2026-09-08 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 8 September 2026

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 12:01 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Here we are again in yet another abuse of the Senate's time and the Senate processes. I'm always happy to turn up in the Senate and talk for five minutes. It's not a burden for me, but it is a misuse of the Senate's procedures and processes to proceed in the way that Senator Bragg does. What we've seen from Senator Bragg over the course of the last period is a pretty incoherent approach—an approach that's characterised by big noise in the National Press Club, a lack of solidarity amongst his colleagues— Senator Bragg 256063 On a point of order on relevance, this explanation is supposed to be related to the order for the production of documents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I've just been informed by the Clerk that there are no strict rules of relevance relating to statements from the minister. Senator AYRES 16913 What I'm doing is explaining that this requirement imposed by Senator Bragg on the Senate is unreasonable, and it is a requirement that is an abuse of the processes. It sits in a context where Senator Bragg's fervent opposition to doing anything at all about the housing performance of this country is completely overwhelming common sense and completely undermining the national interest. Senator Bragg says that people who support the government's agenda in housing don't have brains. That's what he said. He said that Australians who have an alternative point of view to him don't have brains. That is the kind of trap that the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation find themselves in. First of all, Senator Bragg characterised people in government who have an alternative view to him as communists not once, not twice, not three times but dozens of times. That is too silly for words. Everybody knows that, but it's apparently what New South Wales moderates are forced to do in order to perform for their more right-wing masters—use florid language in order to characterise. Then it goes to Australians who support the government's efforts, the biggest pro-housing agenda in our history, Senator Bragg says—and presumably Senator Henderson supports this proposition—that Australians who support the government doing this don't have brains. It's a lot like the One Nation senator yesterday who wanted to characterise those Australians who build renewable power stations in a pejorative and un-Australian kind of way. This is the problem. The problem for Senator Bragg is that at the outset of the government's housing agenda being established, which was delayed by the Senate, Senator Bragg could say, 'There are not many houses being built at the outset.' But the problem, Senator Bragg—through you, Deputy President—is that every day more houses are built. We're not wandering around knocking them down. More houses are built, and your position becomes less and less sustainable. There have been 700,000 homes built since this government was elected—7,000 homes built and tens of thousands more on the way in the social and affordable housing area. This is a government that is delivering real change and giving young Australians a crack at the housing market. That is a good thing. Despite Senator Bragg's abuse, we will continue. (Time expired) 12:07 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Speaking of the abuse of this institution, in taking note of the minister's answer or explanation—if you can call it that—it is very clear that this government is trampling all over this institution by refusing in any way to seriously address the question before this chamber. And the question is: why hasn't the government provided the five per cent deposit scheme modelling? That is the question. That is why this minister was required to come in here and explain himself last Tuesday and next Tuesday when we're back here in the bush capital because we are well paid to come to Canberra to do these jobs and to get answers for the Australian people. The fact is that the Prime Minister said the five per cent deposit scheme, the removal of means testing and the removal of caps was going to result in a 0.6 per cent increase in home prices over six years. What we saw after the changes came in on 1 October was a six per cent increase in six months for entry-level houses that Australians might be able to purchase. That is why, I assume, the government does not want to provide the Treasury modelling and all we see is pages and pages of redacted material, which is showing this government's disrespect for the Senate. It's no wonder the Centre for Public Integrity has said this is the most secretive government since the Keating government 30 years ago by virtue of their failure to respond to Senate orders, their failure to provide proper answers to freedom of information requests, and their failure to be transparent, honest and upfront. What they should have said is: 'Here is the Treasury modelling unredacted so people can see it, analyse it and look at the parameters. And you know what? We got it wrong. We got this wrong, or we got that wrong. We relied on that. We shouldn't have relied on this.' People will respect you more for being honest and upfront. No-one expects the government to be perfect, but we want the government to be the best government they can be, which is the job of the opposition. You wonder why people don't like politicians; this is the reason. You come in here and you give your five-minute explanation. You talk about the moon landing and all these other random things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is: why hasn't the government provided the five per cent deposit scheme modelling? That is the question we've been pursuing for months. While we're on that topic, this is part of a pattern of behaviour. This government has not provided the modelling and the detail behind their promise that rents would only go up by $2 a week when they're going to go up by up to $200 a week in places like Sydney. We can't see that modelling, and we can't see the modelling behind the tax changes which threaten to remove 35,000 houses from Australians over the next few years. So we see no modelling on five per cent deposits, we see no modelling on $2-a-week rent increases and we see no modelling on 35,000 fewer houses. That is a disgrace. The people down at the Treasury are paid to do work not for you but for the Australian people. When they do their modelling, it should be presented for the public interest. We should be able to see the parameters that you relied on when you made these schemes, when you did your budget. We should be able to see them. The fact that you are sitting on them—and that, every time you come in to give the explanations, you talk about a thousand different random things—is a disgrace. And it is an abuse of process. By coming in here and saying the opposition are doing the wrong thing by trying to get answers, you're basically saying there's no point in having a parliament. That's what you're saying. Our job is to be the best opposition we can be, which means holding the government to account to get transparency and answers for the Australian people. You are spending billions of dollars on weird housing experiments. You are radically changing the tax code to reduce housing supply and to increase rents. These are issues that matter to the Australian people, whether they live in the cities or in the bush. They are now paying the price for your tax experiments, your weird tax surgery, in the form of higher rents and fewer homes. That is not going to help the Australian people. We will never give up on trying to get to the bottom of these things, because that is our job. That is our job and that's what we are paid to do. So we'll keep on pursuing the five per cent deposits, we'll pursue your promise of $2-a-week rent increases—which is a joke and already a laughing-stock—and we will pursue your policy of having a deliberate design feature to reduce supply. Just because you spend billions of dollars on housing doesn't mean you get more houses. In fact, the evidence is in. After these four or five years of this Labor Party in government—you spend more money, but you get fewer houses. 12:12 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I also rise to take note of the minister's response. Minister Ayres says he is happy to be here. Well, that's well and good. He needs to be here. We are in a housing crisis, and it deserves the full attention of every Labor minister to, as the Senate has requested, address the gaps in analysis and, most importantly, the gaps in policy. The Senate deserves that full response. It is undeniable that Australia is in a housing crisis. Australians are hurting. I've spent months in recent times hearing directly from people across our country about what's going on for them—renters, young people, people with disability, Indigenous people—and about the housing crisis that is driving too many of them and their families into cars, under bridges and into severe housing stress. We have too many families who are in serious danger without a roof over their heads, young people who have given up hope of ever owning a house and renters being absolutely smashed by unlimited rent increases that mean they can't put the groceries they need in their fridges and so their kids and their entire families suffer. Many renters are just one rent hike away from losing everything and being pitched into homelessness, and governments across this country are not taking action, which they could take immediately, to cap rents and to help reduce the number of people who are living in real danger, sleeping rough. That's why the Greens have been calling for caps on rents and for an end to unfair rent hikes. But not everyone suffers in a housing crisis. We've got 640,000 Australians in urgent need of public and community housing, but some people, despite that, are doing extremely well out of the housing crisis. While everyday people suffer, the banks are the big winners. We heard last Thursday in this parliament from the big four banks, who, between them, in the last year we've got records for, earned over $30 billion in profit. Take the Commonwealth Bank, our most profitable bank. Labor sold it for a mere $8 billion not so far back. Last year they made $11 billion in profit in the midst of a housing crisis. Our banks are some of the most profitable corporations in our country and amongst the most profitable banks on the planet. The housing system we have was created by successive Labor and coalition governments and is deliberately designed to reward the corporate greed of the banks, property developers and investors and not ordinary people who are really struggling to get by. Last week all the big banks were unprepared to answer important questions about their profitability off the back of everyday Australians' mortgages. The big four banks refused to tell us how much of their profits came from owner-occupier loans. They also refused to tell us what the average profit is over the life of an owner-occupier or first-home buyer loan. There's research that tells us that big banks make more than $228,000 in profit from an average 30-year loan. Tax changes alone were never going to cut it. Labor needs to take on corporate greed in the housing market by taxing big corporations, building more public homes like we used to do—we know that works, and we know that that is a major problem for us right now—and ending grandfathering for wealthy property investors. Millions of households are doing it tough while the banks profit in the midst of this housing crisis. More and more of them are suffering, and Labor is failing to take the action needed to deal with the crisis we're in. House prices and rents are out of control, and real wages are going backwards. Working hard no longer guarantees you the chance to save for your deposit and get yourself into a secure home. No-one should live in this wealthy country without safe and secure housing that supports their wellbeing, their health, their access to the labour market and their chance of holding down a job. Despite falling house prices, housing affordability is at a record low in our country. The solutions are clear. In a nationwide housing catastrophe, we need rent caps. We need to stop knocking down public housing. We need a massive long-term boost to public investment in good quality homes, being rented to people at prices they can actually afford. We need substantial government funding at all levels of government to match the scale of this crisis. We need stronger, consistent rental protections across the country. We say to the minister, who will keep appearing here before the Senate: Give us the information we seek. More importantly, give us the solutions we need. (Time expired) 12:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's extremely important that people listening to this debate understand what we're actually discussing here today. The Senate passed a motion requiring documents to be produced to the Senate in relation to the government modelling supporting its five per cent deposit scheme. A majority of senators—we just heard from Senator Barbara Pocock, a Greens senator, and we heard from my colleague Senator Bragg, a coalition senator—required the government to produce these documents, and the government has refused to do so. The government has thumbed its nose at this Senate and refused to provide these documents, notwithstanding the order from the Senate. This isn't just a single occurrence; this is now a course of conduct. It goes to the character of this Labor government. They do not like transparency, they do not like accountability, and they don't like integrity. It's not just me saying this. The Centre for Public Integrity—one of our outstanding non-government organisations that's at the front line of calling for greater integrity, accountability and responsibility in relation to government processes—also said it about the Labor government. Director Geoffrey Watson, a wonderful Australian who's been at the front line in dealing with corruption by the CFMEU construction division, says: The alarming deterioration in transparency is deeply troubling … undermining democratic accountability. That's not a Liberal senator saying that; that's Mr Geoffrey Watson. Professor Gabrielle Appleby says: … ministers are hiding information from the Senate and the Australian people … They're not just hiding it from us. When they hide it from us here in the Senate, they are, in effect, hiding it from the Australian people, because we are sent here by the Australian people to perform our roles in this house of review. In order to discharge our obligations, we need the information to review, and the information we're seeking in this regard is the government modelling which supported its five per cent deposit scheme. Senator Bragg made a very, very important point with respect to why this information is crucially important. The government did not anticipate the consequences of this scheme, and the facts prove that. There was a six per cent increase across the country in the cost of entry-level housing during the first six months following the introduction of this scheme—six per cent in six months. The government never predicted it, so we want to see the modelling. On what modelling did you base this policy? Now they refuse to give us the modelling. How are we meant to interrogate the basis for policies adopted by the government if they will not give us the information and the analysis used to form the basis for adopting those policies? Why do they fear exposing that analysis to the sunlight of the day so that it can be examined, it can be questioned, it can be queried and we can have a debate? Why do they continue hiding information? In the words of Professor Gabrielle Appleby, 'Ministers are hiding information from the Senate and the Australian people.' This is a really important point, and I commend Senator Bragg with respect to his determination in relation to trying to get access to this information. And we will keep coming back here; we will keep coming back to the Senate and seeking explanations from the minister. We're going to hear another explanation from a minister in a few moments. I ask everyone who's listening to this debate to ask themselves: 'What are they hiding? Why are they fearful of this information being produced to this Senate and, through this Senate, to the Australian people?' It's not good enough. We also want to see the modelling which, in the budget, said that rents would only go up by $2 a week. As Senator Bragg said, in his home city of Sydney the fear is that rents are going to go up by hundreds of dollars a week. We also want to see the modelling, in the budget, which said that, as a consequence of Labor policies, there would be a decrease in housing supply. As a direct consequence of their tax measures, housing supply is going to decrease. We want to see the modelling for that, and we want that modelling to be produced to this Senate and, through this Senate, to the Australian people. Question agreed to. Infrastructure: Land Transport 4 Order for the Production of Documents 4 12:23 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I refer to order for the production of documents No. 576, relating to allegations of unacceptable behaviour on land transport infrastructure projects, moved by Senator McKenzie and agreed to by the Senate on 12 August 2026. A response to this order was tabled in the Senate yesterday. The government tabled seven sets of meeting notes relating to meetings held between the department and Victorian officials. These notes contain all relevant information within the scope of the request, with minor redactions made to prevent the release of information that could prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of law. Everything else redacted in those documents is outside the scope of the request. Senior officials discuss a wide range of matters at these forums, including governance, assurance and project delivery matters across the Infrastructure Investment Program. If anything, the length of the meeting notes shows how much work this government is undertaking to deliver the infrastructure Victoria needs. As outlined in the response, the minister has also claimed public interest immunity over other documents subject to the order. Reports received by the Commonwealth from the Victorian government regarding allegations of criminal behaviour or corruption on IIP projects contain information that may prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source for the matters referred to in the reports. Additionally, information has been provided on a confidential basis. To release these reports could prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of law and would adversely affect Commonwealth-state relations. 12:25 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Well there you have it. I take note of a pathetic response to the order of the Australian Senate for this government to produce documents to assure federal taxpayers that their funds are not funding corruption—unlawful and illegal criminal behaviour—on public infrastructure projects in my home state of Victoria. I note the minister's advice that the documents tabled contained minor redactions. Please, if you're near the web—I'll show the people in the gallery the minor redactions. Eighteen pages are blacked out. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Eighteen pages blacked out is not a minor redaction, Minister. People deserve to have confidence— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Minister, on a point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 There are standing orders that relate to the use of props. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I did call Senator McKenzie, and she did put it down. I will bring it to her attention again, Minister. It's okay to refer to documents. However, we try to avoid using props. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I find it difficult to believe that a document that has been tabled in this chamber is unable to be referred to. But, anyway— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 You absolutely can, Senator McKenzie, and I said that. Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Deputy President, in relation to this interpretation of props, can I ask you to take on notice—because it does raise an interesting question—that Senator McKenzie is actually referring to the documents which were tabled in accordance with the order for production of documents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Absolutely. Senator Scarr 282997 She wasn't referring to anything external from the operation of this Senate. From my perspective, if one were to pick up a bill and say, 'This bill is 300 pages long,' then that's something quite legitimate to do. It's not a prop; it's a law which is being debated, just as the response to this order for production of documents is being debated. So could I ask you to take that on notice? I think it's an interesting question. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I agree, Senator Scarr. Minister Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 I do think it's interesting given, Senator Scarr's determination to bring economics 101 in here from time to time. I think, if you do review what Senator McKenzie said, she invited people to approach the material in a particular kind of way. I don't want to spend much time on it, but, you know, we do try and keep some order in the joint. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 My view is, and this is consistent practice, where documents are being referred to, they are absolutely allowed to be in the chamber. However, holding them up to the cameras is where they perhaps enter another zone— Senator McKenzie 207825 I was holding them up to the gallery— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 or to the gallery, for that matter. That is where they perhaps enter another zone. However, Senator Scarr, as you've requested, I will take this matter on notice, and I will refer it to the President. Senator McKenzie, you have the call. Senator McKENZIE 207825 On 12 August 2026, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents, including reports from the Victorian Labor government to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government relating to allegations of criminal or unlawful behaviour on land transport infrastructure projects. They were ordered to be produced. Parties on opposite sides of the political spectrum joined together to say this minister needed to produce these documents. Yesterday, the minister failed to comply with the order of the Australian Senate. What we know is that the incredible accusations of $15 billion of CFMEU corruption on Victoria's Big Build infrastructure projects are not a myth. The Commonwealth has put $30 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money into Big Build projects. The Victorian Labor government has for years attempted to wash over claims of corruption. The now premier and then deputy premier, Ben Carroll, has finally called a royal commission into the corruption. We also know the Victorian government has provided reports to Minister King of allegations of corrupt and unlawful behaviour, yet Minister King, once again, running a protection racket for the Victorian Labor government and their pals in the CFMEU, has failed to provide copies of these reports from the Victorian government. Not one such report was included in the documents tabled yesterday. Minister King has claimed public interest immunity. What was provided by Minister King, as I said in my opening remarks, is an absolute insult to the Australian Senate. Of the 43 pages submitted in these documents, all but two pages are heavily redacted with huge black slabs, like someone's got the big texta and said, 'You shall not see this.' Eighteen pages are fully redacted—not a word on them. The remaining pages are heavily redacted, with isolated sentences taken from minutes of meetings between Commonwealth and Victorian officials. What was supplied was the attendance of six meetings between the state of Victoria and Commonwealth road projects governance group. No documents were provided as to the actions the federal government has taken to ensure federal money has not been used to fund unlawful or corrupt practices on jointly funded infrastructure projects—something I have been pursuing for years in Senate estimates, in this chamber and through the Senate more broadly. The Albanese government has attempted to close its eyes and its ears to the corruption in Victoria, despite continuing to funnel billions of dollars to projects—the North East Link, the Suburban Rail Loop—which have been subjected to allegations of bullying, corruption and fraud. Legitimate construction businesses are denied access to these publicly funded infrastructure projects. You need to have the right people working for you to get a job in the corrupt state of Victoria. An incident having occurred in the gallery— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you. It's great to have some people from my home state in the gallery. The Suburban Rail Loop has been subject to at least 16 serious allegations of unlawful and criminal behaviour. The North East Link has been subject to 28 allegations of corruption, fraud, criminal behaviour and breaches of workplace relations laws. It is clear Catherine King is not interested in being upfront and transparent. The Albanese government is either negligent or complicit in the corruption that's occurring in the Big Build in Victoria. 12:32 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The disrespect that has been shown to the Senate, that has been shown to this chamber, by the government in producing this order for production of documents and then redacting 18 pages—18 pages blacked out—is extraordinary. Labor promised Australians that it would clean up corruption in the construction industry, yet two years now after the CFMEU was placed into administration that rot remains. Indeed, potentially it has got even worse in my home state of Victoria. The shocking allegations of corruption and worse on building sites continue. It is not unreasonable of this chamber to request an answer to the question 'what did the government know before it allocated further Commonwealth funds to these projects?' Australians continue to hear allegations of organised crime infiltrating taxpayer funded construction projects—stories of violence on worksites, of payments to underworld fixers, of a culture that this government seems remarkably incurious about and reluctant to confront. It's extraordinary that on one project alone $6 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money has been allocated in two tranches—one in May 2022 of $2.2 billion to the Suburban Rail Loop. Since that time, the government found out that there was corruption on that worksite and then went on to allocate a further $3.8 billion. How can that be so? What did the government know and when? It is not an unreasonable question to ask. The Prime Minister himself has said that he sought assurances from the Victorian government that there was no corruption on that worksite. If that is the case, show us the documents. What were those assurances? Were they received verbally? Were they received in writing? Who was it that was asked? Was it done formally? Was it done informally? It's not too much to ask, because this is exactly what the taxpayer would expect of an opposition—scrutiny of government decisions when they know that corruption is involved. Just in the last week, the CFMEU administrator reported that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals from something called the Building Industry 2000 Fund that's controlled by former CFMEU boss John Setka as well as Ralph Edwards—when the administrator has said that it's unclear how that money was spent. These are very serious allegations, and they deserve serious scrutiny and a serious response from government, not indifference. Labor claims it's done all it can; it's appointed an administrator. But clearly that's not good enough. Worse still, under Labor's scheme, some of the very people associated with the union's worst excesses only have to wait it out. They can return to the union after five years. The CFMEU administrator has acknowledged on television that John Setka could potentially return to the union under Labor's rules. That's Labor's soft touch on corruption in construction. That is all you can do. 'We've done all we can do,' apparently. That's why I introduced a bill just last sitting week to ensure that the CFMEU administrator has the powers he needs to ensure that the union cannot simply recycle the worst of its offenders. And if Labor is genuinely serious about stamping out corruption and criminality in the construction industry, it should support tougher laws. It should support proper parliamentary scrutiny. And—you guessed it—it should comply with orders of the Senate, because that's what we're here to do. Senator McKenzie's order required the government to produce very basic reports that it received from the Victorian government on allegations of criminal and unlawful behaviour. The Senate agreed to that order a month ago. Labor's disrespecting of the Senate the way the government has done is demonstrative of its commitment to stamping out corruption on construction sites. You've had plenty of time to conduct the consultations. You knew exactly what the Senate has required, and you have ignored it or, even worse, undermined it. Minister King has claimed public interest immunity over these documents. What an insult to the Senate. There are 73 pages, and only two have given us any information at all. Secrecy forms part of a broader pattern. But what is Labor hiding? What does the government have to hide here? Who are you protecting? Labor has refused to support Senator Kovacic's proposal for a Senate inquiry into corruption in the construction industry. It's refused to refer my bill to an inquiry. The Prime Minister says he's received assurances, but what assurances are they? This is what we need to know. What do the reports say? It is not too much to ask. The people in the gallery want to understand what their taxpayer money has gone to pay for. 12:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I wasn't going to speak in this debate, and I heard the contributions made by the minister defending the government's decision not to release information that was required by an order of this Senate. I've heard Senator McKenzie's contribution and I've seen Senator McKenzie in Senate estimates asking, in a determined way, questions on behalf of the people of Victoria and on behalf of the people of Australia with respect to corruption issues on construction sites in Victoria as part of Victoria's so-called Big Build projects, which would be better called Victoria's 'big corruption projects'. I've listened carefully to Senator Hume's contribution as well. Senator Hume has been a fierce warrior in terms of requiring accountability from the administrator of the CFMEU construction division. So I'm moved to make this contribution. And I want to make this point: the Senate is not seeking these documents for ourselves; we are seeking these documents for the Australian people. We are seeking these documents for you, because we want to shine a bright light on the circumstances in which the federal Labor government—your government—is providing billions of dollars of funding, your money, to Victorian infrastructure projects, and there is evidence after evidence after evidence that these projects are infected by corruption, driven in large part by the CFMEU construction division. Billions of Australian taxpayer dollars are going into these infrastructure projects. We want to know what the Labor government is doing to protect taxpayer funds so they are not going into projects that are riddled with corruption in Victoria under the Victorian Labor government. What is the Labor federal government doing? Now we have a situation where the minister has described the redactions made to the documents as 'minor redactions', and yet you heard my colleague Senator Mckenzie say there are 18 pages that are entirely blacked out. That's what 'redacted' means. It's covered in black ink. The printers around this parliament have run out of ink because of the quantity of redactions. It's absolutely outrageous. Then the minister from the other place says that the minister's making a public interest claim. That's not a public interest claim; it's a Labor interest claim. It's not a claim being made in the public interest. It's being made in the interest of the Victorian Labor government because they don't want the truth to come out with respect to the extent to which these Victorian Labor construction jobs are riddled with corruption and are being funded by Australian taxpayer dollars. In my home state of Queensland, nearly every single major infrastructure project over the last 15 years has had the CFMEU tax. The budget has blown out by 30 per cent. Everything from Ronald McDonald House, which provides accommodation for parents and children seeking medical treatment, through to barracks being built at Defence establishments, highway projects and schools—every single infrastructure project—has blown its budget by 30 per cent because the CFMEU corruption, every single one. That's our money. That's your money, which should be spent on schools and hospitals and services. As the Labor government goes to above $1 trillion of debt, think of what those funds could have been used for. The Senate has sought this information to clarify what the federal Labor government is doing to protect Australian taxpayer dollars from the corruption riddled Victorian Labor government's Big Build projects. That's the information we're seeking, and that is the information that the Labor government is denying to the Senate and denying to the Australian people through the Senate. We will keep raising these issues. We will keep determinedly seeking this information, because it's in the interests of the Australian people that we do so and because it's your taxpayer dollars, your funds, going into supporting these projects. You deserve better. You deserve better than 18 pages of redacted information and no answers given whatsoever with respect to the response of the Labor government. Question agreed to. BILLS 7 BILLS Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 7

Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026

Second Reading 7 12:43 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The coalition is strongly focused on putting parents back in control of their children's online safety and forcing greater transparency from big tech, but this bill is flawed and cannot be passed in its current form. Australian families deserve more choice, control and transparency online. There must be much more urgent requirements in relation to combating online harm. Parents should be in charge of how they protect their children online, not Silicon Valley and not Canberra. I want to say very clearly that the coalition has a strong record of leading on online safety by establishing the eSafety Commissioner in 2015, delivering the Online Safety Act and leading the push for an under-16s social media ban—a ban which in its implementation and design has gone badly awry. Labor's record should give Australians little confidence. The social media ban, despite all the spin that we hear from the government, has seen the proportion of under-16s still using social media platforms fall by just 4.4 percentage points. I have just been listening—and the press conference is still going on—in relation to the government's digital duty of care and the exposure draft, which I understand is being released right now. Of course, no-one has had an opportunity to even read that document, assuming it has been released. But the Prime Minister continues to mislead Australians in relation to the number of accounts shut down as a result of the social media ban. He just said it again a very short time ago: 'More than five million accounts have been disabled or shut down or closed.' That's not the case, because a very significant number of those five million accounts were, in fact, Google accounts—which include children who have a Gmail account. So the government continues to mislead grossly in relation to its social media ban. We know it's failing; we know it hasn't worked, and it's because it was rushed, badly designed and poorly implemented, and now the government is scrambling to introduce a digital duty of care on the very day that this bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, is before the Senate. I don't think it's any coincidence that the press conference has been timed to cut across this debate in the Senate. I have to say, overnight, we were shocked to see a government amendment to this bill brought forward. Two months ago, disgracefully, the government was urging the coalition to immediately pass this bill—without scrutiny, without any transparency, without giving key stakeholders and other Australians the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the bill. We very, very quickly learnt, in our Senate inquiry, that the bill was flawed, because one of the elements of the bill was additional powers for the eSafety Commissioner, which would give her the power to order the production of documents from any person in relation to compliance with the social media ban—that includes end-user children and their parents. That is wrong at every level, and that received widespread condemnation by the likes of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, the Law Council of Australia and many others in our Senate inquiry. Even the department itself, as well as the eSafety Commissioner, recognise that there'd been a significant drafting flaw and that it was not the government's intention to extend this power to any person—only to the relevant third-party companies, such as age-assurance providers. So we will be putting forward an amendment to correct that significant drafting error—or, I would say, significant issue—with the bill. But we were shocked to discover overnight that the government is now putting forward a further amendment to give the eSafety Commissioner draconian powers—powers to interrogate any person, not just the social media companies, in relation to this ban. There is no right against self-incrimination. There are very, very significant fines which would flow if someone did not comply, including potential imprisonment of up to 12 months. These powers have been dropped on the Senate with no notice, no scrutiny, no transparency, and this is after the government, two months ago, urged the parliament to pass this bill without any delay. Now the government is scrambling. But, I have to say, the coalition members and senators are shocked by these draconian powers, and they will not be supported. What we will be putting forward in this bill is an amendment which reflects our concern about the lack of algorithmic transparency. Big tech has enormous power over what Australians see, read and hear every day, yet the algorithms making those decisions remain largely hidden from view. These systems decide what gets recommended, what gets promoted, what gets buried and what gets moderated. Australians have a right to know how that works, including a right to know what is being censored. What are the hidden harms that are being driven by these various different algorithms? That's why we will be seeking in an amendment that social media companies disclose their algorithms, as X has done in relation to its 'for you' feed, which is publicly available and can be interrogated. Transparency is everything. It's been done by X, and I applaud X. Even the eSafety Commissioner applauded X, but we want to see that level of transparency across the board so that social media platforms' recommendation and moderation systems will be known to Australians while at the same time protecting proprietary information such as source code, personal information and other information relating to security and safety concerns, including in relation to children. This would mean that journalists, researchers and any Australian could better scrutinise whether their platforms are pushing harmful material, manipulating users, censoring legitimate views or applying their own rules unfairly. Big tech should not be able to operate a black box which shapes what millions of Australians see every single day without proper scrutiny. We will also be putting forward an amendment to give Australians, particularly parents, greater freedom to choose the digital safety services they want to use to protect their children. The big boys in town—Apple, Google and Microsoft—should not be able to lock out competing safety tools while giving their own products privileged access. It is alarming that these safety tools are available to large corporations and government departments through enterprise agreements, yet Australian consumers, particularly parents, are being denied access to these tools, which would allow parents to determine exactly how they control what their children see online right across the digital ecosystem, not just on social media. Parents have got to have the right to choose the tools they trust to block harmful content, to restrict apps and websites, to manage screen time and to keep their kids safe. There are some incredible third-party apps available, including one offered by a large Australian company that's now got global reach in many parts of the world, including the US and the UK, where parents have got complete ability to control what hits their child's phone so that the harm actually never reaches their child's phone. We think that that is very, very important. Of course, as we have made clear, the jury is very much out on the government's draft digital duty of care laws, which, we have already made very clear, raised serious free-speech concerns. It's no coincidence that the government is scrambling and has brought forward its exposure draft. It was meant to be released at the end of the month. It's now being released today, on the very day that this bill is being debated in the Senate. We have very, very serious concerns. We have seen alone with this bill that the minister, Ms Wells, cannot even get the basics right. In more than four years, the government has delivered only a defective social media ban and is now scrambling to bring forward this far-reaching digital duty of care. While we will consider the government's exposure draft, the proposal for new ministerial powers to make regulations governing categories of online harms without parliamentary oversight is a serious threat to free speech. Labor's disastrous misinformation and disinformation bill demonstrated the dangers of giving government sweeping powers over what Australians can say and see online. This prime minister and this communications minister should not be trusted with another attempt to regulate Australians' freedom of expression. I was just listening to the media conference and I did hear the minister say, 'You don't expect us to recall parliament every time we want to update the digital duty of care with respect to online harms.' Yes, we do because, if we are going to regulate in relation to online harms, this is a job for the parliament. This is not the job for the minister, for the executive and for the unelected eSafety Commissioner. We have been very strong in relation to tougher action that's required to combat serious online harms and empower Australians to take greater control over what they see online. But the digital duty of care, as we understand it, with these wide-ranging powers of the minister to make regulations without parliamentary oversight is a very significant, dangerous step in the wrong direction. I also want to raise concerns about this focus on algorithms. Do we opt in or opt out? In fact, there are numerous algorithms or sets of rules which apply to any given social media feed. We have serious concerns about the impact of opaque algorithms and their addictive design features, particularly on children, which can amplify harmful content while stripping users of meaningful control over what they see. But we think we must start with the basics—that is transparency—which is why we are taking action in this respect. We have seen already that many tech entrepreneurs and small businesses raise concerns about rushing to any proposal which would mandate non-profiled social media feeds without proper scrutiny and consideration. So there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether Australians should be able to switch algorithmic profiling on or off, but Canberra should not dictate what Australians see online by replacing one compulsory system with another. That's why we believe that this needs much more scrutiny. As I say, we, the coalition, have a very proud record of standing up for Australians when it comes to protecting their online safety: the world's first eSafety Commissioner, cracking down on image based abuse, the Online Safety Act and of course leading the charge on the social media ban. But, as we have seen, this is a ban that is not working. It was rushed. What I would say right now is that, if the government is intending to try and rush through the digital duty of care, it has a big fight on its hands because we are not going to allow that to happen. 12:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak in support of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This bill is about improving social media and people's mental health. It's about a world-leading protection for children against the largest and most powerful technology companies in the world. The Albanese Labor government's social media minimum age is groundbreaking reform. In spite of what we've just heard in that contribution—on something they did in 2015—it is since 10 December 2025 that age restricted social media platforms have been required to take responsible steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Millions of young people are now safer online. This bill strengthens that framework by expanding the eSafety Commissioner's information-gathering powers and increasing civil penalties for non-compliance. This is not about punishing children or parents; it's about placing responsibility where it belongs: on the platforms that design these services, profit from that attention and possess that technology and the technical capabilities to make them safer. Young people and their families should not carry the burden of outsmarting systems deliberately engineered to keep users scrolling, watching, comparing and returning. It's a platform's choice to operate in Australia. They choose to operate in Australia; therefore, they must respect Australian laws and the standards Australians expect for the protection of children. The minimum age gives children something increasingly precious: time—a few more years to be a kid; a few more years to play sport, to ride a bike, to read, to make music, spend time outdoors, have some arguments with their brothers and sisters and friends, and learn how to make up; a few more years for them to grow in confidence and to also gain the maturity to be able to measure what they're viewing and the shares and the followers that they're participating in. Childhood should not be a contest for attention. It should not be shaped by commercial algorithms that know how to hold a child's gaze before a child has developed the maturity to understand how or why it is happening. We know social media can connect people, open doors to creativity, provide access to support and information, but we must also be honest about the risks. People in this chamber, too many people in this chamber, use clickbait—the algorithms—to make political points without thinking about the impact on and the mental health of their target. I'm not talking about when they target other politicians; I'm talking about other targets. We believe that it is essentially important that we protect young people. Many platforms are not neutral notice boards; they are sophisticated systems designed to maximise engagement and to get you addicted. Their recommender system learns what provokes a reaction and serves more of it. For young person, that can mean relentless comparison, pressure to present a perfect life, exposure to harmful material, sleep disruption, compulsive use and the sense that they are never quite good enough. Mental health is shaped by many factors. No responsible government would pretend that there is one simple cause or there is one simple cure. But government does have a duty to act where product design can magnify distress, insecurity and isolation. Delaying access to social media accounts gives young people breathing space to develop digital literacy, critical reasoning, impulse control and resilience. It gives families and schools more time to help children recognise online risks and seek support. Most importantly, it tells young Australians that their wellbeing matters more than technology, more than a technology company's next dollar. The first months of a framework have shown why strong enforcement is essential. The eSafety Commissioner has reported significant concerns about compliance by some platforms. Under-16 users have in some cases retained accounts, created new accounts or passed age-assurance systems. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement held an inquiry into child sexual exploitation. Not all the platforms that we invited would come along and give evidence or front up to our inquiry, but one that did said they already controlled access to under-14 -year-olds. Then, during that inquiry, a member of the committee tested the system, registered as a 12-year-old, and got through—and I can assure you he's not all that literate in technology—so they failed even in an inquiry into the most horrendous circumstances of child sexual exploitation. We know through our other inquiries the number of young men, in particular under the age of 16, that have been coerced into rooms and groomed to commit some horrific crimes. That's why this legislation is so important. Under-16 users have, in some cases, retained accounts, created new accounts or passed age-reassurance systems. Some services appear to have allowed repeated attempts at the same age-assurance method, while pathways for parents to report underage accounts have not always been accessible or effective. A law protecting children cannot depend on the voluntary goodwill of companies whose commercial incentives point the other way, because the dollar is so mighty. That's why this bill matters. It equips the eSafety Commissioner to obtain the information needed to determine whether platforms are genuinely taking reasonable steps. It strengthens the consequences for failing to comply. Effective regulation requires evidence, transparency and meaningful penalties. Without those things, the most powerful platforms can conceal weak systems behind broad assurances and treat penalties as merely another cost of doing business. Parliament must ensure that compliance is real, measurable and enforceable. We should be clear that age restrictions are not the end of this work. They're a vital first step in a broader reform agenda. Building on the social media age, the Albanese government will, later this year—as we've heard already—introduce a digital duty of care. An exposure draft was made public today. That duty will require digital service providers, including some social media platforms, to adopt safety by design, maximise user choice and transparency, and put systems in place to prevent harm before it occurs. I repeat: it is to make sure there are systems in place to prevent harm before it occurs. The central question must no longer be whether a company reacted after harm became visible. It must be whether that company took reasonable steps to stop foreseeable harm in the first place. So no 'oops, I didn't realise that was going to happen,' not when even someone like me understands algorithms. We understand what motivates them and what works, and that's why clickbait and these media companies rely on them. Safety by design means considering users' wellbeing at the beginning of product development, not adding a complaints process after the damage is done. It means giving people meaningful control over what they see and how their data shapes recommendations. It means clear explanations about why content is being presented, practical ways to change the settings and systems capable of identifying and reducing foreseeable risks. Responsibility should sit with those who build and operate the service, not be outsourced to a child, a parent or a distressed user. The digital duty of care must address personalised algorithmic recommender systems that maximise engagement and profit before user wellbeing. These systems can amplify extreme content, entrench social biases and drive harmful comparisons. They can send users down rabbit holes and into echo chambers, repeatedly reinforcing one view of the world until difference feels threatening and division becomes normal. They can reward outrage, emotional intensity and conflict because these reactions keep people engaged. In doing so, they cause psychological harm not only to individuals but to families, communities and our democratic culture. We have regulated other products when their design created foreseeable risks. We established safety for cars, medicines, workplaces and consumer goods, because companies should not be free to externalise harm onto the public. Digital services should not be exempt simply because their machinery is software and their harms can be difficult to see. When a system is designed at extraordinary scale, small design choices can affect millions of people. That reach must always come with responsibility. Creating a digital duty of care is complex policy and must not be rushed. I take on board what the senator said before. But, for every piece of legislation that is enacted, we know how fast technology can move. We know that there are great benefits to the internet, but, believe you me, there are a lot of dangers out there, particularly for immature young people, who do not have the capacity to make the right choices. People, particularly young people, want to be engaged. That's what these algorithms rely on. That's why criminals and organised crime rely on it. That's why paedophiles rely on it. They engage with children to make them feel that they belong. Children are the most vulnerable people in our community, and we will do them a great disservice if we do not support this legislation. This isn't really about whether it's a Labor government introducing this. This is about protecting young people. It's about protecting our children. It's about protecting their wellbeing and their mental health and allowing them to grow and to experience life before they become engaged with computers and in the online society that we all know. We can see the benefits, but as adults we can also see the failings and the concerns. As a senator in this place, I know the impacts that it has on Tasmanian families, I know the children that have committed suicide because of the bullying that's taken place on social media and I know the devastation felt by those families and the communities. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to make changes as we go through and to build on this legislation. After this legislation and the duty of care legislation pass this place, with amendments, there will always be more to be done because there are always those companies that will put the dollar first. They always have. That's what happens in society each and every day, and they will continue to do that. So we have a duty of care to continue to monitor this legislation and any future legislation to ensure we protect the most vulnerable. In this case, it is our children. But the warning is still there for everyone in our community. It's so easy to be scammed and it's getting easier and easier with AI. The message here is: take responsibility; support this legislation. 13:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to the debate today on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the government's social media ban for those under 16 has been an utter failure. It's not just a failure in terms of how the law was drafted, which is why we're here today—this particular piece of legislation has to fix mistakes that were written into the original piece of legislation passed almost two years ago—but a failure because the proof is now in the pudding and we can see that 80 per cent of young people are still online and still accessing social media. Their access to those platforms is now more unsafe than it was two years ago. Social media is more unsafe now than when the government's social media ban first passed this parliament almost two years ago. The reason for that is that the laws never actually made social media companies provide a safer product. They never had to deal with the harms that young people face every day when they're scrolling on their phones, when they're messaging their friends and when they're being bombarded with content that is addictive, that is harmful and that preys on their vulnerabilities and their emotions. When the social media ban was first put to this parliament almost two years ago, I stood in this exact place and said it would fail to keep people safe and that we needed a digital duty of care and legal requirements on these platforms to provide a product that is safe to use and to ensure that the product that is promoted and pushed into the community is one that is based on safety first, not profits first, not addiction first. I said to the government at the time that we needed to regulate algorithms—the technology that is kept behind closed doors, kept secret, but uses individuals' data to feed addiction and to manipulate. The government refused to do either of those things. However, today we see the Prime Minister standing up in the Prime Minister's courtyard, announcing that this government will finally move on putting in place a digital duty of care. Years later, the government has finally seen the warning signs and can see the writing on the wall that just trying to kick young people off social media has failed to keep them safe. All of the experts were telling the government this years ago, consistently. I'm looking forward to being able to go through the details of the exposure draft, as announced by the government today. The Greens are prepared to roll up our sleeves and make sure legislation can pass this place if it actually protects people. We need legislation in this place that holds big tech to account and that makes sure their product is safe to use and not designed purely to make maximum profit off of harm and addiction. Big companies, like Meta in the United States, have just had to settle huge, multibillion-dollar court cases because their product has been found to be deliberately designed to be addictive. Their product grooms people. It takes private data, puts it into the algorithm and uses the algorithm to force-feed content that feeds people's insecurities, feeds their fears, feeds their anger and feeds their desire. The way the technology is designed to work is that it keeps you scrolling through this cesspit of outrage, depression, horror and emotion. Big tech doesn't care what content is being force-fed into the hands and the devices of our young people. All they care about is that it will spread like wildfire because every click, every share and every view makes big tech more money. We have an opportunity to fix this today. We have an opportunity to look at how we can hold big tech's feet to the fire. We've got to hit them where it hurts, and that is their business model. Their business model is these addictive algorithms—design features that are deliberately designed and tailored and tweaked to keep people addicted, to use people's data to manipulate them into staying online longer and isolating themselves from their real friends, and to suck them down rabbit holes into places where no child should go. We know that these social media companies are going to arc up. They're going to push back really hard on any suggestion of a digital duty of care because they know that if the law is put in place properly, if it's to actually do what it needs to do, it will impact on their profits. Their profits, billions and billions of dollars worth of profits, are generated from a product that is not safe, that is causing harm and that is designed to be addictive and to use people's vulnerabilities even when it is harmful. That's why we need the digital duty of care legislated. But we need it to be right, we need it to be strong, and we need to make sure it actually puts the safety of Australians first, not the profits and the concerns of big tech. We need to make sure that for individual users—whether we're young, old or in between—it's our choice what we want to follow, what's in our feeds, what information we consume and what we seek out and that we choose our own feeds, not big tech. It's a basic freedom-of-choice argument. If I'm a customer, I should be able to choose what it is that I want to see, what it is that I want to purchase and what it is that I want to consume. But the way social media currently runs and the way big tech have manipulated current laws is not about individual choice. It doesn't give any individual user the right to choose. You're spoonfed and force fed content even when you don't want it. Back in the days when social media first started about six years ago, not that long ago at all, the majority of social media feeds were the people who you chose to follow, the accounts that you liked, the holiday destinations you wanted to dream about, the businesses that you wanted to follow and buy things from, the friends you had, the family members you wanted to stay in contact with and the celebrities you wanted to follow. What content you wanted to see and who you wanted to associate with as an individual user was based on your choice, but that is all gone. It is now near impossible sometimes to even find in one's social media feed anybody you do follow, because people's feeds are full of what the tech companies think you should see—suggested content, content recommended by big tech. And why is that particular feed being recommended by big tech? It's because every time you scroll on it, every time you click play, and every time you go back and watch it again it makes them money. Big tech uses addictive technology and personal data to keep us scrolling for longer even when the content that we are seeing is harmful. It's disgusting, actually. It's disgusting that an entire industry now consumes so much of how we communicate in our lives with each other, how we do our jobs and how we find out about information. It is actually disgusting that the manipulation of the technology and the data is used to addict and feed harmful content. It's true that social media is an unsafe place, particularly for young people. Children are still, despite the ban—because it doesn't work—being force-fed misogyny, extremism and violence. Young men are being fed information to make them feel bad about themselves, suggesting that, unless they take certain steroids, they're never going to get a girlfriend, that it is somehow the female teacher in the classroom's fault that they've done badly on their English exam or that the girl sitting next to them in the classroom doesn't deserve their respect. The coalition on that side of the chamber, the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation, are all lining up to attack further regulation on big tech under some false premise that this is somehow a freedom of choice argument. It's just utter rubbish. Their talking points are directly from big tech. This isn't about silencing anybody's point of view or stopping lawful content from being shared or posted; it is simply saying that big tech must not be able to use dangerous and harmful techniques to keep us addicted and being force-fed extremist and harmful material. It says that, if we had serious duty of care legislation with strong provisions and proper regulation of algorithms, each individual Australian who has a social media account would be in charge of their own social media. This is actually about freedom—freedom to choose and freedom from the tricky, manipulative techniques of big tech. I know there are a lot of parents in the building today who have sadly and tragically lost their sons and daughters who've taken their own lives after spending time online and being harassed and bullied and manipulated. To those parents I say thank you for being here. What we now need to do is to put in place laws that will actually protect young people and that will actually stop big tech from preying on their emotions and insecurities and using their emotions for profit. That's why we need a proper duty of care bill. (Time expired) 13:28 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I realise we're about to hit a hard marker in about a minute and a half, so I'll save my substantive points on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 for when we return. I take exception to the point that Senator Hanson-Young was making that the coalition is just taking from the talking points of big tech. The reality, and the reason we are concerned about this bill, is that it's not actually fixing the issue that we all in this place, hopefully, agree needs to be fixed, and that is that it isn't protecting children. There is no more important role for this parliament than to protect the welfare and the safety of children and to put forward the best possible policies that will in fact do that. What is being proposed here is not going to deal with those issues. The bill before us is actually fixing up the design mess of the government's bill that was first here. The very things that we said were a problem with the bill still exist now. This bill doesn't actually deal with those issues at all. We call on the government to support our amendments—which I'll detail when we return to this debate—that will actually go to fixing the issues. As I said, nothing is more important than the welfare and the safety of children. We need to make sure that legislation actually suits that. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 315170 We've now hit the hard marker of 1.30, and we will move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 13 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Himalayas: Floods 13 13:30 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I wish to acknowledge the devastating flooding and landslides that have struck Nepal and surrounding areas and the devastating human toll that this disaster has taken. To the people of Nepal and particularly to the Nepalese Australian community watching events unfold from here at home, I want to extend my deepest sympathies. Australia is home to a proud, hardworking and deeply connected Nepalese community. For many, these are not distant images on a television screen. These are the places that they grew up in, the communities they know and the people that they love. I know there will be many Australians desperately waiting for news of family members and friends, and our thoughts are with them during what must be an extraordinarily anxious time. I also acknowledge the Australians who have been caught up in this disaster and their families here waiting at home. The scale of this tragedy is another reminder of just how vulnerable communities across the Himalayan region can be to extreme weather and natural disasters. And, while we must focus first and foremost on the human toll, we cannot ignore the environmental factors contributing to the increasing danger faced by communities in this region, including that of intense rainfall, changing weather patterns and the pressures being placed upon fragile Himalayan environments. Understanding those factors, strengthening resilience and improving disaster preparedness will be essential to protecting lives in the years ahead. To those who have lost their loved ones, we offer our deepest condolences. To those still waiting for news: our thoughts are with you. To the communities now beginning the long task of recovery: Australia will continue to stand beside you. And to our Australian Nepalese community, once again: I thank you for your contribution to our country and for coming here to make a better life. We stand with you as you worry about your families at home. Education 13 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I recently joined the community at Maitland Lutheran School on South Australia's Yorke Peninsula. I was there to open their new facilities. It was so delightful to see the amazing art facilities they've developed, the workspaces and outside areas for the senior students and obviously the support services that get to utilise those areas and the staff working areas. The project, like so many of the other projects like this, is backed by the Australian government's Capital Grants Program. This particular program was a $1.1 million investment, and it's great to see this school develop. I was lucky enough to be there in 2024 to open their new senior school facilities. It is a community that has really banded together to provide the best possible support for the children of that community and the development of that school. While I was there, I got to speak to a range of the senior students, and I was delighted to see two of them lining up for medical school, both with a real passion for improving health services across the regional areas of South Australia. There was also a young man there who is looking to take up an apprenticeship in V8 supercars and hoping to one day be a Formula 1 driver. So I give a big shout-out to those guys; they've got excellent ambitions. There are also some excellent young ones looking at psychology, engineering, tourism and hospitality. It was a real pleasure and a real boost to have that time talking with them about their ambitions and about how they see themselves in those regional areas training, developing and remaining in those areas to support that community. So I give a big shout-out to the Maitland Lutheran School, all of those students and that excellent community. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 14 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland We've heard a lot about men's sexual violence against women lately. The Nationals leader wrongly suggested that a feminised curriculum pushes boys to the manosphere. But sexual violence is all about power, entitlement and a lack of consequences. Too often, this is what happens when a woman speaks up. First, she's doubted. The principal, her boss, her coach or police question what really happened. Is she sure? Maybe she just misunderstood. She calls 1800RESPECT and is referred to a sexual violence service that is too full to see her. Her abuser threatens defamation action if she tells people what happened. She tries to go about her life, but every day she sees her abuser at school and hears the rumours that he's spread. Her grades drop, and she drops out. She decides to press charges and becomes part of a system offering little hope of justice. She waits months for updates on her own case. She's traumatised by hours of invasive cross-examination. The media makes the story about her, not about what he did to her. The comments thread quickly fills with hate. She seeks counselling, but wait times are six months. When she gets in, she worries her counselling notes will be read out in court. She decides to settle, and a non-disclosure agreement stops her from talking about it, even with her friends. Institutions are failing women—police, education, workplaces, media, courts and this parliament. We cannot expect women to report if we do not make it safe for them to do so. We need to make online spaces safer, support men's behaviour change programs and continue respectful relationships education. We urgently need more trauma informed officers, defamation and non-disclosure agreement reforms, protection for counselling records, all of the ALRC recommendations for the justice system and immediate funding for specialist frontline sexual violence services so that women are supported to report and to recover. Himalayas: Floods 14 13:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The events that we've seen in the past few weeks in Nepal have brought great sadness to many Australians. We have seen that principally emanating from the Nepalese Australian community, which of course is a very large community in our country, and we have very strong people-to-people links with Nepal. Last week I was able to meet with the members of the Nepalese Australian community in south-west Sydney with the Leader of the Opposition, and we were able to hear the ongoing problems facing the people of Nepal—struggling to find victims, trying to get the right health care and the right energy and other resources to bear that are needed for Nepal's recovery. This has been felt very deeply across our society, as senators would be aware. I want to acknowledge my good friend Pjay Shrestha, who is on the ground in Nepal helping to coordinate resources and helping to engage the fundraising needed to support Nepal's recovery. Pjay and many others are spending all their time on the phone, speaking between Australia and Nepal, trying to make the links and get the information to the family members, many of which are undergoing bereavement. I want to note, for the record, our support for the Australian government's support of Nepal. Of course, it's very important that we come together for these sorts of natural tragedies, but there is of course always a question about whether the information is flowing as quickly as it can. Of course, we want the government to work as swiftly as it can, noting the good work already undertaken. Australian Freight Industry Awards 14 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia The Saturday just gone, I was proud to attend the 2026 Freight Industry Awards at the Palladium at Crown Melbourne, with 500 people there. The calibre of the nominations received this year was exceptional. I want to go through and pass on my sincere congratulations to the winners. The Women's Leadership Award, supported by Viva Energy Australia, was won by Anica Di Giacomo from Direct Couriers. For the Emerging Leader Award, supported by Daimler Truck Australia Pacific, the winner was Patrick Hernandez from Metropolitan Express Transport Services. The Investment in People Award, supported by Logical Staffing Solutions, was won by SeaRoad and Hunterlink. The Best Practice Safety Award, supported by Gallagher Group, was won by the Calleja Group. The Application of Technology Award, supported by Transport Certification Australia, went to PAGE Tasmanian Freight. The Greenstart Award, supported by NTI, was won by Linfox, and the Waste and Recycling Business of the Year Award, supported by the RSM Group, went to Tiny Tins waste management. There were a number of very worthy people that were put up for these awards. There can only be one winner, and I congratulate them sincerely. The industry is in fine hands, and I was privileged myself to receive the Industry Champion Award for 2026, and, after a lifetime in this wonderful industry, I was so humbled and so honoured to be received by my peers like that, I can't thank them enough. I said to them, 'From my trucking family to their trucking families, they had no idea how nice it was to be rewarded with that, and I cherish that.' That's another glass truck sitting up there in my cabinet, which will be handed down to my grandkids very proudly. Congratulations to all the other winners, of course. All are very worthy. Cybersafety 15 13:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'd also like to congratulate Senator Sterle and thank him for the work that he's done over many years for truckers across the country. Today, the Albanese government has released exposure draft legislation for a digital duty of care. I strongly support this concept, but, with everything in this place, we all know that the devil is in the detail, and it will be decided how effective it is based on what those details are and how courageous the government will be in standing up for people that they represent. We have to grapple as a parliament and as a society with the fact that we have social media companies whose business model seems to be incompatible with thriving humans, thriving families and thriving society. They are profiting off our attention. They are profiting off our pain, and their products are designed to be addictive. They are fuelling outrage. They are taking people down rabbit holes. We need big, bold action. Last night with the member for Chisholm, Carina Garland, I launched the Parliamentary Friends of Books and Reading, and tragically in this increasingly digital world, a third of Australians haven't read a book in the last year. A quarter of Aussie kids now don't get a bedtime story. This is not the future we want. We can and must do better as a parliament. I would say that taking these tech giants head on and laying down the rules for them is a step in actually making the changes that will look after the young people who come in here week in and week out to look at our parliament. I commend the government on the digital duty of care. I really look forward to ensuring that it is in line with what Chanel Contos and others have been advocating for. High Holy Days 15 13:42 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I rise today to extend my warmest wishes to the Australian Jewish community as they prepare to celebrate the upcoming High Holy Days, starting with Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and ending with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This time in the Jewish calendar is a time of reflection, of renewal and of hope. It's an opportunity to look back on the year that has gone, to seek forgiveness and to set an intentional path for the year ahead. It can only be said that the last year has been an incredibly traumatic and painful one for the Australian Jewish community. I recognise it's probably been the most difficult year they have ever faced in Australia. But the message of hope that I'd have for the Jewish community is that I believe the broader Australian community has now recognised that the fate and the welfare of Jewish Australians is rightly a concern for all Australians, that the safety and security of Jewish Australians is quite properly a concern and an interest of all Australians, and that we all as Australians have a responsibility to address some of the clear deficiencies and shortcomings in how Jewish Australians have been treated and how they've been forced to live their lives in Australia. I want to thank the Jewish community for keeping faith with Australia, because I know that faith has been sorely tested over these past few years. Let me say that Australia would be a vastly diminished and poorer nation, in the spiritual and cultural sense of the word, if we didn't have our Jewish Australian community playing such a big part. To those in the community who are preparing to hear the sound of the shofar or to gather around tables with families and loved ones and to break fast, may the year 5785 bring you and your families strength, peace and joy. L'shanah tovah u'metukah. September 11 Attacks: 25th Anniversary 15 13:44 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Twenty-five years ago this week, I was a year 12 student sitting in my career counsellor's office trying to work out my university course options. On the television in the corner, I watched, along with the rest of the world, replayed footage of the planes flying into the Twin Towers. Like so many Australians of my generation, that morning is etched in my memory in a way few other events have matched. Sadly, nearly 3,000 people were killed that day, including 10 Australians. Families lost loved ones in New York, at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania. Days later, Australia invoked article IV of the ANZUS treaty—the first and only time it has been formally activated. It was a declaration that an attack on our closest ally was an attack on us all, and it led our military forces into Afghanistan alongside the US. In July, while in Washington at the Australian American Leadership Dialogue, I visited the Pentagon memorial. Walking among the 184 benches, each bearing a victim's name, brought home the human cost of what, for me, had begun as replayed footage on a television screen 25 years earlier. Twenty-five years on, we remember the victims, we honour the first responders, and we reflect on the lives changed forever by that day, not just in America and not just in Australia but around the free world. For Australia and the US, we commit to an alliance that has only grown stronger since that day by standing together when it matters most. Middle East 16 13:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Australians are speaking out in increasing numbers about the genocide in Gaza—the killing, the starvation, the wanton destruction Israel is inflicting in Palestine. But, instead of listening, Labor and coalition governments are cracking down on Australians who are speaking out against it—silencing, surveilling, tracking down and punishing Australians who object. Harmless words have been outlawed. Protests have been banned in unconstitutional witch hunts. People's jobs and livelihoods have been destroyed. This is part of a deliberate, concerted campaign by Labor, by the Liberals, by One Nation, by sections of our media, by the Zionist lobby to undermine democratic rights and our democracy. People protesting the visit of the Israeli president were attacked by police—punched, pepper-sprayed, dragged away while praying—and yet Israeli soldiers were welcomed into Australia with open arms and ran in the Sydney Marathon while being protected by the very same police force that conducted those atrocities. The hypocrisy absolutely stinks. Here's the uncomfortable truth in today's Australia: there are worse consequences for speaking out against a genocide than there are for participating in one. Labor and the Liberals have picked a side here. They've aligned with the genocide, and they've aligned against Australians speaking out against that genocide. History will condemn them for that choice. Parenthood 16 13:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise today with my daughter Aaliyah in my arms because motherhood doesn't pause for parliament. This is the best thing that has ever happened to me. I have cherished every moment of it. But—and there's a big but—it's bloody tough. Nobody prepares you for this—the exhaustion that sits in your bones, the nights that turn into days, the quiet moments you wonder whether you're doing any of this right. I'm so grateful and fortunate for the support I've had from my husband, my mum, my sister and my in-laws. It truly takes a village to raise a child. I'm in awe of Australia's mums, particularly those before us who have done this without medical support and other supports we enjoy today. It's made me think about those without a village: the single parents doing this entirely on their own, who can't give the baby over to anybody at 3 am, with no-one to share the load with; and the essential workers and small-business owners who can't take the leave they need because someone has to show up. I'm in awe of their strength. In 2026, things are better than ever for new mums, but there's still a long way to go. We don't talk enough about the physical recovery. Colleagues, let me tell you, my birthing journey was tough. It really sucked, but I'm so thankful to the midwives and nurses who cared for Aaliyah and me. Then there's the mental load—the silent suffering many parents carry alone, too afraid to speak up and worried about people's judgement. Well, I'm not suffering in silence. I'm asking for help. I'm talking to professionals. It's okay to get it wrong sometimes. It's okay to not be the perfect parent that society tells you to be, because that parent doesn't exist. What exists is love done imperfectly and often held by the people around us, and that's enough. Palestine 16 13:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia For years, Australia has worked with international partners to build momentum for peace and to keep a two-state solution alive. The Netanyahu government's actions in the West Bank, the rapid expansion of settlements, the proposed E1 settlement development and flagrant settler violence are extinguishing the possibility of a two-state solution. A two-state solution is the only path to enduring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. This is why, with partners, we recognised Palestine and are strengthening the institutional foundations of the State of Palestine. With partners, we imposed travel bans and targeted sanctions on Israeli ministers and others for their role in illegal settlements and settler violence. We have stated businesses should not bid for construction tenders for illegal settlement developments. Today, I can announce Australia is pursuing further targeted measures in coordination with international partners to deter illegal settlements and settler violence. Australia is not, at this time, pursuing a blanket-style import ban. We have concerns about the implementation of a blanket ban and unintended consequences for Australian businesses, for Palestinians and for Israelis, and we will continue to work with partners to protect the prospects of a two-state solution. Australia continues to call on Israel to take urgent steps to address the situation on the ground, including to stop settlers from destroying properties, displacing families and beating, torturing, sexually assaulting and killing Palestinians. We condemn Hamas's ongoing acts of terror, which undermine a two-state solution. We want to see Hamas demilitarised in line with the Gaza peace plan. Hamas must play no role in the State of Palestine. Secret Harbour By-Election 17 13:52 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia On 29 August, the people of Secret Harbour in WA made their voices heard loud and clear. They voted for change and sent One Nation's Luke Herdegen to represent them in the Western Australian parliament. I would like to congratulate Luke as the newest elected One Nation member and One Nation's first ever lower house representative in WA. He is a man of integrity and grit and will be a powerful voice for Secret Harbour in parliament. I would also like to thank the One Nation leader in WA, the Hon. Rod Caddies MLC; the Hon. Phil Scott MLC; and all the volunteers that made it possible. Hundreds turned out to show their support because they believe in our message. This is a movement built on everyday Australians who want to see common sense return to their country. We were all told that this was Labor heartland. They held the area for almost 40 years—a safe seat. There are no safe seats anymore. Labor have abandoned the people they once championed: the working class, families struggling to pay their mortgage, pensioners trying to heat their homes in winter with rising power bills. Now they are focused on bringing in a new base of voters through mass migration—and they wonder why Australians are turning away. But Labor didn't learn a lesson. Instead, Roger Cook blamed 'toxic and poisonous social media activity coming from bots and trolls'. Labor's takeaway from this is that they must crack down on the internet because the Australian people are speaking out against their useless government. We will see their latest attempt to curb freedom of speech soon. Make no mistake: they are coming for their political opponents, and that includes any Australian who would speak out against them. One Nation will always stand for the rights of Australians, and I can't wait to see Luke Herdegen stand up for the people of Secret Harbour. Congratulations, Luke. People with Disability: Public Transport 17 13:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Today, I am speaking about the discrimination enacted by airlines in Australia. My friend Shane shared a video on social media that went viral. It showed his experience of discrimination on an aeroplane. Shane is a power chair user and has an assistance dog, and the video demonstrated that the airline staff failed to find a way for his assistance dog and his chair battery to be stored on the plane. Shane's experience is not an isolated incident; it is an example, one example, of a much bigger problem disabled people face every day when moving around our own communities. I reached out to the community to find out how widespread this transport discrimination is. Of the 160 respondents who travel on buses, on trains, on taxis, rideshares planes, 88 per cent told me that they had experienced some kind of discrimination while using these services. Here's just a taste of what they experience: people with assistance dogs being refused service, train stations without lifts, people with invisible disabilities copping discrimination and harassment from the rest of the community for using the disabled spot on the train, a non-verbal person having their foot run over because the driver considered no communication to mean go, multiple wheelchairs and mobility aids being broken apart by airport security, and folks not being able to use their local bus because the ramp is broken. Disabled people should not have to cross our fingers every time we go out and try to navigate our communities. Access to community is in fact our right, not a privilege. We have a Disability Discrimination Act. It is time for our transport system to be held accountable to upholding those rights and standards. Health Care 17 13:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I compliment Senator Steele-John with respect to that contribution. He makes extraordinarily important points, and we need to do better as a country. I mean, that is just not good enough. So good on you, Senator Steele-John, for your ongoing advocacy in relation to those matters. I refer to the Labor government's appalling decision to abolish the private health insurance rebate for Australians at the age of 65 and over. This is an appalling decision that is going to make private health insurance unaffordable for tens of thousands of older Australians. This is what the National Seniors Association says about this appalling policy '… it could see up to 270,000 people drop their cover and up to 400,000 reduce their level of cover,' and that's compared to the Labor government's forecast of only 44,000. This is what the Council on the Ageing says about this appalling policy: Axing the higher private health insurance rebate for older Australians risks hitting 1.2 million pensioners with higher costs and putting even greater pressure on already stretched public hospitals. This is what the Australian Medical Association says about this appalling policy: the AMA says it is 'unconvinced' the measure will deliver genuine net savings once the flow-on pressure to public hospitals is counted. The flow-on pressure to public hospitals goes to the heart of this matter. In my home state of Queensland, there are 1,100 public hospital beds occupied by older Australians waiting for aged care. This is the worst possible time a government could abolish the private health insurance rebate. Labor should reverse this appalling policy before it's too late. Tasmania: Community Events 18 13:58 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to speak about a community barbecue I attended recently at Bridgewater Parkland. It was a little windy, but the sun was out. It was a typical glorious day in Tassie and that was more than enough to bring people out for a snag and a chat. I was there with Assistant Minister Rebecca White MP, the federal Labor member for Lyons and my good friend Brian Mitchell MP, a state Labor member for Lyons. I've known Rebecca and Brian for many years and I know how hard they both work for the communities they represent. They know Lyons incredibly well. They turn up, they listen and they care deeply about getting things done for local people. It was great to spend the afternoon with them, catching up with locals and hearing about what was on their minds. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 You wouldn't find your way out there, Senator Duniam! One thing we heard about was health care, particularly the Bridgewater Medicare urgent care clinic at Jordan River Health. The clinic opened in December 2024 and provides full bulk-billed walk-in care seven days a week for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. And the locals are using it. The Bridgewater clinic has now seen more than 18,000 visits since it opened. That means thousands of people have been able to get care closer to home, without having to travel into Hobart. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 18 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 18 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of members of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tobacco Control 18 14:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. This morning, Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino was asked on News24 about a reported tobacco related firebombing in his own electorate on the weekend. His response was, 'Look, I don't know about that.' How can Australians have confidence that the Albanese government understands the scale of the illicit tobacco crisis when a senior economic minister apparently does not even know about a tobacco related firebombing in his own community? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If I could, with your permission, President, just acknowledge the members of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. We thank you for your service, and we hope the program is proving interesting and not too cynical-making about the political process! In relation to the tobacco issue, as I have said, first, the government understands very clearly that the illicit trade in cigarettes is putting public health at risk but also that it is an issue about organised crime. It is a serious organised crime crisis, and illicit tobacco is providing, as I said yesterday, a major source of funds for serious and organised crime which are being used to fund other serious harms and crimes. We recognise a number of things. The first is that the only way for this black market to be stamped out is for the states and the federal government to work together. I note that the states regulate the sale of tobacco. I would also note that the government has increased our enforcement activity, I'm advised, by some $350 million and tripled the amount of product being intercepted at the borders. This is a serious criminal issue. It is not only an issue of taxation; it is an issue around what organised crime has now done to create this infrastructure. Work must be done between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to confront it. I appreciate that those opposite have a political point to make. I would make the point that tobacco excise increased in a time when those opposite were in government by more than 215 per cent, and it has increased by a little less than 40 per cent in the time we've been in government. So just to be— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Minister, the government keeps hiking tobacco taxes. The legal market has collapsed. The black market has exploded. The gangs have made billions, and Australians are the ones facing gang violence. Now, even the New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, says that the policy is 'not working' and is driving people into the criminal market. How much more evidence does Labor need before it admits its own policy has helped organised crime thrive? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again say to you, first, this is a criminal problem that requires states and territories and the governments to work together. Senator Ruston 243273 Oh, blame the state! Senator WONG 00AOU Well, it does. I would also remind those opposite that you supported a 215 per cent, in total, increase to the excise. In fact, in the debate on the bill that increased the price of cigarettes by taxation Senator Ruston talked how this is 'one of the most effective ways of reducing tobacco consumption and preventing the uptake of smoking'. That was Senator Ruston. Senator Hume said, 'The coalition is particularly proud of these bills, which will increase the tobacco excise.' She went on to say: Some commentators suggest that tobacco control interventions … increase this illicit trade. There is, in fact, no reliable evidence that this is the case. So I would make the point that this has been a policy that has had bipartisan support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Premier Minns also says that, while demand for illegal tobacco remains so strong because of current tax settings, it is 'very difficult' for police to permanently shut down organised crime gangs. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act on this advice from even a Labor premier who says that this Commonwealth government's tax policy is making the job of police so much harder? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I've said, the government has increased enforcement activity and provided additional funding of, I think, about $350 million. I also note that there have been different enforcement powers provided by both the Liberal government in Queensland and the South Australian government here, so both a— Senator WONG 00AOU No. The point is it's not a partisan issue. Look at what the Labor government in South Australia has done and the LNP government in Queensland has done. They have put in additional enforcement powers for their police and other enforcement authorities to shut down the shops and go after landlords, and I think that is an indication of the sort of leadership and cooperation that is required in order to confront this problem. Cybersafety 19 14:05 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. Australia is leading the world when it comes to protecting children online through its social media minimum age laws. How will the Albanese government provide more protection from seriously harmful content and features that are published online through digital platforms while backing all Australians with more choice about what they see online? 14:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for the question and the wonderful work that she does on behalf of the great citizens of Victoria. Australia is proud of the work that it has done leading the world when it comes to protecting our kids online through our social media minimum age laws. More than 20 countries are following our lead already. The Albanese Labor government action is working, with more than five million accounts of people under 16 being removed or deactivated. But we're not stopping there and ensuring more protection from seriously harmful content and features that young people are exposed to online. Today, the draft legislation for the Albanese government's digital duty of care has been released for consultation. The digital duty of care will make platforms protect Australian children from harmful content and features and gives parents the tools that they need to keep their family safe online. It will protect Australians from seriously harmful and illegal content and ensure that under-18s are protected from content and features that are harmful to young people. For the first time, we're also setting minimum standards for features for digital service companies to use, and that is the same as any other product Australians use and buy. This is not about controlling what adults see and do online; it's about giving them more choice. The digital duty of care will require platforms to give users more choice over the content and the features that they use. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria Thank you, Minister. That was comprehensive. Experts have raised the risks to people, especially children, from exposure to potentially harmful content online. How will the digital duty of care ensure children are better protected from harmful content and features, including on chatbots and gaming platforms, apps and messaging platforms? 14:08 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for her first supplementary question. There's no doubt that children can be exposed to harmful content online, and it's not only on social media. That's why we are acting to deliver the digital duty of care and we're now seeking feedback from digital platforms, industry bodies, civil society organisations and advocates on the draft laws, with legislation to be introduced to parliament later this year. The duty of care goes beyond social media to ensure children are protected from harmful content and features. This includes on chatboxes and gaming platforms, apps and messaging platforms. Under the duty, these services will be required to protect under-18s from design features that have a negative behavioural impact, like addictive features, or those that can have an effect on a young person's self-esteem. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary. 14:09 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria The exposure draft for the digital duty of care has been released today for targeted consultation. The digital duty will require user empowerment tools, which will include an Australian first: 'my feed, my way', an initiative that will give Australians control over their social media platforms and algorithms. How is the Albanese government ensuring that people have more choice about what they see online? 14:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah for her second supplementary question. Australians deserve to have choice about what they see in their algorithm. Some people will choose to continue to have these settings and recommendations on, and some people will choose not to. That of course is their right, as it should be. We are giving them that choice through the digital duty of care, which will include tools to empower users through an Australian-first 'my feed, my way' initiative. Under our draft laws, social media platforms will be required to send a notification to new and existing users offering them a choice over their default feed. This is about giving Australians more choice in what they see online. The Albanese government continues to lead the world when it comes to online safety, and we're very proud of that. Veterans: Health Care 20 14:11 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday in response to Senator Cash's questions on your government's cruel cuts to military veterans' health services you said, 'The minister is engaging with the RSL and veterans representatives on these issues.' Minister, can you advise which RSL and veterans representatives the minister has engaged with and which ones support Labor's $5,000 cap on allied health services for our veterans? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I again want to reiterate what I've said multiple times, and particularly, with members of the ADF here, I want to again say that anyone who serves our country is entitled to the respect of the nation, and those who have served our country are entitled to the appropriate support and care after their service. I want to again make the point that the government has increased the fees paid to allied health professionals who are providing services to veterans, as recommended by the royal commission. We have also made changes, as I went through yesterday, to the threshold which has been the subject of concerns. I want to say, on the concerns that have been clearly raised by veterans groups, that this is something the government takes very seriously and to indicate that the government is taking feedback onboard. I think I indicated that Minister Keogh started a form of consultations last week following the release of the consultation paper. I can also say that I know that the Prime Minister engaged yesterday with a group of veterans, as requested by them. If I have anything further to add—and I think there was some politics in the question, but on the non-political part, which is, 'Can you give an— Senator McKenzie 207825 What was the politics? Senator WONG 00AOU Sorry— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma? Senator Sharma 274506 A point of order on relevance: I've been very patient here. My question was quite straightforward. Which RSL and veterans representatives has the minister engaged with? There was no politics in that question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Sharma. The minister is being relevant to the question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU Last part of your question, Senator Sharma, but that's okay. What I was just, as a matter of courtesy, saying to you—but you were very keen to interrupt me—was that I don't have information about specific meetings with Minister Keogh; I don't represent Minister Keogh. But if I can provide further information on that I will. I can indicate that the Prime Minister, as I understand it, did engage with veterans yesterday on this issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, a supplementary. 14:14 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Thank you, Minister. In response to Senator Cash's questions yesterday, you said, 'I would say that the government has heard the concerns raised by veterans.' Minister, what are these concerns that have been raised by veterans? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I think they have been ventilated here and also in the public statements. Obviously, of particular concern was what was regarded as a $5,000 limit, which, as I understand—and I think I've indicated to this chamber—is a $5,000 threshold, and additional— An opposition senator An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, because additional support can be provided and would be provided if there were a clinical need—and I think they've indicated that to you. I note also that there have been conversations, including publicly, about the approach that the Department of Veterans' Affairs takes. We do take those seriously. I would note, as I did previously, that there were thousands of Australian veterans who—there were 42,000 veteran compensation claims when you were in government that you sat on and did not process. I don't recall you, Senator Sharma, at any point saying anything about that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, second supplementary? 14:15 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, veterans served this country when Australia asked them to. Some came home carrying injuries they will live with for the rest of their lives. They are now pleading with your government to not make their health care harder to access. How much louder do our veterans have to cry out before the Prime Minister listens, keeps faith with them and scraps this cruel $5,000 cap? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia You are right; veterans do deserve the respect and care of a nation. I've said that on multiple occasions. Secondly, I would note that, as I have just said, the Prime Minister has met with veterans. I understand that concerns were raised about the change that was made. They've been raised with me personally. I again indicate what I've said to this chamber—that it has been clear that, if there remains a clinical need, support and services beyond the $5,000 threshold would be continued. I note that the RSL and nine other veteran service organisations have acknowledged the government is addressing some of the key concerns and is urging families of veterans and veterans to take part in the consultations which the government is implementing, and I hope that occurs so that the consultations can result in a responsive policy. Tasmania: Salmon Farming Industry 21 14:16 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania This is not my first speech. This question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Ayres. Today, peak animal welfare organisation Animals Australia announced its findings that salmon are being unlawfully and inhumanely treated at fish farms in Tasmania. In August 2025, this government made a decision to endorse the expansion of fish farms at Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, supporting big foreign corporations that profit from the inhumane treatment. This government's decision enabled the ongoing overstocking of fish cages at Macquarie Harbour. In light of Animals Australia's significant findings, Minister, will this government immediately require a decrease of stocking levels in fish cages at Macquarie Harbour? 14:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you very much, Senator Bleyer, and congratulations on your first question. I do remember that kind of quaint thing where you have to say, 'It's not my first speech,' before a question. We know it's not a question, and it's— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 I'm trying to be kind. These issues in relation to investments in salmon farming in Tasmania have been traversed in this parliament and in the lead-up to the last election. This minister has continued with the approach that we had in the previous term. We support the aquaculture industry, including the Tasmanian salmon industry. It's an important contributor to the Tasmanian economy—production value of over $1.3 billion and many thousands of direct and indirect jobs. I do believe that we can have a sustainable industry and strong environmental protections. That is the approach of the government. We can have both. We agree that sectors operating in sensitive environments have to do so in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way. Under the Constitution, state governments have responsibility for managing aquaculture in all waters up to three nautical miles offshore, meaning the Commonwealth government cannot legally intervene. But we will support industry to operate responsibly. We will support the jobs that there are in that industry— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bleyer, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania The science is clear. The volume of fish cages at Macquarie Harbour is removing oxygen from the water and suffocating the Maugean skate to death. Will you, Minister, immediately end the industrial scale fish farming at Macquarie Harbour to give the endangered Maugean skate any chance of survival? 14:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I indicated before—as you can see, there's a kind of flurry of activity because I'm not normally the minister who represents the environment minister—we do believe as a government that we must achieve an outcome where there are jobs there in the aquaculture salmon industry and that there are strong environmental protections. Animal welfare is a national priority. There is a responsibility for regulating and enforcing the welfare of farmed animals. The government has taken steps here, all the way along—responsible steps, not slogans—that have guaranteed that that industry continues and it continues in an environmentally responsible way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you Minister. Senator Bleyer, a second supplementary? 14:21 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania Well, in that case, Minister, the science is also clear that the next extreme weather event will be the final nail in the coffin of the Maugean skate. So, if the oxygen levels weren't enough, Minister, is the strongest El Nino on record—which has just begun—not enough for this government to immediately end industrial scale fish farming at Macquarie Harbour? After all, it's your government that promised no new extinctions, but the Maugean skate is facing it's final death— (Time expired) 14:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales You are right, Senator, to point out that we are embarking on what, for the agricultural community in particular, is going to be a very challenging spring and summer. That is true for not just Australia but many of the countries in the Southern Hemisphere that you see on those maps. For agriculture and aquaculture, this will be a very challenging period. This government takes our responsibility to the environment, the climate and the climate science very seriously. We take it as our responsibility too, to deliver jobs in northern Tasmania. That is our job as a responsible government that's actually acting in the Australian interest—not posing for clicks and doing the kind of social media stuff that's of zero consequence in the real world, but delivering real outcomes and delivering real change for Australia. Workplace Relations 22 14:23 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Walsh. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring working Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Part of that is influencing balanced employment conditions. Recently, we marked the one year anniversary of the government's landmark changes to protect penalty rates and give workers the right to disconnect. Minister, how have these changes benefited workers across the country? 14:23 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Dolega. I know you have spent your working life fighting for Australian workers, and I know that this is a really important issue to you, so thank you for the question. Senator, I can tell you that the Albanese government fundamentally believes that Australians should earn a fair wage and keep more of it. Last year, our government introduced historic reforms to improve pay, job security and working conditions for Australians. Our changes are protecting the penalty rates of 2.6 million Australians who rely on awards. Penalty rates aren't a bonus or a luxury. They are a core entitlement for workers who sacrifice their weekends and their public holidays to keep Australia moving. We back them, and we back their penalty rates. Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the start of the right to disconnect. Before the Albanese Labor government introduced the right to disconnect, workers felt penalised for wanting to spend uninterrupted time with their loved ones. It shouldn't be controversial that, if you're not getting paid, you shouldn't have to give up your personal time. Now Australians know that their time at home is protected. This reform is being embraced by both workers and employers, with more than half of businesses surveyed by the Australian HR Institute indicating the right to disconnect has improved employee engagement and productivity. Teachers, nurses and hospo workers right across Australia are better off because of our changes—changes that were of course rejected by those opposite. Our government will always stand up for workers. We are the party of workers, and we will ensure that Australian workers are valued and that they are protected. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dolega, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania We know Australians are doing it tough right now, with global volatility and inflation continuing to be key challenges in the economy. The Albanese Labor government is responsibly managing the budget to create jobs and boost wages to help deal with these challenges. How have the government's changes to workplace laws, including protecting penalty rates and improving working conditions, complemented this work? 14:26 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We understand that many Australians are feeling pressure at the moment, and that's why our No. 1 focus is delivering real cost-of-living relief. Under our government 1.3 million extra jobs have been created. We have the lowest average unemployment for any government in half a century, and your wages have grown above three per cent for 16 straight quarters. In addition to more jobs and higher wages, protecting penalty rates is one of the key ways our government is supporting Australian workers. If you work when most Australians are spending time with family, you deserve fair compensation. That includes employees on awards, the majority of who are women and who are under the age of 35. For hundreds of thousands of Australians, penalty rates mean the difference between getting by and getting ahead, and we want Australians to get ahead. While those opposite want to cut workers' rights, only this government backs Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dolega, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania Thank, Minister—absolutely. Whether it's boosting wages, keeping unemployment historically low or protecting working conditions, the Albanese Labor government has proven it's always on the side of working Australians. Minister, what is the government doing to protect workers' pay and conditions, and what are we protecting them from? 14:27 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Labor is the only party that works every day to make sure that the lives of working people are better. Let's be honest: One Nation and the coalition are never on the side of working people. Don't take my word for it. Look at their record. The coalition and One Nation have teamed up to oppose increases to the minimum wage, to scrap penalty rates and to make it easier to sack people. Now the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are openly discussing forming a new coalition to try to win the next election. We know what this would look like for Australian workers: lower wages, longer hours and less job security. Only the Albanese Labor government will protect the wages and working conditions of Australians, because we believe in a better working future for Australians where no-one is held back and where no-one is left behind. Veterans: Health Care 23 14:28 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator McAllister. On 31 August 2026, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs released a media statement that said the proposed cap on allied health services wouldn't apply to veteran cardholders getting the special rate disability pension, the totally and permanently incapacitated pension or those who have been determined to be catastrophically injured. It sounds good, but, without knowing how many veterans fall within these categories, it is impossible to understand how many veterans will be exempt. How many veterans are currently getting the special rate disability pension, the totally and permanently incapacitated pension or are determined to be catastrophically injured? 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In commencing my answer, I associate myself with Senator Wong's welcome to those members of the ADF who are here in the gallery today. It's been an absolute privilege to represent the Defence portfolio here in the Senate from time to time and to be able to have some connection with the work that you do. The program's a terrific program, and you are so welcome here. Senator Lambie, thank you for providing advance notice that you sought these specific numbers. I am in a position to provide that detail to you: 6,976 people have been determined as eligible for the special rate disability pension, 25,028 people have been determined as eligible for the special rate of disability compensation payment—otherwise known as the 'totally and permanently incapacitated pension'—and 52 people are determined to have a catastrophic injury. Of those determined to be catastrophically injured, I don't have a breakdown of those with a catastrophic injury who might be eligible for other payments, but we have specifically said that the threshold will not apply to these veterans due to the known severity of their injuries. More generally, Senator Lambie, I know that you are interested in the policy work that's underway in relation to allied health. You've asked questions in this place about it previously. It is perhaps worth emphasising, as Senator Wong did in her earlier answer, that consultation on this measure is ongoing. The minister has specifically sought input from members of the veterans community. He is working directly with many service organisations, and we look forward to continued engagement with the community as we implement these important reforms. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania These exemptions do not protect veterans who require ongoing allied health treatment to manage serious service related injuries. Those who are working, who are saving DVA a weekly payment, are not excluded, and those who have had major operations, where it could take them six months if not 12 months to get back on their feet with all the rehabilitation and all the allied health workers that they need—my question is: how many of those are in the system? 14:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Lambie, I don't have a breakdown of the kind that you request in your supplementary question, but I think it is important to note that veterans will continue to have access to allied health services above the $5,000 threshold where there is a clinical need. For those it is applicable to—before a veteran reaches that threshold—DVA will work with them and their healthcare team to review their treatment plans and approve additional care. Veterans who are nearing the threshold will still be able to access care while the approval process is underway and will not see a gap in service. We will ensure that veterans with critical or acute healthcare needs continue to be supported. While individual needs will vary, veteran card holders who require treatment above the $5,000 checkpoint will continue to be able to access clinically necessary care, including for complex, chronic or ongoing health conditions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The allied health discussion paper says: … before Veterans reach that threshold, DVA will work with them and their health care team to review their treatment plans and approve additional care— within 28 days. How can you seriously expect veterans to believe DVA will approve additional treatment within 28 days when the average MRCA claim—that's one of the acts that sits over this initial liability—takes over 364 days just to process? 14:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you again, Senator Lambie, for your question. As I indicated in my answer to your first supplementary question, veterans will not experience a gap in service. They will still be able to access allied health care while that approval process is underway. You're right that DVA has committed to processing requests within 28 days and advising the veteran of the outcome. I think it is important, Senator Lambie, to acknowledge that these changes occur in a broader context where we seek to reduce the burden on veterans in terms of returning to their GP as part of the treatment cycle. You'll know that, at the moment, veterans are required to return every 12 occasions for a further referral from their GP. That requirement is not part of the government's proposal going forward. (Time expired) Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 24 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is for the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. Minister, in February this year, I asked questions on notice in relation to the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The answers confirmed 229 invitations were issued for a $560 million fund. What was not disclosed was how a project came to be the subject of an election commitment. An analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity shows that 73 per cent of the $560 million went to notionally Labor held seats, predominantly to marginal Labor seats. Minister, is this pork-barrelling? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No. it's delivering election commitments. The way you deliver election commitments—people over that side, I think you made election commitments yourselves, but obviously you're not in government, so you're not able to deliver them. When parties make commitments through an election process—you have to deliver them. The election commitment is clear. It is made before the election. The value of that election commitment is made clear. It is contained in our costings. And, on winning the support of the electorate, when we come into government, there are grant rules around how to administer those election commitments and deliver them. Those grant rules were followed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Minister, I'm glad you mentioned the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, because they provide that competitive, merit based processes should be used unless specifically agreed otherwise and that, where they are not, the rationale should be documented. Clearly, there was no merits based process here. It certainly wasn't competitive. Will you table the rationale for the departure from the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles? Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, I'm waiting to call the minister. Minister Gallagher. 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As you would know from reading the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, there is also a closed, non-competitive round. It is allowed to be—the grant principles and rules follow that, and Minister King followed that. Now, I hear those opposite groaning and moaning about this, but what happened—and I heard Senator McKenzie railing as well, about this, this morning. The difference between sports rorts, Senator McKenzie, which was an open, merits based process— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please— Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 I would ask you to get the minister to withdraw that comment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you— Senator McKenzie 207825 She also misrepresented me. For once, I was quiet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, do not go into a further statement. Minister Gallagher, I will ask you to withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING Okay, I withdraw. I think, if you go back and have a look at the election commitments we made, Senator Pocock, we were clear in the media statements that were made around them that these would be delivered through a closed, non-competitive process. We were clear on that at the point that those commitments were made. We were very clear about that. All of the decisions have been taken in accordance with the grants rules and principles. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Minister, if election commitments overwhelmingly go to marginal seats, what is the difference between election commitments and pork-barrelling? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I don't agree with that. We made election commitments in seats we hold, in seats we wanted to win and in seats that we were never going to hold. That is not the case, Senator Pocock, so I would challenge you. If you think you can demonstrate that our commitments were targeted on marginal seats, you do that. They were across the board in seats we don't hold and in seats we would never hold. Unfortunately for those that seek to smear on this program, we have followed every single rule to the letter, and we have been very clear. I consulted with people about this beforehand. You can sit and smile, but the reality is—you can smear if you choose—we have followed the rules and we have been very clear about it. Employment 25 14:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday I asked a series of questions on the labour market using ABS data, including this question: Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector. Yet over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy, not the private sector—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Your answer went to the worthiness of those jobs, which One Nation does not dispute. Your answer did not deal with the Treasurer's misrepresentation. The Treasurer is wrong and misleading. How can six out of seven jobs that your government has created be in the private sector if the share of jobs in the private sector has fallen from 85.2 per cent of the labour market when you came to power down to 84 per cent today, indicating the reverse is true? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. My answer to your question yesterday was in response to you calling non-market jobs a Ponzi scheme. That's how you referred to those jobs. You said aged care, disability care and health workers are effectively masquerading as a Ponzi scheme. That was in your question, so that's why I responded the way I did. Since we came to government, the number of jobs has increased by about 1.3 million jobs to the economy since May 2022. I support completely the Treasurer's comments around the jobs that are being created in the private sector, and we have seen jobs in the public sector and in the non-market sector as well because there is enormous growth in the care economy, as there should be—people who are working hard to support people's ageing parents, our youngest citizens people who are sick and unwell. That is going to be a growing part of our economy as well. The point I was trying to make yesterday is: don't punch down on those workers. Don't demean those workers by saying they are essentially operating in a Ponzi scheme. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, Senator Hanson, they weren't my words; they were your party's words. The point we were making is that this party will always create jobs. We will always ensure that those jobs are well paid and that those jobs are secure whether they're in the private sector, the public sector, the market sector or the non-market sector because at the end of the day a job allows you to live a dignified life. That's what people on this side of the chamber care about. (Time expired) 14:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Labour market productivity fell 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, taking the total fall under your government to five per cent. It's supposed to go up, not down. The Reserve Bank has flagged this problem as likely to cause an increase in inflation. Productivity does not mean working harder. It means working smarter, more efficiently and more easily. Minister, what specifically is your government doing to reverse the fall in labour market productivity? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In the budget—and we discussed this at estimates, I think, in the committee that you attended, Senator Roberts—there is a very extensive productivity package, whether it be in investment, innovation, removing red tape, some of the work that Senator Farrell's doing in trade, building a single national market, making it easy to engage with government, accelerating approvals, simplifying building regulations, building more homes, modernising energy markets— Senator Bragg 256063 You couldn't make it up! Senator GALLAGHER ING better recognising skills, unlocking the data and AI opportunity, investing in science and innovation, strengthening the superannuation system, better coordinating government investment and driving ongoing regulatory reform. They are the 15 areas that were contained in the budget around improving productivity. Senator Bragg laughs, but, of course, he won't be on the record saying that the decade of the worst productivity in this country was actually the decade that you were in government, because you didn't care and you didn't do anything, including in housing, including in super and including in those other areas I've outlined. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Your economic report card is full of red ink: underutilised workers increasing to 1.68 million, real wages falling 1.5 per cent and labour market productivity falling five per cent, due in part to your obsession with net zero and wokeism nobbling the economy, reducing productivity, increasing inflation, running up debt and making working lives harder. Minister, where is your plan to turn this around to keep a roof over workers' heads and food on their family table? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Employment is up—this is from when we came to government—the participation rate's up, gender pay gaps are down, the number of women employed full-time is up, industrial disputes are down, headline inflation is down and annual real wage growth is up. If you look at any of those measures, they don't align with what One Nation seek to portray about our economy. And I would note that those opposite, the conservative side of politics that sit over there, absolutely love to talk our economy down, when the data acknowledging that people are doing it tough in an inflationary environment tells a different story. There are more people working now than ever before, and we will continue to invest in those jobs and support those workers with secure jobs into the future. Housing 27 14:46 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. Minister, too many Australians have felt that the housing system is stacked against them. The Albanese Labor government recently announced reforms to level the playing field for first home buyers. How are these changes helping more Australians get the opportunity to buy their first home? 14:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you to Senator Walker for that question. It's good to have a young South Australian joining the Labor team here and actually fighting for young Australians to be able to get a home. For far too long, too many Australians have felt that the housing system is stacked against them, and they would be right. Since 1999, house prices in Australia have risen by 400 per cent. That beggars belief! Young Australians have been doing everything right—working hard and saving everything that they can for a house deposit. But, when the average time it takes to save for a deposit has blown out to 10 years—to more than a decade—and the median home price has climbed to more than eight times the average income, it is time to level the playing field, and that's exactly what this Albanese Labor government is doing. We're setting an ambitious national target of 1.2 million homes, limiting negative gearing for residential property so it can only be used for new builds and replacing the 50 per cent CGT discount to restore the taxation of real gains. And we've delivered on our commitments to expand the five per cent home deposit scheme, opposed by everyone over there—One Nation and the Nationals and the Liberals—delivering real change for young Australians who want to get their foot on the ladder, provide security for their families and have some aspiration for homeownership for the future. We are the only government that has been prepared to take those steps in the national interest and in the interests of young Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia The Albanese Labor government's housing agenda is the most ambitious in generations. What are economists and stakeholders saying about the government's recent reforms to level the playing field for first home buyers? 14:49 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There is widespread support for the government's reforms. ACOSS, National Shelter, Everybody's Home and Better Renting all said the government's reforms will 'help reverse the stark decline in homeownership over the past 10 years'. NAB's chief economist said it would be owner-occupiers who are the winners from Labor reforms. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Order! Mr Ayres, please continue. Senator AYRES 16913 If you step outside real participants and experts, you do find some other views, Senator Bragg, don't you? Senator Bragg said that Australians who support the government's approach here— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Ayres, please reflect your answer to me. Senator AYRES 16913 He said, President, that those Australians who support the government's approach don't have a brain. That's what he said on radio—that Australians who support this government don't have a brain. Denigrating Australians is not the way to develop policy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, second supplementary. 14:50 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Young Australians in particular feel that housing has been stacked against them. The Albanese government has been paving the way with a plan to help more young Australians own their own home. How does the government's policy compare with other policy positions? 14:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales President, Senator Bragg wanted to describe Australians who disagree with their negative approach to policy as having no brains. There are no solutions, no plans from the coalition—none that they haven't read out to One Nation already. They're just pouring scorn on ordinary Australians who dare to disagree with people skills over here. One Nation, Nationals and the Liberals competing for—Senator Bragg over there playing the role of Scarecrow, no brains, apparently! The Nationals, One Nation and the Liberals competing for the role of the Tin Man, having no heart at all for ordinary Australians. But the role of the Cowardly Lion has already been taken, President. Mr Taylor unambiguously is a walk-up start as the Cowardly Lion—no courage at all. (Time expired) Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 27 14:52 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Walsh. Minister, the CFMEU administrator has reportedly identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals from the Building Industry 2000 fund, controlled by former CFMEU bosses John Setka and Ralph Edwards, with the administrator saying it is unclear how the cash was spent. Given this fund has been known about for more than a decade, when did the government first become aware of these cash withdrawals, and what action is being taken to establish where that money went? 14:53 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Kovacic, for the question. Our government does not tolerate any corruption, criminality or violence in any part of the construction industry. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WALSH 252157 I hear the interjections already from those opposite. This government has taken stronger action when it comes to the CFMEU than you ever did, on that side of the chamber. You left the ABCC in charge for a decade— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Minister Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 You left the ABCC in charge for a decade and left the behaviour that you are now complaining about in place on your watch for a decade. As a government, we have taken— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Kovacic? Senator Kovacic 306168 President, point of order. It's been almost a minute, and Senator Walsh is yet to answer the question of what action this government has taken to establish where the money has gone. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Kovacic. You will note I sat the minister down and I called for order on my left. If your colleagues want to make interjections, the minister is quite entitled to respond to them. If you want your question focused on, I would ask you to assist me in keeping those on my left silent. Senator WALSH 252157 Again, our government has taken the strongest action in relation to the CFMEU. We are the government who passed the legislation to put this union into administration, we are the government who appointed the independent administrator and we are the government who, years ago, when you refused to take any action, took action against Mr Setka himself. Again, our government has taken the strongest action against allegations of corruption and criminality in the construction union, which, when you were the government, you allowed to flourish. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence. Senator Kovacic, first supplementary? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash and Senator Wong! Order! I called for order. I was completely ignored. I called the senator to her feet to ask her next question. Again, after calling for order, I was completely ignored. That is unacceptable. Senator Kovacic. 14:56 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Minister, the Age has reported that disgraced former CFMEU chief John Setka is refusing to cede control of more than $1 million held in a private political slush fund that has earned millions of dollars, including via a murky deal struck with Coca-Cola to take a cut of the sale of soft drinks on building sites. Why does John Setka still have control of more than $1 million that the administrator says should have been a CFMEU asset? 14:56 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The reason that there is an administrator in place today is that our government appointed him, Senator Kovacic. Again, we do not tolerate any corruption in the construction industry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator Kovacic? Senator Kovacic 306168 On a point of order, President, yet again the minister is not answering my direct question. I did not ask whether the government established the administration. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Kovacic. I have reminded the Senate on many occasions that, when you make a point of order, it's not an opportunity to make a statement. I have listened carefully. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I'm asking Senator Henderson to withdraw the accusation she made across the chamber as part of her interjections. The PRESIDENT 112096 I didn't hear an interjection. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 For the benefit of the chamber, I didn't make any direct allegation other than to raise concerns about corruption— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, resume your seat. I indicated to the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong! I indicated to the chamber that I didn't hear the interjection, but I would ask you to withdraw. You're not in a debate with me. I don't need an explanation. Either you choose to withdraw or you don't. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 President, on the point of order, it is important to point out— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not debating with you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I am not in a debate with you. Resume your seat. If you wish to seek leave at a later stage to make a personal explanation, that is entirely your prerogative. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators Wong and Hume! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, such disrespect. My goodness. I'm asking you to come to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator Scarr. I don't need your help. Thank you. Minister Wong stood and asked that Senator Henderson withdraw a comment. I have indicated and I will indicate now to the chamber for the third time that I did not hear the interjection. I've invited Senator Henderson to withdraw. It is entirely your prerogative whether you withdraw or not. You can simply withdraw. If you wish, at some later stage in the proceedings, to ask leave to make a personal explanation, that is your prerogative, but you are not doing that with me. I simply asked you to withdraw. You either withdraw or you don't. Senator Henderson ZN4 For the benefit of the chamber, I will withdraw. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Minister Wong and Senator Henderson, let's move on. Senator WALSH 252157 Well, really, it seems that when you choose to ask questions about the CFMEU, you should all give yourselves a giant trigger warning because you can't handle the questions and you can't handle the truth, which is that this government has done more than you ever did to take on the issue of corruption in the construction industry. It took a Labor government to take these issues on. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Walsh, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for silence. It's not the role of those on my left to yell so loud that I cannot hear. I'm not going to name you individually. You all know who was shouting and who wasn't. Minister Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 Again, our government has done more to stamp out corruption in the construction industry than you ever did. The allegations that you're talking about are in the public sphere because we appointed an administrator who is doing his job. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kovacic, a second supplementary? 15:01 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Minister, may I say that we can handle the truth—we just haven't heard it yet. After everything that has now been uncovered about John Setka, the coalition has introduced legislation to allow him to be excluded indefinitely from holding office in a registered organisation where warranted. Will Labor support that legislation—yes or no? If not, why should he ever be allowed back into a position of power in an Australian union? 15:02 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Again, the government have taken the strongest action possible when it comes to the CFMEU and we have taken strong action when it comes to Mr Setka as well. And it is clear that the administrator has achieved more progress towards cleaning up this union in the last couple of years than the coalition and the failed ABCC ever did. You had almost a decade to take action and to do something about corruption, about criminality, about violence in the construction industry. You talk a good game but you achieved absolutely nothing. What we have done is pass legislation to be able to put this union into administration. We have appointed an administrator and the administrator is doing his job. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUDGET 30 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 30 15:04 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and Minister for Sport for an explanation as to why 67 answers have not been provided to questions on notice asked during the budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee from 25 to 28 May 2026. The questions were to: the ABC—eight unanswered; ACMA—three unanswered; Australia Post—seven unanswered; Australian Sports Commission—one; the department—33 unanswered; Minister Wells—one unanswered; NBN Co—two unanswered; the eSafety Commissioner—six unanswered; and the SBS—six unanswered. 15:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I wonder if the Senate could indulge me for one second because, in the last hour, Miss Ellen Nimfa Farrell Ben was born at the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide. Ellen is the daughter of Emily Farrell and Lawrence Ben. She is our fourth grandchild, joining her cousins Edward, Flora and Leo, and mother and baby are doing well. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'm happy to say congratulations, Senator Farrell, but we probably should return to the matter at hand. Senator FARRELL I0N I thank Senator Henderson for her indulgence. The Albanese government is delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency and accountability. I make the general point that the numbers of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents all skyrocketed in the 47th parliament, and this trend is continuing in the 48th parliament. There were 14,404 questions on notice submitted for the budget estimates round in May. That is the highest figure in a single round since the database was established. As I'm sure the senator appreciates, there have been high volumes of questions across various committee inquiries in the communications portfolios since questions the senator refers to were lodged. We always endeavour to answer all questions as per the timeframe set forward by the Senate and will work to finalise outstanding responses. 15:06 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. I have to say that, while I congratulate the minister on his wonderful news of a new family arrival, I am very disappointed by that response because these are incredibly important questions, including in relation to the Online Safety Act amendment bill which is currently before the Senate. How can members and senators be expected to do their jobs when critical questions are not answered? I would put to you that, rather than the volume of questions being the issue, what's at issue is that the government is embarrassed to answer the questions. Some of those questions, for instance, relate to advice that the eSafety Commissioner has given to Minister Wells since July 2025 on various proposals in relation to child online safety and the operation and enforcement of the social media ban. We have sought further correspondence in relation to the false claim by both the Prime Minister and the minister that more than five million social media accounts have been removed or deactivated since December last year. We know that at least two million—probably more—of those accounts were actually not social media accounts at all. They were Google accounts relating to Gmail, because, of course, anyone who uses YouTube does not have a separate YouTube account. So the Prime Minister continues to mislead Australians in relation to the government's claim, and he did it again today in his media conference. We've also sought details in relation to the eSafety Commissioner's statements to a Sydney Morning Herald journalist during an infamous lunch interview in which she broadly condemned the social media ban and the government's operation and enforcement of the social media ban. The evidence is compelling; this government is hiding critical facts that we need to do our jobs. So, when we hear about transparency and integrity from this government—what an absolute joke! We have asked extensive questions of the department. Again, 33 of those remain unanswered. We have a hearing tomorrow and have called Australia Post to that hearing in relation to a secret plan to shut down post offices across this country. Australia Post has not answered a number of questions. Again, that is simply not good enough. So I say this government must do much better. How can we do our job when these questions are not being answered? We are also still waiting for a wide range of questions to be answered following our Senate inquiry into the actual bill, which were due back on 19 August. They too have not been answered, yet the bill which is the subject of our inquiry is before the Senate right now, being debated. This is simply not good enough. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 31 15:10 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. 15:11 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. I say, then, to the people of Australia: Give of your best in the service of the nation. There is a place and part for all of us. Each must take his or her place in the service of the nation, for the nation itself is in peril. This is our darkest hour. There would be one Labor luminary more than any other that would be turning over in his grave today if he himself were to have witnessed the performance of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Keogh. That, of course, is the Labor wartime prime minister, John Curtin. Those are the remarks he shared with the nation when he declared that Australia would be at war with Japan in 1941—profound and understood how critical the depth of service and depth of conviction is. He would have been more outraged, rolling again in his grave, to learn that this is the action this Minister for Veterans' Affairs has taken in what is a very significant and critical year of commemoration. Let me remind you that this is the 125th anniversary of the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Navy. Just last month, we commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Soon, we will celebrate 25 years of service in Afghanistan. This year we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of national service, which saw 280,000 Australian men called to service in the period from 1951 to 1972. What we have here in regard to Minister Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, is not an isolated incident but another incident in his management of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio which points to lack of care and lack of attention. Just last week, I had the opportunity to host veteran leaders and veteran organisations in my office with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Michael McCormack. What they had to share reflects the concerns and frustrations and, in some instances, the fears that our veterans communities have in regard to this latest initiative to cap access to allied health services. Let's be clear: this is not Minister Keogh's initiative; this is the government's initiative to save for itself around $700 million. That $700 million in savings comes from the anxieties, the frustrations and the fears of those in our veterans communities—and, I might add, their partners and their extended families. I'm curious to know how many government members have in their close proximity veterans, veterans' families— (Time expired) 15:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Today I want to take note of the question that was put to the government from the opposition with respect to illicit tobacco. The public debate on this issue seems to have lost sight of the achievements that have been made over many decades now. I particularly remember when Nicola Roxon was the health minister, when I was a very young member of Young Labor and someone who had just recently joined the party. I remember Nicola quite fondly as someone who represented the western suburbs of Melbourne very well and remember being very proud about her achievements while she was minister in the Rudd-Gillard years and was also the first health minister anywhere in the world to achieve significant reforms when it came to the decline in smoking rates in this country. That was something that was applauded by both sides of politics back then. Unfortunately, I don't think the same can be said these days. We want to see a continuation of people not taking up smoking, regardless of their age. But the debate itself has lost sight of the achievements, and I say that because we want to see continuation of the reduction in smoking rates to the lowest anywhere in the developed world, something that I think Australians should be very proud of. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that fewer Australians are smoking now than ever before and that vaping rates have started to stabilise. I think that's another area that, as a parliament, we need to look at very seriously. The data shows that daily smoking has fallen to record levels, decreasing by 8.8 per cent in 2022-23 and down to 5.8 per cent in 2025-26 among adults. That is good news, and it should give reason for caution to anyone who is arguing that we should unwind the decades of bipartisan support for public healthcare policy that has got us to this point. Smoking kills, and unfortunately it kills one in every two users and 66 Australians every single day. What a shocking statistic. Two in every three long-term smokers will die of smoking related illnesses, putting pressure on our healthcare system. Smoking is also still the leading cause of preventable disease in Australia. It causes 20 per cent of cancer diseases in Australia every year. Those costs are, unfortunately, overwhelmingly borne by the Australian taxpayer. But Australians have a lot to be proud of when it comes to our nation's record in reducing smoking rates. I also want to mention that daily smoking rates among young people over the age of 18 have fallen to historic lows of 5.8 per cent, well below the government's 2025 target of 10 per cent, representing half a million fewer people smoking than there were three years ago. And when we take younger Australians into account, only 5.6 per cent of all people aged over 14 years are smoking daily, down from 8.3 per cent in 2022-23. So, after years of rising vape use among Australians over the age of 14, for the first time ever the daily vaping rate has stabilised at 3.6 per cent. The proportion of current vape users has lowered to six per cent in 2025, compared with the seven per cent reported in 2022-23. 15:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales It's great to follow on from Senator Ciccone, a senator from Melbourne—or the home of the firebombing in the illegal tobacco wars, as we talk about. He talked about the rates that are continuing to be put up and the lowering of smoking. They're from statistics of normal businesses that sell these things. It's not normal businesses that sell them. I'm pretty sure the Alameddine crime family don't report their business statistics in their sales through these networks. I'm pretty sure the Hamad family syndicate don't put their sales through the Better Business Bureau and show up at the Melbourne business awards to collect their awards for being responsible people in their syndicates. I'm pretty sure that the Chinese crime families and the Haddara family don't put all their sales of illegal tobacco through the same networks that judge these things. What we're seeing in the sewage outlets—we're seeing this in sewage detection—is higher tobacco use. Why? It's because tobacco has become so cheap thanks to these things. If we go back to law 101, which were three of the best years of my life, we can look at different rules of interpretation. 15:20:30 We have the mischief rule, and we talk about the rocks and the thing of putting this excise on to lower tobacco use. That is what it was there for. These taxes, these excises, were to lower tobacco use. They are no longer doing that because 80 per cent of the tobacco market is now illegal—no excise. So we go to that mischief. The mischief this was meant to do—it is no longer fit for purpose, and that is why we have come up with a way we can both get control of this situation again and get in front of these crime gangs by increasing the law avoidance. They talk about the actions taken by states. Let me tell you about, in my home of the Hunter Valley, when the Rutherford tobacco store was shut. It was shut because they were selling illegal tobacco. They brought the shutters down. Three days later, it reopened—not 30 days, not 90 days. When it was shut down again a week later, they put a sticker on the front of the shop that you could scan and have the cigarettes delivered to you. That is the reality of what happens. It's not what we think or what we want; it is the reality of what happens in the world. We have seen more than 200 firebombings in Melbourne and more than 300 across Australia. We've seen 51 shootings in New South Wales. All of this is linked to the massive money that is made in illegal tobacco. We've seen Premier Minns, a Labor premier, come out and say he supports this policy because he knows it's required to get on top of the gangs and because he's not living in gaga land. He's living in reality. He's living in a world where this happens every day. He's living in a world where we need an answer, where we need to be able to compete. We need to take the profit out of these criminals and get back in control. That's why this side, the opposition, will have a policy to reduce the excise—to do what? To get back to the mischief of lowering smoking and controlling the distribution. There's nothing more simple than that. I note the answers today are in absolute disbelief of what the facts are. We go to the vaping. We talk about vaping numbers. I said yesterday in here that I—someone that looks like a narc, like me—went to a service station. I could buy a $30 vape six months ago. Now I've got to buy an $80 vape, but I can still get the same vape because illegal crime controls that. Vaping has been historically the No. 1 way that people have gotten off smoking. So the young people that want tobacco now who can't afford a vape are going to cigarettes because they're cheaper. This government, through its policies, is driving young people to cigarettes and driving that money to organised crime. Billions and billions of dollars are going to organised crime families like the Alameddines, like the Haddara family and like the Hamad syndicate. It is not good enough when you are driving billions and billions of dollars to the very worst people in society. That is why we will change it. 15:23 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia I rise to take note of the opposition question regarding illicit tobacco. We have made a lot of really good progress on our smoking rates, and what we don't want to see is a new generation of Australians hooked on nicotine. As a young Australian, I, myself, am very concerned about the prospect of this happening. We know that illicit tobacco is a global problem for countries around the world regardless of what their taxation policies are. I'm proud to be a part of a government that has invested $365 million since 2024 to crack down on illegal tobacco before it arrives. After years of backing the tobacco excise, the coalition has panicked because of their polls, thrown away decades of tobacco policy and landed on an 80 per cent tax cut. If this is their idea of being tough on crime, I'd hate to see them go soft. The states and territories need to implement long-term closure orders and landlord penalties and to resource their compliance teams to shut down shops. There are good examples of states seeing their enforcement powers having a clear impact. South Australia is one example of this. They've closed more than 320 shops, and the SA government has indicated that the price of illicit tobacco is rising in SA. This changes the risk-reward equation for criminals. It's important to remember that we've made so much progress to reduce smoking rates to amongst the lowest in the developed world. Smoking rates fell to 5.8 per cent in 2022-23. We've had decades of bipartisan health policy that got us to this point. Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable disease in Australia and causes 20 per cent of the cancer disease burden in Australia. The coalition sees gangs making billions selling illicit tobacco and somehow thinks the problem is that cigarettes aren't cheap enough. We'd rather put the pressure on the criminals than give the tobacco industry an 80 per cent tax cut. I don't want to see hospitals full of dying and diseased Australians. I don't want to see the next generation hooked on nicotine. This policy is devoid of modelling and substance. We should reflect on how many billions of dollars we'd have to reinvest and divert into the health system from other things to deal with the health consequences of rising smoking rates. It's also important to reflect on the work that this government has done in the area of enforcement. The Albanese Labor government created the National Disruption Group, which is led by the Australian Border Force. It brings together the Commonwealth, the states and the territories to co-ordinate a response to the illicit tobacco trade. The Australian Border Force has seen record levels of seizures at the border. The National Disruption Group has identified over 100 persons of interest associated with illicit tobacco. It is also important that we remind ourselves that vaping is not a safer alternative to smoking. There are clear links between vaping and cancer. People who vape are up to five times more likely to end up smoking. The coalition is so desperate to chase One Nation voters that apparently decades of bipartisan public health policy can go right out the window. I'm proud to be part of a government that continues to crack down on tobacco and protects the health of Australians. 15:27 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I'm sitting here scratching my head listening to this. I'm absolutely scratching my head at 'cracking down on illicit tobacco'. What about the organised crime? What about the firebombings all across Victoria? What about the people that have been murdered? What's happening with the gangs? We heard this morning that the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, had no idea that there was another firebombing in his own electorate just this very day. He had no idea when he was asked about that. Think about that. We have reached the point where tobacco stores are being firebombed in the electorate of a senior economic minister, and he doesn't even know about it. We heard from the government today that they are focused on bringing down the numbers of people smoking. They think this is a health issue. This is not a health issue; it's a security issue for the good people of Australia. Businesses are being burnt down. Shopkeepers are being threatened and extorted. Organised criminals are making billions of dollars. Criminal gangs are making between $4 billion and $7 billion every single year. Because of this illicit trade, there is drug trafficking, there are scams and there is other violent criminal activity, and we hear from the government that they don't want to get kids hooked on nicotine. They have their heads in the sand, and they focus on the wrong thing. It should be about the safety of the Australian people. This high-taxing government haven't dared face the reality of the situation, that their taxes have grown this illicit trade in Australia. We in the coalition have put forward very sensible policy to bring down the tax of cigarettes to make it more affordable so that we don't drive people into this illicit trade. We propose an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise, which will destroy the enormous price advantage that organised crime has in our communities. It will disrupt their business model, which is what we need to do. But it is not simply about reducing excise. It's part of a broader package that will attack the illicit tobacco business model, strengthen enforcement and return control of this market to legitimate Australian businesses. I want to touch on another set of questions that we asked the government today about the veterans that have visited parliament this week. I talked yesterday in this chamber about the harrowing moment yesterday morning when our veterans handed their medals back to the government. It was harrowing. We asked the government today about the consultations that they'd had with veterans groups and who the minister had consultations or meetings with, and all we got back was the group of veterans that visited. We asked whether the Prime Minister would admit that he's got it wrong on the allied health cap, making it more difficult for veterans to get the healthcare that they need. There was no answer on that and no answer on whether they will walk that back. But I can tell you right now that it is having such a grave impact on our veteran community that— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Tasmania: Salmon Farming Industry 34 15:31 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania This is not my first speech. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by Minister Ayres representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, about the cruel treatment of fish in fish farms in Tasmania. It's not just the salmon that are suffering. As a lawyer, which I previously was, I led the still ongoing legal action against the Minister for the Environment and Water to bring fish farming in Tasmania's Macquarie Harbour under control. Macquarie Harbour is the only place in the world that the endangered Maugean skate continues to live. The Maugean skate is an ancient species that has been gliding across the floor of Macquarie Harbour since the time of the dinosaurs, but now it is facing imminent extinction. This is an extinction brought about by fish farming and by this government making decisions for big corporations instead of our threatened species and the environments that they depend on to live. The number of fish-farming cages in Macquarie Harbour is industrial-scale and out of control. It has caused the oxygen levels in the harbour's waters to plummet. Just imagine being at home with no escape, the oxygen being removed from the air, and suffocating to death. This is what fish farming is doing to the endangered Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour. In August 2025, this government saw fit to endorse the continuation of expanded fish farms in Macquarie Harbour, a volume of fish cages that is killing the Maugean skate. Scientists tell us the Maugean skate is just one extreme weather event away from extinction. This extreme weather event, the strongest El Nino on record, is here. This is a government that promised no extinctions. If it is to make good on its promise, it must immediately end the industrial-scale fish farming in Macquarie Harbour if the Maugean skate has any chance of avoiding its otherwise imminent extinction. 15:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It is all too predictable that Tasmania's salmon industry is embroiled in yet another animal cruelty scandal, and I do thank Animals Australia for doing what the government will not do: acting to protect salmon from the greed and cruelty of this industry, which gets away with persistent, regular acts of neglect and mismanagement and cruelty towards animals. This death, disease and cruelty is the consequence of repeated governments and the salmon farming industry denying the sentience of salmon. The Tasmanian salmon industry is nothing but a mass polluter, an existential threat to Tasmania's unique marine habitat and wildlife and a death warrant for the Maugean skate. Since 2018, 110 seals have died at Tasmanian salmon farms. Dolphins and seabirds have also been targeted. These multinational companies make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and pay little to no tax. In fact, the Albanese government gives them tens of millions of dollars in subsidies. The Albanese government all too willingly bends over backwards to weaken environmental and biodiversity laws for them against the wishes of the people who live in this country. Biosecurity Tasmania must respond to the complaint from Animals Australia with the seriousness and the urgency that it deserves by launching an investigation immediately. But we know you cannot regulate your way out of cruelty. Just as cruelty is inherent in greyhound racing, inherent in horse racing and inherent in factory farming, it is also inseparable from salmon farming. The only way this cruelty and environmental destruction ends is by removing the industrial fish farms from Macquarie Harbour. Question agreed to. Veterans: Health Care 34 15:36 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Minister McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to veterans' health care. About seven per cent of veterans need allied health support. I've been in this place long enough to know that when pressure mounts on a government policy—in this case, a government policy that it not just bad but also shameful—the minister starts putting out press releases announcing exemptions. This is just the government trying to fix bad policy on the run. The veterans that are still going to get caught by the cap are veterans like myself, who are still working, and those that are having major operations when it will take months of allied health to give them a reasonable chance of getting back on their feet. We cost less than we are paying in tax and contributing to the economy. I've had three surgeries over the last 12 months. I'm in recovery, and that means I'm going through that proposed cap of $5,000 every five weeks—or I would be, but I'm paying some of it myself because I can't be bothered dealing with DVA. And you want me to wait another 28 days while you tick off what I don't trust you with. As I pointed out to the minister today, the average time for getting a claim ticked off under the MRCA, one of the acts that sits over this, is 364 days—one day short of a year. The minister is asking us to believe that DVA will rush these through in 28 days. What a load of rubbish! The minister told me today that we will continue on with our allied health, so the allied health provider is now supposed to subsidise my treatment until DVA pays. Are you kidding me? I'm supposed to go to my provider and say to them, 'Hey, just wait. I think DVA will pay you.' Besides this being bad policy, there is another much bigger problem: veterans don't trust DVA, and allied health providers don't trust you either. You've brought that on yourselves. Allied health providers are not going to keep providing treatments when there's no guarantee they are going to get paid. Seriously, what planet are you on? The Department of Veterans' Affairs has played fast and loose with lives and veterans' affairs for decades. The minister and the Prime Minister could start fixing this today by scrapping the cap. Question agreed to. Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 35 15:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Minister Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. In response to my question, the minister said: … I would challenge you. If you think you can demonstrate that our commitments were targeted on marginal seats, you do that. I'm very happy to accept that challenge, and I would seek leave to table a report from the Centre for Public Integrity titled Public money, political advantage? Leave not granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 The minister says, 'This isn't pork-barrelling. We haven't targeted marginal seats,' and then the report shows that nearly half the money that the government made in election commitments went to marginal seats that the Labor government wanted to win. When I try to table that, the government says, 'No, you can't table the evidence.' The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Pocock, resume your seat. Senator Sheldon? Senator Sheldon 168275 Could Senator Pocock give us the courtesy of giving a copy to both the opposition and the government to have a look at first? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 That is a debating point, Senator Sheldon. I accept what you say. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it is a debating point. Senator Pocock, you have the call. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 People should check out this report for themselves, because I hear from Canberrans a lot that they have had a gutful of pork-barrelling. You shouldn't have to live in a marginal seat to get funding that is needed for community sports and for community infrastructure that is needed. If this is according to the rules, let's change the rules, because these rules do not cut it. You had a Labor Party that said in opposition that the coalition were pork-barrelling. They get into the hot seat, and they're doing the exact same thing. It does not cut it. We have to do better as a country, and we deserve better as a country. We should have governments that make election commitments that are based on need not based on the seats that they want to win or the seats that they want to hold. This is damaging our democracy. We are reducing trust in government, in institutions, in all of us, and it needs to end. Question agreed to. Employment 35 15:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note portfolio the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the labour market. The reality is that people are going backwards under the Albanese government. Official data shows growth this decade is the worst in 100 years, and this is when Labor decides to dump a million new arrivals with a million more to come. The minister's list of economic achievements rely on immigration to stay positive. Economic growth, for instance, is negative per person. Each person's economic pie is shrinking, not growing. Immigration is the Ponzi scheme that I'm referring to and talking about here. Bringing in new people to artificially inflate the economy, which is now incapable of growing on its own. Labour productivity is down in part because of the growth in employment in the Public Service, whose lower productivity contributes to inflation for everyone. Another of Senator Gallagher's achievements was female participation rates are up—true—and male participation rates are down. You're supposed to grow the economy for everyone, not pick sides. People are noticing— (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 Postponement 40 COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 40 BUSINESS 41 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 41 15:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator Lambie be granted leave of absence for 20 August for personal reasons. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS Refugees 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Home Affairs and/or his office and the Department of Home Affairs in relation to the proposal to reduce the refugee intake by approximately one third, as first reported in the Australian Financial Review on 27 August 2026. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2026, copies of all documents, including incoming correspondence, created or received between 26 and 28 August 2026, and held by the Prime Minister and/or his office, relating to the Prime Minister's decision on 27 August 2026 to veto the proposal to reduce the refugee intake by approximately one third. Question agreed to. NOTICES 41 NOTICES Withdrawal 41 15:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I ask that general business notice of motion No. 647 be withdrawn. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS Minister for Communications 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 4 February 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 321, relating to the Minister for Communications' travel to New York in September 2025, (ii) on 4 March 2026, a response was tabled which included a letter from the Minister for Communications which noted that 'My department and eSafety have conducted a search of their systems and have not identified any documents that appear to fall in scope of the order', (iii) on 13 July 2026, a freedom of information request with reference number FOI 27-022 (the request) was lodged with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (the department) which had a scope that fell entirely within the scope of documents sought by order for the production of documents no. 321, and (iv) on 14 August 2026, following a request consultation process which led to a further reduction in the scope of the request, an officer of the department denied the request, as they had identified as many as 700 documents which appeared to be captured by the request; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on 9 September 2026 to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes as to why the Minister for Communications asserted that the department was not able to identify any documents within the scope of order for the production of documents no. 321, despite the department identifying numerous documents within the scope of the order in response to a freedom of information request, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 20 minutes and shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Question agreed to. NOTICES 42 NOTICES Withdrawal 42 15:46 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Ruston, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 650 for today. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Veterans: Health Care 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:46 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Cadell, I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, the following documents: (a) the final version of each ministerial brief, including any attachments, submitted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs between 12 May 2026 and the date on which this order is agreed to, specifically concerning the proposed $5,000 annual limit on allied health services for veteran card holders; and (b) the final approved version of each question time brief prepared by the Department of Veterans' Affairs during that period specifically concerning that measure. (2) That, for the purposes of this order, the proposed $5,000 annual limit includes the measure described by the Government as an Annual Monetary Limit, cap, limit, allocation, threshold, review threshold or threshold for review of clinical effectiveness. (3) That this order does not include drafts, correspondence, emails, media briefs, consultation submissions, meeting records or general Budget briefing material. Question agreed to. Services Australia 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:47 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 654. Leave granted. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Government Services, by no later than midday on 14 September 2026, the briefs, proposals and scoping documents relating to the following Services Australia contracts awarded to supplier Instinct and Reason Pty Ltd under contract notices: (a) CN3938473-A1—Market Research; (b) CN4126842-A1—Research Evaluation Services; (c) CN4059241-A2—Research Services; and (d) CN4166459-A1—Market Research. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 42 Reference 42 15:48 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That, noting the Joint Statement on Transnational Repression adopted by the 56th session of the United Nation's Human Rights Council, the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2027: Transnational repression and foreign interference, with particular reference to: (a) the nature, scale and methods of transnational repression activities affecting individuals and communities in Australia; (b) the impact on diaspora communities, democratic engagement and public advocacy of transnational repression; (c) the adequacy of current legislative and institutional frameworks to address transnational repression in Australia; (d) existing and needed protection and support mechanisms for affected individuals and communities including education and community engagement strategies; (e) how to support individuals and targeted communities to effectively respond to transnational repression with both community and government collaboration; (f) international cooperation and global best practice to address transnational repression; (g) recommendations for legislative and policy reforms; and (h) any other related matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I seek leave for the vote to be recommitted. It was going to be a 'mickey'. It was brought to my attention after the bells were rung that our position is to vote on the other side. Can we have another four minutes? Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 To the whips in the room, I would say this is an absolute indulgence. Please make sure that you know what you're doing and you advise your people accordingly. The question is that business of the Senate No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 22 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 8 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. McCarthy, M. Henderson, S. M. Tyrrell, T. M. Hume, J. Mulholland, C. McGrath, J. A. Green, N. L. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Cox, D.

Question agreed to.

 BUSINESS 44 BUSINESS Rearrangement 44 16:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 9 September 2026 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Bleyer to make her first speech (of approximately 20 minutes) without any question before the chair. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 44 DOCUMENTS Questacon: Sponsorship 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 16:01 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Science, by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 17 September 2026, the following documents relating to Shell Australia's sponsorship of Questacon from January 2021 to December 2022: (a) conflict of interest, reputational or influence risk assessments and other due diligence undertaken in relation to Shell Australia; (b) briefing notes, internal advice, submissions or approval documents prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to the consideration, approval or continuation of the sponsorship; (c) the sponsorship agreement, including any associated conditions or safeguards, particularly those relating to branding, educational content, editorial independence or engagement with children and teachers; (d) communications strategies, engagement plans or evaluation documents relating to the sponsorship or Shell Australia's involvement in Questacon's educational or youth-facing activities; and (e) correspondence or other communications between Questacon, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and Shell Australia relating to the sponsorship. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion 649 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 22 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 COVID-19: Mortality 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 16:04 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Antic, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 9 October 2026: (a) all documents, including advice, modelling papers, internal correspondence, briefing notes, analyses and minutes and records of decisions relating to: (i) the Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) review of its methodology for calculating expected and excess mortality, and the decision to replace the previous Serfling-based methodology with a Generalised Additive Model (GAM), (ii) sensitivity testing comparing the Serfling-based methodology with the GAM, including selection of the GAM baseline period, the seven-year rolling baseline, inclusion of COVID-19 years, and exclusion of 2022, (iii) the estimates of expected and excess mortality for the calendar years 2024 and 2025 calculated using the Serfling-based methodology, including weekly or monthly estimates where available, (iv) consideration of the overall numerical effect of adopting the GAM methodology on reported expected and excess deaths for 2024 and 2025, (v) the change in the research question from estimating mortality expected in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic to estimating mortality in circumstances where COVID-19 is considered a persistent contributor to mortality, and (vi) any external consultation or peer review of the proposed methodology, including reports, comments, advice, correspondence, records of meetings, ABS responses and documents identifying the experts, agencies or organisations consulted or participating in the peer-review process; and (b) the final briefing, recommendation, approval or other record authorising the adoption and publication of the new excess mortality methodology. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 653 standing in the name of Senator Antic be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 9 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gatenby, C. Watt, M. P. Henderson, S. M. Whiteaker, E. McGrath, J. A. Ayres, T. Paterson, J. W. Tyrrell, T. M. Ruston, A. Mulholland, C. Scarr, P. M. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 Cheaper Home Batteries Program, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Climate Change Authority, Safeguard Mechanism, Capacity Investment Scheme, Rewiring the Nation, Climate Change, Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:08 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Henderson, I move general business notices of motion Nos 656 to 664 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 656 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 17 September 2026, the following documents which relate to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program: (a) all 'Ministerial Update—Clean Energy Regulator Battery Inspection Program Action Plans' provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date; (b) all Clean Energy Regulator battery inspection reports provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date; (c) the latest iteration of the question time brief with the reference number QB26-000014; (d) all correspondence received by the minister from Ms Roslyn Baker, Chief Executive Officer of Solar Accreditation Australia, concerning the operation of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program from 1 July 2025 to date; (e) all documents produced by the Industry Advisory Implementation Committee which have been provided to the minister and documents that contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the committee's work; and (f) all documents produced from the intergovernmental sub-group on batteries that have been provided to the minister, and documents which contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the sub-group's work. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 657 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, the current iteration of the document identified by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet per freedom of information request LEX 2026/262. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 658 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 17 September 2026, the final iterations of any end product work provided to the Climate Change Authority from Impression Bay Pty Ltd related to contract notice CN4257933, with the description 'Graphic Design'. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 659 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 17 September 2026, the final iterations of any end product work provided to the Climate Change Authority from Ernst and Young arising from contract notice CN4249067, with the description 'Safeguard modelling 2026'. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 660 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 17 September 2026, all documents from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water that have been provided to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy over the past three months that update the minister on: (a) the delivery of the social licence benefits associated with contracted Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) projects; (b) the status of CIS projects, including the execution of CIS agreements; and (c) the financial and fiscal impact of the CIS. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 661 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, the latest two iterations of a back pocket brief produced by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, titled 'Rewiring the Nation Details (EC26-000178)'. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 662 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026: (a) all correspondence issued by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to heads of government and heads of state concerning attendance and participation at pre-COP in Tuvalu; (b) all correspondence returned by those to whom correspondence was sent; and (c) a list of all civil society/non-government organisations that have been invited by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to attend pre-COP in Fiji. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 663 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, any modelling and accompanying or subsequent analysis undertaken by the minister's department which concerns the expansion of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme from 100 kW to 1 MW. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 664 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, all email correspondence between the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, between 1 July and 31 December 2025, which concerns fires from installed batteries under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. Senator McKim JKM On behalf of the Australian Greens, I ask that Nos 658 and 659 be put separately to the others please. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 658 and 659, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 656, 657, 660, 661, 662, 663 and 664 standing in the name of Senator Henderson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 9 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gatenby, C. Watt, M. P. Henderson, S. M. Whiteaker, E. McGrath, J. A. Ayres, T. Paterson, J. W. Tyrrell, T. M. Ruston, A. Mulholland, C. Scarr, P. M. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 Housing 48 Order for the Production of Documents 48 16:13 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on Thursday, 14 May 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 499, relating to Treasury modelling for the 65,000 more dwellings related to the infrastructure spend included in the 2026-27 Budget, requiring the minister to comply by midday on Friday, 29 May 2026, (ii) on Monday, 22 June 2026, in response to the order, the minister provided 4 documents with significant redactions, (iii) on Tuesday, 30 June 2026, the Senate agreed to a further order resolving that the minister has failed to fully comply with the order as the documents provided do not include the Treasury modelling required to be produced by the order and requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to fully comply with the original order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 July 2026, and (iv) the order has still not been fully complied with; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on Wednesday, 16 September 2026 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 655, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 9 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Gatenby, C. Watt, M. P. Henderson, S. M. Whiteaker, E. McGrath, J. A. Ayres, T. Paterson, J. W. Tyrrell, T. M. Ruston, A. Mulholland, C. Scarr, P. M. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 49 MATTERS OF URGENCY Veterans: Health Care 49 16:17 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 274506 Senator Cadell has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's betrayal of Australian veterans through its attempt to rip $748 million from allied health care with a $5,000 cap—now cynically rebadged as a "review threshold"—and the need to scrap it so veterans' care is determined by clinical need, not Labor's budget bottom line. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 274506 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:17 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's betrayal of Australian veterans through its attempt to rip $748 million from allied health care with a $5,000 cap—now cynically rebadged as a "review threshold"—and the need to scrap it so veterans' care is determined by clinical need, not Labor's budget bottom line. It was an interesting process when we went through the estimates process and were hearing about the reasons this came about; $748 million is a lot of money. But, when we get to the core of it, we hear about two veterans using two providers where they went over $100,000. We know who the providers were. One was a dietician; one, I think, was a podiatrist. They were billing at least every week for these services. Other senators were in there; we sought answers to the questions: What action have you taken against the people who are rorting the system? What have you taken against these providers that are doing the wrong thing? The answer was none. We've heard about the Fraud Prevention Centre, which had 120 people and now has 200 people. So we had 120 people doing nothing before—they were taking no action—and now we've got 200 people doing nothing to prevent this fraud. But 25,000 veterans have to pay the price of not going after people committing fraud in this system—providers. It is a sickening thing. These are people who served our country. These are people who joined the armed forces with a promise we made to them that we would look after them, a promise they relied on, a promise for allied health services for their injuries, for their physiotherapy, for their psychological health—for so many things. Now this government wants to back away from it for the budget bottom line. Let's not pretend it's anything more than that. This is not about veterans' health. This is not about their wellbeing. This is about cutting money out of the budget—$748 million. When I went to my hometown in the Hunter Valley and talked to Ruth Rogers at Singleton RSL, Ruth told me of her troubles and of how she needs these things and how people she supports as an advocate need these services every day, every week. Now they have to jump through a hoop. We heard today this question: how are you going to approve these things in 28 days when you can't get recognition of injury for 350 days? It just doesn't make sense. We haven't met these KPIs, and these people deserve better. That is why we saw veterans march to Parliament House. That's why we saw veterans put their medals down on the front steps of Parliament House. It's because this government has broken Australia's promise to them. James Burns, up in Scone, has launched a petition, which we can all go and sign. It's a petition that meets with the Senate requirements, so we can debate it. When he came here, he talked about how he will easily go through the $5,000 of allied health in a month. The guy can't walk to town. He has an electric scooter that will get him from his house to town and from his town to home but not around town. It'll run out of battery before he gets home. He can't get one upgraded. What do I say to him and to the people like him right across Australia? 'You'll now suffer. You'll pay the price because this government can't control its spending. You will pay the price because this government betrayed our oath.' That is why this is such an urgent motion. We have a private member's bill—potentially two—that can turn this around. We have the ability to give integrity to the oath we made to our veterans, who went overseas, who served in Australia during disasters. We can put them in harm's way, but we no longer want to help them get out of harm's way, and that is not good enough. It is certainly not good enough for any parliament that I want to be part of—to think that these people are replaceable, that these people are expendable and that these people don't need the care that they so desperately do. The difference made by this cap for these 25,000 people could be life and death. It could be the psychological help to get over the trauma of what they've seen, what they've done, what they've been involved in. It could be the health care they need to avoid living a life of pain, through physio, through chiro and things like this. But now we have this cap. It is not good enough. Our Australian veterans deserve better. That's why it must stop. The cap must be scrapped, and anyone who says anything different has to have a look at themselves. 16:23 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania I'd like to acknowledge the ADF personnel around the building today and this week as part of the parliamentary exchange. I welcome them to Parliament House. I rise to contribute to the urgency motion raised by the coalition. I've got to talk about some of the things that happened with the Department of Veterans' Affairs under their watch whilst they were in government. They were the party that gutted DVA, leading to a huge claims backlog. Former veterans affairs minister Andrew Gee told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide that, despite a huge backlog, he was forced to cut $430 million, a move that he labelled as 'counterintuitive'. Since day one, we've worked to improve the lives of defence personnel, veterans and their families in Australia, with significant funding increases. The state of veterans' support funding when we came to government was a disgrace. There was a backlog of 42,000 new veteran claims that had not been looked at by anyone in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Do you know what? I can tell you a little story. I worked for the union that represented DVA workers: the CPSU. The former LNP government, as part of their crusade against the Public Service, brought in labour hire firms to process DVA claims, and they were really nasty in the way they did this. Those workers that were brought in were employed with no sick leave, no annual leave and no job security. To add further insult, they were paid much less than those who were sitting next to them and directly employed in the APS. These people served veterans. Not many people know that it actually takes six months for a worker, when onboarded at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to be fully able to process claims. During the dying years of the former government, during their wasted decade, there was a revolving door of workers who simply didn't complete their training due to the miserable working conditions that they were hired under. Those opposite actively sabotaged DVA from being able to serve veterans, who deserve so much better from their government. On this side of the chamber, we're committed to supporting our defence personnel, veterans and their families, and that's why we've made investing in the Department of Veterans' Affairs a priority. In fact, the Albanese Labor government has provided the department with more funding resources than at any time in the past three decades. The Albanese Labor government funded additional DVA staff to clear those backlogs, with record claims-processing in the last three years. We also committed $15 billion in spending on payments and services for over 360,000 veterans and their families last financial year, $5 billion more than four years ago. The royal commission found that the previous veterans legislation system was so complicated that it poorly impacted veterans' mental health and increased the risk of suicide. To address this issue, we introduced reforms to the veteran support system from 1 July, including once-in-a-century changes to simplify veterans entitlements legislation, improve integrity in the system and implement a more holistic wellbeing support approach to supporting veterans and veterans' families. These changes have simplified the veterans compensation system, making it easier for veterans and their families to understand their entitlements and making it easier for DVA to process their claims. Our priority is to ensure veterans and their families can access health care and support when they need it. That's why we're investing $169.7 million into strengthening veteran cardholders' access to allied health services, including the largest investment in veteran allied health provider fees in over two decades. This addressed recommendation 71 of the royal commission, which called for increases to the DVA fee schedules to improve access to care. For example, this means the fee paid for a standard physio consultation will increase from $75.10 to $110. This means more choice, better access and greater confidence in DVA healthcare arrangements for veterans. Importantly, we're reducing the burden of veterans having to return to a GP every 12 allied health visits for a new referral. Instead, we've expanded this to a $5,000 threshold before a veteran's care is reviewed. The allied health threshold will not apply to some of our most vulnerable veterans, including those who are eligible for the special rate disability pension or the totally and permanently incapacitated pension and those who are catastrophically injured. 16:28 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory At the Australian War Memorial, there is an exhibition called Deathmin, and I would encourage my Senate colleagues and members of the public, when you're there, to go and check it out. It is by Kat Rae, and I'll quote her about this particular exhibition. She said: After my veteran husband Andrew suicided in 2017, I inherited a stack of post-death admin. This "deathmin" contains thousands of pages in which Andrew requests support for his broken body. Eventually, DVA paid $7 fortnightly, later reduced to $5. Three months before Andrew died, payments ceased. …   …   … Deathmin is a counter-monument to the strong, upright imagery often conveyed in the Australian War Memorial. At my height and Andrew's weight, Deathminembodies the burden placed on veterans and their families. It asks bureaucratic institutions to care for the people they say they will. The government says: 'Well, it's just another cheque. You'll still get more than $5,000.' But this threshold adds another obstacle. It's another piece of paper. It's another form. It's another visit to the GP. And it all goes on the stack; it all piles up. It all goes on the shoulders of veterans who are just trying to get well and on their families. This is not something we should be doing. We've heard so clearly from veterans and their families just how hard it is to get support. And now we're saying that if we identify that you do need support—if you really need support, if you need so much support that you have to have more than $5,000 of allied health—we're going to check you; we're going to make sure you really need that support, rather than just trusting the health system and the veteran. 16:30 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Australia's promise is that we will look after those who serve. But that promise does not expire when you go out of uniform. The DVA website says that it is the duty of all Australians to repay our veterans' commitments in kind. I agree with that; the coalition agrees with that. But does Labor? What an extraordinary list of talking points we've just heard from the government—an appalling defence, where apparently the real victims are officials in the department. It is an absolutely bizarre allegation. How on earth can a $748 million cut to spending mean that veterans are being better looked after? How can it be that, if you can't get access to services, the best solution would be to cap allied health services for the veterans who have served Australia so faithfully? Townsville veterans already know what losing support looks like, thanks to the Albanese Labor government. Regional veterans already face barriers of fewer specialists, longer distances, higher costs and harder access. We have one of Australia's largest serving and ex-serving defence communities. The Oasis in Townsville was created to support veterans and families transitioning from military to civilian life. It helped these veterans access employment, education, housing, health care and wellbeing services and reconnect with their community. DVA itself previously described the Oasis as providing 'government and community services to Australia's largest veteran community'. Its work also confronted one of the most confronting issues for the veteran community, which is suicide. But the Oasis closed its doors in December 2025 following a funding dispute with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth terminated a $4½ million grant. Meanwhile, the government has made $8 million available to support bilbies. Apparently bilbies are more important to Labor than our veterans. Lieutenant General John Caligari warned that veterans could again be left without that home base, somewhere they could turn up and feel safe. That should have been a wake-up call. But instead of Townsville being a model for supporting veterans, it's an example of what happens when support disappears. Andy Cullen, who's an Afghanistan veteran with 17 years of service, is a fourth-generation soldier. His 18-year-old son is considering joining the ADF, but Andy is now discouraging his son from becoming the fifth generation of that family, because he doesn't trust the government to look after his son if he is injured, because trust has been broken. Australian Labor should be ashamed. What message are we sending? Australia needs people who are willing to serve. We cannot ask them to risk everything while penny pinching on their care afterwards. When did veterans start being treated as a budget line item? Their care isn't a government generosity; it is an obligation. Stop the word games, scrap the $5,000 threshold, remove the bureaucratic hurdle and honour the promise Australia has made that we will look after those who serve—and that will not stop when they take their uniforms off—and that we will continue to care for those veterans who have served and who have been injured protecting this nation. It is extraordinary that Labor would roll out talking points about department officials when the real victims are veterans who are now committing suicide—the terror of not being able to access the right care, the right allied health services, thanks to this government's penny pinching. It is an absolutely un-Australian way. Cut the cap. 16:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Veterans can see through the messaging that's coming from the Labor Party. They've been done over by the coalition before. They remember what it's like—being ignored and put at the back of the queue. Labor comes out and says: 'Oh, it's not a cap. This isn't a cap on services. It's just a review point.' But veterans can read a budget like I can read a budget. You can see in the veterans budget that this government is proposing to save three-quarters of a billion dollars by putting in this 'not a cap but a review'. We'll call that what it is: absolutely unparliamentary language. That is what this is. When I first raised this issue in estimates, I was shocked at the lack of information. When we drilled down we found that, actually, 25,000 veterans are currently getting allied health services in advance of this cap. I have had so many veterans come into my offices to talk with me and communicate with my team a deep fear about this, because they know this is life and death. It can be as urgent as veterans with complex PTSD getting to see a psychologist, or someone who's injured in combat getting to see a physio so they can play with their kids. That's what this is about. Defence always seems to have money—for US corporations, for more money for the Defence senior brass—but they're slashing it for the men and women who served. Defence is currently spending $43 billion on half a dozen useless frigates and $375 billion on AUKUS, and they won't pay for a veteran's physio. Those are the priorities here. It reveals a lot about any government, about how they treat people who served in good faith and then just got put on the scrap heap. Veterans have seen it time and time again. Well, we're on their side on this. (Time expired) 16:37 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on this matter of urgency moved by Senator Cadell. From the outset, I want to put on the record my utmost respect and gratitude for our nation's veterans. I'm sure many people in this chamber share a similar family story to mine. My family is deeply proud of our family members who have served in both world wars and more recently in the Middle East. My husband is a former member of our defence forces, and we know the impact that service has on both the individuals who bravely serve in our name and on their families, not just in the immediate aftermath of that service but with impacts that can last many months, many years and many decades. I know that none of us in this chamber would ever seek to diminish that service or to diminish the respect we all share for our veterans. We know that those people in our country who bravely put themselves forward to serve do so at great sacrifice for their own wellbeing and great sacrifice which has ongoing impacts for their families. Today I want to use my contribution to simply place some information, some facts and some context on the table, because the truth is, when the Albanese Labor government came to power, we began the work that meant that we now have better funded and resourced the Department of Veterans' Affairs than it has been in three decades. Since day one, our government has worked to improve the lives of defence personnel, veterans and families in Australia, with significant funding increases. The truth is that veteran support funding when we came to government was in a dire state. Under the previous government, DVA was underfunded and underresourced. This meant veterans weren't getting access to the services and supports they needed and deserved, and I think many on the other side of the chamber would agree with that now. There was a huge backlog of almost 42,000 new veterans claims that had not been looked at by anyone in DVA. As a result of the funding we've invested, we've cleared that shameful backlog, and that has had a big impact on people's lives. I know it was a source of incredible frustration, disappointment and upset, and it's a good thing that that backlog has gone. We're continuing to resource DVA to provide that funding for healthcare support and compensation that veterans need and deserve. With respect to the current changes that are under way, again, some information I think is helpful to lay on the table, but obviously, our goal must be to ensure that those who serve our country have the support that they need, have the support that they deserve. The government is making a substantial increase to the fees paid to allied health professionals providing services to veterans to improve access to those services. This was a key recommendation of the royal commission. It was recommendation 71. These reforms are about trying to reduce the burden on veterans to go back to their GP every 12 months for a new referral. Not everyone has the same GP and it's not easy for everybody to go see a new GP, to share their story, to share their pain and to share why they might need an allied healthcare service. Then there is the review point. This is meant to be about reducing the time and the financial burden that veterans experience when they do have to go back to their GP every 12 months; rather, having a different system which avoids that kind of burden. Critically, we're ensuring that further care will be available if there's a clinical need beyond that $5,000. It's important to say as well that veterans approaching the threshold will have their treatment reviewed with their healthcare team, but they will be able to access those services. There will still be continuity of services while DVA considers any requests for additional care so there is no unnecessary interruption to that treatment. Again, that's an important piece of information that should be laid on the table in this debate; so, too, that these changes will not impact veterans on the special rate disability pension or on the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, or have been determined to be catastrophically injured. Also, there is ongoing consultation and it's important that that consultation is able to take place. It's important that people are able to have their voices heard in that consultation, and I'm confident that the minister and our government are listening closely to that. We are committed to ensuring veterans receive high-quality care. I think everyone in this chamber would never diminish the commitment of others to our veterans and to the armed services. There is more work under way here in terms of that consultation, but having the facts on the table about what these reforms do is important too. 16:42 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I rise to speak on this matter of urgency. Yesterday, outside Parliament House, decorated Australian veterans laid down their medals. They did not do it lightly. Those medals stand for service and sacrifice. They were laid down as a condemnation of this Labor government. Labor's $5,000 annual cap on allied health cover for veterans is a travesty. Physiotherapy, psychology, occupational therapy and rehabilitation for those that risk their lives for this country have been cut short. Labor might be trying to back away now, saying that it triggers a review, but the damage done to the trust of our diggers is irreparable. Veterans with complex injuries and PTSD will hit that ceiling and then fight extra bureaucracy just to keep seeing their clinicians. Matt Keogh refused to even shake the hands of veterans that came to plead with him for some humanity. Matt Keogh has to go, this cap has to go, and One Nation will always support our veterans. 16:43 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales Yes, this moment won't be forgotten. This week will never be forgotten—those decorated veterans, as you said, Senator Whitten, laying down their medals in front of Parliament House, giving them back to this government that has abandoned them, the government that has betrayed our veterans. We have had to put this urgency motion forward because it is urgent, quite frankly, to the point of life or death for some of these people. I heard directly from veterans yesterday that there are people out there that can't manage. They can't battle the system any longer. They can't go through it anymore. They feel that their only choice is to end their own life. This is why this is so urgent. This is why everybody is so up in arms and desperately pleading with the government to remove this cap. It is not a threshold. It will make it even more difficult for these veterans to get the health care that they need. Let me go through one example that I heard yesterday from a veteran who came and shared his story with me. His initial liability claim was 534 days in the system to then get a letter saying that they had accepted the liability. Bear in mind that the KPI of this government is 100 days. That's five times over what their KPI is. After 663 days, it's still not finalised. Can you imagine the impact that that would have on someone's mental health, battling the government that they prepared to lay down their lives for? We have a situation where the overcentralisation of the DVA claims process is slowing things down to the point that it is affecting the mental and physical health of our veterans. Claims are being kicked down the road. It's actually costing the government more money through the centralised process, the government's hand-picked medical assessor, and veteran health clinics in the meantime are closing down. They have been forced through this system they don't want to be in, it's costing the government more money, and it's making it more difficult for them. This is why it's so urgent today that we call on this government to scrap this cap. The government says that they're going to make a $748 million saving off this cap. But it's not a cap, is it? It's a threshold. We heard from the government just now that they were investing resources. Money is not the answer to everything. You've got to sort all the problems around this. You've got to help our veterans—back in our veterans that did everything they could, put their lives on the line to only have this cruel government slap them in the face, quite frankly. We also heard from Andy. I know the story has been shared a bit today, but we heard from Andy, a fourth generation soldier who feels betrayed and disappointed by the government that he fought for, and he's discouraging his 18-year-old son from enlisting. I think that's an absolute tragedy. I heard from Chris, a veteran who suffered a traumatic brain injury while serving our country. He has been rejected on his claim too. He's not getting the help that he needs after he waited. The system is broken, and I call on the government. Remove this cap at the very, very least, and back in our veterans. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 21 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. 9 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Hume, J. Whiteaker, E. Kovacic, M. Tyrrell, T. M. Liddle, K. J. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. Cox, D. Scarr, P. M. Mulholland, C.

Question agreed to.

Defence Properties 55 16:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Lambie, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Government to immediately pause the divestment of Defence Estate assets because the plan is based on incomplete and flawed information and will negatively affect the ability of the Australian Defence Force to raise, train and sustain an effective force. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Government to immediately pause the divestment of Defence Estate assets because the plan is based on incomplete and flawed information and will negatively affect the ability of the Australian Defence Force to raise, train and sustain an effective force. The Australian government is getting rid of 67 Defence sites either fully or partially. This is out of 68 properties identified in an independent audit. I don't have a problem with Defence looking at sites and working out if Defence and therefore the Australian people are getting the best bang for their buck. But what's become quite clear from the current Senate inquiry is that this decision is based on incomplete and flawed information. I was shocked from Defence—no, actually, I wasn't really shocked at all. Here's what we know. There are no costings for site remediation. There are no costings to effect removals and transfers. There are failures to appreciate the full usage of the site. There's even more failure to properly consider the impact on retention by moving personnel north again, and actual terms of leases and conditions seem to have been overlooked. That means that the defence department wants to sell off these assets, but, as usual, they haven't done any of their homework and they don't have any analysis of the risk of divesting estate assets that Defence needs before—before—suitable alternatives have been identified, costed and secured. My goodness me, the cart is surely before the horse. That includes both of Tasmania's live firing ranges, at Stony Head and Buckland. That'll leave us with none and with reserve bases with no appropriate storage for their equipment, weapons or ammunition. There is no real understanding of the likely impact on recruiting, and Defence's financial argument is based on incomplete and flawed information. Seriously, it's bloody embarrassing for Defence, and you should be ashamed of yourselves again. Defence also seems to have overlooked the terms and conditions of the leases. Do your homework! The Senate inquiry is still underway, and Defence is already selling off these properties. Seriously, you have no morals left either. The Senate inquiry is due to deliver its report on 15 September. I've got a feeling we're going to need an extension for that, because this isn't over by a long shot. The inquiry highlights yet again the ongoing failure of Defence to properly manage Defence estate or pretty much anything else. On top of this, Defence's strategic review has not considered exposure or obligations to Australia's south. That's Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. That's just gobsmacking in itself. They're supposed to be in charge of our national security. China established its first permanent Antarctic station in 1985. They're now up to five—five research bases, as they call them. China claims there is no geopolitical motive—oh jeez, fair dinkum—behind the ongoing expansion of its operations in Antarctica. Open your eyes, Defence. Open your eyes! That includes newly lodged plans for a seasonal station on the icy continent. China has now submitted a draft environmental evaluation to the secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty for the construction and operation of a new summer research station—they call them research stations—at Marie Byrd Land. So China is increasing its presence, and our Defence Strategic Review didn't even consider Australia's southern approaches. Yet they're rushing to get 'for sale' signs up across the Defence estate. The Mercury last week had a beautiful two-page spread about more than 120 Army cadets who had gathered in Tasmania for the nation's most demanding military youth challenge—a challenge that pushed these kids to their limit over a gruelling 72-hour wilderness test. The Defence estate asset sale is a slap in the face of those cadets. We recently heard that there are 220 cadet units across the country. Nine of their sites are being divested, and eight of these are in Tasmania itself. You're wiping out Tasmania; you're wiping us out. Jesus. I guess cadets won't be happening in Tasmania either, because you've got no forward plan, no forward thinking. What's new for the top of Defence? And where is the defence minister? Goodness me. The commander of the Australian Army Cadets, Brigadier McCammon, told the Mercury that the challenge was a highlight: Australian Army Cadets offers amazing avenues for youth to build their fitness, skills, resilience and confidence to become Australia's leaders of tomorrow. But not the young people in Tasmania. They feel betrayed watching as Defence rushes to sell off their venues and move them somewhere—where, they have no idea, because there is no plan. The sale of the Defence estate must be paused to sort out the financials and correct the deficiencies that Defence couldn't do on their own two feet. They couldn't actually consult with the communities. Don't put it down our throats in Tasmania and think you can come in afterwards and consult. You seriously are shameful. You are absolutely shameful. Here's a good idea: actually do your job, just for once, Defence—just for once. (Time expired) 17:01 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria From the outset, I want to say, as a member of the committee that's looking into this matter, that I think as senators we'll be looking forward to the committee's report and looking at all the facts that will be presented to this fine institution when that time comes. As I understand, we are due to report soon, and hopefully senators will have an opportunity then to look at the entirety of what is presented for us to consider with respect to the Defence estate audit. I've had the privilege, with many of the committee members, to visit a number of sites. Obviously certain sites have a lot of heritage associated with them, and I'd say that there's a lot of proud history—that men and women before us have used those sites to defend our great country. But it's wrong to suggest that the Defence estate process is one that cannot and should not be reviewed on a regular basis by the government of the day. The previous Howard government looked at this issue, because our defence needs to remain modern, needs to remain capable, needs to be vigilant and needs to be capable of taking the opportunities we have to present ourselves, particularly on the current geopolitical issues that we are currently facing as a country and as part of the region that we live in. We cannot put our head in the sand and pretend that the dynamic, the environment around us, has not changed over the last couple of decades. It is important for every senator in this place to also ask the question: for our defence force, for the fine men and women who serve in the ADF, who put on that uniform every single day, what do we—as a government and as a parliament—want to present them in terms of our infrastructure, in terms of the capability that we give them to defend our great country? It's important, when we look at the highest priority that we could impose on the men and women who put on that ADF uniform every day, that it's the national security of this country that is front and centre of our minds. We are elected to protect the people. We are elected to protect this country. We are elected to protect the interests of this nation, and as federal members of parliament our national security has to be No. 1. But we also need to make sure we have a defence force that is modern and has the equipment, has the sites that are adequately serviced and maintained. There is no point having sites that are lacking any real infrastructure or lacking in maintenance. We have heard a lot of evidence before the committee, and I don't want to pre-empt what the committee will present in its report to this place. I think it's important—and I must say a bit premature, Senator Lambie, through you, Acting Deputy President O'Neill—that we wait for this report of the committee to come before the Senate for us to look at the evidence that is presented. I should note it is a committee that is run and chaired by the opposition and the crossbench. So you should have faith, Senator Lambie—through you, Acting Deputy President—in the process. The process is that the committee— Senator Lambie 250026 There are for sale signs. There's no process. Senator CICCONE 281503 Let the committee do its job. Then let's debate those facts here once the report has been tabled in this chamber. I do worry about where this process is heading. Are we really prepared to put this report into the chamber and have every single senator look at the evidence before it, acknowledging that it is a committee that is chaired by the opposition? I know you and many others have made a wonderful contribution to that process so far, but let's have that debate once the report has been provided to this chamber. There is no point prematurely having a debate about something that we can't talk about because the Senate committee that has been tasked by this Senate has not had an opportunity to present its report for senators to consider where we are heading. I'd simply say, Senator Lambie, it is important that you have put this motion to the Senate—I 100 per cent agree—but we also need to be mindful that we have processes in place for a reason. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, will present its report on the defence estate audit, hopefully, soon for all of us in this place to consider and then properly scrutinise and then make the very points that you are wanting to make. There are a couple of committee members who are here, present, but others are not. They're not privy to that at the moment. I just wish we were able to have that conversation in some weeks. (Time expired) 17:06 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this motion to the Senate today. Labor has a terrible plan to partially or fully divest 67 Defence sites across Australia. It's reckless, it's short-sighted and it is a complete betrayal of not just our defence forces but also our national security. In my home state of South Australia, four sites are scheduled to be fully or partially divested, with approximately 400 cadets, 150 reservists and 50 full-time ADF personnel affected by these sales. The irony is not lost on the coalition that this government claims that we are living in the most dangerous strategic environment since the end of World War II and they are selling off critical defence assets on a short-term, money-raising measure. Defence land is not something that a future government can simply recreate in 10 or 20 years time, when we may need it. Once this strategically located metropolitan land is sold off, it will be near impossible to get back, and this is at a time when Australia needs to be looking to extending its reserve force and looking at how we will deploy in a case of conflict near our shores. Senator Lambie went into some detail on what is happening in the strategic environment that we're living in. In terms of what is surplus to need, the coalition realises that underutilised assets certainly should be divested where they are not used. There are empty blocks of lands that are included in these 67 sites, but there are also deeply historic and symbolic sites included in this that have a huge amount of Australia's defence history attached to them. Simply selling them off and expecting that history to be able to be put somewhere else so that we can have what the Labor government is calling a modern defence force is simply farcical. History is a huge part of our defence forces. Going to war is not something we should ever take lightly, and we should always have those reminders on hand and in sight. Not only is the historical significance of these sites vitally important; strategically, these sites sit in very, very important parts of metropolitan Australia. As Senator Ciccone mentioned, the committee had the privilege of traveling to see some of these sites. Some of them are strategically located to protect assets. Maybe it's other defence sites or maybe it's capital cities. We need to make sure that we have the capability in Australia to defend not only our defence assets but also where people are living. In times of crisis, we must be able to draw on that strong sense of national identity. That's hard to do if cadets can no longer go to bases that are close to their homes. In Tasmania, we heard of the closure of a whole lot of defence assets there in the sell-off and that cadets would have to travel an extra couple of hours to participate in a cadet program. That is unacceptable. Why would we make it more difficult for young people to get involved in a cadet program and why would we make it more difficult for everyday Australians to join the reserves when we are living in the most dangerous strategic times since the end of World War II? Australia has been very lax in its own national security. Australia doesn't have the manufacturing capability that we once had during the Second World War. We are not going to be able to go into refrigerator manufacturers, washing machine manufacturers or textile manufacturers and utilise that space. We just don't have it. It is incredibly important that we take this very, very seriously. Once these assets are sold, once they are sold off to become dense housing, we will never ever be able to get them back. We will lose a generation of cadets and we will lose a generation of reservists when we need them most. 17:11 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia I understand why there is a lot of feeling around defence sites, particularly in communities where they've been part of the landscape for generations. People have worked, trained and lived there. Families have connections to the sites. Some have significant military history attached to them. Those connections deserve to be treated with respect as this process continues, but they also can't be the only consideration when we are deciding what the Australian Defence Force needs for the future. The independent Defence estate audit found more than 50 underutilised sites across Australia. Maintaining those sites over the next 25 years is estimated to cost more than $2 billion, despite them making no direct contribution to defence capability. Some of the examples in the audit really paint a picture. More than $4 million has been spent over the past four years on Spectacle Island in New South Wales, despite there being no personnel there. Ten defence sites around Australia are currently— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Walker, please resume your seat. This is such an important matter. It's hardly orderly for a conversation to be happening across the chamber in the way that just happened. I call all senators to order, and I give you the call once again, Senator Walker. Senator WALKER 316818 Ten defence sites around Australia are currently vacant but still require money for upkeep and security. Another 14 are basically vacant or only occasionally used. The Penrith Training Depot has been vacant since 2016, regularly experiences vandalism and theft and has cost nearly $1 million over six years. At Kowandi North, in the Northern Territory, around $1 million has been spent over two years on repairs and sustainment associated with security incidents. We have to be able to look at that and ask whether continuing to spend Defence money in this way makes sense. Australia is facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. We are investing in the people, equipment and facilities that our ADF will need in the years ahead. Maintaining empty or obsolete properties can't continue indefinitely because making a decision about them is difficult. The test used by the audit was straightforward: does continuing to retain and invest in a site best meet Defence's current or future capability needs? There is also a proper process underway before any divestment occurs. Defence and finance departments are engaging with local communities, First Nations stakeholders, state and local governments and other interested parties. Community town halls, walk-in sessions and stakeholder roundtables have been underway since April. Organisations and existing tenants that use Defence sites are also being consulted about their needs. ADF personnel and their families are obviously a part of that process, too. Where personnel need to transition to alternative sites, that will be managed on a site-by-site basis and in consultation with the affected workforce. There has also been understandable concern about heritage. Many of these sites carry a great deal of Australian military history. Heritage protections, including obligations under the EPBC Act, will continue to apply throughout the divestment process. There is also an opportunity to make some of that history more accessible. Defence currently maintains at least 130 museums, history rooms and displays, but 80 per cent of them are not accessible to the public. At Victoria Barracks in Sydney, for example, the intention is to improve public access to the heritage of the site. It's also worth remembering that governments of all political persuasions have made decisions to divest Defence property where the sites were no longer required for operational or strategic purposes. Bulimba Barracks was sold as a part of a commitment to unlock surplus Commonwealth land in 2020. That was under the former coalition government. In 2015, the Pontville Small Arms Rifle Range Complex was identified for sale because Defence no longer needed it for training or operations. Leeuwin Barracks was also slated for sale in the same year because there was no ongoing operational or strategic need for the site. This broader principle is not a new one. Defence needs change. Technology changes. The way our ADF trains and operates changes. The strategic environment certainly changes. Our Defence estate cannot be frozen in time. There will be difficult decisions throughout this process, and communities deserve the opportunity to have their say about the sites they have lived alongside for decades. 17:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Isn't it extraordinary? Labor comes in here and says communities have a right to have a say. Do you know what really drives communities absolutely to despair? It's when the government has already made a decision and then invites you in for a cup of tea and some biscuits and says, 'Now we're consulting with you about it.' That's what's happening with this Defence estate. They decided to flog off 67 sites and, having made the decision, they consulted nobody outside Defence. I'll get to who they didn't consult in Defence as well. They had two of these so-called auditors come in—neither of whom are auditors, which we found out in the opening salvo of this inquiry—and deliver a Defence audit that is not an audit; it's just a report done by two chosen consultants for Defence. And it looks like they got the list from inside Defence. We're still trying to find out how they got the list of 67. We've been trying for months. We keep getting dodges and weaves from Defence. Defence are dodging and weaving repeatedly, giving us word salad answers. We find out today that, apparently, there are some costings for the maintenance—some $2 billion figure that's popped out. We've been trying to get that from Defence officials: 'Show us the costings. Show us the numbers.' They can give it, it appears, to their Labor senators quietly, behind the scenes; when we ask these questions in parliamentary inquiries with the officials in front of us, we get word salad. Get this: Defence officials, who are having the community watch these nonanswers and word salads, then say, 'Oh, no, we might be being paid two or three times what the senators are, but we don't want our evidence to be shared, because that's awkward and hard.' When their nonanswers and their refusal to answer direct questions and their word salads are exposed and when the community sees it and they hate it, they don't like that. Well, if you're getting paid double what a senator gets paid—if you're put forward to be a public servant in the public interest, paid for by the public—and the public don't like what you're doing, maybe think about what you're doing and what the government's making you do. Maybe think about your answers. Maybe be frank and direct and honest. I'll tell you what: all of this messaging coming out of Labor about what is a massive privatisation of public lands is spin. That's what this is. I want to give credit to those communities who have said that this is public land and should be used for public purposes. Some people can understand that maybe it's time it wasn't for a defence purpose. Maybe it should be a public park. Maybe it should be public housing. Maybe it should be a community centre. I'll give you one example: the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum—a bloody good bunch of people down there in Melbourne. They want the former repatriation clinic, right next to Victoria Barracks Melbourne on St Kilda Road, to be for a public purpose not flogged off to a private developer for whatever the hell the private developer wants. They want to put a museum and an art space installation in there for veterans to come and display their art and work through what is sometimes the trauma, sometimes the injury and sometimes their experience of being veterans. They've been trying for that for decades; they didn't even get a look in. No-one spoke to them. No-one talked to them. And now Labor, without doing anything, wants to flog it off to the next developer. Get this too: we found out just last week that they never asked the Army, the Navy or the Air Force: 'Actually, do you want to keep this property? Do you have a purpose for it?' They never asked. They just said to the services, 'We're going to flog it off, and can you suck it up.' That is not leadership. I say the community is in revolt because what's happening is bloody— (Time expired) 17:21 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I thank Senator Lambie for this motion, which One Nation supports wholeheartedly. British prime minister Thatcher made the famous comment that socialists always run out of other people's money. Australia's federal debt under Labor has now passed $1 trillion, yet this government continues to run deficits to fund their big spending agenda. Australia will shortly be unable to keep borrowing at affordable interest rates. We recently just barely avoided a downgrade to our credit rating, yet rates are rising anyway. Ten-year government bonds have gone from 4.85 per cent in the budget to 5.22 per cent—the highest level in 15 years. This means our borrowing will cost more, the deficit will get worse and we will have to borrow even more to pay for it. Printing money is not an option. During COVID, the Liberal government printed so much money and ever since we've been living with the inflation this caused. More printing will cause more inflation. This means Treasurer Chalmers had two choices: reduce spending and live within our means or sell off the silverware. He chose selling off the silverware. One Nation would have chosen living within our means. One Nation's alternative budget listed savings of $90 billion, costed, turning a deficit into a surplus. We would then put $40 billion back into people's pockets through tax and duty cuts and still balance the budget. One Nation does not need to sell off public assets, and we will not. Treasurer Chalmers is flogging off 67 Defence sites, worth $3.5 billion, including sites that are in use or would be in use under a One Nation government because he needs the money. Selling off Victoria Barracks is insane. They defend our capital cities and should have an integral part of defence training and support. Selling any site weakens our defence capability and reflects this government's pathetic attitude to defence and to veterans. One Nation's advice to the Treasurer is simple: don't sell these sites; use them. 17:23 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Here in the ACT, hundreds of Canberrans have contacted me with concerns about the divestment of the Fairbairn golf course. These are real and genuine concerns. First, the course could be lost to the community for good. Second, the club signed a new five-year lease with Defence in just July last year, when they would have known that they were going to divest this piece of land. Third, there are very serious questions about PFAS contamination, which remain unanswered. Ther is a community petition to secure the future of the golf course, which now has more than 4,000 signatures. This is a beloved community asset. The primary concern raised with me, which will shock no senators here, is the total lack of consultation with the club or the broader defence and veterans community about plans for the site. A community session was finally held in May, three months after the decision was announced. Consultation after the fact is not consultation. That, to me, seems like box ticking. And it appears that this has been repeated across the country, from what I'm hearing from senators from other states and territories. Divestment may make sense in some cases, particularly where it includes affordable housing. I have a bill before the Senate that goes to exactly this issue. When the government is divesting land for housing, at least 30 per cent of it needs to be truly affordable housing. We may not be able to lower the prices of building materials, but the government can lower the price of land when they are selling and ensure that we have a 30 per cent minimum of affordable housing. I agree that we should pause this while we work out what is actually happening and until we have a very firm commitment for 30 per cent of dwellings to be social and affordable housing. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Consideration 60 BUDGET 60 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 60 17:34 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania At the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Ghosh, I present additional information received by the committee as listed on the Dynamic Red: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information— Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 Interactive Gambling Amendment (Stop the Gambling Ads) Bill 2026 National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 COMMITTEES 61 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 61 Government Response to Report 61 17:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report: Report 477: Commonwealth Financial Statements—Second Report July 2026 Response Recommendation 1 2.9 The Committee recommends that: x the Northern Land Council report back to the Committee on progress in responding to the two significant legislative breaches reported by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in Audit Report No. 24 (2017-18) x should the ANAO audit of the financial statements of the Council for the period ended 30 June 2018 result in any significant legislative breaches being reported, whether new or unresolved from 2016-17, the Council promptly report back to the Committee on progress in responding to such findings. Response The Northern Land Council (NLC) notes the recommendations. The NLC has provided responses to later audit reports (specifically Report 488 in 2022) that provides the necessary update to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the NLCs actions to address recommendation 477 of report No. 24. _____ Australian Government response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report Report 488 Commonwealth Financial Statements 2019-20 OVERVIEW On 31 March 2022, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (the Committee) tabled Report 488—Commonwealth Financial Statements 2019-20 (Report 488). Report 488 made recommendations to Commonwealth entities, including one recommendation directed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, relevant to matters within the National Indigenous Australians Agency's portfolio responsibilities. The Committee recommends that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet investigate potential amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to accommodate for situations where payments cannot be distributed to traditional owners within the timeframe nominated due to the absence of identifiable traditional owners. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Government notes the recommendation. Given the passage of time since the report, the Government provides the following update: In relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (Cth), the Commonwealth works in consultation with the Northern Territory Land Councils. The National Indigenous Australians Agency meets regularly with the sector. Economics References Committee 61 Government Response to Report 61 17:35 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The government have taken the best part of 2½ years to respond to the Senate Economics References Committee report into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement, which was tabled back in July 2024. That particular inquiry ran for a couple of years, and it was an inquiry into the capacity of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to enforce the law, because the Senate took the view that there was a problem with white collar crime in Australia back in 2022 when it commissioned the inquiry. The review found, through its evidence, that this was a systemic problem—that the ASIC had failed in its mandate to enforce the Australian securities and investments laws and that there were so many cases where people had identified wrongdoing and reported it to ASIC and where ASIC had not been able to deal with it in an expeditious manner. The result of the Securities and Investments Commission not acting swiftly resulted in significant harm—significant losses of people's wealth and impacts to people's mental health. This was a significant, systemic failure of ASIC. I want to be careful in apportioning blame to ASIC itself. I do believe that the report uncovered some serious cultural problems at ASIC that go back many years, but it is also true that the parliament itself has continued to add to ASIC's mandate over these past couple of decades. Every time there is a new problem, ASIC gets a new wing built onto its mansion. Every time there is a failure, governments of any colour decide that they will commission new laws which ASIC must then enforce. The net result of this situation is that Australia has now developed the broadest companies and investment regulator anywhere that we could find. It is enormous. And I wonder whether it is possible for a lumbering organisation of that size to ever achieve its aims, as set out by this parliament. The fact that ASIC is so big is, I believe, one of the reasons that it has not been a successful agency. There are a number of issues that the report identified around the delegation of responsibility—who's actually on the hook for which part of the sector they might be responsible for regulating—but, ultimately, when it came down to the final report, what was most telling was that there were many people who went out of their way to warn ASIC about breaches of our Corporations Act or other laws and those warnings were lost. In one case, the insolvency practitioners' industry body—which has standing with the securities regulator—indicated that they knew that there were people who were doing business who had been effectively debarred. That piece of paper was lost. It's like 'the dog ate my homework'. Then there was the case of Melissa Caddick running an unlicensed financial services business. She was an unlicensed financial adviser. There were many warnings provided to ASIC by licensed financial advisers, saying, 'Look, this person is running a business without a licence.' Nothing happens. I was very sad that, while this report was being written, there were clearly problems happening—where ASIC was failing again. Now we sit in 2026, some two years after the report was tabled, and we can see First Guardian, Shield and Lion. These were significant financial collapses where people had invested into these businesses thinking that they had the rule of law to protect them. In all those cases, there were warnings issued to the securities regulator that the people running these businesses were doing things which were in some form contrary to our laws and, in some cases, were running a business without a licence and in other ways were receiving conflicted remuneration which they should not have been accepting. In other cases, they were engaging in fraud. These warnings were provided, but they were not acted on in a swift way. We have over the course of the last two years interrogated these cases with ASIC at Senate estimates. They would say, and I don't wish to verbal them in any way, that they have acted appropriately and that they have enforced the law. In some cases that may be true, but they took a very long time to do it. Think of the way that the US's SEC has been able to deal with some of the people who have transgressed the laws in the United States. They have dealt with people swiftly. People will find themselves in the clink within a year of their transgressions being exposed. In Australia, you'd be lucky if they hit the clink 10 years after their misdeeds are exposed. The Commonwealth department of public prosecutions has seen, over these last five or six years, a reduction in the number of prosecutions achieved by ASIC which have resulted in custodial sentences or criminal penalties being issued by a court. That is very telling. With all the additional resources, the bigger scope of ASIC and all the white-collar crime that still goes on, we see fewer people in the clink. I just think we don't have enough deterrence. People are not afraid of ASIC. That's why, in seeking to make this contribution this evening, I ought not to be too political. But I would say that two and a half years is a long time to wait for a government to respond to what was a substantial Senate inquiry. We had extensive public hearings. We made, I would say, some recommendations which may have been controversial but others that were not, including in relation to whistleblowing. It took the government two and a half years to consider their response, and their response was nothing. Their response was, 'You can stick your recommendations where the sun doesn't shine.' That was their response. If you go through the recommendations, they are effectively a technocratic set of recommendations which are not political. They're not an attack on the Labor Party and their terrible government. They are simply an assessment of what went wrong with ASIC and how it could be fixed. The fact that this treasurer, Mr Chalmers—or Dr Chalmers, as I think he likes to style himself—has come to the position that he wouldn't dignify the report with a response for two and a half years and, when he did, rejected all the recommendations without any proper basis I think shows you how small our politics can be when you consider the collegiate way that a lot of these Senate committees are conducted. I think that was a disappointing moment. We didn't get a proper response. So I say to the government: the future financial collapses that occur on your watch we lay at your feet. We have done a thorough review of ASIC. We have found that it is not fit for purpose. It should be split up. It should be properly resourced and governed in a way which makes it a hungry law-prosecuting machine that is able to sustain prosecutions and put white-collar crooks in jail where they belong—not coming back and phoenixing again but going to jail at Long Bay or whatever and not coming back again. That's the system that we have tried to recommend to this government, which they have rejected. We regret that this will be a task for a future government. I remind the government again that you have shown the victims of these financial crimes how you regard them and how important these issues are to you—you put them at the bottom of your to-do list. It took you 2½ years to respond, and it was a frankly callous response to a set of issues which have destroyed people's finances and, in too many cases, also their physical and mental health. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Income Management 63 Order for the Production of Documents 63 17:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning compulsory income management. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 63 Reference 63 17:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave of the Senate to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of 2027: The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority's (APVMA) June 2026 decision regarding paraquat, with reference to: (a) the scientific evidence considered by the APVMA in reaching its decision; (b) the adequacy, transparency and independence of the APVMA's decision-making process; (c) the current evidence regarding any association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions; (d) the implications of the decision for farmers, agricultural workers, rural and regional communities, golfers and others who may be exposed to paraquat; (e) the extent to which Australia's regulatory framework appropriately responds to emerging scientific evidence and uncertainty regarding the long-term health impacts of agricultural chemicals; (f) international approaches to the regulation of paraquat and other agricultural chemicals with potential long-term health impacts; (g) whether any changes to Australia's regulatory framework are required to ensure public confidence in the assessment of agricultural chemicals; and (h) any related matters. I wanted to make a few brief remarks. Paraquat is a herbicide linked to Parkinson's disease. That's not my opinion; that's the overwhelming opinion of scientists who have for decades been looking at why and how rates of Parkinson's disease have been climbing in farming communities around the world. It's now banned in more than 70 countries, including China, which is one of the largest manufacturers of this chemical. Yet, after a review lasting almost 30 years, the APVMA has decided to allow its continued use in Australia, putting even more generations of farmers at risk. I totally get the argument from farmers and some in the ag sector about the efficacy of the herbicide and how crucial it is, but the APVMA is tasked with looking at the evidence and the safety for human health, and the APVMA concluded that the available evidence did not convincingly demonstrate a direct causal link between exposure to paraquat and an increased risk of Parkinson's disease. Leading Australian scientists strongly dispute the way the APVMA reached that conclusion. Professor Wes Thevathasan, a neurologist who treats people with Parkinson's, says that major studies of exposed communities were largely ignored by the APVMA studies, which have repeatedly found a link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's. He said the APVMA reports wouldn't pass the first test in a science degree, and that should disturb all of us greatly, because this is our regulator. Other experts I've spoken to say the APVMA treated studies differently depending on their findings and relied on research linked to Syngenta, the manufacturer, without properly addressing those conflicts. Those concerns deserve to be tested openly. Farmers need effective tools to manage weeds and protect crops. They also deserve to know that the chemicals they use will not damage their health years later. The inquiry will hear from experts and communities and allow the APVMA to explain its decision and help determine whether Australia's chemical regulation is truly independent, transparent and based on the best available science. I thank the coalition and the Greens for recognising the importance of these questions and supporting this referral, and I commend the motion to the Senate. 17:49 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Let me just first say that I'm very pleased to speak in support of Senator Pocock's motion to establish an inquiry into the Australian Herbicides and Veterinary Medicine Authority decision of June 2026 to allow the continued use of paraquat as a herbicide. I really want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this important issue to the Senate today and your advocacy in bringing a collective attention to this decision. As a senator for Western Australia, I've heard from constituents who are deeply concerned about the health impacts of paraquat. In particular, they have raised serious concerns about the growing body of evidence linking exposure of paraquat to Parkinson's disease. I would also acknowledge the important work of Parkinson's Australia. They have been raising the alarm and have highlighted the reviews, submissions and advocacy that is pointing to a mounting body of scientific evidence about the impacts of paraquat on human health. Today's motion comes in the context of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority's conclusion of its long-term review of paraquat, and I recognise that some people have welcomed the stronger controls announced as part of the review, including increased personal protective equipment requirements and the restriction of the use of backpack sprayers, including requirements relating to enclosed cabs. But I have also heard from many people who are disappointed and deeply concerned that these measures do not go far enough. Their view is that, given the risks associated with this chemical, paraquat should be banned altogether. The campaign to ban paraquat in Australia is gaining momentum, and we must recognise this. More than 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for a ban. More than 70 countries around the world have banned paraquat, including the United Kingdom, Canada, China and the Netherlands. Despite this evidence, here in Australia paraquat continues to be used every day. Australia's regulatory body has said that exposure to this chemical through approved uses does not increase the risk of neurotoxicity, including Parkinson's disease. I have seen social media reporting that Australia's neurologists feel that their expertise and evidence in this review were not fully considered. I am concerned that Australia is out of step with the rest of the world on this one. I think our regulatory model should be precautionary, where a chemical is deemed hazardous unless it is proven to be safe. There is no proof that paraquat, even with precaution, is safe. We in the Greens believe it warrants further scrutiny, proper scrutiny—the kind of scrutiny which is, quite frankly, the job of this body. That is what the Senate is for. We support the referral of this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. For that reason, we will be supporting this motion for an inquiry. The Greens will continue to be alongside communities, workers, farmers, health advocates and organisations like Parkinson's Australia in calling for genuinely evidence based and risk based approaches to the regulation and use of chemicals in Australia. When there are serious concerns about the health impacts of a chemical used in Australia, Australians deserve transparency, rigorous scrutiny and the opportunity to understand precisely how government came to a decision that was taken. This is something which the community should be able to rely on across the board, but it damn well is something that they can and should be able to expect when it comes to public health and risk of a condition as serious as Parkinson's disease. A Senate inquiry into this decision would ensure that there can be confidence in the decisions made by this authority. For those reasons, we support this reference. 17:54 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this matter. As those in the chamber know, I've got a long history and background in working in and with the agricultural sector. I think it is important to put some balance into these discussions. All chemicals are dangerous. Pesticides and herbicides are, by their very nature, dangerous, and we should not in this place seek to add to community fears about the safe use of such chemicals. The fact is that paraquat has just been through an extensive regulatory process with the government regulator of agriculture chemicals in this country, widely considered to be one of the top three regulators in the world if not the best regulator in the world. It is very important that people understand that chemicals like paraquat are, in the context of Australian broadacre agriculture, used extraordinarily differently to how they are used other countries. This particular chemical has been banned in other countries. Let me give you one example. It was banned in China because it was being used as a method of suicide amongst peasant farmers in China. That was one of the principal reasons it was banned. Is anyone at the other end of the chamber really saying that that is what is happening in Australia? Of course they're not, and I don't accuse them of doing that. But the point is chemicals in Australia are significantly regulated. They're used by a very small, very professional set of farmers, and they are used in conditions—a long way from population centres in the vast majority of cases—where to not use those chemicals could actually have massive negative consequences. For example, if broadacre farming in Australia lost the use of paraquat and Roundup, it would almost certainly have to return to a significant level of tillage to produce the same crop. Tillage has massive environmental consequences in terms of loss of soil structure, which leads to a loss of carbon in the soil. That means lower productivity. It means a loss of soil moisture. It means you cannot grow as much from a given acre as would otherwise be possible, which means you have to plant more acres to feed the same number of people, pushing the cost of food up. Australia is a net food exporter. We feed the world. If we push the efficiency of our farmers down and the cost of food up, that will have direct negative impacts on millions of poor people outside of Australia—not one or two but millions. We have a regulator in this country to decide on the appropriate and safe use of chemicals such as paraquat. Whilst I would never be one to say that a Senate committee shouldn't be considered, in this particular case I would deeply fear that the Senate committee would be used, as we have seen in other countries, to exacerbate fear, to exacerbate people's concerns and to misrepresent the reality of these chemicals and the way they are used in Australia. No farmer in Australia wants to use one gram more of pesticide or herbicide than they absolutely have to. In fact, farmers have got much, much more efficient at using computer controlled spraying to ensure that only weeds are sprayed, rather than whole fields—to spot spray. As I said, I would never not want to see the Senate able to scrutinise matters, but I think it is very important that we actually take our roles seriously—that we do not use committees such as this one for fearmongering and that we actually seek to understand the reality of the use of these chemicals in Australia and the reality of the scientific decisions that have already been made. 17:59 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I also have a long history of farming. I'm a fifth-generation farmer from a farming family near Newlyn, where there is a cluster of people that have developed Parkinson's disease and for whom this is an incredibly important public health issue. The recent decision made should concern every farmer, every agricultural worker and every Australian who cares about the integrity of our chemical safety system. In June, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority decided that paraquat could remain on the Australian market, subject to tighter restrictions. Let's be absolutely clear about what paraquat is. It is an extremely toxic herbicide. The regulator itself has acknowledged the acute toxicity risks to people who handle it and has responded by slashing maximum application rates by 80 per cent, phasing out backpack sprayers and requiring enclosed mixing and loading systems. This is not a harmless product. It is an immensely dangerous product, and for years scientists have raised concerns about its potential contribution to Parkinson's disease and other neurological harms. There's now a significant body of evidence linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson's disease. There are strong parallels to asbestos. How many years down the track are we going to be looking back saying we failed on this as well? A review of more than 3,000 people with Parkinson's and almost 5,000 controls found a statistically significant association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease, with exposed people having 64 per cent higher odds of Parkinson's. Another review found that people exposed to paraquat had a higher incidence of Parkinson's, including evidence of greater risk with longer exposure. In Australia, leading Parkinson's experts have warned that the regulator failed to properly engage with expert submissions raising concerns about paraquat's neurological effects. It is not a safe chemical in any sense of the word. It is a highly toxic chemical with the additional risk that long-term exposure may contribute to incurable and devastating neurological diseases. If there is credible evidence of that risk, we cannot wait to act until more and more people are exposed. This is particularly important when there are serious questions about how the evidence was assessed, as my colleague and as Senator Pocock highlighted. Australians deserve to know exactly what evidence was considered, how conflicting evidence was weighed up, whose expertise was sought, whose expertise was not sought or was overlooked and whether the process was sufficiently independent and transparent. Our chemical safety system is supposed to put people's health first. It's a no-brainer. It's not commercial convenience and industry profitability. It's people—farmers, agricultural workers, their families, rural and regional communities. These people are the backbone of this country, and they deserve to know that their government is doing everything it can to protect the health of these communities. Unfortunately, Australia is an outlier. More than 70 countries prohibit paraquat, including jurisdictions across Europe. China has also prohibited domestic agricultural use. While they remain a major manufacturer and exporter of this chemical, they have banned it domestically. Meanwhile, Australia says: 'We will keep using it. There's nothing to see here. Keep going.' We don't think farmers should be forced to gamble with their health because governments have failed to invest in safer alternatives. As a fifth-generation farmer, I know Australian farmers are some of the most innovative people in the world. They deserve better than being told their choices are paraquat or nothing. They deserve support to move towards safer weed management systems that protect their livelihoods and their families and allow them to keep working on the land. This inquiry needs to be about making sure we are actually following the science and that the regulator is doing its job. It needs to examine the evidence the regulator relied on, the evidence it rejected, the voices it heard and the voices it did not. Ultimately, this is about whether Australians can trust a system that decides which chemicals they're exposed to. When the chemical is known to be highly toxic, when there is credible evidence linking it to neurological disease and when other countries have decided that the risks are simply too great, we should not simply shrug our shoulders and say, 'She'll be right.' Our farmers are worth more. We should be asking this basic question: how much evidence do we need before we decide that people's health matters more than a chemical company's bottom line? We need this inquiry. 18:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I want to indicate the coalition will support this motion. But I actually want to point out that we do share your concerns, Deputy President, that you raised in your contribution on this—that the risk of this inquiry is that there will be fearmongering and scare tactics being used against what we know is an important tool in the arsenal of farmers who need products like Paraquat to ensure an efficient ecological best practice on their properties for food production. Our position is that we recognise that actually there's an opportunity with this inquiry to deal with some of the issues. We should face the truth. There's no problem with that. There's an opportunity with this inquiry to be able to myth bust any of the concerns and the fearmongering out there. For those that are using this product safely with all of the precautions advised on the label, this is an opportunity for the truth of best practice when it comes to using chemicals that, as we've heard, are inherently dangerous—herbicide is—so there must be proper handling of these products. This inquiry brings the opportunity to be able to hear all the evidence both for and against and then deal with it in a calm way. I trust that the committee will deal with that—it's chaired by a fantastic chair—efficiently and sensibly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 20 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 10 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Duniam, J. R. Cox, D. Gatenby, C. Tyrrell, T. M. Henderson, S. M. Sterle, G. Hume, J. Stewart, J. N. A. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McGrath, J. A. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Mulholland, C.

Question agreed to.

BILLS 67 BILLS Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 67

Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026

Second Reading 67 18:14 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to continue speaking on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. It is absolutely as clear as day that this bill has been introduced by the government to clean up their own mess. The coalition is focused on putting parents back in control of their children's online safety and forcing greater transparency from big tech. Australian families absolutely deserve more choice, more control and more transparency online. And parents should be in charge of how they protect their children online, not Silicon Valley and not Canberra. But, as I said, the amendments that this bill is bringing are admission that this government has not appropriately applied the safety measures we called out at the time this bill came forward. We supported it, but at the same time we said that the implementation is going to be absolutely critical, and the way the government was doing it and was projecting to do it was wrong. And we predicted that we would be back here at some future time to make amends. Unfortunately, though, this bill does not actually deal with the problems. The eSafety Commissioner herself has publicly stated that the current social media minimum-age framework was developed very quickly—yes, that's right; it was—and has very thin scaffolding, which is also true, and did not give her the potent powers to effectively execute her role. A study published by the British Medical Journal found that 85 per cent of under-16s were still accessing social media and that the ban was therefore unlikely to improve adolescents' mental health in the short term. The eSafety Commissioner has also reported that the proportion of under-16s still using social media platforms has fallen by just 4.4 percentage points—I mean, hardly a ringing endorsement of success. Now we have the government's second attempt in this bill before the Senate. As I've said, it's fundamentally flawed and cannot be supported in its current form. We are proposing some amendments that would go a long way to resolving the issues. We can all agree—and I'm sure there is unanimity in this place—that social media, online use and children accessing social media can be very harmful. I've seen it. I've seen it with family members, I've seen it with members of the community and I've seen the challenge it has brought and the scourge that it is within our communities. So it's important that this issue is dealt with. As I said, I'm sure we can all agree that there is a problem. But the way the government and the way this bill is approaching it is not at all sufficient. In fact, it can be quite dangerous. The Senate Economics and Communications Legislation Committee tabled its report on its inquiry into the bill just two weeks ago. The Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner and the Institute of Public Affairs all submitted that the bill needed to be amended to confine the eSafety Commissioner's powers under the bill to their intended purposes. We must make sure that there are very strict guardrails around the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. I've got serious worries and concerns about the encroachment and the reach that the eSafety Commissioner has, and it's I hope this parliament's good intent to deal with the problem. It's given too much, though, to the eSafety Commissioner. The commissioner's inability to compel information from digital platforms understandably impacts the ability to enforce Australian regulations. But that does not justify giving the eSafety Commissioner sweeping powers that could extend well beyond digital platforms and relevant third parties to parents and children themselves. And now, at the 11th hour, the government has introduced even more extraordinary compulsory powers, backed by very large fines and the threat of up to 12 months of imprisonment. These are serious coercive powers being brought before the Senate, unfortunately without proper scrutiny—not good. Protecting children online matters enormously, but that does not give the government a blank cheque to expand the coercive power of the state. The committee also heard evidence regarding the lack of transparency around algorithms and social media platforms, which one parent, Ms Mason, called 'the social heroin that is killing our children'. The safety of our children online is a crisis unfolding in real time in bedrooms, on school nights, on devices where parents are completely unaware. The coalition has reiterated that the online safety of Australians, especially our children, is the single most important part of this debate. During National Child Protection Week, whose focus this year is on shifting conversations to action, importantly, this parliament has a responsibility to make sure that our online safety laws actually deliver meaningful protection for children. Earlier this week, an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald served a grim reminder that there is still so much more to be done to keep our children safe online. The reality is that children can now be targeted, groomed and exploited without an offender even having to approach them in person. Police revealed a pattern that should stop every one of us in this chamber. Children are being groomed, coerced and manipulated into producing exploitative materials of themselves, not by strangers in dark alleys but by offenders who have never seen them face to face. For years, child protection agencies here and overseas have told us the same thing. Offenders no longer need to approach a child physically to inflict lasting harm. All they need is an online game, a social media platform or a streaming device. What was once rare and shocking is now, in the words of officers investigating it, 'growing, accelerating and outpacing us.' And, once the harm is done, it does not end. Material that is coerced out of a child does not disappear; it is copied, it's traded and it's recirculated again and again long after the abuse has stopped. Law enforcement has said that they are running to keep pace with offenders who exploit new technology faster than our systems can respond. The scale of this problem is enormous. In the 2024-25 financial year, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation triage unit recorded a whopping 82,764 reports of child sexual exploitation—a 41 per cent increase over the previous year. Listen to that. That is up from 58,503 the previous year. And it's been growing. It was 36,600 the year before—I beg your pardon, in 2021-22. In the Education and Employment References Committee's inquiry into the quality and safety of Australia's early childhood education and care system, Mr McCartney, a representative from the Australian Federal Police, said: I'm going to be honest: the crime of online child sexual exploitation is not getting better; it's getting worse. He also said, 'It's simply not something police can tackle alone, making it essential for parents, carers and the wider community to take an active role in protecting our vulnerable young people.' At the same time, children continue to access social media at very young ages. Research by the eSafety Commissioner found that 80 per cent of children aged eight to 12 used social media in 2024, despite platforms already having policies prohibiting child users under the age of 13. That's an important lesson for this parliament. Passing an age restriction is one thing, but making platforms actually comply is another. We also know that an age restriction alone will not address every risk that children face online. Children are increasingly exposed to pornography, harmful content and exploitative behaviour at young ages. Research has linked exposure to pornography with harmful sexual behaviours among some children and young people, while eSafety's own work has highlighted concerns among young men about desensitisation, consent and the objectification of women is a major problem. These are difficult issues, but they reinforce the need for parents, platforms and governments to take online safety seriously. But the principal responsibility of keeping children safe is actually in the home, with families, with parents. We've got to have a system that provides more control for parents. That's why I want to, in the remaining time that I have in this contribution to this legislation, deal with one of the amendments that Senator Henderson is proposing here for the Senate. It's very good, and I thank Senator Henderson for bringing it before us. That is providing parents with the same capability that enterprises or that businesses have and that Parliament House has over us, as members of parliament and staff in this place. They have control over the management of our devices. Your employer has control. Why are we not allowing parents to have control? Unfortunately, the vendors—Apple, Google and others—do not provide parents with the same level of access over the management of the devices that they are providing to their children. It's therefore very, very simple and easy for kids, who are smarter than us when it comes to use of technology—we Boomers, as they say, even though I'm gen X— Senator McDonald 123072 Speak for yourself, Senator! Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I'll speak for myself. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'm sure you are, Senator. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 That's right. It's ludicrous that parents do not have the same control that an employer has over employer issued device. If you, as a parent, are issuing a device for your child, you should be able to have management control over that device. So the amendment that Senator Henderson is proposing is to make it mandatory for the vendors of these devices that are provided to children, if parents choose to have management over that device, to restrict what apps can be used and to restrict what content can be viewed on that device. Then we go a long way to actually dealing with it. Kids right now are just putting VPNs on their phone, getting around the social media ban and registering in other countries. Pornography is accessed by registering in the United States or anywhere else in the world where they don't have a geoblocking restriction on access to this sort of content. It's easy for them to do it. They're getting access to it. They're shown on the bus how to access it and in classrooms how to access it. It's happening, so what we need to do is empower parents. We believe, as a coalition, that parents know best how to care for their children. Let's give them the tools to be able to do it. I ask this parliament, this chamber, to support this very good amendment that Senator Henderson has brought before us. (Time expired) 18:27 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. I think a lot of people here know that I did grow up on the internet. I remember Instagram becoming a thing, Snapchat taking off and Musical.ly turning into TikTok. Social media has been a part of almost my entire life, and I still use it. I won't stand here and pretend that social media is 100 per cent terrible because I don't think that's true. It keeps people connected. It helps people find communities, learn new things, organise, create and stay in touch. It can be genuinely funny and interesting and useful, but it's also incredibly addictive. I know the experience of opening TikTok because someone sent you one video and then finding yourself there 40 minutes later. I know what it's like to grow up in a world where there's always a group chat, always something happening and always something you haven't seen yet. For young people now, there isn't really an online world and an offline world. It's all mixed together. Previous generations could have a terrible day at school, come home, shut the front door and get a break from it. For a lot of young people today, the group chat comes home with you. The comments come home with you. The comparison comes home with you. The person who was horrible to you at school can still reach you at 9 o'clock that night. If everyone else is online, putting your phone away doesn't feel like taking a break. Sometimes it feels like removing yourself from your own social life. I think many older people sometimes underestimate that. We talk about young people being addicted to their phones as though an entire generation collectively developed this strange character flaw, but these platforms have been deliberately designed to hold people's attention. Some of the biggest and most sophisticated tech companies in the world employ the smartest people to work around the clock to figure out what will keep us watching, clicking and coming back. Kids didn't design that system. Kids didn't build the algorithms. They aren't the ones making billions of dollars from keeping people scrolling, so I don't think the way forward is another round of adults lecturing teenagers about their screen time. The responsibility has to sit with the platforms as well. That is the principle behind Australia's social media minimum age. We have asked age restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts. We haven't made parents the internet police, and we haven't put the legal burden on a 14-year-old to somehow resist products that have been designed by enormous companies to keep them using them. We have put that responsibility where it belongs: with the companies running the platforms. And we were the first country in the world to do it. That means learning as we go. More than five million underage accounts have already been deactivated. That is a huge number, and it shows that these laws are having an effect. The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and poor practices with investigations now underway into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. That is where this bill comes in. The eSafety Commissioner has been doing the job parliament asked her to do and in the process has found places where she needs stronger powers to properly investigate whether these enormous companies are complying with the law, so we're giving her those powers. We're also making the penalties more serious because the consequences have to mean something to companies of this size. The maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with the minimum age obligation will double to $109.2 million, and the amendments will give eSafety greater ability to get behind the corporate response and actually find out what happened, including questioning decision-makers and executives and seeking evidence from former employees. I don't think we need to overcomplicate the reason for doing that. If a social media company tells Australians it has taken reasonable steps to keep under-16s off the platform, our regulator should be able to check. If something clearly isn't working, we should be able to ask the people making the decisions why, and, if a company is breaking Australian law, the penalty shouldn't be an amount it can comfortably absorb as the cost of doing business. These are some of the richest companies in the world. They know an extraordinary amount about their users. They know what we watch. They know what we click. They know what ads are most likely to work on us. They can work out that I have become interested in something based on three seconds of hesitation over a video. They can build incredibly detailed pictures of what people look like, what keeps them engaged and what will bring them back tomorrow. But, when governments start asking questions about age verification and child safety, suddenly we hear a lot about how technically difficult everything is. Australians are entitled to be a little bit sceptical about that. Nobody expects a perfect system, and of course some will try and find workarounds. I'm 22. It was not so long ago that I was a teenager myself. I can assure the chamber that telling a 15-year-old that they are absolutely forbidden from doing something has never, ever guaranteed that they won't do it. But there is a pretty big difference between a teenager finding a clever workaround and a platform barely trying in the first place. That is why the law talks about reasonable steps, and I think that gets lost sometimes when we talk about this policy. The social media minimum age is often discussed as though the government has decided young people can't be trusted with the internet. I don't see it that way. Young people have been dealing with the consequences of these platforms for years. We know what it feels like when a photo of you you don't like gets posted. We know what it feels like to see everyone at something you weren't invited to. We know how quickly a joke can turn nasty online. We know about cyberbullying. We know about the constant comparison. We know about the pressure that comes from seeing hundreds of edited, filtered, carefully selected versions of other people's lives every day and trying not to compare them with our own. For teenage girls in particular, this comparison can be relentless. You can scroll through hundreds of faces and bodies in an hour, many of them filtered, edited, posed or AI generated, and somehow you're supposed to remember the whole time that none of it is a reasonable standard against which to judge yourself. That is a lot to ask of a 13-year-old. Then there's the pressure to be available all the time. A message comes through and people can see you've read it. Someone sends a message in the group chat and everyone else is reacting. Someone leaves you on 'seen' and suddenly you're wondering what that means. These things can sound trivial when you describe them in parliament, but when you're 14 they don't feel trivial. Your friends are your world at that age. School is your world. Being included matters enormously. And now all those social dynamics can continue every hour of the day. That's why we have to be careful about treating this issue as a question of individual self-control. Adults struggle with these platforms, too. I struggle to put my phone down sometimes. I see plenty of people in this building who struggle to put their phone down. Yet we expect a 13-year-old to demonstrate perfect discipline against products that are designed specifically to keep them engaged. Parents have been left trying to manage this all at home. They're deciding when their child gets a phone, which apps they're allowed to use, how much screen time is too much, whether phones stay out of bedrooms at night, whether they should be checking messages, and how much privacy a teenager should have. And the rules that might work for one family might be completely impossible for another, because if every kid in the class is using something then banning your own child from it has social consequences. I have a lot of sympathy for parents trying to work that out. There isn't a handbook. A lot of parents themselves are working through a technological change that they never experienced themselves. And every few years there's another platform, another trend, another feature and another problem they're expected to understand. Government can't make those decisions for every family, but we can stop pretending that families should carry the whole load themselves. Parents should be able to say, 'There are rules here.' Platforms have responsibilities as well. And young people should be able to expect the same thing, because I don't think young Australians want to be treated like they're stupid. When I speak to young people they're usually very aware of the trade-offs. They know social media can be brilliant and terrible at the same time. They know they probably spend too much time on it. They know some of what they see isn't good for them. They also know that telling them to delete Instagram when all their friends are on it is not a viable plan. Young people want the environments they use to be better, and there are things only the companies controlling those environments can change. They control the algorithms. They control the recommendations and the notifications. They control what gets amplified and what doesn't. They decide how easy it is to report abuse, how quickly that report is dealt with and what happens next. They know exactly how design affects behaviour, because their businesses depend on it. So when we're asking them to put some of that expertise towards keeping kids safer, I don't think we're asking too much. For years, the response to problems online has tended to come back to the user: block them, report them, change the settings, spend less time online, parents should supervise their kids more closely, young people should be more careful about what they post. All those things can be useful advice, but the company that built the environment can't be allowed to disappear from the conversation. That is the shift we are trying to make. We have said that social media companies have responsibilities to the people who are using their products. We have said that children deserve particular protection, and we have said that when parliament puts those responsibilities into Australian law they have to be enforceable. It was not unexpected that this framework would require some adjustment. It was the first of its kind in the world. Technology moves ridiculously quickly. Algorithms will change. Young people will find new platforms. Companies will find different ways of doing things. Our laws need to be able to respond to the changing circumstances and practical experience as they emerge. That's what we're doing here. The eSafety Commissioner has started enforcing the social media minimum age and has told us where the gaps are. We are closing those gaps, and we will keep watching what happens. Ultimately, I want young Australians to get the good parts of growing up online without being expected to accept all of the bad parts as the price of admission. I want them to find communities. I want them to talk to their friends. I want them to discover weird music and niche hobbies and to talk to people on the other side of the world who care about the same things they do. I want young people to be able to use technology in ways that make their lives bigger and more interesting. But I also want a 13-year old to be able to go home from school and actually escape the worst day of their life for a few hours, I want parents to feel like someone else is helping them carry this and I want the companies making enormous amounts of money from our attention to accept that they have some responsibility for what happens on the platforms that they built. We know the platforms can do better, so we will keep pushing them to do better. We will give the eSafety Commissioner the tools to find out what is actually happening, and, when the companies don't take their obligations seriously, there will be consequences that are large enough for them to notice. I think that is a much fairer balance for parents, users and especially the kids, who are growing up in a world where being online is simply a part of being young. 18:41 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia The social media ban is the quintessential Albanese government policy. There was no evidence to support its implementation, but that doesn't matter when you're 'leading the world', as we keep hearing so often. It was exposed to a vigorous five-day committee inquiry before being rushed through the parliament. It was not a reform designed to support Australia's young people but a scheme to win votes by exploiting the justified fears Australian parents have about social media. As has long been the government's messaging, anyone who criticises the policy is in the corner of the big tech companies attempting to stop the government from protecting Australian children. At estimates in October I was told by the minister at the table in a very particularly undignified outburst, 'You support the platforms over parents.' It sounds catchy, but it's not true. The ban currently allows Aussie kids to access violent, sexual and extremist content without regulation on smaller websites like the notorious 4chan, which eSafety described in an answer to a question on notice as 'one of the most frequently reported suicide related websites to eSafety and has been implicated in deaths by suicide of Australians'. Isn't that supporting platforms over parents? The ban allows kids to go on chat services like Discord and Roblox where predators lay in wait. Child sexual abuse advocacy organisation Bravehearts cites research on its website which found that 17 per cent of Australian children and young people had been subject to online sexual solicitation by an adult. For girls, this was as high as 26 per cent. The median age at which the solicitation occurred was 14 years old. Following reports in the Guardian, Roblox has begun to implement age verification, but it still isn't part of the ban. Isn't that supporting platforms over parents? One of the other big concerns with social media is the ability it has to hook people in. Algorithms designed to keep you scrolling and change your brain chemistry are everywhere. The ban prevents young people from having a YouTube account. It does not prevent them from watching shorts for hours on end in a logged-out state. That's hour after hour of brain rot content, which is no different to before the ban. Isn't that supporting platforms over parents? It is the natural instinct of the Albanese government to rush through big reforms to avoid scrutiny. The bill spent just eight days before the parliament. It was introduced in the Senate on 27 November 2024 and passed on the 28th. As I mentioned, the inquiry into the social media ban lasted just five days, and submissions were open for a mere 24 hours. What were the key recommendations of that rushed inquiry? No. 1, the recommendation that the committee believed was most important, was 'that the Australian government legislate a digital duty of care to place a legal obligation on digital platforms to take proactive steps to protect their users'. It has been nearly two years since that recommendation was made, and we're still waiting for that digital duty of care. I was told in estimates last year that the Minister for Communications was excited about the reform, but officials from the department have said it may not come into effect until 2028. That's another two years that young people will be waiting for this digital duty of care. While I have held out hope that the government will finally make real change in the online space, I am concerned that what will be brought before the parliament is, among other things, overly reliant on delegating legislative power to the executive. The third recommendation of the committee report is 'that the Minister for Communications provide a progress report to the parliament on the age-assurance trial by no later than 30 September 2025'. I had to force the government to produce that report, using the Senate's power to order the production of documents. Government senators opposed the production of the report. According to the Parliament House website, the document was ordered to be produced in August 2025 and wasn't provided until March of 2026. We know why the government didn't want us to see this report on age-assurance technologies. An article in ASPI's the Strategist explains: Facial recognition tools, meant to be a privacy-friendly verification option, have proven spectacularly unreliable. Eleven-year-olds were being identified as 30. Sixteen-year-olds legitimately old enough for access were getting locked out. Tech-savvy teens discovered that drawing on fake facial hair with makeup, and in one case recruiting a pet dog, was enough to fool the algorithms. Recommendation 7 of the committee inquiry was for the statutory review of the social media ban to be brought forward by 18 months. The review timeline was brought forward—but only by 12 months. The implementation of the social media ban has also been one of high secrecy. Many senators in this place, including me, sought details of the government's claim that 4.7 million accounts had been deactivated after the Australian Financial Review reported: … sources familiar with the figures who requested anonymity to speak freely said the 4.7 million number is not a fair representation of the number of active social media accounts belonging to users under the age of 16. The report went on to say: The figure does not represent 4.7 million individual users because it also includes inactive and duplicate accounts, as well as some that had already been deleted but still exist in the platform's backend. How did the government respond to this? 'Oh, it's not in the public interest to provide that detail.' They wouldn't provide platform-by-platform numbers—how many accounts existed before the ban, how platforms were administrating age verification. The only number available was 4.7 million, and it was being used in every press conference and at every opportunity to showcase how this world-leading policy is being effective. So show us the numbers. Show us the breakdown. In August last year, the Senate asked the government to produce documents about the implementation of the ban. Some documents were produced while others were withheld because their publication would 'damage commercial interests'. 'What damage could the disclosure cause?' the Senate asked. 'We're not telling,' the government replied. In November, the Senate asked about the expectations the government had of a constitutional challenge to the social media ban. Again, the government defied the Senate, despite there being no precedent for withholding such information. They would not even confirm through estimates questions on notice whether they had sought advice as to the constitutionality of the ban. So after all the rushing and all the secrecy, surely the ban has done the one thing it set out to do. Surely, it has taken kids off of social media, right? In April, eSafety found that 70 per cent of parents of children subject to the ban reported continued access to social media. In June, a study led by the University of Newcastle found 85 per cent of participants aged under 16 were using age-restricted social media platforms. Thus began the campaign for this, the social media ban 2.0, which is over before it began. This is not something you can just fix up. This is not something you can just keep trying until you get it right. If there ever was a chance of this working, which I doubt, it was on 10 December 2025. Noncompliance is now embedded, as eSafety warned the government may happen. No matter how much tinkering around the edges occurs, kids will find ways to continue hanging out with their friends online. Increasing existing penalties is a classic Albanese government strategy to look like they're doing something when public confidence in the government's ability to manage a particular issue is floundering. The parliament recently passed a bill to increase penalties for illegal tobacco offences, which follows more than $300 million of investment in compliance in the last two budgets as the black market gets bigger, not smaller. Amidst the fuel crisis caused by the war in Iran, allegations of price gouging led to increased penalties for breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act. During the two-day sitting in January, laws were passed to increase penalties for existing hate speech offences. Other elements of that bill are likely to be struck down in a High Court challenge that is being heard today. The doubling of these penalties is a message to the Australian people that the government actually don't know how to fix the social media ban, but they want to look like they do. The oft-cited but unused $49 million penalty provisions for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent kids under 16 from holding accounts will be doubled to $99 million. Why not a billion dollars? Why not a trillion? They've never been used, and, even if they were, I would not be betting on eSafety winning in a courtroom. The agency's poor understanding of the laws that govern it was brought into focus by the recent Baumgarten decision, where eSafety made an informal takedown request without reference to any part of the Online Safety Act then, when challenged, declared that it had no case to answer as there was no official decision under the act to review. A lawyers' picnic ensued, which eSafety clearly lost at great expense to the taxpayer. That was against an individual who had a post on X taken down. What hope would eSafety have in a battle against Meta or Google and their lawyers? Very little, I would suggest. What is the other earth-shattering reform to the social media ban? Instead of the eSafety Commissioner only being able to seek information and documents from social media platforms and electronic services, the commissioner would now be able to ask anyone who has information relevant to a platform's interaction with the social media ban. Yes, that's probably why the ban isn't working, because 85 per cent of kids under 16 are still on social media because the existing information-gathering powers aren't broad enough. These powers, as drafted, would allow the eSafety Commissioner to order parents and even children to produce documents. New amendments circulated last night would also empower eSafety to summon people and compel them to answer questions or risk imprisonment. This is based on existing powers the eSafety Commissioner has in relation to other enforcement areas, but these ASIO-style powers seem disproportionate to the aim of stopping kids from having accounts on certain social media platforms. The late introduction of these amendments means that neither the Scrutiny of Bills Committee nor the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee have had a chance to consider and scrutinise them. During the inquiry into this bill, it was revealed that artificial intelligence had been used in parts of the Age Assurance Technology Trial report, which informed the government's understanding of the tools available to assess users' ages. The Age Check Certification Scheme, who produced the relevant parts of the report, initially denied using AI at all. When they were presented with incontrovertible proof by the Guardian, they did a 180 and said, 'Oh, yes, we used AI, and we actually already disclosed it, since we accidentally left ChatGPT metadata in the report.' Not only did they lie about the use of AI; they lied to the government about erroneous citation in the report. They said that the links worked at the time the report was handed over, but analysis of archived versions of those links shows that they have always pointed to incorrect references. How does the scheme respond to these allegations? By name-calling in industry magazines. In an email quoted in biometricupdate.com, the chief executive, Tony Allen, had nothing to say about this misleading of multiple parties and instead asserted that the government was— (Time expired) 18:56 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. There should be no disagreement in this chamber that keeping Australian children safe online must be a national priority. That shared objective, however, does not absolve parliament of its responsibility to ensure the laws we pass are effective, proportionate and properly scrutinised. That is why coalition senators insisted this bill be referred to a Senate committee to hear from parents, experts and regulators and test whether the government's proposed powers would actually make children safer. The evidence to that committee inquiry was confronting. Parents spoke of the unimaginable loss of a child following online abuse and cyberbullying. Their courage deserves our respect, and their determination to make the online world safer for other children demands our attention. The inquiry also exposed serious flaws in the bill. The government is seeking sweeping new powers for the eSafety Commissioner to compel information and documents from virtually anyone, potentially including children and their parents. It has gone further, introducing, at the eleventh hour, compulsory interrogation powers backed by heavy fines and imprisonment. Australian Human Rights Commissioner Dr Lorraine Finlay made the point clearly. Relying on the restraint of a regulator is not an adequate legislative safeguard. If these powers are intended to target social media platforms and other commercial entities, the legislation should say so. It should be explicit. Protecting children online does not give government a blank cheque to expand the coercive power of the state. That is why the coalition will move practical amendments that set out practical measures to make children safer online. First, parents should have access to effective mobile device safety tools to block harmful content, restrict apps and websites, and manage screen time. Apple, Google and Microsoft should not be able to lock out competing safety tools while privileging their own. The principle is simple. Parents should protect their children online—not Silicon Valley or Canberra. Second, we need greater transparency around the algorithms determining what Australians see, read and hear. Big tech should not be able to operate a black box, deciding what is recommended, promoted, buried or moderated, particularly when addictive design can keep children scrolling and amplify harmful content. The coalition amendment would expose the key factors driving these systems, while protecting source code, personal information and legitimate security interests. Third, we need stronger action against the most serious online harms. The committee heard disturbing evidence about live streamed child sexual abuse and heard of technologies capable of detecting and blocking child abuse material. These are practical reforms built on the coalition's strong record of online safety. The coalition has a proud record when it comes to online safety. The coalition led on online safety, establishing the eSafety Commissioner in 2015, delivering the Online Safety Act and leading the push for an under-16 social media age limit. By contrast, Labor's implementation of the social media ban has fallen well short, despite all the spin, with eSafety reporting the proportion of under-16s still using social media platforms had fallen by just 4.4 per cent. Importantly, coalition governments have consistently stood up to tech giants, championed parental rights and protected freedom of speech. In 2015, the coalition announced the world's first esafety commissioner, the first dedicated government agency of its kind anywhere in the world. In 2017, it was the coalition that cracked down on image based abuse when it led the global charge against the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Under the coalition, the world's first specialised reporting and takedown scheme was implemented to force social media platforms to swiftly remove stolen private imagery. In 2021, the coalition legislated the Online Safety Act, landmark legislation to codify the basic online safety expectations for tech companies. This created an enforceable takedown scheme to protect adults facing severe targeted online vitriol. The laws reduce compliance windows, legally forcing companies to strip illegal content and terrorist propaganda from their feeds within strict rapid timeframes. That record matters. It shows that we can protect children without granting unnecessarily bad or broad coercive powers. We can hold big tech to account while empowering parents, and we can support an under-16 social media age limit while recognising that it alone will not make the online world safe. Our amendments build on this trusted record of real practical achievements. It puts parents at the centre, brings greater transparency to big tech and targets the online harms that continue to put Australian children at great risk. 19:01 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Here we go again—the fiction that the social media age ban is working. We see the government continuing to trumpet this broken policy as one of their most significant achievements. It's depressing to watch a government go out and do this in the face of all of the evidence that we have that says it's not working. You can book a business class ticket to New York and spruik this, or you could look at the evidence. As Greens, we would rather look at the evidence and look at what eSafety has said. eSafety reports that the number of bullying complaints, the evidence of kids being bullied, is pretty much exactly the same before and after this ban. It hasn't moved the dial one jot. That's when you read eSafety's actual reports and the evidence. Does anyone know an under-16-year-old kid in Australia who's actually been denied a social media account and hasn't been able to find one? We said at the outset that this rushed, badly considered, thought bubble of legislation, which is what this was last year, would be worked around by every 14-year-old in the country and every 15-year-old in the country, and they did. They're just laughing at the government on this. If that's all it was—if it was just the government being humiliated by 15-year-olds, and the coalition and One Nation were willing players in this—that'd be one thing. But it's actually caused harm. This whole process is like some distorted episode from Utopia where everyone's laughing at the minister but no-one has the guts to tell them: 'It doesn't work. It's not working. The kids have worked around it.' We told you it wouldn't work, and we said, when you rushed it through in your moral outrage last year for an announceable, that it wouldn't work, and we said we'd be back here again, having to fix it up. I don't think this is really fixing it up, but it's the inevitable. It's the inevitable return to a bunch of rushed, badly thought out, unworkable proposals. What it ended up doing was, instead of having platforms work to try and make at least that one part of their operation for under-16-year-olds safer—limiting the advertising or hopefully excluding advertising, putting time limits on it, preventing direct messages—and instead of having that safety by design, you've got under-16-year-olds pretending to be adults and getting accounts with no limitations on them or going into even more dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet and going onto platforms that have no controls and none of those protections. That's what you've produced. At the time that this broken policy was being rushed through here with your collective moral outrage—and I want to be clear; we see the damage the platforms do. We see the damage and the greed and the self-interest of the platforms, the Metas of this world. We see it, but we kind of like policies that address their greed and self-interest and profits and put good design and our children and protecting us from being driven down dangerous, extremist pathways or suicidal ideation—we actually put good design, good policy and good law ahead of a sugar hit of moral outrage, which is what drove this social media ban last year. We want to keep kids safe. We want to keep adults safe. We said then—and we say it again—that a digital duty of care that works, that cuts into the profit making of these big platforms that feed off division and extremism and addiction, and that applies across all online spaces and to all people, young and old, is what is needed. That's what we've been pushing. That was always a better option than trying and failing to kick kids off a handful of platforms, driving them into less regulated spaces—feeling like they can't tell their parents what they're doing. That's what you've created. You've created a set of laws that means kids are off doing what they're doing, getting around the restrictions and going into spaces. You've created laws that encourage less communication between kids and their parents about what they're doing online. Kids are not going to be coming and saying—well, a bunch of them aren't. Some may. Some will, but a bunch of them won't. They're not going to be going to say, 'Mum and dad, I've got this adult Instagram account. Let me show you what's happening,' or, 'I'll let you know what my account is so you can follow me. It's an adult account on Instagram.' Those conversations aren't happening. You've broken trust between kids and their parents. You come in here and say that the answer to the unholy mess that you created with your moral outrage is to double the penalties. That's the answer from Labor: 'We're going to double the penalties for platforms that aren't enforcing the age ban.' Let me try and remember exactly how many prosecutions you've launched so far with the existing penalties. Senator Hanson-Young, can you help me here? How many have they lodged? Senator Hanson-Young I0U Zero. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 They've lodged zero. You've done zero prosecutions with the current penalties, but you say the answer is to double the penalties. Then you can have double the penalties with zero prosecutions—all fixed! Labor's fixed their social media ban! I said this is like an episode from Utopia, only less funny. If you want penalties that the likes of Meta, X or others will actually listen to—doubling the penalties is still a cost of doing business for them. Doubling the penalties is hardly going to ruffle their feathers. This government has been told repeatedly—it was in the recommendations of the Rickard review—that the only penalties these global vampires listen to are penalties attached to their global turnover, penalties that are economically meaningful to them. A hundred Australian dollars isn't going to fuss Elon Musk, because he knows it's the maximum penalty anyhow. It's not an issue. You attach a penalty to global turnover. That's the kind of penalty that they might even listen to. The watch-my-hand strategy here of doubling the penalties is stock-in-trade for the Albanese government now. You've got a difficult social problem. You've got a failure to comply. It's not working. What you've been doing isn't working. Corporate Australia isn't listening to you. Internet multinationals aren't listening to you. The policy doesn't work. It's all broken. What do you do? You roll in here and you double the penalties, and we have exactly the same zero prosecutions with a double penalty. We've heard it. I think I've seen this film before. What the hell? That being said, when you pull apart the bill and you have a look at it—you look at its entrails—there are little bits that are useful. Empowering eSafety to get additional information and actually create a good precedent to get some additional information from some of these platforms is useful. That's good. We can see some sense in that. Although many of the powers that are being granted now in this bill are needed only because of the rush job that happened when this legislation was first rammed through, I can see sense in those. The Greens can see some sense in those, and I acknowledge the comments and the work of my colleague Senator Hanson in addressing that— Senator Hanson-Young I0U Hanson-Young, even. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Sorry, Senator Hanson-Young. I'm going to correct the record twice now—Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Hanson-Young. It must be after seven o'clock, and I'm tired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 Did you have a point of order, Senator Hanson-Young? Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 She does, and it's a very valid one. I've taken it twice and three times now. Thank you, Chair. I just want to acknowledge the work of my colleague in doing this and keeping it on the record and pressing forward on this, because we come back to this point: doubling penalties that aren't working won't fix anything. Doubling down on bad policy that isn't working and that the kids are working around won't fix anything. Fixing the feed, putting the duty of care in, holding the platforms to account—and I again acknowledge there's this slither in this bill that actually is doing some of that work—is the right pathway. To pretend that this bill is about keeping kids safe is just plainly wrong. This bill is about trying to keep the government safe. I don't think it's going to work. 19:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Officially, the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen the operation of the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA. The bill expands the eSafety commissar's information-gathering powers and increases civil penalties for noncompliance to around $100 million—$100 million—depending upon state. In reality, the social media minimum age framework legislation has failed, and now the government is doubling down. One Nation does not support the social media minimum age ban, for two reasons. Firstly, what children do online is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state. Secondly, the technology will never be smarter than a resourceful and tech-savvy child. In November 2024, I moved an urgency motion arguing that a blanket ban expropriates parental power. Parents in the home can supervise a child's device better than a tech company or a Canberra bureaucrat. No country has made age limits work, and the ban would make parents who let children watch educational YouTube content law-breakers. I call for better parental locks from platforms and device makers instead of a nanny state rule. Parental locks from platforms and device makers have been proven to work. I quoted the Australian Human Rights Commission warning that a ban would isolate young people. I predicted that the ban would fail because of VPNs, impersonation and other tricks while pushing children onto less supervised spaces, such as game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor. This is exactly what's happened. The ban has failed, and the answer from the eSafety commissar is bigger fines, more power over you and more removal of human rights. A government amendment circulated overnight is draconian and terrifying. The amendment will provide powers for the eSafety commissar to demand that a person travel at the person's cost to appear before her in person and includes penalties of up to a year in prison for refusing to do so. Which platform do you think will be the first that the eSafety commissar demands to appear? No doubt X, to continue her obsession with Elon Musk. If the commissar thinks she will be demanding that witnesses appear from overseas, I would point out that Julie Inman Grant, the commissar, refused to appear before a US congressional inquiry into her actions last year. One can't demand a higher degree of accountability than the commissioner was prepared to demonstrate herself. The amendment abolishes a basic human right against self-incrimination. While it does say the evidence can't be used in a court of law against a person, there is a known backdoor entry to this. The amendment does not protect young people, which is ironic, given it sits in a bill supposedly designed to protect young people. The subject of an examination order can be a person of any age. There is no age restriction on that power. There are no protections requiring a minor to be legally represented or have a parent present—none. There is a right to have a lawyer and not the requirement for one. We know how that works in practice. In short, turn up and get done over or go to jail. That's life in the 'Soviet Republic of Australia' under this Albanese Labor government. One Nation will oppose the amendment. We will oppose the bill and, when in government, we will abolish the position of the eSafety Commissioner. The role was intended all along to be a political appointment, and the incumbent is proving the truth in that statement. One Nation will not, though, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will maintain the functions of the office of eSafety and move the staff back into the department of media and communications. The staff are doing very good work taking down abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes and must be allowed to continue that work. Other provisions of the bill include a doubling of fines on social media companies for failure to demonstrate reasonable steps to comply with the ban. The problem with the legislation is and continues to be the definition of 'reasonable steps', which is—hang on, there is no definition. The commissar sets the rules in a legislative instrument titled 'Social media minimum age: regulatory guidance'. Then the commissar enforces them as the commissar sees fit. Reasonable steps is anything the commissar decides it should be. Defy the commissar, and you will cop a fine that's been increased from $48 million to almost $100 million in this bill. What next? How about $200 million fines? No, $500 million fines. Do I hear a billion? That's not how legislation is supposed to be drafted, and this is not how government power is supposed to be used. This is power over the people. They should be serving the people. The real problem around compliance from social media companies, though, is the inconvenient truth that the eSafety commissar has lost all except one court case her office has started. Perhaps strengthening the legal basis for these fines in the first place would have been more important than simply allowing the commissar to threaten a larger fine. I say 'threatened' because no social media company has been fined under legislation relating to age verification—not one. So why increase the fines—the ones that haven't been used yet? The government continues to pursue a strategy it can never win. Harsher penalties are a typical bureaucratic response to being defied when in fact the defiance is because the ban is not technically feasible. Moving on, the bill enables the commissar to compel the production of information or documents from any person. All that's needed is for the commissar—or the commissioner—to believe on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance from a provider of an electronic service that is or may be—notice the opening of the envelope!—an age restricted social media platform. If this looks like unchecked power, it is—unchecked power over not just children and social media platforms but over every Australian, adults included. For example, information from third parties, such as age assurance providers or app store operators, may assist in validating or testing claims platforms made about their compliance with the minimum age obligation. Once again, these powers are not limited by age. An individual who discovers a workaround may be compelled to provide information around how they did that, no matter the age. The committee report recommended the bill pass as written. There were concerns from submitters whether the measures imposed, increased discovery and higher penalties, were necessary and proportionate to enforce the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA ban. the office of the information commissar made a great point that the information-gathering powers in the bill should be extended to their office. This would allow them to determine if the information that age-verification companies are collecting was being dealt with according to Australian privacy legislation. The Law Council of Australia criticised the new information-gathering powers under section 63G as being too powerful for the stated outcome, as did Free Speech Union, and X sounded like they were lining up to challenge them in court. Multiple submitters complained about the very high fines, up to slightly over $100 million, depending upon the state. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a review after 12 months into the effect of the social media minimum age framework, SMMA ban on children, which is faster than the statutory two-year review. I would recommend that submission to the government. How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people. 19:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 is supposed to be about keeping children safe online, but it barely scratches the surface of the much uglier truth. Something deeply disturbing is happening to our young people. A teenage boy opens TikTok or YouTube looking for gym videos or gaming clips. Before long, the algorithm starts pushing him somewhere much darker. They are being told women are liars, feminism is the enemy, and girls owe you sex. When a Herald journalist posed online as a 17-year-old boy, it took just 13 minutes for TikTok to serve up manosphere content—13 minutes for the algorithm to start pulling a child down a rabbit hole of vile misogyny. This stuff doesn't just stay on a screen. Teachers are seeing boys parrot Andrew Tate in classrooms. Researchers are finding terrifying attitudes towards women, consent and sexual violence amongst teenage boys and young men. These algorithms are teaching boys how to see girls, and girls are living with the consequences. They are sexually harassed, abused, choked, assaulted, raped and killed, and those same girls opened their own phones to be bombarded with content telling them they are too fat or too ugly as thinspo and the latest skinny-tok trend take over their feeds. They see other women being mocked and trolled. They are fed content about eating disorders, self-harm and suicide. Seventy per cent of Australian children aged 10 to 15 have encountered harmful content online. This isn't some harmless teenage entertainment. We have handed some of the most powerful corporations on earth direct access to our children's minds, and they are poisoning them for profit. These platforms have become some of the most powerful radicalisation machines humanity has ever created. Racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, conspiracy theories, far-right propaganda—the algorithm doesn't care how dangerous something is. It cares whether you keep watching. Watch one angry video, and it gives you another. Show an interest in one conspiracy, and it offers you something more extreme. Linger on some racist garbage, and suddenly your feed is overflowing with it. Now AI slop, deepfakes and industrial scale misinformation are pouring into that toxic soup, which is fuelled by the far right and their wealthy backers. I should know. I am a perpetual target. Tech oligarchs and their loyal politicians have helped build an information system where hate and lies reach millions in an instant, giving extremists an algorithm that helps them recruit. This is radicalisation at an industrial scale. Instead of fighting the far right and instead of fighting racism and misogyny, some of the richest corporations on earth deliver them straight into our kids' pockets. Behind these big tech and social media machines are some of the richest and most powerful men who have ever lived—men like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Zuckerberg has amassed billions upon billions building deliberately addictive platforms that harm children. Elon Musk bought one of the world's biggest social media platforms, gutted its safety features and turned himself into a political powerbroker. These are not quirky tech geniuses playing with apps. These are evil men controlling what billions of people see, believe and fear. Their corporations profit from our anger and our fear. The Greens support stronger enforcement against corporations that break the law, but taking on this crisis means taking on some of the richest and most powerful companies and billionaires on earth. Let's be real. Labor hasn't got a great track record of taking on corporations and billionaires, but the community advocates and Greens have pushed them all the way to take the steps that they have announced today. The details of the proposed duty of care model will be a test of whether Labor backs the people or the corporations in the struggle for our attention and wellbeing. To start, we can't have a situation where harmful algorithms remain the highly addictive default. Then we have to make sure penalties for social media oligarchs are more than a slap on the wrist or just another court settlement for them. We won't change their behaviour until we threaten their noxious business model. We will be looking at the proposal extremely closely, because history teaches us that, when the choice is between corporate profits and real people being harmed, Labor always finds a way to protect profits. Boys can be funnelled into misogyny. Girls can be taught to hate their bodies. Racism and far-right extremism can be pumped into millions of homes. Our democracy can be flooded with lies. God forbid Mark Zuckerberg's bottom line takes a hit! Enough of that. We need to break the toxic algorithms and hold these corporations legally responsible for the harms that they create. Our children—and everybody else, for that matter—do not exist to generate profits for billionaires. Our democracy is not theirs to dismantle, and our future should not be determined by Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk and wherever their next billions come from. ADJOURNMENT 78 ADJOURNMENT Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute 78 19:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise this evening to welcome Flight Lieutenant Evans to Parliament House this week. He is spending his time with me and my team as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program. Since its introduction in 2003, the parliamentary program with the Australian Defence Force has given ADF members the opportunity to step outside their usual working environment and gain a unique insight into how decisions are debated and made in this place. It also works the other way, and for many of us as parliamentarians I know quite a few senators in the chamber this evening have participated in and had the opportunity to meet people in the ADF and hear directly about their experiences. Flight Lieutenant Evans joined the Royal Australian Air Force back in 2019, I'm reliably informed, as an aspiring armament engineer officer. His work involves integrating and assessing weapons and countermeasure systems across a range of ADF aircraft and platforms. It's an area that we need a lot more men and women in our ADF to work in. It's a very technical role but a very important one that ultimately comes down to making sure our personnel have the systems and the technology that keep our aircraft safe, capable and ready to operate. It is great to have him spend the week in my office. I thank him for his contributions, and I'm sure he's finding his time here in the parliament—and in the chamber this evening—worthwhile. Welcome. I also take this opportunity to recognise another important contribution to Australia's national security. Twenty-five years ago, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute began with a deceptively simple idea—that Australia's strategic policy would be better if the thinking behind it was contested, not comfortable. ASPI's establishment back in 2001 was a genuinely bipartisan undertaking. We saw, a few weeks ago, former prime minister John Howard and former opposition leader Kim Beazley reflect on that founding spirit, writing that ASPI has consistently exerted a positive influence on Australia's security policy and that spirit above politics and in the national interest has shaped ASPI into what it is today—and it is continuing to grow with much respect. Over more than two decades, ASPI's researchers have challenged thinking on border security, on terrorism, on critical minerals and on defence preparedness, and put climate and food security on the national agenda before it was fashionable to do so. That same spirit led to the establishment of ASPI's Women in Defence and Security Network back in 2014, opening doors and building pathways for women in defence, national security and foreign policy. I pay tribute to and acknowledge the outgoing executive director, Justin Bassi, who last week advised that he will be leaving the organisation. Under Justin's leadership, ASPI has built resilience through a period of profound international disruption, from research on artificial intelligence and the Indo-Pacific to convening the Sydney Dialogue on critical technologies. I thank him for his service and, on a personal note, wish him very well for his future with his family. He is someone that I consider a friend and a mentor on these policies on national security and defence. The strategic environment of 2026 bears little resemblance to that of 2001, and that only makes ASPI's role more important and more necessary. As ASPI marks 25 years, let the next 25 be defined by the same founding spirit and courage to challenge conventional thinking. I congratulate ASPI on its contribution to Australia's national security debate and the strategic debate more broadly. Albanese Government, Liberal-National Coalition 79 19:33 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia There was a time when I thought that the chaos in the Australian economy and the problems we are having in our society were a result of bad government decisions, poor government decision-making and mistakes from government. But the longer this Labor government has gone on, it's become clearer and clearer that this chaos and dysfunction is actually part of their plan. They have done these things deliberately. A housing crisis, growing division in our community, the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world—this is the result of the Albanese government's policy. Australians are anxious about their future and, frankly, the future they will leave their families—their children. The government should empower Australians, not foster a country of people working harder than ever yet falling further behind every day. The coalition's vision is an Australia where everyone, whatever their background, can dream big and get ahead. Only the coalition has the strong leadership and a plan to make that happen. We will deliver lower taxes. We will deliver abundant and cheap power. We will get migration under control and make sure there are homes for all Australians. We will have policies that reward aspiration, that reward hard work. Our country needs change. This is our plan, to give Australians a chance to buy a home, to raise a family and to face the future with confidence. Gas is absolutely vital to the future of the Australian economy, absolutely vital to my home state of Western Australia and something that is all too often forgotten in the debates we have in this place. It is vital to our geostrategic relationships in the region. I was lucky enough, with my good friend and colleague Senator Susan McDonald, to tour the INPEX gas plant in Darwin recently. What we see there is an absolutely amazing investment in the Australian economy by, yes, a Japanese corporation but one that is developing an Australian resource to help fuel the Japanese economy into the future. It's an asset of Australia that helps one of our closest geopolitical allies to deal with their own energy issues at home. It's an asset that provides jobs to Australia. It's an asset that has seen billions of dollars of investment in this country. High-paying jobs, a highly technical industry, a relationship that has stood the test of time with Japan and one that will stand Australia in good stead into the future—this is a relationship that makes both Australia and Japan stronger. It is one we should celebrate. It is one we should seek to further develop and it is one I am very proud of. Aviation Industry 79 19:37 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's commitment to a safer, fairer and more accountable aviation industry through the establishment of a safer skies commission. For too long, aviation in Australia has been allowed to drift away from what should be core purposes: serving the public's interest. Air travel is not a luxury for many Australians. It connects families, workers, businesses, regional communities and essential services. In a country as vast as ours, reliable and affordable aviation is part of the national fabric. Yet, too often, passengers have faced higher fares, reduced services, unexplained cancellations, poor communications and practices that simply do not pass the pub test let alone a rationality test. We have seen deeply concerning conduct in the industry. Australians have seen major airlines make substantial profits while families struggle to afford a flight to see loved ones or to attend medical appointments, weddings or funerals or to travel for work. We have seen accusations of price gouging, the selling of tickets to flights that are already cancelled and the 'ghost flights' scandal that undermined public confidence. We have seen passengers treated as an afterthought, workers pushed harder and regional communities left wondering whether the services they rely on will still be there tomorrow. That's why Labor believes oversight is necessary. A safer skies commission would help bring workers, passengers, airlines, airports, regulators and government to the same table. It would be about setting standards, improving accountability, strengthening safety, supporting fair competition and making sure decisions in aviation are made in the national interest, not in the interest of executive bonuses or shareholder returns. This is not just a consumer issue; it is a workers' issue. It is a safety issue. It is a regional issue. It is a fairness issue. Aviation workers keep this country moving. Ground crew, baggage handlers, cabin crew, pilots, cleaners, caterers, freight workers, refuellers and security staff all play a pivotal and vital role. They work early mornings, late nights, weekends and public holidays. They work under pressure, often in difficult and physically demanding environments. They deserve a secure job, fair pay, safe rosters and respect. Too often, however, the people who make aviation possible have paid the price for decisions made at the top. Outsourcing labour hire arrangements, fragmented bargaining and cost cutting have been used to drive down wages and conditions. Workers doing the same job have been paid differently. Experienced staff have been pushed out of the industry. Short staffing and insecure work have placed unreasonable pressure on the workforce and ultimately on the travelling public. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the Transport Workers' Union, its members, its delegates, its officials and particularly the National Secretary of the TWU, Michael Kaine, for his determination and his strong advocacy on behalf of aviation workers across Australia but also my Senate colleagues Tony Sheldon, Glenn Sterle and the late Steve Hutchinson. The TWU have been at the forefront of the fight for better pay, safer conditions, secure jobs and a stronger voice for workers in this essential industry. They stood up when workers were outsourced. They stood up when pay and conditions were driven down. They stood up when passengers and workers alike were let down by poor corporate conduct—so a big shout-out to them. It's the Albanese Labor government who understands that strong industries are built on strong standards. We have already acted to close loopholes; support same job, same pay; and restore fairness to workplaces after a decade of neglect. A safer skies commission is a further step towards rebuilding confidence in aviation and ensuring the industry works for all, not just a few. This is such an important industry for my home state of Tasmania. This commitment is about more than regulation. It's about restoring balance. It's about saying that workers deserve respect, passengers deserve honesty and communities deserve reliable services. I congratulate the government for this initiative. It's a good initiative. It will benefit all Australians. Consumer Protection 80 19:43 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia There's a quiet revolution that's transforming free citizens into something far less free. We're being controlled, and we're being turned into vassals not by armies or kings in the old sense but by a modern form of digital feudalism that strips ordinary Australians of ownership and makes them permanent renters in their own lives. It's happening in every aspect of our lives, and now it even extends to the physical ownership of chattels. Consider what's happening. It's already happened in a single generation. Let's take music for example. Compact discs and DVDs sat on our shelves, available whenever we chose, but they're being replaced by streaming services that can remove content, raise prices and lock us out at will. Software we once bought and owned forever has now turned into a perpetual subscription. Memory cards and hard drives once owned forever are now being replaced by cloud storage that we must rent every month. It's not progress; it's the systematic transfer of ownership from the individual to distant corporations and increasingly to an administrative state that partners with them. In the feudal system, vassals didn't own the land. It was held at the pleasure of the lord, subject to conditions, fees and the constant risk of forfeiture. Today, the digital lord collects the rent in monthly instalments and retains the power to revoke access with a single keystroke, and that pattern is spreading. Motor vehicles now are increasingly software locked platforms, property we don't truly control. Books, tools and even data of our own lives have been converted into services that we never actually finally progress. We're told it's modern and efficient, but, in truth, it's a profound shift in the relationship between individuals and the things that sustain independent life. Ownership has always been central to a free society. The man who owns his tools, his home and the products of his labour answers first to himself and to his family. The man who merely rents them answers to the landlord. When the landlord is a handful of global tech companies, often working hand in glove with governments keen on digital identity systems and programmable money, the risk is no longer theoretical; it's structural. Australians have already seen the early stages of this control architecture—the push for digital ID, expansion of surveillance powers and the quiet preparation for programmable central-bank digital currencies. If you pair those tools with a population that no longer owns its own goods, you create the perfect conditions for modern serfdom. Compliance becomes the price of continued access and dissent can be met with deplatforming, account suspension or simple withdrawal with a digital key. Not that long ago, property rights and the dignity of ownership weren't just optional extras; they were the foundation of personal independence and national sovereignty. We're now being invited to trade that inheritance for the temporary convenience of never having to manage our own affairs. Well, I reject that bargain. Australians should be able to buy things once and own them. They should be able to store their own data without paying rent to a foreign server farm, they should be able to drive a car without seeking permission from a software update and they should be able to participate in the digital world without surrendering the fundamental right to own, rather than merely access. We are sleepwalking into a society of permanent renters dependent on the goodwill of corporate and bureaucratic overlords. I know which side I'm on. The question is whether this parliament and this government have the will to protect us from it. Regional Security 81 19:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I and my party, the Greens, are very concerned about the way in which this government, the Albanese Labor government, works in the Pacific, forming partnerships in the region with our Pacific neighbours and friends not with a deep commitment to share peace but with a 'divide and conquer' mentality. The 'blue Pacific Ocean of peace' has been discussed for years by civil society and governments within the Pacific. The Blue Pacific Ocean of Peace Declaration covers nuclear disarmament, demilitarisation and the addressing of climate change. Instead of seeing Labor work with countries across the region to deliver on that vision, we have instead seen Labor hijack the term and start applying it in their own terms. They did it recently in the defence agreement with Fiji. In that agreement, reached without any of the broader Pacific community in the room, the Albanese Labor government did real damage to the concept of the blue Pacific Ocean of peace without ever passing it through the kind of forum-wide negotiation and consultation that the original proposal was meant to represent. We now see this framework of 'divide and conquer' abusing concepts such as the blue Pacific Ocean of peace to strongarm individual agreements with our Pacific neighbours and friends and place them in a defence context, ignoring the underpinning drive of nuclear disarmament, demilitarisation and addressing climate change that was behind the very concept from the start. These arrangements are increasingly being made with a handful of elites in some of these countries and ignore the broader civil movement and the support given to those concepts behind the Blue Pacific Ocean of Peace Declaration. The Pacific Women Mediators Network said: You can't talk about peace with simply saying that it is the absence of violence or conflict. We have to talk about peacebuilding in the operationalisation of the Ocean of Peace Declaration, and that has been clear for us from the start. It is critical that the future or the operationalisation of the Ocean of Peace Declaration through the Pacific Islands Forum needs a stronger focus on peace building in practice, not simply from seeing peace through a traditional security or militarised lens, but through a civilian lens, through a civil society lens, through a people-centered lens. Pacific historian Marco de Jong said: … regional civil society asked for a peace centre, but maybe they got a military base instead. This has, in effect, shifted the focus of the Declaration itself towards deterrence, and the countering of China through military means. We need to listen to these voices. At the Pacific Islands Forum, there was another meeting that went ignored. Our Pacific island neighbours from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front of New Caledonia, who come together in the Melanesian Spearhead Group, came together and called on Indonesia to allow an independent investigation by the United Nations's human rights commissioner into West Papua. Last month I met with West Papuan activists right here in parliament, and I was joined by other by some of my other colleagues, including Senator Scarr. They detailed heartbreaking stories facing military persecution and being forcefully driven from their homes. Indonesia is a partner to Australia. We are neighbours. We have mutual interests. But friends tell hard truths to each other, and we should be calling out human rights abuses when we see them. The least we can do is to join our Pacific neighbours in the Melanesian Spearhead Group and support that independent human rights investigation in West Papua. I want to be clear: what's happening in West Papua is a disaster, not just for West Papua but for the world—the largest single deforestation and displacement crisis in our region—and there must be more than silence from our government. I want to finish today by actually listening to what our Pacific neighbours are saying, what they said at the Pacific Islands Forum and what they're saying about us as a neighbour. Vanuatu's minister for climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, at the Pacific Islands Forum responding to the UN report on global heating, said: Loss and damage are a reality that currently exists in my country, in the countries represented here. It will only accelerate with any overshoot, encompassing economic and non-economic losses that no finance can fully restore. … Our lands, our ancestral lands, our heritage, our identity. … Australia is not doing enough. So the very least a country like Australia should be doing is stopping future expansion and it's not doing that. You need to stop expansion. You need to start transitioning away. Friends, partners, neighbours—we listen and we should respect. It's not politics for the Pacific; it's about survival. Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 82 19:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I stand to clarify an answer I gave in question time earlier today to Senator David Pocock. I said in public statements, in media statements, we were clear that the election commitments would be delivered through a closed noncompetitive process. Following question time, I went to check the record to make sure that that was consistent with what I said and it wasn't, so I'm here to clarify that, in the media statements that we included with our local commitments, we used the term 'Consistent with past practice, election commitments will be delivered in line with the Commonwealth grants, rules and principles, which, at section 2.4, indicate how those grant rules should apply, including for the delivery of election commitments as a result of competitive or non-competitive selection processes or on a one-off ad hoc basis.' I just wanted to update the Senate at the earliest opportunity and clarify those remarks. Housing 82 19:53 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Of all the Prime Minister's broken promises, the changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax rank amongst the most damaging. We don't have enough homes. Rents are too high. Young Australians are struggling to buy. Regional businesses cannot find accommodation for the workers they need, and northern Australia is not immune from the government's attacks. We desperately need confidence and investment in new housing. The Albanese government has delivered another shock to the market. Its changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax have landed at the same time as higher interest rates and already extraordinary construction costs. Now we know the Treasurer was warned about the consequences. At the same time the Prime Minister says we desperately need more housing, confidential Treasury advice released under freedom of information says the government's tax changes will put downward pressure on house prices, upward pressure on rents and reduce housing supply. This is extraordinary. We are now seeing the first steps of the national housing downturn reaching regional Queensland. Townsville's home prices fell in July for the first time since March 2023. Cairns recorded its first monthly fall in more than six years. Now, that may sound like good news for somebody trying to buy a house, but it does nothing to address housing supply or rising rents. A slightly cheaper house isn't much consolation to a young family who can't find a rental while they save their deposit. The Housing Industry Association reported last week that new home sales nationally have fallen for three consecutive months. HIA says lending to investors fell almost 20 per cent in the first half of this year and now warns this is filtering into the new construction pipeline. This is precisely what northern and regional Australia cannot afford. HIA says Cairns needs another 1,550 new homes every year to meet its share of the National Housing Accord target. Last financial year, it approved fewer than 700. There were just 1,512 new residential lots registered, down almost 28 per cent on the previous year. Vacant land sales fell 42 per cent. At the same time, the median price of residential land reached a record $363,750. That's up 41 per cent in just 12 months. In Townsville, the local council approved a record 1,255 residential lots last financial year, which is welcome, but merely approving a block of land is very different to putting a family into a finished home. Property consultants Rider Levett Bucknall expect construction tender prices in Townsville to rise seven per cent this year—the highest increase of any Australian market it examined—and around 30 per cent cumulatively by 2029. In Darwin, housing rents are now approaching $800 a week, having risen almost 20 per cent in a year. That market needs more investment in housing, but now developers are wondering if putting their money into housing is worth the risk. There is another extraordinary admission in Treasury's advice. Its modelling did not separately identify the impacts of these changes between different geographic regions. So, when we ask what Labor's policy will mean for northern Australia, the answer is they don't know because they didn't care to look or understand. The coalition will end Labor's heartless attacks on people trying to invest to provide for themselves and their children. We will axe Labor's changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax and restore confidence for Australians who want to save, invest and provide rental housing. We will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 new homes by helping to fund the basic infrastructure that turns land into housing. Importantly, we have guaranteed that at least $1.5 billion of that fund will be invested in regional, rural and remote Australia. We'll simplify the National Construction Code while retaining core safety standards to reduce the cost of building a new home by up to $70,000. We will link migration to housing supply. This is part of the coalition's plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life—lower taxes, cheaper power, less migration, more homes and putting Australians first because Australia is worth fighting for. Climate Change 83 19:58 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia In the Murdoch media, there's been recent criticism of the Climate Change Authority which I think is incredibly unfair. I'd like to defend the Climate Change Authority—not that it needs much defending, with its excellent leadership under Mr Matt Kean. The criticism is largely around saying it's Orwellian and trying to suppress debate. It's doing nothing like that. In fact, it's doing the exact opposite and encouraging debate as we move forward in the incredible transition to a decarbonised economy. Mr Rupert Murdoch gave a speech in, I think, 2007 and said these things: Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. He went on to say: Climate change and energy use are global problems- News Corp is a global company. Our operations affect the environment all over the world. He goes on to say they had an ambition to become carbon neutral. I think Mr Murdoch may have softened that view over time, but in a pithy article Peter Hannam pointed out that News Corp is still committed to net zero emissions across all three scopes of emissions by the fiscal period of 2050 or earlier. Why is this relevant? Because the Murdoch press effectively accused the Climate Change Authority, when it committed a supposed sin of releasing an insights paper that talked about climate misinformation and disinformation, of becoming Orwellian, of becoming 'the Ministry of Truth' and using all the tropes that you can find throughout that wonderful novel of Orwell's, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It just does not make sense, and this hyperbole does not assist us as a community to find social licence with each other to make our economy decarbonised and also to protect nature and defend and arrest the loss of biodiversity. The purpose of this paper is as follows. This paper explains how misinformation affects climate change policy and what it means for the Climate Change Authority's work. The paper draws on evidence from the findings of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, independent research, and engagement with misinformation experts in government, academia, industry and the community sector. I was privileged to serve on that committee, under the incredible chairmanship of the former senator Peter Whish-Wilson. And it was very clear that, if there was going to be any misinformation or disinformation, the fossil fuel industries were well resourced to either defend their position or in fact manipulate or shape the narrative. So I don't understand why the Murdoch press needs to defend companies that are well resourced and can articulate their position for themselves. Nonetheless, they did so. The Climate Change Authority—here's its purpose—is required by law to give independent expert advice to the government on the targets Australia should include in its next nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. So I don't understand how it could be Orwellian, when it's a public instrumentality that has a web page that produces materials, has no legislative power to censure, and is designed to advise government in an open and transparent way on how it should address and respond to achieving its targets. The government's targets are not a secret. The government went to the last election with some of these targets and won—formed government, with a handsome majority. How could this possibly be described as Orwellian or as shaping the debate? In fact, it informs the debate. And I know the Climate Change Authority would welcome debate in the public forum. It's also an organisation that has to be held to account by this chamber and in estimates. The Senate can hold it to account. We can ask for information on how it made its calculations. Instead of criticising the Climate Change Authority, perhaps we should, as a community, be supporting its work. For me, it is very much like, as has been suggested, the Reserve Bank. It has to make decisions. It has to form a view. We don't criticise the Reserve Bank for forming a view on interest rates. That's its job, as it is the job of the Climate Change Authority to form a view on the best pathway forward to reach the targets the government has set transparently ahead of and post the election. But, again, the Murdoch press has to denigrate an institution that I think is instrumental in being transparent in our journey to net zero. It's clear in these debates that, for some quarters of our community, simply having 'environment' or 'climate' in a title is enough for them to oppose it, rather than engaging in proper debate. I noted the conga line of critics from the usual quarters. The Centre for Independent Studies was also one of them, claiming with the usual outrage that it was suppressing or manipulating debate—I don't know how, given it has its own webpage and can publish its own papers. There was also a recent article--not necessarily on this point. It was expressed by, I think, the Minerals Council, which said, 'It's clear Australians want more say on reforms'—they always do—but tied it to saying, 'They're tired of a small minority of noisy activists.' What, they're tired of democracy? That's what a democracy is—noisy advocates. Be noisier. Argue better. For me, I think that, if you put nature at the heart of all decision-making, if you deeply respect the natural world and see it as supporting our life, you can do that in an infrastructure way and an economic way, or you can do that as I do and see nature as an intrinsic benefit to us—we are part of nature, not separate from it—or as a great steward of nature. Those that claim that they speak for the community and actively avoid talking about pollution from their activities will be shown for what they are: false prophets. COVID-19: Response 84 20:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last Senate session, I presented the Senate with the latest evidence from the United States on the COVID scandal—the crimes and homicides and, in particular, the role of the former director of America's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, Dr Anthony Fauci. This was evidence declassified through the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy, who at the time was the inspector general of the US Department of Defense. This information was corroborated using Fauci's own diaries and phone released under freedom of information just a few weeks ago. The unavoidable conclusion is that the world was brought to its knees using a man-made engineered virus developed through gain-of-function research to create a weaponised virus candidate which then escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China, and infected the world. What followed was a cover-up on the origin and suppression of effective early interventions to make the impact worse. Why? To sell vaccines—injections—that were rushed through and are now killing and maiming people. Who benefits from that? Well, Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID. NIAID under Fauci had a direct, well-documented institutional role in vaccine research, patenting of key technologies, licensing to companies and receiving of royalties. NIAID conducted the foundational work in the development of the mRNA platform and held patents on stabilised prefusion spike proteins—yes, those spike proteins. This means that the organisation that owned the patent related to spike proteins acted to ban alternative therapies such as Ivermectin, which was proven, and Fenbendazole, which is proven, so the world had no choice and was forced to use the COVID shots, which contain spike proteins, which then earned NIAID half a billion Australian dollars in royalties. All this was at the same time—as records show—that they knew the injections caused myocarditis and were next to useless. This is in their own words in their own diary, text messages and emails. All of this is public record, even if you have not heard about it. My other speeches on this subject are available on my website. Tonight, I'll expand on my comments that the injections are now killing and maiming people. As always, I use peer reviewed science, facts and data. I thank epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and the McCullough Foundation for the work I'm referencing tonight. The link between mRNA vaccines, injections and cancer is mechanistic, clinical and evident in population studies—scientific studies. To the mechanistic evidence—35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. I will post a link to the literature review on my website. Key mechanisms include impaired DNA repair allowing damaged cells to become cancerous; presence of SV40 cell division enhancer that enhances cancer growth—that one was criminal; LINE-1 reverse transcription, DNA segments left over from the growing medium incorporating into a person's DNA; frameshifting leading to cell damage and random mutations; chronic inflammation due to the lipid nanoparticles holding the messenger RNA strands; immune suppression through the ACE2 receptor, amongst others; and cancer stem cell expansion. The McCullough Foundation proposes a concurrent hit model. These processes do not necessarily operate independently or sequentially. Multiple cancer-promoting hits overlap in the same susceptible host person, compressing the time required for dormant, indolent or microscopic disease to become clinically aggressive. This is commonly referred to as 'turbocancer', which is just a layman's term for an aggressive cancer, which did exist before COVID. On clinical evidence, the published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbocancer cases across 27 countries involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. Eighty-six per cent of these cases occurred following COVID-19 injections, and just 14 per cent were following SARS CoV-2 infection. This is because 14 per cent of cases are from COVID; the rest are from the COVID injections. Was the prevention worse than the disease? That's a matter for a royal commission. Most likely the answer is yes. Across these cases, recurring patterns include rapid cancer progression, short latency recurrence, reactivation of previously controlled disease and tumours involving the injection site or nearby lymph nodes. The platform can distribute systemically, forcing vulnerable tissues, including the heart and brain, to express mutated tumour proteins. This raises the risk of off-target immune attack, cardiac injury and neurological damage. As I pointed out previously, health authorities in the USA knew the risk of myocarditis as early as March 2021 and covered it up. The information in this study puts the science behind the clinical observations of increased myocarditis, pericarditis and Alzheimer's adjacent diseases. Even more concerning, the liquid lipid nanoparticle delivery vehicle itself promoted metastatic growth in mice even without mRNA cargo. This suggests that some oncologic liabilities reside in the platform itself not only the encoded antigen. This confirms emerging research showing that the more COVID boosters, the more lipid nanoparticle and the more spike protein, the greater your risk. On population evidence, there have been excess USA cancer deaths since 2021 injections of between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4 per cent in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5 per cent. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4 per cent. Small intestine cancer is up 15.5 per cent. Ovarian cancer is up 12.8 per cent. Stomach cancer is up 7.3 per cent, and female breast cancer is up 3.6 per cent. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23 per cent higher risk of cancer hospitalisation. We have the mechanism, we have the science, and we have the data. I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia. There is none. Data showing cancer rates moderating through 2023-25 are actually projections—not real data—made in 2022. Some graphs show the dotted lines to indicate projection; others don't. They don't even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. This is not acceptable. We don't need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis, and that can be marked provisional until normal processes are followed through. After four years, why is that simple data not available? It's because they don't want you to know. This is not a history lesson. The first randomised test of mRNA as monotherapy in residual cancer commenced in 2021 and is still underway, with the result expected in 2030. While Moderna advise wonderful outcomes, their data has not been made public nor shared with researchers, so I guess we'll have to wait until 2030 to find out the truth. The point here is simple: this is a properly conducted mRNA trial, and it's taking nine years. Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing—substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did. The question for a royal commission is this: why was next to no safety testing—two months instead of nine years—accepted for a substance which was then injected into hundreds of millions or even billions of people? Surely the larger the cohort, the more care that was needed, not the reverse. As I showed last sitting, the American CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, knew almost straightaway the injection was only slightly more effective than natural immunity, so urgency was not the reason. Those following this scandal will find much of tonight's information is familiar. Papers have been available for years on some of these pathways. I referenced some as far back as in 2022. It turns out those qualified epidemiologists and public health luminaries who opposed the official story were right. Many have paid dearly for their principled stand. Some doctors here in Australia are still debarred as a result of showing character when so many displayed cowardice and silence. The pharmaphiles at AHPRA still insist on persecuting the truth-tellers, the doctors of courage and principle, to send a message to the industry that truth will not be tolerated and that acting in the best interests of the patient will not be tolerated. Because we did not intervene as strongly as needed back then, AHPRA are doing it again—this time with transgenderism and doctors opposing medicalisation of a psychological condition, a mental health condition. According to AHPRA, the job of a doctor is to keep the pharmaceuticals flowing. If this sounds extreme, you haven't read the amount I have read on our COVID scandal and you haven't spoken with the famous medical names from around the world who have given me advice from mid-2020 which has turned out to be accurate. To ensure this never happens again, tonight I repeat One Nation's call for a royal commission into the COVID scandal, the COVID crimes and the COVID injection homicides. (Time expired) Women's Health 85 20:16 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In the last sitting week, I gave a speech sharing my experience with vaginal prolapse. Since then, my office has received calls and emails from women all over the country to thank me for raising the issue. You're very welcome, ladies, by the way. There are too many women suffering, often in pain and embarrassment. This is a common condition that affects thousands of Australian women. Now, there were a few who thought I shouldn't have used what they called 'vulgar' language in the Senate. They were referring to my use of the word vagina. Well, oh dear. Do you know what? I don't care. Just to be clear, half the population has one. But there is still so much stigma around that word that some people really believe that it doesn't belong in this place. This stigma has serious consequences for us women. I recently found out that pelvic organ prolapse can affect up to two-thirds of Australian women, but we can't know for sure because it's underreported and it's poorly measured right across the country. Pelvic organ prolapse is an extremely uncomfortable and often painful condition. If you don't deal with it in a timely fashion, you can end up like Kate, a veteran I spoke about in the last sitting. Kate had to wait three years for the operation and she is now incontinent. Women like Kate and me who prolapse will also experience urinary incontinence. I was lucky this didn't happen to me, but for a few weeks I had to be within five seconds of a toilet. It was that simple for me. I couldn't go far. Over half the women who will experience prolapse will also experience urinary incontinence, and 33 per cent will also experience faecal incontinence. Between 2005 and 2021, more than 408,000 prolapse procedures were performed across this country. This isn't a rare condition; we've just become very good at not talking about it. And for far too long we've made women feel ashamed or embarrassed if they do talk about it. Women make up over half the population, but our health system has seemingly forgotten that. This isn't isolated to Australia. For generations, medical research was built around the male body and women were expected to just fit that model, even though we know that men's and women's bodies are very different. For example, when crash test dummies were invented in the 1970s, female crash test dummies were just smaller versions of the male crash test dummies, even though, statistically speaking, women are more likely to be seriously injured. Since the beginning of modern medicine, men have been treated as the universal baseline for medical research. They've been used as the standard human norm, and women are just used as the add-on. The flow-on effects, as I am sure, or at least hope, you can imagine, have been enormous. Medicines, medical implants and even symptoms we are taught to look out for in conditions such as heart attacks have been largely based on men. Even now, women are more likely to die after having a heart attack, despite men being twice as likely to experience one. Chest pain is the most common symptom for men and women, but women are more likely to experience lesser symptoms, like nausea, dizziness or pain in the back, neck and jaw, but we are still not taught to look out for these things for our own health. Women are also more likely to be underdiagnosed or experience delays in receiving treatment. In 2023-24, we spent more than $3.5 billion in Australian health research funding, but just 3.3 per cent of those billions of dollars went to research related to women's health—my God! Seriously? A recent report on medical misogyny in Australia showed that only 14 per cent of women aged between 18 and 35 believe their GP was actually taking their concerns seriously. Compare that with the 50 per cent of men aged 65 and over. Only 10 per cent of women between the ages of 18 and 34 believe their doctors were always helpful in helping them find the most appropriate treatment. For the same age group in men, that number was nearly 30 per cent. A Victorian inquiry into women's pain found that 71 per cent of female respondents identified dismissal by healthcare professionals as a major barrier to receiving the care that they desperately needed. These numbers are alarming, but they are not surprising to me, being a woman. I bet that every woman sitting in this chamber has had to fight at one point in their lives to have their symptoms taken seriously. Screening for early prolapse is not routine. Many women do not know what treatment options are available to them, and stigma can sometimes discourage women from raising their symptoms with their healthcare professional in the first place. This stigma is yet another barrier for women to receive timely and appropriate health care. Women are ashamed to talk about their vaginal symptoms because society has taught us that these parts of our bodies are supposed to be embarrassing. And, if a woman does decide to talk about her symptoms associated with her reproductive system, there's a fair chance that she won't be taken seriously anyway. If she lives in Tassie, she will be waiting over 500 days for an initial gynaecology appointment. Isn't that shocking? It's absolutely shocking. I know talking about this stuff will make a few of you feel uncomfortable, but imagine how uncomfortable it is to actually live with some of these conditions. We need to start talking about them because, for women, staying quiet has allowed this problem to fester for way too long, and the consequences can be deadly. Every day 19 Australian women are diagnosed with a gynaecological cancer, and every day six Australian women will die from one of them. If these cancers are diagnosed too late and if they're already in an advanced stage, less than three in 10 women will live past five years. For ovarian cancers, 67 per cent of cases, when found, are either at stage 3 or stage 4 by the time they are diagnosed. If you are at stage 4, that means the cancer is starting to travel around your body. Compare this to prostate cancer, where thankfully only four per cent of cases are diagnosed at stage 4. There is a fair gap. The five-year survival rate for prostate cancer has risen from 60 per cent to 96 per cent in recent years. For gynaecological cancers, the five-year survival rate is just 70 per cent. Between 2003 and 2020, prostate cancer research received $185 million in funding. For women, gynaecological cancers combined received just $137 million. This is not an argument to take funding away from cancers like prostate cancer, but it does show that investment in medical research saves lives, and women all around the country deserve that sort of investment in their health. More than 90 per cent of Australian women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer do not have access to comprehensive profiling that could help doctors identify the most effective treatment for their specific cancer. I do applaud the government and Minister Butler for the government's investment in pelvic clinics, but, I am sorry, it is not enough. It is not near enough, and we are screaming out for help. I'm asking you to provide us with more because we need it. It is even worse in rural and regional areas. For far too long, women have been treated as supplementary to men, and we've had enough. I want to make sure that's quite clear tonight: we've had enough. This couldn't be more true in the way our modern health system has been set up. Half the population shouldn't have to keep fighting for half the attention. Women in this country—in fact women everywhere—deserve better, and it's about time the government started to listen. Multicultural Awards, IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit, Rohingya Genocide Remembrance Day, Citizenship 87 20:24 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Before I commence my remarks, can I just congratulate Senator Lambie with respect to her courageous candour. The fact that she's heard from so many women around Australia—her act of solidarity has resonated across Australia. So congratulations, Senator Lambie, you really are an ornament to this place, and it's a privilege to follow you in this adjournment debate. I would like to talk about a wonderful Queensland woman. I'm delighted to advise the Senate that Nasrin Vaziri won the Creative and Artistic Excellence Award at the Multicultural Awards hosted by Bhartiya Samaj. Nasrin is a very worthy recipient of this award. She deserves this award. Firstly, in her capacity as executive director of the Gold Coast Multicultural Group in Collaboration Association, known as GCMAGIC, Nasrin brings people together from all sorts of culturally and linguistically diverse communities. She assists them to express themselves creatively and artistically. Second, Nasrin has played a key role in terms of celebrations for the Persian New Year, the Nowruz ceremonies in my home state of Queensland. These occasions have been of key importance, especially given what has been occurring in Iran, in terms of bringing our Persian community together in my home state of Queensland. Lastly, Nasrin is always there bringing people from different communities together and this represents the very best of multicultural Australia. So I say to you, Nasrin: you're a great blessing for our Australian community and thank you for everything that you do. I believe that young people must be given a voice in this country. It is incredibly important that we in this place and in the other chamber listen to what young people have to say, and no-one does this better in this Australian parliament than my very good friend the member for Moncrieff, Angie Bell, the shadow minister for arts, sport and youth. I really want to congratulate Angie on her IMPACT Gold Coast Youth Summit. She's the patron of this summit, which started in 2023. Over the four years it's been operating, 1,000 Gold Coast young people have participated in the summit. It provides an opportunity for young people to come together, build connections and be heard. This opportunity then leads to aspiration. At this year's summit, an 18-year-old, Mr Levi Knight, spoke powerfully about the financial pressures facing young people, including the cost of university unpaid internships, transport and everyday expenses. And this really does symbolise the opportunity given by this summit to young people. Thank you, my dear friend Angie Bell, for being such a positive voice for young people in this place and in my home state of Queensland. I was honoured to be invited to attend the Rohingya Genocide Remembrance Day in my home state of Queensland. It is held each year on 25 August. This occasion was convened by the Rohingya Genocide Remembrance Day organising committee, and I thank everyone involved in bringing this event together. There were terrible, terrible events which occurred in Arakan, Myanmar on 25 August 2017 and continued for a number of months. Many members of the Rohingya community who attended that commemoration are survivors of those genocidal acts. They lost parents, spouses, children and other loved ones, and they are now part of the one million people who found their way to Australia as refugees and found safety in our community, so they are part of the Australian story. There have been acts of genocide committed against the Rohingya people, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I want to quote to you, Acting Deputy President Grogan, from two important documents. The first is produced by the US Department of State. It's entitled Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State. This is very difficult reading, but it must be done; this must be put on the public record. I refer to page 12 of the report: Multiple witnesses report soldiers throwing infants and small children into open fires or burning huts. Witnesses also report seeing soldiers throw children into rivers and seeing children's bodies that had been thrown into a village well. One refugee reported seeing a police officer throw an infant in a river, then shooting the mother when she ran into the water to save her child. I also refer to the report Detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar. This report was presented to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in September 2018, just over a year after the horrific events which commenced on 25 August 2017. This report is 435 pages long, and it documents the atrocities that were committed against the Rohingya people. I want to quote to you from paragraph 1439: The attack on the Rohingya population of Myanmar was horrendous in scope. The images of an entire community fleeing from their homes across rivers and muddy banks, carrying their babies and infants and elderly, their injured and dying, will and must remain burned in the minds the international community. So will the "before and after" satellite imagery, revealing whole villages literally wiped off the map. Then it goes on: 1441. The Mission therefore concludes, on reasonable grounds, that the factors allowing the inference of genocidal intent are present. It is now for a competent prosecutorial body and court of law to investigate and adjudicate … That adjudication is now occurring in the International Court of Justice. Public hearings were held in January of this year in a case that has been brought by Gambia. And I say: let justice be done, and let those responsible for these horrific crimes against humanity be held to account. The final contribution made at the Rohingya commemoration day was by a wonderful young man called Abdur Rahman Eman. He performed a nasheed, and I want to read from that nasheed: What harm had the innocent little children done? What did they receive from child protection and human rights? They cleared everything away; they emptied Arakan. Whenever we remember our homeland, tears fill our eyes. That's from Abdur Rahman Eman, who has now found refuge in Australia and is studying and hopes to become a social worker. Thank you very much, Abdur. In 1860, the first Afghan cameleers arrived in Australia, and they were absolutely instrumental in opening up central Australia. Fast forward 166 years and, on 31 August, last month, I was delighted to participate in a citizenship ceremony in Brisbane City Hall. One of the recipients, or conferees, of Australian citizenship was a new Australian citizen who had been a senior legal official in Afghanistan. Following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban on 15 August 2021, my office and I did everything we could to assist him and his family to come to Australia. It was terribly moving to see him be conferred with Australian citizenship. I can't say his name because he is still subject to persecution, given his role as a senior legal officer in Afghanistan. But I just say to him what a joy it was to see him conferred with Australian citizenship in that wonderful Brisbane City Hall and join our Australian family. National Security 88 20:34 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales One Nation will do everything in its power that it can to keep Australia safe from terrorists. This is why One Nation has introduced the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill. There is a clear gap in Australia's national security laws. We all know that there are cases where Australian citizens have voluntarily travelled overseas and have joined or materially supported terrorist organisations. These people continue to pose a serious threat, and simply managing their return is not enough to deal with this threat. Our bill addresses these extremely dangerous cases. Our legislation will give the Federal Court the power to prevent a person returning while they continue to pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. One Nation is very confident in the constitutional strength of this bill, which is why we were happy for the bill to be considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. In fact, we referred it to them ourselves. We are happy for the legal arguments to be tested and for the safeguards in the bill to be examined on their merits. Sadly, it seems the Labor government was not overly keen to do the same. There was no submitter to this legislation. This report gave a definitive opinion that the exclusion regime in this bill would be struck down by the High Court. Yet before the inquiry had even completed its work, Tony Burke was continuing some rather dishonest attacks against our legislation—legislation that will help keep Australians safe. It is worth recalling that Senator Watt even told the Senate that Labor had received legal advice that any extension of the existing laws would be knocked over by the High Court. He used those terms about the constitutionality of our proposal, so we asked for the legal advice behind these claims. The Senate supported our document order for this advice on our bill. Now, the government has the Attorney-General's Department, Commonwealth lawyers and access to the full legal resources of the Commonwealth. If Labor had authoritative legal advice, this would've been the time to produce it. Instead, the government produced a Sydney Morning Herald article. That was the legal advice they claimed to be relying on. There was no constitutional opinion, no departmental analysis and no advice identifying which provisions would fail, just a newspaper article. That was what the minister was referring to when he said they had received legal advice. Tony Burke was confident enough to publicly declare the fate of our bill in the High Court, but, again, when the Senate asked for the legal basis of that confidence, the government has produced nothing substantive. Either the government has legal advice and it would not show it to the parliament or the ministers have been making claims they cannot substantiate beyond Sydney Morning Herald articles. Neither inspire any confidence. The government also chose not to make a submission to the committee. The inquiry dealt directly with terrorism, national security and constitutional law. The government has enormous legal and national security resources at its disposal, yet it did not come before the committee and identify which provisions it believes are unconstitutional, explain why, suggest amendments or propose a better mechanism. It is simply opposed the bill. That matters because we in One Nation have done the opposite. We've put forward the legislation. We believe there are solid judicial oversight and safeguards in it, and we welcome the scrutiny. We have been prepared to have the constitutional arguments tested. If the government believes that any particular provision is defective, we would love them to identify it. If it believes a section goes too far, we'd love them to explain why. If the Attorney-General's Department has a stronger constitutional mechanism to achieve the same objective, please put it forward. The objective should be clear: Australia should have the strongest lawful protections available against people who voluntarily join or materially support terrorist organisations overseas and who continue to present a serious threat to Australians. Our legislation is deliberately designed around judicial oversight. A minister cannot simply decide to exclude someone. Under our legislation, it would be a Federal Court making the order. The minister must prove that the person voluntarily served with, participated in or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation, and the court must also be satisfied that allowing the person to return would pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. It must consider whether less restrictive measures could adequately protect the public. The bill includes limited duration orders, review mechanisms, protections for minors and parliamentary reporting requirements. Again, the conduct of individuals travelling overseas to support terrorist organisations must be voluntarily. These are not afterthoughts; they are deliberate safeguards built into the legislation from the very beginning. The committee's response also fails to give enough weight to the important distinction between this bill and the existing temporary exclusion order system. The current framework manages a person's return. It can control when they come back and impose conditions around that return. Our bill deals with the more serious case of what happens when managing that return is still not enough to protect Australians. Where a person presents such a serious continuing threat that their return would create an unacceptable risk, a federal court can determine whether exclusion is necessary because less restrictive measures will not adequately protect the community. This is a different power for a different level of threat. Criminal prosecution remains essential. If someone can be charged with and convicted of a terrorism offence, prosecute them. But foreign fighter cases can involve serious evidentiary difficulties. For instance, the conduct may have occurred years earlier in Syria or Iraq. Evidence may never have been collected. Witnesses may no longer be available. Our security agencies may have strong intelligence that a person is dangerous without having evidence capable of proving a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. That leaves a very real gap. Once that person returns to Australia, the threat is here. Our police must manage it, and our intelligence agencies must monitor it. Parliament is entitled to act before that point if there is a lawful way to do so, and our bill provides that mechanism. It also provides something the majority report gives little attention to: deterrence. The message should be unmistakeable: if you voluntarily travel overseas and join or materially support a terrorist organisation, your Australian passport should not automatically guarantee your return while you continue to pose an unacceptable threat. There can be consequences long after you leave the battlefield where you were supporting terrorists in murdering innocent people. Under One Nation legislation, a federal court may determine that your return would create such an unacceptable risk, and it may determine that you cannot come back while that threat remains. Laws do not only respond to conduct after it occurs; they also shape consequences and deter people from making those choices in the first place. Ultimately this debate is about who carries the risk. The people covered by this bill are not Australians who accidentally found themselves overseas during a conflict. The legislation requires voluntary involvement. We are talking about people who chose to serve with, participate in or materially support listed terrorist organisations—people who may have supported organisations committed to murdering Australians and attacking our way of life. One Nation believes we have a duty to millions of Australians who stayed in this country, obeyed the law and expect their country to protect them. That is what our legislation does. This government has not put forward a stronger alternative. What it has done in response is make sweeping constitutional claims, declined to participate properly in the inquiry, and produced a newspaper article when the Senate asked for the basis of their claim that they'd received legal advice. That is shameful. If the government identifies a genuine constitutional defect then the parliament can deal with it. If the High Court ultimately needs to determine where the constitutional boundary lies, that's what the High Court is there for. But Tony Burke does not get to make that decision. And if Labor is getting their legal advice from the Sydney Morning Herald, perhaps they should not be making these decisions. Our job is to make the strongest lawful measures we reasonably can to protect Australians. If someone voluntarily joins or materially supports a terrorist organisation overseas and a federal court finds that their return would pose an unacceptable risk to Australians, the law should give that court the power to keep them out while that threat remains. That is what the bill does. That is why the Senate should pass it. I will go back to the fact that the minister stood up and, in his response to my questions about constitutionality claims they were making, said that they had received legal advice. That's what he said in question time. We asked to see it through an order for the production of documents, and their response was to hand over a screenshot of a Sydney Morning Herald article. I mean, the hubris and arrogance of that is quite a astounding. To everyone who ends up seeing this or hearing this, just remember that. And every time you hear a government minister claim that they have received legal advice, there's very good potential that they are just referring to something they read in the Sydney Morning Herald. That is what government ministers are prepared to do. It is, frankly, outrageous. So we are going through a process. One Nation has legislation. The government is just choosing not to engage with it. They are making claims, and when asked to support those claims are pointing to the Sydney Morning Herald. This legislation will be brought before parliament by One Nation. It's an opportunity to debate it properly, to get into the merits of it. If you have those legal opinions, now's the time to bring them forward. But we truly hope that the Senate treats it with the respect it deserves and supports the legislation. Goods and Services Tax 90 20:44 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia There is a simple way for Australians on the eastern seaboard to think about Western Australia's GST deal. Forget for a moment the predictable interstate grievance, the east coast versus west coast rhetoric and Roger Cook's description of the Productivity Commission as a collection of east-coast clowns. Ask instead a more important question: what is in the national interest? If Western Australia is generating almost half of Australia's goods exports, providing billions in company tax and royalties, sustaining the nation's trade balance and underwriting a significant part of our national prosperity, should Canberra design the GST system to punish that success, or should we ensure Western Australia has the capacity to keep building the ports, roads, energy infrastructure, industrial precincts and communities that allow that economic engine to keep running? That is the real argument for retaining the 2018 GST reforms, but it comes with an important qualification. Western Australia's GST deal should not be treated as a blank cheque for the Cooke Labor government. The pressure from taxpayers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart should not be directed at dismantling the GST reforms. It should be directed at WA Premier Roger Cook and treasurer Rita Saffioti to demonstrate that the proceeds are being spent wisely, particularly on productive economic enabling infrastructure that keeps Western Australia producing, exporting and contributing to the rest of the country. That is a much better national debate than another Canberra revenue grab. The Productivity Commission has reopened old wounds by describing the 2018 reforms as a 'costly mistake' and recommending a transition back towards the pre-2018 system. Its case, of course, deserves to be heard like every other. The commission calculates the reforms have cost the Commonwealth almost $23 billion to 2024-25, largely because Canberra has compensated the other states through the no-worse-off guarantee. It says WA received enough GST in 2024-25 to meet 113 per cent of its assessed fiscal needs, while other states were at 98 per cent before Commonwealth top ups. Those numbers explain why premiers and treasurers elsewhere are circling. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns wants change. South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis calls the arrangements unfair, and Tasmania's Eric Abetz wants the pre-2018 system restored. That is understandable. State premiers are paid to maximise revenue for their states, but Australians should remember why the reforms were necessary. What had happened? Western Australia's GST relativity did not merely become a little less generous; it collapsed. The Commonwealth Grants Commission records WA's relativity falling as low as 0.29999. That is just short of $0.30 in every dollar. Before WA's extraordinary decline, New South Wales's historical range since the GST began had been around 83c. Today, under the supposedly outrageous WA deal, Western Australia is not receiving a dollar for every dollar of GST distributed on an equal per capita basis. In 2026-27, Western Australia and New South Wales have the same relativity of 0.81964, about 82c in the dollar. Queensland receives about 87c, Victoria $1.06, South Australia $1.36, Tasmania $1.88 and Northern Territory $5.24. WA is receiving the equal lowest GST payment per person in the country. The 2018 reforms did not give Western Australia more than everybody else. They put a floor beneath how far its share could collapse. Nor was the legislation smuggled through Parliament by West Australian separatists. It passed both houses of this parliament in November 2018 without a division. Labor did not marshal its MPs and senators to vote against it. That bipartisan history matters. What was regarded as an acceptable national settlement in 2018 cannot suddenly become an outrageous concession simply because Canberra is searching for money eight years later. There is another fact eastern Australians deserve to hear. Western Australia is still subsidising the federation. The WA government calculates that, even with the reforms, it contributes about $2 billion a year through the GST system to other states and has contributed around $21 billion since the reforms commenced. WA produces more than 45 per cent of Australia's goods exports while receiving only nine per cent of the GST pool. The larger economic reality is clear. It is a national asset. WA mines, LNG projects, railways, ports and supply chains generate Commonwealth tax, jobs and investment across Australia. They help create the economic capacity from which Canberra funds everything, from Medicare to defence. The rest of Australia has a direct interest in keeping it productive. That is where Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti should face much greater scrutiny. Defending the GST deal is the easy part of their job; spending it properly is the harder part. Every dollar squandered on poorly conceived projects, bureaucratic expansion, political advertising or prestige spending makes the case for Chris Minns and his fellow premiers so much easier. Every dollar invested in freight links, ports, roads, water, energy reliability, regional housing and infrastructure that unlocks private investment strengthens the national case for retaining the reforms. This is where the Productivity Commission debate should now turn. Instead of asking, 'How do we take more money from Western Australia?' ask, 'How do we ensure Western Australia uses its fiscal capacity to expand the national economic pie?' That is genuine productivity questioning and debate. There is something peculiar about a Productivity Commission recommendation that risks weakening incentives for development in the state containing so much of Australia's export economy. The commission argues there is little evidence that GST arrangements materially change state policy decisions and says 'dominant-state effects' from mining can be addressed more directly. But incentives matter. Tell a state government to approve a mine, build the road, accommodate the workers, provide the hospitals and schools and facilitate billions of dollars of investment, then substantially reduce its GST entitlement because of the resulting royalty capacity, and you hardly have a federation encouraging development. The old system produced precisely the political breakdown that led to reform. There is also an uncomfortable fiscal backdrop to this GST debate. Canberra has a spending problem. The no-worse-off guarantee is funded by the Commonwealth at a time when the federal budget suffers structural spending problems. That makes the WA GST arrangement a tempting pot of money for the Commonwealth. But dismantling the deal is not budget repair; it is redistribution masquerading as reform. It does not make government more efficient, reduce Commonwealth expenditure or create a single new dollar of national wealth. It simply changes who gets the money. The answer to Canberra's spending pressures should not be to raid a settlement negotiated and legislated just eight years ago. The better bargain is obvious: keep the GST reforms, keep the floor, keep Anthony Albanese to his repeated promise that Western Australia is safe with its GST deal—but demand much more accountability from the Cook government. If Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti insist WA will not back down, then show Australians what the money is being used for. Show how the reforms are supporting productivity-enhancing infrastructure in the Pilbara and export regions, attracting private capital and generating national revenue. When WA Labor wastes money, eastern state premiers are entitled to call it out. But the answer is not to return Western Australia to a system under which its GST share collapsed to around 30c in the dollar. There is a fundamental distinction between making WA poorer and making WA Labor more responsible. Australia benefits enormously from WA being wealthy, productive and ambitious. We should want new mines, gas and critical minerals projects proceeding; ports operating efficiently; and infrastructure built ahead of demand. When Western Australia succeeds, Commonwealth revenues rise and Australians thousands of kilometres away share in the proceeds. The GST debate should not be another argument about dividing a fixed cake. The national objective should be to bake a bigger one. The 2018 reforms recognised there had to be a limit to how severely the federation penalised its strongest economic contributor. Senate adjourned at 20:54