity sector. The sly, sneaky slur that Mr Joyce says in his hysterical, red faced, shameful attacks on decent blue collar Australians that Senator Whitten repeats in a lame, derivative way is completely beyond. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Minister, I'm going to ask you to withdraw, please. Senator AYRES 16913 Withdraw all of it? Mr Joyce's behaviour is calculated to sow division in country communities—there's a lot of talk about the algorithm—to try and drive outrage. It pours scorn on decent, honest Australians who have done more to rebuild Australia's electricity system than Mr Joyce or Senator Whitten or any of these characters will ever do. It is also a slur against the people in regional economies who will benefit—the workers in Gladstone, the workers in Newcastle, whose jobs depend upon not ideology and posts and memes and far-right bonkers nonsense on the internet but on real projects being brought forward that deliver electricity for real blue-collar jobs in real communities, not the online communities you lot exist in. It is shameful. It is a slur. You ought to be held to account— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister— Senator AYRES 16913 Senator Whitten ought to be held to account. Mr Joyce ought to be held to account. Denigrating ordinary Australians is no way to proceed if you want to appeal to ordinary Australians in the regions and outer suburbs. They don't like being bullied. They don't like being denigrated. They don't like it when people direct hate towards them, and that is what that swindle factory's argument and all the nonsense that goes around it is all about—pouring scorn on ordinary Australians—and you ought to stop it. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [17:32]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 4 NOES Bell, S. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:34 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Senators, given that that one was agreed to, we don't need to deal with amendment (1) on sheet 4000. 17:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move the Greens amendments on sheet 3997: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedules 6, 7 and 8", substitute "Schedules 6, 7, 8 and 9". (2) Page 78 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 9 — Animal welfare gift deductibility expansion Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 Subsection 30-45(1) (cell at table item 4.1.6, column headed "Fund, authority or institution") Repeal the cell, substitute: 2 Application of amendments The amendments of item 4.1.6 of the table in subsection 30-45(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 made by this Schedule apply in relation to gifts or contributions made on or after the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this item. These amendments broaden the definition of animal welfare work to ensure that any person who donates to an animal welfare charity is able to receive the tax benefits that they should. Currently the Income Tax Assessment Act covers only organisations who work on behalf of native wildlife or provide direct animal-care services. This means that most activities of animal welfare charities are not eligible for deductible gift recipient status, known as DGR. Excluded from DGR status are organisations that work on: preventing animal cruelty; providing community education, disaster and crisis emergency response; advocating for improved animal welfare standards; and providing expertise and advice to governments and industry stakeholders. The current laws limit access to major fundraising platforms, restrict donor choice and discharge important work that addresses animal cruelty at its source. With bird flu on our shores, there could not be a more pressing time to support animal welfare charities. When I brought these amendments to the Senate in March, the Albanese government, the coalition and One Nation all voted them down. It is a great shame, though, that Labor is not willing to support such a simple change, which is widely supported and would help organisations that do this critical animal welfare work. People in this country care deeply about animals. Animal welfare charities are consistently in the top three causes that Australian donors support. Independent reviews by the Productivity Commission and the Department of Social Services have recommended expanding tax-deductible-gift-recipient status to include animal welfare advocacy charities. Labor said they would consider these recommendations from the Productivity Commission, but that was over two years ago, and still there is no action. I'm eager to hear today what new excuse the Albanese government has for refusing to act on expert advice. I'm sure that we will hear how Labor is working on it, but we know that just working on it doesn't mean that the change is going to happen. These amendments are a critical step forward for animal welfare organisations and respond to a long-running campaign from the animal welfare community, and they would make a very significant difference to organisations who do so much to care for animals. I commend these amendments to the Senate, but I have a question for the minister: has any progress been made on the Productivity Commission's recommendations on expanding tax-deductible status to include animal welfare advocacy charities, and, if there has been any progress made, what is that progress and when will you actually make this change? 17:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There are a number of assertions before the question, so I might just deal with those now and not deal with them again when we deal with the amendments. Certain animal welfare organisations are already eligible for deductible gift recipient eligibility under the existing general categories. As Senator Faruqi indicated, organisations with the principal purpose of short-term direct care or rehabilitation of animals such as WISE and Wildlife Recovery Australia are endorsed as DGRs. Certain organisations have also been specifically listed—RSPCA state and territory affiliates, for example. The government asked the Productivity Commission in 2023 to undertake a review of philanthropy to identify opportunities and obstacles to increase philanthropic giving. We are working our way through those recommendations. The Productivity Commission grouped their recommendations around four pillars: firstly, improving the system that determines which charities have access to tax-deductible donations; secondly, enhancing the regulatory framework for charities and ancillary funds; thirdly, improving public information on charities and donations; and fourthly, improving access to philanthropic networks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 17:39 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I wish to rise on this matter. Far from expanding the number of charities covered by DGR status, in fact, there are a number of supposed charities that should lose their charity status altogether—organisations such as Animals Australia, which paid $140,000 to a deckhand on the Awassi Express in order to close down ventilation. This is all on the public record in a statutory declaration from one of his shipmates. Animals Australia paid $140,000 to cause animal suffering and then used that as the political wedge to close down the live export industry. Far from expanding this category, those organisations, particularly Animals Australia, should lose their charity status altogether. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 257613 The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3997, moved by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:45]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ghosh)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 28 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Brockman, W. E. (Teller) Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. G. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:47 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 257613 I will use this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of former senator Richard Di Natale. Welcome back. 17:47 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Welcome back, Richard, after six years—six whole years! I seek leave to move the Greens's amendments on sheet 4013. Leave granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 I move the Greens's amendments on sheet 4013: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 4 and 5", substitute "Schedules 4, 5 and 5A". (2) Page 67 (after line 4), after Schedule 5, insert: Schedule 5A — Loss of deductible gift recipient status for supporting illegal occupation Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 At the end of subsection 30-125(1) Add: Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150). 2 At the end of subsection 30-125(2) Add: Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150). 3 After section 30-130 Insert: 30-150 No entitlement to endorsement for entities supporting illegal occupation (1) An entity is not entitled to be endorsed as: (a) a *deductible gift recipient (despite subsection 30-125(1)); or (b) a *deductible gift recipient for the operation of a fund, authority or institution (despite subsection 30-125(2)); if the entity has supported an *illegal occupation. (2) The *Foreign Affairs Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a declaration specifying an occupation of the whole or part of a territory as an illegal occupation. Application in relation to non-legal persons (3) An entity that is: (a) a partnership; or (b) a trust; or (c) an unincorporated body or association; is taken to have supported an *illegal occupation if an accountable person for the entity has supported the illegal occupation in the person's capacity as an accountable person for the entity. Definitions (4) For the purposes of this section, an accountable person for an entity is: (a) in the case of a partnership—a person who is a partner in the partnership; or (b) in the case of a trust—a person who is a trustee of the trust; or (c) in the case of an unincorporated body or association—a person who is a member of the governing body or committee of management (however described) of the unincorporated body or association. (5) For the purposes of this section, an entity has supported an *illegal occupation if the entity has in any way (whether directly or indirectly) advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported (within the ordinary meaning of that expression), participated in or contributed to the establishment, maintenance or expansion of the illegal occupation. 4 Subsection 995-1(1) Insert: illegal occupation: see subsection 30-150(2). 5 Application of amendments Section 30-150 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to entities that have supported (within the meaning of that section) an illegal occupation after the commencement of this item, whether: (a) that support began before or after that commencement; or (b) the entity is endorsed, or proposed to be endorsed, before or after that commencement. These amendments are a crucial change to DGR status, and they ensure that no organisation that supports illegal occupation overseas receives tax subsidies here. Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. But, in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes and you'll receive a tax deduction. Investigations by Michael West Media revealed that charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission that are benefiting from Australian taxpayer subsidies have hosted fundraisers linked to the IDF and illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money. When I moved the same amendment to a Treasury laws amendment bill in March this year, Senator Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC's external conduct standards 'do not extend to conduct under international law'. So, in essence, this government doesn't care if charities are funnelling money to support war crimes. Senator Chisholm went on to say that charity status can be revoked 'where governance and external conduct standards are not met'. But repeated investigations have shown that Australian based charities are indeed funding settler crimes in the occupied West Bank, yet these organisations continue to enjoy charitable DGR status. External conduct standard 4 of the ACNC 'requires charities to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas'. How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation and the murder of Palestinians be ensuring 'the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas'? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions. These amendments would ban that once and for all. These amendments would strip any entity of DGR status if the entity has, in any way—whether directly or indirectly—advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported, participated in or contributed to the establishment, maintenance or expansion of an illegal occupation. By maintaining DGR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay—that is what this government is doing—that these murders are okay, that this ethnic cleansing is okay. It is yet another way that the Albanese government props up Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal—yet it gets a tax deduction. While Labor refuses to act, the situation in the West Bank gets worse and worse. While the world's eyes have been focused on Gaza, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has escalated unabated. Just last week, two Palestinian teenagers were murdered and an entire village was razed to the ground when settlers entered under police and military escort. Khalil Abu Alia, who was 16 when he was killed by an IDF soldier, was about to start 11th grade. He was on the doorstep of his home and was shot in the neck. Also killed was 19-year-old Omar al-Naasan, who recently graduated high school. Israeli soldiers and settlers had already killed three other students from the same school this year alone. These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians. At the same time, Israeli forces destroyed the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Tabban, leaving 70 people homeless, including 28 children. According to B'Tselem, this is the 66th Palestinian community wiped off the map in just the last three years. Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction. These are not rogue individuals. They are escorted, supported and joined by Israeli military and police as part of the Israeli regime's broader plan to eliminate Palestine. The International Court of Justice in 2024 called on party states, such as Australia, to 'prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. Flouting international law once again, Labor allows Australian charities who funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence and occupation. All Labor offers to Palestinians who are being murdered and displaced every day is empty words. Labor say they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but, in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support her murderers. It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction. Senator Wong joined 21 countries to call the E1 settlement project in the West Bank 'unacceptable and a violation of international law'. So I do call on the Labor government today to put action behind those words and support these amendments, and I do commend the amendments to the Senate. I do have some questions for the minister, though. Minister, these proposed Greens amendments would ensure that organisations supporting illegal occupations overseas cannot receive the benefit of DGR status or tax-deductible donations in Australia. Does your government think it is acceptable for a tax system to subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements, the violent displacement of Palestinians and genocide? 17:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, there is no DGR category and no purpose that allows charities to support illegal activities here in Australia or abroad. Registered charities already must ensure that they meet their ongoing obligations to the ACNC, including by complying with the ACNC's governance standards. The governance standards require a charity to remain charitable, operate lawfully and be run in an accountable and responsible way. Charities that operate overseas, including giving funds, must also comply with the ACNC's external conduct standards. These standards require charities to take reasonable steps to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour, governance, oversight and record keeping when undertaking activities or providing resources overseas. Further, the standards require charities to comply with all Australian law, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and hate speech legislation. The external conduct standards also require a charity to comply with Australian law as it relates to international sanctions, terrorism financing, and slavery or slavery-like conditions and to have reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with those laws. The external conduct standards don't extend to conduct under international law. The governance and external conduct standards require charities to ensure that their resources are used only to further their purposes and that they are operating in a way that is consistent with a not-for-profit entity. Charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met. Where a charity's registration is revoked, the ATO may also remove its access to DGR status and other tax concessions. 17:56 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales According to reports, the Chai Charitable Foundation, which made more than $19 million in tax-deductible donations in 2025, has hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly state that they provide direct support to IDF soldiers. The reporting also alleges that the foundation hosted fundraising campaigns linked to illegal settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank. Michael West Media reported that the United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50 million of revenue in 2024, funds programs connected to the Lone Immigrant Soldiers initiative, which provides support for immigrants serving in the IDF. The report also alleges that the UIA has funded settlements to take over produce farms in the West Bank. Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations? 17:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales All I can say in relation to that is that the ACNC is an independent regulator and it's accountable for the work it does on an independent basis. 17:58 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Shouldn't you, as the minister, know of these organisations and know they are getting tax deductions for promoting illegal settlements? And doesn't this show that the current safeguards are insufficient? 17:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Chair, it's not possible for me to respond to Senator Faruqi's question by dealing with an individual matter. It may be possible in the context of Senate estimates to traverse questions to the ACNC when they appear. All I can do is refer to my previous answer about the governance standards and the external governance standards that provide a framework for managing the ACNC and the DGR status questions in relation to all these organisations. 17:59 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales External conduct standard 4 requires that charities operating overseas take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people. Palestinians living under occupation, displacement and genocide are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them. Minister, why won't the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here? 18:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I suppose there are two answers to the proposition that Senator Faruqi just put to me. One is to refer to the framework that I outlined at the beginning. That is the way that these questions in relation to all organisations that the ACNC has responsibility for are managed. The second is to say that the Australian government's approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear. I don't really understand the relationship that you're trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things. If there are individual matters which you want to pursue with the ACNC, there are multiple fora for you to do that in. 18:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The coalition will not be supporting this amendment. Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia and that supporting the victims of Hamas's atrocities and the victims of Hezbollah's atrocities is somehow now a crime. That the abhorrent antisemitic comments that essentially blame the Australian Jewish community and other Australians that donate to this legal charity here in Australia—a legal Australian Jewish charity—are somehow akin to supporting genocide says everything you need to know about the Australian Greens and their views of the Australian Jewish community and their support for many of their families and loved ones in Israel. So the coalition will not be supporting this amendment, and we look forward to voting no as soon as possible. 18:02 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'll just indicate that what the government—the Prime Minister's injunction on these questions is as relevant today as when he first put it. Actually, what the government is seeking to do here is to effect some reform to schedules 6 and 7 of the bill, which relate to specific deductible gift recipients and to the Productivity Commission's philanthropy inquiry. I think the idea that that becomes a forum for the kind of argument that we've just heard should cause people to take a breath. In any case, the government is opposed to the amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 282997 The question is that the amendments on sheet 4013 be agree to.

The committee divided. [18:08]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Scarr)

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

Question negatived.

18:10 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Minister, in the May budget, it's true to say that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and in this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement, isn't it? Senator Ayres 16913 I'm all ears, Senator. Senator Dean Smith 241710 So that's a correct statement? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 282997 Minister, would you like Senator Smith to repeat the question? Senator Ayres 16913 Well, when I said I was all ears, I wasn't listening that closely, Senator Smith. You should perhaps get me to focus! The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Smith, you've been given that task by the minister! Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Minister, in the most recent budget, it's true to say that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement? 18:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Now that I've heard it, all I can say is that these reforms are about strengthening the rules around when foreign investors have to pay tax, including for renewables and other infrastructure that's closely connected with Australian land. 18:12 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia It is true that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now seeks to provide a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement? 18:13 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Smith's question is the same as his previous question. It's not just the same; it's identical. My answer is the same. 18:13 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I was giving the minister an opportunity to improve upon his answer. I'll give the minister one more opportunity. Minister, it's true to say that in the most recent budget the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement? 18:13 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, I'm always up for self-improvement! I've got a lot of progress to make. We can all improve. This bill does a range of things. One of them is to strengthen the rules around when foreign investors have to pay tax, including for renewables projects but projects that have a close connection to Australian land. You would have heard some of the exchange before. That's what this legislation does along the range of other questions that the bill engages. 18:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Minister, can you explain why a 50 per cent discount is good for foreign investors in renewable energy projects but not good for Australian small businesses? 18:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As you would know, Chair, and as Senator Smith would know, foreign investors generally don't get any CGT discount. The arrangements that go to and include the investment in new electricity generation that is required, which are dealt with in this legislation, are really about providing an appropriate transitional period for investments that have already been made. 18:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I can see a pattern emerging, so I'll just repeat my question: Why is a 50 per cent discount good for foreign investors in renewable energy but not for Australian small businesses? What is the economic rationale? 18:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The legislation is all about strengthening the system. It will raise significant revenue over time, and it will ensure, for example, that foreign residents pay a fair share of tax in Australia. The amendments that we've moved have a modest cost of around one-seventh of the overall revenue and more closely align the transitional arrangements with investment horizons that are typical of these kinds of large-scale renewable energy projects. That is the rationale that sits behind this important piece of work. As I indicated before, foreign investors generally don't get any CGT discount. The arrangements in this legislation are really about providing an appropriate transitional framework or transitional period for investments that have already been made. 18:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I'll just turn to a different theme. The government has previously rushed through tax legislation. The consequence of that rushed legislation was a tax on widows and, it was revealed, also a hidden tax on super. That legislation had the benefit of just a two-day inquiry. This legislation will have no inquiry at all, and the government voted against Senator Canavan's amendment that would have provided for an inquiry into this bill. What's the government's justification for blocking a standard Senate inquiry into this bill and its various elements? 18:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There has been extensive consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the sector throughout the development of this schedule. Schedule 1 of the bill enhances the Tax Practitioners Board's sanctions regime with a stronger penalties framework for registered tax practitioners. But referring this bill would cause further delays to much needed reforms that will more effectively penalise and deter inappropriate conduct by tax practitioners. Schedules 2 and 3 are due to commence on 1 October, so the delay that the coalition are proposing would have substantial revenue impacts. It's on that basis that we're proceeding in the way that we are. 18:19 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Well, extensive consultation is not the same thing as parliamentary scrutiny. Should the Senate be on alert that this approach—extensive consultation, perhaps contested, but an absence of parliamentary scrutiny—is now the government's new modus operandi for tax legislation? 18:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales We have proposed the legislation in front of the Senate. It has been the subject of extensive consultation. It's a refinement that, as we indicated in the budget, would occur over time. It covers a narrow slice of the questions that were in the government's important tax reform package in the budget. I understand that you and colleagues oppose some elements of that and that you will continue to do that, but this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that I urge the Senate to support. On that basis, we oppose Senator Canavan's amendment. 18:20 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Minister, extensive consultation can't be read as unanimous endorsement. Or can it? 18:21 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The test in here, as I understand it, is not unanimous endorsement. It's difficult enough for a government that has a minority position in the Senate to pass legislation. You need to achieve a majority; if the new standard is unanimity, maybe we would get nothing done. 18:21 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia What, in fact, would have been the financial impact, or the financial cost, of a delay to the passage of this bill by just 10 days? 18:21 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's not possible to quantify that number—10 days is not the right period of time. If you delayed through another quarter, that would have a consequence that would be significant. We have consulted. We want this legislation to proceed through the Senate. We will ask for the Senate's support when the debate comes to a conclusion. 18:22 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia But the point is this: had there been a reference to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, that committee would have been in a position to report back to the Senate when the Senate next met in the sitting fortnight. So what would have been the financial impact, or cost, of that delay—minimal or major? 18:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It is a whole quarter's impact. Senator Canavan's amendment proposed, I think, to report back in early October. That means, best-case scenario, that legislation would be operative in the first quarter of next year. That is a substantial impact. 18:23 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Of course, had the government cooperated fully with the committee, the committee could have reported earlier than the proposed reporting date. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 282997 Was that rising intonation, Senator Smith? Is there a question there? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 That was an observation. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Do you have any questions? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 No, I don't. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

The committee divided. [18:28]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Scarr)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gatenby, C. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 4 NOES Bell, S. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

18:31 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 282997 The question now is that the bill be reported. As a division has been called and it is after 6.30 pm, further consideration of this bill will be deferred. Progress reported. Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 92

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026

Second Reading 92 18:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. The coalition will not oppose this bill. Reducing red tape and unnecessary regulation is something the coalition strongly supports. Good regulation protects Australians, but excessive and complex regulation increases costs for businesses and households. It slows down investment, discourages innovation and makes it harder for businesses to employ and grow. Reducing red tape isn't about removing safeguards. It's about making sure regulation serves the public interest efficiently without imposing unnecessary costs and burdens on Australians. The truth is that Australia doesn't have a good story to tell when it comes to the regulatory burden we impose on business. Australia's administrative and regulatory burden is the second highest in the G7, behind only Japan, and we rank 37th out of 43 OECD countries for administrative and regulatory burden. Small businesses spend almost a full day every week dealing with compliance requirements, with 40 per cent of small-business owners saying the impost of payroll tax and workplace laws has stopped them from hiring staff. According to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the cost to businesses of complying with federal regulation has risen from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today. At the same time, productivity has fallen by more than five per cent under this Labor government. If we are serious about lifting productivity and improving living standards, reducing unnecessary regulation must be part of the solution. That is why the coalition welcomes sensible measures contained in this bill. We also need to be honest about what this bill actually delivers. The government says the bill supports its work to build an economy that is more dynamic, more resilient and more productive for all Australians. This bill is a step towards simplifying and removing some unnecessary regulation, but it is only a small step. The bill includes 20 measures, amending 25 acts, repealing two acts and affecting 19 Commonwealth agencies. There are worthwhile administrative improvements throughout it. Schedule 1 includes amendments to simplify business regulation, including reforms to trademarks, plant breeders rights, reporting requirements and customs administration. The changes to trademarks and plant breeders rights will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and make it easier for Australian businesses and innovators to protect their ideas and bring new products to market. The bill also improves the efficiency of Australia's trade remedy system, with faster decisions and refunds providing greater certainty for businesses. The extension of time between gender equality target cycles will also reduce the administrative burden on employers. Schedule 2 contains measures to streamline regulation, including modernising administrative processes in social security, family assistance and child support legislation. It also repeals two acts that are now redundant. That is sensible housekeeping, but it's hardly the kind of reform that will materially change the lives of Australian businesses or shift the productivity dial. Schedule 3 supports the government's 'tell us once' approach. This is a concept the coalition supports. In fact, it was an approach the coalition announced in the last parliament. Australians should not have to repeatedly provide the same information to different government agencies. Government agencies should work together and make better use of information that Australians have already provided. These measures reduce duplication, improve service delivery and make interactions with government simpler and less frustrating. That is the type of practical deregulation the coalition supports. Schedule 4 contains largely technical amendments. One measure provides eligible former ADF members with a current Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation membership with the option to access a retirement income product through CSC. This is a good measure. It gives relevant former ADF members the option to access a retirement income product through their existing superannuation administrator rather than having to access a product from another administrator. There are sensible measures contained in this bill, but ultimately the contents of the bill are relatively minor in nature. They are not the kinds of reforms that will materially reduce the regulatory burden facing Australian businesses. In practice, many of these changes will make life easier for government agencies more than they will materially reduce the regulatory burden facing Australian businesses, and that is the broader problem with Labor's approach to deregulation. Australia needs a much more ambitious productivity and deregulation agenda than this bill delivers. While the government is making modest changes to administrative processes, the size of the regulatory burden and the bureaucracy behind it continues to grow. New research from the Institute of Public Affairs shows the federal government's red-tape army is set to grow to more than 110,000 staff by the end of the 2027 financial year. That is more than 19,000 additional regulatory staff—a 21 per cent increase since 2023. The cost to taxpayers of employing these regulatory staff will reach approximately $16 billion in 2027. That's an increase of $4.2 billion, or 34 per cent, since 2023. More than half of the total federal government workforce is now engaged in regulatory activity. The Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio is projected to have the fastest growth in regulatory staff, increasing by 14.6 per cent in just one year and more than doubling since 2023. Previous research from the Institute of Public Affairs shows federal red tape increased by 88 per cent between 2005 and 2023, growing two-thirds faster than the national economy over the same period. That is the scale of Australia's red-tape problem. More bureaucrats are creating and enforcing more rules while Australian businesses are spending more time and money complying with them. Every hour a business spends dealing with unnecessary regulation is an hour it cannot spend investing, employing, expanding or increasing productivity. Those costs ultimately flow through to Australians through higher prices, lower investment and fewer employment opportunities. You can't regulate your way to higher productivity. The government's response cannot simply be to make a few administrative processes easier while continuing to expand the bureaucracy responsible for creating and enforcing regulation. Australia needs fewer rules, fewer forms, fewer regulators and less red tape. And that brings me to the one measure in this bill that the coalition does have serious concerns about. Part 4 of schedule 2 removes a procedural fairness safeguard enacted by the parliament in 2017. It removes the requirement for the Australian Human Rights Commission to notify a person when an adverse allegation is made about them in a discrimination complaint if they are not formally a respondent. Under the proposed changes, whether that person is informed will depend on the president's discretion rather than a clear legal requirement. We have a simple question about this measure: why should a person not be told when serious allegations have been made about them? Allegations can still damage a person's reputation, even if there are no legal consequences. They can concern a person's conduct. They can form part of a complaint being considered by a statutory body, and the person who is the subject of those allegations should at least have the opportunity to know that those allegations have been made. Imagine a colleague makes a complaint about your employer to the commission and names you in that complaint, making allegations about your behaviour. You would want to know about that. The coalition believes that you would definitely want to know about that and that you should be advised. But, under this change proposed in this bill by this government, there is a chance that you wouldn't. You could discover, through a Google search of your own name, that you had been named in a complaint. That is a real risk from this change. Why is this safeguard being removed? Because the commission estimates it can save approximately 450 staff hours a year. Think about that—450 hours. That is the justification for weakening a procedural fairness safeguard. Administrative convenience should not come at the expense of procedural fairness. This measure is about reducing paperwork for public servants at the expense of processes that matter to Australians who rely on them for their protection. Fairness requires that people are informed when allegations concerning them are raised, and this is precisely the kind of change that deserves proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is precisely the kind of change that deserves sound, proper, full parliamentary scrutiny, noting it was an initiative that was put into the law by this parliament in 2017. Yet, when the coalition raised these concerns, Labor and the Australian Greens refused to refer this bill to a Senate committee for further inquiry. That is tremendously disappointing. If the government is confident that this change is justified, it should have no objection to allowing the parliament to properly examine its consequences. The coalition will move three amendments in relation to part 4 of schedule 2. We'll move a second reading amendment to express our concern that replacing a mandatory notification requirement with a discretionary power diminishes procedural fairness for people who are the subject of adverse allegations. It also seeks to refer part 4 of schedule 2 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, with a reporting date of 9 September. This is a modest and reasonable request. Where the government is proposing to remove a procedural fairness safeguard, the parliament should have the opportunity to properly examine the consequences. We'll also move a substantive amendment to remove part 4 of schedule 2 from the bill, as well as an amendment that would partially repeal Labor's ban on self-managed super funds using limited recourse borrowing arrangements to purchase a new residential property. The amendment also changes the definition of 'business real property' to 'commercial property' to enable SMSFs to invest in mixed-use properties and support even more housing supply. This is a modest amendment that will fix Labor's failure to distinguish between new and existing homes when it struck its deal with the Greens to ban SMSFs from investing in residential property to secure the passage of their toxic taxes. According to industry, these changes would help unlock up to 22,000 new dwellings each year. At a time when Australia is facing a housing crisis, the government should be doing everything it can to boost housing supply, not reducing it simply because it needs the Greens votes to pass legislation. The coalition is not seeking to obstruct the worthwhile reforms contained elsewhere in this bill. We are seeking to preserve a procedural fairness safeguard that should not be removed simply because the commission considers the existing processes to be administratively inconvenient. There is an important distinction between removing burdensome bureaucracy and removing safeguards that protect accountability and fairness. The coalition supports sensible deregulation. We support reducing unnecessary red tape. We support making it easier for Australians and Australian businesses to interact with government. There are measures in this bill that achieve those objectives, but Australia needs much more than this. At a time when Australia's productivity challenge is becoming more acute, Australians should expect more than legislative housekeeping dressed up as regulatory reform. They should expect a government that tackles the regulatory burden that is holding back business investment and productivity. They should expect a government that reduces the number of rules that businesses have to navigate, the number of forms they have to fill out, and the number of regulators they have to deal with. They should expect a government that understands that every hour spent complying with unnecessary regulation is an hour that could instead be spent investing, employing and growing. The coalition will support sensible regulation, but we will not support removing safeguards that protect accountability and fairness. This bill contains some worthwhile reforms, but it also highlights the limits of Labor's approach to regulatory action. Australia needs a more ambitious agenda for deregulation, productivity and economic growth, and that is an agenda the coalition will continue to pursue. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Smith, before you sit down, are you going to move the second reading amendment? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move the second reading amendment on sheet 3953: At the end of the motion, add ", and: (a) the Senate: (i) notes that Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the bill removes a procedural fairness safeguard enacted by Parliament in 2017, (ii) expresses its concern that replacing a mandatory notification requirement with a discretionary power diminishes procedural fairness for persons who are the subject of adverse allegations; (iii) is of the opinion that the Parliament should not weaken procedural fairness protections without compelling justification and proper parliamentary scrutiny, and (iv) notes that Labor and the Australian Greens refused to refer the bill to a Senate committee; (b) Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the bill (removing adverse allegation notifications) be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 September 2026; and (c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported". 18:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I indicate that my party won't be opposing the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. On a broader level, the various elements in the bill proposing a tell-us-once model, so that information does not have to be repeatedly handed to agencies, has some sense in it, of course being mindful that people's privacy and protections for their data are always central to the Greens' concerns on regulatory reform. But I won't be addressing that at length. What I will be speaking to in the second reading debate is really the content of a Greens amendment that speaks to a lack in this bill. The bill in part deals with the information that needs to be provided by people when they enter Australia. I'm sure many of us in this chamber have experienced the joy of filling in the Incoming Passenger Card. It's not just Australian citizens who fill that in. Foreign nationals of course are also required to fill in the Incoming Passenger Card. Other countries gather far more information that is relevant to their national interest when people cross the border and move into their country, either as a citizen returning or as a foreigner seeking to visit or spend time in that country. One of the key pieces of information that is not sought by the Australian government is whether people have fought for foreign militaries. Of course, even Australian citizens are not prohibited under Australian law from fighting with foreign militaries. Whether that is a sensible provision is not a matter that I intend to explore in relation to this amendment. But I firmly believe, and my party, the Greens, firmly believe, that the Australian government should know, if somebody is coming into this country, whether they have fought for a foreign military, whether they've fought in a foreign conflict and the circumstances related to their engagement in a foreign war or a foreign conflict. It is remarkable that the Department of Home Affairs does not even pretend to keep track of how many Australians are serving with foreign militaries. Nor do they routinely track people coming to Australia who have fought for a foreign military. It is a matter that Home Affairs, our border control, seems to totally ignore. The Greens are proposing that information contained on the passenger card should include some basic questions. I reference the amendments moved on sheet 4039. They include: (1) The information that must be provided by a person entering Australia … includes … answers to the following questions: (a) "Have you been a member of a foreign military within the last 12 months?"; (b) if the answer to the question … is affirmative—"For each foreign military you have been a member of within the last 12 months, what is the name of the foreign military of which you were a member?". (2) The regulations must provide for the questions … to be included in the person's passenger card … for the purposes of— Australian law under the Migration Act. Why is this necessary? First of all, this would be a simple change to allow the Australian government to keep track of what the Greens believe should be critical information about Australian citizens and foreigners seeking to come to this country. At the moment, we simply have a black hole—zero information. We just had at the Sydney Marathon a member of the Golani Brigade of the Israeli military running. That is the unit responsible for, amongst other things, the killing of 15 medical staff and first responders in Rafah, Gaza, in March 2025. Nobody checked. Nobody asked. The information that a member of the Golani Brigade, amongst other Israeli military, was running in the Sydney Marathon wasn't picked up by Home Affairs because they didn't want to pick it up. They obviously didn't want to raise the issue of whether it's appropriate to have people who have been engaged in what the Greens believe is a genocide, what millions of Australians believe is a genocide and what international tribunals and bodies of the UN have found to be a genocide. Home Affairs didn't want to know, because then they'd have to start asking inconvenient questions such as, 'Is it appropriate for people who have been part of a military engaged in obscene war crimes to come to Australia?' Millions of Australians would say, no, it's deeply inappropriate. The way Home Affairs under Labor avoids dealing with that question is 'don't ask; don't tell'. It's the same unprincipled approach that Labor takes to whether or not the US brings nuclear weapons into this country: Don't ask. Don't tell. We'd rather not know. You just do your thing. Critically, the information about those members of a foreign military wasn't uncovered by Home Affairs. It wasn't raised by the government. It was raised by a Facebook post that they put on. Not only is it about members of foreign countries coming here; we also know that some 500 Australians, as of March last year, were in the Israeli military. We don't know that from Home Affairs, because Home Affairs don't check. Think of that. Five hundred Australians of military age went to Israel and fought for the Israeli military, and Australia has not checked—doesn't review it, doesn't care, doesn't look at it. How did we find that out? Not from Home Affairs but from an Israeli FOI done by an Israeli NGO who was troubled about the number of foreign fighters and was trying to track where the people who'd been fighting in Gaza had come from. We could speak more about that obscene conflict in Gaza, the war crimes happening in Lebanon and the Israeli military. But I want to be clear, on behalf of my party, that we are equally concerned about members of the Russian military who are engaged in conflict and what have been repeated reports of war crimes in Ukraine. Look at the conflict that's happening in Sudan. Look at other foreign militaries engaged in war crimes—the US military officers who fired upon a school in Iran, members of the Iranian military. This is information that should be available to Australia to make decisions about people coming to Australia, and Home Affairs does not track it. This amendment would be a simple change to address this. We've put forward the amendment that would require an incoming passenger to say if they've fought in a foreign military over the previous 12 months and, if so, which one. The government may argue that the Australian travel declaration is primarily focused on customs enforcement and it's not appropriate to do here. However, the Australian travel declaration, which is the passenger card, also asks questions about criminal history, criminal antecedents and prohibited material. Asking whether or not you've engaged in military service over the past 12 months is not substantively different. I would have thought that most people would assume the government would be checking to see if Australians are leaving to fight in foreign militaries—checking whether you're going and putting on a Russian uniform and fighting, checking whether someone's going off and putting on an Israeli uniform and fighting or checking whether someone's going and putting on a US uniform and fighting. Most people would assume that this is checked by our government, but it's a head in the sand: don't ask; don't tell. It's all too tricky. There are conflicts that are in obvious breach of international law. I've named some of them here: Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's genocide in Gaza. At the moment, the US military is engaged in killing people on the high seas and extrajudicial murder. There's the US's unlawful attack on Iran. It's very relevant—whether or not people have been engaged in wars where there seem to be no limits and where war crimes and obscene, unregulated violence and killing are the norm. Without oversight of Australians fighting in foreign militaries, we are potentially providing a safe haven for war criminals. These amendments are the first step to ensuring that we don't do that and that international law is adhered to. When you come home to Australia, Border Force ask you if you've been hiking or been to a farm, but they don't ask you if you've been fighting in a war. How cooked is that? Chris Barrie, who served as Chief of the Defence Force from 1992 to 2002, said the lack of action from government on this is 'another example of the great Australian complacency', and he's damn right. I don't always agree with Jennifer Parker. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that I very rarely agree with Jennifer Parker. But she was right when she said: When somebody is motivated to go overseas and fight in hostilities for a side that is not necessarily aligned to Australian values, they're going over there and potentially being more radicalised towards those values. And then bringing back someone who has been through that experience, who has engaged in a conflict and fighting for a side whose values don't align with Australia, can potentially pose security risks in Australia because they're bringing that skill set, that experience, that radicalisation back to Australia. She's absolutely right. Think about someone who fought in the Golani Brigade and was part of a unit that killed 15 medical staff and first responders in Rafah. Are they values that we would agree with? I don't believe so. Think about somebody who fought for the Russian military in the war in Ukraine. Are they values that we would agree with? The Greens will move these amendments because we think these are questions that should be asked and we think there are checks and balances that should be put in place. I commend the amendments to the Senate. 18:57 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 and foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name. The bill makes a series of positive changes. The introduction of 'tell us once' reporting, the streamlining and the technical corrections each take something off the time businesses lose to administration. But it's important to see this bill in the context of the broader regulatory environment. Less than 12 months ago, we passed the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. That bill was directed towards similar ends, but what I hear from ACT small businesses is a story of increased regulatory burden. The trend towards more regulation of small businesses doesn't seem to have turned. A few weeks ago I travelled to Sydney to attend the COSBOA National Small Business Summit in Darling Harbour. Many of the small businesses and their representatives told me just how hard it is to deal with the regulatory burden placed on them. One of the things we don't talk about enough in this place is that small-business owners are getting smashed twice at the moment. Like almost all Australians, they have a mortgage or are paying rent themselves. They have to put food on the table, and they're seeing the prices go up. They have home and contents insurance, and they're seeing the prices go up there. They're experiencing everything that all of us are experiencing. Then, in their small business, they are in an economy where more and more Australians are tightening their belts and spending less. They are being squeezed at the moment. They're ending up spending hours and hours of often unpaid time on the weekends or late at night dealing with regulations. Following these conversations, I started to look at work that has been done on this issue, and I would like to suggest to colleagues that they may wish to read an article from the Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood titled 'The red tape impulse', published in the long-form policy magazine Inflection Points. The Productivity Commission has counted more than a doubling of restrictive terms in legislative instruments since 2006. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has found that the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation has jumped from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion this year. This bill does little to reduce those ballooning costs. I want to be very clear: regulation is necessary. Most regulation exists because somebody learned something the hard way. We need to be careful about saying that all regulation is bad. Clearly we need regulation to protect Australians and ensure that they know that the food that they're eating is what is on the label. The same goes for medicines they have. There is a whole range of other areas where we clearly need these protections in place. My concern is that the human instinct to regulate is strong and at times misdirected. More than that, regulatory effort is not often directed towards where it does the most good and is not about whether the businesses affected most heavily are the ones that should be. Consider who carries the burden of regulation now. A business with four staff has no compliance manager. When a new obligation arrives, the person filling in the form is the same person who was going to do the rostering, chase the invoices and open up in the morning. The paperwork is written as though it costs everyone the same, and it costs the smallest operators the most. In conversations with ACT small businesses, the frustration comes back to the amount of time spent on compliance. Nobody objects to being held to a standard. They object to waiting months to learn whether or not they have met it, all while continuing to pay costs. Now consider Canberra households dealing with companies at the other end of the scale—big businesses. Here in Australia we have an economy that is made up of incredibly concentrated sectors—duopolies and the big four. We don't have enough competition in this country. Clearly the parliament needs to shoulder some of the blame for the way that decisions have been made, over many decades now, that favour these companies and that have allowed the status quo to not just continue but see the concentration of market share and, in some cases, the blatant price gouging of Australians. Let's come back to the Canberra household who has to get their car insured. Car insurance premiums have risen by about 50 per cent in six years. When ASIC examined 320 renewal documents covering roughly seven-tenths of the market, it found insurers' explanations for those rises in generic language tucked away in supplementary documents, and it found that customers who rang up and pushed back got a lower price nearly a third of the time—the loyalty tax that we see too often in Australia. ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland put it plainly: There is no upside to loyalty. The household that stays put and pays on time is quietly charged more for doing so. Let's go to the airline industry. Take Jetstar, which from February next year will include one underseat bag in the fare and charge separately for the overhead locker. It's 33 bucks for the pleasure of taking a carry-on bag between Sydney and Melbourne and on a Melbourne to Tokyo booking, checked by the Guardian Australia, it's 86 bucks to take a bag over and $108 to bring it home. Of course, fares aren't going down to match, so the advertised price is no longer the real cost price of the trip. And parliament just sits here and allows this to happen. We saw this through the airline inquiry—the allegations of slot hoarding, the conduct of Qantas. Qantas, in reply, was saying: 'Well, it's actually an incredibly competitive market. We just happen to pocket 80 per cent of the profits here in Australia in this incredibly competitive market.' This contrast between large businesses and small businesses is alarming. A business with four staff must prove itself repeatedly to a variety of government agencies, while a company with millions of customers can lift a premium by half without explaining why. The people inside that system are not indifferent to this. The incentives point the other way. A minister who announced a new program has something to show at the end of the year, while an official who spends 12 months untangling overlapping requirements has an absence of regulation to point to. At the moment, nobody's measuring absences. The member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, made much of this case in the House and moved a second reading amendment to this bill. I want to acknowledge that work. My second reading amendment builds on one the member for Wentworth put forward in the other place. It asked the government to develop and implement regulatory reduction targets and strategies, to make senior officials and departments accountable for deregulation, to strengthen the Office of Impact Analysis and give it greater independence, and to fund the National Productivity Fund at a level that could repeat what national competition policy achieved in the 1990s. The government has identified the right problem. I'm asking it to be measured against that problem rather than just returning to this place with another bill next year and the year after that and our continuing to talk about easing the regulatory burden. Reports from the ground say that that is not happening. In fact, we're heading in the other direction where we're just constantly adding regulations that are almost always, you could argue, very well-meaning. But it's a burden for those who have to deal with it. I think there will be a real consequence of our failure as a parliament if we don't start to grapple with this issue—not just by talking about it but by actually removing unnecessary regulatory burden. I want to end by congratulating the government on a commitment made in this year's budget. In the budget, a commitment was made to reduce regulatory burdens by $10.2 billion each year. That is a strong commitment. I very much welcome it. I thank them for it, but it obviously has to be backed by action. It's the government's responsibility to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and make sure consumers are protected from the bad practices of large businesses in concentrated markets that clearly lack competition. I will keep pushing to get this done. 19:08 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026—what a mouthful!— introduces a series of mostly minor changes to administrative rules across multiple areas of government, which will supposedly reduce red tape, simplify government administration, streamline regulatory processes, repeal outdated legislation and make technical corrections—meaning 'fix their earlier mistakes'. There are a lot of earlier mistakes from this government. I'll start with the provisions in this bill which One Nation does support. On business regulation, the bill supposedly simplifies regulations affecting businesses, claiming to reduce reporting duplication, simplify intellectual property administration, make patent and trademark disciplinary processes stronger, simplify plant breeders' rights renewals, speed up antidumping refunds and simplify broadcasting reporting requirements. Then, on social security, several amendments supposedly include clarifying de facto relationship assessments, simplifying foreign currency calculations and allowing more flexibility for proof-of-life requirements for pensioners overseas. Then there's the Human Rights Commission. The bill removes the requirement for the Human Rights Commission to notify third parties when mentioned in discrimination complaints yet are not respondents. The government argues this removes unnecessary administration. Defence superannuation: former Australian Defence Force members gain access to Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation account based retirement products, which turn super into a tax-free regular income. This is probably one of the more tangible benefits in the bill. Customs and antidumping supposedly speeds up refunds, streamlines tariff concessions, fixes technical errors then again fixes technical errors, and aligns antidumping rules with World Trade Organization arrangements. Now the One Nation objections commence. The bill ties Australian law to two international treaties, the Madrid protocol and the agreement of Nice, which together regulate international patents and trademarks. The bill provides that where the international community changes the rules in those agreements, Australian law is changed automatically—no local scrutiny, no parliamentary scrutiny, just an immediate change of our law. Now, I accept the law around international trademarks and patents is working well, and this measure does not threaten Australian sovereignty in a material way. In fact, the measures act in the best interests of Australians. For this reason, One Nation will support this measure; although we will keep a close eye on this government's reach, and each and every attempt to compromise Australian sovereignty through international treaties over which Australia has no control. Workplace gender equality: the bill introduces a 12-month gap between reporting cycles, aligns with Commonwealth reporting dates and changes target timing. These are constructive measures to reduce the burden of reporting on workplace gender equality and will be supported. Nonetheless, let's just take a moment here. I have some questions. How can there be a workplace gender act drafted to encourage employment of women while this government can't define what is a woman? In fact, it appears we're back to a binary choice. Take note of that. I'll say it again. In fact, it appears we're back to a binary choice: men and women. Men and women—let that sink in. Even worse, the provision entrenches discrimination. The Australian Public Service is 60 per cent female. 'Great', say the feminists, 'nothing wrong with that'. Journalists are 58 per cent female, so of course that story doesn't get a run. Dentists are 57 per cent female, doctors are 48 per cent female and, with 67 per cent of students being female, health will be a female-dominated industry in the next five years. University students—68 per cent. Not only is the workplace gender act sexist, it's discriminatory. It highlights any incidence of men outnumbering women while looking the other way when women outnumber men. Fact: it is a feminist attack on men, on families and on the very foundation of our society. You'll hear more from One Nation about this. You can bet on it. Moving on, Tell us once: the government wants agencies to share more information internally so Australians do not continually provide the same information. Examples include healthcare identifiers, nominee arrangements, social security administration, proof-of-life certificates, customs processes. The government claims this will cause less paperwork, faster services, and reduce duplication. It reminds me of President Reagan saying, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help,' and it's a massive problem waiting to happen. Just listen to this: in case there is any doubt as to the intent of the bill, the explanatory memorandum is clear. The bill, 'enables the government to use any of a person's information it already holds to speed up and simplify administrative provisions'. We've seen this before, with tragic consequences. It was only a few years ago the government used the data it had in the Department of Social Security to match with the data it had in the taxation department to catch social security fraudsters, and made tens of thousands of wrong matches, sent debt notifications out to people who didn't owe anything—not a thing—cut off social security with no due process, and, as a result, people committed suicide. Today? Welcome to robodebt 2.0. The provisions in this bill could be used to justify a repeat of that process—except in this case it isn't a simple one-to-one match. They'll be matching people across multiple departments and multiple computer systems and really praying and hoping they make the right matches this time. What's changed since robodebt to suggest the government could get the process right this time? Nothing has changed. In 2019, after the failure of robodebt, the government commenced a technology uplift to get the computer systems in use in each government department talking to each other. This was to allow data sharing and improved audit—so we were told. Fair enough. The program was called GovERP, the government Enterprise Resource Planning initiative, which was known as the Shared Services Transformation Program. Sounds great, doesn't it? One after another, member departments pulled out. No progress was made, and the initiative was shuttered in 2024. Even worse, the platform that was created to sit between departments to hook them up was deemed unfit for future use and trashed. Our bureaucrats managed to spend five years authoring a complete failure. How much did this learning exercise cost taxpayers? It was $2.2 billion. The government has already spent $2.2 billion trying to get departments to talk to each other and failed miserably—failed comprehensively—yet here we are with a bill to share information between departments. It appears irrelevant that their computers are not technically capable of talking to each other to share the data. The last time we tried this, people died. There may be progress in data sharing that has not been documented, but One Nation has submitted a second reading amendment to stand this bill in the list for a month while the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee examines the technical feasibility of the proposal. There's nothing urgent in this bill. It has not been to a committee. Our amendment is a modest referral that seeks to clear up a simple question. The question is this: will the passing of this bill as written cause, or enable, robodebt 2.0? Let's find out before the Senate makes a horrible mistake. In concluding, I foreshadow second reading amendment 3939 standing in my name. 19:17 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales On the morning after the 2025 federal election, the Treasurer, Mr Jim Chalmers, went on national television and made a grand promise to the Australian people. He told the interviewer that, while Labor's first term was 'primarily inflation without forgetting productivity', its second term would be 'primarily productivity without forgetting inflation'. To signal this newfound economic urgency, the Treasurer hastily convened a productivity summit. Before the ink was even dry on the name badges, though, that was rebadged into the Economic Reform Roundtable. It has now been over a year since that 29-hour talkfest wrapped up and, looking at the state of our nation's economy, it's painfully clear that the Treasurer has managed to forget about both productivity and inflation. Both have gone terribly south on his watch. That summit was designed to reboot productivity in Australia and to get our economy moving again, supposedly because the chapter on inflation had been closed. We know that's not the case. Let's just have a look at what our productivity picture is. The Reserve Bank has been forced to downgrade our medium-term productivity growth assumption to just 0.7 per cent per year. It's never been that low. That's the medium-term outlook. In the short term, the RBA is predicting a further 0.5 per cent reduction in productivity growth just across this calendar year. The latest national accounts figures that came out just last week confirmed that overall labour productivity growth—that's real GDP per hour worked—over the past year was minus 0.2 per cent. That means that each worker is producing less with the same amount of inputs and with the same amount of time as they were two years ago. Why does this matter? It matters because these aren't just dry economic statistics. They aren't just for people who keep score of these things. Low productivity or, in fact, zero productivity growth or, even worse, as we've seen in Australia under this government, declining productivity is the direct cause of stagnant real wages. It's the direct cause of persistently high inflation. It's the direct cause of declining living standards. Let's look at the other part of Treasurer Jim Chalmers's challenge after having said that inflation had been slayed and he was now moving on to productivity. Australia's inflation rate remains stubborn at 3½ per cent. That's higher than the United States, the United Kingdom, the eurozone, Japan and Canada. Because of high inflation, household budgets are stretched to breaking point. Core inflation, or mean trimmed inflation, has been outside the RBA's target range now for over four years. For over four years, it's been outside the RBA's target range, which means prices are increasing faster than the RBA is comfortable with, and it's only putting upward pressure on interest rates. We've got inflation over the past four years above the RBA's target range. We've had three interest rate rises so far from the RBA this year trying to get on top of inflation, with all the indications being that a fourth may be coming. That's what market participants are predicting. We've got a per capita GDP growth that's stagnant. The national accounts showed that per capita GDP growth was stagnant in the last quarter. That is that the population grew at the same rate as the economy. And we've got real wages—that is people's take-home pay after adjusting for inflation, the fact that they have to pay more on goods—still going backwards. They're still lower now than when Labor came into office. After that productivity summit last year, I told this chamber that I was none the wiser about what it had actually achieved. Today, I can stand here with absolute certainty and say it has achieved nothing. Productivity is worse than it was when the government convened that roundtable. Inflation is worse than when the government convened that roundtable. That brings us to the legislation before us today. The coalition will not oppose the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, because we support practical commonsense measures that cut red tape and streamline government operations. But let's be very clear about the modest aims that are contained in this bill. This isn't going to get productivity moving again. It will at best remove some small points of friction within the economy. The bill contains 20 measures across some 25 acts, impacting 19 Commonwealth agencies. Schedule 1 delivers sensible administrative relief, modernising trademarks, plant breeders' rights and customs procedures, so Australian innovators face fewer hurdles getting ideas to market. Schedules 2 and 3 advance a 'tell us once' approach across social security, family assistance and child support legislation—a principle the coalition strongly supports so citizens aren't forced to repeatedly provide the exact same data to multiple departments. Schedule 4 includes technical fixes, including allowing former ADF personnel with Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation accounts to seamlessly access retirement income products. These are all modest and worthwhile adjustments, but let us be completely honest about what this bill actually is. This is not bold economic reform. This is not a productivity agenda. This is not Paul Keating mark 2. This is just legislative housekeeping dressed up as a deregulation strategy. The primary beneficiaries of these changes won't be hard-pressed small-business owners. They won't be families trying to make their sums add up around the kitchen table. They won't be employees. They won't be young people. They won't be people getting into the housing market. They will overwhelmingly be Canberra public servants who have slightly fewer forms to process. Worse still is that buried within this modest housekeeping exercise is a measure that fundamentally undermines basic Australian standards of procedural fairness. Part 4 of schedule 2 removes the mandatory legal requirement for the Australian Human Rights Commission to notify an individual when an adverse allegation is made against them in a complaint unless they are formally named as a respondent. So, under this change, whether an Australian is informed that serious allegations have been lodged against their name and reputation will be left entirely to the subjective discretion of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Imagine a workplace complaint made about your employer where serious allegations are made about your personal conduct. You would expect and deserve the basic right to know. That is fundamentally part of the principles of justice and due process—to know the accusations made against you, to know your accuser. But, under this proposed change, you could be left completely in the dark, discovering these allegations months later via a Google search. Reputations can be ruined by allegations alone, and we have seen far too many instances of the Australian Human Rights Commission's procedures being weaponised by vexatious individuals solely with the aim of harming the reputation of someone with whose political opinion they disagree or with whom they have some sort of personal animosity. In those circumstances, we should not be stripping away these sorts of rights. What is the government's justification for doing this? To save the Human Rights Commission an estimated 450 staff hours per year. So we're driving productivity in the Human Rights Commission. This is where the government's productivity agenda has reached—stripping everyday citizens of some of their fundamental basic human rights. That's the price tag that Labor places on procedural fairness: giving people at the Human Rights Commission a slightly easier day in the office. We should never sacrifice fundamental legal protections for citizens simply to save bureaucrats from doing their job. We should never do that. For that reason, the coalition will be moving two key amendments—firstly, a second reading amendment expressing the Senate's grave concern over this erosion of procedural fairness and referring part 4 of schedule 2, the offending part of this bill, to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Before we fiddle around with people's fundamental human rights, we should at least go through proper deliberative processes that this parliament is designed to carry out. Secondly, the coalition will be moving a substantive amendment in the Committee of the Whole to excise part 4 from the bill entirely and to preserve existing legal protections and safeguards as they are. Labor and the Greens have so far refused to refer this legislation to a committee. If the government, or the Greens, for that matter, truly believe that weakening natural justice and undermining fundamental procedural protections to save 450 hours of Public Service labour is defensible, they should not fear letting a Senate committee examine it. This bill must be judged against the sheer scale of the regulatory crisis facing our country. New research from the Institute of Public Affairs reveals that the Commonwealth's red-tape army is on track to exceed 110,000 public servants by mid-2027, an increase of over 19,000 regulatory officers, or 21 per cent, since Labor took office. Taxpayers are now paying out $16 billion annually just to fund the bureaucrats who enforce these regulations, which is up 34 per cent in just four years. Today, more than half of the total federal Public Service is engaged in roles that involve regulatory activity. In DCCEEW, as it's called, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, regulatory staff levels have more than doubled since 2023. This explosive growth in government bureaucracy is strangling the productive capacity of the Australian economy. It's making it harder for any small business to operate. It's increasing their compliance costs. It's increasing the share of their payroll that has to go to tasks that are not about servicing a client, winning new business, making a new product or delivering a new service but are solely about meeting the government's demands that are placed upon them. If you've got an economy where regulation has become strangulation and where the primary purpose of a business is, because of regulation, to serve the whims and needs of the government rather than to serve its customers, then that is a problem. That is why we have seen private sector business failures at a record high in Australia. It's why we've seen economic growth so anaemic. That is why private sector investment has collapsed. It is why private sector wages are growing slowly—because the growth in regulation is putting a burden all across the economy. Australia now ranks the second worst in the G7 for administrative and regulatory burden. Federal regulatory compliance costs have ballooned from $65 billion in 2013 to over $160 billion today. That's almost a threefold increase in slightly over a decade. The average small-business owner now spends nearly an entire working day every week—20 per cent of their time—doing nothing but filling out government compliance forms. The truth is, if you're a small-business owner, you're having to do that late at night, on the weekends or when you should be spending time with your partner or your children or being involved in your community. Instead, you're spending all this time dealing with this compliance burden that the government is placing on you. Forty per cent of small-business operators explicitly state that complex workplace laws and payroll taxes prevent them from hiring new staff. This is fine for big business. If you're an ASX listed company—if you're an ASX 20—you've got a huge human resources department. You've got a huge office of general counsel. You've got huge numbers of compliance staff. But if you're a small business—if you're a sole trader, heaven forbid, but even if you're a small partnership or a mum-and-dad operation or a tradie or an accountant—you want to be using all the people that you've got to generate money for the business by selling to customers, by finding new customers, by delivering services, by innovating and by developing new products, rather than devoting one-fifth of your time and one-fifth of your headcount to compliance activities. Every single hour a business owner spends complying with heavy handed government mandates is an hour they cannot spend investing, innovating, growing, hiring and recruiting, and those compliance costs inevitably flow down to Australian families in the form of higher prices at the check-out, in the form of declining real wages, in the form of higher inflation and in the form of higher house prices. The construction sector has been one of the worst performing sectors in terms of productivity in the Australian economy—productivity has gone backwards—but it is also the sector that has had to deal with the largest increase in compliance burdens. The National Construction Code has ballooned out to volumes and volumes of the Yellow Pages. If you want to know why productivity is going backwards, look at the compliance burden that's being placed on key sectors. You cannot regulate your way to higher productivity, and the government cannot continue to expand the administrative state with one hand while claiming to cut red tape with a handful of minor administrative tweaks in the other. That is all this bill is—a handful of minor administrative tweaks that are designed to make the operation of the federal public service in Canberra slightly more smooth, slightly more seamless and slightly easier. Australia does not need more forms, more regulators or minor legislative tinkering. Australia needs lower taxes, simpler rules, fewer bureaucrats and a government that trusts and backs Australian enterprises to grow. The coalition supports and will always support genuine deregulation that liberates our economy but not bureaucratic housekeeping masquerading as structural reform. We will support the practical improvements in this bill, but we will fight to protect procedural fairness and people's fundamental human rights and continue demanding the real productivity agenda this country so desperately needs. 19:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition, while supporting the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026, strongly opposes the changes to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act which are part of the Albanese government's regulatory reform bill. As has been stated, we'll be moving an amendment to remove this section entirely because it seriously undermines procedural fairness for a person who has had a complaint made about their actions to the Human Rights Commission. Sadly for Australians, the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Albanese government has serious problems. The President of the Human Rights Commission appointed by the Albanese government believes that an individual can be a biological man and also a woman at the same time. We have a Sex Discrimination Commissioner, again appointed by the Albanese government, who worries that transgender women—that is, biological males—can face discrimination for potential pregnancy in their workplace, and we have a Race Discrimination Commissioner appointed by, again, the Albanese government who wants to change Australia Day from 26 January and bemoans the 'undercurrent of nationalism' on our national day. He describes celebrating Australia Day as 'you've got to kiss the flag or go away'. That is the Human Rights Commission under the Albanese government. It is no longer about combating genuine human rights abuses from around the world. It has become a body that is simply promoting the Albanese government's agenda of a woke, divided Australia. This is the vision that the Australian people rejected when they said no to Anthony Albanese's divisive Voice. The regulatory reform bill has a small part hidden away, as always, which removes the duty of the Human Rights Commission to inform someone if they have had adverse allegations made against them. These provisions are described innocuously enough as 'removing adverse allegation notifications'. But behind this bureaucratic description is a very simple question of fairness. If a person is accused in a formal complaint before the Australian Human Rights Commission of personally engaging in unlawful discrimination, should that person ordinarily be told that the allegation has been made? I believe the answer is yes. The government's bill says that in some circumstances the answer should be no. That is a mistake. The bill before us repeals paragraph 46PF(7)(c) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. It then removes the related provisions governing the notification of a person who is not formally named as a respondent but who is nevertheless the subject of an adverse allegation in a complaint. This is not a technical amendment. It removes a deliberate procedural safeguard enacted by this parliament. In 2017 the parliament considered significant reforms to the complaints handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Those reforms followed intense public concern about a number of cases, including the proceedings involving students at the Queensland University of Technology. The explanatory memorandum for the 2017 legislation expressly referred to the QUT case. It recorded concerns that people involved in Human Rights Commission complaints were not always promptly notified that complaints had been made against them. The circumstances of the QUT matter should give this Senate pause before it passes this legislation. The dispute arose from comments made by a number of university students online following an incident concerning access to an Indigenous computer laboratory. A complaint was made against the students under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, but the students themselves were not immediately brought into the process. A complaint was initially made to the Human Rights Commission in June 2014. The commission's own public chronology records and the students were only notified of the complaint on 28 July 2015, shortly before a conciliation conference on 3 August 2015—13 months after the complaint was made. Those affected were finally notified by the Australian Human Rights Commission. That is clearly unacceptable. That is the very reason this safeguard was first put in the act. If someone has an adverse allegation made against them, they have a right to know. The QUT case was eventually dismissed by the Federal Court, because the court believed it had no reasonable prospect of success. But this case brought an important safeguard to the Human Rights Act—a safeguard that Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, now wants to abandon: procedural fairness. The Albanese government wants to throw procedural fairness in Australia out the door. The 2017 reforms dealt with the notification of formal respondents and the notification of other people who were personally the subject of adverse allegations. The QUT controversy was a central part of the broader background to those reforms. The government's explanatory memorandum said that the case and evidence before the parliamentary inquiry had highlighted community concern around timely notification. But the justification given specifically for the adverse allegation safeguard went even further. The explanatory memorandum acknowledged that someone who is the subject of an adverse allegation but who is technically not a respondent cannot necessarily be sued simply because of that status. Then it made an important observation. It said that such a person may nevertheless suffer reputational harm. And it said in substance that those people are entitled to know that allegations have been made against them and should have the opportunity if they choose to challenge those allegations. That was the parliament's rationale, and it was a sound one, because the difference between a respondent and a person who is the subject of an adverse allegation may matter enormously to lawyers. It may matter to the drafting of pleadings. It may matter to jurisdiction. But it does not necessarily matter very much to the human being whose conduct is being accused. Imagine a complaint against a company. The company is the formal respondent, but the complainant says that a named manager engaged in conduct said to breach Commonwealth discrimination law. That manager may not be the formal respondent, but the allegation is about them. It concerns their conduct, it personally affects their reputation, it may affect their employment and it may affect their professional relationships. And, depending on what follows, it may affect them for years. Under the existing law, parliament has said that, if the commission proceeds to inquire into that complaint, a person who is the subject of an adverse allegation is ordinarily to be notified, as they should be. That is procedural fairness. What the government is going to do with this legislation is remove that requirement of procedural fairness. Why? Well, the principal argument advanced is one of efficiency—efficiency over procedural fairness in Australia. The government says that this is part of a broader regulatory reform program designed 'to simplify the administrative processes'. The commission has estimated that administering adverse-allegation notifications consumes around 450 hours each year and includes identifying relevant people, considering redactions, obtaining contact details and preparing correspondence. Since when did 450 staff hours per year become too high a price for procedural fairness, for a human rights commission with well over 100 staff? Across government, we impose notification obligations all the time. We require notice before adverse decisions. We require opportunities to respond. We require procedural steps that take public servants time—God forbid! We do so because, while efficient government is important, fair government—procedural fairness—is even more important. A person can suffer serious consequences from an allegation, even if they are not formally sued. That is exactly what the 2017 explanatory memorandum recognised when it referred to reputational harm. And we should remember what kinds of allegations we were discussing. The existing definition is not triggered because someone has been mentioned casually in correspondence; it concerns an allegation that a person has engaged in conduct amounting to unlawful discrimination. If our law rightly treats those allegations seriously when protecting complainants, then our procedures should also treat them seriously when determining how the accused person is dealt with. Early notification can actually improve the quality of the commission's work. Someone who knows that an allegation has been made can preserve documents. They can retrieve emails. They can identify witnesses. They can explain a conversation whilst memories are fresh. They can point out a factual error. They can provide context that an organisational respondent may not possess. They can, in some cases, acknowledge what occurred and help resolve a dispute. And, sometimes, their response may actually demonstrate that the allegation is mistaken. All of those possibilities contribute to better fact finding and better conciliation. The Australian Human Rights Commission should actually set a high standard for procedural fairness. It should not be enough to say, 'You were technically the respondent, so we did not have to tell you that this serious allegation was being considered.' That is not the standard that Australians expect from government. There is, of course, an important qualification to the current law. There will be cases involving sexual harassment, domestic violence, vulnerable complainants or other circumstances in which immediate notification could create genuine risks. The former coalition government recognised this in 2017 and created an exemption where notification would prejudice a person's safety. The explanatory memorandum specifically contemplated that that might arise, for example, in sexual harassment matters. So we already have a law that recognises exceptional circumstances. So what is the Albanese government doing with the so-called innocuous part of this bill? The Albanese government has taken a scalpel to a problem and reached for an axe. It means removing a person's statutory right to be told that they have been accused of unlawful discrimination in a complaint being considered by the Human Rights Commission. That deserves more scrutiny than the language of regulatory efficiency suggests. A fair process protects complainants as well as respondents and third parties, because decisions and settlements reached through processes perceived as legitimate are more durable and command greater respect. The history of the QUT matter should have taught parliament that notification is not an administrative nicety; it is one of the foundations of procedural fairness, and that foundation will be thrown out when this bill passes the Senate. The 2017 parliament understood the potential reputational harm faced by a person who is the subject of serious allegation, even though they are not formally a respondent. It concluded that those people should know allegations have been made and should have an opportunity to challenge them. The principle remains correct today, and the coalition will be moving an amendment to take this out of the bill. I would ask—if you haven't read the bill, read it. Read this part. If you vote for it, you will be voting to remove procedural fairness from a person who has been named in a discrimination complaint. It's happened before. It had disastrous consequences. We legislated to rectify that to ensure that procedural fairness was afforded to people who are named in complaints. When a person's reputation is on the line, 450 hours of bureaucratic staff time across an entire year is, quite frankly, not too much for the Commonwealth to spend ensuring that people know what they have been accused of. As I've said, the coalition will move an amendment to ensure that this does not go through the Senate. We stand for procedural fairness. Shame on the Albanese government for ripping the guts out of procedural fairness in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act with the bill that they seek to put through the Australian Senate. 19:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd like to thank senators for their contributions to debate on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026. Every Australian and every business deals with regulation on a daily basis. They deal with it when they start a business, when they stock a product on the shelf, when they access a critical service for a vulnerable relative and when they drive to work. Building better regulation is a national ambition, and I want to acknowledge and thank those senators who have constructively engaged with the government on this bill. Our goal for regulatory reform has been to build better regulation. Better regulation is not simply about counting whether there are fewer or more regulations than yesterday. Indeed, inflexible or ideological targets can do as much harm as good when it comes to ensuring regulation is fit for purpose. Better regulation is about what regulation is needed to protect consumers to efficiently deliver care and service to Australians who need them and to allow businesses to do what they need to do at the lowest regulatory cost. This is what the government's regulatory reform agenda will achieve when fully implemented. It will cut the regulatory burden by $10 billion a year, giving the economy the space it needs to invest, hire and grow. It will make it easier to do business across different Australian jurisdictions. It will continue to progress a 'tell us once' approach to interacting with government, meaning businesses and Australians don't need to tell their story over and over to get things done. It will deliver better regulation. To sum up, this bill includes 22 measures that amend 26 acts, appeal two acts and affect the operations of 19 government agencies. It will simplify regulation, particularly for business. This bill will implement important updates to intellectual property legislation and add valuable flexibility to the trade remedies process for importers. It will progress important changes to support gender equality in our workplaces by simplifying workplace gender equality reporting and target-setting requirements to ensure more thoughtful gender equality targets set by employers with a lower regulatory burden. This bill will give former ADF members more choice to manage their money in retirement. It will also make various technical amendments to improve the operation of existing regulations and repeal legislation that has become redundant. I'd like to speak in more detail on the government's amendment in this place to improve the administrative working of the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort. This measure reduces the disallowance period for CSLR special levy determinations, which are made when there is a shortfall after collection of the legislated annual levy from 15 sitting days to five sitting days. The CSLR exists to support Australians who have nowhere else to turn to, to get recourse for losses they have suffered due to financial misconduct, and the special levy is a safety net for when the set annual levy isn't enough to meet all compensation obligations. However, ASIC is not able to collect the funds raised under this special levy until the disallowance period has expired. Fifteen sitting days is a long time on the calendar, and it is a long time to make vulnerable victims of financial misconduct, such as retirees or those facing serious illness, wait to get their much needed compensation. In practice, the time taken between the CSLR operator notifying the minister of a shortfall and the funds being made available to eligible victims can average more than eight months. The government's amendment removes a delay in an already lengthy process and replaces it with one that is fit for purpose. Parliament will retain oversight on determinations and will be able to disallow them if it deems it appropriate to do so. The levy will not take effect until the disallowance period has passed. Finally, this change will align the CSLR levy timeframes with those that are already applied to ASIC's industry funding levies. I'll briefly speak on the non-government amendments proposed for this bill. I want to reiterate that the amendments made by schedule 2 part 4 will not reduce procedural fairness in the Australian Human Rights Commission investigation of a complaint. These amendments will make the complaints process a more effective and streamlined process for everyone involved. I also want to be clear that the government will not be supporting amendments to change the treatment of limited recourse borrowing arrangements for superannuation funds. The amendments would roll back changes intended to protect people's savings that the Senate debated and voted on on 25 June 2026. Nothing has happened in the last 2½ months to justify considering this issue again. Finally, at this time, the government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Greens to include foreign military membership as a matter that must be declared on incoming passenger cards. The nature of these cards may not give an accurate picture of this information in cases where it is needed most. Furthermore, the likely cost required to update Border Force systems to read the new information is not proportionate to any perceived benefit of this change. In conclusion, this bill is only one small part of the government's delivery of its regulatory reform agenda. I expect that regulatory reforms omnibus bills will continue to be developed and introduced as the government identifies and develops more positive regulatory changes. I look forward to further collaborative engagement with my senatorial colleagues when our next bill arrives. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question now is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Smith be agreed to. A division being called and as per arrangements within the Senate, we'll deal with that tomorrow. Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 105

Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 105 19:53 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026. The coalition strongly supports protecting the commercial rights, images and indicia associated with major sporting events, but those protections already exist. This bill is about something very different. It takes another decision out of the hands of parliament and puts it into the hands of a minister—in this case, the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Communications, Ms Wells. Since 2014, major sporting events have been recognised through primary legislation. This bill would allow the minister to recognise them through delegated legislation instead. Labor calls that efficiency, but administrative convenience is no justification for diminishing parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. Increasingly, I have to say, this is becoming a hallmark of the Albanese government—more power for ministers, less scrutiny by the parliament. The fundamental problem with this bill is that the government has not identified a problem which needs fixing. There is no evidence that the existing process has prevented Australia from protecting the commercial rights associated with major sporting events. There is no legislative logjam. There is no demonstrated urgency. According to the departmental briefing provided to the coalition, this change was initiated by the minister, not by sporting organisations or other stakeholders. So why should the parliament give up its existing role? The government's answer appears to be 'convenience'. It says this will save parliamentary time and allow decisions to be made more quickly. Yet major international sporting events are planned years in advance. The 2020 and 2022 T20 World Cups and the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup were all successfully recognised through amendments to the act—so the existing process works well. If we look ahead to major sporting events—the 2027 Men's Rugby World Cup, the 2028 cricket world cup and the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games—we've got plenty of warning that these events will be held, and there is no suggestion that the parliament cannot find the time to properly legislate and subject the legislation to appropriate scrutiny. There is a very important principle at stake: primary legislation requires the government to come into the parliament, explain what it is proposing and subject that decision to parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Under this bill, the minister makes the decision and parliament sees it afterwards through delegated legislation, which is not good enough. We have seen this from the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Communications, with Labor's disastrous Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. The bill sought to hand extraordinary powers to the communications minister, including the personal power to direct the regulator to investigate particular types of misinformation and the power to exempt particular digital platforms from the scheme. The coalition, along with many others, fought that bill, and Labor was ultimately forced to abandon it. The same thing is happening with the proposed digital duty of care, where the government, based on what we have read, is proposing to give the minister wide-ranging and extraordinary powers to make regulations governing categories of online harm without any scrutiny of the parliament. That is just unacceptable. Significant policy decisions must be made transparently and subjected to the scrutiny of parliament, not progressively transferred to ministers because it's quicker or more convenient. Very significantly, the minister has failed to explain why the existing process is inadequate. She has not demonstrated any urgency and she has not demonstrated why the parliament should give up and surrender another important decision to the executive. This bill is a solution in search of a problem, and the price of that solution is less transparency and more ministerial power. The coalition strongly supports protecting the intellectual property associated with Australia's major sporting events, but will not support administrative convenience being used as an excuse to diminish transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, the coalition will oppose the bill. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Tertiary Education and Training 106 19:59 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's commitment to easing the cost-of-living pressure and ensuring that financial hardship does not stand in the way of students and the qualifications they need to build a better future. For too many students, mandatory practical placements have meant an impossible choice: complete the training required for their degree or keep the paid work that covers rent, groceries, petrol and household bills. We believe that these students need our support, and, for those students who must travel or relocate, those costs can increase just as their capacity to earn income falls. Labor understands that placement poverty is real. That's why we established the Commonwealth prac payment—practical cost-of-living support for students completing practical training. Eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students already receive support during mandatory placements. In 2026, the payment is $338.60 a week—means tested, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate and indexed annually. Now the Albanese Labor government is extending paid prac to 10 more frontline allied health disciplines. These include clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry. This means that, from 1 July 2027, eligible students in these courses will be able to receive the payment while undertaking their compulsory placements. This expansion will support around 21,000 additional higher education students and lift the total number supported each year to around 95,000. It means more students can spend less time worrying about how to pay the next bill and more time concentrating on their studies, developing their professional skills and completing their qualifications. On Thursday 27 August, the Minister for Education, the wonderful Jason Clare, visited northern Tasmania to meet university students who will benefit from these extensions. He listened and spoke with students because they know firsthand what it means to balance study, placement, paid employment, family responsibilities and rising everyday costs. That visit also highlighted why this reform is especially important for regional communities like my own. A placement can require a student to drive long distances, pay for parking, find temporary accommodation—to then maintain two households is a real challenge. These barriers are often greatest in the very places where shortages of healthcare workers are most acute. By easing these costs, we're supporting educational attainment and opening the door to jobs for tomorrow. Allied health professionals are essential to our modern health care. They help people recover from injury, regain mobility and communication, manage chronic illnesses, respond to emergencies and live with greater independence and dignity. Growing Tasmania's workforce is crucial. We need more health professionals in our hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, disability services, aged-care settings and regional communities. Supporting Tasmanian students to qualify and undertake placement locally strengthens the pipeline of skilled workers who can build their careers in Tasmania and care for their fellow Tasmanians. This extension is therefore both immediate affordability relief and long-term investment in better health outcomes. It strengthens Medicare by investing in the people who make our health system work. It supports students today so they can provide care for the communities of the future. There is a stark contrast between us as a Labor government and the new coalition of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation, who always want to talk about the difficulties but never come up with the solutions—unless, of course, the Liberals are trying to 'outpolicy' on issues where they believe that One Nation has got some runs on the board compared to them. Well, the reality is we're a government who are responsible for delivering outcomes. Investing in the health professionals of the future is beneficial not only for our health outcomes but for communities like mine in Tasmania. St John International 106 20:04 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia 'For the faith in the service of humanity'. That's the motto of St John Ambulance. It's a call to action that best describes its incredible work around the world. Perhaps a better description may be 'a global movement of volunteers dedicated to caring for those in need and empowering communities to provide care to each other as well'. As an Australian volunteer, I'm very proud of what St John is achieving around the world. In Tanzania, St John leads the way in emergency preparedness by taking first aid and first-aid training directly to the people. In doing so, St John is building a first-aid culture in Tanzania, ensuring their communities become more resilient. Volunteers recently attended a vibrant festival at Sukuma, which had over 3,000 people attend. Volunteers also attended the National Touch Event at Itilima, which had over 2,000 people attend. At both events, the members of the community were very interested in learning first aid. In Ghana, St John officially launched its mother and baby program. This marks a new chapter in this initiative, which is over a decade old and was originally launched in Malawi, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe in 2014, with Kenya joining in 2025. It's tailored to the needs of the local community, and the program aims to help families better understand maternal and newborn health, including the importance of antenatal care. It also assists communities in recognising danger signs and seeking assistance as early as possible. It encourages greater involvement from fathers and grandparents, as well as other members of the community. Local ownership and community participation will be central in its implementation and its success. In Papua New Guinea, the ambulance service run by St John has received the Excellence in Staff Development Award at the Council of Ambulance Authorities 2026 Awards. The award recognised the National Ambulance Education Centre: Building PNG's Pre-hospital Workforce initiative. This was judged alongside leading ambulance programs from Australia and New Zealand. Papua New Guineans have been trained for the PNG to become much-needed qualified ambulance officers equipped with nationally recognised skills that align with international best practice. I extend my congratulations to all involved. Congratulations are also should be extended to St John in Malaysia, which celebrates 118 years of service. The occasion was marked with a renewed commitment to community health care with the launch of its mobile healthcare unit, a significant step forward in expanding access to healthcare services, particularly for senior citizens, low-income families and other under serviced communities. Back here in Australia, St John has launched Australia's smallest big thing, a new pocket defibrillator. In Australia, over 80 Australians suffer cardiac arrest outside of a hospital every day, 30,000 annually. This small pocket defibrillator weighing less than 700 grams is small enough to fit into a backpack and it's one of the smallest automated defibrillators available in Australia. The new technology will save lives. It doesn't mean that we should no longer seek out first-aid training. The opposite is true. We all still need to undergo training so we can deploy this new technology to save lives. I express my deep appreciation to all St John volunteers around the world dedicated to keeping their communities safe and in the service of humanity. Parliamentary Standards 107 20:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I want to raise a matter in the Senate tonight that's been sitting quite uneasy with me for some time and did come to light last Friday in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the Defence Estate. In her opening statement, Celia Perkins, a defence official, told the committee that she and her colleagues did not consent to footage of their evidence being used as content on social media platforms. To be clear, the committee was right to decline that request. Evidence given to a Senate committee is public evidence. It is not for a witness to decide which part of a public record can be filmed or shared, but this does not mean that we should ignore why she made that request. Watching yourself and other witnesses have their evidence clipped, stripped of context and turned into social media grabs designed to provoke rather than inform is why I want to bring this to the attention of the Senate tonight. We have seen senators accuse witnesses of not telling the truth, shifting the focus from what was said to what plays very well in a feed that rewards outrage over accuracy. As we heard last week, department secretaries have now written to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards about this. There is an irony here. Every hearing opens with the chair of a committee reading a preamble about treating witnesses with respect. Some of those quickest to accuse this official on Friday of trying to silence scrutiny are the very people whose use of clip footage online gave rise to her concerns. The person raising a legitimate concern now gets branded as the one doing the silencing, while the conduct that incites outrage online goes unexamined. Some colleagues have in the past week also spoken about the role of algorithms associated with social media platforms. Minister Plibersek, for instance, has warned that these systems are designed to maximise engagement by feeding users the most extreme material available. She was speaking about the violent, misogynistic content that is pushed at young people within minutes of setting up an account. Platforms don't amplify our most careful contributions; they amplify the most inflammatory ones. A thoughtful question gets a few hundred views, whereas a gotcha moment gets picked up straightaway by an algorithm regardless of whether the claim is factual. There's an old instinct in this country to cut down anyone seen as getting above themselves, and political content now packages that instinct as accountability. It used to carry a social cost. People who made a habit of it were seen as bullies. Now it carries a reward. An algorithm doesn't care about whether we're holding someone to account or tearing them down for clicks. It rewards both, provided they generate outrage. That goes to the heart of what this official was trying to say. I'll also note something that I've seen online since Friday—the suggestion that this female Defence official has no standing to object because she is a senior public official, a public servant on a substantial salary. That reasoning should trouble all of us. A public servant's pay is a matter of public record, but it is not a licence to treat her with contempt. If earning public money means forfeiting any expectation of basic decency, it will make it very hard for us to attract good people in the Public Service. The Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, has warned that leaders in public life need to be mindful of the language they use. The Prime Minister echoed that earlier this year following the Bondi attack, calling for the temperature of public debate to come down. Perhaps this parliament should look at how evidence given to committees is used and whether MPs need our own standards for how we describe witness evidence online. The request went further than the committee should allow, and it was right to say no, but the official was not being precious in raising it. She named something a lot of witnesses now feel and few say out loud. This parliament owes her and those who come after her a serious answer. It's called respect. Senate adjourned at 20 : 14