2026-09-09 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 9 September 2026

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Minister for Communications 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 09:01 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise in place of Senator Farrell in this response on behalf of Minister Anika Wells. I make the point that the comparison between OPD 321 and FOI 27-022 is not a direct, like-for-like comparison. While both relate to the same broad subject matter, their scopes are materially different. First, the order for the production of documents sought communications involving three parties: the minister or her office, the department and the eSafety Commissioner. It was therefore directed at communications between all three parties. By contrast, the FOI request sought communications between the minister or her office and the department without requiring the eSafety Commissioner to be involved. That broader formulation may have reasonably captured a larger volume of documents. Second, the timeframes between the two differ. The OPD was agreed to on 4 February 2026, meaning its scope was necessarily confined to documents captured up to that point. The FOI request was lodged on 13 July 2026 and therefore extends across an additional five months of records. It is reasonable to expect that a request covering a longer period may identify more documents. As a point of clarification on the number of documents referred to in the motion before us now, I am advised that the department did not identify 700 documents; it identified 90 documents that may have been in scope, with a combined page count of approximately 700 pages. That distinction is important in considering this motion. Finally, it's also worth noting that the Senate's powers in relation to the production of documents operate separately from and are not directly comparable with freedom of information requests. As outlined in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, there is no direct correlation between the Senate's powers to order the production of documents and the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. 09:04 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. On 4 February 2026, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents relating to the Minister for Communications's travel to New York in September 2025 with a member of her staff and a public servant. The minister's trip to New York was controversial, racking up a six-figure bill on the taxpayer's credit card for the minister to boast about the social media ban, a failed policy that four in five Australian children have found a way around. On 4 March 2026, a response to this order was tabled in the Senate. In the response, a letter from the Minister for Communications to the Special Minister of State notes: 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. In July, my office lodged a freedom of information request with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts for the same documents within a smaller timeframe. The department asked for the scope of the request to be reduced and ultimately refused the freedom of information request on the basis that too many documents existed. The department's FOI officer noted that as many as 700 documents existed, with the bulk of these being emails. I note that, in response to questions on notice posed to the department about this OPD, the department said: 'Order for the production of documents No. 321 requests documents between the Hon. Anika Wells MP, Minister for Communications, and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. No documents were found within scope of order No. 321 that involved all three of the entities named in the order.' This excuse is not only splitting hairs; it is wrong. The Minister for Communications has previously taken this phrasing—X, Y and Z—to mean 'between any two of the entities', not 'between all three entities'. For example, on page 8 of the response to OPD 37, tabled 13 August 2025, a meeting brief from the department to Minister Wells's chief of staff is provided despite OPD 37's seeking documents from four different entities, two of whom were not party to this meeting brief. On page 31 of the OPD, there is an email between the minister's office and eSafety which does not carbon-copy in any departmental email addresses. The minister interpreted this phrasing as referring to documents between any two entities in her response to OPD 215. She interpreted it the same way in response to OPD 323. She interpreted it the same way in response to OPD 425. It makes no sense for the minister to interpret it in one way for OPD 215, take a different interpretation for OPD 321 and then go back to the original interpretation for OPD 323. Very selective there! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Minister for Housing, the Minister for Industry and Innovation, the current and previous ministers for employment and workplace relations, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence have all interpreted this phrasing the same way. There are lots of questions that still need to be answered, and I don't accept the explanation from the minister. I will be pursuing further action in relation to this matter. 09:08 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The Labor Party, and this minister in particular, have a three-monkeys approach to transparency and accountability, which is to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing. This is a prime minister who promised to lead the most accountable and most transparent government since Federation yet leads the least transparent and least accountable government since Federation. I would like to commend Senator Payman for the work that she's been doing in relation to this matter. Senator Payman, I want pay tribute to your dissection of the minister's response there. What we heard from the minister was a word salad. It was like someone in the ministerial office had played Scrabble with a bunch of words and said, 'We'll put this up, and this'll keep the Senate quiet.' Well, it's not going to keep the Senate quiet. Minister after minister, following the lead of the Prime Minister, are using accountability measures not to release information but using FOI, questions on notice and OPDs to not release the information that has been requested by the Senate or by journalists who are requesting information through the FOI or RTI processes. This is wrong, because what it comes to, ultimately, is the use of taxpayers' money. This minister went to New York. She paid $20,000 for business class flights just for herself. Don't forget, everybody, this was in the midst of the Optus triple zero crisis. She left the crisis behind—and she has spent the last 18 months or so doing everything possible to ensure that she, the minister, and her department do not comply with the orders of this Senate and do not comply fully with requests for information. This is a failure of accountability, a failure of transparency, and a massive failure of the use of taxpayers' money. But we should not be surprised, because this is the minister who, in a puerile and juvenile way, was using Ooshies to explain the housing crisis when the housing crisis in this country has been caused by the economic policies of the government that she's a member of. Then the minister does another social media post this week where she wonders why people don't have trust in politicians. Well, Minister, go and get a mirror. Get it from IKEA or Fantastic Furniture, or go down to BIG W. Get a mirror and have a look at yourself. The No. 1 reason Australians do not have trust in the political system or in politicians is actually you and the government that you are a member of. This is a government that promised to cut power bills. This is a government that promised not to make changes to the taxation system. Yet this is a government that has increased power bills, and this is a government that has increased taxes on Australians. Promise after promise is broken, and when this Senate—whether the opposition or crossbenchers such as Senator Payman—use legitimate Senate processes to ensure that the executive is held to account, the Labor Party, the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor cabinet ministers refuse to play ball. It is almost as though the Labor Party see the government of Australia as their personal plaything when it comes to spending money and when it comes to making decisions. This Senate is the house of review. It is this Senate that is set up to hold the executive to account. The government does not have a majority in this chamber, and the crossbenchers and the opposition will work together to ensure that, regardless of the issue at hand, appropriate accountability and transparency measures are properly being used so that the taxpayers of Australia and the voters of Australia know that this government does what it said it would do rather than hide behind word salads. Senator Payman, the opposition will continue to support you in your fight to ensure that the appropriate information is released, and we're making sure that this minister is held to account. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 3

Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026

Second Reading 3 09:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. In 2024, the CFMEU was rightly placed into administration. As uncomfortable as that process was for the Labor Party, the level of corruption and crime that infiltrated the construction sector around Australia, particularly in my home state of Victoria, became impossible to ignore. Under the current scheme that Labor contrived, the administrator can take disciplinary action. He can expel members, and he can disqualify officers, but he cannot do either for longer than a period of five years. That's no matter how bad an individual's behaviour is or how bad the offences that they committed are. A member expelled today can simply reapply to join the union in five years time. That's the limit, and it applies no matter what the offences are. This is a provision that, to me, seems entirely unjust and unjustifiable. In practice, this gives some of the most well-known and worst documented characters in the CFMEU a pathway back into the ranks of the union, and it opens up the moment that the five-year expiry kicks in. This is highly problematic and deserving of reform today. You don't have to take my word for it that five years isn't enough; you can take the word of the administrator himself. On 30 July on the ABC 7.30 program, Michael Crosby AM was asked why he was suspending John Setka's membership for only five years, and his answer was that the rules limited him to a maximum of five years. In his words, 'That's as much as I can do.' When he was pressed on the need for reform, Mr Crosby didn't rule it out. That was the administrator that the parliament has appointed, on national television, describing the limits of his own powers. Now, he's not asking for a free hand. He's telling us that, when he judges that conduct warrants expulsion of more than five years, the law doesn't allow him to exercise that judgement. The government may disagree with me about a great many things in this debate, but it cannot disagree that its own administrator is working with one hand tied behind his back. It's a limit on his powers. Labor will try to argue that the administrator's powers are sufficient, that they got it right the first time and that nothing needs to change, but the need for change becomes irrefutable when the extent of bad behaviour that this administration is dealing with is laid bare and put on the record. John Setka ran the Victorian branch of the CFMEU for 12 years. His record is not a matter of rumour. It's not a matter of partisan invention. It's a matter of public record. In 2019, Mr Setka pleaded guilty to harassing a woman by phone. In the same year, after reported comments disparaging the advocacy of Rosie Batty, his conduct became so indefensible that the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese himself moved to expel him from the Labor Party. The Prime Minister couldn't stomach him personally. The law in this country, however, still guarantees him a way back into the Prime Minister's own union movement. Under his leadership, the Victorian branch of the CFMEU handed paid delegate and safety roles to members of outlaw bicycle gangs and figures from organised crime. When the Nine papers and 60 Minutes were about to put the evidence to him in July 2024, he wouldn't answer the questions. Instead, he resigned and expressed the hope that his departure would end the scrutiny of his union. Of course, it did not, because that scrutiny is so well deserved. Let me put on the record what accountability looks like when it's applied to this union. The former administrator, Mark Irving KC, asked a very straightforward question. He asked for information about how members' money had been spent. This was the reply that he received, as set out in the Watson report. I warn the chamber that the language that I am about to use is confronting, and, for the sake of the Hansard transcript, I will temper it as much as I can. The response from John Setka was: 'Go eff yourself, Irving. You effing dogs have endangered my life with your leaks to the media, and I will come into the office whenever I want. I'm not an ALP stooge like you two s—' Sorry. There was a different word there, but I don't even think I can say the abbreviation. Mr Setka said: … one more leak you dogs and I'll fix it myself … This is what a request for basic financial transparency for members produced; not an answer but abuse in threats and intimidation. It didn't stop there. In November 2025 John Setka was arrested and charged over emails that police allege he had sent to the union administrator following a notice to produce. In February this year Mr Setka was arrested yet again. He was charged over further messages to the administration, including one police say was sent on Christmas Day. He was charged with committing an indictable offence while on bail. On 14 August Mr Setka was arrested for a third time. He was charged over social media posts, this time featuring images of the administrator, Mr Irving, and the assistant administrator, Mr Matt McGowan. A court bailed Mr Setka on the condition that he stop posting intimidating or vulgar material about people that are overseeing the union—people that were sent in by the Labor Party to clean up the union. There were three arrests and three sets of charges, every one of them arising out of allegations before the courts from correspondence aimed at the very people that this parliament put in place to clean up the CFMEU. This is the kind of character that we are dealing with. That is the environment that the administrator is working in. This parliament is now telling that administrator that the most he can do is expel somebody for a period of five years. Two of those years have already gone—two down, three to go. This is just a glimpse into the record of Mr John Setka and the type of person he is. That is the man the administrator examined when he imposed the toughest sanction that was available to him, and that is the man to whom the current law guarantees a return date. He will be back amongst the union ranks in just another three years time. Five years, and the door has to be opened to him again and a welcome mat laid out, not because anyone reasonable thinks it should be but because of the way the system is set up now and the way the Labor Party have contrived this administration and because that's what the law says. That's what the statute says. This is a bill that's not about just one man, though, and that is really important to emphasise. Mr Setka is the example, of course, that everyone knows. He's a household name, particularly in my home state of Victoria. He brings fear and intimidation into the hearts of so many normal, good people that work on construction sites. But he's not the only one. Let me turn more generally to the suite of allegations that have been raised recently. The Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and misconduct in the construction industry has received even more confronting evidence about the CFMEU. This includes evidence that the union maintained a 'hit list'—I use inverted commas for that, but I do so wisely—of workplace inspectors that it sought to force out of the state regulator, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. There is evidence of bullying and intimidation that was so severe that one executive—a public servant just doing their job—suffered a mental breakdown and attempted to take his own life. This is the kind of behaviour that we're dealing with. These are the characters that we're dealing with. Nick McKenzie reported exclusively in the Nine papers about the conduct of the CFMEU and officials on sites of Victoria's Big Build—two words that have become synonymous with 'construction', 'rorts' and 'waste'. These include paid delegate and safety representative roles that have been handed to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs—simply handed to them—as well as instances of women being physically abused and intimidated while the CFMEU protected the men on government sites, and even Big Build operations converted into drug distribution hubs for these outlaw motorcycle gangs. It's out of control. Let me be very clear: this behaviour is not at all in the past. It's happening now. Subcontractors have continued to pay underworld figures for Big Build access as recently as 2026. That's this year. It's still going on, but the administration has been going on for two years. More arrests occurred just days ago when police seized illicit drugs, steroids, weapons and cash from a 35-year-old CFMEU delegate allegedly importing drugs through the mail and trafficking them across Melbourne's construction sites. This is the cleaned up CFMEU. Knowing this information, it is very concerning that the administrator's disciplinary powers remain subject to an arbitrary five-year limit. The bill before us today removes that five-year statutory limit, giving the administrator the powers he needs and the options he needs to impose a longer or even indefinite period where warranted. This should not have ever needed to happen, if we had got it right the first time. Individuals with behaviour so unacceptable should not be allowed to walk back into the union movement with open arms. The bill also includes an amendment to the act to clarify that a person is a 'removed person' if they are disqualified under the scheme. This avoids any doubt and it makes the policy very, very clear. I would assume that everyone in this chamber would agree that persons disqualified under this scheme should not be permitted to go on holding positions within registered organisations wherever they are, whatever registered organisations exist. The bill also amends the determination itself to remove the words 'so long as a period is not greater than a period of five years'. The bill also includes a transition provision, allowing the administrator to amend a disqualification decision that was made before the commencement, where the administrator would have imposed a longer period had the five-year statutory limit not applied. This ensures that persons who have already been subject to the maximum available sanction are not advantaged merely because their disciplinary decision was made before the commencement of this bill's amendments. We can fix this today, and it is so important to do so. If the Labor Party are serious about stamping out union corruption on construction sites, if they are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU and if they are serious about getting rid of the worst behaviour in the union movement, which is part of their legacy and something that they are rightly proud of, then you've got to stamp out the worst of the worst. You've got to get rid of these characters, because they are intimidating, they are bullying, they are menacing, and they are stopping the very clean up that the Labor Party said that they wanted. We can do this today. This bill is one step closer to combating corruption in our construction sector—corruption in our construction sector that has cost us so dearly, that has cost the taxpayer so dearly and that has cost my home state of Victoria its reputation. It is not controversial, and it should attract support from all sides of the chamber, because, if you are genuine about stamping out corruption, this is a no-brainer. If you are genuine about getting rid of the worst characters from the CFMEU, this is a no-brainer. If you are serious about wanting to make sure that your union movement is something that you can be proud of every day, this is a no-brainer. Get rid of these characters once and for all. Don't open the door for them to invite them back. We are one step closer to cleaning up corruption in the construction sector today, and we should get the support of everybody around this chamber. If you cannot support it, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:28 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 and about the misrepresentation of the administrator, Michael Crosby, and the 7.30 report. I leave for the record—it's already on there—that that's been misrepresented just now. Let me say clearly from the beginning that there is no place for corruption, criminality or any form of violence in any workplace. That's why we took the strongest possible action by appointing an independent administrator to the CFMEU in 2024, and, in the two years since, the same CFMEU administration put in place by the Albanese government has done more to eliminate corruption than those opposite did in a decade. Over 200 individual office holders have been removed, of them, 27 senior leadership positions. The old leadership of the union that existed in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, many of which were under the Liberals and Nationals, are all gone. Senator Hume stood in this chamber talking about the dangers of John Setka, but what she failed to mention was that it was actually the entire time the Liberals and Nationals were in government that John Setka remained at the helm of the CFMEU. For nearly a decade, those opposite failed to deal with any issues within the construction industry, and now they're doing the same thing again, putting forward a farcical bill. This bill doesn't do anything to protect working conditions. It doesn't do anything to address the dangerous, deadly conditions in construction—conditions that resulted in 15.5 per cent of all workplace deaths between 2003 and 2024. That's 761 deaths, 761 families torn apart. It doesn't do anything to address wage theft that runs rampant in the industry. The Fair Work Ombudsman in May this year investigated employers of building construction apprentices and trainees and found 68 per cent were breaking workplace laws. That's more than two out of three employers. That investigation led to more than $750,000 being recovered in back payments in just 15 months. In my home state of New South Wales, the CFMEU recovered $4.6 million in lost wages in the last 18 months alone and more than $3.8 million in unpaid super on top of that, bringing the total to over $8.4 million in lost pay. That's over $8.4 million in pay that working people had earned but did not receive until the union stepped in and fought to get it back. I thank the officials and the organisers who did the work to recover that money, because, without someone standing beside these workers and chasing down what they were owed, much of that money would have stayed in the pockets of dodgy construction companies. Those shonky operators don't just rip off their employees; they're also ripping off the decent businesses doing the right thing. The companies paying proper wages, paying super and keeping safe workplaces are forced to compete against these bottom feeders who cut every corner they can to put in the cheapest bids and win contracts. Those are the kinds of thieves and shonks who are being protected, and you are giving an advantage to them with the way that you carry on—the kinds of shonks that unions are facing head on and taking on. I know I mentioned superannuation earlier, and that's a touchy subject for those opposite at the moment, with the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation all fighting over who gets the credit for going after working people's retirement savings first. But this is what the union is actually dealing with. Just last year, the ABC reported that Australian workers in the building construction industry were losing $4.7 billion in unpaid super every year, and construction is one of the industries identified as being at the highest risk of unpaid super. The problem in this industry doesn't begin and end with a handful of CFMEU officials. Accountability applies across the board, and it must include bosses. In July this year, Dr Eugene Schofield-Georgeson, one of Australia's leading industrial relations and labour scholars and a senior lecturer at UTS, published a major study called Explaining corruption in the Australian construction union: a critical perspective. He writes: Another routine part of life for workers and union officials in the construction industry involves physical threats, intimidation and violence by property developers and their criminal associates. And of course those opposite won't listen. He goes on to say: Construction workers themselves have reported that employers sometimes enforce discipline on job-sites by recruiting organised crime figures to threaten, intimidate and stand-over them. But you'll never hear about that from the Liberals, the Nationals or One Nation. You'll rarely hear about dodgy employers and gangster bosses dragging the entire industry down with them. You'll never get mentions of employers exploiting their workforce in their speeches, media comments or any proposed bills. Just last year, the administrator's interim report outlined shocking allegations against a major construction company, Future Form. There were allegations that workers were being denied proper wages and superannuation, pushed into sham contracting arrangements and exposed to serious safety risks. And there were allegations of mafia-style intimidation aimed at silencing a union official from digging into it. According to that report, in October 2024, two masked men came to the union official's home and spray painted profanity-filled graffiti across the property, including calling him a 'CFMEU dog' while he was away and his wife and young children slept inside. Then a few months later, after he uncovered the further suspected safety breaches involving Future Form at the Western Sydney airport site and forced a temporary halt to work, things got even more dangerous. His car and boat were doused in petrol and set alight while he and his family were inside. Imagine that—you, your wife, your kids all asleep inside and then you wake up to find your car and boat in flames. And, of course, those opposite are laughing and grinning about all that. Well, that's real people that are standing up for working people. Then in June 2025, workers contacted— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 The senator reflected on behaviour that was not actually occurring in the chamber in his speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Yes. I think, while it wasn't directed at any individual, Senator Sheldon, it would assist the chamber if you did withdraw. Senator SHELDON 168275 I withdraw. Then a few months later, after he uncovered further suspected safety breaches, I repeat: his car and boat were doused in petrol and set alight while he and his family were inside. Imagine that: you, your wife, your kids all asleep inside and then you wake up to find your car and boat in flames. Then in June 2025, workers contacted him saying that the site was unsafe, so he issued notices to audit Future Form. The very next day, a relative of this union official was jumped in a car park by several men who claimed to represent Future Form. They told him they had followed him home and they knew where he worked. They knew where the union official's family was. They even knew that they were at the dentist at the time. The message they wanted to pass on was simple: stop investigating Future Form. The allegations helped trigger an independent Sydney Metro investigation, which found suspected worker underpayments, inadequate insurance coverage and tax fraud. In May this year, the New South Wales government acted on those findings, with Future Form being removed from the Western Sydney airport project. But unfortunately, this was just one of many cases against Future Form. I was recently told about a young construction worker who says he experienced first-hand how Future Form treated workers on his site. I won't name him here, but he's a young dad in his mid-20s with young kids who's been working in construction for years. He says he was desperate to work when he took a job on at the Sydney residential development being built by one of Australia's biggest property groups, Mirvac, where Future Form was operating. On this first morning when he turned up wearing his hi-vis shirt from his previous construction job, he was told to take it off and never wear it again. He was told 'You are with Future Form.' He was promised $40 an hour and told he would keep his weekends free to spend time with his kids, but things started to change soon after. His pay was held back to pressure him to work Saturdays and, for a period, he was being paid in cash without payslips. Then, after the union came onto the site, the workers were suddenly put on the books. His payslips named a company he had never heard of. He worked more than 50 hours in one week, but his payslip only recorded a fraction of that. When he questioned why, he was effectively told that, if he didn't like it, he could find another job. He was then threatened with losing his job when he needed time for a medical treatment. Eventually, he couldn't keep working because of the pain. He was sacked anyway. When he asked for a termination letter, suddenly this young man, who had been told 'You're with Future Form,' who was forced to wear Future Form's orange hi-vis every day on the job, was told, 'Oh, you're just a subbie.' Future Form is, unfortunately, just one of the major many major companies exploiting workers. Just a few months ago, we saw another disturbing example involving TQM Group, a Sydney based construction group behind major residential projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. According to a Sydney Morning Herald report from 9 June 2026, a construction worker speaking anonymously said Fijian migrant workers have been living for months inside unfinished TQM developments in the Sydney Inner West—mattresses on the floor, bedding in suitcases scattered through an unfinished building, clothes hanging up and even a washing machine. The worker said he had never seen anything like it on a construction site. These were poor migrant workers building apartments marked as 'luxury living' while having to live in dangerous and disgusting conditions themselves. What was TQM's response? Complete denial. Even the state safety regulator, SafeWork NSW, required a number of issues to be fixed through improvement notices—contrary to what TQM was saying. SafeWork NSW also investigated another site in southern Sydney. Again, they found the same issues, and, of course, TQM again denied everything. This is the other side of the construction industry, which the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation refuse to talk about: decent construction companies, who are doing the right thing, losing work to shonks like the ones I've just mentioned—bullies and gangsters, who undercut them by ripping off workers and cutting corners— Senator SHELDON 168275 yet those opposite continue to stand up for those shonks, even now in this chamber. They are the ones that the union tackles every single day. Whether it's young workers being exploited, migrants scared to speak up or people pressured to work in unsafe conditions, they need someone in their corner. Now, I know there are many on the other side who do care about these issues, who want to see a safer construction industry. But, when the Liberals and Nationals were actually in government, the record shows otherwise. Under them, the Australian Building and Construction Commission was established, a watchdog that spent more time barking at workers for having safety posters than going after dodgy employers—those were the real issues they chased, or so they said—or spending half a million dollars on losing a High Court appeal over a CFMEU request for a women's bathroom on a worksite. They launched a case about union officials having a cup of tea on a worksite. In that case, in 2017, Justice Tony North said it was 'astounding' that Commissioner Hadgkiss had briefed silk and conducted days of hearings with dozens of participants, including the AFP, over 'such a miniscule, insignificant affair'. The ABCC could spot a union sticker from five suburbs away but somehow missed the exploitation under its nose and the criminal activity that was going on. Even the first bloke that the opposition put in charge of the ABCC had to resign in disgrace—the person those opposite put in charge of supposedly cleaning up the construction sector was breaking the very laws he was supposed to be policing. This is why the government has put in place a whole series of important changes to cover the construction industry—changes to make sure that workplaces are safer. Now, it wasn't a surprise that those opposite—it was no accident. Their priorities have always been to weaken unions, to make it harder for construction workers to have a voice, to speak up. This bill is just those opposite taking advantage of allegations that have already been dealt with by the appropriate authorities to score political points, something they've done time and time again. At the last election, one of their commitments was to deregister the union altogether. Even Master Builders Australia, who I don't often find myself quoting, made the point clearly in a media release this year: Deregistering or administration without removing the individuals responsible for misconduct does not solve the problem. That's why we put the CFMEU into independent administration. It's why we set up and stood up the joint agency working group, chaired by the AFP and including the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman and other regulators, to tackle further corruption and criminal activity in the construction industry. Relevant federal agencies have over 120 active investigations and cases underway. It's why we set up a tripartite national construction industry forum with unions and employers to implement a blueprint for the future, including a joint construction industry charter, and it's why we're consulting on new Commonwealth construction standards to stamp out unlawful and criminal behaviour and deliver safe, secure and well-paid jobs. Our focus is to stamp out corruption in the construction industry wherever it exists. Their focus over there has always been to stamp down on workers' voices. You don't clean up this industry by leaving workers powerless. You clean it up by driving out the crooks, strengthening the law, backing decent companies that play by the rules and making sure people on the tools still have a strong democratic voice. You'll never hear those opposite turn around and take on those shonky gangsters that are in those construction companies that are putting decent companies at risk. 09:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. This is a very straightforward bill and it should be completely uncontroversial. At present the CFMEU administrator can expel members and disqualify officers, but only for a maximum of five years. No matter how serious the misconduct, no matter how disgraceful the behaviour, no matter whether the administrator concludes that a person should never again be trusted with power inside a registered organisation, five years is the maximum. All this bill does is remove the arbitrary cap. It allows the administrator to impose a longer disqualification where the circumstances warrant it. It makes sure a disqualified person cannot simply move sideways into another position within a registered organisation. And it gives the administrator a limited opportunity to revisit the most serious existing disqualifications where the five-year cap prevented a stronger sanction. That is what the bill does. This bill is a test for Labor—a very simple test. Is Labor finally prepared to put integrity ahead of the union machine that controls it? Sadly, the reality for the Australian people is that the corruption within the building industry did not need to get to this. We could have started cleaning up the culture of corruption and lawlessness almost a decade ago. The coalition wanted to. We saw the problem. We warned about the problem. We brought the legislation into the parliament, time and time again, to deal with the problem of lawlessness and corruption within the building industry. What did the Labor Party do? Time and time again—it's there on the Hansard for everybody to see—they stood with the CFMEU and their union mates, time after time, vote after vote, bill after bill. When given a choice between stronger integrity laws and protecting union power from scrutiny, Labor repeatedly chose the union machine. While Labor obstructed reform, the culture we wanted to confront was allowed to fester. The intimidation continued. The lawlessness continued. The corruption continued. And when Labor finally returned to government it didn't strengthen the protections; it dismantled them. So those opposite who now strut around saying it was Labor that cleaned up the CFMEU are rewriting history on an industrial scale. Labor did not lead the clean-up. Labor helped stop the clean-up. Here is the record. When we brought the 'restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission' legislation to the Senate, Labor opposed it. When we brought the 'establishing the registered organisations commission' legislation, Labor opposed it. When we brought the legislation on ensuring integrity, including stronger disqualification powers for corrupt officials, Labor opposed it. When we brought legislation on proper use of workers benefits—let's not let corrupt union officials rip off the workers—Labor opposed it. Legislation on protecting emergency service volunteers: Labor opposed it. That is Labor's record. It is written in the Hansard—the speeches are all there—time and time again opposing the coalition's efforts to clean up the corruption and lawlessness in the building and construction industry, not Labor's revisionist version, as they like to tell Australia, and not the talking points that were just out for convenience. Labor's actual record: almost a decade of opportunities to support stronger integrity, and time and time again—it is there on the Hansard record—Labor chose the CFMEU and the union movement over reform. Then of course Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister and Labor went further. They abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Why? Because the CFMEU and John Setka had made it clear: 'We demand of you and you shall give us what we want.' Why do the CFMEU and John Setka hate the ABCC? Because they took consistent legal action—it had to go to a court—in relation to their appalling behaviour: their violence, their intimidation, their thuggery. The court found for the ABCC, and the CFMEU, time and time again, had to pay millions and millions of dollars in fines because of the actions brought by the ABCC. So, when Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, he paid his paymaster, alright. He abolished the tough cop on the beat. Now Labor like to go around and say they abolished the ABCC because it didn't stop the thuggery. They say we should abolish the police force. Is that what they say? Crime still exists. Our construction sector needs the ABCC back as a tough cop on the beat. If Labor want to give them even greater powers because Labor say they were inadequate, we will stand with you. I'll bring the blasted legislation before the parliament and watch you squirm every single step of the way. You dismantled the two key institutions that the coalition was able to get up, with the support of the crossbench, that were actually making a difference. Labor like to tell the Australian people now that they're making a difference—what breathtaking hypocrisy. You cannot spend years and years and years in opposition opposing the safeguards that the coalition government brought to this chamber. You can't abolish the watchdogs because the union asked you to when you get into government, wait until the corruption has now become impossible to ignore and then say, 'Can you please give us a big clap?' Well done, Labor. Well done. You've finally acted. We actually supported you in acting, if you recall. You never supported us once. You fought us every single step of the way. It was only when you went into damage control that you came to us on bended knee and asked for our support, and we gave it to you. Ten years ago, you could have shown the Australian people the decency of supporting us. Ten years ago, we could have started the cleanup of the building and construction industry. We could have started the cleanup of the corruption, of the billions and billions of dollars going to organised crime. But, God help you, no, you stood with the CFMEU, with the thugs, and you allowed it to continue, and here we are now. Even now the administrator is saying, 'My hands are tied.' These people need to be banned for more than five years, but the bill only allows us to do it for five years. Well, we are here to help you, and we are here to help the administrator of the CFMEU. We will allow the administrator to impose the ban that he believes is appropriate. If the conduct warrants seven years, he can impose seven years; if 10, he can impose 10; if 20, he can impose 20. If you've got to ban them for life, ban them for life. Why should the law guarantee a comeback to someone the administrator of the CFMEU—the man who's been put in charge of the CFMEU—says should never, ever come back to a registered organisation in his life or her life. Labor needs to answer that. If Labor votes against the bill, Labor's not voting against the coalition; it is voting to continue to support the lawlessness and corruption in the industry, as it did time and time again when the coalition brought laws to the parliament to stop the corruption and the lawlessness. This is not the first time the coalition has tried to strengthen disqualification powers. We tried years ago. Our ensuring integrity bill supported stronger powers to disqualify officials. Those were stronger powers where officials were not fit and proper persons, stronger powers to deal with the repeated and systemic lawlessness within registered organisations—not just the union movement, registered organisations, which means employer bodies as well. Labor opposed it. Let that sink in. Today, Labor will stand here. We'll hear another speech, I'm sure, telling us how they take this seriously. Where was that concern, though, years and years ago when we were in office and we tried to strengthen disqualification laws to stop the corruption and the lawlessness? Labor voted against them. They didn't just vote against them; they screamed blue murder. Now we're back here. The situation is way worse. The thuggery is worse. The intimidation is worse. The ripping off of the workers is worse. Millions of dollars—they don't know where it's gone. It's their money. They can't find it. And we're here because the administrator says, 'My powers are not strong enough.' You couldn't script the hypocrisy. Of course, Labor like to talk big on the workers and entitlements. Well, then, why did you not support the legislation for the proper use of workers benefits? You opposed it. All we wanted to do was shine a light on worker entitlement funds. It's the workers' money for goodness sake, and they're being ripped off by the unions. We wanted stronger financial management, stronger record keeping, stronger financial disclosure benefits, disclosure of loans, disclosure of grants, disclosure of donations. The questions are not complicated. Where's the workers' money? Who controls it? Who gets the benefit? We've seen recent allegations that John Setka is still running one of the blasted funds. You've got to be kidding me! Workers actually deserve answers to those questions. Labor screamed blue murder when we were in government. It doesn't matter what you say now. You opposed stronger laws that would have ensured the workers of this country got the benefits of those funds—not corrupt union officials who have their grubby little paws all over the workers' money. The Registered Organisations Commission, stronger financial accountability, stronger disclosure, stronger investigation, stronger enforcement, higher penalties for serious misconduct—again, Labor opposed its establishment. We established it, at the time, with the crossbench. Then, of course, the CFMEU said, 'When you get in, you better abolish it, or else there'll be hell to pay.' So what did they do? The first two acts of government abolished the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. The tough cop on the beat, the ABCC, was a regulator dedicated specifically to an industry with a long record of unlawful conduct, coercion, intimidation, bullying and violence against women. We saw accountability and tackling corruption and lawlessness within the industry as so important that we, at least, had the guts to take it to a double dissolution trigger. We stood up for the workers in Australia and said to the workers: 'If we go to an election, this is our policy. We will restore it.' The people of Australia voted for us, and we did—without the need for a joint sitting. We got those two bills through the Australian Senate—the restoration of the ABCC and the introduction of the Registered Organisations Commission—and Labor fought us every step of the way. So, please, spare us the performance—every time you stand in this place and you suddenly say you're taking action. You had 10 long years to take action, and you didn't. It is there in black and white on the Hansard record. You opposed the ABCC, you opposed the Registered Organisations Commission, you opposed the ensuring integrity bill, you opposed the proper use of workers benefits funds, and you opposed protecting volunteer Victorian firefighters from the hands of the union. The evidence is there. It wasn't suddenly discovered. The evidence has been there for a very long time. A royal commission laid bare the evidence for all Australians to see. That is why, whenever the coalition confronted union misconduct, Labor called it 'union busting'. Whenever we strengthened accountability, Labor attacked us. Whenever we strengthened the regulators, Labor attacked the regulators. Whenever we tried to clean up the system, Labor stopped us every single step of the way. Sadly, for the Australian people, we are now where we are. Who pays the price for all of this? Those on the other side say they stand with the workers. The bad news is that it's the workers of Australia who have paid a very, very high price for you continuing to pay your paymaster, the CFMEU, who have donated millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party. You opposed restoring the ABCC. You opposed establishing the Registered Organisations Commission. You opposed ensuring integrity, including stronger disqualification powers. You opposed the proper use of workers benefits. You opposed emergency services volunteer protections. That is your record. 09:59 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. This bill is not complicated. It does one necessary thing: it stops an arbitrary five-year clock from protecting people who have treated a registered organisation as a personal fiefdom. The Construction and General Division of the CFMEU was placed into administration on 24 August because the evidence of what that division had become was no longer deniable. Reporting administrator investigations and later inquiry material described a culture of intimidation, standover tactics, alleged links to people who should never have been anywhere near a construction site and a union that too often acted as if the law applied to everyone except its own officials. This isn't just me pontificating on a headline. I was there. I saw it in person. I've been at the receiving end of some of their poor conduct. My business dealt with the CFMEU, and I saw them intimidate and bully. Then, I watched Labor opened the doors for them to come to my worksites and do as they please. Labor is complicit in all of this. Labor is the political wing of the CFMEU, and, had the corruption not been exposed, the CFMEU would be running rampant today under Labor's watch with their blessing. Honest members, the people who actually swing hammers and pour concrete, were not running that show. A small number of officials were. The rest of the industry paid the price in fear, inflated costs and projects that ran like a protection racket. This is why the administration was necessary. It's also why the five-year cap on expulsion and disqualification of those involved is an insult to everyone who has had to live with the consequences. The current administrator, Michael Crosby, said the quiet part out loud on national television. When asked why suspensions were limited to five years, he answered that the rules only allowed him five years. That was as much as he could do. When he was asked whether the rules should change, he said maybe. This parliament should not leave that as a maybe. If the conduct is serious enough that five years look inadequate, the statute should not force the administrator to pretend otherwise. To say that there is no conduct that would require a lifelong ban is ridiculous. Unions exist to represent workers. I don't stand against union workers' ability to collectively bargain. I am for workers. Ask all the people I once employed if they were treated well. What I do stand against is a construction union that becomes a vehicle for thuggery, that treats contractors as ATM machines and that treats its members and the taxpayer with utter disdain. When that happens, the people who suffer first are the members who wanted a clean union and the small businesses that cannot afford to fight a machine. Taxpayers suffer too, because public infrastructure does not get cheaper when intimidation and nepotism are built into the price. A five-year ban is not a serious answer to that problem. Five years is a sabbatical. Five years is enough time for the networks to wait, for memory to fade and for the same people to walk back in as if nothing happened. I support removing that fiction. The administrator should be able to impose a longer period or an indefinite one where that is proportional to the misconduct. That is not vengeance; it is justice. The second change in this bill is also important. It makes clear that a person disqualified under the scheme is a removed person. They should not be able to lose one title and pick up another in a different registered organisation. Australians have seen this movie before. The official moves sideways, and the letterhead changes, but the same habits continue. Closing that gap is common sense. Opponents will say this is an attack on the union movement. It's not. It's an attack on the idea that a union official is above the ordinary rules of accountability. A clean union does not need a five-year maximum written into the administration scheme. The people who need the cap are the people bringing the union movement into disrepute. There is a reason this debate keeps coming back to the construction industry. That industry is large, mobile, cash heavy and politically connected. When a union in that sector goes rotten, the damage is not theoretical. It shows up on sites, in subcontracting chains, in safety culture and in the cost of public works. Administration was the admission that self-correction had failed. This bill is the admission that the tools given to the administrator were still too small for the scale of the corruption. Disqualification for 'any period' simply matches the seriousness of the problem the parliament already recognised when it put the division into administration. If Labor and the crossbench are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU construction division, they will not defend a five-year sunset clause for the worst cases. The members who wanted a lawful union deserve that much as do the contractors who wanted to finish a job without looking over their shoulder and the public that are still paying for the mess. This bill is common sense, and if Labor want to show that they care about their base they should vote for this measure to strengthen a clean union movement. Or is it Labor's new modus operandi to forget the working class and cosy up to the inner-city elites? 10:05 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise in support of this very important bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, put forward by Senator Hume. Those opposite continue to claim that any move to clean up corrupt and criminal union behaviour is union bashing while completely ignoring the allegations made against the CFMEU and the person at the centre of Senator Hume's bill, John Setka. Yesterday in question time we had a flippant offhand comment from Minister Walsh, who said that we couldn't handle the truth on this side of the chamber. I responded that we actually can. We've been asking for the truth but we are yet to hear it. We are yet to hear why those opposite continue to run a protection racket for the corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU. Five times I have brought to this chamber a proposal for a Senate inquiry to investigate just that, and five times those opposite—shamefully—have rejected that proposal. I was told that one of the reasons initially was that my inquiry was to examine corrupt and criminal conduct in the CFMEU and that I was blithely ignoring the fact that there were corrupt organisations within the construction sector. So I changed the terms of my inquiry to make it about corruption in construction across the board. I don't care whether you're a union official. I don't care whether you run a construction company. I don't care whether you're a contractor. I don't care who you are. If you are running a corrupt business, if you are doing something that is illegal, if you are using taxpayer funds to line your own pockets then I want you out of there. And I can't understand why those opposite would want anything different, particularly when it comes to union worker funds lining those same pockets of those corrupt and criminal actors. Why are you okay for that to happen? Why are you okay for that to continue? John Setka should never again be permitted to hold membership of the CFMEU, not in five years, not in eight years, not in 10 years—never, never again. He was not some incidental figure at the edge of what went wrong; he was one of the main characters, if not the main character, at the epicentre of what has been going on here. Under the Setka regime, a union that should have existed to protect working people has become synonymous with intimidation, criminal infiltration, corruption and the theft of taxpayer funds—the theft of funds that hardworking Australians pay to government in taxes. And we cannot pretend the problem disappears simply because corrupt or discredited officials are removed from one union only to resurface under another union banner. We are already seeing the former CFMEU officials find new homes elsewhere in the union movement, including within the ETU. That is why this clean-up cannot simply be a game of a temporary sin-bin or musical chairs. If we are serious, genuinely serious, about breaking the networks that allowed this culture to flourish then we must stop its architects and its enforcers from simply changing the logo on their shirt or the place where they're working and carrying on as before. John Setka should be banned from the CFMEU for life, and anyone found to have participated in serious corruption or criminal conduct should have no pathway back to power through another registered organisation. Why do we not all agree to that? What is it in there that is so controversial? But these aren't just my concerns. It is not just those on this side of the chamber making these statements. Concerns have been raised by the Fair Work Commission's general manager, Murray Furlong, about the infiltration of organised crime networks on Victoria's Metro Tunnel, North East Link and Suburban Rail Loop—taxpayer funded projects. It was reported by the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald that the former CFMEU assistant secretary in Victoria, Derek Christopher, received an estimated $200,000 in free labour and supply from major building companies. We could investigate that in a certain inquiry, but this chamber won't allow it. Those opposite—the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens—will not allow it. Again, the Age and the SMH reported that business consultant Harry Korras claimed he could funnel large cash payments and regular kickbacks to his friends in the CFMEU in return for work on major construction sites. So to get a job on a CFMEU-controlled site, you just hand over a bit of cash and you're all sorted. It's not about the best value for money for the Australian taxpayer but about who's changing funds with whom. Mick Gatto was allegedly collecting retainers from builders to help prevent CFMEU shutdowns and disputes. So either you hand over some cash to these guys or they're going to find a problem on your site, shut you down, make sure you can't operate, force you to lose money on your site, bring you to your knees—unless you hand the cash over. I'd like to see a stop to that. But I'd also like to understand why those opposite are happy for it to continue. I'd like to understand why the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens are happy for it to continue on Australian construction sites. Former organiser John Perkovic received at least $1 million in benefits through property transactions and benefits from construction businesses, including building work, vehicles and other payments. Where did that $1 million come from? It came from the Australian taxpayer and from CFMEU members, because the CFMEU doesn't have its own money; it gets it from its members. In the Watson report there are a series of allegations in relation to John Setka, and I'm going to share them with you so you can again have a think about what we are allowing to continue, what those opposite are allowing to continue. The Watson report alleges that John Setka was personally corrupt, that he transformed the CFMEU into a criminal organisation with systemic extortion and violence, including violence against women, as well as EBA manipulation and ghost shifts. Have a think about that. This is who those on the other side of the chamber are protecting. Watson also alleged that Setka had a close relationship with underworld figure Mick Gatto, that he concealed many of his property development interests and that an EBA pay-to-play game evolved under Setka. So either you enter into an EBA ticked off by the CFMEU or you can't work on those sites; your business cannot operate. Yet we stand here and pretend there's nothing wrong. You want to know why Australians are angry? It's because of things like this, where everyone is happy to sit silently and pretend that this isn't happening. I've not had one person look up from the other side of the chamber and even look at me as I speak, because nobody wants to know about this. I am sick and tired of being unable to help the people ringing my office and sending me emails about what they are going through—the women who are subjected to violence and sexual harassment. These are people who are afraid for their families, and there are those who have spoken up and can no longer get work because they've been shut out, and they are losing their homes. These are real people who are impacted by this corrupt and criminal conduct. And some of us sit here and pretend it's not happening. Well, we don't; we're fighting. Senator Hume is fighting, I'm fighting, those in the coalition are fighting and some of the crossbench are fighting for Australians who deserve much better than that. So why do we want to ban Setka and others like him for longer periods of time? In my view, the bans should be for life. But we should also ban them from other unions for life. I'll use the example of the ETU. The ETU is not some unrelated white-collar organisation on the other side of the economy; it represents electrical workers operating through many of the same major construction projects. We want to stop the same playbook that has rankled the CFMEU—Geoffrey Watson has said it was transformed from a union for its workers into a criminal organisation—from being deployed into other unions, like the ETU, as it should be. CFMEU and ETU officials have spent years operating alongside one another within the Victorian construction movement, and there is nothing inherently improper about their working together. There's nothing wrong with that. But it means the institutional relationships, workplaces and membership networks necessary to rebuild and prevent industrial influence by bad actors already exist. You can just take them out of one and plug and play into the other. The Victorian ETU publicly defended Setka during the 2019 controversy and called on Anthony Albanese to abandon his effort to remove him from the Labor Party. Have a think about that. That's strong influence. In 2021, the ETU again publicly expressed support for Setka and the Victorian CFMEU following the attack on the CFMEU officers. That just gives us a little bit more to think about. During my campaign—over what is the best part of a year now—for a Senate inquiry into the corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU and corruption in construction, you might not be surprised to hear that I've also received a number of threats, personally. I won't even go into the disgusting messages that I've received. Some of the comments describe me as antiworker. No, I'm not, actually; I've been a worker my whole life. I've worked since I was 18 years old. I'm anticorruption; that's what I am. I'm not antiworker. I'm anti organised crime infiltrating our worksites, and I'm anti organised crime making our housing crisis even worse. I'm anti the fear of our young people that they can never own their own home and wondering why. A Fair Work commissioner told me to my face in estimates that between 15 and 30 per cent is the increased cost of construction, because of this type of conduct. I'm often told, 'You don't know what you're talking about.' 'This dumb'—and then an expletive-laden descriptor—'doesn't even know that the CFMEU doesn't build houses.' I know CFMEU doesn't build houses; I know that they build residential units. I also know that the 'pay to play' EBAs bring up the costs on construction sites that flow on through the broader economy and make it more expensive to build houses. These are all things that are true, and these are all things that the people in this room could put a stop to or help put a stop to. I would like to know why we are not. Finally, I am anti taxpayer funds lining the pockets of criminals. I have almost 57,000 people who have signed my petition to support a Senate inquiry. I just need the people on the other side of the chamber to listen to them. (Time expired) 10:20 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I'm going to start where Senator Kovacic finished. Fifty-seven thousand people, Senator Kovacic—that's an impressive number of people who are concerned. In one sense, it should be 25 million signatures because that's who should be concerned about— Senator Kovacic 306168 Give me time. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I will give you time, Senator Kovacic. That's the number of people who should be concerned about the impact of corruption on our construction industry. As Senator Kovacic so rightly said—though those opposite don't want to admit to it—those on this side of the chamber have no truck with illegality or corruption, no matter where it sits in the construction industry. If it sits with companies, they should be prosecuted and thrown out of the industry. If it sits with unions, they should be prosecuted and thrown out of the industry. If it sits with ministers in government, then they should be prosecuted and thrown out of parliament. The fact is corruption is a cancer on our society and our economy. We have seen the evidence of the impact of the CFMEU on state budgets particularly, where we see a 30 per cent price premium for CFMEU involved contracts—government contracts. That is an extra 30 per cent that the Australian taxpayer is having to find. Now, I can tell you there are a lot of small businesses out there who would love to be able to put their margins up by 30 per cent—they would absolutely love to. It might mean they could actually take some pay home. But they can't. But, when the CFMEU is involved, suddenly 30 per cent more comes straight out of taxpayers funds into the pockets of corrupt union officials. This is not the way this country should operate. This is not the way. Anyone who wants to defend the union movement, anyone who wants unions to be a part of our civil society should be more outraged about this than perhaps I am. I think there is an inherent problem with the way a lot of unions operate, not just the CFMEU. It's all about being a closed shop, it's about control and it's about coercion. The CFMEU has clearly taken that to a different level and clearly a level where corruption and organised crime has infected an entire industry. It particularly seems so in Victoria, though what's coming out of the inquiry in Queensland is, to be honest, just as shocking. So you have to wonder whether it's not everywhere— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Brockman, your time has expired. My apologies; I didn't give you forewarning. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 13 MOTIONS Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 13 10:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senators Canavan, Shoebridge, David Pocock, Thorpe, Roberts and Payman, move: We move—That the Senate: (a) notes that today marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report, yet many veterans and their families continue to face barriers to accessing timely care and support; and (b) calls on the Albanese Government to urgently implement evidence-based policies and action the accepted recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, recognising that further delay is placing veterans' lives and wellbeing at risk. It's been two years since the royal commission handed down their seven-volume report—two years since thousands of Australian veterans and their families went before the commissioners, reliving their trauma again and having to tell their stories again to share with the Australian people the terrible harm that was done to them by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Defence. Once again, I thank them for their courage, especially the mothers like Julie-Ann Finney, who is in the chamber today, and of course my very dear friend and a former veteran himself, Andrew Wilkie from the other place. I am also very sad to find out that we lost another veteran, a former 3RAR, over the weekend—my love and condolences to the family. Once again, I see Defence and DVA still not keeping up with veteran suicide. They can't tell us a number. They're not interested. Well, you should be interested because the reason that they are taking their lives has usually got something to do with yourselves. In this interim report, Commissioner Kaldas called out Defence, who were refusing to hand over documents—and still don't hand over documents. He also said that cultural problems still exist in Defence and that barely a week goes by without the inquiry being alerted to another veteran suicide. The unfortunate thing is we seem to be going back to those days. Commissioner Kaldas also said; All of this raises questions as to whether Defence is committed to making change in the best interests of its members or whether they're just going through the motions. Yes. I'm sorry to tell the former commissioner, but it looks like we're going through the motions still. In terms of Defence, I can tell you they are still, like I said, going through the motions. We've had multiple reports over the years about the levels of sexual assault in our military and the lack of actions to pursue perpetrators and protect victims. The government and Defence have still done nothing to make real change. I'll be bringing a bill to this place in October that will change the way sexual assault allegations are actually dealt with, and I would encourage the government to support my bill. I was in Townsville earlier this year visiting the veterans and their associations. I hoped that I would hear that claims processing was speeding up and that veterans were getting a fair hearing. After two days I found myself bursting into tears in Townsville, wondering what the hell I've been doing up here for 10 years. I really did. It broke my bloody heart that they had to go and relive their stories. They were brave enough and had the courage to do that, and we seem to be trickling along after the royal commission. We're two years in after the royal commission, and we're going backwards again—nothing to see here. Well, I'd remind you I have five years left in this place, and, if you don't start pulling up your socks, I'll be in here every day stopping parliament until it's done, because one of us is going to get annoyed and it won't be me. I've got plenty of resilience. Like I said, I've got five years left, so start changing! Start changing! DVA put on more staff when the royal commission was still going on. Claims were getting processed faster, but once again we're going backwards. It's gotten even worse. Five months after Townsville, about six weeks ago, I was in Brisbane hearing from doctors who weren't being paid for reports that the DVA were already using. Well, I find that plain theft, and that is unconscionable. That is absolutely unconscionable. I bet you still have not paid these doctors for those reports, because you are weaving me. You are avoiding me like nothing else I've seen. You pay those doctors for those reports! You are shameful! Some of those doctors have thousands on their books, and you know why? It's because they understand veterans. That's why we go to them. They have an interest in dealing with us. Not every GP or specialist out there wants to deal with us. That's fine. That is their call, but there are plenty that still do. When they do, with the limited number that we have, they've got thousands of us on their books. I heard from advocates that claims were slowing, and I was hearing from veterans that some providers and advocates were ripping them off. But, instead of coming down hard on the providers, the department has taken it out on the veterans like it's our fault. We're wearing it because you won't do your job properly. I suggest you look at your security team. That'd be you, Mr Kefford. That'd be you because you have suicide on your conscience, mate. You're going after the wrong people, Kefford! You're going after the wrong people! Leave us alone! In the 2026 budget, the government announced the $5,000 cap on veterans' allied health care, which includes neuropsychology, exercise physiology physiotherapy, podiatry, just to name a few. The reason we have health supports is to help veterans like me get back on their feet so we can return to the workforce. It helps with our mental health if we are still being productive within our country. I don't think you're getting that point. You should be throwing everything you can at us, especially if we haven't been written off, to keep us in the workforce because we need it. We need it. We need it so we feel wanted, not like we're just thrown out of the military and that's the end of us. I issued a media release on budget night raising serious concerns about the $5,000 cap. I was told by the minister's office that there was no problem with the cap. I think we all know there is a massive problem with the cap, and capping health care for Australians who have signed up to serve their country is just disgusting. It's disgusting that you are now capping veterans' health care. Go after others but leave the veterans alone. It's just another hurdle of bureaucracy that we don't need when we are down and out. We don't need it. We don't want it. Go and take it out on someone else but leave us alone. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide happened because of advocacy that started in the 1970s from our beloved Vietnam veterans when they started drawing chalk outlines of bodies outside the Department of Veterans' Affairs. My God, it's 55 years later and suicides are building back up again. Seriously, you have no conscience. When he handed down his report, Commissioner Kaldas told Australia, 'Australia cannot afford for this royal commission final report to end up on the shelf gathering dust.' If the government want to stop veteran suicides, they need to move faster, they need to move much faster and they need to crack down on the dodgy providers. And they need to stop dealing with veterans as if they are trying to leech off the system. Veterans don't leech off the system. The government need to remember that the key recommendation for the prevention of suicide was timely access to health care—timely access. The $5,000 cap flies directly in the face of that. The Prime Minister needs to scrap the cap and get on to putting recommendations into place because, I can assure you, I am on your tail, and it is only going to get worse from here on in if things don't move. We'll go back to the good old days where we are naming and shaming. You want to come after us veterans? Then I'll switch it back around and, like I said, we'll go back to the good old days—the naming and shaming will begin. The world is in a very dangerous place, and that means we need our Australian Defence Force to be in as good shape as it can possibly be, because God only knows when we're going to be called up again the way things are going. But if we aren't looking after our veterans before, during or after their service then I have to say: how can you expect them to keep serving us? How can I possibly keep standing here without saying, 'Please don't let your children enlist until the problem is fixed?' Because that is going to hurt your recruiting, especially if I start driving it home. Start making change. Start putting the veterans first. And, Defence, you're just as bad. The more generals you put on, the worse those diggers get treated. That's how it works—too much top echelon, too many chiefs, not enough Indians. You're looking after yourselves. You throw us on the scrap pile and then you throw us out to a system that is still not working, like we are no responsibility of yours anymore. Well, I'll tell you what: this has gone wrong because you should have more responsibility to do more inside before you throw us out, and I do not see you even trying. There's been no lift. There's been no change. You throw us out like we're garbage and put us into the hands of a bureaucracy that we still can't find our way through and where we've got to wait for our claims for over a year, two years, three years. Do you know what the easiest thing Veterans' Affairs could do is? If you knocked 30 per cent of those claims out and just said, 'That's it; we're accepting them,' my goodness me, not only would that take the pressure off your delegates—maybe they could reset and then keep up with the claims. But you are going to have to do bigger than putting a 5K cap on us. It's not good enough. So come up and work out a way you can write 30 per cent and just get it over and done with, because you are not catching up. You have moral issues still going in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I can assure you, because the public servants are coming at me left, right and centre. It is not good enough. You have something wrong with the top echelon of your Department of Veterans' Affairs. Maybe the people that have been sitting in there for God knows how many years, since right before this royal commission, who are still at the top, making decisions about our lives and still taking us out, should no longer be there. You would have thought that, after a royal commission, we would have had a clean sweep and you would have said: 'Well, you people at the top of DVA have caused enough problems. You're out.' By the way, what they should have done was be decent people and put in their resignations. They are the problem and so is your security. They are getting it wrong once again, and you are going around it. You are going after the wrong people. You go after the providers—be my guest. But for us who have to deal with you—us with claims in—leave us alone. You are putting pressure on us, and that 5K is enough to send someone for whom that is their last straw to say, 'I'm done.' Just that little thing is enough, and then it's 'I'm done'. You're still not getting that. I suggest you get off your bottoms and stop speaking to ESO Round Table, which, by the way, is not representing my generation or the ones below me. You put those people on ESORT because they're little 'yes' people that go, 'Yes, okay,' but they're not fighting for my generation. Where's our chance at that table? Where are the people representing us? Enough of the comfortable zone in there. Do you want to hear the real problems? Do you want to hear what we're feeling? Well, maybe you need to put us at the table. We've had enough. I've been saying that about the ESORT for a long time. I've had enough. Putting out a press release, ESORT, is not getting the job done. You're not running ads in papers to help us. You're not out there on social media with half a million people or close to a million people on there. You don't have that. You're not representing us. So either get off the goddamn table, or I'll push you out eventually. That's where I am with ESORT. 10:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government is pleased to support the motion moved by Senator Lambie. I acknowledge Senator Lambie's contribution on these issues over many years in this parliament. Today, of course, marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its final report, and that royal commission was the most significant and most comprehensive inquiry conducted into suicide and suicidality in Defence and veteran communities. And I acknowledge those in the gallery, as Senator Lambie did, including Julie-Ann Finney, who fought so hard for that commission to be established. The royal commission heard harrowing evidence from thousands of currently and formerly serving Defence members and their families and, in particular, the families of those who are no longer here to speak for themselves. We thank all of those who came forward and bravely told their story to the royal commission. Your courage and the royal commission's work direct the necessary change that is needed to save lives. We heard of systems that were broken, of a culture that was toxic and that simply not enough was being done to support Aussie personnel in and following service. The final report of the royal commission was a historic opportunity to deliver lasting reform and support our defence personnel, our veterans and their families. The evidence we heard should have left no-one in this place in any doubt that there was need of great reform, and the government, since we came to office, has been working every day to deliver real and meaningful and enduring reform for defence personnel, veterans and families. On this anniversary we note that we had implemented 32 of the recommendations at the end of last year and we will have implemented two-thirds of recommendations by the end of this year. We have taken action on some of the most important recommendations from the royal commission, including establishing a new defence and veterans service commission that will improve independent oversight and evidence based advice to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the defence and veteran community. The new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency has been up and running since 1 July this year and is better supporting veterans and families. Just last week we announced that Natasha Stott Despoja AC has been appointed deputy commissioner of the independent Defence and Veterans' Service Commission to lead the inquiry into military sexual violence recommended by the royal commission. Today we announced that the Albanese Labor government will go further and implement even more of the recommendations of the royal commission. We always viewed our response as a starting point, not the end of the work. It's why we've continued to examine the recommendations from the commission, strengthening our response as further work has identified a way forward. The Albanese government has now updated the response to 15 recommendations. There are now a total of 113 recommendations which have been agreed or agreed in principle by the government, with a further eight recommendations to be noted. We are continuing to implement the recommendations from the royal commission at pace. Before this place, there are two bills that together implement 20 recommendations and support a further 20. I encourage everyone in this place to work together to ensure the passage of those bills to continue to implement these important recommendations. Of course, in coming to government, we have also needed to fund and fix a broken system. Since day one, we've worked to improve the lives of defence personnel, veterans and families with significant funding increases. This was well overdue. The state of veterans funding when we came to office was a disgrace. Under the previous government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was underfunded and underresourced, and this did mean that veterans were not getting access to the services and supports that they need and absolutely deserve. We have been working to rebuild things ever since. Everybody knows there was a backlog of 42,000 new veteran claims that had not been looked at by anybody in DVA under the previous government. As a direct result of the funding by our government of additional DVA staff in the 2022-23 budget, we cleared that shameful backlog. We have continued to properly resource DVA so the funding for health care, support and compensation that veterans need and deserve can get to them faster. The past three years have seen record claims processing by DVA. Determinations increased 42 per cent, from 62,583 in 2022-23 to 88,911 in 2025-26. Initial liability condition determinations have increased 123 per cent, from 106,667 to 238,389. In 2025-26, DVA determined a bit over 238,000 initial liability conditions, and that is the highest number on record. Each of these decisions represents a formal determination about a veteran's health condition and opens the door to treatment. Approximately $15 billion was spent on payments and services for over 360,000 veterans and their families in 2025-26. That is some $5 billion more than four years ago, under the Morrison government. Our changes, our investments in system capacity, are seeing resources flow to veterans as they should. Our changes included around $10 billion in compensation payments and a further $5 billion in healthcare treatment being paid out. We continue to progress these recommendations. We're not only better funding veteran support; we have made once-in-a-century changes to simplify veterans entitlements legislation and improve integrity in the system, and we are taking a holistic wellbeing support approach to supporting veterans and their families. From 1 July this year, the most significant reform to Australian veteran support systems in generations began. The royal commission told us. They found that the previous veterans legislation system was so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and can be a contributing factor to suicidality. The changes to the veteran support system that came into effect on 1 July this year simplified the veterans compensation system. We want to support people. Of course we do. We have deep respect for the veterans who pulled on a uniform and served our country. Anyone who puts on that uniform in our name deserves nothing less. Those who serve in our ADF and their families should be confident that they will be well supported by their leaders, by their mates and in the broader defence and veteran community, both during their time in service and following. it. And Australia's personnel should be safe in the knowledge that, whatever happens in service, they and their families will be looked after and acknowledged by a grateful nation. There is more work to do, but our government takes this work seriously, and we do so because of our deep respect, our deep gratitude and our deep belief in the service that is offered by veterans to their country. 10:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We're winning. On this issue, we are winning, thanks to the veterans who are standing up. Thank you so much. You are winning. I'm honoured to support you. I'm honoured to sign this motion from Senator Lambie. Minister, you opened the door, and I thank you for that. But at the moment they're only words, and words mean nothing. It's the intent. You can talk about spending billions of dollars, but it's the intent and the efficiency with which it's spent. The backlog of claims under your government has increased. Veteran suicides remain so high that government action cannot wait another day. We need to see concrete details. How many vets need to die? I'm feeling a mixture of feelings at the moment, which I'll get onto in a minute. But let me just read into the Hansard clause (a) of Senator Lambie's motion that I co-signed: notes that today marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report, yet many veterans and their families continue to face barriers to accessing timely care and support That's one reason I signed this. And I have a mixture of feelings. I'm feeling afraid for the vets who are hanging by a thread. I'm feeling downright angry at the same time. I'm feeling sad, I'm feeling grief and I'm feeling shame—shame that we're part of a parliament that has a history of ignoring veterans. I have all those feelings. But I can't help the depth of the feelings in veterans at the moment. What do they need? What do we need? We need justice. We're not getting it. We need fairness. We need truth and honesty—not getting it. And veterans need to be heard. The fact that you've accepted this motion and allowed it by leave means we're winning and we are getting to the point where you are acknowledging indirectly that you're listening or that you've heard. This Labor government, like the coalition before it, has taken the position of treating veterans with disrespect and abuse and has failed to provide them with the support they deserve. Why? Because your government is under pressure—self-inflicted pressure: your waste, hypocrisy, deceit. Everyone in Australia can feel the pressure—through inflation, through skimping of services—but we don't need to include the veterans in that, and that's what we're doing. Your self-inflicted waste of taxpayer funds leaves you with the shortage. Now you're penny pinching—the cap comes in, the spending on DVA decreases this year and then increases in the future—because you've got budget pressures that are self-inflicted. Why should the vets pay for that? Why? Placing a cap on allied health care will reduce the vital care that many veterans need and deserve. Why should travel be part of the cap? We've got Mr Farley in the lower house, representing Farrer, saying that a big portion of the cap is chewed up in his electorate by travel. Why should travel be included? But there are so many other things that I'll talk about in a minute. Veterans have served their country at massive personal risk and massive personal cost. Yet, upon their return or discharge from service, they've been ignored and hurt by this Labor government's penny pinching in the knowledge that their actions abandon their vets. You know this is going on—or maybe you don't, because listening is not one of your strengths. Is it deliberate? Is it incompetence? Is it dishonesty? Is it fear—running away from issues? The three keys that mark this Albanese Labor government, in my opinion, are dishonesty—we were able to use the word 'lies', but we're not allowed to now—waste and hypocrisy. Last week, I had the pleasure and the honour of joining Wounded Heroes in Townsville—a support group that's received no Commonwealth funding despite the valuable support they've provided and continue to provide for our vets. They're a crisis intervention centre. A veteran calls and says he or she hasn't got a home. They need medical treatment, they're about to commit suicide or they talk about one of their mates. Wounded Heroes springs into action. They receive no government funding. They raise money through their own business and through donations. I must give them a plug for the marvellous work they do and point out that they've got a fundraising event at Castle Hill in Townsville on the 20th of this month. Government, you're wasting billions, and you're not concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw—Martin turned away from a career as a merchant banker in which he could have made millions, because he was so concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw; Dave, their manager; the volunteers in their businesses; the volunteers in their op shops—what an amazing group of people. That's what I call commitment and service. It was so refreshing to meet retired Lieutenant General Greg Bilton. He's retired, and he's volunteering as the chairman of Wounded Heroes. His eyes were alight as he discussed his love for the military, his love for veterans and the fact that he's got something really important to do in his life. But the government doesn't help Wounded Heroes. It does not help Wounded Heroes at all. It's so refreshing to hear Greg Bilton talking about the inadequacies of the DVA and the inadequacies of the top brass of our military. And there's some sadness, but he's alive because he knows he's contributing. Associated services like Veterans First Consulting—and Kevin Chapman, who I met—are such wonderful people. They're data driven. Speaking of being data driven, I've just come from Senator Whitten's office, where we've got two representatives from Trojan's Trek, Dan and Tim. They're pushing an evidence based approach to caring for veterans and providing them with the necessary mental and physical health support. Evidence based! That's something I've noticed so much with veterans. As I've said before in the Senate, the best conversations I've had since being a senator have been with veterans. They're disciplined and self-disciplined, they can use data, they can speak profoundly well and they're just basically marvellous people. Trojan's Trek showed me graphs with data backing them that shows they are indeed taking an evidence based approach. Dan, as he's talking to me about his own condition, tells me he was told he'd never walk again, but watching a young lady in the gym pounding through weights inspired him, and he's now living a normal life, but he's got the evidence. Trojan's Trek is having success but no funding. So many veterans organisations are having success with no funding. Ongoing veteran care is disgracefully underresourced. It's a blight on the Labor-Liberal coalition uniparty. When they're in opposition, they promise all the support for veterans. 'It's a really shameful approach to the veterans,' they say the government is taking. But then when they get into government they don't do anything, correct? They hide, and they forced veterans to jump through hoops to access care for service related injuries and conditions. That's cruel and heartless. We can have veterans coming up against their allied healthcare cap in a matter of five months into the new financial year, and then they stop. This is what they're afraid of. They stop, and that interrupts their healing, especially if it's a mental health treatment, and they fall backwards. This Labor government's approach and the coalition's approach before it are a contributing factor to serious mental health issues for many of our returned servicemen and servicewomen. They deserve far better. Action needs to be taken now. Stop the delays. Cut the red tape. Cut the crap, and support these vets now by adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This is not only affecting the vets who have returned from service or been discharged from service. This is affecting the future service of the Defence Force in this country. It's dramatically affecting retention and recruitment, because it's eroding the concept of mateship, which is the strategically most important concept in the Australian Defence Force. It's not just the future of the ADF that's at stake here. It's the security of 28 million Australians who rely on the ADF for their security. Right now, the Chinese Communist Party would be watching. They can see what I can see. They can see what Senator Lambie can see. They can see what so many veterans can see—the deterioration of our armed forces under the current top brass. They're spending money for DEI initiatives, money for woke policies, money for transgender. You can't change gender, but here we are. We're getting people are getting paid to change gender or claim they're changing gender and paying for dresses for them. These are warriors. They cannot change their sex. No-one can change their sex. This is happening for two reasons. The senior brass has been politicised, and the senior brass—the defence department, the politicians in Labor and Liberal who've been defence ministers and the senior brass‑is weak, not providing the right leadership. Right now on the other side of the Pacific in the United States, we've got an administration that's calling its soldiers warriors. It's going well for the members of the military. I'm going to read clause B, the second clause of Senator Lambie's motion, 'calls on the Albanese government to urgently implement evidence-based'—your veterans are doing it—'policies and action the accepted recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, recognising that further delay is placing veterans' lives and wellbeing at risk'. This is not too much to ask. This is basic respect for veterans who have treated our country with respect. In concluding, I take it that, because you've accepted this motion, you can see the vets have really put on a very, very strong case in the last few months, and we're proud to support them. It's the least we can do. Veterans, you're winning because these people are allowing us to speak. 10:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to support this motion by Senator Lambie and again thank Senator Lambie for ensuring that veterans and protection and support for veterans are not forgotten in this place. It has been two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its final report, and yet we know that despite some actions from the government many veterans and their families continue to face those real barriers to get the support they need and the services they need. I'm not going to pretend that the government has done nothing, because that wouldn't be fair. The government has gone some way to implement elements of the royal commission report. There's another bill, implementation bill No. 2, that is waiting for this parliament to pass it. We've been having productive conversations with the government, and we would like to see that passed with improvements as soon as we can. This is true. I've also seen the coalition come in here and One Nation come in here and rant about this issue, and some of the complaints are legitimate. But I don't recall One Nation ever testing the coalition on the coalition's appalling failure to deal with veterans in the previous parliaments. They just seemed to be completely silent. This outrage that we hear—some genuine, some confected—suggesting that this is all the Labor Party's failure is just historically false. The coalition were appalling in their treatment of veterans. They left tens of thousands of veterans waiting for years to get a basic determination about liability. They refused to fund the department, and because of this people in the department were having a meltdown—incredible stress, incredible pressure, big staff turnover. That meant veterans weren't getting the services they needed. That's the coalition's record in this space. For them to come in here as though they're some white knights concerned about veterans is such a false narrative. And I say again, while that was happening to veterans, I saw Senator Lambie challenge it. I saw Senator Lambie take it on and raise the issues, but I never once heard One Nation do it. I never once heard them do it. They come in here now and say they've always been on the side of veterans. Well, actually, there is something called truth, and there is something called history. What they now say is just not true. It's convenient for them because they now realise that there's some political point to be made, and I think some of their motivations are genuine. But look at the history. When veterans needed support, when the coalition was dudding them—basic silence. I'm going to highlight again that Senator Lambie was the one. I'm sick of this ahistorical view from the coalition and One Nation. Veterans watching this are working with whoever they can work with to try and get this sorted. That's what veterans are doing. They'll work with whoever will be in their corner in this moment. I'm sure veterans must feel this. They know that they were betrayed by the coalition for years. They know that One Nation didn't give a rat's about them for years, never even saw them. The reason veterans are working with these parties is not because there's some kind of natural affinity; it's just because Labor has been hopeless on this cap thing and damaging veterans. Veterans are not political pawns. Their needs, their rights and their family's rights should be a rock-solid space. It shouldn't be about whether it's politically convenient or not to support veterans. I'll be quite frank about it as the Greens spokesperson for veterans; we don't do this because we think there are a whole raft of veterans who are suddenly going to be voting for the Greens. We do a lot of work in my office for veterans. I want to really call out the work of my team who are doing work that none of us see, that none of you see: responding to emails, responding to complaints, getting veterans the healthcare they need, responding to it in bulk. We don't do that because we think it's some kind of convenient political play. All of that work is happening with my team, and I'm going to give a shout out to Gigi and my team—amazing work—because this stuff matters and because veterans matter. Their health matters. Responding to them and getting them timely treatment matters. To see the way the politics plays out on this—I understand why veterans are doing this, because how else do you get heard in this place? How else do you get seen? How else do you get protected? With that said, I want to be clear that the Greens are supporting this motion because the guts of it is to respond to the royal commission—implement the royal commission. It's the right thing to do. It's just the right thing to do. When that royal commission handed down its final report documenting the deep cultural issues within Defence and the devastating impact they had on veterans and families, and I remember the discussion here, I thought that maybe we kind of collectively got it—that, when you read the report that found that an average of 78 serving or former ADF members have died by suicide each year for the 10 years leading up to that report, maybe this place got it. Maybe we don't have to keep revisiting the toxic politics. Maybe it's actually just core support for veterans—like there should be core support for people on the NDIS and core support for people who need mental health treatment in Medicare. That core support thing I thought was the new bedrock. The royal commission said that's it's not all just Labor's fault. It's not all just the government of the day's fault. It also spoke about what's happening inside the ADF—that code of silence, military values, shutting down, silence. The royal commission found that that was directly linked to suicide risk inside the ADF, and it said that Defence leadership should be held to account. Two years on, can you point to a single senior member of Defence leadership who's been held to account—anyone who's been marched out because they haven't got it? We keep getting the reports because the kind of toxic leadership that was identified by the royal commission is still there. It's absolutely still there. If the government was true to the royal commission, they would have marched some of this toxic leadership out of their offices and they would have said, 'You don't have a job anymore because you don't get it and you're putting serving members of the ADF at risk.' The royal commission said that there needs to be systemic cultural change and there needs to be things to deal with trauma, the inevitable trauma that comes from service. There's literally no other job that I'm aware of where, when you take on board the job, your employer is willing to kill you. That is the thing about Defence. There is no other job that has that associated with it. And, when you have that as a job, you're going to inevitably have trauma associated with it, and you're going to have to have rules and controls that make that an acceptable thing inside an organisation. And what we found from the royal commission is that actually creates harm and creates trauma and that there should be changes in how that trauma is dealt with. Let's be frank. If that's always going to be a part of working for the ADF—your employer is always going to be willing to kill you—and that's always going to create trauma, is it any wonder that veterans need help and support? And what does Labor do in that place? I'll tell you what Labor does. Having said that they get it, having put that first recommendation through, they then come and want to get a three-quarters of a billion dollars budget saving by removing existing support from veterans in allied and health care. How do these two things sit together? The royal commission says veterans need more support—they need more timely support—and their families need support, and Labor now says, 'Well, actually, once you hit $5,000 of physio or once you hit $5,000 of psych, we're going to put you through some torturous internal process in veterans' affairs where you may get further service, and we're going to structure this process in such a way that we're going to have three-quarters of a billion dollars in budget savings.' And that's now apparently good for veterans. Again, it's no secret that my party, the Greens, thinks we should not be spending 47 billion dollars on building six under-gunned useless frigates that are already out of date and will be even more out of date by the time they're launched in the mid-2030s. It's no secret that we think that that is a crooked, corrupt, rotten deal and it should end now. What we would say is: 'Why don't you cancel Nos 3, 4 and 5 of those useless frigates and pay for veterans' physios? Why don't you just cancel one of the bloody frigates, the $9 billion white elephants?' Do white elephants float? I don't know if white elephants float. Why don't we just cancel one of those useless frigates that we know won't work and pay for veterans' psych and physio and the needs there? I can tell you, it would cover the entire bloody allied health bill between now and forever—for one of these useless things. Thank you, Senator Lambie, for bringing the motion. That's why we support the motion, not for the shitty politics but because actually, if you ask veterans, if you ask people to serve and do this, you have this rock-solid obligation to support them. 11:10 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia Well, talk about politics! One Nation has always cared about our veterans. We do not see them as a political pawn and take great offence to the suggestion. Since I've been in this place, I have been working hard to help in any way I can, particularly with sovereign capability in estimates. All I hear from Senator Shoebridge is how he can tear the place down. He hates our military. Where do you think the veterans work? Spare me the lecture, Senator. One Nation supports our military and our veterans. Question agreed to. BILLS 20 BILLS Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 20

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

Second Reading 20 11:11 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Handing the eSafety Commissioner the power to demand documents from any person in relation to the social media ban was cause enough for alarm. That power already reached past the platforms; it reached into households. On the face of the drafting, that included children. Isn't all this hoo-ha about protecting the children? When the government amendments came through, I could barely believe my eyes. Those documents demanded the power stay. On top of that, Labor now wants the eSafety Commissioner to be able to summon anyone and question them under oath. That includes our kids who might have snuck around Labor's weak under-16 ban. If someone doesn't want to answer, it's 12 months jail. There's a thousand penalty units or $364,000 fines sitting next to that prison term. This is compulsion backed by criminal law. This is Orwellian. Labor made a hash of the first policy. The under-16 ban was sold as a clean shield for children. Platforms were told to keep kids off. Parents were told Canberra had it in hand. Then the plan met reality. Teenagers worked around the rules. So what does Labor do when the sales pitch fails? It doesn't go back to parents. It doesn't admit that the design was rushed. It demands powers to interrogate anyone who won't play along. The proposed amendments fundamentally change this bill. The chamber isn't being asked to vote on the bill that went to committee. It's being asked to vote on a different instrument—summons, oaths, private examinations, records of those examinations and jail for silence. It shouldn't pass without going back to committee. We can't pretend they scrutinised the power that wasn't in the text when the committee sat. Let's talk about what this bill actually does. Yes, children should be protected online. Of course they should be. Exploitation is real. Criminal abuse is real. Predatory contact is real. One Nation doesn't pretend the internet is harmless. But this bill extends far beyond the remit of looking after kids. It's about power. It's about control. It's about giving government and its regulators more authority over what Australians do, see and say online. We've seen this story before. Governments introduce extraordinary powers and claim they're needed for a narrow purpose. They promise safeguards, then the scope expands. The exceptional becomes the normal. The temporary becomes permanent, and the power gets used for things that were never in the original sales pitch. That's how freedoms disappear—not always overnight but one amendment at a time. These amendments bestow sweeping, enforceable powers on the eSafety Commissioner, including a new examination power to issue a summons to attend. There is a duty to give evidence, a duty to produce documents and a duty to answer questions under oath or affirmation. Examinations can be held in private. A record can be made, and refusing is a crime. Labor have said they will provide immunity from self-incrimination, by applying use immunity to answers and not allowing them to be used in court. It doesn't fix the real problem: the state putting a child, a parent or a political opponent in a room and demanding answers of them under threat of a year in prison. When you strip out the noise, this is about freedom. The under-16 regime already cuts into the rights of parents. Parents, not bureaucrats, know their children. They know their maturity, their circumstances and what's right for their family. A 15-year-old keeping up with sport isn't the same as a 12-year-old being groomed in a chat. This law swaps parental judgement for a national rule. Arm the parents with the tools they need. Labor seem to think Canberra knows better. That's the habit of this government. They trust politicians and bureaucrats more than parents. Now they want to put even more power in the hands of regulators. The eSafety Commissioner was set up to deal with genuine online safety problems: image based abuse, child sexual exploitation and targeted criminal harassment. These are real wrongs, and they deserve a serious look, but we've already seen the eSafety Commissioner engaging in fights over speech and political expression well outside her intended remit. That should be a warning. The parliament needs to sit up and listen. Our overzealous eSafety Commissioner has already been in the courts and the tribunal, trying to police what Australians see and say online, and she hasn't come out of those fights well. She went before the Federal Court to force X to hide the Wakeley church stabbing video from the entire world, not just Australia. Justice Kennett refused to extend the injunction. Geoblocking this country was one thing, but global censorship was a bridge too far. The case was then dropped but not before wasting $60,000 of taxpayer money. She even drew the ire of the United States Congress, and I note this morning that the president is now showing his ire. House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, in a letter seeking her testimony, called her a 'noted zealot for global take-downs'. He said her reading of the Online Safety Act, including extraterritorial reach, threatened American free speech. One of our closest allies looked at an Australian official and saw someone trying to dictate what the rest of the world could watch. That should shame this government. Instead, Labor wants to hand the same office a summons book. She issued a cyberabuse removal notice over a political post by Chris Elston, aka Billboard Chris, about a World Health Organization appointment. The Administrative Review Tribunal set that notice aside. Causing offence isn't the same as intending serious harm. The law required the latter, and she couldn't prove it. Speech that some people find confronting must remain free. She decided Celine Baumgarten's post criticising a primary school 'queer club' wasn't cyberabuse, so she couldn't lawfully order it down. That didn't stop her sending X an informal complaint alert that got the post geoblocked anyway. The tribunal found that step was reviewable. She appealed to the full Federal Court. The full court dismissed her appeal—another $329,000 of taxpayers' money down the proverbial. That's the record—aggressive overreach and lost cases. When the legal test wasn't met, the machinery was used anyway. Informal channels were used when formal power wouldn't stretch, and this bill gives the same office the power to summon under oath, demand documents and threaten 12 months of jail on a refusal to answer—man, woman or child. Labor wants to expand the machinery. That's dangerous because, once a government appointed regulator has broad power over online communication, the question isn't technical anymore. The question is: who decides what Australians are allowed to say? That brings us to Labor's proposed digital duty of care. Labor has flagged forcing platforms and algorithms to prevent or reduce harm. Fine. Define harm. What is it? Who decides? Political disagreement isn't harm. Criticism isn't harm. Holding government to account isn't harm. Satire isn't harm. A parent arguing about what's taught in primary school isn't harm. A woman saying biological sex is real isn't harm. Yes, the government will reach for words like 'manosphere', as if a few billy goats on the internet explain every problem in the country. I have two points. First, the government can't even define 'man 'and 'woman', so it's going to have trouble finding the manosphere. Second, if particular men are threatening, stalking or abusing people, platforms already have rules and the criminal law already has offences. AFP, go out and get them. Will the government and the commissioner go after the toxic femosphere with the same energy? I doubt it. Is toxicity a one-way charge? We've already heard the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications say that this is mostly about children. 'Mostly' is doing a lot of work these days. 'Mostly' keeps the press release clean while the statute runs wider. 'Mostly' is how the child protection argument becomes an information gathering argument, then a summons argument and then a duty of care argument about harm in the adult public square. Labor has already shown its hostility to political opponents. Labor treats One Nation as harmful. We've been called 'dangerous'. We've heard claims that bots and trolls explain our rise even days after a decisive electoral victory in Secret Harbour. It looks like those bots are voting! So forgive us for being sceptical when Labor says it wants to wipe out 'harm'. What happens when they decide criticism of Labor is harmful? What happens when an alternative political movement is tagged as harmful? What happens when a post about immigration, sex, religion, veterans or the cost of living is filed under 'unsafe' because it makes the wrong people uncomfortable? We cannot hand over these subjective definitions with real-life consequences to such highly politicised bureaucrats. Look overseas. In the United Kingdom, people have had police at the door over social media posts and electronic messages. Britain doesn't publish a neat official total labelled 'arrest for a tweet'. Campaign groups and newspapers had to pull the numbers from police forces through freedom of information requests because—surprise, surprise—governments that want to control free speech hate transparency. Figures for 2021 to 2025 found at least 62,000 arrests under communications offences. About 18,500 were charged, and about 12,300 were convicted. Some of those cases will have been genuine threats, but the gap is the point—tens of thousands of arrests with only a fraction ending in conviction. In a free country, arrest is meant to be a step toward proving a crime, not a punishment that does the political work even when the charge later falls over. A knock at the door is enough. A night in custody is enough. After that, a lot of people never post again and self-censoring begins. Once that becomes normal, once everyone knows what could happen, everyone else goes quiet to avoid being next. That should be a warning, not a model. Australia mustn't sleepwalk into a system where a growing bureaucracy decides what its citizens can say online. This isn't the slow creep. Big Brother is watching. It's always for the children. It's always for your safety. Safeguards get promised then drifted so wide they don't constrain the people they were meant to constrain. We cannot replicate the sort of system where people are silenced not always by a conviction in a courtroom but by making the cost of speaking higher than most people will pay. One Nation will not accept that. Australians will not accept that. Of course there are things online that go too far. There are genuine threats. There is criminal abuse. There is exploitation. The criminal law should be used against people who prey on children. I'll go one further. Let's significantly increase the penalty for crimes against children. Let's go after the paedophiles. Our penalties need to be much more severe for those that go online to cause children harm or peddle child abuse material. Lock the paedos up and throw out the key, I say. None of that requires a summons pointed at any person or a year in jail for someone who won't be compelled to answer questions. The answer isn't to hand government sweeping powers over speech and to take control away from parents. Government controlled speech isn't safety— Senator Hanson-Young I0U Do you know that he's accused of using child sexual exploitation material? Senator WHITTEN 317026 Shush! The e-safety government has proven time and time again that they will act out of political interest. If that means silencing free speech, so be it! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Whitten, please take your seat. Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U On a point of order, if Senator Whitten would like me to repeat what I said, for the record, I am willing to. If he's asking me to withdraw something, then he needs to say that. He can't just tell people to shush. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 That's not a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U On a point of order, I would like to put on the record that Senator Whitten is talking about people who have been— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 That's a debating point. Senator WHITTEN 317026 The answer isn't to hand government sweeping powers over speech and take control away from parents. Government controlled speech isn't safety. The eSafety Commissioner has proven time and time again that they will act out of political interests. If that means silencing free speech, so be it. Free speech is the most fundamental right we have. If you can't criticise the government, how do you hold it to account? If you can't challenge the prevailing story, how do you change the country? If you can't speak freely, how do you defend any other freedom? That's why One Nation will always stand for free speech. We'll stand for the right of Australians to debate, disagree, criticise and challenge those in power. Senator WHITTEN 317026 However, we do like a bit of respect when we're standing up talking and not have other people talk over us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Whitten, please be seated for a moment. Senator Hanson-Young, please allow the senator to speak in silence and avoid interjecting. Senator WHITTEN 317026 We'll stand for the rights of parents, and we'll stand against the creep of government authority. Stop pretending that Australians must surrender their freedoms for their own protection. These powers are far too wide. Senator Hanson-Young I0U What about the freedom to choose? Senator WHITTEN 317026 They reach far beyond the people this legislation is supposed to target. Senator Hanson-Young I0U You just want big tech to decide. Senator WHITTEN 317026 They set a dangerous precedent: when a policy doesn't work, the remedy is always more compulsion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Whitten, please take your seat. Senator Green? Senator Green 259819 On a point of order, interjections are disorderly. I know that Senator Hanson-Young is very passionate about this topic, but she should let the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 I've asked Senator Hanson-Young to please refrain from interjecting, and I'll remind her to please allow the senator to be heard in silence. Senator WHITTEN 317026 One Nation will vote against this bill. We will not vote to hand more power to bureaucrats with a penchant for attacking free speech. These laws, along with their amendments, are a sledgehammer looking for free speech—the only way Labor knows how. One Nation will keep fighting these laws and will protect Australians' rights, because the cure for bad speech is more and better speech. 11:27 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We are debating the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 because this government is obsessed with rushing legislation through parliament, even when it comes to our children, before it has been properly debated and worked through. This bill is supposed to strengthen enforcement of the social media minimum age. It is no surprise to me that we are already back here tightening up this legislation because it was so appallingly rushed through the first time around. We didn't even get a proper opportunity to debate it the first time around, because the government guillotined the debate. Karma coming back to bite you, eh? Rushing legislation through parliament does not save time. Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation. It wastes parliament's time because we have to come back and fix what the government should have got right in the first place: 'Instead of wanting to get a headline, we've done something about social media.' It was never going to be enough. I hope the headline was worth our Aussie kids! I would like to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the Australians and parents who have pushed and pushed the government to make social media platforms do the right thing for our children. I would especially like to acknowledge the O'Brien family, who lost their daughter Charlotte, 12, to suicide after relentless bullying on social media. There are many more of those kids, unfortunately. As Charlotte's mum said, the social media ban is a good idea because it gives parents an easy way to talk to their children about the dangers on social media. But kids are getting around it, and once again we are making parents and kids carry the load when the responsibility to make online platforms safer should be laid at the feet of the social media platforms. They design these toxic algorithms that target our children. They are designed to addict our children. We know that in many cases those kids have not even had to try to get around the safety barriers because the safety barriers are never presented to them in the first place. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta—Facebook and Instagram—just paid out $18 billion to stop a lawsuit brought on by 29 US states. He paid money out. You know why, Australia? It's not because he has a conscience—oh no. He doesn't have a conscience. He paid money out because they would end up losing. Ex-Meta employees told the US court that concerns about toxic content were raised repeatedly and ignored because, once again, Zuckerberg has no conscience. You have none. They said: They knew … harm … was happening, but they were telling the world it wasn't. Unconscionable, disgraceful— Senator Hanson-Young I0U Parasites. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Parasites—thank you. This is not about free speech. This is rubbish by One Nation. It's not about free speech. This is about companies who are making products to addict our kids and make money out of. That's what this is about. Are the coalition and One Nation really standing up for the rights of the social media giants now? Is this how bad it has got in the Liberal Party? Is this how lost you are in the system of politics these days? You're not even standing up for our Australian children. Where are their rights? You're hoping this might bring in a bit more cash for you in political donations from the big techs, no doubt. Shame on you. Of course we'll see from the Liberal Party something that says 'we will never take money from big tech'. Let's see what you're made of this morning. Zuckerberg has already agreed to reforms in the US, including safety measures that will no longer be opt-in but default, but these regulations that Meta have put on themselves only apply in the US. As another ex-Facebook employee revealed recently, Meta hunts for new consumers in countries that have few legal standards. Once again, Meta has no social conscience. It has no conscience at all. It hasn't today, it hasn't in the past—and you never will, Zuckerberg. You don't give a stuff about kids. Back in 2024, I asked the minister: what algorithm changes have you told the social media companies to make? That was two years ago, and the government is only now deciding to do something about it—chasing your tail again now it has got more out of control. We could have been dealing with these toxic algorithms in this amendment right now. We could be doing that now—but oh no. If the government had got off its butt and acted back in 2024, our kids would have already been a lot safer online. Instead, we are back here strengthening the commissioner's powers to enforce a social media minimum age. There is no point putting these safeguards in place if social media companies are not required to properly enforce them. We can't keep putting all the responsibility on parents while letting these companies profit off our children. It makes me sick to the gut. The government needs to make sure the ban actually works and that social media platforms face real consequences. They're worth billions. Start fining them in billions. That $18 billion that Meta paid out sounds like a lot of money to many of you out there, but to Meta that amounts to less than a month's worth of revenue while they're destroying your children. Oh yes, they've made money out of your kids. They have no shame. It was announced this week that we will be back again to amend this legislation to deal with the algorithms. You might want to get on this, because the horse is bolting. Big tech companies are not our friends, and neither one of you major parties should be taking political donations off them—but I guess we will see. If the pattern continues and the government rushes this legislation through too, I have no doubt we'll be back fixing this up as well, wasting more of the Senate's time. There is a real pattern of behaviour here. Back in 2024 I asked the minister about imposing a duty of care on social media companies. That was two years ago, and the government still has not figured it out. We were talking about this then and we are still talking about it now. I wonder how many kids have lost their lives, have taken their own lives, in the last two years while you've been sitting on your backside sleeping at the wheel. We know tech addiction is a massive problem and we know these platforms are deliberately designed to keep them scrolling for as long as possible. We know these algorithms push harmful content into the social media feeds of the most vulnerable young people in our country. Legal action is being taken around the world over the damage these companies are causing, but this government continues to deal with the problem one small piece at a time. The horse is bolting over there. You'll be wearing that on your conscience if you don't get on with it. An age limit is only one part of the solution. It was never going to be enough. It does not deal with the addictive design of these platforms. It doesn't even touch it sideways. It does not deal with the algorithms feeding our children harmful content, which is taking them out, and that's putting it politely. It does not place a proper duty of care on the companies making billions of dollars by keeping our kids glued to their screens. The government has known about these problems for years. It has been warned about them for years. It needs to stop rushing legislation through parliament and start dealing with the whole problem instead of segments of it. Show some courage. You've got enough support in here. We're happy to support you. You've got it. You mightn't have it from that side over there, but you certainly have it from us. You have the numbers, so why is it taking you so long? Whether it's social media, online games or algorithms, these products are deliberately designed to keep our kids hooked and to hook them early. Let's talk about those bloody loot boxes. They are a big part of this problem. They require players, often children, to spend real money without knowing what they will receive, and they are increasingly being recognised as a gambling related harm, let alone the harm they're doing to Mum's and Dad's credit cards when they steal them. That's what it's doing to our children. They teach kids to chase rewards, spend again and again. And, when they do not get what they want, they keep coming back for 'one more try'. It's like gambling: 'Oh, I haven't won. Keep going! I'm going to hit the big one!' My God, you're installing that in our kids from the time they get on screens. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Other countries, like Belgium, already treat certain loot boxes as gambling. It's called courage, which is lacking over there. That is the problem with the Labor Party of today: you've lost your courage. And I'll keep calling you out for your lack of courage. When you strip away the bright colours and cartoon characters, that is exactly what they are—they are exposing our children to gambling-like behaviour before they're even old enough to legally place a bet. It is a gateway drug: there's a wake-up call for you. The crux of this is that we already know what needs to be done to protect our Australian kids online, but this government is moving at a snail's pace. It's just waking up to the harm caused by algorithms and addictive online design, while our kids and some of us in here have been onto it for years. I'm glad the government is strengthening this legislation, but I can tell you that, if we had got this right the first time around, Australian children would have been much safer two years ago. I want to talk about Matty French and the Youth Regiment for our children. A few years ago, I went up for my nine days. I wanted to see what this camp, a health and wellbeing boot camp, actually does for our children. I tell you it was an eye opener, after nine days. I watched these little, damage kids come in. By the way, over 75 per cent of them are now tech addicted, not drug and alcohol addicted. The biggest cohort on these courses is tech addicted children. These tech addicted children are so bad. When they tell their stories, they'll tell you: 'I was so out of control, I was pushing my sister or my mum up against walls. I was putting'—13-year-olds were telling me they were putting their hands around their sisters' or their mothers' throats to get back on their bloody computers and their screens. That's what they're doing. I'll tell you what else it does to them. Here's a wake-up call. The day they arrive—they're called Webster packs. For Australians out there, it's like you see in aged care for a lot of medicines. They've got to have their certain medicines a day. These kids of 13, 14 or 15 are having 10 pills a day because, apparently, it's ADHD. It's called tech addiction. You want to have a look at this course, Australians. I can tell you it's not about being a boot camp; it's about turning these kids' lives around. By the way, this boot camp, this health and wellbeing camp, has an 85 per cent success rate of getting these kids off their screens and getting these kids back involved in being a loving member of their family. That's what it does. The health and wellbeing camp gives them the tools to do that. That's what it does. I'll tell you, the most pleasant part of that course after nine after nine days, though, was when these kids got their bags back and their phones were in them. Not one of those kids went straight to their bag and picked up that goddamn phone. What else I saw from day 1 to that last day was smiles on their faces and their families showing up at their graduation saying, 'My God, I've got my children back.' You want a wake-up call? I challenge any of you to go and do Matty French's Youth Regiment. Take a few days out and go and meet with these kids and see the change in them. It is phenomenal. By the way, those Webster packs—because we have a pharmacist during that course that's dealing with all the doctors and all the pills that they're on. Either their pills are reduced or they walk out with no Webster pack. How's that? How's that for greatness? We've got them off the pills because mum and dad are pulling their hair out that bad. The only way that they can deal with their children is by drugging them up because of tech. How sad is that? That is where we have got to. 11:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Let me start by saying that, whilst I appreciate the passion from Senator Lambie and I know it's coming from a good place, I find it very difficult to understand how you can criticise the Liberal Party for opposing certain aspects of the government's legislation in this place while at the same time saying how bad that legislation actually is, how ill thought out it is, how it's rushed through this place in a way that doesn't actually reflect good public policymaking. I'm just not sure how those two things sit together, because the Liberal Party does have a strong track record in this area. What the Liberal Party believes above all is that you cannot parent from Canberra. The social media ban is widely seen to have been largely ineffective. Anecdotally, talking to my children and based on what is happening with their schoolmates, you hear that it is just almost completely ineffective. The fact is that we need to empower parents. What they are getting from various levels of government and various parts of the Australian society are massive mixed messages. Let me just give you one example. All families are different, and all parenting styles are different. My wife and I decided that our children would not have devices. They range in age between 10 and 13. They go to public school, and, at their public schools, they are forced to have devices. It comes with its own acronym, BYOD—bring your own device to school—and it is part of the requirement of attending that school that children, including primary school children, have to bring their own device. Yes, how those devices are used is managed somewhat, I will say, in the classroom situation, but can't governments see that that kind of approach is sending massive mixed messages to children and huge difficulties to parents, who are trying to do the right thing by their kids and keep them away from parts of the internet which are extraordinarily harmful. Nobody in this place denies that that is the case. Nobody denies that is the case. We need to sit back and take a long cold, rational look at what we are doing and asking if the sweep of what we are doing right across society is actually having the correct impact. You can go back to the Rudd government and, 'Every child will have a laptop in school.' How quaint does that look now at a time when increasingly educational institutions—and I note even the Minister for Education actually came out and said this today: we need a digital detox in schools. I think we will look back on this era, however long it's been since Kevin Rudd was prime minister, and say this was a failed experiment that we inflicted upon the young people of Australia. It is a failed experiment where we are forcing children to have devices and then, at the same time, saying, 'You're not supposed to use them in certain ways.' That is a huge difficulty for parents to negotiate when they have made a decision that social media and vast parts of the internet are not something that, particularly at younger ages—we're talking about primary school kids here—kids should be interacting with. It seems to me highly doubtful whether there is any safe use, particularly for younger children, because you cannot contain or regulate in any meaningful way, certainly not from Canberra, as to what people are doing and what tech savvy kids are doing in their own backyards. I think we need to take a long, cold, hard look at what we are creating here for our children in society and whether we need to really rethink our approach on a whole lot of different levels. This is not just coming from the parents, though I speak to many parents about this issue. This is not just coming from the parents wanting to say: 'Ban it. Don't have any devices.' The fact is that, in a particular secondary school in Western Australia, they actually took the decision to say, 'Let's try, with the agreement of the parents and with the agreement of the kids, to have a year without devices.' A year 8 class undertook a year with no devices in the classroom. Specialised computer classes were obviously part of the curriculum, but it was a year of no devices in the classroom. Guess what happened at the end of that year. Both the parents and the student cohort said, 'We vote to continue that for the next year.' This is not saying kids shouldn't learn about computers and shouldn't learn about the online environment. Of course they should, but it does need to be done in a way that actually benefits them and their education. I think those are the things that this place should be taking much, much more seriously, rather than legislating in a way that we fundamentally know isn't going to work. 11:49 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I want to begin by thanking senators who've contributed to the debate on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Of course, I should reflect that it's been a wide-ranging debate, and that is understandable. This is a public policy area of great interest to all senators. And of course there was a significant announcement yesterday, with the government releasing the digital duty of care exposure draft, so there has been quite a lot of debate going and leaning towards that digital duty of care. I'm going to speak about the bill in front of us and refrain from commenting beyond that and talk a little bit about what this bill does—to put it on the record and talk about why it is important that the Senate pass this bill. The bill amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen enforcement for the social media minimum age framework, a framework that was passed by this parliament. I want to thank the committee members who have participated in the committee process. I want to thank all the witnesses and organisations that provided submissions to that process. The bill provides the eSafety Commissioner with additional powers to strengthen evidence-gathering capability and increase financial penalties that will act as a real deterrent to well-resourced companies. The bill also expands the commissioner's authority to seek information and documents from any person, not just social media platforms, where the commissioner reasonably believes that they hold material relevant to the compliance of the minimum age framework. This would include third parties, like age-assurance providers. Further, the bill will give the eSafety Commissioner the power to require a person to give evidence and answer questions, providing an extra tool to support robust and effective investigations. This would empower the commissioner to examine decision-makers and executives of age-restricted social platforms. I believe government amendments have been circulated to that end, and I will seek to move those during the committee stage. These powers are important to understanding what processes platforms have put in place in regard to the social media age obligation to prevent under-16s from holding accounts—a law passed by this parliament that should be enforced. These changes are important, and they are urgent. There are still too many children on social media, and we know that big tech needs to do more. The penalties that we are seeking in this bill include doubling the maximum civil penalties for noncompliance with the minimum-age obligations, bringing the maximum penalty up to $109.2 million for a body corporate. The bill also doubles the penalties for failure to comply with information-gathering notices from the eSafety Commissioner, with the maximum penalty currently equivalent to $1.82 million for a body corporate. Finally, the bill will increase the amount payable under infringement notices to one-fifth of the maximum penalty available for all civil penalty provisions in the social media minimum age framework. I understand that political points will be made during this discussion and this debate, but this bill is about ensuring that the eSafety Commissioner is equipped to investigate rich, powerful companies and to make sure it has the tools and the powers to hold them to account for their obligations under our social media minimum-age law. It signals to social media platforms that they must take their obligations seriously and must comply with the laws passed by this parliament. The previous speaker talked about looking back at this period of history, and I think we will look back on this period of history and we will look at all the work this government is doing to protect children online. And we will find out today, or possibly tomorrow, where the Liberal Party stands on that. I'm genuine in this—I think that, if, when we look back at this period of time, the Liberal Party was unable to support these amendments and continued to not support this policy going forward, they will have been on the wrong side. On one side, you have tech giants—big tech companies, foreign owned companies—and on that same side is standing One Nation. The One Nation senators in this place have made their position very clear. And it's really a decision for the Liberal and National parties—whether they will choose again to stand with One Nation or whether they will stand up for this law that was passed by this parliament. The previous speaker also used a term used by a number of Liberal senators: we shouldn't 'parent from Canberra'. The ironic thing about that is that I am literally parenting in Canberra right now, with my small, 4-year-old daughter here in Canberra with me. It made me reflect on what it would be like to have been a parent standing in the Prime Minister's courtyard yesterday, talking about the loss a child. If anyone in this place or anyone in the community had an opportunity to see that press conference, they would know it was very hard not to be moved by the pleas from parents who, through the News Corp 'Let Them Be Kids' campaign, started campaigning for this type of law a long time ago, which led to the social media ban for under-16s, which is leading to the digital duty of care, and who are also calling for the parliament to pass these powers that give the regulator more power to investigate and to hold big tech to account. I want to finish on the words of one of those parents. Mr Wayne Holdsworth, who spoke yesterday so very powerfully, also gave evidence to the committee on this bill. I want to read out his words because, really, they're better than any that we could have scripted ourselves. Any person who would try to put themselves in the place of a parent who's lost a child would know it's impossible. So I want to finish my contribution, before we go on to talk about the amendments that have been proposed, by reading out the words of Mr Holdsworth in relation to this legislation. He said: I don't think that, unless you've gone through what Mia, Emma and I and hundreds of other parents here in Australia have gone through, you really understand what the urgency is about. We could just go back into our lives and not do anything, but we have chosen this pathway to influence people to make change today. Don't let us down. This will never be perfect; it's not supposed to be perfect, so don't let perfection get in the way of a magnificent idea that Australia started first that will save kids just like Tilly, Ollie and Mac. Don't wait. Those were the words of Mr Wayne Holdsworth, and I thank him again on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Senate for the advocacy that he has shown in this incredibly important part of public policy. It is incredibly important that we give the regulator the power to enforce, to investigate and to hold big tech to account for laws that were passed by this parliament. I look forward to talking a little bit more about the amendments that the government is proposing. I commend this bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 274506 The question is that this bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026, be read a second time.  

The Senate divided. [12:03]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sharma)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 28 12:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ST132: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 6), at the end of section 63G, add: (4) However, the notice must not require the person to give information or produce documents by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person. Note: See Division 4A for the power to require a person to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions relevant to a matter mentioned in subsection (1) by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person. (2) Page 4 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to examinations etc. Online Safety Act 2021 1 After Division 4 of Part 4A Insert: Division 4A — Examination powers 63HA Notice requiring appearance for examination (1) This Division applies if the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person is capable of giving information or evidence, producing documents or answering questions relevant to compliance by a provider of an electronic service that is or may be an age-restricted social media platform with section 63D or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1). (2) The Commissioner may, by written notice given to the person, summon the person to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner named in the notice, at a time and place specified in the notice, to do any one or more of the following: (a) give to the Commissioner the information or evidence; (b) produce to the Commissioner the documents; (c) answer the questions. (3) Without limiting subsection (2), the notice may also require the person to: (a) make relevant documents available for inspection by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner; or (b) permit the Commissioner or the delegate to make copies of, or take extracts from, those documents. 63HB Examination on oath or affirmation (1) If the person is summoned to attend before the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, the Commissioner or delegate may examine the person on oath or affirmation and, for that purpose: (a) may require the person to take an oath or make an affirmation; and (b) may administer the oath or affirmation. (2) The oath or affirmation is to be an oath or affirmation that the statements the person will make will be true to the best of the person's knowledge or belief. (3) The Commissioner or delegate may require the person to answer any relevant question put to the person at the examination. 63HC Examination to take place in private The examination of the person must be conducted in private, but the person is entitled to have an adviser present at the examination. 63HD Record to be made of examination (1) If the person is examined by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, a record must be made of the examination and the person is entitled to be given a written copy of the record on request. (2) If the record of the examination of the person is made in electronic form, the person is, if the person so requests, to be given a copy of the record in that form. (3) If the person requests a copy of the record, the record must be given to the person at a time that the Commissioner or delegate considers appropriate. 63HE Protection of persons attending before Commissioner A person summoned to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner, to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions under this Division has the same protection as a witness in a proceeding in the High Court. 63HF Non-compliance with requirements Compliance with notice requirements (1) A person contravenes this subsection if the person: (a) fails to comply with a notice under section 63HA; or (b) refuses or fails to answer a question that the person is required to answer under subsection 63HB(3). Compliance with requirement to take oath or make affirmation (2) A person contravenes this subsection if the person refuses to take an oath or make an affirmation in accordance with paragraph 63HB(1)(a). Offence (3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2). Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. Civil penalty (4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Note: For continuing contraventions of civil penalty provisions, see section 93 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Exception (5) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the person is a journalist; and (b) complying with the requirement of the notice would tend to disclose the identity of a person who supplied information in confidence to the journalist. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. 63HG Self-incrimination (1) A person is not excused from giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division on the ground that doing so might tend to incriminate the person. (2) However, in the case of an individual: (a) any information, evidence or answer given or document produced; or (b) the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question; or (c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question; is not admissible in evidence against the individual: (d) in civil proceedings for the recovery of a penalty, other than proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under section 63HF; or (e) in criminal proceedings, other than: (i) proceedings for an offence against section 63HF; or (ii) proceedings for an offence against section 137.1, 137.2 or 149.1 of the Criminal Code that relates to this Division. (3) If, at general law, an individual would otherwise be able to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty (other than a penalty for an offence) in relation to giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division, the individual is not excused from giving the information or evidence, producing the document or answering the question under this Division on that ground. Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty. 2 After section 163 Insert: 163A Amount payable under certain infringement notices (1) Despite subsections 104(2) and (3) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, the amount to be stated in an infringement notice for the purposes of paragraph 104(1)(f) of that Act, in relation to a provision covered by subsection (2) of this section, is the following: (a) if the notice relates to only one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for the contravention; (b) if the notice relates to more than one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the amount worked out by adding together the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for each alleged contravention. (2) This subsection covers the following provisions of this Act: (a) section 63D; (b) section 63DA; (c) section 63DB; (d) section 63H. 3 After paragraph 165(1)(db) Insert: (dc) section 63HF; 4 Application (1) The following apply in relation to notices given under section 63HA on or after the commencement of this item: (a) Division 4A of Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule; (b) section 165 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule. (2) Section 163A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to an infringement notice given on or after the commencement of this item. I also seek leave to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. Leave granted. Senator GREEN 259819 I will talk to those amendments just briefly for the purpose of the chamber. But, before I do talk more broadly about these amendments, I need to make one comment about what we've just seen in this chamber. What we have seen is the coalition voting against laws that will enforce the social media ban that they supported in this chamber. They have flipped. They have flipped to the right of this chamber, and they have lined up in this chamber with big tech and with One Nation, and they have stood on the side of big tech and One Nation. On this side of the chamber, we have stood up with parents. That is who we are standing next to when we vote in this chamber for these changes to this bill. Senator GREEN 259819 You might have your political points to make, Senator Henderson, and you will get the opportunity to do that. But nothing you say will be able to gloss over the fact that the coalition is draining further into the far-right conspiracy that this bill that protects children in our country is somehow about banning free speech. We know, on this side of the chamber, where we stand. We stand with parents and kids. What the coalition has just done by voting against the second reading of this bill is deny that this is a bill that requires urgent passing in the Senate and deny the eSafety Commissioner further powers to enforce a bill that they passed through this parliament, a law that they said should be enforceable. Well, we are seeking to increase the enforceability of these laws, and we are seeking to increase the penalties against big tech, who say: 'We don't need to bother with those laws that parliament passed. We're just going to ignore them.' Well, we are increasing the penalties, and we're increasing the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. This important piece of legislation is something that is novel, that no-one in the world had ever attempted to do before, and something that we always said would require more work and more effort, something that is going to change the lives of a generation of children. That is what we are seeking to do. But what the coalition have done, time and time again, in this parliament of late is that they have looked parents and kids in the eye and have looked at one Nation and said: 'Nuh. We would rather stand next to One Nation and the far right and big tech, instead of standing up for parents.' I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss this during the committee stage, but I am absolutely appalled by the position of the Liberal Party. We will look back on this decision by them today and the way they dealt with the government's digital duty of care legislation, and they will be on the wrong side, because the wrong side is the side of big tech and the right side is the side of parents. We know that. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that these harms to children are unacceptable, that you wouldn't allow them in any other type of regulated system. That's why the government has sought to make these amendments. We are seeking to make more government amendments today that not only allow the eSafety Commissioner to have the information-gathering powers that they have but also apply examination powers. And we will have nonsensical debate coming from those over on the opposite side—outrageous claims about what these powers do. But these examination powers and information powers are the same as the information powers and the examination powers that were introduced by the coalition when they introduced the Online Safety Act in 2021. These are the same powers, because we know that it is incredibly important that the eSafety Commissioner leaves no stone unturned. This government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to protecting children. This government will ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has the powers required to enforce the law that parliament passed to ensure that children under the age of 16 do not have access to social media. It's about backing kids and it's about backing parents. Today, what we've seen from the coalition is a disgraceful decision to walk away from protecting those people in our community. We know that these amendments are incredibly important. Progress reported. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 We will now move to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 32 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Gender Equality 32 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's record of delivering real change for Australian women and our determination as a government to keep pursuing genuine gender equality. For Labor, equality is not a slogan. It's not a simple policy. It means designing governments around the realities of women's lives: paid work and unpaid care, raising children and supporting family members, building financial security, accessing health care, finding a safe home, gaining qualifications and retiring with dignity. That is why this government has put economic and social equality at the centre of our agenda. We know that progress is measured in practical outcomes: more time with a newborn, a smaller childcare bill, a safer pathway out of violence, an affordable medical appointment, a fairer tax system, qualifications without crippling fees and a genuine chance to own your own home. One of the most important reforms is the expansion of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, a full six months. Labor established paid parental leave, and Labor is now strengthening it with a new generation of families. This expansion gives parents more precious time to recover, bond with their baby and settle into family life without being forced back to work too soon by financial pressure. It also is designed for modern families. Leave can be shared more flexibly, encouraging fathers and partners to take a greater role in the early care. That matters because, when care is shared more equally at home, women have a fairer opportunity to remain connected to their careers, earnings and professional development. Critically, the government is now paying superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave. For too long, taking time out of paid employment to care for a child meant not only lower income at the time but a lasting penalty in retirement. Women should not have to choose between caring for their family and building financial security for later in life. Paying super on paid parental leave recognises that care has a value and that parents should not be punished for doing work that benefits the whole country. The government has also expanded parenting payment single so that eligible single parents can remain on the higher payment until their youngest child turns 14, rather than being cut off when that child turns eight. More than 90 per cent of parents who benefit are women. This reform recognises a simple reality: caring responsibilities do not disappear when a child turns eight and single parents should have the security to combine care, work, study and training. Labor has made child care cheaper for more than a million families. That is immediate cost-of-living relief, and it is also an economic reform. Affordable early education enables parents, particularly women, to return to work, increase their hours, study or train. It strengthens household incomes and gives children the benefits of quality early learning. We know that that pays off when they go into primary school. From January this year, the three-day guarantee has ensured every childcare-subsidy-eligible family can access at least three days, or 72 hours, a fortnight of subsidised early childhood education and care, regardless of activity levels. This replaces an activity test that could lock children out of early learning precisely when their families faced insecure work or other barriers. This reform says something important about our values on this side of the chamber. A child's access to early education should not depend on the stability of a parent's roster. The reform gives families certainty, helps children start school ready to learn and supports women's workforce participation. Labor is also making free TAFE permanent. More than 60 per cent of free TAFE enrolments have been by women, opening pathways into secure, skilled and better paid work. Free TAFE removes course fees in priority areas including care, health, technology, construction and early childhood education. It gives women facing economic insecurity, women returning to the workforce and women entering non-traditional fields a fairer chance to build a career. No government can credibly speak about equality without acting on women's safety. The Albanese Labor government has made record investments to prevent violence, support victims-survivors and strengthen frontline and legal services. A further $500 million package is improving women's safety, including making the child support system safer and fairer so more families receive the child support they are owed. This matters because financial abuse can continue long after a relationship ends. When payments are withheld, manipulated or avoided, women and children bear the consequences. These measures sit alongside the permanent Leaving Violence Program; ten days of paid family and domestic violence leave; investment in crisis accommodation, frontline workers and legal assistance; and action focused on prevention and high-risk perpetrators. Safety and economic security are inseparable. A woman cannot be truly free if she cannot afford to leave. That is why support for housing, income, child care, legal services and employment must work together. Our goal is not simply to help women survive violence; it is to help them rebuild safe, independent and hopeful lives. The government is also changing a health system that too often dismissed women's pain, delayed diagnosis and left women paying too much for essential care. There are now 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics operating across Australia. These clinics provide multidisciplinary care, improve pathways to diagnosis and treatment and help women access support closer to home. They are also expanding to provide care for perimenopause and menopause. This is a major step towards a health system that listens to women and takes their symptoms seriously. Medicare rebates have been increased for the insertion of IUDs and other long-acting, reversible contraceptives, saving women up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs. New Medicare items support longer specialist gynaecological consultations and menopause health assessments. These reforms mean more choice, earlier treatment and care based on women's needs not their capacity to pay. Medicines on the PBS now cost no more than $25 for general patients, with the concessional co-payment remaining lower. New contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and treatments for endometriosis have also been made more affordable. For women managing chronic conditions, family budgets and caring responsibilities, these savings make a real difference. This is a Labor government delivering real change for Australian women. Across the country, Medicare urgent care clinics provide free, walk-in care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. They take pressure off hospital emergency departments and give families another place to turn when a child spikes a fever, an infection worsens or a child has a suspected broken arm after falling off their bike. These injuries cannot wait but they don't need to be treated at emergency. We're taking pressure off hospitals. Making these clinics a permanent part of Medicare is about timely care without worrying about the bill. That makes a difference to families' lives. There are tax cuts that have benefited women. We know too that those tax cuts have not only helped in their day-to-day expenses, groceries, the power bill, rent, school expenses and savings but have also brought about a great benefit to the cost of living when it comes to the cost of everyday essential items. This is a government that has been listening to the community and delivering real changes. The five per cent deposit scheme is helping Tasmanian families, and a lot of them are people that haven't had a chance to buy a home before because they worked in aged care or early childhood education. We supported their pay rises, because that's a government that delivers— (Time expired) Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion 33 12:25 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some remarks about the concluding Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in Australia. The context for this royal commission was Australia's worst terrorist attack in December last year at Bondi. For many other Australians that have been to Bondi, it is now a place that is always going to feel different because of what happened there in December last year. Because of my proximity to Bondi Beach, I was able to spend a lot of time in the weeks after the attack seeing firsthand the incredible contribution by community groups, whether that be the North Bondi RSL, the surf club or many other volunteers across the Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New South Wales. I make the point that the initial reaction of the government was not to hold this royal commission, which was disappointing. There was some intransigence, and I always thought there were key questions to be asked here. There were key questions, including what actions were taken or not taken by federal ministers. In fact in the advocacy that was evident after the attack it was clear that, if there was to be a proper federal royal commission, there needed to be a proper investigation—an expose—of what was done and what wasn't done. I reflect very carefully on how many times in the lead-up to these attacks we asked for security briefings because the Jewish community, particularly the eastern suburbs Jewish community in Sydney, had been living with a fear that there would be a terrible attack like this. We weren't able to get access to briefings as the opposition, but I'm confident that there was a significant volume of information provided by the agencies that would have surely flown up to the ministers of the day. At a most basic level, I would have thought this royal commission would have been able to interview important people like the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs to understand exactly what they knew, what actions they took and what actions they didn't take. If you had told me when this royal commission was announced last summer that it would be concluding without hearing from the Prime Minister and without hearing from Minister Burke, I would have thought you were kidding, because those are key figures in understanding what actually happened here. The whole point of the royal commission is to understand how this happened, how we had this atrocity—the first religion based massacre on Australian soil—at this Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach. I have to say for the record that I'm very surprised that the commissioner did not call the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. Similarly, I am surprised that organisations and people that whipped up a lot of the fervent antisemitism during this period were also not called, including the people that were involved with the bridge march where we saw pictures of the ayatollah from Iran bandied around as if he was some great man. Equally the fact that the commission decided not to hear from former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, I thought, was surprising. I thought it was good that it was able to hear from other Jewish members in the current parliament, including Mr Burns, Mr Dreyfus and Mr Leeser, but I would have thought that the person that had occupied the most senior office of a Jewish Australian in the Treasury portfolio would have been worthy of hearing from. I think Mr Frydenberg's contribution to public life has been well known and documented, and I thought it was very strange that he wasn't invited to give evidence to this commission. Perhaps the other major concern I have as the commission wraps up is the fact that the hate preachers weren't invited to give evidence either. You think about how Wissam Haddad and the others who had a clear connection to the Akram family members that committed this atrocity were not called. I think it is very strange, and I think a person with a basic working knowledge of these things would say, 'If ASIO knew that the Akrams were following these hate preachers, then surely that would have been germane to the royal commission itself.' It was good that the royal commission was announced by the Prime Minister. I think that was a good judgement he made after initially not wanting to have one, but, as it concludes, I believe that there are very curious omissions. The fact that the key ministers in the security agencies and the head of the government, which regrettably oversaw the worst massacre on religious grounds in our history, weren't called is one problem. The fact that we didn't hear from the most senior Jewish Australian to have been in federal public office, AKA Josh Frydenberg, is another problem. I also believe that the failure to call the hate preachers is a glaring omission, perhaps the most glaring omission. How can you conclude a royal commission into this terrorist attack without looking at the root causes about how these people were in fact radicalised? It is clear from what is known publicly that ASIO was tracking at least one of the Akrams for an extended period of time. The decision not to interrogate these hate preachers, their business model and how they radicalise people, who are our fellow citizens—born Australians in this case—is very worrying and worries me greatly. We maintain our optimism that this will be the best possible report that could be generated by this royal commissioner, but I believe that, without having interviewed these key people, the royal commission is not going to be the royal commission that we had hoped for when we were advocating this in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Maybe this is the reflection of where we are in Australia, where the Prime Minister's initial instinct not to call a royal commission has led to a royal commission being conducted which is restricted and restrained from going into the areas which may be embarrassing to the government. It may be embarrassing to the Prime Minister himself and may be embarrassing to the Minister for Home Affairs himself. I don't see any justification for the omission of a very detailed examination of this insidious hate-preaching model, which is turning Australians against one another. This is not something that we can afford to repeat. We can't turn into a country where we have a repetition of a religious massacre. What has happened at Bondi deserved to be met with a royal commission that would get to the bottom of things and that would leave no stone unturned. There could be no debate and no discussion that this was a thorough examination of the issues and the factors which led to people turning guns on their fellow Australians and targeting them because they were Jewish, and killing them whether they were men, women or children. It is not something that we can afford to repeat and so we will be very, very careful in reviewing this final report, knowing that there is a risk that not every stone was carefully considered. Middle East 34 12:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales (): Settlements are illegal under international law. Canada, France, and the UK will therefore take steps to ban the importation of goods from settlements and enforce targeted measures against settlements and those who facilitate them or profit from them. That was the statement made by Canada, France and the UK yesterday about illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. That was the clear-eyed position put forward by those countries, and it was a genuine step ahead. Without doing that, without making that statement about the fundamental illegality of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, we're accepting that we live in a world with no rules where violence is permitted and where ethnic cleansing is ignored. Now compare that statement from Canada, France and the UK yesterday with what Minister Wong said in this chamber yesterday. This is what Minister Wong said on behalf of the Albanese Labor government: 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 … That's what Minister Wong said. What world are we living in? Israel is allowed to break international law to continue the occupation, and the reason why the Labor government, joined by the coalition and One Nation, are not taking action is apparently to help Palestinians. This is unbelievable gaslighting from Labor. They want us to believe the reason for the ongoing complicity of the Albanese Labor government in its unwillingness to take actions against illegal settlements that even the US ambassador in Israel has said is the equivalent of terrorism, in some cases, is that they're concerned about unintended consequences for Palestinians. Does this government really think the Australian public is just stupid? Do you think we can't see what's going on here? International law is clear: Israel's settlements in the West Bank are illegal, and trade with businesses that operate in those areas entrench that illegal occupation. Many countries have introduced bans against trade with Israeli settlements. It's not just those countries I named earlier; it's also Spain, Ireland and South Africa. We've previously heard from this government that the Albanese government is working with like-minded partners. Here is another repeated comment from Minister Wong: … we will continue to work with partners to protect the prospects of a two-state solution. Well, when it comes to countries that are refusing to take action, which partners is the Labor Party now working with? Name them! The only partners I can see for the Albanese Labor government are One Nation, the coalition, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. They're the only partners Labor's working with when they refuse to even join Canada, France and the UK to put a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Your partners are One Nation, the coalition, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. You've abandoned any pretence of working with Canada, France, the UK, Spain, Ireland. Trump and Netanyahu are your partners. The world is moving, and this government, backed in on this issue by the uniparty here, is refusing to act. The UK government has rightfully realised that they need to reset the relationship. But the Albanese government, tied to the US—refusing to act until they're given permission by Donald Trump—is refusing to even acknowledge the ongoing brutal illegality of the Israeli settlements in Palestine and the appalling statement, the gaslighting statement, from Minister Wong that the reason Labor is refusing to bring sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements is that Labor cares about Palestinians. I didn't think you could sink this low, but you have. Shame on you. I also want to focus on the fact that, when Minister Wong came in and said one of the reasons Labor is refusing to take action is that you're concerned about the impact on Australian businesses, it was such an obscene reason for not acting on international law. But why don't we look at one issue that's been running in the public for years now. Two years ago I raised concerns about military equipment and paramilitary equipment going to Israel to support the genocide in Gaza, to support the illegal occupation. In this document Bisalloy, an Australian company down in Port Kembla—in the Illawarra, in my home sate of New South Wales—talks proudly about its partnership with an Israeli company, Plasan. Reading from that 2023 document, Bisalloy says that Israeli manufacturer Plasan Re'em uses Bisalloy's steel to make 'high-performance civilian armoured vehicles that offer maximum ballistic protection as well as high performance, speed, manoeuvrability, comfort and control'. Who is Plasan Re'em? Well, they provide vehicles to Shin Bet, the Israeli military in the West Bank—police. A 2022 report from Israel defence also found that they provide vehicles to security coordinators in the settlements. And what are we doing? Labor lets the steel go in, lets the occupation continue—deep, deep complicity, businesses like Bisalloy making profits from the occupation. That's whom Labor's protecting. To come in here and say the reason you're letting the armoured steel go from Port Kembla to Israel is that you're worried about Palestinians—shame on you. Some of the most heartbreaking emails my office receives are from people who are waiting to be united with their loved ones who are overseas. And the race to the bottom on migration between Labor and One Nation is really having consequences now. Amongst all the scapegoating we hear about migrants in this place—the whipping up of fears over mass migration—what Labor and their mates in One Nation won't say is that there are fewer family visas now than in the 1980s. The population has increased substantially, but the number of people being allowed to unite with their loved ones has gone down since the 1980s. This is what happens when you have a migration system under Labor and the coalition that seems to serve only economic interests. It means that those ties connecting to loved ones, to families, to partners are put on the backburner. Someone who put their partner visa in last year had to wait 20 months for it to be processed. That is nearly two years, waiting to be reunited with their loved one, their wife or their husband. Think about that. For some, that means two years without seeing them at all, without a hug, without the connection. Since then, in the last year, Labor has made it even harder to get a partner visa, and the wait time has now doubled again, to some 40 months. Think about doing that to families—more than three years waiting till your loved one can come, till you can have the hug and complete the family. That delay in processing has also seen a doubling of the number of people waiting for their partner visa to be processed. Under Labor the number has gone up from 56,000 to nearly 100,000. And in response to all of this we get this direction 117, which seeks to further deprioritize people applying offshore. If that had been done in an effort to get through the backlog of people here onshore to give them stability, permanency and an ability to rebuild their life, maybe we could understand that, but that's not what we're seeing. What Labor's done with direction 117 is slow it down for everyone, and we know this because the minister is out there bragging about it. One person who wrote to me said: For an Australian citizen whose spouse is overseas, the consequence of being placed in a lower priority group is not simply an administrative delay. It means potentially years of lost married life. My wife and I have already experienced this. We have missed birthdays, important occasions and our first wedding anniversary because we cannot live together. That's what the race to the bottom between Labor and One Nation delivers: breaking up families and keeping loved ones apart. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 36 12:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In some breaking news, but news that won't shock many in this chamber, police raided the CFMEU headquarters in Brisbane this morning, and three people have been arrested in Victoria in a cross-border investigation into corruption. Quite simply, the ALP equals CFMEU equals corruption. We should not forget that the Labor Party accepted millions of dollars in donations from the crime syndicate that is the CFMEU and has not returned a single dollar. Let's talk about the other side of politics—my side of politics—and what the Crisafulli LNP government is doing to stamp out this corruption. Last August, the Crisafulli government launched a commission of inquiry into the CFMEU to investigate the corruption, misconduct and criminal influence that flourished under the former Labor government in Queensland. The evidence has been so vast that what was supposed to be a 12-month investigation has become a two-year inquiry, and we are still nowhere near the bottom of Labor's CFMEU swamp. Let's look at what the commission has uncovered so far: a culture of violence and abuse on work sites, including stalking, death threats and harassment. Labor pushed ahead with its Best Practice Industry Conditions policy despite repeated legal warnings. This scheme funnelled contracts to the CFMEU and has cost taxpayers as much as $38 billion. The CFMEU had a hotline to senior government officials and direct access to Labor ministers, including Jackie Trad and Grace Grace. Labor gave the CFMEU sweetheart deals and favourable treatment in government tender processes. Grace Grace threatened to cancel the $1.6 billion Toowoomba Second Range Crossing unless the consortium reached an agreement with the CFMEU. Senior female government staff were routinely threatened, stalked and harassed by CFMEU officials. This is just the tip of the iceberg. At every step, Labor enabled, protected and supported the disgusting conduct of the CFMEU. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and Labor ministers and the Labor Party in Queensland set the standard for organised structural corruption. Shame on them. The same can be said of Daniel Andrews, Jacinta Allan and Ben Carroll and their cronies in Victoria, who defended, enabled and promoted the CFMEU's $15 billion Big Build scam in that state. Not one Labor politician has contested the $15 billion price tag—a price tag of CFMEU corruption. We know why: because the Labor Party accepts money from the criminal cartel that is the CFMEU. Despite the swathes of evidence regarding the CFMEU's disgusting conduct, Labor and Greens senators sit in this chamber and refuse to support Senator Kovacic's Senate inquiry into criminal conduct within the CFMEU. I commend you, Senator Kovacic, for the work that you've been doing on this issue, and I would suggest that, if Labor and Greens senators are unwilling to support an inquiry into the CFMEU, it means they support the corrupt and criminal conduct of that organisation. And let's not forget that conduct includes violent and intimidatory behaviour directed at women and small children. Stacey Schinnerl, the Queensland branch secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, gave evidence to the Queensland commission of inquiry that a member of the CFMEU physically pushed her before yelling at her 13-year-old son and calling her an 'F-ing grub'. This type of behaviour is sickening and yet it's the behaviour that Labor and Greens senators in this place allow to perpetuate because they refuse to call it out. Senator Kovacic has sent out a pledge to all parliamentarians in this place to stand against corruption in construction. I've proudly signed mine and it's displayed in my office window. Again, if Labor and Green parliamentarians are unwilling to sign this pledge, I suggest they don't care about the criminal conduct of the CFMEU. I'd like to especially shout out to the Labor member for Bennelong. I understand the Labor member for Bennelong is quite fond of pledges. During the Voice campaign, he sent a pledge to representatives and candidates in his local area urging them to publicly pledge their support for the Voice, and made it clear he would publish who had signed and who hadn't. Curiously, that particular pledge no longer appears on his website. If the member for Bennelong was happy to create and circulate a public pledge on an issue as divisive as the Voice then signing a pledge against union corruption should be easy for him. Australians are in furious agreement that union corruption, intimidation and criminality have no place in our construction industry, so, the ball is in Mr Laxale's court. If he refuses to sign this pledge against corruption in construction, the only conclusion one can draw is that he supports the disgusting, corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU. Like most Australians, I'm fed up with this terrible Labor government. As a senator for Queensland and the shadow minister for the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games, I'm particularly fed up with how Labor are treating Queensland. In Queensland, the Crisafulli LNP government is busy preparing for the games. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Queenslanders and Queensland because we know that the Olympics won't just deliver on infrastructure; they will deliver on health, education, energy and disaster resilience. But this opportunity comes with challenges and Labor is making it harder. Reporting this week has exposed the pressure Labor's misguided skilled migration scheme is putting on Queensland's construction industry. Currently, skilled construction workers are ranked in the third of four priority tiers as part of this scheme, and last month Labor made things even worse. They secretly overhauled the system, further disadvantaging skilled construction workers. Don't take my word for it; the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders and the Civil Contractors Federation have warned of worsening labour shortages, visa bottlenecks, project delays and cost spikes. Where will this be felt the most? In Queensland. Why? Because, let's not forget that, in 2023, Labor reworked its visa system and created a fast-track pathway for skilled workers but they barred construction workers from the scheme. Why? Because their mates in the criminal, corrupt CFMEU aggressively pushed back against it so they could keep lining their own pockets. Labor equals CFMEU equals corruption. What has been the result of Labor's subservience to the CFMEU? A worsening housing crisis, massive labour shortages and projects delivered late and over budget. In Victoria alone, the CFMEU corruption has cost taxpayers at least $15 billion. Remember, not one single Labor politician has contested that figure. In Queensland, where the Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU is ongoing, the CFMEU corruption has been estimated to have contributed to almost $21 billion in budget blowouts and project delays. It could reach as high as $38 billion. This isn't the CFMEU's money. This is not the Labor Party's money. It is taxpayers' money. This corruption has been caused by the softness of the Labor Party and Labor politicians when it comes to dealing with the CFMEU. It is high time that Labor cast aside all links to the criminal and corrupt CFMEU. It is time that the Labor Party returned the donations that it received from the CFMEU. If they don't want to give it back to the CFMEU, they could give the money to a worthwhile charity. The Labor Party equals the CFMEU equals corruption. (Time expired) Generation Z, Labor Government 37 12:55 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria Ask young Australians what's holding them back from having kids, and you may be surprised. It's not necessarily housing or the cost of living but rather climate change and whether they'll have the social infrastructure and the economic security to start a family. The latest Growing up in Australia report, a survey of around 8,000 gen Zs, puts numbers on what we already sense. An overwhelming majority—seven in 10—still hope to have children. That hope hasn't disappeared, but it's being weighed down. The dominant concerns were climate change and whether they will have the supports and job security to start a family—plus women gen Zs are concerned about norms that leave them carrying most of the care work at home. This isn't a generation that has given up; it's a generation with an ember of hope that is waiting to catch. They want the scaffolding strengthened so that they can build their lives with confidence. That is exactly what this Labor government is doing on two fronts—climate action and family security—because these were never separate problems. On climate, the numbers are moving fast. After a decade of denial and delay under those opposite, we have taken this country from a standing start. Renewables now supply 51 per cent of our main grid. It was 33 per cent when we came to power four years ago. Along with rooftop solar, 540,000 and counting cheaper home batteries have been installed, turning our homes—Aussie homes—into the backbone of our grid. Gas usage fell from 2.7 terawatt hours in the summer of 2021-22 to 1.5 terawatt hours in 2025-26. EV sales have overtaken petrol cars for the first time, and EV trucks are coming in numbers, backed by $70 million we contributed to Volvo to mass produce these prime movers in Brisbane. In the hard-to-electrify sectors, we have $1.1 billion for low-carbon fuels made from sugar, canola, sorghum and tallow grown by our farmers. Feedstock worth $4 billion will become a fuel market worth $40 billion in 2050—that's jobs and fuel security. That is the future made in Australia in action. We have landed a nearly $12 billion deal with the White House for our critical minerals. As of September we have approved 146 renewable energy projects. When One Nation and the Liberals abandon net zero, they turn their backs on young Australians and squib an economic windfall. Eighty-four per cent of the world's GDP has signed up to net zero. According to the International Energy Agency, $3 trillion went into clean tech last year. In contrast, only $1.6 trillion went into fossil fuel investment. Follow the money! The Climate Change Authority says that Australia can cut global emissions by up to 10 per cent. We are the world's battery; we just need to be plugged in. That is what the future made in Australia agenda is all about. Why wouldn't we want a slice of that trillion dollar pie? We can turn this transition into an export and jobs engine, with energy security as the bonus, because unlike foreign oil our sun cannot be blockaded. Alongside climate action, gen Zs want decent social and economic infrastructure that supports a good life, so we are strengthening the scaffolding: child care, including the three-day guarantee for all families; paid parental leave expanded to six months, with super on top; and 'use it or lose it' provisions for partners because raising a child should not default to mums. We've driven the gender pay gap down to 11.3 per cent, the lowest it's been in Commonwealth history, and that is no accident. We have backed in consecutive increases to the minimum wage, dialled down casualisation, granted more flexibility at work, given workers more bargaining power, introduced payday super, backed junior wage rises, banned wage secrecy and criminalised wage theft. We are banning non-compete clauses and we have legislated same job, same pay. All of this was opposed by One Nation and the Liberals. Only Labor governments stand up for workers rights, because economic security starts with a secure, well-paid job. To young Australians: the progress on climate and the scaffolding that you need and crave will be swept away if those around you vote for One Nation and the Liberals. Your entitlements, super, wages, all those protections that you have fought for and that we have fought for will be gone, and we will go back to winning 'colossal fossil' awards at conferences, just like we did under Morrison. (Time expired) MATES 38 13:00 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to recognise an organisation doing extraordinary work in the industries that are vital to this country but where too many workers are struggling in silence. Today I met with representatives of MATES Australia to discuss their work to prevent suicide and improve mental health across construction, mining, energy and manufacturing. Now, these are industries that I know well as the shadow minister for resources and northern Australia. They are industries full of capable, resilient, hardworking Australians. But resilience does not mean invulnerability, and the statistics confronting these workers are sobering. Construction workers are nine times more likely to die of suicide than in an accident at work, and mining workers have reported a suicide attempt rate three times higher than that of the general Australian population. MATES has highlighted research showing that around a third of young apprentices have experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous 12 months. Particularly in remote and regional Australia, the workplace can be one of the most important communities and support networks that a person has, and that's what I think MATES understands particularly well. MATES began in the construction industry in Queensland in 2008 and has since expanded into mining, energy and manufacturing. In 2021, the World Health Organization recognised the MATES Model as an example of best practice in workplace suicide prevention, and its philosophy is beautifully simple: mates helping mates. Instead of expecting every struggling worker to recognise that they need help, find a service and make that difficult first phone call, MATES builds the capacity of everyone to recognise distress within the workplace and among colleagues. Workers are trained to notice when a mate isn't travelling well, and volunteer connectors are trained to help that person find appropriate support. More advanced Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training workers can help keep someone safe during a crisis until professional help is available. Behind that workplace network sit professional case management and a confidential, 24-hour helpline. The program doesn't aim to turn a supervisor, a fitter or a sparky into a psychologist. It tries to give ordinary people the confidence to ask a mate, 'Are you alright?' or even the harder question, 'Are you having suicidal thoughts?' and, importantly, know what to do when the answer to the first question is no or, to the second, yes. The scale of what MATES has already achieved is remarkable. Across its program, almost 400,000 workers have been inducted, more than 39,000 connectors have been trained and more than 18½ thousand cases have been managed. But MATES is also looking upstream. Its Blueprint For Better Mental Health And Suicide Prevention helps employers identify risks before they result in someone reaching crisis point. The blueprint gives businesses practical guidance to identify harmful aspects of work, improve mental health awareness, encourage early intervention and establish policies that help people remain at work or successfully return to work after experiencing mental health difficulties. Now, this matters especially for small and medium-sized workplaces—workplaces that government has loaded up with additional responsibilities to manage workers health but that don't have the capacity or the resources for a specialist HR department and access to specialist advice. Both are increasingly expected to identify and manage complex psychosocial hazards in the workplace, and Mates is trying to help bridge that gap. There's a strong economic argument for doing so. Material presented to me today shows that psychological industry claims are taking almost five times longer to resolve than physical injury claims and that mental health claims have become the costliest form of workplace injury. Preventing psychological harm is not only compassionate; it helps keep skilled people at work, supports productivity, reduces disruption to businesses and of course helps families and communities. Mates is now advocating for a national investment to expand its blueprint coordination model across every state and territory, and the Queensland experience demonstrates how encouraging that investment can be. I want to thank Mates Australia and everyone involved in its programs, particularly the thousands of workers who volunteered to become connectors and undertake suicide prevention training. Pacific Islands 39 13:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Before I begin, I want to associate myself with the comments from the good senator from North Queensland, Senator MacDonald, and acknowledge the good work that Mates do in our communities, especially ahead of World Suicide Prevention Day. I thank them and thank Senator MacDonald for raising it in this chamber. Last week, leaders from across the region came together in Palau for the 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting. For the Albanese Labor government, our approach to the Pacific is clear. We turn up, we listen, and we act on the priorities of our Pacific family. We recognise that Pacific nations determine the future of the Pacific, and we respect sovereignty. We build partnerships and deliver practical benefits for our region, and we act in Australia's national interest. Last week's forum demonstrated exactly what these partnerships can achieve. We know that climate change remains the No. 1 priority for Pacific leaders. For communities across the Pacific, climate change is not a theoretical challenge or an ideological debate. It is impacting coastlines, infrastructure, food security, energy security and people's livelihoods right now. That is why Australia is taking climate change seriously and working alongside the Pacific on practical solutions. In Palau, the Prime Minister visited the country's first large-scale solar power plant, backed by a $31.4 million investment through the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. The Prime Minister, alongside the President of Palau, President Whipps, marked the delivery of additional battery storage, a key milestone to upgrade Palau's electricity grid. At the forum, Australia also announced support for the establishment of a Pacific renewable energy commissioner, helping to drive the region towards an ambition of 100 per cent renewable energy in the future. Prime Minister Albanese also announced Australia's partnership with the secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program over five years to advance shared climate and environmental priorities. Australia will continue to support the Pacific's longstanding international ocean leadership by continuing to support the Office of the Pacific Ocean Commissioner and the Unlocking Blue Pacific Prosperity initiative. This is what partnership looks like, practical action driven by Pacific priorities. We also know that security challenges in our region are changing, and Pacific leaders have been clear about the impact that transnational organised crime and illicit drugs are having on their communities. Last Wednesday, leaders unanimously endorsed Waqa Moana, a Pacific-led Australian-backed maritime security initiative to counter illicit drug-trafficking. To support the implementation of the scheme, the Prime Minister announced a $600 million package of support, including support for new countertransnational and organised crime programs across the region. This is in addition to the work the Australian Federal Police is contributing over the next four years. Criminal networks do not respect borders, and no country can tackle these challenges alone. We are already seeing what the cooperation can achieve. In Palau, 119 Pacific police support personnel from across the region helped provide security for the forum, including 28 Australian Federal Police officers. That is the Pacific security being delivered by the Pacific, with Australian backing. Of course, our partnership is about opportunity and people as much as it is about security, and we all know that sport is a great thing that connects our region. As we look towards the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games, we want athletes from all across the Pacific to have an opportunity to be there and every opportunity to succeed. That is why Australia has announced support over the next four years for athletes and officials from 14 Pacific countries to access high-performance training and qualification opportunities to maximise athletes' and officials' participation and success. Pacific athletes and officials will be supported at the Tahiti Pacific games, the Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic games and the Rarotonga 2029 Pacific Mini Games and other international sporting events. Australia's future is tied to the future of the Pacific. Our security and prosperity are shared, and the challenges facing our region require us to work together. That is why, after a decade of decline under those opposite, we will continue to turn up and to listen and, most importantly, we will continue to act alongside the Pacific family to build a region that is peaceful and prosperous. Indigenous Australians: Cultural Heritage 40 13:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I rise to speak the words of a young Kuyani man who is writing on behalf of all Kuyani elders. He writes: Dear Senator Lidia Thorpe, Ministers of the Federal Government and Senators of different states. This is the letter on behalf of all Kuyani People. I would like to start off by addressing the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Bill that has recently passed through the South Australian Parliament. It enables a $25 billion expansion of BHP's Olympic Dam, one of the world's largest copper and uranium mines, for another 60 years. In the Western Mining 1982 Environmental Impact Statement, it states that the Olympic Dam project area is traditionally Kuyani Country, but all Kuyani People are extinct. The Western Mining and the State Government at the time acknowledged the 1982 EIS and used it to bring forth what is known as The Roxby Downs Ratification Act and Indenture Act. When the Kuyani community came across this historic document, we immediately sent a letter demanding a meeting to the State Attorney General at the time (The Hon. Kyam Maher). The Attorney General acknowledged the letter and had a meeting with the Kuyani Community on the 26th of February 2024. He acknowledged the area as Kuyani Country, and the Kuyani community asked the Minister to make a 'Wrong into a Right'. This meeting took place before the Indenture Act amendment passed this year. When the Kuyani Community heard about the 2026 Amendment Bill and the expansion of Olympic Dam and the Indenture Act, we grew fearful of our country and bringing more destruction to Kuyani People and to the land where Kuyani Elders still hold the intangible knowledge. The feeling about how our intangibles are going to be impacted is distressing; the feeling of not being able to pass on the Kuyani Culture and not being able to go out on Country to visit the sites that hold such detriment value to the Kuyani People is cultural genocide and ethnocide. This is a great shame for our State Government of South Australia, to pass this Bill through; and to exclude Kuyani People during the process shows how the Government really cares about Aboriginal Heritage. The small amount of time that was given for submissions to be submitted, 10 days, is despicable. I have sent a letter on behalf of all Kuyani People, to Parliament during the submission process, only to be told by TOM KOUTSANTONIS, that my letter is irrelevant, that the Kuyani Peoples views are irrelevant. We all find it very offensive to be told that. We want to go out on Country to record and protect these heritage sites, tangible and intangible. We want to pass this oral knowledge to the upcoming generations, but the State Government is preventing this from happening. Under section 23 of the State Aboriginal Heritage Act, it is important for the Minister to hear and accept the recommendations that we, the Kuyani People, have made. I demand justice for my People, the Kuyani People. We demand our Human Rights, our Intangibles, our Belief System, and our Rights to be able to return to our land of origin. The State Government should be ashamed of themselves. This has been an issue since the late 1970s. And in the Kuyani Community's view, this is bigger than Jukkan Gorge as this is an eradication of an Aboriginal Nation. The State of South Australia and BHP need to come under world's best practice, the Burra Charter. So, I call on you, in the federal parliament, to do everything you can to ensure our Kuyani heritage, culture and Country is protected. Briffa, Ms Emily 40 13:15 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to speak about a recent visit to the Hamlet cafe in Hobart with Minister Jenny McAllister and to recognise the work of Hamlet's founder and CEO, Emily Briffa. It was great to sit down with Emily and hear more about the work Hamlet is doing. Hamlet is a social enterprise cafe, but it is also much more than that. It provides individualised training, work readiness and supports to Tasmanians who can face significant barriers to employment, including people with disability, neurodivergent people and people experiencing mental health concerns. The idea behind Hamlet is excellent. People should have the opportunity to work, learn new skills, build confidence and be part of their community. For some people, getting that first opportunity can be the hardest. We know people with disability still face barriers when looking for work. A lack of experience can make it harder to get a job, but it can also be very difficult to gain that experience if nobody is prepared to give you a start. Hamlet helps break that cycle. Since it began, more than 700 people have gained experience through Hamlet and developed skills to help them enter the workforce. Around 75 per cent of people who complete Hamlet's training program go on to employment. That is an extraordinary achievement. Those numbers only tell part of the story. Behind every one of them is a person who has been given an opportunity. It might be someone learning how to work in a kitchen, serve customers or prepare food. It might be someone learning how to work as part of a team, communicate with colleagues or build the confidence to apply for their next job. It might be someone who, perhaps for the first time, has had an employer or mentor focus on what they can do rather than the barriers they face. That is very important. Work is about earning an income, but it is also about independence, confidence, connection and having the opportunity to contribute. That is why organisations like Hamlet are so important. They show what can happen when we support people properly and create pathways that recognise individual strengths. I also want to recognise CEO Emily Briffa. Emily was named as the 2026 Local Hero for Tasmania as part of the Australian of the Year Awards, and I can certainly understand why. Through her leadership, Hamlet has become an important part of the Hobart community and has continued to create opportunities across hospitality and catering. What impressed me most in speaking with Emily was that the focus remains firmly on people. It's about meeting people where they are, understanding what support they need and helping them take the next step. Our visit with Minister McAllister was also a valuable opportunity to hear more about Hamlet's work and what makes this model successful. Hamlet demonstrates that inclusion is not simply something we talk about. It is something we have to create. We create it when workplaces are prepared to give people a chance, we create it when training is flexible enough to meet individual needs and we create it when people with disability are recognised for their skills, their ambitions and what they can contribute. There is still more work to do. Too many people with disability continue to experience barriers to employment and are excluded from opportunities others take for granted, but Hamlet shows us what is possible. I want to thank Emily and the entire Hamlet team for welcoming Minister McAllister and the Tasmanian Labor team. More importantly, I want to thank the trainees, staff and volunteers who make Hamlet such a special part of Hobart. Their work is changing lives, one opportunity at a time. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Emily on her recognition as Tasmania's local hero. I look forward to seeing Hamlet continue to grow and create opportunities for Tasmanians for many years to come. Labor Government: Cybersafety 41 13:20 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Labor's relentless march towards a future where they have ever-increasing powers to censor and control your speech continues like a runaway train. What is driving Labor's obsession with silencing their millions of Australian critics? Well, Labor has just suffered a historic loss to One Nation in Secret Harbour. And, instead of asking why Australians are walking away from them, Labor politicians are reaching for other explanations—bots, trolls, misinformation. Excuses spew from the pages of Labor's talking points. You will hear federal ministers speculate about foreign bot swarms. We have heard the WA premier talk about a wave of poison when discussing the fact that thousands of Labor voters have abandoned them to support One Nation. But you will not hear the Labor government say: 'We hear your criticisms. We're sorry. We think we may have got that one wrong.' At the same time, Labor is trying to rush through legislation to give their e-safety commissioner, their chosen censorship tsar, even more power over Australians online—the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. So I say: Australians beware. Labor is building the machinery of a socialist censorship regime one new power at a time. As is their way, they will wrap it in moral language, the language of protecting children. Apparently they think, if you say 'think of the children' often enough, no amount of government power is too much. Under this legislation we are fighting to stop, Labor would give their e-safety commissioner the power to compel a person to appear in person and answer our questions, which is ironic because the eSafety Commissioner has currently been asked to appear before US Congress, something which she doesn't want to do and she has chosen not to do, and I believe the Labor government is supporting her choice. Yet, you want to take away that power from Australian men, women and children, which is deeply ironic. Let's dig into this. If you refuse these new powers which the government is insisting upon, you will be facing serious penalties, including imprisonment. This is for an internet regulator. We're not talking about terrorism or organised crime. We are talking about Labor's desperation to enforce their social media age ban, which we told them wouldn't work. Here we are, back again, fixing up a mess that they have created, and the solution is to give them more control over things you can say and things you can do and rules they won't apply to their own chosen censorship tsar! Here's the extraordinary part. While they're saying 'think of the children', it looks like Labor wants these powers to reach children. There appears to be no blanket exception for minors under their proposal. A teenager who knows how an age check can be bypassed or how a workaround can be operated may be compelled to appear and answer questions. Labor tell us this regime exists to protect children and then give a Commonwealth regulator the power that could be used to summon those same children for questioning, and there's no automatic guarantee that a parent or guardian must be beside them, no automatic guarantee of legal representation. A 13-year old is not on an equal footing with a Commonwealth regulator simply because legislation says so. If Labor genuinely cared about protecting children, then these safeguards would already have been written into the law. Then, there is the issue of self-incrimination. Labor believe people should be compelled to answer even when their answer may expose them to complex legal risk. There are limits on how compelled material can later be used, but the facts remain. Labor want more power to force you to do things. They'll excuse their own e-safety commissioner; she doesn't have to go to the US. She's been compelled, but they won't apply that same standard to our own people. This is becoming a very dangerous pattern. Because Labor's legislation was flawed and they can't enforce it, they're asking for broader powers. I can tell you it's still not working. They want to compel more documents, more information and more people to appear for questioning. At what point do we say this is enough? One Nation opposes Labor's relentless socialist censorship regime, because free speech matters and because parents, not Canberra bureaucrats, should make decisions about their children's lives. But this is bigger than just this legislation or these bans. It's about how much power Australians are prepared to hand to an unelected censorship commissioner, while Labor are calling all criticism bots, poison and misinformation. Let's reflect on that. That is the environment in which this is occurring. Labor seem to think they can censor themselves into a safe space. Good luck with that. If people cannot have their say in your comments sections, they will happily send that message at the ballot box. Labor is building its censorship regime—that is the truth—because Australians are saying things to them that they do not like. One Nation will never allow this to occur. Your cynical abuse of people's concerns about child safety ring hollow. Everyone sees this for what it is: cover for the steady accumulation of government power. Australian Society 42 13:25 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Immigration is the question of our generation. How we answer it will determine what sort of Australia moves into the next era. The majority of Australians believe we're headed for disaster—at least half want immigration paused entirely. Will we continue to be a Western democracy with European roots, with Western Anglo-Celtic heritage and Aboriginal cultures, and a robust dedication to principles of freedom, faith, enterprise, democracy, fairness and equality? Are we to retain the echo of Christian values in our laws and culture? Young people are the ones preparing to live in the Australia that we leave behind. Many fear the character of Australian is being lost under the dual forces of mass immigration and multiculturalism, creating resentment and anger. To be put last in your own country is a crime. The government's digital duty of care is an assault on democracy, attempting to brand One Nation as radical, fringe or even dangerous would bring us under the pending social media duty of care bill. It's Orwellian. It's a self-defence reflex from parties with no idea of how to fix their plummeting polls. Why else have those opposite branded us populists if it weren't for the unpopularity of their party? A populist, simply described, is a politician who accepts our role to serve the people. The Left spit the word 'populist' out of their mouths like poison; I quite like the taste. When was the last time Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor spent the week on public transport? Have they ever feared for their safety, coming home at night or sitting on a packed bus without a single word of English? Anthony Albanese purchased a cliff-top mansion. Does he know what it's like to stand in line behind 50 people for a rental, knowing the process is hopeless? Young people's lives are getting smaller, poorer, lonelier and more foreign. This is not integration; it's abandonment. The emergence of lost, angry and disillusioned young people is not a surprise; it's inevitable. Many have been swooped up and radicalised into communist, socialist and Islamist aligned movements. From cradle to degree, they fed a lie that protesting is the same as productivity. No-one is coming to rescue them because their outrage is useful for government policy. Existential terror about the planet helps keep Canberra able to give green grants to big business and foreigners and creates thankyou jobs for politicians who wrote their Green election slogans with the tears of children. Many young people have achieved spiritual purpose from being part of something grand—a literal fight against supposed evil, without understanding the historical horrors of the movements they've joined. Activist ringleaders exploit the emotional vulnerability of futureless young people to manipulate them into being ideological soldiers. And they're not the only extremists employing this abuse. The Neo-Nazis do it too. One Nation disavows all radicalism. We oppose it even at the cost of votes. These groups are not welcome. When it comes to handling extremism, plenty of ministers in Canberra have turned a blind eye to children calling for the murder of Pauline Hanson, violence against One Nation supporters and for conservatives to be imprisoned. This is radicalisation. Why have senior Labor ministers wrongly tried to imply this radicalisation is justified instead of showing moral leadership? Tell the young that these violent and fascist slogans shouted at their rallies are wrong. Left-wing activism is not harmless. Soon these children will hold a majority vote. How will Labor address the rising violence on the Left when you refuse to stand up against it now? Are you afraid you'll lose an election? Is that how cheaply your conscience is bought? One Nation has no such cowardice. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nationalists and ethno-nationalist exist in this country. We disavow them completely. They stand in opposition to everything One Nation believes. These groups are a gut punch to the story of Australia, as is the growth in numbers of communists, socialists, Marxists, decolonisers and Islamists. We have racial land, racial taxes, racial privilege and racial parliaments all in violation of our founding principles. That's extremism. There's a growing sea of angry, radicalised young people in this country who know nothing of where their own rhetoric leads. Instead of helping them, Labor and the Greens are preying on them. Last week, I rang the alarm in a Spectator article against those conservatives who are in danger of manipulation and violence from extremists. Since then, I've been threatened repeatedly. That's why I'm now doubling down. My challenge to all sides of politics is to stand up against extremism in all its forms. If you won't, you have no moral justification for attacking One Nation, who are calling out extremism in all its ugly forms. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 315170 We will now move to two-minute statements. Taxation 43 13:30 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Australians are working harder, paying more for everything and paying more tax. Still, for the Albanese Labor government, it is never enough. The latest ABS government finance statistics show Commonwealth tax revenue increased by a staggering $44.8 billion in just one year. Personal income tax revenue alone jumped nine per cent—or an extra $28.5 billion taken from Australian taxpayers. In fact, The Australian today reports that Jim Chalmers is forecast by the Treasury to become the biggest income taxing treasurer as a share of GDP in history, hitting 18.6— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McDonald, I will remind you to use the correct title of those in the other place. Senator McDONALD 123072 T he Australian today reports that Treasurer Chalmers is forecast by the Treasury to become the biggest income taxing treasurer as a share of GDP in history, hitting 18.6 per cent this financial year. Australians are handing over tens of billions of dollars more, but it is never enough for Labor. They want more of your money—higher capital gains tax, trusts, changes to negative gearing, bracket creep quietly taking a bigger share of wages. Labor's toxic taxes are what happens when a government cannot control its spending. With that enormous increase in revenue, Commonwealth expenses increased $2.9 billion for employee expenses and $13.5 billion for Commonwealth social benefits. While Australians are having to tighten their belts, Labor's answer is to reach deeper into your pockets. The coalition has a different plan. We will cut Labor's toxic taxes. We will have lower taxes, reward hard work, back small business and restore aspiration. We will protect our way of life and restore our standard of living, and Australians will keep more of what they earn. (Time expired) Women's Health 43 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I've stood in this chamber many times before to raise the importance of prioritising and adequately investing in women's health and listening to women's voices not just with empathy but through action. I am deeply proud of our government's massive investments in women's health care to date through our landmark nearly $800 million investment in women's health. That is delivering more choice, lower costs and better care for Australian women. This represented a step change in the way women's health is funded and prioritised in Australia. But there is still a lot to do. In the last parliamentary sitting week, I asked the Senate for its support to establish a new select committee that would give us the power once again to spark a national conversation, to elevate women's voices and to build an evidence base that could inform future policy reform. Since then, I have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people who have reached out to me in support of this work. Women and their partners have shared with me their deeply personal experiences in the postpartum period and have shown me extraordinary kindness after sharing my own. Families have spoken about their painful and heartbreaking struggles in accessing fertility treatments and support, and women have expressed their frustration and exhaustion that their pain continues to be ignored or dismissed. I am looking forward to working with Senators Stewart Whiteaker, Kovacic, Ruston and Senator Waters, who is the deputy chair, in bringing these voices into the spotlight, and I thank all of these senators for putting their names forward to do this important work. I want to thank every woman who will come before us and share their story too. This Women's Health Week, know that your voice matters and we are listening. Australian Curriculum 44 13:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Australia has a serious problem with misogyny, particularly amongst young men and boys. When a quarter of teenage boys think feminism should be resisted with violence if necessary, we have a genuine crisis on our hands. Social media algorithms are driving an increase in misogyny, and what do male leaders like Senator Matthew Canavan and the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor, do? They blame women. Senator Canavan says that boys are 'sick and tired of the feminisation of Australian schools'. What does that even mean? Instead of calling that rubbish out, Mr Taylor doubles down and backs him in. That is exactly the kind of ill-informed grievance politics that fuels the toxic manosphere, teaching boys that women, feminism and basic equality are responsible for the challenges that the boys are facing. I'll tell you what: boys deserve better from men in leadership. Real men show up. Real men take responsibility. Real men don't blame women when life gets tough. Real men treat women and girls as equals. Real men listen and show kindness. Real men call out misogyny when they see it, and I'm calling out misogyny here today. Those of us in leadership, particularly men, have a responsibility to model good behaviour for teenagers and young boys. Boys are watching us and learning from us, and Senator Canavan and Mr Taylor should think very carefully about what they are teaching them. Freedom of Speech 44 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The exposure draft of the Labor government's Digital Duty of Care Bill was released yesterday, and it is much worse than we first thought. It is nothing more than another attempt by this government to censor free speech in this country. The bill purports to place a sweeping legal obligation on providers of social media, search engines, messaging apps, AI tools and a host of other online services to ensure 'a safe online environment'. That's the language used. In practice, this means that platforms are going to need to take steps to minimise exposure to broadly defined categories of harmful material and conduct, and the minister can decide what is actually harmful. It's truly concerning that this incursion into free speech can even be suggested. It creates powerful incentives for overcompliance. Faced with civil penalties, potentially running into tens of millions of dollars, companies are simply going to err on the side of caution by removing or suppressing borderline but lawful speech rather than risk enforcement action by our eSafety commissioner. The reality here is that the online environment, including platforms like X, has finally given Australians the ability to communicate without fear of censorship, and the political establishment, particularly that of the Left, doesn't like it at all. This bill will chill free expression for Australians, who are increasingly sceptical of institutional narratives on culture and politics. Rather than confront the substance of those arguments, the government is attempting to regulate the architecture of free speech itself—all in the name of safety and all in the name of our children. What an absolute disgrace! Western Australia: Australian Defence Force 44 13:38 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia I rise to mark a defining moment for Western Australia and our national security. On 24 August the Albanese and Cook Labor governments announced the selection of the site for the new Henderson Defence Precinct. This is where we will build the ships and sustain the subs that will protect our country for generations. This site works because Henderson already has the people, the skills and the yards that can do this work. Generations of shipbuilders have worked at Henderson. Across the water is HMAS Stirling, the centre of our future submarine force under AUKUS. The conventionally armed nuclear powered subs will be built at Osborne in South Australia, will operate out of Stirling, and, when they need to come out of the water for major work, will do so at Henderson. From those same yards, we'll also build the Navy's future general purpose frigates and the Army's landing craft. The Henderson Defence Precinct provides the infrastructure that we need so that we can own, run and look after our own defence assets. This is all part of a $12 billion commitment announced last year and is part of a much larger investment in the defence industry not just in my home state of Western Australia but right across the country. But in my home state this work at Henderson will create 10,000 good local jobs for Western Australians. This honour really belongs to Western Australians and to the many generations of shipbuilders who have done work there. This is my local community. They do hard work, they do important work, and in an increasingly complex world they will continue to play a really important role. This sovereignty means we own, operate and maintain the ships and subs that protect our people. Albanese Government 45 13:40 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia Government money is not Labor Party money. Taxpayer money is not Labor Party money. It does not belong to Anthony Albanese, and it does not belong to any political party to treat as— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Whitten, I remind you to use the correct titles of people in the other place and show respect. Senator WHITTEN 317026 My apologies—the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese—and it does not belong to any political party to treat as a political slush fund, handing out taxpayer dollars where they believe it will help them win votes. Yet that is precisely why Labor's spending across electorates that it considers safe, marginal or competitive at the last election is so deeply troubling. At the last election, Labor promised more than half a billion dollars for sports facilities, parks and community infrastructure. The $560 million Major Local Community Infrastructure Fund was established to deliver those promises. Around $493 million of that went to electorates notionally held by Labor—safe, fairly safe or competitive seats. Just $66 million went to seats where Labor was not competitive. And an examination of more than 220 programs found that 73 per cent of that funding went to electorates notionally held by Labor. This is an extraordinary imbalance. It raises a simple question: was this government investment based on community need or on political opportunity? The chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, former Justice Anthony Whealy, said: Prima facie, it looks like the misuse of public money or serious pork-barrelling, as it's sometimes called. During the Secret Harbour by-election, Labor again put major infrastructure commitments, including the Karnup train station and a proposed $950 million upgrade to Mandurah Hospital, front and centre of its campaign. Coincidence? Australians deserve better than politics disguised as public policy. Your postcode should not determine your access to government funding. Your political allegiance should not determine whether your community gets a new sporting facility, park, train station or hospital. This is taxpayers' money, not Labor's campaign war chest. Illicit Tobacco 45 13:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria In the early hours of 1 July, 50 metres from my electorate office in Richmond, a tobacco shop was firebombed; just five days later, on Victoria Street, around the corner, a car rammed into another tobacco shop and the building was torched—80 firefighters, 10 businesses damaged and 30 people out of work. One of those people is Ngoc Pham. Ngoc is an extraordinary woman. After migrating from Vietnam she opened her own business, a nail salon, and built it from absolutely nothing while raising three children. When she needed staff, she hired the residents of the public housing estate just across the road. Her salon is gone—entirely gone, burnt to the ground—all because a tobacco shop in her strip was a target of organised crime. That's what the tobacco wars really look like, and it's the consequence of a policy that has fundamentally failed. There have been just over 200 tobacco related arsons in my home state of Victoria and six homicides around the country. Organised crime is clearing up to $7 billion every year, which is ploughed straight back into drugs, into scams, into money laundering and into other organised crime activities. Illicit tobacco is now around 80 per cent of the tobacco market. Excise revenue and tobacco consumption has actually increased. The coalition will destroy this business model. We'll cut excise by 80 per cent so the gangs lose their price advantage. We'll back it with a $200 million enforcement surge to shut the shops, seize the products and follow the money. We'll regulate vapes and nicotine pouches instead of leaving this to criminals. Labor has had its chance to do this. Australians don't need more excuses; what we need is to take back control. That is exactly what the coalition plan does. (Time expired) International Relations: Australia and South Korea 45 13:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Australia and Korea are comprehensive strategic partners in a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment. Our countries have longstanding people-to-people links that have enriched Australian culture for generations. From Korean cuisine and film to the global phenomenon of K-pop, these cultural ties continue to strengthen the bonds between our people. When geopolitical uncertainty strikes, as it did with the shutdown in the Strait of Hormuz, it was trusted partners like Korea that came to Australia's aid to secure critical supply chains. As our partnership continues to evolve, there is much to gain from closer collaboration between our two countries. Last week, I was pleased to represent the Albanese government alongside Senate colleagues Senator Wong and Senator Farrell at the Australia-Korea Business Council and Korea-Australia Business Council annual meeting in Adelaide. I want to acknowledge the AKBC Chair, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, as well as the KABC Chair, Dr Chang In-hwa, for facilitating such invaluable conversations with Australian and Korean businesses over the two-day meeting. Of course, I would be remiss not to also mention the significant role of Dr Chang as POSCO chair and CEO. POSCO represents Australia's largest single export customer and is a significant investor in Australian resources. POSCO's partnerships with the Australian industry have been instrumental in securing new critical minerals opportunities in Australia, such as Pilbara lithium solutions and Arafura Rare Earths's Nolans Project as well. These projects are important examples of what of our Albanese Labor government is seeking to achieve as part of our Future Made in Australia agenda. Attracting foreign investment and partners like POSCO is essential to realising these ambitions. Together, I'm confident that this partnership can continue to grow as we seek more of these opportunities and develop this relationship into the future. (Time expired) Data Centres 46 13:46 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Who benefits from this data centre frenzy being pushed across Victoria? It isn't regular Victorians, who are facing higher energy prices and an increased risk of blackouts. It isn't the elderly people hospitalised when the power cuts out over summer. It isn't farmers, traditional owners or our rivers when our states run out of water. It isn't the residents of West Footscray dealing with noise and air pollution or their kids experiencing higher rates of asthma. It sure isn't the communities around the proposed Port Melbourne data centre or firefighters worried about NEXTDC's plan to store millions of litres of diesel and tonnes of lithium ion batteries onsite; nor will communities near the proposed Plumpton AI data centre benefit. They face a development the size of 175 MCGs. Think about that for a moment. Who does the AI data frenzy really benefit? Only a handful of billionaire tech bros, that's who. Labor is putting American tech billionaires' profits ahead of regular Australians'. And we've had it. They are selling us out for nothing. The AI bubble is driving inflation. It's stealing land, resources, labour—all things that we need to combat the housing crisis. It is costing jobs and devouring artists' and creatives' work. Labor is steamrolling communities and bypassing consultation in a rush to sell us off. Instead of hospitals, better transport and infrastructure for our communities, we're getting hot little computer boxes that nobody asked for. But communities are fighting back right across Victoria. They are saying, 'No way, we are not giving up our air, our water and our power for these tech billionaire jerks.' Councils including Maribyrnong, Hume, Melton and Brimbank have already passed moratoriums on new data centres. The Greens are leading this fight with the community. We are fighting for a moratorium on all AI data centres. Let's govern this country for Australians, not tech billionaires. (Time expired) Cybersafety 46 13:50 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The government's social media ban has failed, not according to me but according to the evidence. Eighty-five per cent of under-16s in a recent study are still using the very platforms that this government supposedly banned them from using. So what does Labor do when one of its policies fails and fails miserably? Does it admit it's wrong as it repeals the law? Does it trust and empower the parents to look after their own kids? Of course it doesn't. What does it do? It reaches for more power—more powers for the eSafety Commissioner, more compulsory information gathering, more documents, more fines, more coercion. We're now talking about powers to summon people to compel them to answer questions under oath, weakening protections against self-incrimination and punishing noncompliance with massive fines or even jail—freaking jail. And remember what the Prime Minister said in 2023 when he was asked, 'Mr Prime Minister, what would you do if you were a dictator?' What did he say? He said, 'I would ban social media.' He actually said that. Now, I thought he was joking, but it's not funny. I don't think he was joking at all. In 2024 we moved an urgency motion in this place which sought to affirm that parental responsibility rests with—guess who—parents, not the freaking federal government. Only seven senators supported it out of 76. Just think about that. This Senate overwhelmingly refused to affirm that parents should be responsible for their own children. You know what, parents? Your kids do not belong to the state. You should set the boundaries. You should make the decisions. When government policy fails, the answer is never more surveillance, more coercion and more power for these unelected bureaucrats in Canberra. The answer is really simple: empower parents. Put parents back in charge. That's it. Get government out of our lives. We are all sick of this crap. Tasmania: Manufacturing 46 13:50 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania Tasmania is less than one per cent of Australia's landmass and home to barely two per cent of its people, but our size has never set the limit on what we can build. A few weeks ago, the world's largest battery-electric ship began its journey from Tasmania to South America, and this extraordinary vessel wasn't built in Rotterdam, Singapore or Shanghai. It was built in Hobart. It was built by Incat on the banks of the River Derwent. Hull 096 is 130 metres long and carries 2,100 passengers and 225 vehicles. But here is the extraordinary part: its battery system stores more than 40 megawatt-hours of energy, four times larger than any previous maritime battery installation. It's the largest battery-electric ship ever built, and it's no one-off. Three more battery-electric ferries are already under construction at Incat, bound for Denmark. They will be the largest electric ferries operating in Europe. Tasmania is not following the future of maritime manufacturing; we are building it. I visited Hull 096 with Incat founder Robert Clifford shortly before it departed, and what struck me was what sat behind its scale: Tasmanian design, Tasmanian engineering, Tasmanian trades, Tasmanian know-how. And Incat is no outlier. Across our state, world-class advanced manufacturers are building specialist vessels, marine systems, mining equipment and technology for customers around the world. There is an economic lesson here. The clean-energy transition is not just about generating power; it's an opportunity to build industries, create skilled jobs and export Tasmanian expertise. Hull 096 may have left Hobart, but it leaves behind proof of something bigger: Tasmania does not have to be big to build things that change the world. Macquarie Point Stadium 47 13:52 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I've had a problem with the Macquarie Point Stadium since day one. Don't get me wrong; like most Tasmanians, I love my footy. But we already have two perfectly great stadiums, and the one up in my neck of the woods just got a $130 million face lift. When this stadium was first announced, we were told it was only going to cost $750 million and 'not one red cent more'. Anyone with half a brain knew where we were heading. Of course it was going to cost us more. Suddenly we're not talking $750 million any more. We're now talking nearly $1 billion. Back in May, the Tasmanian parliament passed a motion ordering the Liberal government to provide updated stadium costings to the house by August. The motion passed. Now we're in September, and guess what. Crickets. The head of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation wrote to the Premier and said, 'Please don't tell the Tasmanian people how much it's costing, because it might affect our tender.' BS. A Ucomm survey released today shows that 70 per cent of Tasmanians want to see full costings on Macquarie Point Stadium. Only 31 per cent agreed that the Tasmanian Liberal government had handled the issue of stadium build well. So the Premier has ignored the parliament and is completely ignoring the Tasmanian people, because he still won't release the costs. If the costs have gone up, it's simple: tell Tasmanians. If they haven't, then yippee! Release the figures. It's really that simple. The true cost of the stadium won't just be in the building costs; we are going to be paying back interest too, and, if the stadium isn't ready by 2028, Tasmanian taxpayers, guess what. You will pay a penalty of nearly $5 million to the Tasmania Football Club. Go wear that today! We've just had one of the biggest slash-and-burn budgets Tasmania has seen in years. 1,700 jobs have been cut across the public sector. Health workers are losing their jobs. Health programs are being cut. I say this to Tasmanians who want this stadium: I hope your stadium is worth it with its gold plated roof. I hope it's worth it. I really do, because, quite frankly, that's what's taking from your health system. Wake up. Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026 47 13:55 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria When I've told people in this place about my bill to end shackling during childbirth, people's reaction has been, 'Does this really happen? Surely not.' Well, it does right across the country and it's allowed by law. People are cuffed to the bed by an arm or a leg, and their legs can be shackled together by a chain. Different jurisdictions have different guidelines, and loopholes are routinely used to justify this inhumane practice. No-one should ever give birth in shackles. What year are we in? Seriously, there is no evidence of anyone ever posing a risk to others during childbirth without shackling. It just doesn't happen. If anyone's ever had a baby, they would know it's one of the most significant experiences someone can have in their lifetime. All the parent is concerned about is their child's safety and their own. Being shackled while giving birth is dangerous both for the parent and for the baby. In some cases, it can lead to death. The pregnant person can't move around, the doctors can't access the patient properly or move them. Any emergency procedure is delayed by having to shackle or unshackle the person. It can lead to haemorrhage and delay emergency caesareans among many, many other medical risks. This is barbaric. Labor can now end this by supporting my bill, which bans shackling people during childbirth. I'm not just talking about blackfellas here; I'm talking about every person that is giving birth in prison. We have to stop this torturing of people in this country. (Time expired) Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 48 13:57 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory We are suffocating under Labor's economic mismanagement, and now Big Brother has a bill that starves the 2.6 million Australian businesses that rely on digital platforms for sales, marketing and hiring. The 'Big Brother bill' is a sweeping guillotine on the digital services our modern economy is built on. Overnight, platforms will be forced to ask Australians one question: algorithm on, algorithm off? In one click, 2.6 million small businesses could be shut off from the digital economy—tradies, florists, coffee shops, bakeries, hairdressers. Your side hustle, your career, your passion suffocated because Labor has failed to even consider the economic fallout of its 'Big Brother bill'. But why is that not surprising? My algorithm is filled with scrolls of success. I've watched small enterprises hustle, sweat and strike gold by reaching the exact people who want their service. It's these exact entrepreneurs and the enterprises who lifted us out of cold baths and into warm showers, from pickled meat to refrigeration. We are living in a digital renaissance that Labor is about to switch off because the algorithms don't work for them. It's a free market of ideas and the best ideas win, not Labor's. So I ask Big Brother directly: how many Australians will turn the algorithm off? Has Treasury modelled a single dollar of what it will do to small business? Has the Minister for Small Business, who is MIA, asked the question or has she just fallen into Labor's socialist agenda? (Time expired) Superannuation 48 13:59 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania This week One Nation joined with the Liberals and the Nationals in their fight to attack universal super. One Nation wants to raid your super to claim to be helping you to pay your bills. One Nation is the party of billionaires. They could go to their mates—they could say, 'Why don't you actually pay workers appropriately, rather than raiding their retirement?' Labor is the party that created super. We're strengthening it. We're now having 12 per cent as contributions, and those on the other side want to attack and they want to destroy the foundations of working people having a safe, dignified retirement. Debate interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fiscal Policy 48 14:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Why was the Prime Minister's local Marrickville golf club the only golf club in the whole country invited to apply for Labor's $560 million community infrastructure program? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you. In relation to this and other aspects of the grants program, the government has made clear that we had a specific program to deliver on election commitments—election commitments that were made public, that we ran on publicly and that we were elected by the Australian people to deliver. Proper processes were followed to deliver these commitments in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles following the government's re-election. I think that is very clear and very transparent. Since coming into office, we have also provided $2 billion in open and competitive grants for community infrastructure and committed to a new compact with local government services. The reality is we have done both open and competitive processes in government and very clear, transparent processes to deliver and fulfil our election commitments, which include the commitment that you have made reference to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, first supplementary. 14:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister's golf club received a $6 million taxpayer funded grant when no other golf club in Australia was given the same opportunity? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I again say to you: these are election commitments. And you do know that, Senator. The way you're asking questions, you understand there's a difference between open and competitive grant processes. We have some $2 billion available and open and competitive grants for community infrastructure. However, members of Parliament—candidates—are also entitled to make election commitments. I suspect you have made a few yourself, Senator. And we are ensuring that we deliver on those election commitments in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. That is what we have done. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary. 14:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Minister, what role did the Prime Minister play in directing $6 million of taxpayer funds to his own golf club? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again—two points. The first is that these were election commitments transparently, openly publicised, including the fact that they would be delivered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. I would remind the senator that this program is within Minister King's portfolio, where she is administering both this and some of the other infrastructure programs that I have referenced. Cybersafety 49 14:03 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, alongside the communications minister as well as representatives from the community, family organisations and parents, the Prime Minister announced the next steps the Albanese Labor government will be taking to empower Australians to take control of their social media feeds and protect our young Australians. Can the minister explain what the government's plan will mean for Australians wanting to take back control online? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her question. What the Prime Minister announced yesterday on behalf of the government is all about giving Australians greater choice—greater choice over their platforms. It is about taking back control from platforms and putting it back into the hands of Australians, giving people control, not government—people. With the My Feed, My Way initiative, we are acting. Now, we all understand the way we engage with things online has changed. Social media has become ubiquitous. We know that technology is impacting our lives, at times enriching and connecting us in ways that we welcome. But we also know that too often the opposite is true. Algorithms can be weaponised to target Australians by those who mean to do us harm, and too often it has been our youngest Australians who have felt the consequences. So this government will require social media platforms to provide tools which empower users to make genuine and enduring choices about what they see in their feeds. If users choose to opt out, users can't be penalised with a worse experience. Now, if you prefer your social media the way it is, platforms must apply the basic safety standards required by the digital duty of care. Already we are seeing the reaction online. Australians from across the community are saying it's about time. It's about time that big tech took responsibility for the harms their tools are causing, and it's about time that Australians feel like they have a real say of what is in their social media feeds. And, if I may say, it's about time the coalition, the Liberal Party and the National Party, stop looking to One Nation for their policy on these issues and stand up for Australians who want a choice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary. 14:06 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The digital duty of care legislation, released for targeted consultation yesterday, includes tough new rules to protect children from harmful content online. How does this legislation build on the Albanese government's world-leading social media minimum age laws to further protect younger Australians and to keep big tech accountable? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. We've all heard the motto many tech companies have long lived by: move fast and break things. But what I would say to those opposite and to this chamber is that we must not allow our children to be broken. I would remind senators of the heartbreaking story that we heard this week of Wayne Holdsworth and his son, Mac, who he lost to suicide 2½ years ago. Tragically, his story is not an anomaly. Just like we have safety standards for cars, safety standards for food and safety standards for appliances, surely we should have standards for online tools and services through the digital duty of care. As Wayne said yesterday: We can't see that happening again. We've got to act now. I hope that those opposite are listening, because you support safety standards on cars, so why would you not support safety standards online?(Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary. 14:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Albanese Labor government's 'My Feed, My Way' initiative is an Australian first— An honourable senator An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, I'm sorry, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan, I need to hear the question. I'm waiting for silence. Senator Stewart. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you. The Albanese Labor government's 'My Feed, My Way' initiative is an Australian first, giving Australians more control over their feeds. Australian parents will also have more confidence that their children are being protected from harmful content online through the digital duty of care. Minister, what are the risks to the government's plan to make sure that big tech steps up for Australians and gives Australians more choice online? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, as I said, Labor's digital duty of care is about Australians controlling their algorithms, not big tech. What stands in the way are the Liberals and Nationals being led by the nose by One Nation. Now, just 13 days ago, Senator Henderson—who's busy interjecting on me—demanded 'much stronger safeguards across the digital ecosystem', declaring: Nothing should be off the table, including… the option to permanently opt out of algorithm-driven recommendations. Her convictions didn't even last two weeks. This is 'a senator of conviction', but two weeks and she folds, because she's worried about the way One Nation is going. Now she's parroting and she's done it again here today, President. Our safety bill is a 'threat to free speech'. What changed in 13 days? You know what changed? One Nation cried 'free speech', and you crumbled. You have no conviction whatsoever. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 50 14:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Uganda, led by the Hon. Ofwono Opondo. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Opondo was seated accordingly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If I may, I join that and welcome our friends from Uganda to the Senate. MINISTRY 50 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 50 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I inform the Senate that Senator Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, will be absent from question time today. I have advised the chamber of the ministerial changes. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Prime Minister 50 14:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note that Queensland has a wonderful Ugandan community, as well. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The ABC reports a spokesperson for the Marrickville Golf Club saying of the Prime Minister: We have him on the books as an honorary member … The Prime Minister today said: No, I don't have a membership. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to assure himself whether or not he is recorded in the Marrickville Golf Club records as being an honorary member of the club? Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I've called order across the chamber. I should not have to follow that up that up by naming individual senators. Minister Wong? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question. What I can say to you is that I understand that this is a facility open to all in the Grayndler electorate, and I can confirm that paid social membership is valued at the bargain price of $5 for two years. I would just simply say the Prime Minister is engaged closely in his electorate. He is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 My point of order goes to direct relevance. The question was: what steps has he taken to assure himself? If the minister doesn't know, take it on notice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Scarr. I remind you once again that you stand and make your point of order. It doesn't give you an obligation or an entitlement to make a statement. The minister is being relevant. I would advise you to not allow interjections on your side, because those can also be taken into account. Minister Wong? Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. As I said, I'm advised that paid social membership is valued at the bargain price of five bucks for two years, which seems extraordinarily low. Always, Senator Scarr, if I'm able to provide further information, I will. I would make the point to you that the Prime Minister remains someone who has represented this community for many, many years and is engaged in many aspects of community life. The grants that we have spoken about—for example, grants during the last election campaign, also went to the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre and to the St Vincent de Paul Society. Yes, he's a local member, so it's normal for— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU If I can provide further information, I will do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a first supplementary? 14:13 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland This isn't a question of community engagement or anything in that regard. It's a question of disclosure of conflicts or perceived conflicts. So I ask: what steps has the Prime Minister taken to assure himself that he has complied with the obligations to declare private interests or perceived conflicts of interest in accordance with section 3 of the code of conduct for ministers? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make a few points. The first is that the Prime Minister was not the decision-maker on the grant. Let's say that again. Unlike what has happened in the past in some of these areas, the Prime Minister was not the decision-maker on this grant. That is the first point. The second point I would make is in relation to the supplementary question asked. I would note that in relation to the requirements for registers of members' interests in the House, the notes do indicate that 'Generally it would be expected that membership of a local community, sporting or charitable organisation would not pose or be seen to pose a potential conflict of interest.' I think that responds to the second part of your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, second supplementary? 14:15 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note this was in relation to an election commitment and a closed tender process. Minister, did the Prime Minister declare a conflict or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the Marrickville Golf Club before the decision was— Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! I'm sorry, Senator Scarr. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! I remind you that Senator Scarr has the right to ask his question in silence. Please continue, Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR 282997 I understand their sensitivity in this regard. Did the Prime Minister declare a conflict or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the Marrickville Golf Club before the decision was made to commit $6 million in Commonwealth funding to the Marrickville Golf Club as part of the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program? If not, why not? (Time expired.) 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I know that those opposite really want to try and make something where there is nothing— Senator WONG 00AOU Unlike the person who is now laughing at me, he was not the decision-maker. He was not the decision-maker. He is not the decision-maker. Again, he did not make the decision in relation to this grant. This grant was disclosed by way of an election commitment transparently and delivered in accordance with the Commonwealth rules. Senator Ruston interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, you will withdraw that comment. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I would ask those on my left to listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU The Prime Minister was not the decision-maker. The election commitment was transparently and publicly made, and we are delivering on an election commitment. End of story. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 51 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. There were 39,758 victims of sexual assault in Australia last year. Today's annual report to parliament by the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner highlights the system failures that stop women coming forward. The government has had the Law Reform Commission recommendations to improve justice system responses like trauma-informed training, access to independent lawyers and protecting counselling records. You've had them for 18 months. This is an urgent issue, and women can't wait any longer. When is the government going to act on these crucial recommendations? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Waters for the question and for her advocacy in the area of women's safety over a long period of time. This is something that I and all the government led by Minister Plibersek along with Assistant Minister Kearney and Assistant Minister White in the women's team with the Attorney-General, which really goes to the issues that Senator Waters raises—this is a whole-of-government effort in terms of not only responding to the current prevalence of violence, including sexual violence, across the Australian community, but also looking forward about what needs to happen. We have responded in a number of ways. I don't have the breakdown of all of the issues that have been dealt with in the Attorney's portfolio, but I will see if I can get that to add to my answer. But I know that the work that Minister Rowland has been doing, including through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, has been leading this work for the government and implementing a number of recommendations from various reports. We are also, at the moment, as Senator Waters would know, consulting on the second action plan for the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, for which there have been extensive consultations across the sector about what further measures need to be taken. But we have invested heavily in this area. There is more work to do. The extent and prevalence of violence against women and children in the Australian community are horrific. We read about these stories every day—victims-survivors and those who don't survive. We have a whole-of-community responsibility to talk about this and to do whatever we can to end it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland With rising sexual assaults among teens and research showing that many young men still hold dangerous attitudes towards consent, your government has just announced a review of respectful relationships and consent education, despite the national framework only being finalised earlier this year. Will the new review finally implement expert recommendations calling for clear, practical language around sex and consent that works for young people? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank you for the supplementary, Senator Waters. I don't want to pre-empt that work, but I think Minister Plibersek and others have been very clear about the need to make sure that the support and education that is being provided to young people is relevant, meets the needs of young people and is provided in a way that is useful and informative. We are very keen to see the outcomes of that review. Obviously, it will also feed into the second action plan. I note that the commissioner's report today identifies early intervention, prevention and the issue of sexual violence being recognised in its own category as priorities going forward. I think all of those issues are definitely ones that have come up during the consultations I've attended and others have led into the second action plan. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Too many women and children are being raped or killed by violence, primarily by men and, most often, by someone known to them. We've seen the reports; we've done the reviews. We don't need more ideas. We need the funding and the political will to turn them into action. When will this government stop crying poor on women's safety and fully fund prevention programs and the frontline support services for domestic, family and sexual violence? 14:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We have invested heavily in this area, Senator Waters. I accept that there can be an argument about whether that's enough. I think, certainly, Minister Plibersek and I both acknowledge that more needs to be done. We've invested over $4 billion into women's safety. We've supported the continuation of around the same amount, $4 billion, into the national legal access partnership. There is a role for states and territories here. They run a lot of the services, and I know, in Queensland and in the Northern Territory, they've made cutbacks to the service sector in this area. So, where we are providing more money, we are seeing some state governments withdraw money. This is a genuine partnership. We need to work with the states and territories. The second action plan will certainly inform the decisions that the government makes, through the budget process, about areas of priority, areas that we need to do further investment in and areas where we have to encourage the states and territories to work more with us. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 53 14:23 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. My question, too, is around ending gender based violence. Ending gender based violence is a national priority for the Albanese Labor government. Today, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's yearly report was tabled in parliament, and the commission's report finds that, while the government has made important progress, domestic, family and sexual violence continues to have a devastating impact on women and children in Australia. Can the minister further outline what actions the Albanese Labor government is taking to address gender based violence? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Brown for that important question, again, on the subject of domestic, family and sexual violence. Today, that important report from the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner has been tabled in the parliament. I think all of us in this chamber would want to acknowledge the work of Commissioner Cronin and her staff for the work that goes into these reports. The report acknowledges the work that has been delivered by the government over the last four years and that there is, as I just said to Senator Waters, much more to do. We've invested more than any other government so far—$4.4 billion in frontline services, preventive programs, behaviour change and programs for children—across government. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent, giving people escaping violence over $5,000 in financial help as well as safety, planning and support. We've legislated 10 days paid domestic violence leave, and we funded those frontline domestic, family and sexual violence workers in state and territory services. We've been undertaking consultation on the next phase of the national plan to end violence. Over a thousand experts and frontline services have attended over 163 roundtables. I joined a roundtable with the Prime Minister in August and convened one here locally in July. The commission's report echoes what we've heard through these consultations—consistently address risk and act early to prevent harm, focus on preventing and responding to sexual violence, make sure that we have the evidence of what works and track progress. We are determined to get this action plan right. Last month, National Cabinet agreed to a new national family and domestic violence risk assessment framework. This means that wherever someone seeks help—from police, a doctor or a hospital in Canberra or Cairns—the warning signs should be recognised and acted upon. National Cabinet has also agreed to further priorities in the section— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brown, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Young people are increasingly being exposed to harmful content online, including content that impacts their self-esteem, is addictive or encourages negative behaviours. Yesterday, the government released our plan for a world-leading digital duty of care. Why is the government taking steps to protect young people from harmful online content? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Brown for that supplementary, and I think anyone listening to Radio National this morning and to Mia Bannister talk about her son wouldn't have been able to not have been moved by that incredibly powerful interview. We know that there are many examples of what young people are exposed to online—girls getting advice from chatbots on how to lose weight, boys being bullied by strangers on online games, young people learning what a relationship or sex is from unrealistic online content and children being shown extreme violence even when they weren't looking for it. So, following on from the social media age ban, we will legislate a digital duty of care to put the onus on digital service providers to provide a safe online environment, particularly for young people. This includes the content they see in their feeds as well as chatting in games, on AI chatbots or on the web. Digital spaces will be required to protect under-18s from harmful content just like other products marketed to children are. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brown, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Social media algorithms decide what users see rather than Australians choosing for themselves. This often includes content that normalises attitudes that put women and girls at risk. How is the Albanese government ensuring people have more choice about what they see online, and why is this important? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Brown for that question too. Social media algorithms determine what content users see online. Not only does that take away user autonomy but algorithms are amplifying harmful content, including content that normalises misogyny and puts women and girls at risk. We think that Australians should be able to choose what content they see and when. For the first time anywhere, Australians will be able to switch the algorithm off and see only what they have actually chosen to follow. Remember those old days when you just followed what you wanted to follow? It's called 'My Feed, My Way'. The feed will answer to the user, not the other way around. As a government, we want to give control back to Australians while minimising harmful content that promotes harm. International Relations: Australia and Israel 54 14:29 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for Minister Wong. Minister Wong, you announced yesterday that the Albanese Labor government will not pursue a full ban on importing goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank because it's concerned about 'unintended consequences for Australian businesses, for Palestinians and for Israelis'. What unintended consequences is the Albanese government concerned about? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the question. I indicated that, in addition to the action we've already taken, we were intending to take further targeted action. I can indicate to you that right now Australians can't trade with sanctioned individuals or entities in the West Bank and the sanctions we impose apply to Australian citizens and corporations wherever they are in the world. Australian law already bans buying, importing or transporting goods from sanctioned individuals and entities. Individuals who commit sanctions offences can receive up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $910,000 or three times the value of the relevant transaction. Businesses can be fined up to $3.64 million or three times the value of the transaction. In relation to settlements, we've been clear that 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, and that remains the only path to enduring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. That is why, with international partners, we recognise the state of Palestine. That's why we are strengthening the institutional foundations of the state. It's why, with partners, we've imposed travel bans and targeted financial sanctions on Israeli ministers and others I described earlier. Yesterday I announced that we are continuing to pursue further targeted measures in coordination with international partners to deter illegal settlements and settler violence. I would note that, in response to Australia's actions, Israel has revoked the visas of Australian diplomats, effectively expelling them from Ramallah. 14:31 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The UK, France and Canada are banning imports from illegal settlements. Meanwhile, the Israeli ambassador was in parliament's private members' dining room this week dining and enjoying full privileges. Why is this government so weak on Israel's war crimes? Do you need to ask permission from the ambassador before you do anything? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed very publicly his criticism of the Albanese government's actions in relation to Israel, in relation to Gaza and in relation to the West Bank. As I have just said, Israel has in fact revoked the visas of Australian diplomats in response to some of the action we have taken, effectively expelling them from Ramallah. I would just make the point that we are— Senator Shoebridge 169119 You invited him here. Senator WONG 00AOU This is Senator Thorpe's question, not yours, Senator Shoebridge. I did not know the ambassador was in the building. I do not know why he was in the building. I do not know that. What I would say is that I think we have taken action that Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has made very clear they are more than displeased with. But we have done so because it's the right thing to do. (Time expired) 14:33 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria How does the Israeli ambassador get into the private members' dining room, where you are required to have a member present with you? How is he allowed to be in there and break all of the rules without a member of parliament sitting with him or escorting him? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's probably a question for the presiding officers in relation to the use of the facilities. I have not been other than to give a speech in one of the ante rooms, or the annexes. I have not been in the private dining room for some time. Until you raised it with me, I was not aware of his presence. It's a matter for the ambassador or whoever was engaging with him to explain. What I would say is that we disagree most strongly with the position that the Netanyahu government has been engaging in in relation to the settlements in the West Bank. We've made that clear. We've sanctioned individuals. We've sanctioned entities. I announced yesterday that we would take further targeted action. Taxation 55 14:34 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. After the coalition forced Labor to fix its widow tax, we've now discovered Labor's latest trust tax will simply increase taxes for families having a child. Minister, first Labor came for grieving widows; now its toxic tax can penalise newborn children. Who will the Prime Minister come for next in his cradle-to-grave assault on aspiration? Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The interjections have started before the minister is on her feet! Minister Wong. 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I disagree with the hyperbole in the question, but that is the nature of question time. What I would say to you, Senator, is: my recollection is that, in the context of consultation on how the discretionary trust changes would be given effect, there are a number of options, which were included in that draft legislation or the papers associated with it. One of them, I think, has been reported in a certain way. I would make very clear, first, this is a consultation process and, second, it is not the only way in which people can arrange their discretionary trusts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Blyth, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia Under the Prime Minister's toxic taxes, adding a newborn family member to a family trust—I repeat: a family trust—will revoke the exemption and see that trust's entire income taxed at 47 per cent for that year. Minister, did the Prime Minister intend on taxing families for simply having children, or is this the Prime Minister's incompetence once again on full display? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister and the Labor government are committed to delivering tax cuts for the parents of children, are committed to ensuring that those parents can take children to urgent care clinics free of charge, are committed to increasing bulk-billing so families can take their children to general practitioners and have fewer out-of-pocket expenses—increasing the rate of bulk-billing—are committed to providing paid parental leave so that families can spend more time with their kids—something you voted against—and are committed to delivering tax cuts for Australian families so they can take care of their children. That is what we are committed to, Senator. Senator Cash I0M But you're still— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Cash! Senator Cash I0M taxing babies. That doesn't change it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've called you to order. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I think, if I call a leader of a party to order, other senators might take the hint. Senator Blyth, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia I think you missed taxing babies in that one, Senator Wong. The Australian Industry Group says Labor's toxic trust tax has become a game of Whack-A-Mole where fixing one intended consequence simply exposes another. Does the minister know how many Australian families will be affected by the government's latest toxic tax on babies? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I again—I'll make a few points to you. The first is: let's remember the bigger picture, which is that we have introduced a minimum 30 per cent tax on distributions from discretionary trusts, which applies from July 2028. Farming income will be exempt, income from all types of discretionary testamentary trusts will be exempt and over 90 per cent of small businesses will not be affected at all. The vast majority of Australians won't be affected, because the vast majority of Australians don't use trusts to minimise their tax, and, as part of these tax changes, we are delivering a tax cut to the vast majority of Australians. That is what we are doing. Now, you might want to continue to stand in the way of tax cuts for working people—for wage-earning Australians. We think wage-earning Australians should be getting a tax cut. That's what this tax package is focused on. Most Australians will not be affected by these changes. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 56 14:39 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. In June, the Senate Education and Employment References Committee tabled its report on wage theft, in which I, in my additional comments, recommended the consideration of the establishment of a small-claims jurisdiction, where underpayment matters could be heard more efficiently. In July, the government announced that it would begin the work of establishing a fair work court to resolve workplace disputes more efficiently, including underpayments. Now, I congratulate the Albanese government for adopting my recommendation. What work has been done so far in terms of consulting with stakeholders on this proposal? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but, until that very moment, I was unaware that you had made that recommendation. But I'm glad that you did, and what I can tell you is that members of the Australian Labor Party—people who are currently, and who remain, members of the Australian Labor Party—are now delivering a fair work court, which is something that low-paid workers in our country need. I am aware, having once held the portfolio of workplace relations, that there was very strong advocacy for a fair work court from trade unions in Australia and their members, and I'm very pleased that it is a Labor Party government and members of the Labor Party who now have the opportunity to deliver on that commitment. It is a really important point, and the reality is that there are many low-paid workers in particular who simply do not have the resources to be able to take their boss to court for things like wage theft. That is the reason, as you know, Senator Payman, why we need to see a fair work court put in place in Australia. Now, it's no surprise that the kneejerk reaction, which we would all expect, from the Liberal Party was to come out and say that this was unnecessary. I note—and I was recently reminded by Senator McAllister—that, only today, we celebrated Threatened Species Day. I was surprised not to see more Liberal Party senators there, because I would have thought they could identify with threatened species. By continuing their— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, resume your seat. Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Direct relevance and unfunny joke. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Scarr. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Of course, when we're talking about threatened species, there is a particular form, that being critically endangered threatened species, like moderate Liberal senators. But I'm sure Senator Scarr supports our Saving Native Species program, which is investing in restoring the populations of critically endangered species. But, more seriously, Senator Payman, you do raise an important point. I'm very pleased that the Labor government is responding, and we look forward to your support and perhaps that of those threatened species over on the other side to build this fair work court that we need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, as part of the inquiry, the SDA recommended that a small-claims jurisdiction be created in which unions have standing and can initiate proceedings on behalf of their members. Is the government open to such a proposal? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Payman. As I was mentioning, I am aware of the advocacy of a number of trade unions—in particular, the SDA, who, of course, do represent a lot of low-paid workers in the economy, in the retail sector. They were particularly prominent in advocating for the establishment of a fair work court. We are now consulting on the design and key features of the proposed court to ensure that it improves the workplace relations dispute resolution system for all parties, including vulnerable workers. To my knowledge, no decision has yet been made specifically to incorporate that design feature that you're talking about, Senator Payman, but that is certainly something that we will be consulting on in the design of this package moving forward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Australians know that, particularly in sectors like higher education and retail, wage theft remains a pervasive issue. The time and money required to seek justice is a barrier for many. Victims deserve to be paid what they have earned. How long can Australians expect to wait until legislation establishing the Fair Work Court is introduced? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, I'm confident, Senator Payman, that this is something that Minister Rishworth will progress as quickly as she possibly can. We have recognised the need for a fair work court because we recognise that too many low-paid workers are shut out of the legal system when it comes to recovering their wages or taking other forms of action to protect their rights. You mentioned the matter of wage theft, Senator Payman, and, of course, it wasn't that long ago that we saw the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation vote together against criminalising wage theft—an absolutely shameful decision from those parties. They will now have an opportunity to see the error of their ways and support the creation of a fair work court, which would allow for low-paid workers who have been ripped off by their boss to actually take legal action for the first time, in practical terms. It would be very unfortunate if we again see One Nation team up with the Liberal and National parties to oppose a fair work court, just as they have voted against wage theft crimes. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 57 14:45 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Minister Watt. Today we all celebrate National TAFE Day, a day to recognise the important work TAFE organisations, teachers and support staff do to train the next generation of workers across the country. Importantly, it's a day to recognise TAFE students as well. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change for Australians by providing world-class qualifications through greater access to TAFE that's politically important to Tasmanians? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Polley, who I know is a big supporter of TAFE, as is the case for every Labor senator sitting in this chamber. Senator Polley, can I say happy National TAFE Day to you and to every TAFE student, graduate and teacher across Australia. National TAFE Day is an important opportunity to recognise Australia's TAFEs because without them Australia would stop. It's a day to recognise TAFE students who are preparing to make great contributions through their future careers—the tradies, the nurses, the early childhood educators, the aged-care workers who have all gained those qualifications. Today is a day especially to thank the incredible TAFE teachers and support staff who every day open the doors of opportunity, change lives and make our country more prosperous. Senator McAllister points out that her mother was a TAFE teacher. Senator Marielle Smith 281603 Mine too! Senator WATT 245759 And Senator Smith's mother! True cred on the Labor side when it comes to supporting TAFE. This is proof that Labor is the party of TAFE. After years of coalition neglect, we're focused— Senator Duniam 263418 What should I study? Senator WATT 245759 Oh, the groaning over there. They really don't like TAFE, do they? Senator Duniam, you won't be able to groan for too much longer. It's okay. It's all coming to an end. Maybe you can go to TAFE, as part of a retraining program. I think you'd look great in a carpenter's outfit, or maybe a nurse's outfit, or an early childhood educator's outfit. We are the party for you, offering you those retraining opportunities that you need. Senator Duniam, you'll be pleased to know that after years of coalition neglect, the Labor government is focused on making TAFE something all Australians can be proud of once again. Under the Albanese government, we've given a commitment to rebuild vocational education and public vocational education, and that's exactly what we're doing, including through our free TAFE investments that Senator Duniam will soon take up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Albanese Labor government's landmark free TAFE program has seen extraordinary support from Australians. Can the minister provide an update on the latest free TAFE figures and why it is important this program continues? Senator Ayres 16913 You snobs! It's all about completion rates! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ayres! Senator Ayres 16913 It's all about looking down on the kids. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ayres! Senator Ayres, I have asked you twice to come to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, three times! Order, on my left! 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland New data has revealed that there have now been more than 850,000 free TAFE enrolments under the Albanese Labor government. We've seen more than 236,000 enrolments in care sector courses. Senator McKenzie 207825 How many completions? Senator WATT 245759 They don't like people enrolling in TAFE courses. That's the kind of people they are. We've seen more than 236,000 enrolments in care sector courses and more than 78,000 enrolments in construction sector courses. And course completions have grown to more than 275,000, growing at nearly double the rate of enrolments. Now, in contrast, the coalition left Australia with skills shortages at a 50-year high when they left office. Never forget that the former opposition leader, Sussan Ley—remember her?—said, about TAFE, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it,' and just last week the shadow minister, Senator Nampijinpa Price, said that free TAFE is 'a waste of taxpayers' money'. They never learn. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania While it is obviously important to attract workers into vocations through programs like free TAFE, it's also vital to invest in programs that keep workers in these industries. Can the minister outline these programs and if there are any alternative policy positions being proposed—other than not providing any at all? 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley. Well, alongside free TAFE, our government's Key Apprenticeship Program is helping get more tradies on the tools to help build more homes. This is encouraging more apprentices into housing construction and to stick with their apprenticeship to completion. Now, only that three-way coalition of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation could oppose such a program, because, just like on superannuation, on illegal tobacco, they're copying each other when it comes to programs to give Australians the skills they need. But don't worry, Senator Nampijinpa Price; there is an answer— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, address your response to me. Senator WATT 245759 President, through you, I'm pleased to inform Senator Nampijinpa Price that there is a solution to the problem the Liberals have—copying One Nation parties—and it's available at TAFE. The three right-wing parties could enrol in the TAFE Certificate III in Design Fundamentals. This course encourages creativity and enhances the ability to take new ideas from start to finish. Imagine that—you might learn to come up with something original! Free TAFE has something to offer even to the Liberal Party. (Time expired) Veterans: Health Care 58 14:51 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Chris May is an Afghanistan veteran. He did two tours, one as a Bushmaster driver and one as a commander in which he was wounded when an IED blew up his vehicle. This week, after meeting with Minister Keogh, he said: … I never thought the battles we'd be fighting would be the ones … in our own country. How did the Albanese government allow Australian veterans to get to this level, where they feel they have to fight their own government for the health care they earned and were promised through their service? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I'd make is that—I think it was Mr May, was it?—we thank him for his service. Our longest war and a very—I think we all understand the circumstances, both of the service but also the ending of that, and that has been very difficult for many Australians and their families. I want to say that we thank him for his service, as we thank all veterans for their service. I again repeat: not only should veterans have the respect of all of us in this chamber and across the country but they are entitled to be supported when they return. I understand that many issues have been raised by veterans, that some changes have already been made and that the minister is consulting following the release of a consultation paper on some of the issues that have been raised. I think I referenced yesterday that the National President of the RSL has indicated: We're in the room and we're being heard. That is what the government wants. We want to ensure that veterans are heard as we go through this process of dealing with these changes. I would echo what the RSL and nine veteran service organisations nationally have said, welcoming the changes to date and urging veterans and their families to take part in consultations now underway in order to ensure that we have a system not only in which veterans are supported but in which veterans genuinely feel respected. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Mr May's story is shared on the Department of Veterans' Affairs website, on their Anzac Portal, but he still says the minister appeared to lack genuine empathy, concern and care when the veterans he was with raised consequences of this policy. Does the Prime Minister believe the minister can be described that way, when his duty is to care for these veterans, and does he remain fit for purpose? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We all care. I think everyone in this chamber cares and I think everyone across this parliament cares for the experience of veterans and respects the service they have given. This minister has focused a great deal on ensuring that the recommendations of the royal commission are implemented. He has obtained collectively additional funding for the portfolio in order to implement those recommendations, and that process continues. I think we all understand the importance of the consultations that he is engaging in not just for the purpose of the consultations but to ensure that these issues are resolved, going forward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, second supplementary? 14:55 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On top of these comments, veterans this week protested outside parliament. They've laid down their medals and personally had meetings with the Prime Minister and this minister. What more do they have to do before the government listens and removes this $5,000 threshold that is causing all this concern? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Cadell, and you're right—in your question you referenced that there had also been meetings held with the Prime Minister. The government is listening, and you can see that by not only those meetings, obviously, but the changes that have been made. I would again say—because I know there's been some misunderstanding of the $5,000 threshold—that those for whom it is still clinically necessary can continue to obtain those allied health services. But I acknowledge that is not how this has been, certainly, understood. Possibly, the process needs to be considered more carefully, and I think that's what the consultation process will do. Early Childhood Education and Care 59 14:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Minister for Youth, Minister Walsh. On National TAFE Day, we've already heard how free TAFE is opening doors for Australians, and we know early learning is one of the sectors benefiting significantly from free TAFE. But, to build the early learning workforce, we need to bring more educators into the sector, and we need to keep experienced educators in the jobs that we know they love. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is using free TAFE to bring more people into early learning and what it's doing to help educators stay in the sector? 14:57 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Grogan, for your question on National TAFE Day. Free TAFE changes lives, free TAFE brings opportunity and free TAFE is building the quality early learning workforce that Australian children deserve. When we came to office, the early learning workforce was in crisis. Experienced educators were leaving the sector in droves. Services couldn't find the qualified staff they needed, and children were losing the stable, consistent relationships that quality early learning depends on. We have changed that. First, we've built the pathway in, with free TAFE delivering over 68,000 early learning enrolments. The certificate III in early education is Australia's second-most-popular free TAFE course. This helps people like Hannah. Hannah is completing her cert III and doing her placement at the same service she attended as a child. She told me that, because she doesn't have to worry about course fees, she can really focus on her studies. That is the pathway in. And we've given educators the ability to stay in the jobs they love, with our historic 15 per cent pay rise. It means an extra $255 a week for the typical educator, and it is working. More than 20,000 additional educators have joined the sector since the pay rise was first announced. Job vacancies are down by a third, and staffing waivers have almost halved. When experienced educators stay, it is good for children. It means continuity for children, it means reliable early learning for families and it means services can plan for the future. Next week, the Senate has the opportunity to lock in our pay rise so we can continue this work of training more educators, paying them fairly and giving more Australian children a great start in life. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I'd like to thank the minister for that great news on National TAFE Day. We on this side of the chamber know how important it is to grow the early learning workforce and help educators to stay in those jobs that they love. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to protect the wages of these workers, and what's at stake if that action is not supported? 15:00 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Wage justice for early educators matters. We are locking in the pay rise for workers. We are limiting fee growth for families, and we are strengthening safety requirements too. Next week the Senate faces a clear choice: back fair pay for educators, back stability for services, back quality and safety for children, or put all that progress at risk. Our position is clear: early educators do skilled, important work. They deserve certainty, they deserve respect and they deserve to be valued by this parliament. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The Albanese Labor government is investing in training and wages and a stable early learning workforce. Could the minister outline whether there are any other approaches that will put that progress at risk, and what is standing in the way of delivering the workforce that children and families across Australia need? 15:01 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Well, look, there is another approach. It's the approach of the coalition and One Nation. They voted against free TAFE. They voted against 850,000 Australians getting a chance at a secure job. They voted against early childhood educators benefiting from free TAFE. They voted against more quality early childhood educators for Australia's children and then they called the pay rise a 'sugar hit', so they voted against giving educators a pathway into early learning and they attacked the pay rise that helps them stay. On this side of the chamber, we know you can't have a quality early learning system without quality educators. Labor backs our educators. We back their skills, we back their work and we back their future. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Fiscal Policy 60 15:03 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers to coalition questions 1 and 2. In particular, we want to relate the Prime Minister's character to the events of the grant to the Marrickville golf club, because what we've seen with the Prime Minister is that he and truth are rarely in the same room. We saw that before the 2022 election, when the Prime Minister promised 97 times to cut power bills by at least $250 yet power bills have gone up. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that he would not make any changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing and yet, in the first budget after that election, such changes were made. Now we get to the issue of the grant to the Marrickville golf club. The Prime Minister, who is the local member, has approved a $6 million grant to a local golf club, a golf club that he said he was unaware that he was an honorary member of. But this is a prime minister who previously said back in 2019 that he declared an interest because of his personal interest and a conflict of interest because of his involvement with the golf club. And now we have a prime minister who somehow manages to conjure $6 million out of thin air to give to his local golf club. This was not just $6 million. It was $6 million of taxpayers' money, $6 million of a $½ billion gerrymandered fund that was used by the Labor Party during the last election campaign. The Centre for Public Integrity has suggested that this fund was a misuse of public money. Indeed, its chair has said: I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used. If they cannot justify that process, then I think the public in Australia would be driven to the conclusion that this is the misuse of public money at a serious level. It is a misuse of public money, at a national level. It is a serious misuse of public money when the leader of the Labor Party, the Prime Minister of this country, uses this fund as a slush fund to hand out $6 million to his local golf club. But the Prime Minister's response was to attack the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for, rightfully, putting questions to him, as the fourth estate should—to him and to all politicians. He didn't defend his decision. He didn't justify his decision. He attacked the ABC. So I think the Prime Minister has something to hide here. And we heard from Senator Wong in her answers at question time today that the Prime Minister was not the decision-maker. Hang on: he's the Prime Minister! He's the Prime Minister of this country. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with $6 million being pulled out of a slush fund and being given to his local golf club? You're really taking the mickey here. Are you really saying that the minister made this decision off their own bat and had no reference at all from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister clearly was involved in the decision-making. This slush fund was there to ensure the election of a Labor Party government. The taxpayers of Australia need answers from this government as to how and why these funds were determined and why this golf club alone, of 1,600 golf clubs in the country, was the one special golf club to be chosen to receive $6 million—a hole in one. Talk about that. (Time expired) 15:07 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria When the Albanese government was elected in 2022 we came in with a very clear promise that we were here to restore faith in politics and in the political establishment. This was after a decade of coalition rule that saw sports rorts, colour-coded spreadsheets, commuter car parks—I remember those well—and of course robodebt bearing down on the Australian people. We saw a weakening of public institutions, we saw attacks on public servants and we saw the coalition perfect the model of taxpayer money being used for their pet projects and slush funds. Now we have a coalition that is running interference for big tech by opposing the digital duty of care bill as well as running interference for big tobacco. So they are taking this to a whole other level, and they are standing there and pointing the bone at us, claiming that what were genuine and legitimate election commitments that both parties—indeed, the crossbench candidates—have all engaged in are somehow pork-barrelling. I emphatically reject this suggestion. When I ran for the lower house in the seat of Higgins—which those of you on the other side will remember was held by the Liberal Party for 75 years—I had a whole range of election commitments. Now, I went in not actually believing I would win that seat. That seat had never been held by the Labor Party—ever. And I found that one of the key asks from that community was to fix their swimming pool. The Carnegie Memorial Swimming Pool was leaking, it was overgrown with weeds and it had been drained. But the community had a real affection for this piece of infrastructure. It had been there since the postwar period. I asked them what they needed. They said they needed in the order of $10 million to $15 million to fix the pool. So I made the commitment, after consultation with the party, that I would do that if I won the seat. My point is that these election commitments are made at elections by candidates, and they are contingent on winning the seat. It is not a given that you're going to win the seat, and I certainly didn't expect to win the seat, but, when I did win the seat, I upheld that promise to that community, and that $15 million was given. It underwent rigorous processes. It was managed by the department at arm's length from me and at arm's length from the minister. The money was delivered to the local council, who then chipped in an additional something like $50 million or $60 million, and they built this pool. It was delivered on time. It was actually delivered under budget by that council, who managed it well. The community benefited—not just the community of Higgins but the surrounding neighbours as well. My point is that election commitments are made in election periods, and they are contingent on actually winning the seat. When the Labor Party wins a swathe of seats, of course more money goes to those seats, which are now Labor seats. When the script is flipped and the Liberal Party or the coalition—if they get their act together—actually win some seats, then more money flows there. The important thing here is that it's not the election commitments per se that we make. It's the fact that, after the candidate is actually successful, the process is well managed by the department at arm's length from the minister. That's exactly what happened with this fund, the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. I reject any suggestion that this is pork-barrelling at all. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The issue is, when you look at the facts and you look at the statistics, the vast majority of these community projects that are approved through these limited tender processes, where there can only be one tenderer and there can only be one person getting the money, who's been given the benefit of a Labor Party election commitment—203 out of 229 community projects went to Labor held seats. That's 88.64 per cent of these projects in Labor held seats. I recognise Labor Party did well at the last election, but they won 62.6 per cent of the seats. They won 62.6 per cent of the seats, but they get more than 88 per cent of the projects. This isn't about us. It's about the Australian people, and it's about the Australian people, through the length and breadth of this country, getting their fair share of this funding, which is critical. For every example of a swimming pool in Higgins, I can give you examples all over Australia. This is the point. There should be a competitive process so that communities across the whole of Australia can participate equally in that competitive process, and then, on an objective basis, a decision is made as to where the funding should go. It should be open, it should be transparent, it should be objective, and it should be a matter of integrity. That is what the coalition is calling for. In relation to that issue of integrity, I want to quote from the Centre for Public Integrity Chair, former justice Anthony Whealy, who was an absolute warrior for integrity and transparency in government in Australia: I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used. This isn't Senator Scarr. This is former justice Anthony Whealy: If they cannot justify that process, then I think the public in Australia would be driven to the conclusion that this is the misuse of public money at a serious level. That's the phrase the former justice has used—'misuse of public money at a serious level'. That is the concern we're talking about here. It's the fact that 203 out of 229 of these community projects have been delivered to Labor seats. What about the rest of Australia? Where's their fair share of the funding? We want equality across this country and equality with respect to access to this funding. I'll say this with respect to transparency in the Prime Minister's disclosure. I don't think it was appropriate, with due respect to the Prime Minister, for him to attack the ABC. The ABC were doing their job. They were asking the questions which they should be asking. And good on them for doing that. The Prime Minister should lead the way in terms of disclosure of actual conflicts or perceived conflicts of interest. So I don't think it's right to minimise the fact that there appears to be an issue with respect to the disclosure of the membership of this golf club. I do hope the Leader of the Government in the Senate does come back and provide some further information—and I thank her for taking it on notice—with respect to what steps the Prime Minister has taken to clarify this matter and then to correct the record as soon as possible. That's the example we expect from Australia's Prime Minister. 15:15 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise as well to take note of the answers given by the minister today. I think it's really important to start with what we're actually talking about, because, so far, in the contributions from those on the other side, it has really been all about politics. The Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program is clear about what it is. It's a one-off closed program established to deliver Labor's publicly announced 2025 election commitments. These commitments were made openly. They were announced. Communities knew what was promised. Australians voted. And this government is delivering what it said it would deliver. But 'closed' does not mean 'unchecked'. Projects must meet program guidelines, demonstrate value for money and meet departmental benchmarks. Local MPs and ministers do not assess projects in their own electorates. That is how accountability works. Our approach follows the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles and the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. There's nothing unusual about a government establishing a program to deliver on its election commitments—nothing unusual at all. In fact, governments of both persuasions have done this for years. The real question is whether the commitments are public, whether there are clear rules, whether value for money is tested and whether independent scrutiny remains in place. So, having established what this program actually is, I have listened with some amazement to the outrage from those opposite. If the coalition really want to have a debate about the proper administration of grants, I'm very happy to have that debate. Australians remember 'sports rorts', the $100 million competitive sports grants program. Sports Australia assessed the applications against published criteria, but the office of the minister of the time, Senator McKenzie's office, ran its own parallel process, producing multiple versions of colour coded spreadsheets, tracking electorates and political parties, while projects moved on and off the 'approved' list. The Auditor-General found there was no record explaining why some projects were added and others removed. I'm sure Senator Scarr would be very happy to go back and have a look at that report! In the final round, 73 per cent of the grants approved by the minister had not been recommended by Sports Australia. The sports rorts were not an isolated example in the track record of those opposite when they were in government. My colleague Senator Ananda-Rajah also mentioned these in her contribution. She talked about the coalition's commuter car parks. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I know! They announced hundreds of millions of dollars for car parks overwhelmingly in electorates where they wanted to hold a win. The Auditor-General again found the selection process was not open or transparent and was not merit based. Not one of the original 47 sites selected for funding had been proposed by the department. Seventy-seven per cent were in coalition held electorates. And they come in here, faux outraged, for a political purpose only. (Time expired) 15:19 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Yes, we do come in here to raise very serious concerns about the truthfulness and credibility of this Prime Minister. Mr Albanese has serious questions to answer about a $6 million taxpayer funded grant which Labor provided to his local Marrickville golf club. This is not just a simple story about a golf club receiving funding; it is about how the club was selected in the first place. Labor established a $560 million—more than half a billion dollars—invitation-only community infrastructure program to deliver its election commitments. The Centre for Public Integrity has made it very clear that this fund is a misuse of public money or serious pork barrelling. The Chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, former justice Anthony Whealy, said: I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used. If they cannot justify that process, then I think the public in Australia would be driven to the conclusion that this is the misuse of public money at a serious level. Critically, clubs and community organisations could not simply apply for this money. We are talking about more than half a billion dollars. Labor decided who could apply and, out of all the clubs in the entire country, the Marrickville golf club was the only one allowed to apply for funding. Of course, as we know, this club happens to be in the Prime Minister's own electorate. We now know something else. The ABC has reported this morning that Mr Albanese is an honorary member of the club. The club told the ABC he had been on its books as an honorary member for up to 15 years. That membership was not declared on his parliamentary register of interests. The Prime Minister has previously spoken openly about his close connection with the club. He's described going there for decades, walking his dog and using the club—poor old Toto being dragged into it again. But apparently he didn't remember that he was a member and he did not think it was appropriate to declare it. In 2019, when there was a proposal to reduce the golf course from 18 holes to nine, Mr Albanese even publicly declared an interest because of his personal connection to the club. So Australians are entitled to ask a very simple question: who decided that this particular golf club should be invited to apply for $6 million of taxpayers' money? Labor has still not explained who constructed the list of projects, what process was used to select them or why particular organisations were invited while others were not. An analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity found 73 per cent of the $560 million fund went to seats notionally held by Labor, compared with 23 per cent that went to coalition held seats. This is another serious integrity fail, and the Prime Minister has many important questions to answer. Question agreed to. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 63 15:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women to the question I asked today. We've all watched in horror as headline after headline about sexual assaults has hit the media in recent weeks. Most shocking of all is just how many of them were amongst teenagers. These headlines, paired with research from Monash Uni, have given us new insight into the dangerous attitudes that young men still hold around consent. Last week, the Nationals leader suggested that 'feminisation' of the teaching curriculum is what's driving boys to the toxic corners of the internet. When the Nationals leader talks about what's happening in schools, he ignores that teachers have reported an escalation in sexist and misogynistic behaviour directed towards them by students, colleagues and, in some cases, parents and carers. The influence of the manosphere is affecting teachers and students every day. It's gotten so bad that recent Monash research found that one-third of teachers are considering leaving the profession, and one-third of female students feel unsafe at school. Teaching consent and respect is not the problem. It's more needed than ever. The Albanese government spent nearly $6 million to create a national respectful relationships education expert working group to develop a consent and respectful relationships education framework. After a long delay, the national framework was delivered earlier this year. Last week, the Minister for Education announced another review of consent education programs, to see why they're not turning sexual violence rates around. Experts involved in the original review made many recommendations about how to make sure that the content was meeting kids where they're at, talking about things that are happening to them in language that makes sense to them, being explicit about sex and consent. I hope the government is listening to those voices. What is the point of gathering experts to help you design a program if you are not listening to them? It is important to get consent education right. We can't be squeamish or placate those who might be offended by content that actually makes kids safer. We've also got to listen to experts and lived experience advocates on sexual violence. The commissioner's report acknowledges that sexual violence reporting is low because institutions continue to fail survivors. We can't say that women need to report to police and then fail to invest in a justice system that protects them when they do report. Last sitting, the government released a response to an inquiry that I was part of three years ago into sexual consent laws. That inquiry recommended that the government act on the recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission to improve justice system responses to sexual violence. There is so much to fix—consistently offering options for women to give evidence by video, providing access to independent lawyers, preventing counselling records being accessed by perpetrators and ending the use of non-disclosure agreements. The ALRC's recommendations have now been sitting with government for 18 months, and we are yet to see a comprehensive response. We need action. And we cannot keep ignoring that the crisis response sector is at breaking point. The government must step up. Of course we should be working on prevention and early intervention and envisaging a future actually free from violence, but, in the meantime, we cannot let women and children experiencing violence fall through the cracks. DVNSW has consistently called for a 50 per cent increase in funding to meet demand. Referrals to services across New South Wales have increased by more than 20 per cent, while the frontline workforce has been reduced. In Victoria, Safe and Equal estimates that a 62 per cent funding increase is needed to fully meet demand in Victoria. In Queensland, the state government has recently cut funding to prevention services, in all of their wisdom, and then it threatened services that complained about it. Clearly, they're no fan of women, under the conservative state government. It takes long-term secure funding to end violence, and until governments stump up the cash nothing is going to get any better. As ever, I want to express my gratitude for the deeply committed staff in this sector who work tirelessly across prevention, response and recovery to end gender based violence and to build a better future for women and children. This is vital work. It is hard work. It is saving lives. The Greens thank everyone in these roles, and we will keep fighting to get the funding that you've been calling for and that you deserve, to help every woman and child that needs it. Question agreed to. International Relations: Australia and Israel 64 15:29 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Middle East. In my question to Minister Wong, I asked, 'What unintended consequences are the Albanese government concerned about in relation to a ban on importing goods from illegal settlements in the West Bank?' The minister did not answer or provide any new information at all. Minister Wong listed things that have been in place for a long time already. Your government isn't doing anything genuinely new. Minister, you say that the Netanyahu government is unhappy with this country's targeted measures. How can anyone with a shred of humanity hold this up as a measure? The measure of effective action by the Albanese Labor government must be that it stops trade and stops weapon parts being shipped so that Palestinians stop being slaughtered and stripped of their land. The Albanese government is weaker than what we have seen from the UK, Canada and France, among others. The UK has banned imports of all goods from settlements and banned all companies from providing services for the settlements. Your government is refusing to do this, caving to pressure from Trump and Netanyahu. UK Labor foreign secretary Ed Miliband has rightly said that settler terrorists are carrying out ethnic cleansing and that Israel is turning a blind eye. We never hear this clear language from your Labor government. The genocide continues, and your government is complicit in Israel's genocide, selling fighter jet parts to Israel, importing products produced in illegal settlements, making a few concerned statements when your own citizens are killed and harmed, such as the immensely courageous Zomi Frankcom and the crews on the flotillas to bring aid to Gaza. Minister, you're taking the public for fools, saying you're concerned but taking no real action. Throw the ambassador out of this building for a start, and expel him from this country after that. Question agreed to. NOTICES 64 NOTICES Presentation 64 15:31 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of three legislative instruments as set out on the list I've provided to the Clerk. I advise the chamber that the list will be circulated to senators with today's notices. Postponement 68 COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 68 Reference 68 15:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2026: The effectiveness of the 2025 National Health Reform Agreement with Western Australia in the provision of public hospital services in Perth's northern suburbs, with particular reference to: (a) strong population growth in the area; (b) increasing emergency department attendances; (c) ageing-related demand; and (d) any other related matters. Question agreed to. Public Works Joint Committee 68 Reference 68 15:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 together: GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Australian Taxation Office—Proposed fit-out of existing leased premises at 747 Collins Street, Docklands. GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Australian High Commission Project Suva, Republic of Fiji. I table statements in relation to the works. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Aged Care 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 15:34 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Ruston, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than midday on Monday, 14 September 2026, any documents or briefing materials including emails that record or provide any data relating to the number of people who died while on the National Priority System waiting list for a Support at Home or Home Care package during the 2025-26 financial year. Question agreed to. Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:35 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 15 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Communications and/or her office and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in relation to the development of the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026. Question agreed to. Outstanding Government Responses 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) in accordance with Senate resolution 44, government responses to committee reports are required to be tabled within 3 months of a report being tabled; (b) the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee tabled its report on democracy and human rights in Myanmar on 31 March 2026; and (c) a government response has not been tabled even though it was due by 30 June 2026. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than midday on Thursday, 17 September 2026, the outstanding government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on democracy and human rights in Myanmar. Question agreed to. Migration 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:36 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Duniam, I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, copies of all briefs, notes, advice or other material created or held by the Department of Home Affairs that relate to any meetings or written communication between responsible ministers and any union officials regarding skilled migration programs, including, but not limited to, the establishment and policy parameters of the skills in demand visa. (2) That, for the avoidance of doubt, 'responsible ministers' includes the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Burke), the former Minister for Home Affairs (Ms O'Neil), and/or the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Giles) during relevant appointment periods. Question agreed to. Department of Defence 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:36 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the request of Senator David Pocock and Senator Shoebridge, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 9 am on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, in relation to the statement made by Ms Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary, Security and Estate, Department of Defence, at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee hearing on 4 September 2026: 'I would note for the record that the Defence witnesses appearing before the committee today are pleased to take your questions but do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites.' the following: (a) documents relating to the preparation, drafting, consideration, clearance or approval of the statement; (b) any legal, procedural or other advice concerning the basis for the statement, including advice concerning the publication or republication of evidence or footage from parliamentary committee proceedings; (c) any documents concerning social media activity, incidents, concerns or complaints that prompted, informed or were otherwise relevant to the statement; (d) any witness preparation material, briefing, talking points, correspondence or other material provided to Ms Perkins or other Defence witnesses concerning the statement or the publication or republication of committee evidence or footage; (e) any documents provided, prepared or considered by the Department of Defence that informed, supported or contributed to any Secretaries Board submission or proposal concerning the publication, republication or use of evidence or footage from parliamentary committee proceedings, including any examples, complaints, incidents or assessments relied upon; and (f) any communications concerning the matters in paragraphs (a) to (e) involving the Department of Defence, the Minister for Defence or the minister's office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Secretaries Board, other Commonwealth departments or agencies, or officers or departments of the Parliament. Question agreed to. Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 15:37 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 6 October 2026: (a) copies of all letters, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's nomination of projects for grants under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure (MLCI) Program; and (b) copies of all documents held by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and/or her office and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts which relate to the decision to provide a grant of approximately $6 million to the Marrickville Golf Club under the MLCI Program. Question agreed to. Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 15:37 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 Tuesday, 6 October 2026: (a) copies of all letters, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's nomination of projects for grants under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure (MLCI) Program; (b) copies of all documents held by the Prime Minister and/or his office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which relate to the decision to provide a grant of approximately $6 million to the Marrickville Golf Club under the MLCI Program; and (c) copies of all correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or his office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Marrickville Golf, Sporting and Community Club in relation to the grant referred to in paragraph (b). Question agreed to. MOTIONS 70 MOTIONS Australian Senate 70 15:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 673. Leave granted. Senator CASH I0M I, and also on behalf of Senator David Pocock, Senator Waters and Senator Lambie, move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) senators are required to conduct themselves consistently with the Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians, which the Senate has endorsed, (ii) senators have responsibilities to contribute to safe and respectful parliamentary workplaces, including for Commonwealth employees, and (iii) the recording, broadcasting and publication of Senate and committee proceedings are subject to the standing orders, resolutions and other orders of the Senate, including the Broadcasting Guidelines for Parliamentary Proceedings; (b) resolves that: (i) the powers of the Senate and its committees to conduct inquiries, ask questions, obtain information and require the production of documents are essential to the Senate's constitutional functions of scrutiny and accountability, (ii) (ii) it is for the Senate or the relevant committee, acting in accordance with the standing orders, resolutions and other orders of the Senate, and not an individual witness, department, agency or executive government body, to determine the conduct of committee proceedings and whether an objection to questioning, publication or broadcasting should be upheld, and (iii) public servants appearing before parliamentary committees have a duty to cooperate with parliamentary inquiries and provide information, consistent with their obligations under the Public Service Act 1999 to uphold the Australian Public Service (APS) values, including the requirement that the APS be open and accountable, subject to established procedures for witness protection and public interest immunity claims; (c) rejects any attempt by an Executive Government department, agency, officer or other body to impose a consent requirement or otherwise assert a veto over the questioning of witnesses or the recording, broadcasting, fair and accurate reporting or republication of public committee proceedings; (d) affirms that legitimate concerns about the safety, welfare or treatment of witnesses, including concerns arising under applicable standards of conduct, should be addressed through the established powers and procedures of the Senate and its committees; (e) calls on the Government to ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies, the Secretaries Board and Australian Public Service officers are reminded of their duty to cooperate with parliamentary committee inquiries and that executive policies, guidance or instructions must not diminish, qualify or supersede the powers, privileges, procedures or orders of the Senate and its committees; and (f) requires: (i) the chairs of Senate committees to draw this resolution to the attention of any witness who seeks to impose a condition on the questioning, recording, broadcasting, publication or republication of their evidence inconsistent with this resolution, and (ii) the Clerk to draw this resolution to the attention of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the heads of departments and agencies appearing before Senate committees. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Australian Parliament 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I inform the Senate that Senator Lambie also co-sponsored this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Cash, Waters and Lambie, move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9 am on 15 September 2026, in relation to any Secretaries Board submission or proposal concerning the publication, republication or use of evidence or footage from parliamentary committee proceedings: (a) the submission or proposal, and any drafts, briefings, comments, amendments or records of its consideration, clearance or approval; (b) any documents, including examples, complaints, incident reports, assessments or other material, that informed or supported the submission or proposal; (c) any legal, procedural or other advice concerning the powers or proceedings of parliamentary committees, parliamentary privilege, or the recording, broadcasting, publication or republication of committee evidence or footage; and (d) any communications concerning the matters in paragraphs (a) to (c) involving the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Secretaries Board, Commonwealth departments or agencies, or officers or departments of the Parliament. Question agreed to. Housing Australia Future Fund 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:40 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, any documents, including, but not limited to, minutes, that: (a) include feedback received at the market industry briefing for Housing Australia Future Fund funding round 3, held on 10 December 2025; or (b) relate to any action items arising from that briefing. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:41 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, documents setting out: (a) the entities that have received funding under Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) funding round 3 since its commencement in January 2026, including the amount of funding received by each entity; (b) the number of social and affordable homes required to meet the national target of 40,000 homes by 2029, as at 9 September 2026; and (c) the number of social and affordable homes that HAFF funding round 3 is expected to deliver towards meeting the national target of 40,000 social and affordable homes by 2029. Question agreed to. Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:41 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, any correspondence, emails, instant/electronic messages, agendas, itineraries, meeting notes and minutes, file notes and records of conversation between the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office and: (a) the Marrickville Golf Club; (b) the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre; and (c) the St Vincent de Paul Society; regarding grant funding to upgrade facilities including grants under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, between 4 May 2025 and 12 May 2026. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:42 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, any correspondence, emails, instant/electronic messages, agendas, itineraries, meeting notes and minutes, file notes and records of conversation between the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories or the minister's office and the proponents of the following projects: (a) the Bega War Memorial swimming pool retreat; (b) the Cooma pump track and mountain bike trails; (c) the Merimbula Ford Park pavilion renewal and upgrade; (d) the Jerrabomberra community infrastructure upgrades; (e) the Queanbeyan Bowls Club upgrades; (f) the Pambula playspaces revitalisation; (g) PCYC Goulburn upgrades; and (h) David Campese Oval—netting and fencing infrastructure upgrade; regarding grant funding to upgrade facilities including grants under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, between 4 May 2025 and 12 May 2026. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:42 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 16 September 2026, any correspondence, emails, instant/electronic messages, agendas, itineraries, meeting notes and minutes, file notes and records of conversation between the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government or the minister's office and the proponents of the following projects: (a) the Ballarat Showgrounds new event and exhibition centre; (b) the Don Wallace Recreation Reserve upgrades; (c) the Hepburn Shire community soccer upgrades; and (d) the Continuous Voices Memorial in Ballarat; regarding grant funding to upgrade facilities including grants under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, between 4 May 2025 and 12 May 2026. Question agreed to. Housing 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 15:43 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 19 August 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 618, relating to the 5% Deposit Scheme, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply by midday on Friday, 21 August 2026, and (ii) the order has not been complied with; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 73 Reference 73 15:43 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Cadell, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2027: The impacts of large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission infrastructure on agricultural landholders and rural, regional and First Nations communities, with particular reference to: (a) the direct and cumulative impacts on: (i) productive agricultural land and farming operations, (ii) neighbouring landholders and residents who do not host infrastructure, and (iii) property values, amenity, community cohesion, local services and regional infrastructure; (b) the adequacy of consultation and social licence arrangements, including: (i) how community support is identified and demonstrated, (ii) the distinction between agreements with participating landholders and support from neighbouring landholders and the broader community, and (iii) the consequences where genuine social licence has not been demonstrated; (c) the distribution of costs and benefits, including compensation for affected non-host landholders, local and First Nations employment and procurement, workforce accommodation and enduring investment in regional communities; (d) the adequacy and enforceability of planning, approval, complaint handling and dispute resolution arrangements, including implementation of the recommendations of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's Community Engagement Review; (e) options for national minimum standards, cumulative regional impact assessments, independent assistance for affected communities and conditions on Commonwealth funding and support; and (f) any other related matters. 15:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will not be supporting this motion. We are building social licence in regional Australia by working directly with communities, industries and the sector. In March, we opened the Developer Rating Scheme, a key recommendation of the Community Engagement Review, which lets renewable energy developers and transmission companies begin the assessment process. What we need now is to get on with the work of building social licence, not launch another review. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Cadell be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(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. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 8 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Mulholland, C. McDonald, S. E. Allman-Payne, P. J. McGrath, J. A. Cox, D. McKenzie, B. G. Faruqi, M. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M.

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Senate Estimates: Questions on Notice 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 15:51 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that, as at 2 pm on Tuesday, 8 September 2026: (i) from the 2026-27 Budget estimates, 976 questions on notice remain unanswered and are more than a month overdue, (ii) from the 2025-26 additional estimates, 41 questions on notice remain unanswered and are more than 4 months overdue, (iii) from the 2025-26 supplementary Budget estimates, 52 questions on notice remain unanswered and are between 7 and 9 months overdue, (iv) from the 2025-26 Budget estimates, one question on notice remains unanswered and is more than 15 months overdue, (v) from the 2024-25 additional estimates, 9 questions on notice remain unanswered and are more than 17 months overdue, (vi) from the 2024-25 supplementary Budget estimates, 6 questions on notice remain unanswered and are more than 20 months overdue, and (vii) from the 2024-25 Budget estimates, 4 questions on notice remain unanswered and are more than 26 months overdue; (b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar month, statements which detail, for that calendar month just ended: (i) the number of questions on notice from each of the estimates hearings referred to in paragraph (a) that remained unanswered at the start of the calendar month, (ii) the number of questions on notice from each of the estimates hearings referred to in paragraph (a) for which answers were lodged during the calendar month, (iii) the portfolio, question number and questioning senator for each question on notice from each of the estimates hearings referred to in paragraph (a) for which an answer was lodged during the calendar month, and (iv) the number of questions on notice from each of the estimates hearings referred to in paragraph (a) that remained unanswered at the end of the calendar month; and (c) this order has effect until the number of unanswered questions on notice from each of the estimates hearings referred to in paragraph (a) reaches zero. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 671, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 37 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 22 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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 Allman-Payne, P. J. Ciccone, R. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Mulholland, C. Faruqi, M. Chisholm, A. D. McGrath, J. A. Cox, D. McKenzie, B. G. Wong, P. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M.

Question agreed to.

 Taxation 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 15:57 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 13 May 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 485, relating to the impact of changes to housing taxes on housing supply and rents, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply by midday on Thursday, 14 May 2026, (ii) on 22 June 2026, the Minister representing the Treasurer provided a letter of response to the order, raising public interest immunity claims over some of the documents relating to the order, (iii) on 19 August 2026, the Senate agreed to an order rejecting the public interest immunity claims raised by the minister in relation to the unproduced documents and requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Friday, 21 August 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. 682, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 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. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 33 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 8 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Mulholland, C. McDonald, S. E. Allman-Payne, P. J. McGrath, J. A. Cox, D. McKenzie, B. G. Faruqi, M. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M.

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 77 MATTERS OF URGENCY Superannuation 77 16:03 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hanson has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red. That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out of control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a 3% super pay rise enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage. 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 e5x With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out of control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a 3% super pay rise enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage. With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out-of-control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a three per cent super pay rise, enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage. We all know as we travel the country and in our own electorates and wherever we go, people are really doing it tough, absolutely tougher under this current government than what we have ever seen in this country before. We've got over 150,000 people homeless. We've got people losing their homes. The rents have gone up. A lot of groceries, even just your staples, have gone up over 40 per cent to 50 per cent. I'm talking about the cost of eggs. We're talking about bread and milk—the average groceries that everyone needs to buy. Talking about what people's mortgage is, average payments have jumped by about $1,760 a month since Labor took office. That's more than $21,000 a year or 59 per cent. Worse still, more interest rate rises are looming. The average price of rent has jumped from $520 a week when Labor took office up to $730. That's up $210 a week or more than 40 per cent—and they're saying there's no problem out there and that they're addressing the whole issue with housing. You're not addressing the whole issue. You've opened up the floodgates to this country with high immigration, mass migration into the country, which has caused the problem. You had the highest intake of migrants into the country that we've ever seen, and now you say, 'Oh, we've reduced immigration by 45 per cent.' You're the ones that caused the problem in the first place, and now you're trying to pat yourselves on the back for doing something about it. What an absolute joke this is. We've seen, under this government, 50,000 small businesses go insolvent. We've got pensioners living in poverty because they can't pay the electricity bills. You've got hundreds of thousands of people who still cannot pay their electricity bills as well. All of this is because of you. When One Nation put out our policy about the superannuation scheme, you screamed that it's inflationary. Let me tell the people out there what our scheme is. It will enable those people who are truly struggling to access their superannuation. It is their money. It is not your money. It is their money that they have had to put away. It's paid by the employer into their super account. We are going to enable people, those who are renters or mortgage holders, to access their super. They can draw down three per cent, which is one quarter of their super, for a period of up to three years. That saving will be enormous for a lot of these people. If these people are earning $90,500 a year, that would give them about $44 a week or $2,300 a year. That's a saving on their mortgage of $33,000. If you're on $120,000 a year, it will give you $59 a week. That's a saving of $43,000 on their mortgage. Let's go to someone who's on $240,000. If they can access that super for three years, that's $118 a week. That will save them $84,000 on their mortgage in the lifetime of that mortgage. That's going to be money in their pocket to help them. That's also going to assist them because they're now not going to lose their home. That's what's going to happen if they don't get some relief out there. Let me just say that in this past financial year approximately 120,000 people accessed their super. That was approximately $1 billion, but the government allowed them for hardship. Those people who are accessing their super now are paying 22 per cent tax on that to withdraw their money out of super. This is not inflationary. This is definitely not inflationary. It's going to help people save their homes. What's inflationary is this government being out of control with its spending. You had an extra $400 billion in the coffers. You've spent that, you've wasted that and you've still put more money on the credit card. You have no idea how to control yourselves. I'll tell you I trust the people to control their money and spend their own money before you get your grubby hands on it. That's what I see happening. You can't control your spending, and I damn well know that you're going to turn around and want to access people's superannuation schemes. 16:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to move an amendment as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 At the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, and pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion on closure, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.  

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

21 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. 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. 34 NOES 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. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 9 PAIRS Cox, D. McKenzie, B. G. Farrell, D. E. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Green, N. L. Allman-Payne, P. J. McAllister, J. R. Faruqi, M. Mulholland, C. McGrath, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. McLachlan, A. L. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question negatived.

16:16 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland This was a matter of urgency that was put up by One Nation, by me, and I had written out the matters of urgency. We rarely ever have the chance to put up something in this chamber to speak to. What you have done over there is move an amendment to mine, changing the words of my notice of motion completely. The urgency of this was to do with people accessing their superannuation. As I have said, the workers, the people that are doing it extremely hard out there, want to be able to access their super. That's why it needs to be addressed. Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, which part of order doesn't apply to you? How disrespectful! Think before you then apologise. Senator Hanson, you need to address your remarks to the suspension. Senator HANSON BK6 The suspension was—what they've done is make an amendment to my notice of motion. My notice of motion was about the urgency of speaking about superannuation so that the average person out there who is a renter or a mortgage holder can actually then access their superannuation. Now the fact is that the Labor Party did not want this to be addressed. Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! If you can't sit in the chamber and listen in silence, leave. Senator Hanson, you need to address the suspension not the substantive matter of your urgency motion or anything else— Senator HANSON BK6 This suspension— The PRESIDENT 112096 No, I haven't finished yet. You need to talk about the suspension, not anything else. Senator HANSON BK6 The suspension was brought about because they've changed the notice of motion that I put forward. That's what this is about. It was about the suspension. Why did they do it? They didn't like the wording of my notice of motion to address the superannuation policy that we put out so people who are under hardship can get their three per cent. Now, we don't get a lot of time in here. The government can actually control this chamber, which they have done many a time. They actually call the guillotine. The crossbench does not have much time to introduce what they feel is a matter of importance to the people of this nation. I was given that opportunity today because it was my time to speak on this. I raised an important motion here that needs to be raised— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, once again— Senator HANSON BK6 They have shut me down, as you are trying to shut me down too— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, don't speak over me. If you read the standing orders, they are very clear. When a suspension motion is moved, that is what you speak about. I am absolutely consistent about this, and I have always been consistent about this. It is not about shutting you down or anything like that. It is reminding you of the debate before the chamber. If you wish to continue, you still have time. Senator HANSON BK6 No, we'll put it to a vote. 16:20 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia What we have just seen in this vote on the suspension motion is One Nation, the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens vote against our proposal to suspend to consider an amendment to support tax cuts, wage rises, cheaper medicines and a dignified retirement— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 On a point of order, I ask that you bring the senator back to the urgency motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am listening carefully, and I will certainly bring the senator back if she does not shift off the suspension motion. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 I can't think of a more important reason for us to suspend standing orders than to talk about the things that Australians need, and that is a real pay rise, not a fake pay rise that One Nation is offering them through their super. There is nothing that is more urgent. What I find ironic is that these kinds of suspension motions are the kinds of tactics that we see from those opposite and the Greens day in and day out in this place, but they don't like it when it's used in a way that doesn't suit their political motive—that doesn't suit their narrative. This suspension talks to the things that our government is doing to deliver real change for Australians— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, I am going to draw you to the point. The heart of this issue is not enabling the minister to move an amendment. That is what your remarks need to focus on. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Thank you, President, and you're right. This is an attempt to stop a minister talking about the matters that we are focused on as a government—talking about support for tax cuts, for wage rises, for cheaper medicines and for a dignified retirement for all Australians— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, I'm going to remind you again. It's a technical debate about the failure to move an amendment. That is where you need to direct your remarks—and not go on to other substantive measures or matters. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 I believe that we must amend this urgency motion put forward by Senator Hanson and we must suspend in order to do that, because, instead of us wasting time in this place talking about Senator Hanson's pretend plan to give Australians a pay rise, we should be suspending to talk about— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, on a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 Relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 The senator's remarks are going directly to the matter before the Senate. Senator Hanson, I will listen carefully and— Senator Hanson BK6 No, that's what I keep saying: you're not fair! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, you are not in a debate with me. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Senator Hanson wants to come in here and sell the Australian people something that is not true, something that Senator Hanson cannot deliver— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whiteaker, I remind you again that you need to focus on the issue before the Senate. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 That is why this suspension is so important—because I think the Australian people deserve better than these kinds of tactics from Senator Hanson and— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I would ask that the chamber come to order! Senator Hanson, the senator is being relevant at the moment, and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 It is really important that we suspend because One Nation have voted in this place. Their voting record shows that they vote against penalty rates, that they vote against our plan for energy relief, that they voted against our secure jobs, better pay bill— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you are not even in your seat, and you are interjecting, which is discourteous. Senator Hanson, you were on your feet. The level of interjections across this chamber is—I won't say it. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. I don't need your interjections, particularly at one another. Senator Whiteaker, I'm going to remind you again that you need to be talking about the minister's suspension motion. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 There is no way— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Mckenzie, I have just called you out. You are disorderly. You are rude. You are disrespectful. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm going to remind the chamber again. If you think there are some kind of points by interjecting across the chamber, you're wrong. This is a serious debate. I ask that you listen in silence. If you can't do that, leave the chamber. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 There is nothing Senator Hanson hates more than young women coming in this place and having their voice heard, and I am sick of it! I am sick of it! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, if you stand, I will ask for your point of order. But you don't stand and just launch into a debate, particularly as I've just spent quite a few minutes settling the chamber down. Senator Cash I0M It's on relevance. We consistently are brought up ourselves on that point of order. I'd like you to also bring Senator Whiteaker to the point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have consistently been doing that. I have drawn her back to the issue at point on quite a number of occasions. Senator Ruston 243273 And she keeps ignoring you. The PRESIDENT 112096 I don't need your commentary either. Senator Kovacic 306168 On a point of order, I believe that Senator Whiteaker should withdraw her comments in relation to Senator Hanson. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will seek the advice of the Clerk. It was not a slur as I understood it to Senator Hanson, but I have said, Senator Kovacic, that I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I do not need the advice of senators. I will advise the chamber that it is a debating point. Senator Whiteaker, I would ask you to stick to the suspension matters, please. Senator WHITEAKER 316555 You have brought me back to the suspension a number of times, so thank you for your assistance. What I will say in closing is that we should be able to come into this place and suspend to talk about the issues that Australians care about, and I believe that it is in the interests of the Australian people and in the interests of this chamber to suspend to agree to the amendment that was moved by the minister. 16:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to oppose the government's attempt to suspend standing orders to amend the urgency motion. In addressing the issue before the chamber, I want to make this principally as a procedural point. This is not government business. Government business, as you know, was already called on earlier today. This is an urgency debate, and it was brought to the Senate under standing order 75. There is a reason that that procedure exists. There is a reason for the standing orders to provide opportunities for senators to bring urgent matters before this chamber. That is the ordinary rule. This is not government time. Government time is clearly set out in the Notice Paper. Even if the government doesn't like it, this is the time for those on the opposition side and the crossbench side of the chamber to come to the Senate—it's only a small amount of time that's afforded each week to the opposition and the crossbench—and to bring forward a motion that they want debated. The government, as you know, already has extensive opportunities in which to debate their legislation. They have government business. As I said, we've already debated government business today. The government can introduce legislation. The government can determine the legislative priorities. Ministers bring the bills in each and every day. That is the opportunity for the government to debate what they wish to debate. This small period of time is the time in which the opposition and the crossbench are able to raise matters that are relevant to them. Standing order 75 is one of those opportunities. It allows a senator to say, 'This is an urgent matter and we believe the Senate should debate it.' Now, in the normal course of events, without the stunts that have been pulled by the government—we know this is a stunt, and you're entitled to bring on stunts, but sadly, everybody other than the government bench has actually called out the stunt today—this is just a way for a senator on this side to come to the chamber and say, 'This is an urgent matter which we believe the Senate should debate.' This might be news for the government, but the precedent for the government is that it does not have to agree with the matter that is going to be debated. It doesn't need to amend it. It can speak to it. It can argue why it does not agree with an urgency motion. We've certainly done that. Others have done that. You don't need to agree with what the senator is bringing to the chamber, but one would think you would respect the right of the crossbench and the opposition to bring up matters to the chamber in the small amount of time that is allocated to them. At the end of the day, Labor are able to vote against the motion should they so wish. One Nation has the time today— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I'm also going to remind you to focus on the suspension. Senator CASH I0M In relation to what Labor are doing, there is no matter of urgency to suspend standing orders to debate the amendment—simply not. As I said, the government already has time allocated to it each and every day—way more than those on this side of the chamber will ever have—to debate issues that are of relevance to them in the normal course of events. That's why this motion should not be agreed to. In the normal course of events, a senator would move their motion under standing order 75. That motion would then be debated for a period of time, and at the end of that motion there would be a vote. It is at that point in time—when those bells ring and a vote is called—that all the other parties in the chamber are able to say, 'We agree with the motion,' or alternatively, 'No, we don't agree with the motion.' This is an urgency motion brought under standing order 75. Standing order 75 is quite deliberate in what it states. It is the opportunity for those of us on this side of the chamber to bring forward a motion we believe should be debated. The government is able to vote against the motion. 16:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens won't be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders by the government. I want to be very clear why that is. If you look at any given week in this Senate, the item of business that gets far and away the biggest slice of this Senate's time is government business. That is a consistent fact across any given sitting week in this chamber. This item that we actually should be debating but we're not because the government has moved to suspend standing orders is where opposition and crossbench senators get to bring issues that are important to the people we represent into the Senate and have them debated, either as matters of public importance or matters of urgency, and this is a precious time for us. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim. I'm going to draw you back to the suspension. Senator McKim JKM I'm explaining— The PRESIDENT 112096 You're not in a debate with me. I'm drawing you back to the suspension. Senator McKIM JKM The reason we are not to going support the suspension is that we want to preserve the precious time for matters of public importance and matters of urgency that represent the people we represent in this place, whether we be Greens, opposition or other crossbenchers. We are not going to oppose the suspension because we agree with the proposition that One Nation is putting in their matter of urgency. We don't agree with that. We do not agree with what One Nation is bringing forward. However, there are mechanisms for us to voice that disagreement. We can simply mount arguments against what anyone is proposing in a matter of urgency, as we would have on this one, and we can vote against it. I don't understand why the Labor Party doesn't seem to have the courage of its convictions and confidence in its own capacity to run an argument here, because if you had the courage— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I'm going to draw you back to the matter before the chamber, which is the suspension. Senator McKIM JKM The reason we are not supporting the suspension is because we have the confidence in our capacity to run an argument against the central proposition that One Nation is putting. It's a shame that the government doesn't have that same confidence in their capacity to run that argument. Matters of urgency and matters of public importance are non-government time. The government gets plenty of time in any given sitting week to debate its issues, and we've spent many hours already this week debating government issues and pieces of legislation that the government has brought in, and that is fine. That is what is provided for in the standing orders. For the government to come in and seek to reframe a debate that has been put forward in an item of business that is reserved for non-government senators is frankly disgraceful, and it will not be supported by the Australian Greens. I want to place very clearly on the record that, outside of absolutely exceptional circumstances, we will not allow or support amendments to matters of public importance or matters of urgency. We won't, and we will preserve the right as far as we are able for non-government senators to bring in issues, no matter how misguided we may think they are. We do think One Nation's is misguided. However, we will preserve that right of non-government senators to bring their issues before this chamber. We would prefer to be mounting the robust arguments that I had prepared against One Nation's crazy policy on superannuation. That's what we would prefer to be debating today. But Labor, by moving a suspension, has narrowed the scope of this debate so much that that really critical debate, around how flawed the One Nation policy is, now cannot occur in this time, because Labor, in an act of strategic stupidity, has prevented that debate from occurring. If you've got the courage of your convictions and you think you can mount an argument against an MPU, mount the argument against it and vote accordingly. That is my advice to the government. 16:39 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand today to speak against the motion by the government, because it isn't urgent. It isn't urgent. But what is really important in this place is two things. One is that it is really important that the conventions, the precedents and the procedures of this chamber are respected by every single senator in this place. What is also important is that non-government senators are provided with the due respect by those on the government benches to have their time that has been allotted by the standing orders so that they can prosecute the issues that are important to them and to the people that elect them to be in this place. For the government to think that this is somehow urgent, that they would come in here and amend a motion, to change the substance of that motion significantly, to prevent a crossbench senator from being able to talk to their motion in the time that they have been allotted—I think that the government needs to have a very serious think about what they think is urgent and important. We have to respect the fact that you may not like what a senator in this place moves as a motion. None of us always like everything that others in this place may raise as issues for debate on the floor of this chamber. But the one thing that you cannot move away from is this: every senator has the sovereign right to be able to raise whatever issues they choose to raise. In this place, Senator Hanson, like every other crossbench senator and every other non-government senator, has the right, during this particular time— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I'm going to draw you back to the suspension. Senator RUSTON 243273 Yes. For that very reason, I believe that the motion as moved to suspend by the government is not urgent, for the reasons that I have stated. As I said, what I do believe is important is that the government understands why we believe that they should not have moved the amendment to this motion and why we believe that their motion— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. The total time for the debate on the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson, which includes the debate on this suspension motion, has now expired. I will now put the question on Senator Hanson's urgency motion. The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 83 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 83 16:50 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Bragg has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red: The Government's failure on housing, including the Budget tax hikes that have smashed confidence and investment, and will result in fewer houses by design. 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 e68 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:50 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. It's great to have a Tarong supporter in the chair this afternoon. Today, I want to talk about the Labor government's complete and abject failure on housing. After four long years of this government, we've seen a model of high tax, high red tape, high levels of corruption and a complete failure to meet the targets it set for itself. The government has no chance of ever meeting the housing targets it's set for itself—to be at 1.2 million houses over five years. The government has no chance of ever meeting the social and affordable housing targets it set for itself through the Housing Future Fund, which has had $10 billion and three years and has built fewer than a thousand houses, most of which it has purchased, not built. The government has subjected the Australian people to this shocking model of failure. We see, on the ABS's own numbers, 30,000 fewer houses each year. That's right. After billions of dollars, the new taxes, the new red tape and the new everything else, we have fewer houses. For the housing minister and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to walk around and brag about how much money they're spending on houses—that doesn't matter. What matters is how many houses you actually get. Just because you spend more money on things doesn't mean you get more things. I know it's not a particularly scientific concept, but it is a fact under this government. We saw a budget that doubled down on that failed strategy and saddled this country with $77 billion of new taxes, not just on housing but on everything. I have still not heard a coherent explanation as to why there needs to be a 30 per cent tax on everything to solve a housing crisis. No coherent explanation has ever been provided as to why crypto, ETF, shares and whatever else need to be more highly taxed. That is one of the reasons that we have a sclerotic economy in this country. What is the net result of this dreadful budget three months after it was given? If you look at supply, the government, by its own budget papers, admits there are 35,000 fewer houses, and there are even fewer houses when you take into account its ban on SMSFs investing to provide new properties. Why is the government restricting housing supply? That is a very good question. I think most Australians would say it's because the government has no brain. We see an estimated $2 a week in rent increases. We've already seen projections of up to $250 a week increases in Sydney. And then we see perhaps the most telling stat of them all: home loans. We've seen a 15 per cent drop in loans to owner-occupiers since the budget. So there are fewer houses and higher rents: those are the results of this budget. When you look at all the indices, you can see that people's lives are getting harder and harder. You've got a question why the government has doubled down on this failed strategy. Why does it think that more taxes will give you more houses? It won't. It never will. The most regrettable part of all this is that the people who can least afford to pay more in rent will suffer as a result of these policies. For the Prime Minister to publish his condescending, disgusting social media videos where he says, 'Have a great weekend'—people are over it. They know that this guy is completely out of touch, with his triumphal claim that he has solved the housing system problems by reducing housing supply and increasing rents. I think people are seeing through this as a completely failed approach. The problem the Australian people have is that they've got at least another 18 months of this. After four years of a government that has completely failed on housing, has wasted more money on housing than any prior government and has presided over a corrupt model—where the CFMEU gets to set prices and where it increases taxes and increases regulation—they've got to suffer for another 18 months until we get an election. And the next election will be a referendum on the government's completely failed housing policies, because at the end of the day you can't have your own facts. The stats are the stats: 30,000 fewer houses, massive increases in rents and a reduction in overall supply numbers. That is making the Australian dream worse, not better. 16:55 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Well, we have to admire Senator Bragg's energy. To come into this chamber and lecture the government about housing, after the coalition spent nearly a decade watching the problem get worse, takes some nerve. For most of that time, they didn't even bother having a housing minister. Now Senator Bragg has discovered housing. He's passionate about it—deeply concerned. He's got speeches, interviews, opinion pieces. At this rate he'll be launching a housing themed podcast and interviewing himself about the issue. What he still doesn't have is a practical housing policy. Labor has a $47 billion housing agenda focused on building more homes, making renting fairer and helping Australians buy their first home. That is almost 10 times what the coalition invested during nearly a decade in government. We're working towards 1.2 million new homes. We're delivering 55,000 social and affordable rental homes and building 100,000 homes reserved for first home buyers. The budget includes another $2 billion for enabling infrastructure, unlocking 65,000 homes. That means pipes, roads, pavements and powerlines, because houses can't be built from press releases and vibes. We've expanded the five per cent deposit scheme to all first home buyers. We've launched Help to Buy, allowing eligible buyers to enter the market with a mortgage up to 40 per cent smaller. We're limiting negative gearing for residential property to new builds from 2027-28 and replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation-adjusted indexation. These reforms are expected to help around 75,000 first home buyers into the market over the next decade. What has the opposition done with all of this? They voted no on Help to Buy, voted no on the five per cent deposit scheme, voted no on the Housing Australia Future Fund, voted no on build to rent, and voted no on tens of thousands of social and affordable homes. The coalition has opposed so many housing measures that it's harder to work out what they're for than what they're against—although, I must say, they are remarkably consistent. If a policy might help build more homes, they'll vote against it. Then they turn around and demand to know why the government isn't doing more. Senator Bragg, however, wasn't content with simply opposing solutions. When Australians wanted a fairer housing market, his only suggestion was that they 'need a new brain'—a bold diagnosis from someone whose party's housing proposal was, 'Have you considered emptying your super?' Young Australians have spent years working, saving and watching house prices skyrocket. Since 1999, prices have risen by 400 per cent, the median home costs more than eight times the average income, and saving a deposit can take more than a decade. Apparently Senator Bragg looked at all of that and diagnosed a brain problem. I would suggest that the only smooth-brain antics are coming from that side of the chamber. The coalition went to the last election wanting Australians to raid their super to buy a home, to pump more money into the housing market while leaving people poorer in retirement. And now the old mate has suffered the ultimate indignity: One Nation has beaten him to it. Imagine making a tax on super such a central feature of your political career, only to wake up one morning and discover that One Nation has stolen your trick. The Liberal/One Nation policy factory is clearly operating at max capacity. Unfortunately, quality control remains an issue. Analysis from the Super Members Council found a typical 30-year-old full-time worker could be around $25,000 worse off in retirement under One Nation's plan. Australians deserve better than Senator Bragg and One Nation competing to see who's better at depleting their super. Labor wants young Australians to buy a home without sacrificing their retirement to do it. We're building homes and funding the infrastructure to unlock more of them. We're backing first home buyers and changing tax settings that have been stacked against young people for decades. Senator Bragg can keep firing off hot takes from the sidelines. After nearly a decade of a coalition government, Australians have already seen what happens when his side gets the keys. They definitely didn't build enough houses with them. Debate interrupted. FIRST SPEECH 85 FIRST SPEECH Bleyer, Senator Vanessa 85 17:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Bleyer to make her first speech and ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her. 17:00 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania Thank you, President. After having to tell you yesterday that it wasn't my first speech, I'm pleased to confirm that this is my first speech! I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today. I also acknowledge the Palawa and Pakana peoples, the traditional owners and custodians of Lutruwita/Tasmania, the state I have the great privilege of representing. I pay my respects to elders past and present, and I acknowledge how kindly they cared for our native forests for tens of thousands of years. After a brutal invasion and just over 200 years of colonisation, our native forests have been the subject of blatant and senseless destruction. I have and I will continue to protect our remaining native forests and return them to the kind care of First Nations people again. I am here for nature, to protect our natural environment and all living species on Earth. For us, as humans, to be in the best position to protect and nurture our planet, we need to look after ourselves. So I reflect on the life that I have lived and how it has shaped me to fight for our wild places and how it has shaped me to identify the services that we need. On 4 May this year, my mum died 10 weeks after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. She had squamous cell carcinoma. Whilst working from her hospital bedside over the 10 weeks, I would take in her bills, and one of the things we did together was sit and pay them on my laptop. It made her happy. I was with Mum when she died, and the last words that she spoke, which she said to me, were, 'Have we paid all the bills?' Yes, Mum, we have paid all the bills. Everything is in order. Paying the bills meant so much to me and Mum. When I was in high school, my dad went away on business, and he didn't come back. He was no longer the breadwinner. For the next two years, my mum, my brother and I worked so hard to pay the bills. I had an after-school job. I had a weekend job. My mum worked nights as a theatre nurse in emergency. One of us was always home to care for my sister, who has Down syndrome. But, despite our best efforts, when I was in year 12, we just couldn't meet the full mortgage payments. We were evicted from our home by a big bank, and I studied for my final exams on boxes. This experience filled me with strength and a determination to fight for secure and affordable housing, and I did that as a social justice lawyer by stopping unlawful evictions of long-term residents at a caravan park in Tasmania and helping to create laws that protect long-term residents across the whole of the state of Tasmania. Today, with many more battles behind me, I have the extraordinary privilege of continuing that fight as a Greens Senator for Tasmania. I acknowledge my friend and former senator, Peter Whish-Wilson, whose contribution to Tasmania, to the Greens and to this parliament has been enormous. I am proud to follow him into this place. And, yes, as many of you have told me in this chamber, I know I have big shoes to fill. I have come here to keep fighting for the people, places and causes that have shaped my life and to turn those fights into laws for a better society. That begins with secure and affordable housing, rent caps and more public housing. I acknowledge my brother here today. I remember the moment when someone from the big bank knocked on our door with an eviction notice in hand and the look of profound grief on my brother's face. I acknowledge the tireless work he now performs supporting people who are homeless and the improvement he brings to their lives. My sister, who has down syndrome, struggled to understand what was happening. She didn't know where her dad had gone or why we suddenly had to leave our family home. She was also going through puberty at the time, and the upheaval took an enormous toll on her. I am my sister's plan nominee under the NDIS. I don't know how she'd survive without the NDIS. I am here to fight for the rights of disabled people and for the NDIS, which is a vital human right that must be protected. But there was something else happening in our home that was a secret for many years. My dad was violent. My mum used to say that she stayed with dad despite the violence because she thought it was best for us kids to have a dad. But I've got to tell you, when he left, I was relieved. I could live in peace and not go to school every day pretending that everything was happy at home. I am here because we do not need to be silent bystanders. Family violence continues to be prevalent in homes across Tasmania and this nation. Why? The system should respond without people like me having to tell stories like this. When I was in my late teens, I remember this moment when I realised I had a past, that I was old enough to have memories rather than just a now. I looked back on my life. I thought that what I had endured at the hands of my dad should not be normal, it should not have occurred and it was something that I should try and work through for my own sake. So I read every book I could get my hands on, and then, when my dad resurfaced when I was about 21 years of age, I organised an in-person meeting with him to confront him for his violent behaviour and to forgive him. I forgave him, and it felt good. His response was: 'You should be thanking me. I think you are only as strong as you are because of how I treated you.' I am here to fight for fathers to not think like my dad did, for the women who feel stuck like my mum did, for the children who grew up believing family violence is a normal part of life and a secret that only lives at home. A few hours after my mum died in May this year, I watched as she was being taken to the morgue. Then I went straight to Canberra. I jumped on the next plane from Melbourne to Canberra for what would be my final High Court case as a lawyer. On 30 June this year, I retired from legal practice to begin this new chapter here in parliament. The High Court case was about the illegal cruelty against non-human animals at slaughterhouses and the public's right to know what goes on in slaughterhouses and how non-human animals are treated as they make their way to the plates of those who choose to eat them. I acknowledge my then client and fellow animal rights campaigner, the great Christopher Delforce and his team at Farm Transparency Project. Be assured I am here to continue to fight with you for the rights of non-human animals who, without us, don't have a voice and who are thinking and feeling beings that deserve care, respect and protection from cruelty. That case continues to await judgement. When I left legal practice in June this year, I had to entrust a number of ongoing important public interest cases to other lawyers, and I am deeply grateful to the very capable people who have taken on that legal work to protect the threatened species that I care so much about—species like the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot, which stops and forages on Robbins Island in north-west Tasmania. I acknowledge the work of the Circular Head Coastal Awareness Network, for which I acted as lawyer. This Labor government approved a wind farm at Robbins Island that is simply in the wrong place because it will push the orange-bellied parrot to extinction as it instinctively follows its migratory pathway only to be suddenly pulverised by wind turbine blades. I will continue to fight for the orange-bellied parrot's existence and to ensure that wind farm does not proceed. I will continue to fight for the Maugean skate, which is being driven to extinction by fish farms in Macquarie Harbour that are suffocating the skate to death. I acknowledge the work of NWTAS for Clean Oceans, for which I acted as lawyer. The science is clear. We must urgently end the industrial-scale fish farming at Macquarie Harbour if we have any chance of saving the Maugean skate. These are all such important issues that I have had the great pleasure of being able to prosecute as a lawyer but that I will now have the pleasure of being able to continue to prosecute as a senator. But there is one important issue that I grew up on: protecting our remaining native forests and the species dependent on them to live. Protecting our natural environment is not something I discovered as a lawyer; it has been part of me for as long as I can remember. As a little girl growing up on the northern beaches of Sydney, I wrote a poem about saving the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. This was profound because I had never been to Tasmania, I didn't know anyone who lived there and I don't even know if I knew where it was. But, even then, I cared deeply about our native forests and the threatened species that depend on them. So, when I became a lawyer, I got on to looking at how we could use the law to do what the government wasn't doing. In 2009, I started the Brown Mountain case on behalf of Environment East Gippsland Inc. for the purpose of protecting native forests in far-north-east Victoria and the plethora of threatened species that inhabit it. In 2010, we won. We achieved the first permanent injunction to end native forest logging ever in this country. That case then set the way for a series of litigations in Victoria that achieved injunctions to stop native forest logging across the state of Victoria and which played a significant role in the Victorian government announcing an end to native forest logging in Victoria from January 2024. Finally—and I am sorry that it took so long—in September 2025, September last year, we achieved the first permanent injunction to stop some native-forest logging in Tasmania in Southern Forest. There has not yet been the time to achieve what we did with litigation in Victoria, but it is underway. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Tasmania, native-forest logging continues. Why? It makes no social, environmental or economic sense. Australia Institute research tells us that less than one per cent of employed Tasmanians work in the native forest logging or associated industries. That is a small enough number of people to be able to justly and respectfully transition into a different industry. I live in the beautiful north-west of Tasmania, and that means that I speak to plenty of people who work in the native-forest logging industry, and many of them tell me they want to continue to work in the forest. That's easily done. We need to repair the damage that we have done to our native forests, and those who currently work in the native-forest logging industry can continue to work in the forest in restoration. The tertiary education courses already exist. Logging of our remaining native forests is a massive loss-making industry, which is propped up to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies. It's hard to fathom, right? Native-forest logging is a loss maker and a small employer not to mention a massive contributor to the climate crisis and a major cause of extinctions due to habitat loss. No wonder Australia Institute research tells us that seven out of 10 Australians want an end to native-forest logging. I have been successfully saving native forests from logging purely for their intrinsic value, with no strings attached, for over 20 years I have proved it can be done, and I fought to get here to do the same thing once and for all—end native-forest logging across this country. I will not stop until I do. I am getting closer. We are getting closer. We don't need to choose between saving forests and saving the climate. It is my mission to do both. I just got here. Give me a moment to have a go. Thank you to my family, including my brother, sister-in-law and cousin who are here today; my friends; my colleagues; and my fellow campaigners, plenty of whom are here today who stood beside me throughout my life and my work. I've got to say I'm proud of what I achieved as a lawyer, using the courts to protect our environment, defend people's rights and hold governments to account, but eventually I realised that my job as a lawyer interpreting laws wasn't enough. I wanted to be here making better laws. That is why I am proud to take my place as a Greens senator for Tasmania. I have come here because I know what it means when the systems that are supposed to protect people fail them. I know what it means to lose your home. I know what it means to live in violence and keep it secret. I know what it means to fight for someone you love who depends on a strong public system to live with dignity. I have seen what happens when governments know that forests are being destroyed, species are being pushed towards extinction and communities are asking if not begging for help, but governments choose not to act. I can't promise that every fight will be won, but I can promise you that I will not turn my back, and I will fight all the way. I will fight for people who need a secure home, for disabled people and a strong NDIS, for women and children who deserve to live free from violence, for animals who can't speak for themselves, and for our forests, our threatened species and the extraordinary places that Tasmanians have entrusted to us to protect. And I will always remember why I am here. When my mum was dying, the last thing she wanted to know was whether we had paid all the bills. We had. Everything was in order. She taught me what it means to take responsibility for the people and the things entrusted to us. We all inherit obligations to one another, to the people who come after us and to the places we are fortunate enough to call home. We do not get to leave these obligations unpaid. That is what I bring with me into this parliament, and I am proud to take it alongside my Greens colleagues and our movement. Anyone and everyone can join me on this journey. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 88 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 88 17:24 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia That's a hard speech to follow—a very powerful speech from our new senator. It was a very moving speech, too, to welcome her and hear more about her. I return now to the business of Senator Bragg's proposal, which draws our attention to the government's failure on housing, including in the budget, and his critique of where we're at in a housing crisis. The motion says that the government has failed on housing. Certainly they've failed on affordability. At present we are in the worst affordability crisis in this country in living memory. They have failed us on setting a target for building new homes. We are so far off their target that it is drifting off into the future—hundreds of thousands of houses short of the target that we know they aimed to reach. Most importantly, they have failed the third of Australians who are renters, many of them renting for way longer than they expected because of the doubling of the time it now takes to save a deposit for a home. There was nothing in the last budget or in Labor's election platform for renters, and this is now a pervasive and extended experience for so many people, certainly for young people but also for many people who did not expect to be renting for decades of their life and in many cases became lifetime renters. People across our country are being hit with massive rent increases—a 23 per cent increase in the last five years, a period that has seen a fall in real wages every year, a fall of five per cent in real wages, facing that 23 per cent increase in rents. It is an impossible squeeze for so many parents, for so many families, for so many young people. People are hurting across the country, and renters are being pushed to the wall. Today I have had in my office Anglicare from Western Australia as well as the Western Australian Council of Social Service. These are services that, every day, provide support and assistance to people who are homeless, who are in dire rental stress. These two services brought with them the story that in Western Australia, in central Perth, at the moment there are 69 young homeless people for every vacant bed for a homeless person. This is in a rich country. This country is at the top of the OECD in terms of wealth. And here we have one bed for 69 young homeless people in the centre of Perth. Shame on us and shame on the decades of policy failure by both sides of this parliament, both major parties, in failing to deal with a crisis—to build the public housing, to have the rental policies we need and to make sure every Australian has a roof over their head. The primary funding vehicle that's come forward from the Labor government in recent years has been the Housing Australia Future Fund—the HAFF. It was never going to meet the demand of the 640,000 Australians who are in dire housing stress right now. It will build 40,000 homes. That does not touch the sides of those hundreds of thousands of people looking for housing. And just in the last week the United Nations has slammed us as a country for the demolition of 44 public housing towers in Melbourne, saying it is likely to amplify Victoria's housing crisis and could be in violation of the international human right to housing. The Victorian Labor government has a plan—unbelievable in this housing crisis—to abolish 44 public housing towers. I've visited those towers. I've sat with people, talking about their experience, their community, and the importance of their being able to stay with the people they have formed friendships with, have raised their families with, have built their after-school programs with and are established in their employment around. Those houses are going. Those lives are disrupted. We are in the midst of a housing crisis that will change a whole generation of people in whole suburbs in a big city like Melbourne. It is a crisis and a response that is simply unbelievable. The same thing is happening in the middle of Sydney. This motion from Senator Bragg only acknowledges Labor's contribution to this incredible housing crisis. But we must face the fact that both major parties have been very significant contributors to the crisis. And we must find a way forward to help those renters, to cap that rent, to build the public housing we need and to make housing affordable again. (Time expired) 17:29 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Mr Acting Deputy President, $34.1 billion wiped out in a single quarter—that is what the loss in the value of Australia's housing stock amounts to in just the last quarter. What we're witnessing across Australia is an absolute crisis in the housing market. It's a failure on housing that isn't an accident in the market; it's a design feature of this government's budget. This budget, their budget, delivered tax hikes that have smashed confidence, have driven away investment, will result in fewer homes being built—by design—and are going to have ripple effects all across the economy. Just this week, ABS stats out confirmed that $34.1 billion was wiped off the total value of the Australian residential property market in the June quarter alone. That's the first drop in the net national housing stock value since late 2022. But major forecasters HSBC, the Commonwealth Bank and AMP are saying that this is just the start. They are expecting peak-to-trough falls of somewhere between nine and 13 per cent. In Sydney, house values have already dropped by seven per cent. In Melbourne, thousands of homes are losing value week on week, and over 90 per cent of capital-city suburbs are now in outright price decline. Housing crises like this do not happen in a vacuum. The primary catalyst—indeed, the predominant catalyst—for this freeze was the government's May budget. It was a budget that delivered a body blow to property investment by changing the tax rules in the middle of the game. By targeting negative gearing on established dwellings and by unwinding longstanding capital gains tax arrangements, the Labor government told thousands of everyday Australians—investors, superannuants and mum-and-dad property owners—that their capital was no longer safe in Australian real estate. The government assured us that there was nothing to worry about. In the Treasury budget papers, the government explicitly claimed that these tax interventions would lead to nothing more than 'a small and temporary slowing in housing price growth'. Well, does the Labor government still stand by this prediction? Do they think $34 billion wiped out in a single quarter is 'a small and temporary slowing in housing price growth'? Do they think a fall in house values of somewhere between nine and 13 per cent, from peak to trough, is 'a small and temporary slowing in housing price growth'? The reality is that the assumptions behind Labor's assault on housing in this budget have completely collapsed, because this budget has smashed investor confidence. What that has done is choke off the very capital that is required to build new housing. Developers cannot secure presales because private investor demand has evaporated. Institutional builders are pulling back projects because the regulatory and tax environments are unpredictable and volatile. When you scare away private investment, you don't create more housing; you create less housing. In the middle of an acute national housing shortage, this government has engineered a policy framework that ensures that fewer slabs are poured, fewer frames are erected and fewer keys are handed over to new owners. And the damage doesn't stop there. Construction is one of the largest private-sector employers in this country, and so, when home building stalls, subcontractors lose work and apprentices are let go. Small businesses right across the supply chain feel that squeeze. The housing collapse is also having a devastating impact on consumer confidence because, for the vast majority of Australian households, their home is their primary asset. And, when families see literally tens of thousands of dollars stripped from their home's value overnight, they tighten their belts. It's the obvious thing to do. You see that retail sales drop, hospitality suffers and broader domestic demand contracts. The wealth effect works both ways, and this government is presiding over a reverse wealth effect that threatens to drag our wider economy into stagnation. You cannot tax your way into housing affordability. You cannot bludgeon the housing sector with tax changes and then wonder why new supply is not coming online. You cannot punish investors and then expect builders to keep building. This housing failure was designed on the treasury bench. I call on the government to admit that its budget tax hikes have failed and are destroying confidence in the Australian housing market and to reverse course before it is too late. 17:34 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania Senator Bragg's proposition today asks us to believe that Australia's housing crisis somehow began with the last Labor budget. The numbers tell a very different story. Since 1999, Australian house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent. I hear those opposite stressing about a few per centage points. There was a 400 per cent increase; that's the context we're working in. That increase was more than twice as fast as the growth of average full-time earnings. You've had a 400 per cent growth in house prices, and full-time wages have only grown by half that. Median house prices are now eight times average full-time earnings, and it takes an average of 11.2 years to save a standard deposit for a house. This crisis was decades in the making. Suddenly, we see some affordability coming into the market and those opposite think that's the time to call a crisis. The crisis was decades in the making and now we're doing something about it. No serious person should pretend one government created these challenges in our housing market, but, equally, nobody should pretend it suddenly appeared in May. For the coalition's first six years in government, they didn't even have a federal housing minister. When the coalition eventually decided it had an answer to declining homeownership, one of its signature ideas was to let young Australians raid their superannuation to buy a home. Senator Bragg has been one of the idea's strongest advocates. At the National Press Club just last month he reminded us the coalition took super for housing policies to the last two elections, and only weeks ago he confirmed that the relationship between super and housing was again part of a policy review. Let's just think about the economics of that for a moment. If you have too few homes and you give every prospective buyer more money to bid for them, you haven't created another home. In a supply constrained market, some of that additional purchasing power simply gets capitalised into higher prices. The buyer arrives at the auction with more money and so does everyone else, and they arrive with less superannuation at the same time. Housing affordability ultimately requires more housing and that means land, planning, tradies, finance, as well as the roads, water, power and sewerage that turn developable land into actual homes. Here's where today's motion becomes particularly interesting. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Bragg said, 'A housing target is meaningless if the connecting roads are not built, the sewer is not hooked up and the water does not reach the block.' On that point, Senator Bragg is right. Senator Bragg, welcome to Labor's housing policy, because the budget he is attacking includes specifically another $2 billion for exactly that enabling infrastructure, taking our investment to $6.3 billion and supporting up to 65,000 additional homes. In Tasmania, you can see what that means. At South Brighton, just outside of Hobart, more than $10 million in Commonwealth funding is delivering sewerage, roads and connections needed to unlock up to 600 homes. Our agreement with Tasmania will unlock 4,000 more homes with up to 2,100 reserved exclusively for first homebuyers, At Dowsing Point, surplus Commonwealth land has the potential to deliver another thousand homes for greater Hobart. That is supply policy. That is why the design of our tax reforms matter. We are not removing negative gearing from new housing; we are preserving it for new builds. Existing investments are grandfathered and new housing receives preferential treatment under the capital gains tax reforms as well. The economic signal here is straightforward: if taxpayers are going to subsidise property investment, let's give investors a reason to add another home to the market. You can argue about the calibration of that policy, but to claim it is designed to produce fewer homes ignores how the policy actually works. And the latest evidence actually supports the claim. If we look at the ABS figures, they show that dwelling approvals are in fact nine per cent higher than a year ago, and the underlying trend is up almost 12 per cent. In Tasmania, approvals rose 15 per cent in July alone. Does that mean the housing crisis is solved? Of course not. We need more supply, faster approvals, greater construction productivity and more skilled workers. That is precisely why this government is funding infrastructure, releasing land, training tradies, cutting red tape, building social and affordable housing, and reforming tax incentives. Australia needs more homes. On that much, Senator Bragg and I agree. The difference is that we're getting on with actually building them. 17:39 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I love it when people come in here and they have carefully manicured notes off their talking points and the secure website, what they should say on these issues such as housing. But there's always one little thing that comes along—that is, reality. The reality is that the Labor Party can't get here and say that this isn't by design, because Budget Paper No. 1, page 158, says that they expect the taxation changes will create 35,000 fewer homes. It's in the budget papers. All the talking points in the world about how this isn't causing a problem don't matter, because the budget papers you relied on for these changes give the game away. It's more than that. These are the budget papers that said rents would go up $2 per week based on these changes, when we've already seen $100 per week changes—and we heard Senator Pocock talk about one-third of people renting. You're ignoring the facts of what's actually happening on the basis of talking points, and that's not what Australia needs right now. When you go through this and see the fall of confidence in the market, we see prices stagnating. We see prices falling in capital cities. We see billions and billions of dollars of earned wealth disappearing from people who already own their home, who've done their work, who've paid their taxes, who've paid their mortgages. You've reduced confidence in the market. What you're forgetting is, in the market, almost half of all dwellings are built by developers for profit. In the fresh home market, the vast majority—about 75 to 80 per cent—are built by owner-occupiers: 'I want to build a home. I'm going to pay for it.' But when you get to apartments, when you get to townhouses, when you get to other things, the vast majority are built by developers. They're looking at the increased costs of different things and they're looking at the bullying in the industry around the CFMEU, and they're saying the risk isn't worth it anymore. So, for the last four years, half of the 170,000 to 210,000 dwellings that are built every year in this country now have a big question mark—are they going to be built in the future?—because they don't stack up. People I've been talking to say they look at their costings and they do their budgets and they know what's going on today, and they figure the costs they're exposed to over time by changes in structures and changes in the CFMEU will be compensated by the price rises of their property over the same time. They do their budgets now for what will happen, but now they know there is no increase in value from the moment they hit FID, final investment decision, to the time they construct it. So now they're saying, 'I won't build it; I won't take the risk.' Imagine, when we are already bringing more people into the country than the homes we're building, taking another half of that market and not building it anymore. Say we dropped to 100,000 homes a year. What happens then? There is a greater push on services and a greater push against migration—the migration we need in some instances—because we're not building enough homes. It is all because we have crashed confidence in the housing market by design, not accidentally. It's black and white on the pages. We say we're going to build fewer homes. We say that knocking down the value of people's existing dwellings is a good thing, but it is not; it will cause problems tomorrow. Holding values might be one thing—we don't need to go up by the rates we've gone up historically—but dropping values is a bad thing. When we hear the NAB saying there's been a 14.5 per cent drop and when we hear CommBank saying there's been a 16 per cent drop, when we see these numbers—that has real value; that is trillions of dollars of value across the Australian economy. Earlier today we heard an anecdote about a businessperson with property who's getting a margin call because they think the LVR, the lending-to-valuation ratio, has dropped to a point where they have to come up with a significant amount of money to cover that gap. That is the reality of the confidence we are doing in the property market, and it is not good enough. It will cause secondary problems. When we are building fewer homes, it will judge out in the market itself: prices will eventually go up in two or three years, when these things aren't coming online. But, in the meantime we'll have more social problems. The only way to have an efficient housing system and fix this housing problem is to facilitate construction, whether it be private homes or public homes. The settings are wrong right across this—from council planning laws to everyone in the world who thinks they've got an idea about what should go in the house, as well as the regulation and the building industry codes, which change every day. It needs to be a simple, confident market where people know what they can build, know they can make money and develop the 170,000 to 210,000 homes we rely on every year. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 That concludes the debate on the matter of public importance. DOCUMENTS 91 DOCUMENTS Temporary Chairs of Committees 91 17:44 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I just want to acknowledge—I don't often get to do this because I'm often in the chamber in this chair when these things happen. But Senator Marielle Smith has stepped back from her role as temporary chair, and I just want to sincerely thank Senator Marielle Smith for her time as a temporary chair. I understand other duties call her and demand her attention elsewhere, but it's an extremely important role for the good operation of this chamber, as you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President. We have a number of highly competent temporary chairs who can take on the role of chairing the Senate. I really do wish to sincerely thank Senator Marielle Smith for taking on that duty and for performing it so well and so diligently over the past months. I look forward to having Senator Stewart in that role in the future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 Thank you, Senator Brockman. That was very gracious. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 91 Government Response to Report 91 17:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on its review of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Review of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021 September 2026 Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that any future review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021, or related issues of migration, protection and human rights, be referred to an appropriate parliamentary committee such as the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, or the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The Australian Government notes the Recommendation. Treaties Joint Committee 92 Report 92 17:46 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present the 234th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 92 Report 92 17:46 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest 11 of 2026 of the Standing Committee of the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 92 Report 92 17:47 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present Delegated legislation monitor 9 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 92 DOCUMENTS International Relations: Australia and China 92 Order for the Production of Documents 92 17:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning Australia's relationship with the People's Republic of China. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 92 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission 92 17:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's 2026 report to parliament and a ministerial statement from the Minister for Social Services, Ms Plibersek, relating to the report. I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. Almost daily we hear report after report of violence against women and girls, of lives lost. Violence against women and girls is shocking and distressing. We must never accept it as normal or inevitable. We must commit to ending violence, and we must act with the knowledge that it is possible to prevent violence and with the imagination to see what a world without violence would mean for all of us. That is the core message of the report delivered to parliament today by the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner. I want to thank Commissioner Cronin and her staff for their work. The commissioner's report acknowledges what has been delivered but also that there is more to do. It is the largest investment any Australian government has ever made in women's safety—in frontline services, prevention, behavioural change programs and support for children; in the leaving violence payment and making it permanent, giving people escaping violence financial support and safety planning; in legislating 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave; and also in investing and supporting 500 additional frontline domestic, family and sexual violence workers across state and territory services. But there is more work to do. That is why, over recent months, led by the Minister for Social Services but supported by every member of the government, we have undertaken the largest national consultation of its kind on the Second Action Plan under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. We have met with more than 1,100 experts, advocates and frontline workers across 163 roundtables, from Darwin to Devonport, from Broome to Brisbane, and a consultation I hosted here in Canberra in July, as well as a roundtable just last month, where I joined the Prime Minister, Minister Plibersek and others. The commission's report echoes what we have heard through these consultations, and we are determined to make sure the second action plan is focused on the right areas, such as consistently addressing risk, acting early to prevent harm and preventing and responding to sexual violence. It means addressing every way in which harm occurs, including the ways that did not exist a generation ago or even a few years ago. According to new research out of the University of Melbourne, one in three teenage boys in this country holds misogynistic attitudes towards women, and one in four agreed that feminism should be resisted with violence. Of everything those researchers measured—ideology, religion, background and hours spent online—the single strongest predictor of support for violent extremism was hostility towards women. Our children are not born believing these things. Instead, they are being taught them at scale by systems designed to hold their attention rather than serve their interests. Algorithms are pushing content onto teenagers that no child should be seeing, shaping what they believe about sex, about relationships and about respect and normalising attitudes that put women and girls at risk. This is why it is so important that passing laws which introduce a digital duty of care is supported by this parliament. It places a legal obligation on platforms to keep users safe, particularly our young people. It requires that young people be protected from addictive design and from content that promotes hostile gender ideologies, dangerous behaviour and poor self-esteem. And it includes a world-first My Feed, My Way. For the first time anywhere, Australians will be able to switch the algorithm off and see only what they have actually chosen to follow. The feed will answer to the user, not the other way round. As a government, we want to give control back to Australians. Let me say something about this place. Every one of us in this chamber sets a tone that travels well beyond it. When women in public life are demeaned here, young people are watching, and they are learning. We ask families, schools and clubs to hold themselves to a higher standard. We cannot credibly ask that of them and exempt those in this chamber. Women and girls should be safe everywhere always. The fact that they are not is unacceptable, and every one of us has a responsibility to change that. Thank you. 17:53 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to parliament tabled today showed us again that our systems are failing Australian women and children. Prevention is too little and too late. Frontline services are struggling to keep up with demand, and the data is unclear on whether funding is making any real progress at all. The commission's lived experience survey found that only eight per cent of respondents could access all the services they needed at the time that they needed them. That's disappointing. But, as disappointing as that figure is, sadly, for everyone here and those experiencing it, it doesn't come as a surprise. Advocates, frontline workers and organisations have told us this time and time again. Women needing sexual assault support in Western Australia can face waits for up to 18 months. Women needing domestic violence refuge accommodation in New South Wales can wait for up to three months. Women needing sexual assault counselling in Victoria can face waits of up to 12 months. And, in the ACT, domestic violence crisis services can only answer around half of the calls that they receive. At this point, I want to thank all those workers that do provide those services. Any criticisms that I make are not of the frontline people that are doing the work—because I know the pressure that you are under—but, sadly, the system is overwhelmed. For some women, getting help is even more difficult. I think of the financially isolated woman, who does not know where her next meal is coming from and where she and her children will sleep if she flees; the socially isolated woman, who has no-one around her to notice that she is not okay; and the woman from a refugee or migrant background, who may not feel that she can communicate what is happening to her and may not know where to go for help. As I said in my statement on Monday, remembrance without action is not enough. We must refuse to accept that violence is inevitable, and we cannot become so used to hearing these stories that it stops affecting us. Commissioner Cronin describes the reality that these women face; she writes: A recurring theme was that people are often required to become experts in navigating complex systems simply to access the support or information they need. Well, that is not good enough. When you're in danger, you do not have the time nor the resources to become an expert before you escape, and you shouldn't have to be one. I echo the sentiments of my colleague in the other place Melissa McIntosh MP when I ask: where can they go? We cannot measure progress by the number of funding announcements we make or the number of policy papers we produce. We need to know whether women and children are actually safer. We need to know whether a woman can leave a violent relationship without having to choose between her safety, putting food on the table and having somewhere to live. We need to know that her children are safe too. We cannot forget them—the children who have learnt to work out how the night will go just by the rhythm of the footsteps coming through the door, the children who have seen the things that no child should see. No parent wants that life for their child. But, for families where the worst nightmare has become their reality, we have a responsibility to make sure that there is a way out. And, for every family that is yet to come, we must build a culture that does not tolerate violence and does not allow violent relationships to form. We must make sure that the next generation knows that violence has no place in a healthy relationship. We must teach our boys and our young men that real strength is about protecting people, not hurting or disrespecting them. We must teach our girls and our young women that being loved means being respected and supported, not controlled or isolated. And we need to build a system that actually works when women and children need it most. The responsibility cannot be put on them to navigate that system on their own. That responsibility belongs to all of us. 17:58 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak to the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's 2026 report to parliament. Recent headlines make this issue seem particularly timely, but domestic, family and sexual violence is a problem all the time, not just when it's in the media spotlight. I thank the commissioner, Micaela Cronin, and her team for their work in this traumatic space. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Holly Supple-Gurruwiwi, co-chair of the commission's Lived Experience Advisory Council, for her poignant words in the report. She says: From a First Nations worldview, knowledge carries responsibility. …   …   … We carry responsibility to those beside us. We create better conditions for those who come after us. This report, and many before it, gives us knowledge that carries a responsibility. At least 35 women have been killed by violence already this year. That's according to a volunteer organisation, Counting Dead Women, because this government doesn't keep the statistics. At least 39,758 women were sexually assaulted in Australia last year. Women living with disability are still three times more likely to experience domestic, family or sexual violence. First Nations women are still 27 times more likely to be hospitalised by assault. We owe it to all of these women and children to act urgently. We owe it to all of the victims-survivors and the experts who've contributed to numerous inquiries, reliving their trauma in the hopes that their experience would cause some action and would shape reforms. Responsibility means properly funding the long, slow, hard work of changing attitudes and behaviour and the workforce needed to do that work. We need to engage with men and boys about violence prevention strategies, about healthy masculinity, about consent and about respect and to build skills for better communication and for healthy relationships. We need to tackle the ready access to pornography that is normalising violent sexual practices with tragic consequences. Making online spaces and content safer has to be a priority, but it can't happen in isolation from other prevention work and from a dedicated and well-funded crisis response. I welcome the commissioner's recognition that we need to invest in the conditions that enable safety and recovery. Housing and economic security are women's safety issues. If women and children can't afford to leave and have nowhere to go, then they can't escape violence. They have to choose between violence and homelessness. Every year, nearly 12,000 women and children are turned away from short-term accommodation. Of those who can get in to crisis accommodation, 60 per cent are not able to find stable housing by the time they leave, and that often means returning to a violent perpetrator because they have nowhere else to go. It would cost around $4.6 billion to build public housing for those 12,000 women and children that are currently missing out. Giving them a place to go would mean giving them an opportunity to escape violence and rebuild their lives. If Labor is actually serious in its commitment to end violence, then it needs to get serious about funding housing. We know that too many women and children are left in poverty because of financial abuse from current or former partners. I welcome this morning's announcement of reforms to prevent weaponisation of the child support system—long overdue but welcome reforms—and I welcome the moves today to allow limited debts to be excused. This is a good first step, but more is needed. Waivers for all debts accrued through financial abuse, penalties for financial advisers who are complicit in that abuse and funding for specialist financial abuse support services—that's what we need to see. I agree with the commissioner that we need to invest in prevention and early intervention programs. A headline in the ABC this afternoon says: Plibersek says she wants to see greater investment in violence prevention. Great. You're the government. Dedicate the funds to that very purpose. Prevention funding can't come at the expense of crisis-funding responses. Every week, 225 women are turned away from crisis accommodation. Women's legal services are turning away 52,000 people a year because they can't keep up with demand. Funding to 1800RESPECT, while welcome, just creates more referrals to specialist sexual violence services who are already full. The waitlist keeps getting longer. Women are forced to wait for months for expert sexual violence support at a time when they need that support the most. Every barrier and every delay is traumatic and makes women feel less safe. We don't even know the scale of the unmet need on the front line because the work to gather that data is still not done. I have been asking for 10 years in Senate estimates for that work to be done. The AIHW's pilot study, which was reluctantly commenced, is now years overdue and was recently extended again. We already know, though, that the crisis response sector is at breaking point, and the government needs to step up. Of course we should be working towards a future free from violence. In the meantime, we cannot let women and children experiencing violence right now fall through the cracks. The commissioner's report talks about the need for hope, and, in the House, the minister talked about the need for belief. We need hope and belief, but they don't pay the bills. Hope and belief won't keep services doors open or build the workforce needed to address the scale of the crisis. Hope and belief won't build homes. It takes long-term secure funding, and until this government stumps up the cash and holds state governments to account, things are not going to get better. But there is some cause for hope. I want to acknowledge Our Ways Strong Together, the First Nations led national body working to end violence against Aboriginal women and children. First Nations women know what needs to happen in their communities. The national plan is a transformational first step in empowering them to get on and do it. We need to make sure they're given the funding support that they need and a workforce development strategy to build the capacity of Aboriginal controlled organisations to lead on actions to protect women and children. There is always hope because of the people who work across this sector. Every day, I am deeply grateful and actually in awe of the staff who give their all for women and children in crisis and create the conditions for an Australia without violence. 18:06 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia To the victims, survivors and those who love them and who live with the devastating impact of violence, the coalition hear you, the coalition see you, and we stand with you. Violence in all its forms has no place anywhere—not on our streets, in our workplaces, in our homes, in a domestic, family or community setting or physically, sexually or coercively. The commitment to addressing domestic and family violence is a shared one that, importantly, must transcend politics. Its eradication remains a non-partisan issue, but that does not absolve us of our democratic responsibility in this parliament to bring accountability to the means the government pursues to get there. Since coming into this place, I have continually asked the Albanese government to leverage its authority to ensure perpetrators of violence are not rewarded by being appointed to any board position funded by taxpayers. It's the right message and it's the right action. The financial cost and the human cost of not doing that is far too high. It is a simple step wholly within every single Labor minister's remit. They just need the will, the courage and the appetite to do it. A stroke of their pen will get that done. I also raised the issue of consultation, which should not be a reason for delay when action is clearly urgent and lives depend on it. Since 2022, the rapid review has provided 21 recommendations. The SA royal commission made it 136. The Victorian royal commission made it 227. There was extensive consultation on the second national plan and more for the standalone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander plan. Frontline services are screaming out and desperate for more support. When related systems fail, it's time for action, not more talk. Terribly, Indigenous Australians are overrepresented as victims, survivors and perpetrators. I was delighted to recently see Congress, a major health organisation in central Australia, embed zero tolerance in its constitution. Now, no person who has a domestic violence conviction recorded in the last 10 years or a domestic violence order issued against them in the previous five years can be on its governing board. It demonstrates to victims-survivors that perpetrators will not be rewarded. Let's make that mandatory. Indigenous female victims of intimate partner violence have doubled since the Albanese government's election in 2022. It's time for ending the talk and ideology. 18:08 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's third yearly report, and I thank the commissioner and her team for their work. The minister said today that we cannot mistake progress for success. The member for Lindsay put it more simply: Expenditure is an input; safety is the outcome. The national plan promises to end gender based violence in a generation. Billions of dollars have been committed. But this report exposes a basic problem. We still cannot reliably tell Australians whether that investment is making women and children any safer. Firstly, we do not have the data to measure whether the plan is working. The plan has 131 performance measures. Data is unavailable for around 68 per cent of them. Even the headline target to reduce female intimate partner homicide by 25 per cent each year has been missed in both years since the baseline. This is not a technical data gap; it is an accountability gap. A government can't demonstrate progress against outcomes that it can't measure. The commission itself says that those data gaps mean reporting remains focused on activities and services funded, rather than whether they are actually improving safety. The report also exposes a gap in how we deal with sexual violence. Reports of sexual violence are at their highest level since national recording began, yet around six in 10 incidents occur outside the family or an intimate-partner relationship. That matters. Sexual violence cannot simply be folded into the domestic and family violence framework when most incidents occur outside it. The commissioner is right to say it needs to be treated as a distinct resource priority. The spending in this space remains highly reactive. Crisis services are essential, but we are spending more than $7 responding to violence for every dollar spent intervening early. That is a system still overwhelmingly designed to deal with harm after it happens. Last year, the commission made 30 recommendations. This year it says it hasn't undertaken a formal implementation audit and again asks for the information-gathering powers needed to independently assess programs. If we expect the commission to hold governments accountable, then we should give them the tools to do so. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 96 DOCUMENTS Tabling 96 18:11 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I table the joint foreign ministers statement on the two-state solution, being the 'Statement of the foreign ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK on the two-state solution', published 8 September 2026. BILLS 96 BILLS Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 96

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

In Committee 96 18:12 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 257613 The committee is considering the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ST132 moved by Senator Green. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. (Quorum formed) 18:16 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland On a point of order, Chair. I know that you put the amendment. I understand Senator Henderson is wishing to speak to the amendment. For the clarification of the chamber, the government is happy for that to happen, in the good faith that we are seeking to get through quite a bit of this bill and these amendments this evening. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will therefore take a step back. We are continuing with the consideration of the government amendments. 18:17 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I want to say the coalition strongly supports stronger protections for children online and holding the world's biggest technology companies to account, but protecting children cannot become an excuse to hand politicians open ended powers over lawful speech or to hand draconian powers to the eSafety Commissioner. This bill before the Senate right now quite improperly, as we discovered in our Senate inquiry, gives the regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, the ability to demand documents from any person who uses social media, including parents and their children. That is why the bill attracted widespread criticism in our Senate inquiry, where we received multiple submissions, including from the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Lorraine Finlay, that this was a case of overreach. In fact, when we debated this in the Senate inquiry, both the minister's own department and the eSafety Commissioner agreed it was not the intention of the government to seek to issue notices in relation to the production of documents to any person. The target of the government's concern was not just the social media companies themselves but also age assurance providers, app store providers and other relevant providers in relation to the eSafety Commissioner investigation, assuming that it is in the context of possible enforcement proceedings. That is why we have put up an amendment to narrow that particular proposal—so that we have a bill before the Senate which does the job as intended by the government. It is disappointing that, as we have been advised, the government plans to vote against our amendment, which would properly seek to confine the eSafety Commissioner's powers in a way which reflected the intention of the government and of the eSafety Commissioner. We know, of course, that the eSafety Commissioner raised significant concerns about the operation of the social media ban when she had a lunch with a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald. Then, of course, that was subsequently reported in a way that I think probably did cause the eSafety Commissioner—certainly the minister—some embarrassment because the eSafety Commissioner was pretty scathing about how the social media ban was not working. We know that there's a non-compliance rate of at least 70 per cent. Some studies have shown it is more like 80 per cent. We understand and support the fact that the eSafety Commissioner was seeking these additional powers in relation to issuing notices for the production of documents, but it is absolutely not necessary, it is improper and it is unreasonable to give the eSafety Commissioner more powers than are required for her to do the job. I have to say, in relation to the government's amendment, that the government quite disgracefully called on the coalition to pass this bill more than two months ago. We were of the view that this needed appropriate transparency and scrutiny. Of course, during our Senate inquiry, we received widespread evidence, not just from grieving parents and not just from other regulators, that the bill was deficient in a number of different respects. This is an amendment that, frankly, the government should have no issue agreeing to—the one that we have brought forward. Instead, what we have is a dramatic increase to the eSafety Commissioner's powers—compulsory interrogation powers which would apply to any person, not just to those concerned with the direct enforcement of the social media ban. Given the draconian nature of these powers, given that there is no right to self-incrimination and given the manner in which the eSafety Commissioner wants to utilise these powers concerning any person, it could be a child, it could be a podcaster, it could be a parent. Again, this is significant overreach. We want to see the social media ban properly enforced. We are sick of the deception from the government. Frankly, I again call out the Prime Minister for continuing to mislead Australians by suggesting that, because of the social media ban, more than five million accounts have been shut down or deactivated. We know that that is just not true because the vast majority of those five million or more accounts are in fact Google accounts. Of course, you cannot have a YouTube account. They are Google accounts which primarily relate to children who might have a Google account for the purposes of having a Gmail email address. We are seeing significant and overreach, and we are seeing the government making most improper comments in relation to the coalition's position. We just want to see this bill work as intended. I again condemn the fact that the government has indicated it will not be supporting what is a wholly reasonable amendment which would reflect the government's intent. So I ask the minister: Minister, can you advise why it is that, in relation to the opposition's amendment on sheet 4088, the government will not be supporting that amendment? 18:24 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thanks very much for the question, Senator Henderson. Of course, your amendments aren't before the chair right now, but in the interests of clarity I'm happy to move forward to that response. In the first instance, for the benefit of the chamber and for those watching along, I want to make very clear, in relation to the examination powers that are being proposed, that no: children and parents will not be required to give evidence to the eSafety Commissioner. The examination powers can be used only where the eSafety Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information relevant to compliance with the social media minimum-age obligation. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and on the record—that the eSafety Commissioner must have a belief, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information that is relevant to the compliance of the social media minimum-age obligation. Parents and kids might have their own anecdotal experience about whether the law has worked for their family, but it's fair to say that they won't have evidence of systematic noncompliance by these billion-dollar companies. Big tech tends to keep that information pretty close to their chest, which is why these powers are required. The law is very clear that the obligation relevant to the compliance action is on social media platforms to prevent Australian kids from having accounts. This is not about targeting parents or kids. On that basis, Senator Henderson, I will seek to jump forward to your amendment, which deals with essentially the same topic. We will not be supporting your amendment, because, although we acknowledge the concerns that the proposed power to enable the eSafety Commissioner to seek information from third parties could unintentionally capture parents, the government can confirm that children and parents will not be required to give evidence to the eSafety Commissioner. As I said, the powers will be used only where the eSafety Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information relevant to the obligation. I want to also note that the framing of the power towards a person whom the regulator reasonably believes to hold relevant information is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, published by the Attorney-General's Department. As I said, the government has serious concerns that the coalition's proposed amendment could limit eSafety's ability to investigate noncompliance with the law and hold non-compliant companies to account. The proposed amendment to include only a provider of an electronic service or related party of the provider of the electronic services would prevent the eSafety Commissioner from examining former employees, for example, of age-restricted platforms or any service provider, including ones under an NDA who may have critical documents or information. There are also parts of your amendment, Senator Henderson, that go to administrative review to the issuing of a notice. No other regulator is subject to this limitation. 18:28 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, thank you very much. You certainly have confirmed that it is not the intention of the eSafety Commissioner to issue notices in relation to the production of documents to children and to parents. That's terrific to hear. But what you're asking us to do is to trust the government in relation to that assurance. The bill before the Senate says something very different. It says that the eSafety Commissioner can issue that notice to any person in relation to compliance with the social media ban. And I have to say that, like many Australians, I don't trust the government. Even if I did trust the government on this issue, it's not appropriate for the government to be bringing forward a bill that does not reflect the government's intention. When any government proposes laws which amount to overreach and amount to an inappropriate use of power or an excessive use of power, we would say that that is most improper. That is very disappointing. I think that this is all being done for political purposes. The government is well aware of our serious concerns, but the government is also well aware of the serious concerns of many witnesses who appeared in the Senate inquiry. I want to say that we have brought forward some other amendments which will be considered. The coalition strongly believes that parents need to be back in control of their children's online safety. We want to see greater transparency from big tech—we want to hold big tech to account—but we also oppose sweeping new coercive powers for the eSafety Commissioner. Australian families deserve more choice, more control and more transparency online. I have to say the discussion we had in question time today and Minister Wong's statement about opting out of the algorithm show that the government doesn't really understand what it's doing when it comes to online safety. Even if the government's proposal were to opt out of a content recommendation feed based on a user's profile, an algorithm is still required to serve that content. An algorithm is a set of rules which determine how content is served. Even if there is a non-profiling algorithm that is an option for a user, there will be some type of algorithm still required. We believe—this is not the complete solution but a starting point—algorithmic transparency is critical. It's critical even for the eSafety Commissioner to do her job. If the eSafety Commissioner is going to be commencing proceedings insofar as whether social media companies have made reasonable efforts to remove children under the age of 16 from their platform, then understanding what is driving the way content is served is very important. That's why, in one of our amendments focusing on algorithmic transparency, we are seeking transparency in relation to the content recommendation algorithm, the content moderation algorithm and the age assurance algorithm. This is very narrow. It only concerns large social media platforms. I note—and this evidence was brought forward in our Senate inquiry principally by the Free Speech Union of Australia—X in part publishes its algorithm for its 'for you' feed. Anyone can search for it and look for it, and it's very instructive as to how X determines how content is served. We certainly think that this is a very important first step. We want to understand whether social media platforms are driving hidden harms through their algorithmic parameters. We want to understand what's being censored, what's being suppressed, what's being hidden and what's being amplified. We want to understand whether, when there is very harmful content being served, the algorithm recognises that and then addresses that appropriately. Algorithmic transparency, as I say, is a very significant first step. I do note with some concern that the Tech Council has put out a statement raising concerns. I'm having a quick look at that now. They've raised concerns and say that the amendment could increase security risks by enabling private companies to track sensitive information, scammers to deploy spyware, criminal groups to compromise devices or predators to surveil children. It could turn a measure intended to protect children into a new route for monitoring them. We agree. Unfortunately, I don't think the Tech Council has read our amendment, because the amendment makes it very clear that, when we are seeking algorithmic transparency, there are very, very significant carve-outs. In the proposed section 63P—protection of safety, security and privacy—the algorithmic transparency obligation does not apply to any personal information. It does not apply to any information which materially compromises the safety or security of an end user or the platform. It does not apply because there is no reference to proprietary information such as the source code, and it does not apply to information materially to assist a person to circumvent or defeat systems designed to protect children or prevent cyberattacks, fraud, spam, platform manipulation or other malicious activity. There's a very, very strong set of safeguards in this amendment. I have to say that I am disappointed that the Tech Council has misrepresented our amendment in the way that it has. I understand why the Tech Council doesn't want transparency, but, frankly, our perspective is we don't care because we think that, as a very important starting point, to hold the big tech social media platforms to account, algorithmic transparency is critical. The other very important amendment that we have brought forward is an amendment which requires platforms, particularly the likes of Google, Microsoft and Apple, to open up their safety tools to Australian consumers. At the moment, those safety tools can be triggered to stop pornography, other really harmful material, from ever reaching the phone. That is available to government departments and to large corporations through enterprise agreements but it's not available to parents. It's not available to Australian consumers. We say that parents must have the freedom to choose digital safety services that they want to use to protect their children. There are some wonderful options available for parents. There are various different apps available that can be used to block harmful content, to restrict apps and websites, to manage screen time and to keep children safe online. Because what these safety tools do if they are opened up to third party apps and to parents is they stop the harm ever reaching the device, not just the phone but any device. We think that parents deserve the same access to these safety tools as large corporations and government departments. This is about the simple principle that families should have that choice, not big tech. We are very concerned that the government does not see any merit in supporting these amendments, as I have been advised. This makes no sense. Parents deserve these safety tools. Parents deserve every option in this country to keep their kids safe online. This was a recommendation of the digital platforms inquiry run by the ACCC in report No. 5 handed down in September 2022. What has the government done about this? Nothing, and that's not good enough. 18:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd just like to ask the minister, in relation to the amendment that the government's had to put forward, whether the government now concedes that it was important to not ram this legislation through on the day, as you insisted, when it was introduced. There's been a lot of squawking about the purpose of sending this piece of legislation to a Senate inquiry, and the government's been pretty disrespectful to the process of the Senate. I'm wondering, given that you've had to come and correct your own piece of legislation that corrects your own law, whether perhaps there could be an apology to the Senate. 18:39 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm not really sure what you're referring to in terms of 'squawking'. I know that this is an important piece of legislation with urgency, which the eSafety Commissioner and parents have spoken about. You asked me about the timeline. If the Senate had passed the bill urgently in July, the eSafety Commissioner would have had at least one, maybe two, tranches of information documents from social media platforms and information from age assurance companies by now. If we'd passed the bill, like Australian parents had asked, we would have introduced another bill to give the eSafety Commissioner examination powers. We have always said that this law was the first of its kind in the world, and we were clear from the start that it would need to be updated throughout its implementation. We make no apologies for coming back to the Senate, increasing penalties and creating further powers to ensure that the laws passed by this parliament can be enforced and big tech companies are held to account. The government will leave no stone unturned, making sure that the eSafety Commissioner has everything needed to hold these companies to account. 18:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia For the record, the Greens support these amendments because we were in the Senate inquiry and we asked the questions of the eSafety Commissioner. The eSafety Commissioner confirmed that they had indeed asked the government for these powers well before the government had drafted and put forward this existing piece of legislation, so I don't know why it was left off the list. That seems to be a mystery to me, but I'm glad that it is now on there. What I would like to know is: in relation to the remainder of the bills, does the government genuinely believe that a $99 million fine is sufficient to hold these tech companies to account? 18:42 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My apologies in advance because we're jumping around topics a little bit. Thank you for the support for these amendments. I will have some information for you about the penalties, but I know that the penalties that we have included are a substantial increase from what was proposed. We think that that is necessary, and we thank the Greens for their support of those amendments. What is incredibly important is that these penalties have been modelled on other types of penalties that are consistent with increased penalties in the Competition and Consumer Act. They are amongst the highest penalties available in Commonwealth legislation. I'm conscious of the commentary from the Greens, particularly from you, about the need to go very strong and very hard on big tech companies. I do appreciate that. We wanted to ensure that those penalties were consistent with other Commonwealth legislation. The failure to take steps to prevent under-16s from having a social media account will result in penalties of up to $109.2 million. 18:44 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I too would call on you—I know you weren't the offender—on behalf of the government to apologise to the Senate for earlier comments and the campaign that was run primarily against the coalition in relation to our decision, along with those of the Greens and of others on the crossbench, to send this bill to a Senate inquiry. I have to say I was particularly appalled by the Minister for Communications, Ms Wells, and the way that she pitted grieving parents in relation to our decision to send this to a Senate inquiry. As we subsequently heard in evidence in a Senate inquiry, every parent who tragically lost a child and who appeared before us made it very clear that more needed to be done to keep kids safe online and that this particular bill—and of course this was introduced a number of months ago—was not nearly good enough. It's very surprising that these powers in the bill before Senate today, the government's amendment, were not in the original legislation, which shows and is further evidence of the rushed nature of the social media ban. So I too would say to the minister shame on you, Minister, for the disgraceful campaign that you ran primarily against the coalition. We received very strong support from many witnesses before the Senate inquiry in relation to the scrutiny and transparency of legislation being incredibly important. The role of the Senate is to scrutinise legislation and to give Australians the opportunity to make submissions and for their voices to be heard. Shame on the minister for trying to shut that down. Of course, the great irony about all of this is that the government is now amending its own bill, which is a pretty glaring insight. The government could not even get the original bill right, as it saw fit. So I would ask, Minister, on behalf of the government, to please make that apology. I also want to make a correction. I made an error in relation to the Tech Council's statement. My apologies. The Tech Council of Australia has raised concerns about one of our amendments, but it is the amendment in relation to parental safety tools. That's pretty disappointing, I have to say. We have been yelling from the rooftops, saying to Google, to Apple and to Microsoft, 'Give us these safety tools!' If there is some issue with the way that this amendment has been drafted, I have no issues with that matter being raised. But what I have an issue with is that these big tech giants have sat back and denied parents the opportunity to access these safety tools, and that is not good enough. Companies such as Qoria—and Tim Levy, the CEO—who have given evidence a number of times in various committees, again gave evidence in our Senate inquiry and made it very clear that Australian kids were missing out because parents could not access these safety tools. What about if Apple and Google and Microsoft do the right thing and start being proactive? Apple has released some safety tools, but, to a large degree, these are still locked up. These are locked up from third-party apps, and it is time that these very significant huge tech players that control so much of what happens on our devices—it is time that parents had access to the same safety tools which are available to large government departments and corporations. 18:49 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Minister, obviously the government have now released the exposure draft of their duty of care legislation. What is the process of consultation on that draft from the government going to be? 18:49 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I acknowledge your advocacy, particularly around the digital duty of care. The government has released an exposure draft. That is not relevant to this bill. I can seek to get you information, but it's not relevant to this bill. We can provide you with some information about the intention around timing of introduction and so forth, but we will be in the hands of the Senate as to when that bill could be passed by this parliament. The minister may have indicated a desire to pass that bill by the end of the year, but we will be in the hands of the Senate. We will ensure that proper scrutiny takes place. That bill, although very relevant to online safety and the broader issues focusing on children and how children can be safe online, isn't necessarily relevant to the particular powers in this legislation. But I'll seek to get some information for you. 18:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The reason I'm asking is because it is linked. The government are saying that they won't vote for certain amendments on the basis of the fact that the duty of care bill is coming down the line. For the sake of transparency and public understanding, it would be good, if you do have it, to give us an outline of the timeframe. 18:51 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I can update the Senate. The information I provided before was correct. We've released an exposure draft. There will be a two-week consultation on that exposure draft. We will seek to introduce the legislation in mid-October and, of course, we'll be in the hands of the Senate for the scrutiny of that legislation. 18:52 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Thanks very much, Minister, for that update. We obviously have expressed some very significant concerns in relation to— Senator Green 259819 Shame on you! Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I'll take that interjection—'Shame on you'. Minister, shame on the government because now that we know what's in the digital duty of care legislation, we are very concerned that this is a serious threat to free speech. I am seeking confirmation that the government will agree to send this exposure draft, once it's introduced into the parliament, to a Senate inquiry because this needs a very significant amount of work. The minister had a train wreck interview with Laura Jayes on News24 this morning. The minister struggled to explain the very legislation that she released yesterday. She was asked whether this applied to news websites—of course, that is an online service. Initially, she said no and then she said, 'Oh, yes, it does go to all online services.' In itself, given the incredible powers that have been included in this bill, the ability of the minister to determine categories of either serious harm, in the case of adults, or harm, in the case of children, without any guardrails made by regulation, without any parliamentary oversight, is extremely concerning. We have no comfort whatsoever that this is not another trojan horse for the misinformation and disinformation bill. Frankly, if the government was concerned about the online safety of Australians, and children in particular, that's what this digital duty of care bill would have been all about. But what's now very clear is that the ministerial power to define new harms by legislative instrument represents a very significant threat to free speech. What if the minister decided that material which questioned the right of children to know about gender ideology, as one contested issue, was harmful? We have no idea—no guardrails. Unlike in the UK, the ability for the minister to determine what is seriously harmful includes news media websites. This is not just a very significant risk in relation to the minister's unfettered powers; the government has not even carved out news media, Australian journalists and other voices which have a legitimate role in a democratic society. This was a real shock when this bill was released yesterday. While there was a lot of spin about opting in or opting out of the algorithm—'My Feed, My Way'—there is no provision in the bill which actually allows Australians to so-called turn the algorithm off—but, as we know, that's not a correct characterisation of what would happen if a non-profiled feed was available to Australians. The government has now jumped on this issue without saying anything over many months. The impact on small businesses has not been properly explained. The voice of tech experts has not been properly explained or even listened to. We have very, very serious concerns. Minister, going back to my question, can you confirm if the government will agree to send that particular bill to a Senate inquiry? I understand it's a different bill to the one we're discussing. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I understand that; we're talking about a different bill. But, given this relates to online safety, are you able to tell us whether the government will agree to send that particular bill to a Senate inquiry? I say this, Minister, because, after the track record of the government in condemning the coalition for wanting to scrutinise the bill before the Senate, I've got no trust in this government. I think it's important that we understand that, given the two bills are very related—it's very important that we not go through another appalling campaign like the one we saw from the minister, and that there is confidence that the government will agree to send its proposed digital-duty-of-care legislation to a Senate inquiry. 18:57 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm conscious that I am being asked about a piece of legislation that has not even been introduced into the parliament, and it is very difficult for me to answer questions on it. We will be in the hands of the Senate in terms of scrutiny. The government won't have any issues with a bill being scrutinised properly by the Senate. I just want to put on the record that the assertions that Senator Henderson is making about the legislation relate to an exposure draft. We've released an exposure draft. We welcome the feedback and the consultation that will occur, and then we will seek to introduce a bill into the parliament and then we will have an opportunity for that bill to be debated. The question Senator Henderson is putting to me is about a bill that doesn't exist at the moment, although it is in exposure draft form. I have been advised that that is the process the government will take. On that process, it would be a good thing for the coalition in particular to have an opportunity to receive feedback from parents, families and young people during that process about how important this digital duty of care is and how important it will be not just for young people and children but for all Australians. The excuses are stacking up already as to why the coalition doesn't want to support a digital duty of care—before the bill has even been introduced into the parliament. We know why that is happening. We know why they are trying to stack up excuse after excuse after excuse. Now they are talking about the fact that giving people a choice is somehow limiting free speech. That is not true. Giving people a choice is about giving them the freedom to choose the feed that they see. It is incredibly important, when the coalition talk about this, that we on this side hold them to account for those comments because the language and the talking points that they are using are coming directly from One Nation. I said this today and I'm saying it again because, every time the coalition seek to do that, we will call them out. I have heard you personally, Senator Henderson, talk about how important it is for the government and for tech companies to take action and to make sure that these algorithms are dealt with and that the way that we access online platforms is safe is done in a way that doesn't impact on people and doesn't have those harmful mental health impacts on people. Yet, less than 24 hours after the legislation has been introduced, all of a sudden, it's all about free speech. It's nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. I understand scrutinising legislation. I understand being concerned about the content or wanting to scrutinise it. I understand reserving a position before amendments are considered. I've seen all of that in this place. But the full-blown war that's being waged against a piece of legislation that is still in exposure draft from those opposite is a disgrace, and I will call that out. The government will not apologise for standing with parents to pass this piece of legislation that is before us or standing with parents yesterday to support the digital duty of care. We will continue to do that. The piece of legislation before us does that by ensuring that we can have better powers to enforce a piece of legislation passed by this parliament and supported by those opposite. I don't know what has changed since the social media minimum age bill was passed. I know a lot of things have changed. The leader of the Liberal Party has changed, the polls have changed, and One Nation has— Senator GREEN 259819 A lot has changed since then on that side of the chamber, but the government is resolute and has not changed its position, and we will continue to support parents against platforms. 19:03 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I do want to object very strongly to the way you've just mischaracterised my concerns. I've been a very outspoken critic of big tech and the way the algorithm, particularly the content-recommendation algorithm on some platforms, is driving harm. I just think it's very important that you don't seek to conflate two different issues that are in the digital duty of care bill. In relation to the content-recommendation algorithm, we have made it very clear that this needs proper consideration and that we have simply warned that rushing a proposal to mandate non-profiled social media feeds, particularly given the potential consequences for Australian small businesses and other online retailers and ecommerce operators, needs proper consideration. I hope and trust that that will occur during the Senate inquiry into the digital duty of care bill. There is a legitimate debate about whether Australians should be able to switch algorithmic profiling on and off. So please don't conflate our concerns. The concerns I have raised in relation to free speech relate to the minister's ability to make regulations defining categories of harm and categories of serious harm by regulation without parliamentary oversight. This is the misinformation and disinformation bill all over again. I have always strongly called for serious online harms to be expressly prohibited, but that is the role of the parliament. That is not the role of the minister behind closed doors. Many, many Australians do not trust this government, I do not trust this government, and I can assure you that I do not trust the minister and this government to determine what harmful content is in the context of a so-called digital duty of care bill. Let's not forget that, under the tort of negligence, Australian companies are already liable for harm caused that is foreseeable. There are already some important principles at play that apply to every single company in this country. But, as I say, we are extremely concerned about laws that raise very serious free speech concerns. While serious online harms require serious action, Australians should not have to surrender basic freedoms in the process. We are concerned about protecting kids, empowering parents, shining a light on big tech and protecting the freedoms that Australians expect. Minister, I might say that, if the government were serious about putting parents first, the government would have acted back in 2022 in relation to the recommendations in the digital platforms inquiry—opening up the operating systems so that parents could access safety tools, like corporations and government departments. It's profoundly disappointing that there's been no engagement, no interest from the government, in relation to this incredibly important issue. This evidence and these concerns have been raised in various Senate committees for a couple of years. If the government were interested in holding big tech to account, the government would be supporting our amendment in relation to algorithmic transparency. So we don't need a lecture from you, Minister, in relation to our commitment to kids, to online safety and to parents, when we are bringing forward really meaningful amendments that matter and the government is turning its back on those proposals. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 281503 The question before the chair is that the amendments that have been moved by the government, on sheet ST132, be agreed to. I advise senators that, as a division has been called and it is after 6.30, the division will be deferred. However, we can continue debate on the bill and any subsequent amendments to the extent that other amendments are not in conflict with the amendments on sheet ST132, which have just been debated. I understand there may be an issue with the opposition amendments on sheet 4088, but, if senators wish to make a contribution towards any of the other amendments, I'd be happy to give them the call. I've been advised by the clerk that sheet 4088 is in conflict with sheet ST132, so it's advisable that we don't go there. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4059: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 8), after item 5, insert: 5A After Part 4A Insert: Part 4B — Algorithmic transparency requirements 63L Application of Part — large age-restricted social media platforms This Part applies to a provider of an age-restricted social media platform in a financial year if the annual turnover (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the provider during the last financial year is more than $100 million. 63M Public transparency requirements (1) Subject to section 63P, a provider to which this Part applies must make publicly available, free of charge and in a readily accessible form, the information specified in subsection (2). (2) The following information is specified: (a) for each system used materially to select, rank, recommend, promote, demote or otherwise determine the prevalence or prominence of content, accounts or search results for end-users in Australia of the age-restricted social media platform: (i) the algorithmic logic and decision-making architecture of the system; and (ii) the material factors, inputs and signals relied upon; and (iii) the material parameters, thresholds and weightings applied; and (iv) an explanation of how those factors affect the content presented to end-users; (b) for each automated system used materially to identify, classify, remove, restrict, promote, demote or otherwise moderate content or accounts in relation to end-users in Australia of the age-restricted social media platform: (i) the algorithmic logic and decision-making architecture of the system; and (ii) the material rules, criteria, inputs, parameters, thresholds and weightings applied; and (iii) the circumstances in which content or an account is referred for human moderation; and (iv) the policies and rules governing automated and human moderation and any review or appeal; and (v) information about the accuracy, error rates and material limitations of the system; (c) for each system used to determine, estimate, infer, verify or assure the age of an end-user in Australia of the age-restricted social media platform: (i) the algorithmic logic and decision-making architecture of the system; and (ii) the manner in which the system is implemented; and (iii) the categories of information and data relied upon; and (iv) the material decision rules, parameters and thresholds applied; and (v) the circumstances in which an end-user is referred to another method of age assurance or required to provide additional information; and (vi) information about the accuracy, error rates and material limitations of the system, including false positive and false negative rates where available. 63N Information must be meaningful and current (1) Information published in accordance with section 63M must be sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful independent scrutiny of how the relevant system operates and its effect on Australian end-users. (2) To avoid doubt, a provider does not comply with section 63M if the provider publishes information that is materially incomplete or misleading, excessively general or otherwise insufficient to support meaningful independent scrutiny. 63P Protection of safety, security and privacy (1) Section 63M does not apply in relation to information to the extent that the publication of the information could reasonably be expected to: (a) be a disclosure of personal information; or (b) materially compromise the safety or security of an end-user or the platform; or (c) materially assist a person to circumvent or defeat systems designed to protect children or prevent cyber attacks, fraud, spam, platform manipulation or other malicious activity. (2) Section 63M does not apply in relation to information of a kind prescribed by the legislative rules. 63Q Compliance with this Part A provider to which this Part applies must comply with this Part. Civil penalty: 60,000 penalty units. 19:10 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We've known the whole way, with both the issue of the social media ban and the issue of how we need to tackle making social media platforms accountable for their addictive products and the harmful content that they spew out online, that the only way to really hold tech companies to account is by ensuring that we have access to the right information. Big tech has consistently hidden and kept secret their toxic algorithms. Over and over again, academics, researchers and experts around the world have called on governments—just like here in Australia, elsewhere—to toughen up and get serious with big tech by saying that they have to have some basic transparency requirements in order to ensure that any rules that are put in place are actually followed properly. I'm interested to hear from the government what it is prepared to do in this space. What are you actually prepared to do in this space? To get tough on big tech, you have to blow open the secrecy of their algorithms and the way they manipulate people's data, the way they deliberately design their products to be addictive and the way they feed on people's vulnerabilities. Big tech makes big claims about certain types of choices, and we all know that that is rubbish. We all know that it is just not true. Their business model is based on secret toxic algorithms that manipulate and feed on people's data and their emotions. So, if we're going to seriously put in place a duty of care, if we're going to make online safer, if we're going to allow people the freedom to turn off the algorithm or to turn down recommendations, then we have to know what's really going on under the hood. I want to know from the government: what are you prepared to do to force out what's going on under the hood of these big social media companies so that everybody can see? 19:13 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I just want to make some quick remarks. I did speak earlier about the algorithmic transparency requirements and the amendment that we have brought forward, and I am looking forward to the minister's answer to Senator Hanson-Young's question, but I just want to outline why this is so important. The starting point in understanding any harm that the algorithms of social media companies drive is, 'What is going on?' As Senator Hanson-Young has correctly said, what is going on under the hood? What is the business model? That is why this amendment—and obviously this can be seen in Hansard, but this is for those listening to this debate—in relation to the algorithm seeks: (a) for each system used materially to select, rank, recommend, promote, demote or otherwise determine the prevalence or prominence of content, accounts or search results for end-users in Australia … (i) the algorithmic logic and decision-making architecture of the system; and (ii) the material factors, inputs and signals relied upon; and (iii) the material parameters, thresholds and weightings applied; and (iv) an explanation of how those factors affect the content presented to end-users … In effect, that is the content recommendation algorithm. Then this amendment also requires the social media platforms—and these are the large social media platforms with turnovers of more than $100 million—to unlock their content moderation algorithm. This is very important. The government's talked a lot about transparency and about protecting children online. We want to see how these social media platforms are moderating content and how this information is being used to identify, classify, remove, restrict, promote, demote or otherwise moderate content or accounts. Again, we want to see the algorithmic logic, the material rules and parameters and the like, the circumstances in which content or an account is referred for human moderation to make sure that it's not the bots at work and that there are humans actually involved, the policies and rules governing automated and human moderation and any information about the accuracy, error rates and material limitations. The other key part about this algorithmic transparency is understanding the age-assurance algorithm. Again, we are seeking, in this amendment, the algorithmic logic, the manner in which the age-assurance algorithm is implemented, the categories of information and data relied upon, the material decision rules and the circumstances in which an end user is referred to another method of age assurance. These are hugely important issues in relation to the enforcement of the social media ban. We keep hearing about the age assurance that's been put in place, and yet we know it's not working. Then also, very importantly, this amendment is not seeking proprietary information, such as the source code. There are very important exemptions. For protection, safety, security and privacy, personal information must not be disclosed, nor material which compromises the safety or security of an end user or the platform, nor material which may assist a person to circumvent or defeat systems designed to protect children or prevent cyberattacks, fraud, spam, platform manipulation or other malicious activity. What's really concerning in relation to the government's position, Minister, is that there is not any of this in the digital duty-of-care exposure draft. How can the eSafety Commissioner determine whether a social media platform is taking reasonable steps to keep children off their platform if we're not able to understand what's going on behind closed doors, how these algorithms are being used to drive harm or not properly moderate content or, in the case of children under the age of 16, how the age-assurance algorithm is actually working? It is concerning because it indicates, firstly, that either the government is not listening to the advice it is receiving, including in our Senate inquiry, or the government doesn't understand why algorithmic transparency is critical. So I ask you, Minister: why have you taken the view that you should not support this particular amendment, and why is this not in the digital duty-of-care exposure draft? What this indicates is that, if you're not prepared to hold big tech to account and ask them for information about their algorithms, you're not prepared to do the job. I say 'you' as in the government. We have certainly seen, on X's For You feed, that X has published all the algorithmic parameters which give users a very good insight into how decisions are being made as to how content is being served. So could you please provide some insight into why the government is turning its back on this very important amendment. 19:20 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland First of all, we are traversing between two pieces of legislation, so I'm going to address the amendment to this bill that is in front of us. Out of respect for senators, I want to give some indication of the government's approach to digital duty of care. But I cannot, for the remaining 10 minutes, do a rule-in, rule-out game around a piece of legislation that has not been introduced to the parliament. What I will say is that the government doesn't support this amendment to this bill, because it does not meet the core objectives of the social media minimum-age law, which is to delay children's access to a social media account and, in turn, prevent children from being sucked down toxic rabbit holes, as being suggested, of harmful content. The social media minimum age bill and the amendments we seek to make are not about the algorithm being more transparent. This is about protecting vulnerable children from it altogether. Making the algorithm more transparent, though, and giving adults more choice over how algorithms work is an issue where the government is willing to work with the coalition, with the Greens, across the chamber on our digital duty of care bill. Digital duty of care will include an Australian first, the My Feed, My Way initiative, which gives Australians control over their social media algorithms. This will ensure that children are protected from harmful content and features, including chatbots, gaming platforms, apps and messaging platforms. And users can choose to opt in to have their default feed include personalised content recommended by the algorithm. What we will seek to do, as we consult on this bill in the consultation process on the draft legislation, is help to ensure that the law is developed and that Australians can benefit from better protections from seriously harmful illegal content across digital services and social media. Users will be afforded more choice. So we will seek, through the consultation process, to understand those issues around transparency. We will work with other senators. We will work with stakeholders. We will work with researchers. I understand that there's a researcher named Rys Farthing who has developed quite a lot of research around this issue of transparency. But what I'd say to you, through you, Chair, is that the bill before us is not the right place for this amendment. The bill in front of us is about increasing the powers to an obligation on big tech companies to ensure that under-16s cannot access their services at all. There is no access to the algorithm at all under the social media ban. What we will seek to do under digital duty of care, particularly through the My Feed, My Way initiative, is work with stakeholders, with people around the chamber, on what that transparency and accountability should look like, but ultimately ensuring that social media platforms will be required to send a notification to new and existing users, offering them a choice over their default feed. That is a very important step forward. But of course, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, it's not appropriate for me to rule in or out what particular provisions will be in a piece of legislation that has not yet been introduced and that we are still consulting on. But I want to give an indication to senators who have a very deep interest in this area that we will obviously consider any amendments or any proposals put forward through that process. It is very important that we pass this bill. This bill relates to stronger powers for the eSafety Commissioner to implement the social media age restrictions, ensuring that children don't have access to social media accounts and are prevented from being impacted in any way by algorithms. We've recognised the harm that they cause. We've recognised that children need more time to form digital literacy, and that's why we've brought this bill forward. But, of course, the digital duty of care bill looks at the broader scope of that content for children and for adults and at how we can hold those big tech companies to account to ensure that their platforms are safe for Australians to use. That is how we'll approach this. That's why we're not supporting this amendment. In saying that, I appreciate that senators will have times when they want things done expediently and times where they want full scrutiny. I don't think it's fair to say that this particular type of amendment would have been fully scrutinised. At this point, we would want to consider a number of issues, particularly in relation to significant challenges around international intellectual property law. These are all the things that we will take into account, but we will make sure that our new laws deliver for Australians, that we consult on them over the next few weeks and that we have an opportunity for this parliament to debate those laws. This legislation before us, though, is all about making sure that the laws passed by this parliament require social media companies to do the right thing and to take the right steps, and there will be arguments across this chamber criticising the government's approach. Those are political points that are allowed to be made, but, at the end of the day, these big platforms and big tech companies, I believe, do have the ability to prevent under-16s from using their platforms, and what we need to do is give the eSafety Commissioner the powers to enforce those laws. This amendment in front of us is not about giving the eSafety Commissioner more transparency or more accountability; the bill before us does that. It provides those information-gathering powers. It provides examination powers. It provides powers that are very similar to the original bill that was championed and introduced by the coalition. We want to make sure that the eSafety Commissioner has all of the tools that she needs to bring big tech companies to account, and that is what the bill before us does. 19:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I would like something more concrete from the government about commitment on the transparency measures. To be perfectly honest, I think we need more than just a commitment to talking about these issues. I want to see a more solid commitment. I think it is important that we actually get under the hood of these algorithms, because that is not just how big tech makes massive profits off these dangerous, addictive products but how they seek to tweak and change and manipulate their products to make them as addictive as possible. I believe Australians should have the right to switch off the algorithm and not have it shoved down their throat. It's up to them. It should be a freedom of choice. But people should also be free to not be tricked by an addictive product. These social media platforms have become so much a part of our lives. Every Australian should be free not just to choose but to be safe online, and part of being safe online is not being force-fed an addictive product. They are deliberately designed to be addictive. We know that. We've seen that in the US. Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 107 ADJOURNMENT Superannuation 107 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I want to speak tonight about the importance of superannuation and what it means for Australian workers. As I've said in this chamber previously, I worked for a short-term money market in Melbourne at a time when women had to work for the company for 10 years before they might—I repeat: might—be invited to join the superannuation fund. Things changed, thanks to former prime minister Paul Keating. What I want to touch on is the policy position that was put forward recently by One Nation. What One Nation is trying to portray to the public is that they want to boost workers' pay by allowing them to raid their superannuation. There is nothing about their proposal that is going to be of benefit for Australian workers. This policy is a raid on retirement savings. You can't say, 'You just take three per cent now for three years—that's really not going to have an impact.' What is so shallow about this policy is that it was One Nation and those opposite—their new friends, the Nationals and the Liberals—who voted against every tax cut. They have voted against every measure this government has introduced to help Australian workers, to increase wages and to support them with the cost of living. This is undermining the fundamental value of superannuation to Australian workers. Now, this is not new from the Liberals, because we know that their policy—their frontbench have been out there spruiking for some time that you should be able to raid your superannuation to pay for a house, to have a mortgage. Prior to that, it was, 'If you want to buy a house in this country, you need to have rich parents.' That's the depth of policy from those opposite, whereas we on this side of the chamber fundamentally believe in superannuation for Australian workers. We believe that workers need to have secure workplaces. They need to have decent incomes. That's why we supported people like those who care for our senior citizens and work in aged care and those who look after and provide early education for our young people. We've recognised and supported pay increases and supported them, whereas those opposite have done quite the opposite. I think what needs to be exposed about the policy that One Nation have put forward is that it is really about undermining superannuation. It is a furphy to think that this is going to be beneficial. If you take money out of your superannuation, it is going to have an impact on your retirement. What governments need to do is encourage people to provide for their retirement, because no government, going forward, in the next 20 to 30 years, can guarantee that they're going to be able to provide the lifestyle that those people who retire will need. Superannuation is part of Labor's DNA, like Medicare and universal health care, and that's why we've introduced superannuation on paid parental leave—because we know how important it is. And this policy will impact women more. That's how it's going to be. We know that One Nation don't even believe in paid parental leave. We know that they're really not supportive, because their voting record in this place has demonstrated that time and time again. The reality is the superannuation of 12 per cent that is now required is about providing for the future. Even young people in this country, who probably don't think they're ever going to get to retirement age because it seems so far away, understand the mathematics of this. They understand compounding interest, so it's a furphy. But what is really disappointing is that we see the Liberals and the Nationals are reaching further and further to the right because they are so scared of One Nation and the threat of them to their own existence. That is not the reason to undermine superannuation in this country. It is a shame, a shame on those opposite. (Time expired) September 11 Attacks: 25th Anniversary 107 19:35 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales This week we will mark the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or 11 September 2001, a day that forever altered the course of history and left an indelible mark on both the United States and Australia. Twenty-five years ago, the world watched in horror as terrorists turned civilian aircraft into weapons of mass murder. Nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children lost their lives in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania. Among those murdered were 10 Australians. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and colleagues. Their lives were cut short by an act of evil Islamic terrorism that shocked the conscience of humanity. We remember the families whose lives were lost forever and the heroism of ordinary people who in the midst of chaos displayed extraordinary courage. The attacks of 11 September were intended to spread fear and division; instead, the United Nations and common purpose. They reminded us that freedom is precious, that democracy cannot be taken for granted, and that those who would seek to destroy our way of life must never be allowed to prevail. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, was in Washington DC at the time of the attacks. Having spent the previous day commemorating the 50th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty alongside President George W Bush, he found himself witnessing one of the darkest moments in modern history. Just days later, Australia made a historic decision. For the first and only time in its history, the ANZUS Treaty was invoked in response to the attacks on the United States. That decision sent a clear message to our ally and to the world: Australia would stand with America in its hour of need. We would not waver, we would not hesitate and we would not leave a friend to stand alone. That response reflected something fundamental about the Australian character. Australians step up when their mates are in trouble. It is who we are as a people. When a friend faces hardship, Australians answer the call. When freedom is threatened, Australians stand firm. And when there is a fight worth having, Australians have never been a nation that backs down. Since the Second World War Australians and Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder in defence of freedom, stability and international security. Together, we have faced aggression, confronted tyranny and defended the rules and institutions that underpin peace and prosperity across the globe. The alliance between our nations is not merely a matter of strategy; it's an enduring partnership forged through shared sacrifice and strengthened through generations of service. Following 11 September, Australia joined the United States and its allies in the global campaign against terrorism. Our brave men and women served with courage, professionalism and distinction in one of the most demanding operational environments of the modern era. As we reflect on the last 25 years, we should also recognise an enduring truth: the Australian-United States alliance remains the cornerstone of Australia's national security and today that partnership continues to evolve. AUKUS represents the next great chapter in the history of the alliance. It is a forward-looking initiative that strengthens deterrence, enhances regional stability and ensures Australia can meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain strategic environment. Just as ANZUS helped secure the peace in the decades following World War II, AUKUS will help shape the security of generations yet to come. With the unjust and illegal war in Ukraine, Australia has been sent a powerful message: freedom does not happen by accident. Freedom must be fought for then defended and protected every single day. Strength in allyship is key to our regional security, and liberal democracies must stand with each other or we fall alone. Twenty-five years after the attacks of 11 September, we remember the 10 Australians who never came home. We honour the courage of the police officers and firefighters who ran towards danger while others ran from it. We acknowledge the sacrifice of those who served in Afghanistan, Iraq and the broader fight against terrorism, and we recognise the statesmanship of Prime Minister John Howard, whose leadership during those dark days guided Australia through a moment of profound uncertainty. Above all, we reaffirm a simple but powerful truth: when freedom is threatened, Australia stands with its allies; when our mates are in trouble, Australia shows up; and, when history calls upon us to defend the values we hold dear, Australia does not shrink from the task. Lest we forget. Taxation, Working Holiday Maker Program 108 19:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Let me paint a picture for you. This picture is of a family. Let's say they've got two children. They might be a farming family. They might own a small business. They have chosen, for very legitimate reasons, to structure their assets in a family trust. They've also chosen to have another child. If you have a family trust, Labor is now going to tax you for having another child. The days each of our children are born are the best days of our lives. Holding the child for the first time—nothing else comes close. Labor is literally going to make this moment a taxable event. If you have two children in a family trust and you seek to add a third, it becomes a taxable event and not just a taxable event, a taxable event at 47 per cent. How did we get here? A trillion dollars of debt, an addiction to spending that Labor simply cannot kick—we all know that, when Labor run out of money, they come after yours. First were the death tax and a widows tax. Now there's one for choosing to have another child. They call it reform. We all know what it is. It is a birth tax. Did the Australian people vote for this? Would the Australian people ever vote for this? I don't think so, and I think you know the answer too. Regional Australia cannot afford to lose working holiday makers. Labor has lost control of our immigration system to the degree where, to have a pretence of bringing the net overseas migration rate down, they have stopped processing working holiday visas. Think about who these people are. These are young people from all around the world who want to come to Australia to have the experience of their life and, to help fund it, to do a bit of work, often in regional and remote Australia. Those workers are vital to farms in regional and remote Australia. Farms don't employ 20 people all year round, or very few of them do. Farmers employ a few people—four, five or six—during the harvest and during seeding, which is perfect for working holiday makers. How about all the pubs and hotels in the north of Western Australia—again, you go in there and you hear the German accents, the Irish accents. You hear accents from all around the world. That's part of what makes it special, but it's also what makes those businesses run. It is also what makes those businesses able to provide the services they do in remote and regional Australia. Labor, because they have failed to get the migration system to a sustainable level, are using a trick of arithmetic—pausing the processing of these working holiday visas—to make it look like the net overseas migration rate is coming down. Well, what a joke that is. Everyone will see through that in a matter of seconds. We want young people to come to Australia on working holiday visas. We want young people to have the time of their lives and help regional and remote businesses when they do it, and we want the soft power that that develops for Australia right around the world when those people go home, as they do, and talk about the amazing experiences they have in regional Australia. Shame on Labor. Senate adjourned at 19:45