2026-09-10 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 10 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. BILLS 1 BILLS Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026 1

Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Australians rightfully expect this government to put their safety and our national security above all else. The Albanese Labor government has failed to meet this expectation. Since this government took office, 15 women linked to the listed terrorist organisation Islamic State, or ISIS, have returned to Australia. Two face terrorism and slavery charges and have been released into the community on bail. This government says it offered no assistance to bring these people home, but we know the government met with lobbyists campaigning for their return. Records and handwritten notes of that meeting indicate the minister discussed how a return could be achieved without a formal government undertaking. They indicated he thanked those lobbyists for keeping the matter out of the media. They indicated a departmental official was asked to leave the room so there could be a frank discussion. We do not know what was said after that official walked out. We do not know what was promised. We do not know whether a pathway was agreed for the return of others. What we do know is this: the minister blocked the last of these women on national security grounds. A short time later, he issued her a permit to return. His explanation was that the law gave him no choice. That's not good enough. Australians know that isn't good enough. If the minister genuinely believes the law stops him from keeping Australians safe, his job is not to shrug and accept it. His job and the parliament's job is to come into this place and change it. Labor has not acted to keep Australians safe, so it has fallen on One Nation to change the law. This bill does exactly that. One Nation is acting where Labor has failed to act. Let's not lose sight of what we are dealing with here. Islamic State horrified the world. It enslaved thousands of people. It burned captives alive and filmed it. Individuals who left Australia to join this organisation celebrated these acts and actively took part in them. Thirteen of them are reported to have been held in prison in Baghdad. They include Tareq Kamleh, otherwise known as Dr Jihad, who appeared in ISIS propaganda videos urging others to travel to ISIS-held territory or to wage jihad elsewhere. It is reported that Dr Jihad and others who served ISIS may soon be released from custody and may seek to return to Australia. This bill gives Australia stronger, lawful tools to protect the community. Schedule 1 creates a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. The Minister for Home Affairs may apply to the Federal Court for one. The court may make the order only if it is satisfied of three things: that the person while outside Australia voluntarily served with, participated in the activities of, or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Australian community if allowed to enter; and that no less restrictive measure would be effective to protect the community from that risk. The protection of the Australian community is a paramount consideration. Entering Australia in breach of one of these orders carries 10 years imprisonment. While that case is being prepared and run, the minister's obligation to issue a return permit is suspended. That suspension is kept at 90 days unless the application is actually filed with the court, and it cannot be recycled on the same matter. Schedule 2 deals with the bail. Where a person is charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence, the protection of the community and national security become the paramount considerations. A bail authority cannot find exceptional circumstances unless it is also satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of the person committing a terrorism offence. Child care, family circumstances, the offer of somewhere to live or an ankle bracelet will not on their own get an alleged terrorist out on bail. Schedule 3 deals with passports. The minister will be able to refuse, cancel or suspend an Australian travel document where an exclusion order is in force, where a determination to apply for one is in force or where the person has been charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. Those four grounds are written into the act. They cannot be added to by regulation. Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate bringing a foreign terrorist fighter into Australia without the prior written permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs. The penalty is 10 years. Schedule 4 also extends the declared areas offence, which is due to sunset in September next year through to 2030. Let me deal directly with the objection I expect to hear, which is that this hands too much power to a minister. It does not. The minister cannot make one of these orders; only the Federal Court can. The minister must prove their case on evidence before a judge, and the court decides. An order runs for a maximum of two years. There is no administrative renewal. If the minister wants it longer, the minister goes back to the court and proves every element again on current evidence. The person can apply to the court at any time to have the order varied or revoked. If the court finds that a controlled return under strict permit conditions would protect the community, that is the path that must be taken. Where a person is being deported, extradited or transferred home as a prisoner, the order gives way. The order only reaches people who act voluntarily. Someone who was coerced, held under duress or trafficked is not caught by it. Where the person is under 18, the court must treat their best interests as a primary consideration. Decisions are made on current advice from our national security agencies. Sensitive material is handled under the established national security information framework, and the minister must report the operation of the scheme to this parliament every year. This is a protective scheme. It is directed at the risk a person presents today, not at what they deserve. These are measures the minister could have legislated himself while he was secretly meeting with lobbyists who wanted these terrorists back on Australian soil. So I say this to the government: if the law truly tied your hands, here is the bill that unties them. The minister has said this bill is unconstitutional. This is just another excuse. The minister had not seen the bill when he made those comments. The minister has refused to release his supposed legal advice. Commentary from prominent legal experts and others, including the former secretary of the department, indicates this bill addresses prior constitutional concerns. At the end of the day, only the High Court, not the minister or this Labor government, can determine if laws are unconstitutional. Australians are sick of the excuses of this government. They are sick of this government passing the buck on protecting the community from terrorism. I say this to every senator in this chamber: when a person leaves this country to serve an organisation that enslaved thousands and burned prisoners alive and then decides they would like to come home, someone has to be put first. Either it is them or it is the Australians who never left. One Nation puts Australians first. There was a Senate inquiry response to this. The committee wants the Senate to reject my Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I say the committee has got it wrong. The committee says existing temporary exclusion orders are enough. Those orders only delay and manage a terrorist fighter's return. My bill allows the Federal Court to keep the most dangerous foreign fighters out. This is not a minister making a decision behind closed doors. The minister must go to the Federal Court and prove that the person voluntarily served, joined or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that they pose an unacceptable risk to Australians; and that no lesser measure will keep the public safe. The court makes the decision. The court assesses the risk. Orders are time limited and can be reviewed, changed or revoked. There are extra protections for minors. These are strong safeguards. The committee talks about constitutional concerns as though the High Court has already struck this bill down. Not one submitter gave a definitive opinion that the bill would be invalid. Constitutional questions deserve proper scrutiny, but a possible argument is not a finding of invalidity. If the government says a provision is defective, it should identify it, explain why it is and propose an amendment. It did none of those things. The government refused to make a submission to the inquiry. Then, when the Senate ordered it to produce the advice behind its claim that stronger exclusion laws would be knocked over by the High Court, the government handed over—guess what—a media article. This was to the committee. They handed over, as their evidence, a media article. There is another problem the committee avoids. The government has pursued the return of ISIS linked women while resisting strong laws to keep dangerous foreign fighters out. The Minister for Home Affairs held a private meeting with advocates, asked an official to leave and continued a frank discussion without an official record. Australians are entitled to ask whose interests this government is protecting. My bill closes a real gap. Temporary exclusion orders manage a person's return. My bill deals with the worst cases of people the Federal Court finds are too dangerous to return because no lesser measure can protect Australians. The committee assumes every risk can be managed with monitoring and conditions after arrival. That is reckless—absolutely reckless. Parliament should not wait for a preventable attack before acting. This bill also sends a clear warning: if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation, you may not be allowed back. Didn't we hear those words from our former prime ministers—'If you leave this country to go and fight over there, you will not be allowed back in'? Well, how true were they? Not at all—because that's what's happened; they've come back. So you can't trust the words of these so-called governments. I don't care if it's the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the Nationals; you can't trust what they tell you. That's why we need a bill to protect Australians. This bill also sends a clear warning that if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation you may not be allowed back. This is a consequence people should understand before they make that choice. The committee also gives too little weight to the Yazidi organisations and survivor committees who gave evidence. They know what Islamic State did. Their concerns are based on the murder, slavery and terror inflicted by that organisation. The bill also strengthens bail laws for terrorism offences and targets people who knowingly organise or assist the return of terrorist linked persons. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. One bad bail decision can cost innocent lives. The committee has not proved that this bill is unconstitutional. It has not proved that the existing laws can deal with the highest-risk foreign fighters. It has not offered a better plan. It has simply told the Senate to do nothing. That is not good enough. Australians expect us to stop dangerous terrorists before they reach our shores, not manage the consequences after they arrive. The Senate should reject the committee's recommendation and pass this bill. I warn you, if any of you choose not to support this bill, every Australian has the right to condemn you as an accessory to murder if any one of these ISIS fighters commits an act of terrorism that inevitably takes innocent lives. Who are you protecting? Where is your true allegiance? 09:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I rise to make a contribution to the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I've often said in this place that it is the No. 1 job of any government to protect the Australian people. I've long been on record suggesting that this government is not doing that. In fact, there are so many points of evidence, data points, that any Australian can look at and see that this government has dropped the ball in the worst of ways. Senator Hanson, the proponent of this bill, has highlighted a number of those. Recent history dictates that this government, far from doing the No. 1 job to keep Australians safe, has rolled out the welcome mat—the red carpet, the express lane—into Australia for people who turned their back on this country. These are people who made an active choice to go and do something that is not in our country's interests and is in fact something that only an enemy of our country would do. These are people who chose to join Islamic State and support Islamic State and their aims and imperatives. This is an organisation that hates the Australian way of life, the rule of law and our democratic systems. We know all too well that Islamic State, ISIS, and all its functionaries and supporters want to see the unpicking of the way we live in this country and of the things that make Australia a great country. So how on earth did this government actively lean in to assist individuals who made that choice to turn their back on this country, fly over to wherever in the world they ended up—in this case Syria, a declared terrorist hotspot, where under law it was a criminal act to fly there and remain—and, what's more, support the efforts of a listed terrorist organisation and of individuals perpetrating these harms against people right across the globe? Now they want to come back, as Senator Hanson pointed out. They've made this choice. They've gone and perpetrated harms. They've supported others doing so, like this Dr Jihad who claimed he wasn't a combatant so he's not a threat. He was 'healing the wounds of people' who made the choice to do these things, who killed people, beheaded people and did terrible acts. Now we're saying we should welcome them back. The government have been active in these conversations with third parties who want to bring them back, offering not just one bit of support. They provided them passports. They allowed them to have their ID checked. Once they got to Australia, they were ferried from the planes to hotels organised by government officials, who bought them pizza on their first night here. And of course we don't know where they are in the community. We don't know where they are in Australia. Australians don't know whether they're living next door to these people. They don't know whether they're in their street or whether their kids are going to somehow cross paths with these individuals. This is the situation that we have under this government, and it is not okay to say: 'Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. Australians are safe.' That is what the current situation is. I should also reflect, though, that the current temporary exclusion order regime is something that the last coalition government brought in in response to a situation that we faced as a country once Islamic State, the caliphate, had collapsed and we had these people seeking to return to Australia, as they could under Australian law, with no capacity to be stopped by government. There was no temporary exclusion order regime, and there was no control order regime. So, in order to do what we could under the limits of the constitution, the last coalition government introduced both of those regimes to protect Australians—to, as best we could under the constitution, prevent these enemies of our country from coming back—and to, if they did come back, put control orders on them so that we could monitor, manage them and at least have knowledge of where they were and, most importantly, protect Australians from the harm these people would bring back in. We will welcome any measure that protects Australian people and any measure that seeks to improve the current situation. We had our own private senators' bill to improve the regime around dealing with anyone who would seek to repatriate these people who made these choices against Australia and who sought to cause harm to our country. Of course, the government opposed it. We did have the support of One Nation and a couple of others on the crossbench. Sadly, it was not to pass. We'll welcome any measure that does go some way to strengthening the regime that is in place today, because the world has changed since the temporary exclusion order regime was put in place, and we need to be dynamic in how we respond. Doing something is better than doing nothing. That is what this government is doing: 'How it is today is fine. It doesn't matter whether these ISIS brides or Dr Jihad come back into Australia. There's nothing we can do. It's just going to happen.' I don't accept that for a minute. To that end, we are supportive of the elements of this legislation, as outlined by Senator Hanson. Of course, we do have some concerns, but concerns are to be worked through. If we're serious about getting into the business of protecting Australian people, then parties like the government, with all of their resources, could work with One Nation to improve any concerns they might have about the legislation. Senator Hanson has said that the concerns raised by government aren't an issue, and any proponent of any bit of legislation can say that. I would do the same about my own bill. But, if concerns are held, highlight what they are and find a way to fix them. Doing nothing is not the answer. We will have more of the same. It is important to note, though, that, in the committee report, there were some concerns raised, not relating to constitutionality. That is one of the areas of concern, but I do note the comments of Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper of the National Security College, who raised a number of concerns about the bill. The report reads: She made the point that the term 'protect the Australian community' is used throughout the bill while not being 'adequately defined and likely to capture a range of behaviours and views not legitimately the domain of regulation in a representative democracy.' Associate Professor Ireland-Piper also indicated that it was not clear from the bill what 'behaviours or concerns' would constitute a declaration and application to the Court for a Foreign Terrorist Fighter Exclusion (FTFE) Order which are not already … captured by the existing Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) regime. So there are issues there that we need to highlight and that we do need to look at, and, if there is a pathway to deal with these concerns—Associate Professor Ireland-Piper has expertise in national security and comes from the National Security College and is someone who would know a thing or two about what it takes to protect our country and how we can improve laws—then we should look at that. That is what this chamber and the committees of this chamber are tasked with. As I say, we support doing something. Is this perfect? Well, there are some out there who say, 'No, it's not,' but our job is to improve it, not do nothing—which is, sadly, the government's approach here. I think it is important that we back in any measure that will protect our country. We have to back in anyone who puts their life on the line to protect our country. Our veterans, our national security officials—anyone who seeks to stamp out the evil in our community, whoever they are and whatever political allegiance they may have. First and foremost, we are Australians, and we should all band together to stop evil people, like the ones this bill contemplates, from doing the harms to this country that they seek to do. And anyone who lays down their life, who puts their life in the path of danger to protect our country—veterans, national security officials, and colleagues in this place, past and present—should not be denigrated. With that, of course we will support the vote on this legislation. It does something; this government does nothing. We remain in harm's way. I look forward to further consideration of this bill. 09:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Well, here we go: the performance art of One Nation, with their little tame poodles in the coalition. I knew where the coalition was going to vote, because One Nation has already told them where they're going to vote. I watched them yesterday, on the social media ban. It looked like the coalition were actually going to support the legislation to put increased penalties on big tech, and they were about to come over here and vote for it. But then they saw, out of the corner of their eye, that One Nation were going to oppose it, and you could see them flip on the floor. It's like a complete jelly of a political position. Listen to what the coalition says—'Oh, there are problems with the bill,' and 'Oh, someone says this won't work and that won't work.' But at the end of the day, you could just ignore all the guff, because they haven't got the guts to stand up to One Nation and their completely unprincipled, unconstitutional performance guff that they bring in on this. It's just pathetic; it is utterly pathetic, watching the coalition in this place—utterly contemptible. I'd say to everyone: watch the vision yesterday on the vote. Watch what happened. They were all trotting over here to vote for it, and then, out of the corner of their eye, they saw their marching orders from One Nation. What's the point of the coalition? I can't work it out. And this lot—One Nation—are bringing in a piece of legislation that they know is unconstitutional, that they know is going to get struck down by the courts. If it ever does pass—and I hope it won't—it'll have the shelf life of a prawn sandwich in a Canberra summer. They know that. It's got about 15 minutes on it before it turns off and makes you sick. That's what they're bringing in here. But they don't care, because it's actually not about policy for them. It's not about whatever they say about protecting Australians. That's not their agenda; they know it won't work. All this is about is clickbait, and it's about driving down their little toxic algorithms, because they think the Elon Musk acceleration plan will get their unconstitutional guff and their outrage politics—their little algorithm—going, and maybe they'll season it with their other disgraceful attacks on people. That's what they're doing. That's what this is about. It's not about policy. It's not about law. It's about their nasty little unprincipled attacks. They'll come out and call people who serve this country traitors. Look at this lot; look at them. That's what they are. We're seeing them for what they are: unprincipled, do anything, drag our politics down to the lowest possible ebb. That's what this is all about. Then they have the gall to come in here and say they care about holding ISIS fighters to account. My party does care. My party wants to see ISIS fighters taken into court, prosecuted and held to account. That's why I went off to north-east Syria to meet with the people who defeated ISIS—not like this lot, who went for a nice little holiday with a billionaire at a poolside resort in Sicily. That wasn't me. That was the leader of One Nation, going off on a billionaire funded jaunt at some luxury poolside. That's what the leader of One Nation was doing. I'll tell you what I did: I went and met the people who defeated ISIS. They died defeating ISIS. And they didn't die in their tens; they died in their thousands, going into the battlefield and defeating ISIS. I thought that's where you might learn how to defeat this kind of toxic ideology—actually meeting with the people who went in on the ground, in the dust, in the dirt and fought the fight and beat ISIS. Do you know what they say about One Nation? They say this is contemptible, disgusting, base politics that will do nothing to keep the world safe. I'll tell you what would keep the world safe: all the things this mob oppose. We need to fund international tribunals, the International Criminal Court, who can actually hold the trials to bring these people to account and put them in jail for their crimes, and actually fund the justice system. This is what happens. This is what you find out when you go and you speak to the people who, unlike these pontificating low-life politicians who will do anything for a clickbait, actually defeated ISIS. For example, the Co-Chair of the Department of External Affairs in the Democratic Autonomous Administration for North and East Syria, a bloke called Bedran Çiya Kurd—one of the people who actually put a uniform on, went in and fought ISIS. He says none of One Nation's guff, none of the talk. This is what this is what Bedran says—I want to be clear; this is the administration that is keeping ISIS fighters in detention, because they saw the crimes that they did, and they're in their country, and they're keeping them in detention. It doesn't matter which country they came from. These are the people actually keeping us safe. These are the people, not One Nation and their pontification, their politics and their attacking of Australians. It's not that lot. They're not doing it. These are the people who are doing it, and this is what they say: We can no longer keep these prisoners without an indictment or trial. These people must be held accountable for their crimes. They remain a danger not only to the region, but to the entire world. These are thousands of the most brutal ISIS fighters. We cannot keep them anymore. It is creating a security problem for our region. Why aren't we listening to the people on the ground? Why aren't we funding the tribunals that can actually hold the trials, hear the evidence and issue the penalties? It's because this lot hate that. There's not a single cent that they would spend on having the trials, holding the ISIS fighters to account, convicting them of their crimes and then keeping them in detention. They hate that entire project, and that's why they come in here with their distraction politics, their unconstitutional legislation that's got the shelf life of a prawn sandwich on a hot Canberra day. That's why they do this. I'll tell you what Bedran says—not One Nation, not the pontificators over here and not the hot air bunch over here, but the people who fought and defeated ISIS. This is what he says: We gave more than 13,000 martyrs in this fight to defeat ISIS— Just stopping there, how different are they to One Nation? They gave more than 13,000 martyrs to fight ISIS. They're the people we should be listening to, not someone who goes off on a jaunt with a billionaire to a luxury poolside Sicilian resort. Talk to the people on the ground, who lost 13,000 martyrs in the fight against ISIS. He says this: And we have thousands of wounded, injured, and disabled, who have sacrificed. This is why it is important to get justice. But we also want to keep international standards for these trials. ISIS is reorganizing itself and getting stronger … Two years ago, we had to carry out 113 operations against ISIS sleeper cells and we arrested 260 members. But in the previous year, we have had to carry out more than 2,000 such operations. These are the people on the ground fighting, still doing it. No wonder that the leader of One Nation didn't go out and actually visit Syria. I think she tried to, but no-one would meet with her, because they have complete contempt for her and complete contempt for the politics of One Nation. Maybe it was that Channel 7 wouldn't pay for it. Maybe Kerry Stokes wouldn't pay for it. Maybe they couldn't get Gina to pay for a luxury tour to Syria. That's why they didn't go and meet with them. They were too busy drinking champagne and going to a fashion show in Milan—too busy doing that to actually get out and talk with the people who defeated ISIS. There was a lot of puff. Do you remember that? 'I'm going to go and talk and go onto the ground.' It ended up being, 'No, I'd rather go to a fashion show in Milan,' because actually that's their class. That's One Nation's class—the entitled billionaire class who they go schmoozing with around the world and who are backing in this kind of politics. It turns out the entitled class like this kind of distraction politics. They don't care if it's unconstitutional. They don't care if it won't protect Australians. 'Just go and do your distraction politics over here so they can keep their profits and keep gouging us.' That's why they shared their champagne on some poolside in a Sicilian resort. That's why they went together to their fashion show in Milan. It's because they share values with the billionaire class. They love it. Maybe you should go and talk not to the billionaire class but to the people who defeated ISIS. Maybe they're who we should take our advice from. This is what Bedran also says: We have called up the international community and asked them for support. But they have all failed to respond or assist us with these ISIS trials. The struggle against terror cannot only be carried out literally on the battlefield, but it must be confronted in a court of law. So far, the fight and struggle against terrorism was only on the military level. But this is not sufficient. We need to address it on the security and judiciary level but also understand its social origins. We must defeat terrorism holistically. The Greens support backing in this lot, backing in the ones who fought and defeated ISIS and who actually have a plan to hold these fighters to account, to create the trials and to deliver justice for all of the victims. I can't tell you what a contrast that is. These are good and brave people who lost their friends, who lost their family and who actually know how to defeat ISIS. Reflect on this for a moment—the contrast between them and a bunch of clickbait politicians who sit on a poolside in Sicily with a billionaire. Whose side do you reckon you should be on in this fight? 09:36 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia Please don't tell me I have to spend another five years listening to this nonsense. The Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026 exists because the Albanese government failed in the first duty of any government: keeping Australians safe. They failed to stop people who attached themselves to Islamic State from coming back to this country. That's pretty important, I think. They failed to act on the so-called ISIS brides, they built a pathway for their return and they told this chamber they were providing no assistance to this cohort. But, lo and behold, the women, these terrorists, are back. Then the conversation changed. Suddenly, it was not about assistance. It was about documents. It was about the obligations of the government and how hamstrung they were. These are not victims. They are hateful people who went to fight for, live under or support a terrorist caliphate. If you are the government and the law says that you must accommodate them, the law is deficient. You are the government; change the law. This government would not. That is why One Nation brought this bill. Labor's line was always the same: no repatriation, no assistance and no government operation. I asked Minister Watt again and again what assistance was being provided. He kept deflecting and playing semantic games. He kept deliberately obscuring the issue in this chamber. The Prime Minister said nobody in the government was in contact with the cohort. The home affairs minister said the same. Then they were back in the country. Two women and four children came in quietly in September 2025. Later waves followed. In May 2026, groups landed in Sydney and Melbourne. In June, the last Australian woman held in the Syrian camps, previously stopped by a temporary exclusion order, was told a return permit would be issued because her lawyers had applied and the minister said the law required it. What a disgrace this government has become. Watch the language shift. First, we are not helping; the government is providing no assistance to this cohort. Then we have to provide them with the documents—passports, citizenship by descent for the children born in Syria, processing at the airport. That is a pathway. Meeting notes obtained under freedom of information and placed before estimates record the home affairs minister telling Save the Children there may be a way to achieve the same outcome without government undertakings, thanking the group in connection with media silence and asking a departmental official to leave so a frank discussion could continue without a record. The dissenting report to the inquiry on this bill sets that out. It is not a courtroom verdict; it's the government's own paper trail. A government that conducts that kind of a meeting, then tells the public it is doing nothing and then watches the cohort walk into Sydney and Melbourne has no right to talk about the protection and safety of Australians—not that these folks will ever be placed in their backyards. The government failed to act. It failed to change the law. Why will it not protect Australians? It is time that Labor took Islamic extremism with the seriousness that it deserves. But look at the farcical way they've handled the royal commission. The Prime Minister and Minister Burke can't even bear to face themselves—not very brave. If you fight for ISIS, you should not come back. That is not complicated. That is the expectation of the people who pay the taxes. It's the expectation of the veterans we sent to fight this regime and of the families that feared for their safety while they were deployed. Labor did not stop them. On the public record, Labor issued the documents that made the last legs of the journey possible and then called it 'absence of assistance'. Australians can hear the difference. Some will say it is ugly to ask whether electoral arithmetic played a part. The question will be asked anyway. Watson, the Home Affairs Minister's own electorate, has one of the highest Muslim populations in any seat in the country, around a quarter on the most recent census figures and higher a more recent counts used in the last election campaign. Do I think Minister Burke has the moral fortitude to put his job on the line to do the right thing? Sadly, his actions answer that question. It is a complete failure of this government in its solemn duty to keep Australians safe. One Nation will keep Australia safe. One Nation will keep terrorists out. This isn't a tagline for us; we've done the work to make it a reality despite our restricted resourcing. The government has hundreds of ministerial staffers. The Department of Home Affairs is a vast machine. One Nation, by contrast, is critically understaffed. We grew in this parliament. We doubled our Senate numbers after the 2025 election, and the party room grew further, with no extra personal staff allocation to match—four personal staff across six parliamentarians. We represent a large and growing portion of this country without the resources the majors take for granted. Yet with those resources we have done the work the government could not do or refused to do. We've developed a robust mechanism for a Home Affairs minister who actually wants to keep these people out. Let's look at this bill. Schedule 1 does not repeal temporary exclusion orders. It adds a court based foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. The minister may determine that an application should go to the Federal Court only if a temporary exclusion order or an existing court order is already in force, and only if the minister suspects on reasonable grounds that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily served with, participated in or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation. 'Voluntarily' is there to exclude coercion, duress and trafficking. The determination is personal to the minister. It cannot be delegated. Return permit obligations are suspended but only for 90 days unless an application is filed. The court may make an order only if satisfied of three things: first, on the balance of probabilities that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily served with, took part in the activities of or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; second, that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of Australian communities if permitted to enter; and third, that no less restrictive measure would be effective, including a conditional return permit or monitoring after entry. Community protection is paramount, as it should be. The court must consider any ASIO assessment and security agency advice provided. An order cannot exceed two years and can only be extended with a new case brought before the court. Entering Australia while an order is in force is an offence carrying 10 years in prison. These are the powers that the minister didn't bother considering because he wasn't concerned with protecting Australians. Schedule 2 tightens the terrorism bill. This bill requires the bail authority to treat community protection and national security as paramount and not to find exceptional circumstances unless satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of further terrorism offending. Family circumstances, housing, electronic monitoring and ordinary delay do not by themselves meet the test. Schedule 3 lets the minister refuse, cancel or suspend travel documents on four exhaustive grounds: a temporary exclusion order, a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order, a ministerial determination is made that a foreign terrorist exclusion order application to the court could be made, or a terrorism charge or conviction. Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of a person who has committed a terrorism offence or the declared-area offence, who is known to intend an offence before entry or who is, or has been, a member of a terrorist organisation, unless the actor is the Commonwealth or has written permission from both relevant ministers. This closes the Labor government's loophole, where they can claim that they aren't providing assistance while empowering third parties to do their dirty work. Schedule 5 makes the protective orders capable of looking at precommencement conduct, because the question is present risk. It is to keep anyone who has been involved in terrorism out of Australia from right now. However, the facilitation offence is not retrospective. That is the mechanism. It is robust and will stand up to judicial scrutiny. It has been to a committee. The Labor chaired committee recommended that the Senate not pass the bill. Unbelievable. They've said, 'Existing temporary exclusion orders are enough,' which is a strange response considering the government just finished telling us how hamstrung the home affairs minister is. Or do they mean that they are happy with the terrorists coming into Australia, so nothing needs to change? They claim it is unconstitutional. That's a bit rich coming from the party that just lost a constitutional challenge over the NZYQ cohort. Labor love to lecture us on areas that they are completely clueless on. Just ask them about controlling inflation. On the court objection, Labor's talking point is that the bill will not last 30 seconds in the High Court. Minister Watt told this place that any extension of temporary exclusion orders would be knocked over and would put Australians at greater risk. The Senate ordered the production of the advice behind the claim. The government produced an article from the Sydney Morning Herald—not departmental advice or the Solicitor-General but a paper clipping. What utter disdain for the Australian people! Constitutional professor Anne Twomey has said publicly that the constitutional argument about whether an Australian citizen has a guaranteed right to enter and live in Australia has never been argued before the High Court, so we don't know the answer. That is not a 30-second knockout; that is an undecided question. No submitter to this inquiry concluded that the High Court would strike the scheme down. The bill was written around judicial power, limited time, lesser-measure analysis and an onus on the minister, because these are the features the High Court has accepted in other protective regimes. If Labor has a better option, table it. Until then, 'the High Court will smash it' is a political sentence, not a solution. What is the alternative? Say and do nothing? Follow the Greens? Sneak them back in and call passports a technicality? They want to say the current exclusion powers are sufficient. Then how did they get back in? How did the last woman on a temporary exclusion order move from exclusion to a permit the minister said he had to issue? If the tool works, use it to keep them out. If the tool can't keep them out, the tool is not enough. That is the gap this bill fills. The existing scheme is a managed-return scheme. The bill asks whether some people should be brought home at all. Those who fled ISIS to settle in Australia know just how necessary these powers are. Islamic State's crimes were committed against identifiable families now living here. Survivors of genocide, sexual slavery and forced displacement should not have to share suburbs with the people that contributed to their displacement on the say-so of a minister who has reached their legal limit. One Nation is here to protect Australians. Terrorists who've fought against Australians should never be allowed to return as if nothing happened. This place should be staunch in its defence of Australia. The country will not forgive a failure to act, and it should not. Labor had the numbers, the staff, the agency and the years. It chose a form of words: 'no assistance'. Then it processed the paper that brought them home. The coalition, on this committee, unfortunately joined the recommendation to kill the bill. This is how a uniparty behaves when the politics are uncomfortable and when their legal advice is the Sydney Morning Herald. One Nation is here to be the bulwark for Australia's needs. Pass the bill, put the question to a court, put community safety first, and stop telling Australians to watch people who chose Islamic State walk back through the arrival gates because nobody in this building would change the laws. 09:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in opposition to the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, but I do support the right of senators in this place to put forward policy ideas, to have their ideas examined and to have experts in the community contribute to their thinking. I'm concerned that this was not the case here. There is a real issue for debate here. How do we, as a country, deal with Australians returning after making the decision to travel to and in some cases support terrorist organisations? It's a nuanced issue, one where reasonable minds can reach different conclusions. As I said, I'm concerned that debate over what One Nation has put forward has been unjustifiably curtailed. There were only two weeks for submissions to this bill, which resulted in just 13 submissions—just five from named individuals or associations. There were no public hearings. There was no justification for preventing a more detailed interrogation of the bill. I think we, as elected representatives, should be able to engage in good faith on policy ideas and then make our own minds up on behalf of our states and territories as to where we decide to land and then vote. The evidence from Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper of the National Security College at the ANU raised several concerns with the bill. Senator Duniam has raised many of these, and I'll not repeat them in detail in my contribution. In short, real concerns are raised around vague language around the phrase 'protect the Australian community' and what behaviours or concerns would constitute a declaration and application to the court for a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. These in themselves are fatal to the bill. Concerns were also raised about constitutionality. These are concerns that need to be taken seriously, although we have seen a number of bills supported by the major parties which have been challenged and defeated in the High Court. I think that's something to consider. This is quite aside from some of the issues around subverting our own criminal justice system and potentially dividing our community, pitting Australians against each other, and I want to be clear that I call those out. I do not support this bill—I will vote against it—but I certainly support the Senate in ensuring that all parties and independent senators have an opportunity for their policy ideas to be properly scrutinised. 09:52 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [09:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

21 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. P. Collins, J. N. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. 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. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Brockman, W. E. Cox, D. Canavan, M. J. Mulholland, C. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Henderson, S. M. O'Neill, D. M. McDonald, S. E. Ayres, T. Scarr, P. M. Walsh, J. C. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M.

Question negatived.

Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 10

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

In Committee 10 10:01 The CHAIR 30484 The committee is considering the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. I will need first to deal with the deferred vote on the government amendments. The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ST132 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [10:06]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 23 NOES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:08 The CHAIR 30484 Last night's debate was interrupted during consideration of opposition amendments on sheet 4059. Are there any further contributions on these amendments? 10:08 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I wanted to come back to the issue that is currently before us, and that is the need to ensure that when implementing any rules and regulations around how big tech engages users and treats members of the public, their users, their customers—it's very hard to implement any of these rules if these companies can keep their tricks and their tactics locked down in secret. That's why we need proper transparency when it comes to exactly what is going on, what is happening under the hood of these toxic algorithms and the techniques that these industries use to keep people addicted. We've heard testimony after testimony after testimony from whistleblowers who work within some of the biggest social media companies in the world about how deliberate their tactics are to undermine the very safety of their users. We also know whistleblowers have been very clear about the tactics that are used to undermine the very information that government agencies and authorities around the world can access. No only do these companies design products that are deliberately addictive and that they know harm people but they then find ways of keeping that exact harm and addiction and the deliberate nature of that as secret as possible. They manipulate their own libraries. They manipulate their own public release of data. In the social media big tech bro world, they write their own rules and they'll follow them if and when they choose to do so. If we're going to introduce a whole new raft of regulations, we need to make sure that government agencies and independent experts and researchers actually have access to this information. I'm concerned that, unless we have proper commitments from the government to do this, big tech will just get to continue railroading not just civil society and not just the general public but also the very authorities and agencies that are meant to hold them to account. I'd like to ask the minister what commitments the government can give to ensure that independent researchers are going to be able to also get under the hood and have a good look at what's going on. I'd like to seek leave to table a letter I received this morning from Minister Anika Wells that goes to some of these issues and a commitment to implementing proper transparency rules. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I'll table that letter now so that everybody can see that the government has given a commitment to working with this place to implement proper transparency rules to ensure these big tech companies can't keep their dirty, nasty, dangerous tactics secret. In saying that, I want to say we will hold your feet to the fire on this. We are absolutely determined. The Greens' perspective is that the general public deserve to know what these companies are up to and the best way they can do that is by ensuring that independent researchers and experts have access to information and can interrogate it. I say that because it can't just be government agencies or authorities; you actually need the experts in the room. You need the experts and the researchers to be there for the public interest and to be able to predict the next step and predict what these companies are going to do to try and avoid sticking by these rules and regulations. We know that, if you give big tech an inch, they'll take a mile. So you need tough laws and you need tough penalties. But you need transparency, because they get away with this only because, at the moment, it is so secret, kept in the dark, that no-one can really hold them to account. So you need sunlight, you need transparency, and you need the people who actually understand how these companies operate to be able to get their heads under the hood and give advice properly—not just to the government but to the community as well. 10:15 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland ():  I think Senator Hanson-Young, in tabling that document, has provided an answer to her own question, which is that the government is committed to ensuring that the digital duty of care bill includes a commitment to ensuring transparency around processes and systems and ensuring access to this information by researchers. Of course, we are again talking about a piece of legislation that will be introduced after an exposure draft consultation period. All the caveats around different legal and constitutional advice will be required. But we've made that commitment after advocacy from Senator Hanson-Young, ensuring that the amendment that's been put forward the opposition is instead dealt with through the digital duty of care legislation, for which there will be the opportunity for a consultation period and, particularly, parliamentary scrutiny and submissions from the public so we can ensure that the digital duty of care legislation is carefully scrutinised. The CHAIR 30484 The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4059 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [10:20]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

20 AYES Antic, A. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 4091 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A Section 5 (after the definition of age-restricted user ) Insert: annual global turnover has the meaning given by section 21A. 1B After section 21 Insert: 21A Annual global turnover (1) The annual global turnover of a body corporate, during a financial year, is the sum of the values of all the supplies that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have made, or are likely to make, during that year, other than the following supplies: (a) supplies made from any of those bodies corporate to any other of those bodies corporate; (b) supplies that are input taxed; (c) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999); (d) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the body corporate carries on. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the supplies were made, or are likely to be made, within or outside Australia. (3) Expressions used in subsections (1) and (2) that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning in those subsections as they have in that Act. (4) The question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined for the purposes of subsection (1) in the same way as for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001. (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "60,000", substitute "10% of the annual global turnover of the provider in the previous financial year." (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 7), omit "60,000", substitute "10% of the annual global turnover of the provider in the previous financial year." (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 9), omit "60,000", substitute "10% of the annual global turnover of the provider in the previous financial year." These amendments are really important. This entire piece of legislation is about enforcement of the law and making sure big tech abides by what this parliament agrees to. If we want people to be safe online, big tech has to be held to account. We, of course, know that the social media ban has been an absolute failure. It was destined to fail from the beginning. You don't need to take my word for it. The fact that the government is now having to introduce the duty of care bill, which actually goes to the need to protect people, to make their online experience safe, to force companies to provide safety for their users, proves that the social media ban for under-16s has been an utter failure. However, what I am concerned about is that, unless we send a message to big tech that, when the parliament agrees to protect their citizens, when we agree that people should have the right to choose what is in their own feeds, when Australians have the right to be able to be online without being bombarded with harmful content and tricked and manipulated with addictive algorithms, if Big Tech flouts those rules, there will be consequences for them. In the current legislation, it's a slap on the wrist. It's 100 million bucks for these huge gorilla big tech companies who make billions and billions of dollars a year; 100 million bucks is nothing to them. It's not just the cost of doing business; it's like the morning coffee run for the office for big tech. It's nothing. So, if we're serious about holding big tech to account and putting in place penalties that will actually deter bad behaviour and force them to clean up their act, then we really need to increase these penalties. The rest of the world, when they're looking at how they take on big tech and hold them to account, talk about the need to consider revenue and about how the penalties must be a percentage of their revenue because of course, otherwise, they just keep carrying on this bad behaviour. The difference between the fine and what their profits are just gets bigger and bigger. The only way to have a meaningful penalty on big tech and these huge, enormous companies that are manipulating, addicting and profiting off harm is to make the penalties a percentage of global revenue. Australia wouldn't be the first country in the world to do this. The EU has introduced a similar percentage of global revenue for Meta. Other countries around the world are moving in that direction because everybody knows that the way these companies get away with this is that they country shop based on where they bank their business. You can't just have it. You can't even just have a percentage on domestic revenue, because they just put their bank account in Singapore. They do all their business through Ireland. We know that Meta here in Australia is already flouting our tax rules because they don't pay their fair share of tax because they offshore their profits. Not only are they profiting off a product that is deliberately addictive, that is harmful, that is manipulating and using Australians; they then have the gall to offshore their profits overseas so that they don't even have to pay tax on their harmful product. So the only way to seriously hold these tech companies, these big global gorillas, to account is to make sure we have a percentage of global revenue as part of the penalty regime. That's what this amendment does. It's a penalty of 10 per cent of global revenue. I think that's fair enough. These are the richest companies in the world. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, a trillionaire, and he gets his kicks out of running a platform that is deliberately designed to be addictive and harmful. Mark Zuckerberg is one of the richest men in the world; he gets his kicks out of and makes profit off of a product that is deliberately designed to be addictive and harmful. If we're going to actually take a swing at that, if we're going to put Australians back in control of what we see in our social media feeds, if we want to be safe online, we've got to hit these buggers where it hurts. It's got to be a much bigger fine than 100 million bucks. That is peanuts to them. So let's get serious. Let's make it a percentage of global revenue, and let's hit them where it hurts. 10:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I want to briefly respond on the amendments. The government is very keen to pass this bill today, and I can talk more about why that is. But to respond to the amendments, can I simply say that we agree with the principle that stronger penalties are a stronger deterrent. The penalties in this bill are consistent with recently increased penalties in the Competition and Consumer Act and are amongst the highest penalties available in the Commonwealth legislation. Tying penalties to revenue of the digital platforms was considered in the independent statutory review, and I can understand why that's an attractive proposition. The setting of sufficiently high penalty amounts does deter noncompliance. There are significant challenges we must consider in determining the global annual revenue of companies based overseas, and this can be made even more difficult and intractable when revenue is generated across multiple jurisdictions. We believe this risks platforms avoiding penalties for failing to protect Australians online rather than increasing protections to deter poor behaviours. That is our goal today. That is why we won't be supporting these amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 315170 The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (4) on sheet 4091 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [10:36]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Blyth)

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

Question negatived.

10:38 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 4088 standing in the name of Senator Henderson: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 15), after "applies to a person", insert "mentioned in subsection (2A)". (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 17 and 18), omit "that is or may be", substitute "that is". (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 20), after "applies to a person", insert "mentioned in subsection (2A)". (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (after line 24), after subsection 63G(2), insert: (2A) The following persons are mentioned for the purposes of this subsection: (a) the provider of the electronic service; (b) a related party of the provider of the electronic service. (2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b), a person is a related party of a provider of an electronic service if the person: (a) provides, or has provided, goods or services to the provider; or (b) if the provider is a body corporate—is a related body corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the provider. Note: For example, a person who provides age assurance services to a provider is a related party of the provider. (5) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 9), before item 6, insert: 5B After subsection 220(9) Insert: Notice to give information or provide documents (9A) An application may be made to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Commissioner under subsection 63G(3) to give a notice. Senator Henderson has already explained the rationale for the coalition's amendments, so I won't elaborate any further. The CHAIR 30484 The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 4088 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [10:43]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

 22 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 10 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. D. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Watt, M. P. Henderson, S. M. Ayres, T. Hume, J. Mulholland, C. Kovacic, M. Tyrrell, T. M. Liddle, K. J. Cox, D. McDonald, S. E. McAllister, J. R. O'Sullivan, M. A. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 10:45 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Deputy President, you are correct in your powers of anticipation. I seek leave to move amendments on page 4104, previously circulated by Senator Henderson, as was the previous amendment. Senator Henderson has articulated the coalition's rationale for these amendments, so I won't detain the chamber any longer. The CHAIR 30484 You don't need leave. You're free to move the amendment. Senator PATERSON 144138 I move opposition amendment on sheet 4104 as circulated: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 15), at the end of the bill, add: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 7 After Part IV Insert: Part IVAA — Consumer choice of digital safety services Division 1 — Preliminary 51AAB Object of this Part The object of this Part is to promote competition, consumer choice and online safety by ensuring that Australian consumers are able to use third-party digital safety services on devices and operating systems. 51AAC Application This Part applies to a provider of a device operating system if: (a) the provider is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies; and (b) the operating system is supplied or made available for use in Australia; and (c) the provider has a substantial degree of market power in the supply of device operating systems in Australia. Division 2 — Consumer choice of digital safety services 51AAD Consumer choice of digital safety services Access to operating system functionality (1) A provider must take reasonable steps to provide third-party digital safety services with access to the operating system functionality reasonably necessary to enable that service to perform its digital safety functions effectively. (2) The requirement in subsection (1) to take reasonable steps to provide access may include steps in relation to the following: (a) application programming interfaces; (b) permissions and system privileges; (c) device and application usage information; (d) content filtering and access controls; (e) application and website blocking or restriction functionality; (f) screen-time and usage controls; (g) account and device management functionality; (h) any other operating system functionality or technical capability necessary for the effective operation of the digital safety service. Prohibition on anti-competitive restrictions (3) A provider must not unreasonably: (a) prevent or materially restrict the installation, operation or use of a third-party digital safety service; or (b) withhold, restrict, degrade or delay access to operating system functionality reasonably necessary for the effective operation of a third-party digital safety service; or (c) impose a technical, contractual, commercial or other restriction on a third-party digital safety service that does not apply to an equivalent digital safety service supplied by the provider or a related body corporate; or (d) design or operate the operating system in a manner that materially disadvantages a third-party digital safety service in favour of a digital safety service supplied by the provider or a related body corporate; or (e) require an Australian consumer to use a digital safety service supplied by the provider or a related body corporate as a condition of accessing functionality necessary for digital safety; or (f) otherwise prevent or materially impede an Australian consumer from effectively using a digital safety service of the consumer's choice. Security and privacy exception (4) A provider does not contravene this section by restricting access to operating system functionality if the provider establishes that the restriction is reasonably necessary and proportionate to address a material risk to: (a) the security or integrity of the device or operating system; or (b) the privacy or security of an end-user. (5) Subsection (4) does not apply to the extent that the provider, or a related body corporate, provides substantially equivalent access to that functionality for its own digital safety service. Division 3 — Definitions 51AAE Definitions In this Part: digital safety service means software, an application or another digital service that has as a substantial purpose enabling an end-user, parent or guardian to protect or manage a person's use of a device or digital service, including by: (a) filtering, restricting or monitoring content; or (b) managing or restricting access to applications, websites or online services; or (c) imposing screen-time or other usage limits; or (d) managing communications or online interactions; or (e) providing parental controls; or (f) protecting against harmful or age-inappropriate content; or (g) providing other online safety or digital wellbeing functionality. device means a smartphone, tablet, personal computer or other prescribed consumer electronic device. device operating system means software that controls the basic operation of a device and provides the principal interface between applications and the hardware or functionality of the device. third-party digital safety service means a digital safety service that is not supplied by the provider of the relevant device operating system or a related body corporate. Division 4 — Civil penalty 51AAF Civil penalty (1) A person that contravenes subsection 51AAD(1) or (3) commits a contravention of a civil penalty provision. (2) The maximum pecuniary penalty that may be imposed for a contravention under subsection (1) is the maximum pecuniary penalty applicable under section 76 in relation to a body corporate for a contravention of a section 45AJ. Division 5 — Monitoring compliance 51AAG Regulations relating to compliance (1) The regulations may prescribe a scheme relating to monitoring compliance with this Part. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations may may confer on a person or body (including the Commission) functions and powers relating to monitoring compliance with this Part. 10:46 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I also don't want to detain the chamber any longer. I just did want to make sure that the government's position was on the record on these particular amendments. We oppose the amendments because they will make things worse and not better. Forcing device manufacturers and platforms to open access in the way that this amendment requires would actually create a vulnerability on every device, and any bad actor could say they are a digital safety service and would have full access to system privileges and all device functionality. This could be used by companies to track and monetise deep data or by scammers to install spyware. It would create a backdoor for criminal groups to take control of phones or tablets, or even enable child predators who want to spy on children. The social media minimum age legislation places an obligation squarely on social media platforms as these entities are primarily responsible for the harms caused on their services. However, the legislation does not prevent age-restricted platforms from working with other service providers such as app stores and device manufacturers to receive age signals that would assist them to assess whether the user is under 16. The government has commenced consultation on the draft legislation for digital duty of care, and these new laws will put an onus on digital service providers to provide a safe online environment, setting minimum standards for features and tools that they use. This proposal requires online service providers to provide user empowerment tools, giving control back to users to determine the kind of content that is recommended for them. The CHAIR 30484 The question is that the amendment on sheet 4104 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [10:52]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

22 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Collins, J. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 10 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Colbeck, R. M. Watt, M. P. Henderson, S. M. Mulholland, C. Hume, J. Tyrrell, T. M. Kovacic, M. Cox, D. Liddle, K. J. Chisholm, A. D. McDonald, S. E. McAllister, J. R. O'Sullivan, M. A. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

10:55 The CHAIR 30484 The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:55]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 21 NOES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Collins, J. N. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 10 PAIRS Chisholm, A. D. Kovacic, M. Cox, D. Hume, J. Farrell, D. E. Canavan, M. J. Gallagher, K. R. Chandler, C. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. Mulholland, C. O'Sullivan, M. A. O'Neill, D. M. Liddle, K. J. Tyrrell, T. M. Henderson, S. M. Watt, M. P. Colbeck, R. M. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 19 10:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is the third reading be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:03]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 20

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

In Committee 20 11:05 The CHAIR 30484 We'll put the deferred vote straightaway. The question is that the bill be reported.  

The committee divided. [11:11]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

 37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. 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. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 4 NOES Bell, S. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

 11:13 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That the report of the committee be adopted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the report of the committee be adopted.  

The Senate divided. [11:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.
Report adopted.

 NOTICES 21 NOTICES Withdrawal 21 11:17 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of three legislative instruments as listed at item 6 on today's order of business. Presentation 21 11:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during the sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement s read as follows — STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 SPRING SITTINGS NATIONAL STUDENT OMBUDSMAN LEVY BILL TERTIARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND STANDARDS AGENCY AMEDMENT (NATIONAL STUDENT OMBUDSMAN LEVY) BILL Purpose of the Bills The National Student Ombudsman Complaints Levy Bill (the Bill), together with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill (together, the Bills) will impose a levy on higher education providers to recover the operational costs of the National Student Ombudsman (NSO). Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bills in the 2026 Spring sittings is required to ensure sustainable long-term funding arrangements for the NSO by enabling cost recovery to commence from 1 January 2027. Early passage of the Bills will also provide certainty for the higher education sector, which will be most impacted by the levy. If passage of the Bill is delayed, there will be a financial impact on the NSO until cost recovery is established. The NSO was originally funded for only two years (from 2024-25), with ongoing funding provisioned in the contingency reserve subject to consideration of cost recovery from the higher education sector. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education) _____ STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 SPRING SITTINGS PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the passenger movement charge from $70 to $80 from 1 January 2027 and establish transitional arrangements for implementation of the increase. These transitional arrangements also support the realignment of the amount charged to the date of actual departure of the relevant passengers, rather than the ticket sale date. Reasons for Urgency The 'Uplift of the Passenger Movement Charge' measure announced in the 2026-27 Budget would increase the Passenger Movement Charge by AU$10 from $70 to $80 per eligible passenger from 1 January 2027, supported by an 18-month transition arrangement for carriers from 1 January 2027 where tickets have already been sold before Royal Assent. Legislative amendment of the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 is required to enable the price increase and transitional arrangements to take effect in line with the implementation plan communicated to industry. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Home Affairs) _____ STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 SPRING SITTINGS WAGE JUSTICE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE WORKERS (SPECIAL ACCOUNT) (EXTENDING SUPPORT AND STRENGTHENING SAFETY) BILL Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety)Bill 2026 (the Bill) is to enable the special account established by the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Act 2024 to be used to fund the Worker Retention Payment (WRP) grants for the extension period of 1 December 2026 to 30 June 2028 (extension period). The WRP extension period was announced by the Prime Minister on 17 June 2026. The WRP supports a remuneration increase for workers in the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector and reduces fee growth for families through its fee growth cap. The Bill is required to appropriate funding for the extension period and to extend the sunset clause. Reasons for Urgency Passage by the end of the 2026 Spring sittings is required to enable WRP funding to be committed under the special account for the extension period. Currently, this cannot be done via the special account as there are no other opportunities to appropriate funding for the program until the 2026-27 MYEFO Appropriation Bills receive Royal Assent in 2027. Funding must be committed before the current program end date of 30 November 2026. This will enable grant agreements to be executed before then, ensuring ECEC workers do not receive a break in their pay increase and protecting families from higher fees. As such, if the Bill is not passed in the Spring sitting the effect would be increased risk that WRP payments must be made in arrears, resulting in workers experience a temporary loss of income heading into the Christmas period services experience increased, albeit temporary, financial pressures. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education) _____ STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 SPRING SITTINGS KNOX CLASS ACTION (FACILITATION) BILL Purpose of the Bill Knox settlement payments are compensation for harms that were the result of the Robodebt scheme. The Bill will exempt settlement payments received by members of the Knox v Commonwealth (VID982/2024) Robodebt class action from the application of the compensation provisions and the income test under the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Bill will also amend the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 to exempt Knox v Commonwealth settlement payments from recoveries and reductions to the funding of reasonable and necessary supports in participants' plans under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Reasons for Urgency The court-appointed Scheme Administrator is expected to commence making settlement payments to eligible individuals as soon as late October 2026. Cabinet decided to exempt these payments to avoid adverse outcomes for people who are being compensated for having debts wrongfully raised against them. It will also prevent people who are no longer receiving income support having to re-engage with the systems that caused the harm. Passage of the bill in the 2026 Spring sittings is required to enact income testing and Commonwealth statutory recovery scheme exemptions before settlement payments are made. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Social Services) COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 25 Report 25 11:18 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present report no. 11 of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 11 OF 2026 10 September 2026 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip) Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator Kerrynne Liddle Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 11 OF 2026 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 September 2026 at 7.07 pm. 2. The committee recommends that the provisions of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics Discrimination Commissioner) Bill 2026 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026 Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025 Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Diplomatic Appointments (Selection Process) Bill 2026 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025 Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026 Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025 Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025 Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026 National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026 Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026 Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 [No. 2] Right to Protest Bill 2025 Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2] Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025, and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026. (Tony Sheldon) Chair 9 September 2026 Senator SHELDON 168275 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I withdraw the opposition's circulated amendment. 11:18 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Diplomatic Appointments (Selection Process) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 November 2026". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as circulated by Senator Payman be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whitten, T. 26 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report as moved by Senator Sheldon be adopted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 27 BUSINESS Rearrangement 27 11:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That today— (a) the following bills be considered at 12.15 pm; (i) Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, and (ii) Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 696 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 27 NOTICES Postponement 27 11:26 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. COMMITTEES 27 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 27 DOCUMENTS 28 DOCUMENTS Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:27 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Sharma, I move: That the Senate notes that, in response to order for production of documents no. 601, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that no documents exist that contain an index as sought in the order and therefore orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on 25 September 2026, the following documents produced under, or in relation to, contract notice CN4105976: (a) all briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, emails, reports, correspondence and any other records generated in relation to the work undertaken under the contract; (b) ministerial or secretarial briefings in relation to the work undertaken under the contract; and (c) Budget estimates packs or briefings to the extent they relate to the contracted work. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 28 11:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Tyrrell from 7 to 17 September 2026, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Cox from 7 to 10 September 2026, on account of parliamentary business, and from 14 to 17 September 2026, for personal reasons; (c) Senator Watt for 7 September 2026, on account of ministerial business; (d) Senator Farrell for 9 September 2026, on account of ministerial business; and (e) Senator Grogan from 14 to 17 September 2026, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 28 11:28 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales by leave—I move: That Senator McDonald be granted leave of absence for 10 September 2026, for parliamentary reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 28 11:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Faruqi for 9 September 2026; and (b) Senator Allman-Payne for 9 September 2026. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 28 DOCUMENTS Harrison.ai, Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:29 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia by leave—I move general business notices of motion Nos 684, 685, 686 and 687 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 684 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, letters, briefing notes, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Industry and Innovation and/or his office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation in relation to reports that Harrison.ai, an artificial intelligence health startup which received $32 million from the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to, among other things, continue to base its operations in Australia, is reducing the size of its Australian operation while establishing a new venture based in the United States of America. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 685 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 Thursday, 5 November 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, emails, meeting notes and electronic or instant messages created between 4 May 2025 and 31 May 2026 relating to grant funding under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program and exchanged between: (a) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government or the minister's office, or both; and (b) the proponents of the following projects: (i) Canning Vale Sports Complex, (ii) Girrawheen Hub, (iii) Heathridge Park Master Plan, (iv) Mandurah Aquatic and Recreation Centre, (v) Stage 2B of the Hartfield Park redevelopment, (vi) Jubilee Reserve Development, (vii) Ellenbrook Open Space North, (viii) Kwinana Loop Trail, (ix) South Beach Dog Beach, and (x) MacNaughton Park clubrooms upgrade. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 686 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 21 September 2026, copies of all emails, electronic/instant messages and other correspondence between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the department) and the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to the department's answers to questions on notice nos 804 to 808 from the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's examination of the 2026-27 Budget estimates, including any draft answers to these questions. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 687 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Science, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 6 October 2026: (a) copies of all ministerial submissions, letters, briefing notes, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Science and/or his office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to the decision to not pursue full membership of the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere; and (b) copies of all documents held by the Minister for Science and/or his office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources that relate to stakeholder consultation on the decision not to pursue full membership of the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere. Question agreed to. Housing 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:29 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notices of motion Nos 688, 689 and 690 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 688 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, any documents, including any modelling or analysis, prepared by, or provided to, the Department of the Treasury containing information relating to: (a) changes in the level of private credit and debt in the property and housing construction sector since 1 April 2026; and (b) the number of insolvencies that have occurred in the property and housing construction sector since 1 April 2026. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 689 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 created since 1 July 2026 setting out, or relating to, conflict of interest management plans or policies for the new Chair of the Housing Australia Board, Ms Ann Sherry AO, appointed on 31 August 2026. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 690 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, any briefings or other documents created by, or provided to, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority relating to the number of first home buyers, housing investors and borrowers who have fallen into negative equity since 1 April 2026. Senator Gallagher ING I ask that general business notice of motion No. 689 be put separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, certainly. With the indulgence of the chamber, we will deal with No. 689 first. So the question is that general business notice of motion No. 689 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 688 and 690 in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 BUSINESS 30 BUSINESS Rearrangement 30 11:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I amend general business notice of motion No. 691 and move the motion as amended: That— (a) the Statute Update Bill 2026 be called on at 3 pm, have precedence over all other business until determined, and be considered for no more than 30minutes; (b) a senator speaking to the second reading shall speak for no more than 5 minutes; (c) following the conclusion of the total time allotted under paragraph (a), the questions on all remaining stages be put; (d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (e) immediately following the consideration of the Statute Update Bill 2026, Business of the Senate Notice of Motion no. 1 for 15 September 2026, standing in the name of Senator Cadell concerning the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026 [F2026L00835], given on 30 June 2026 for consideration on 15 September 2026, be called on and considered for no more than 30 minutes with 5 minutes per speaker; (f) at the expiration of the total time allotted under paragraph (e), the question on the disallowance be put; and (g) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bill and the disallowance motion. (h) (i) 11:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 691: Paragraph (a), after "Statute Update Bill 2026", insert "followed by the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026". 11:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to Senator Cash's amendment at 691 be agreed to.  

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

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

Question negatived.

 11:44 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 691 as amended by Senator Cash be agreed to. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 32 DOCUMENTS Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility 32 Order for the Production of Documents 32 11:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 692 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on Monday, 12 October 2026: (a) all ministerial submissions and decision briefs related to the design, eligibility criteria or participant selection for the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility; (b) all records of meetings, calls or correspondence between the minister's office and Incitec Pivot, CSBP, Summit Fertilizers or Fertilizer Australia; (c) all talking points, question time briefs or media clearance records on shipment announcements provided to or for the minister or her office; and (d) all documents created by, for or in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) that relate to: (i) the eligibility criteria and assessment framework, including how the published criteria were applied to candidate companies, (ii) any submission or list of recommended importers provided by Fertilizer Australia (the advice referred to in Senate question on notice no. 569), (iii) the advice provided to Export Finance Australia (EFA) on appropriate companies, (iv) each record of EFA/DAFF consultation confirming whether a transaction met policy requirements, including business-as-usual additionality, (v) any policy proposal, options paper or ministerial submission proposing price-risk support for importers, (vi) any advice supporting the statement that 'It is not feasible for Government to work with every importer', and (vii) any correspondence between DAFF and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission concerning the Facility. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 693 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than midday on Monday, 12 October 2026: (a) any statement of expectations, direction or instrument issued to Export Finance Australia (EFA) concerning the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility; (b) any documentation on the national-interest basis for the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility or its transactions; (c) any ministerial submissions on participant selection, including clearance records for the media release 'Securing more fertiliser for Australian farmers'; and (d) all documents held by, in relation to or for EFA from 1 February 2026 to today related to: (i) the defined criteria for inclusion of a transaction under the Strategic Reserve as they apply to fertiliser, (ii) any document setting out the governance framework, delegations or decision-making process for the facility as it applies to fertiliser, (iii) correspondence between EFA and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources concerning the process for recommending or selecting companies for engagement, (iv) any document recording how EFA receives and acts on departmental advice regarding appropriate companies, and (v) any document recording the basis on which engagement was limited to companies recommended by the departments, including any consideration of importers beyond those recommended. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 694 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on Monday, 12 October 2026: (a) all ministerial submissions and briefs on the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility, including participant selection and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' (DISR) role in advising Export Finance Australia (EFA); (b) all briefing or clearance records for media releases announcing shipments provided to or for the minister or his office; (c) all records of meetings, calls or correspondence between the minister's office and Incitec Pivot, CSBP, Summit Fertilizers or Fertilizer Australia; (d) advice provided by DISR to EFA on appropriate companies for the facility; (e) each record provided to, created for or by or held by DISR of consultation confirming whether a proposed transaction met policy requirements, including whether it was additional to business-as-usual; (f) any assessment by or for DISR of whether the Incitec Pivot/PT Pupuk Indonesia urea arrangement was additional to business-as-usual; and (g) all briefing, clearance or approval records created or held by DISR for the joint ministerial media releases announcing shipments. Question agreed to. Defence Properties 33 Order for the Production of Documents 33 11:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Shoebridge, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 368, agreed to by the Senate on 4 March 2026 and requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to provide, by midday on 5 March 2026, the Independent Audit of the Defence Estate provided to the Government in December 2023, has not been complied with, (ii) on 1 May 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence provided the minister's letter of response raising public interest immunity claims, and (iii) the Deputy Secretary Security and Estate informed the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee that a copy of the report was delivered 'wrapped in Christmas paper' in December 2023; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claims made by the minister on the basis that: (i) a document delivered 'wrapped in Christmas paper' is inconsistent with Defence requirements for the handling of classified documents and Cabinet documents, (ii) in order to attract privilege, the common law and the Evidence Acts in Australia require a communication or document to be made or produced for the 'dominant purpose' of providing legal advice for actual or anticipated legal proceedings, and that is not the dominant purpose of the audit report, and (iii) the terms of reference issued to the auditors contained no reference to consideration by the Cabinet being the dominant purpose of the report; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to fully comply with order no. 368 by midday on Monday, 14 September 2026. 11:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—A PII claim for the classified version of the Defence Estate Audit already outlines that it includes sensitive information regarding defence bases. There is a public version available that will not jeopardise the operational effectiveness of Australia's defence capabilities. Defence is being targeted by adversaries looking to gain a strategic advantage, with foreign interference at extreme levels. We do not support this motion proceeding today. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 695 standing in the name of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 34 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026 34

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

Third Reading 34 11:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the third reading be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. 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. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 4 NOES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 35

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026

Second Reading 35 12:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading as moved by Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. (Teller) McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. 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. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Brockman, W. E. Mulholland, C. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Collins, J. N. Tyrrell, T. M. Gatenby, C. Chisholm, A. D. Kovacic, M. Cox, D. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. Smith, D. A. Ciccone, R.

Question negatived.

12:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: At the end of the motion, add ", and: (a) the Senate notes that: (i) Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the bill would allow disclosure of personal health information in the possession of the Department to third parties without the knowledge and explicit permission of the individual, (ii) no dedicated checks and balances have been provided in the legislation to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of this data, (iii) no data integrity reporting has been provided to ensure all parties are capable of data sharing, and (iv) no mechanism has been included whereby an individual who has been 'matched' incorrectly can remedy the error; (b) Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the bill (clarifying and improving the operation of the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010) be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2026; and (c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 4 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. (Teller) McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:10 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales I move: At the end of the motion, add ", and: (a) the Senate notes that: (i) Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the bill would allow any changes to two international agreements (the Madrid Protocol and Agreement of Nice) to be automatically incorporated into Australian law, specifically the Trade Marks Act 1995, with no further parliamentary scrutiny, and (ii) One Nation opposes international agreements being made binding on Australians without suitable parliamentary process, if at all; (b) Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the bill (references to the Madrid Protocol and Nice Agreement) be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2026; and (c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the amendment as moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.  

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

4 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. (Teller) McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:14 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the Government has signalled that it prioritises right-sizing regulation, (ii) successive governments have repeatedly announced regulatory reform agendas, yet the burden of regulation continues to grow, (iii) according to the Productivity Commission, the number of restrictive terms in legislative instruments has more than doubled since 2006, (iv) the cost of complying with Commonwealth regulation has grown from $65 billion in 2013 to $160 billion today, (v) the incentive structures facing regulators and legislators reward visible new action over the harder, less visible work of removing existing regulation, and that this dynamic will persist unless directly addressed; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) implement crude but measurable regulatory reduction targets and strategies including offset requirements, (ii) introduce senior accountability within regulators and departments for deregulation including measurable KPIs, (iii) require government departments to prioritise faster decision-making and make ministers accountable for achieving these targets, (iv) strengthen the role of Office of Impact Analysis, including greater independence; and (v) consider expanding the impact of the National Competition Policy through greater funding for the National Productivity Fund". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 6 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. (Teller) McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Debate interrupted.

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 38

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Second Reading 38 12:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. The coalition will be supporting this bill. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives without amendment, and it comes to this chamber as a sensible and practical piece of legislation. But before I go into the details of what it does, I want to spend some time on the context that surrounds it, because this bill cannot be properly understood in isolation from the crisis currently facing Australia's wine industry. The bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Act 2013. It gives Wine Australia an explicit function to conduct grape and wine industry surveys, building on the work it already does through the National Vintage Survey. It also establishes an information-sharing framework that allows Wine Australia to share relevant information with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to support the implementation of a mandatory code of conduct for the wine sector. Alongside that new sharing power, the bill introduces a civil penalty for the misuse of shared information. That's an important safeguard and one that the coalition welcomes. Schedule 2 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 2024. It allows the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences to share levy payer contact details with authorised third-party contractors in order to improve participation in agricultural surveys. I want to be clear about what this bill is not. It is not the mandatory code of conduct itself. That code is still being developed following the government's acceptance of the Emerson review's recommendations in December last year, with an intended commencement date of 1 January 2027. What this bill does do is lay some of the legislative groundwork for that code, principally by giving the ACCC the information-sharing pathway that it will need to determine which businesses the code should apply to. Nor is this a broad new information-sharing power. It in fact narrows an existing restriction, and it comes with safeguards. Third parties who receive information under these new provisions are prohibited from disclosing it further. Only the minimum information necessary can be shared, and, where possible, it must be de-identified. Critically, this bill does not touch the substance of our agricultural levy system. It does not change who pays a levy or how much they pay or change how those levies are calculated. This is confined to information sharing and administrative housekeeping, nothing more. So why does the coalition support this bill? It responds directly to a real problem that was identified by the Emerson review—namely, that grape growers in this country have too little bargaining power when it comes to dealing with large winemakers and that the voluntary code that has governed that relationship for years is simply no longer fit for purpose. Fairer commercial arrangements between growers and winemakers are an important step towards restoring confidence in a sector that badly needs it. That brings me to the heart of what I want to say today. This bill, sensible as it is, cannot be viewed as anything more than one small piece of a much larger puzzle. Australia's wine industry is in the grip of a genuine structural crisis, and no amount of information sharing between Wine Australia and the ACCC is going to fix that on its own. Let me put some figures on the table. The sector is currently carrying around 262 million litres more wine than can be commercially sustained. That's an extraordinary oversupply, and it's placing enormous downward pressure on prices right through the supply chain, from the grower all the way to the bottle. The 2026 grape harvest was the smallest in 25 years. Yet, even with that smaller harvest, grape prices kept falling. That tells you something very important. This is not a problem that will fix itself with one good or one bad vintage. It goes much deeper than that. Growers in Australia's warm inland wine regions have been particularly hard hit. Many of them cannot find a buyer for their fruit at all. This is happening against a backdrop of collapsing global demand, with worldwide wine consumption having fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years. Australia cannot single-handedly fix global drinking patterns, but we can absolutely make sure that our own domestic market operates as fairly and as transparently as possible. That's exactly what this bill seeks to do. The coalition has a long and proud record when it comes to supporting mandatory industry codes when there is a clear and demonstrated imbalance of market power. We introduced and strengthened mandatory codes across a number of agricultural sectors under coalition governments. They included the Dairy Code of Conduct, the Horticulture Code of Conduct and the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. In each case, the objective was the same: to improve transparency, fairness and confidence in agricultural supply chains while still allowing the markets to operate competitively. The Emerson review found that the existing voluntary wine code was no longer sufficient to protect growers. On that basis, a mandatory code is an appropriate and proportionate response. Supporting this bill is entirely consistent with that approach, which brings me to the government's broader record on this industry. While the coalition will support the bill, I want to be very clear that this legislation on its own does almost nothing to address the crisis that our wine growers and winemakers are actually living through. Earlier this year, the industry put forward a practical and costed package of measures through its pre-budget submission. It was seeking a $139.25 million three-year package to address that structural oversupply crisis in the sector. This marks the third consecutive year that the industry's calls for targeted support have gone unanswered. The government's response was silence—worse than silence, in fact; instead of backing regional wine communities, the Albanese government used this year's budget to abolish the Wine, Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. That's a program that helped wineries attract visitors, grow regional tourism and diversify their income at exactly the time—the very time—when they needed every possible avenue of support. Australian Grape and Wine chief executive Lee McLean did not mince words. The budget was described as 'a bitterly disappointing outcome for an industry under significant and sustained strain'. Australian Grape and Wine made the point that the industry did not ask for a handout but had instead put forward practical and targeted measures to support an orderly transition. Earlier in the year, ahead of the budget, Australian Grape and Wine urged the government 'to heed the evidence, heed the warning signs and work with us now'. That call, like the prebudget submission, before it went unanswered. At a time when wineries are grappling with oversupply, weak global demand and falling prices, removing support for cellar doors sends exactly the wrong message to one of this country's most important regional industries. Regional wineries are often the economic heart of their communities. They support local jobs, hospitality businesses and tourism operators well beyond the vineyard gate. Supporting cellar doors is not just about wine. It's also about backing regional Australia full stop. It's not just funding cuts. Labor has also continued to shift more costs onto producers through higher export cost recovery charges and increasing regulatory costs, asking farmers to pay more while giving them less in return. Australian producers already contribute millions of dollars every year through statutory levies to fund research, development and biosecurity. They rightly expect those funds to deliver real value and to be administered transparently. While I'm on the subject of levies, I do want to touch briefly on the broader problem with our agricultural levy system because this bill, while it makes some targeted changes, doesn't do anything to address the structural issues identified by the government's own Productivity Commission. The commission found that Australia's levy system had become what it described as a bureaucratic 'levyathan', with around 248 levies administered through approximately 70 different arrangements creating unnecessary complexity, adding to administrative burden and dragging, of course, on productivity. Rather than undertaking the comprehensive reform that is so clearly needed, this government continues to make piecemeal changes around the edges while the bigger challenge facing levy payers goes unaddressed. The coalition believes the focus should be on reducing the cost of doing business, cutting unnecessary red tape, supporting our regional industries and making sure that levy funds are used effectively, efficiently and transparently. In closing, this bill is a sensible reform. It will help deliver fairer commercial relationships between grape growers and winemakers, and on that basis the coalition will support it, but I want to leave the chamber in no doubt that this bill should be seen as only one small part of the solution to the challenges that this industry is facing. If this government is serious about securing the future of one of our great regional industries, it needs to pair reforms like this one with practical and meaningful support for growers, for regional wineries and for wine tourism rather than cutting successful programs and continuing to load costs onto the very producers that it claims to support. The coalition will continue to support practical and sensible reforms that strengthen Australia's wine industry. We will also keep standing up for our growers, we'll also keep standing up for our regional communities, we'll also keep standing up for family businesses and we will keep holding this government to account for the industry it continues to let down. I commend the bill to the Senate. 12:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Australian farmers, fishers and foresters make an extraordinary contribution to our country, and the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is part of the Albanese Labor government's support for our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. The grape and wine sector makes a valuable contribution to regional communities and the Australian economy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting the sector's profitability, productivity and resilience and has provided more than $95 million in support since July 2022 to help strengthen the long-term viability of the Australian grape growers and winemakers. The amendments to the Wine Australia Act would provide Wine Australia with the function to conduct or arrange surveys of the grape or wine industry to support the operation of the wine act or the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This supports implementation of the proposed mandatory code of conduct for winegrape purchasers. The amendments to the wine act would also establish an information management framework that provides for the authorised use and disclosure of information obtained or generated under the act. These amendments would modernise and strengthen the Wine Australia Act while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for protected information. These changes will strengthen the ability of Wine Australia and ABARES to continue their important research work and continue to strengthen the industry for the future. The Australian government is committed to supporting the wine industry, the agribusiness sector, tourism more broadly and particularly regional Australia. I thank the opposition for including this bill in our non-controversial part of the program, although I guess we both had to fight off speakers on both sides demanding to claim that the best wine comes from their state. I can say definitively, because I'm the last speaker, that the best wine comes from Queensland! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 I would just like to shout-out the South Australian wine industry, Minister! Bill read a second time. Third Reading 41 12:31 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 As no amendments have been circulated, does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I call the minister to move the third reading. 12:31 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026 41

Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026

Second Reading 41 12:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026. The coalition will be supporting this bill. Australia has one of the strongest biosecurity systems in the world, and we did not build it by accident. It reflects decades of sustained investment, sound science and a shared understanding across the parliament that biosecurity is not a partisan issue; it is a national one. The coalition's approach to this bill reflects that same principle. We support a strong, well resourced biosecurity system, and we support the sensible use of new technology to help that system run more efficiently. Our test in considering this legislation has been a simple one: that modernisation must never come at the expense of the strength of Australia's biosecurity protections. This bill passes that test. Let me set out what the bill actually does. Every year, millions of travellers arriving in Australia complete a two-page paper Incoming Passenger Card providing information about the goods they are carrying, the places they visited and their occupation, all of which act as indicators of potential biosecurity risks. This bill creates the legal basis for that information to also be collected through a new digital Australia travel declaration that sits alongside the existing paper card rather than replacing it. Travellers will be able to complete the declaration through an airline app or a web form before or during their travel, generating a QR code that a biosecurity officer can scan on arrival. It has already been piloted on selected Qantas flights into Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and, by all accounts, that pilot is proceeding sensibly. This bill makes giving that information mandatory, and it does that by extending the existing civil penalty of 120 penalty units, which already applies to refusal on the paper card, to this new digital pathway. I want to be very clear what that is and is not. It is not a new punishment; it is the same longstanding protection simply applied consistently across both channels. It is also worth noting that this penalty is entirely distinct from and far lower than the penalty that already applies to knowingly providing false information, which carries a civil penalty of up to 600 penalty units or a criminal penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment. Those penalties are not new and are not touched by this bill. Importantly, the bill retains a paper and verbal fallback for travellers who do not have access to a suitable device. Nobody should be turned away at the border or penalised simply because their phone battery has gone flat somewhere over the Pacific. That safeguard matters, and the coalition welcomes its inclusion. The bill also legislates a notice of intention requirement before the department can refuse or impose conditions on an improved biosecurity arrangement—for example, arrangements relating to treatment, fumigation or storage facilities. At present, this operates only as administrative practice with no guarantee in law. This bill puts that process into legislation, giving affected businesses a genuine, enforceable right to respond before an adverse decision is made against them. That is a sensible improvement to procedural fairness and one industry has been seeking for some time. Finally, the bill makes a minor technical amendment to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity's information-gathering powers, removing an inadvertent reference to a defined term that does not belong there. It is a housekeeping matter but a necessary one. On the substance of what actually is before us then, this is a sensible, practical modernisation of our traveller biosecurity arrangements. On the information available to the coalition, it does not weaken existing protections, and we will support it. It is worth remembering just how much is riding on us getting biosecurity right. Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors depend on their reputation as a clean, disease-free producer, a reputation that underpins tens of billions of dollars in exports each year. A single serious incursion—whether the foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever or any number of other threats sitting on our doorstep—could cost our farmers and our regional communities enormously not just in the immediate response but in lost market access for years afterwards. Every dollar spent on prevention is a dollar that protects an industry worth vastly more, and every efficiency we can find at the border, provided it does not compromise the system's integrity, is worth pursuing. That is precisely why the coalition takes the view that this bill deserves support. It is also precisely why we take such a dim view of the government neglect on the other side of the ledger, on-ground pest and disease management, which I will turn to now. But I want to use the balance of my time this afternoon to speak to something broader, because a modern declaration form at the airport counts for very little if the threats that matter most to our farmers are already established well inside our borders and are being allowed to run rampant for want of proper ongoing funding. Let us look at where the government's priorities actually sit. Some $56.1 million has been allocated to the broader border technology program that this bill forms part of. At the very same time, in this year's budget, the government cut the Commonwealth's feral animals, pests and weeds program entirely. There is no replacement and no clear plan for what comes next. Feral pigs, wild dogs and deer are having an increasing impact right across regional Australia, damaging livestock, crops, pasture, waterways, native vegetation and biodiversity. Feral pigs in particular are a genuine biosecurity risk in their own right, capable of carrying and spreading serious livestock diseases and moving freely between public and private land, which makes them exactly the kind of threat our biosecurity system is meant to guard against not just at the border but everywhere. I'm advised that the Walgett branch of the NSW Farmers Association has been personally paying more than $1,000 an hour for helicopter based feral pig control every six to eight weeks simply because pigs are moving onto their land from a neighbouring national park. This is not a burden any individual farmer should be left to shoulder alone, and yet, in the absence of a coordinated national action, that is exactly the position that many of our farmers find themselves in. While dogs present an equally pressing example, and a particularly timely one, the National Farmers' Federation estimates that wild dogs cost Australian agriculture around $300 million every single year. And yet funding for the National Wild Dog Management Coordinator, a role that exists precisely to help co-ordinate the national response to this problem, runs out at the end of next month. Funding for the National Wild Dog Action Plan itself lapses only a month after that. This government already funds equivalent national coordinator roles for feral pigs, deer, rabbits, cats and foxes. There is no principled reason to walk away from wild dog coordination now, particularly when we are only halfway through what was meant to be a 10-year plan. The ask from industry here is not extravagant. It is $250,000 a year for five years to keep the coordinator role and the action plan running, and industry itself has already committed to co-funding it. This is about as modest and sensible a request to government gets, and so far it has gone unanswered. Contrast that with what we are seeing at a state level. The New South Wales coalition has already put forward a $300 million biosecurity and feral animal package announced at its Albury conference in June this year. That package includes a feral pig bounty, aerial shooting, thermal imaging and drone support, and, critically, five-year funding cycles so that landholders can actually plan their pest management with some certainty rather than wondering each year whether the program they rely on will still exist. That package has been welcomed by both the NSW Farmers Association and the Invasive Species Council, which tells you something important—that this is not a partisan issue; it is a practical one, and there is broad agreement on what needs to happen. The Commonwealth has a clear and important role to play here too in providing national coordination, research, surveillance and support so that farmers are not left facing a patchwork of inconsistent state-by-state responses to pests that, frankly, do not recognise state borders or property lines. A genuine, national approach would give farmers far greater certainty and would ensure that the resources committed by individual states are not undermined by gaps at the Commonwealth level. Modernising Australia's travel declaration system is a worthwhile reform, and the coalition supports it without reservation. But effective biosecurity is about a great deal more than how efficiently we process the millions of people who step off a plane each year. Digital declarations are a useful tool but they are not and never can be a substitute for practical, well-resourced, on-the-ground pest management. A modern border declaration system counts for little if the government cannot even guarantee ongoing funding for pest control programs that are already up and running and already delivering results. Stronger border protection and effective on-ground pest management are not competing priorities. They are two halves of the very same biosecurity system, and both deserve the government's genuine, sustained attention. Digital reform must be matched with real continuous investment in the frontline programs our farmers rely on every day. None of this is abstract for the communities that live with these pests daily. It is measured in fence lines that need constant repair, in lambing losses, in crops damaged overnight, and in the sheer exhaustion of farmers fighting a problem that does not respect property boundaries and cannot be solved property by property. Government has a role here that individual landholders simply cannot fill on their own, and that role becomes harder to fill each year when funding is allowed to lapse. The coalition will support this bill because it is a sensible step forward, but we will keep advocating in this place and beyond for a properly coordinated national approach to feral animals, pests and weeds, working with farmers, industry and the states and territories to protect Australia's agricultural production, our environment and the strength of our biosecurity system as a whole. We commend the bill to the Senate. 12:42 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm pleased to rise on this Biosecurity Amendment (Improving Operational Efficiency) Bill 2026, particularly because it enables an incredibly important modernisation of our border, something that is going to be incredibly important for our international visitors and tourism sector. The bill does two things. It modernises how travellers provide biosecurity information and it improves fairness and transparency for biosecurity industry participants. It enables the digital Australian travel declaration, starting the move from paper based forms to modern digital options. Travellers can provide accurate information earlier before they board, which supports faster and stronger biosecurity decisions. I'm very pleased that our government has made the decision to phase out the paper based declarations. You will no longer have to ask around on the plane whether someone has a pen, and we will reduce those queues for people coming into our system at the airport. But we will also be taking strong action on biosecurity. This is an important step forward in developing from the pilot to the rollout of the system. But of course, let me be very clear about this: the Albanese Labor government will never compromise Australia's biosecurity system. Since the 2022 election, Albanese Labor government has committed over $2 billion in additional resourcing for biosecurity—funding that is sustainable, permanent and ongoing. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 43 12:44 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 43

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026

Second Reading 43 12:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The question before the chamber at this time is: That the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 43 12:46 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296331 The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Hume. 12:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Because this is an omnibus bill, obviously it covers an awful lot of areas. The question I have for the minister is, how much of the bill is reducing red tape for Australians, and specifically for Australian businesses, and how much is about reducing paperwork for the public sector or public servants? 12:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is the second of two bills that we have brought into the chamber, and there will be others that follow. Schedule 1 is about simplifying business regulation, and that does assist businesses. But there is also work done across government in reducing red tape across government. It's just as important. In fact, businesses have asked us for that as well. We go through quite a lot of consultation around what it is possible to put in these bills. This is just one part of a larger piece of work we're doing. I have asked my department that the next bills that come have a focus on better regulation as it relates to businesses. Part of the focus that we're trying to have here in reducing red tape across government, particularly in the amendments to support a 'tell us once' approach, has been about improving the customer experience with government. So yes, while it is about reducing red tape, if you want to call it that—or processes across government—we have had our eye towards the customer, some of whom are businesses but obviously they're individual citizens as well, about making life easier for them. 12:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Minister. The government has said that its productivity reforms in the budget would reduce the regulatory burden by $10.2 billion each year. How much does this bill contribute to that figure? 12:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It's a component. I think we went through this at estimates. I didn't bring the productivity papers around the entire package of reform, but when officials gave evidence at estimates the evidence that was provided was that the combination of all the measures that were outlined in the productivity package, of which this is one, gave them confidence about the figure that had been outlined in the budget. So it is a component. I don't have a dollar figure on it, in terms of the work Treasury did to reach that overarching number. I don't believe that we have provided individual items against that. But the advice from Treasury was that they had confidence in the package as it relates to the forecasts and numbers in the budget, and this is a component of that. 12:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I'm putting on notice now that, in the next Senate estimates, I would very much like to understand what the breakdown of that $10.2 billion is and how much this piece of legislation, this omnibus bill, has contributed to that. I put that on the record now. Can I ask about one section of the bill which is—the government had moved an amendment in the House to remove the repeal of section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Why has the government now decided that this transparency requirement should be retained? 12:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm just trying to get some further information, Senator Hume. My advice is that that amendment has been withdrawn, but I—you've got a slightly different question? Senator Hume 266499 It was moved in the House. Senator GALLAGHER ING We're not proceeding with that amendment. Senator Hume 266499 It was amended in the House. Senator GALLAGHER ING Okay. We're not proceeding with that, Senator Hume. 12:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, I know, but the question was: why? 12:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory After further discussions across the government, we've decided not to proceed with it. 12:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I want to ask some questions about the Human Rights Commission measure, specifically around procedural fairness and the implications for procedural fairness that that measure contains. Can I ask first about what consideration the government gave to the procedural-fairness implications of removing schedule 2, part 4, relating to the Human Rights Commission's obligations. 12:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This has come forward from the Human Rights Commission. Essentially, the advice that I have is that the current notification requirement adds administrative delay and burden to the complaints management process, takes resources away from supporting the complainant through the process and, in some cases, makes the complaints harder and more stressful for complainants. On the issue of procedural fairness, this still requires, essentially, for the complainant and the respondent to be notified. All respondents have to be notified by the commission when a complaint is received against them. The president of the commission will retain the discretion to notify relevant individuals where appropriate. This will allow the commission to take a targeted, case-by-case approach when determining whether notifying a nonrespondent will properly support the resolution of the complaint. There are a number of examples that have been given where the commission has, in their advice to government around this particular mandatory notification, which I think came in in 2017—there were some amendments moved to the commission's complaints framework, to enhance procedural fairness, that had been recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This led to a mandatory notification requirement for respondents. The adverse-allegation requirement was introduced at the same time but was not actually recommended by the committee and went beyond what the committee had recommended. I can go through some of the examples that have been given of its making the process harder for complainants and of the delays to the resolution of the complaints that the commission has argued have been the result of this mandatory requirement for adverse-allegation notifications. 12:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I know the legislation cuts red tape for the Human Rights Commission and those who work there by making this change. However, those that have potentially been the subject of an adverse allegation are the ones that we are concerned about here. Does the government accept that a person who might be the subject of an adverse allegation should ordinarily have the opportunity to know that the allegation has been made about them? 12:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, the discretion obviously exists for the president of the commission, who I would argue is probably in the best position to make a judgement on that. The point, at the moment, is that the mandatory notification applies to anyone who might be raised in a complaint but is not a respondent to the complaint and that the commission's advice to us, or to government, is that this also causes distress and has resulted in some people who've been named adversely but are not respondents—it's had an impact on them. There's also the fact that they will go and get advice and things like that, as individuals will do from time to time, but it's not really necessary, because they're not a respondent to the matter. This removes the mandatory requirement; the discretion remains, and I think all of the processes that have been put in place over the years, including in 2017, mean that procedural fairness is followed. It's just removing that mandatory requirement to notify anyone who might be mentioned in a complaint. You can imagine getting a complaint about someone in a workplace who is complaining about their employer but may name some other individuals in that case who are not formally respondents to that but are then having to be contacted by the Human Rights Commission, saying: 'Look, you've been named in this. You're not the respondent. We're dealing with that. But you have been named in this complaint'—essentially, to what end? The discretion exists for the president to do it in the circumstances that they allowed, but our suggestion is that the mandatory requirement to ring anybody who's been named in a complaint be removed. 12:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I understand that that sounds like a simpler process, but would it be reasonable, minister, for an Australian to discover, potentially through something like a google search, that they had been named in a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, even if they weren't the respondent—to have had adverse allegations made about their conduct and to find out about it accidentally? 12:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Look, potentially—that's why we think the discretion for the president to manage those issues remains important. But the mandatory requirement—this person is otherwise none the wiser and doesn't need to take any action or, indeed, take any legal advice or be apprised of any other aspect of the matter. The discretion sits with the commission. The advice from the commission is that it spends approximately 450 hours per year administering adverse-allegation notifications. It also argues that mandatory notification to a person who is the subject of an adverse allegation can cause unnecessary concern and, in some cases, psychological harm to those recipients who are not respondents and may have no further involvement in the complaints process. This may go to the cost and effort of obtaining advice, when they are subject to no liabilities arising from the complaint. In some cases, mandatory notification to persons who are the subject of an adverse allegation may also discourage complainants and respondents from engaging fulsomely with the commission's complaints response. I believe there have been some cases where complainants have found out that individuals they have named will be advised and complaints have been withdrawn. 12:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What safeguards, then, will ensure that the Human Rights Commission president exercises that discretion in a consistent way and in a fair way? 13:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't have any formal advice on that, but we do rely on the president of the commission to make judgements in almost every aspect of their work. They tend to be highly regimented and legal, in a sense. So I would imagine, because this would give the discretion to the commission, that, given the way they would operate, that would be made clear. I can see if there's anything further I can get from the Attorney-General's on that. 13:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria You mentioned that this measure was going to save around 450 staff hours a year, but I wonder how that cost of 450 staff hours can possibly be more important than ensuring that people know if a serious allegation has been made about them. 13:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I guess this goes to this discussion we're having. It's not purely about staff hours. I just give you that as an example. It's also about the way complaints are handled in the most efficient way and the fact that the mandatory notification requires—just like your example of, 'What if somebody's Google searches their name and finds out at some point that they once were?' The flipside of that is that at the moment everybody named in any complaint in an adverse way is contacted and told and that that is also having an impact on all of those people as well. That's why the advice from the commission to us is to retain it as a discretion of the president and not as a mandatory requirement. 13:01 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Will the use of that discretion be something that is monitored by the government, recorded by the government—when they have or when they haven't used it over a particular period—and potentially reviewed after a period of time to see whether procedural fairness has in fact been afforded or whether perhaps removing this safeguard has had an adverse effect on individuals? 13:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would imagine, Senator Hume, that all of these matters can be sought through the normal processes, like estimates or questions on notice. I don't have any firm advice from the Department of the Attorney-General about the collection of that data, but I'm sure that, if it were something the parliament were interested in, that information would be made available. 13:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Has the government undertaken any assessment of the potential costs to individuals of removing the notification safeguard? 13:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The whole idea behind this amendment is to remove, in a mandatory sense, the requirement to inform people who are not the formal respondent to the proceedings. The information I have is that, at the moment, if everyone is told, that has incurred costs for individuals who have then sought to protect themselves with legal advice when they are not subject to the proceedings and are not formal respondents in the case. 13:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Let's be very clear. What you've just said is that, if you don't know that an allegation has been made against you, then it's actually cheaper because you don't have to lawyer up. Is that what you're implying? 13:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The advice I have is that there are cases where, through this mandatory notification, people have gone to the cost and effort of obtaining advice when they are not subject to any liabilities arising from the complaint. If I were a person just trundling along in life and the Human Rights Commission rang me and said, 'By the way, you've been named in this complaint,' I would feel that I would want to go and get some advice. That would be my individual choice because I would be worried about that—the Human Rights Commission reaching out to me to tell me that. You would think, 'I'd better go and get some advice on that,' when what the commission is saying is: 'You're not a formal respondent. There are no liabilities attached to this. We have to let you know that you have been named as part of a complaint that we're dealing with two other parties on.' I think the idea there is to reduce some of this stress and not put people in a position where they feel they have to go and get formal advice just because they work next to somebody who's going through some issues and taking their employer through the commission. 13:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria At the same time though, Minister, if you had been named as part of a complaint—particularly if you had been named adversely—then surely you would want to know. Potentially you could get advice that says: 'That's incorrect. My name has been sullied here by somebody that's making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.' I would want to be able to defend myself and my reputation if I have been named in a complaint. Don't you think that that is the procedural fairness that potentially is being circumvented here? 13:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No. I think we're going to disagree on this. I think the discretion of the president of the commission to notify relevant individuals where appropriate is a suitable way of managing these issues. Even if you went to the case that you cited, if you're not the respondent to the matter, you're not going to clear your name through the case, because you're not actually subject; you're not a party to the case. I guess you could go and think about some other action that you might take to clear your name, but the complaint that the Human Rights Commission is dealing with is not the appropriate case for that to happen. I completely understand the point you're making, but what we're trying to deal with here is that, though it's mandatory to tell you that you've been named—by the way, you face no liabilities, you're not a respondent to the case, and you probably won't be involved in the case in any way—in the paperwork, it causes unnecessary stress and potential costs to those individuals. 13:07 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I would like to know what assessment the government has made of potentially less intrusive ways of reducing the commission's administrative workload without removing that notification requirement. 13:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This has come from the Human Rights Commission as a way that they believe they can improve the handling of complaints in their workplace. The discretion for the president is retained, and we think that is appropriate. This is all about how complaints are handled. Procedural fairness is part of that. The simple change here is whether the individuals associated with all the adverse allegations have to be told in a mandatory sense or whether the president of the commission can retain the discretion. That's the change. 13:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I want to ask about the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort amendment. When did the government know that that special levy was going to be needed? 13:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That falls within the portfolio of the Assistant Treasurer. I would have to go back and take on notice the specific date. I know he has been in discussions around the CSLR for some time with all parties involved, but I don't have a specific date that I can give you, Senator Hume, unless someone can get it to me quickly. While I'm on my feet, I have had advice that the Attorney-General is happy to track down the information about the discretionary use of those powers. 13:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can I ask where that data will be available? Is it something that we have to specifically request in an estimates process? I know you just said that the Attorney-General will track it, but is it going to be something that they make public? Is it going to be something that we have to go and ask for, or will it be presented to us in some way, shape or form? 13:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will take that on notice, Senator Hume, and come back to you. Obviously, we've just been talking about it whilst I've been in here. Providing that information may be on an annual basis through normal channels, but I will find out. Sorry, Senator Hume. I can't give you more. 13:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Just back on the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort amendment, I understand that it is a late addition to this bill, and it does sit outside of the specific portfolio, but obviously there are a lot of questions about this. This is quite a contentious issue, so, if we can give time for the appropriate advisers from that portfolio to come to the chamber—I'm just putting it out there now. Obviously, the revised financial year '27 estimate has been public for a while. It requires a special levy of $170.3 million above the subsector cap of $20 million. This is a very big leap, and there are going to be an awful lot of people in this industry that are very concerned about this. The next question is: when does the Assistant Treasurer intend to lodge the determination that comes with this amendment? 13:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This amendment—which is different to the question you asked—reduces the disallowance period for the special levy determinations from 15 sitting days to five sitting days. The advice I have is that this will make sure that eligible consumers can receive compensation more quickly. At the moment, ASIC cannot collect a special levy to fund the scheme until the disallowance period has expired, meaning, depending on when the instrument is tabled, lengthy disallowance periods can substantially delay compensation payments to consumers who have already suffered financial loss. The amendment will preserve parliamentary oversight of levy determinations, and the instrument will remain subject to disallowance by either house of parliament, ensuring appropriate scrutiny and accountability are maintained. It means that compensation can be brought forward potentially by a number of months, which would make a meaningful difference to affected consumers. The amendment does not alter the minister's obligation before determining a levy, including the requirement to consider relevant statutory matters. I think your question is when the next determination will be made. I would have thought that there is some statutory requirement about that, but I am advised it will be in the coming weeks, after there has been appropriate consultation with the sector. 13:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Why the urgency on this disallowance? I know you said it's so compensation can go out the door earlier, but I can't imagine that this was going to be disallowed. I feel that this is putting fear into a sector unnecessarily. Senator Gallagher ING Sorry, can you repeat that? Senator HUME 266499 The need to have the disallowance date reduced quite dramatically—I know you've said it's because you want compensation to go out the door quicker, and I understand that. But, obviously, because they're a sector that have to pay for this, that's made them very nervous. They don't understand why it is that they need to have this decision made quicker, particularly because of the blow-out in the size of the levy. So can you explain what the consultation has been with the sector already on this? 13:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The idea behind this is to ensure that that compensation flows more quickly. If the concern of the industry is around the levy, that's not related to this amendment. That would be set in the normal way. This would just mean, once it has been set, you won't have to wait 15 sitting days for a disallowance on that. It would be five sitting days. Is the point you're raising that you've had feedback that people would like the entire 15 days available to the parliament to disallow because they might disagree with the levy? From the Assistant Treasurer's point of view, I think, the work that goes into setting the levy and agreeing that—and there has been a huge amount of work done on that—is the time to talk with industry and settle those matters. This is around parliamentary approval for that and trying to make sure that people get their compensation in a reasonable time. 13:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Assistant Treasurer told the National Press Club that Treasury was analysing the allocation of the levy in consultation with stakeholders, and you've just repeated that, which is fine. I want to understand whether Treasury has provided that advice to the minister already or whether it is ongoing. Given it's such a substantial special levy and it has been foreseeable for some time, why is the urgency happening now? 13:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think the setting of the levy and this amendment are two different things. This is around ensuring that, in the event that you say you have something tabled in the second last sitting week before a break, we are able to make sure that that instrument is effective when the parliament is not sitting. That's what this amendment is about. I think that questions about setting the levy and when the levy is going to be set are not matters that I am able to answer standing here right now. I can answer to the amendments we're seeking to move. 13:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I understand that, but I can't see another opportunity for those small businesses that are now going to be subject to that levy—the financial advice industry—to question what they should expect here. This is the only forum in which I can do this. This is a determination of the minister. I want to understand whether the government has a figure for the amount of the special levy that's going to be borne by the personal financial advice subsector, because that is a small-business sector, and when you expect that figure to be arrived at and when it would be published. 13:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No. I'm not in a position to provide that, and it wouldn't be appropriate to, I think, announce that as part of the bill that we're debating today. There is, obviously, consultation that's ongoing with relevant stakeholders and community consultation on that. 13:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Let me try this a slightly different way. If we do agree to the amendment today, I want to understand on what date the government expects to begin collecting that levy from businesses and when victims will start receiving compensation—an estimate. 13:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I am advised that it would be prior to the end of this year. 13:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can I be clear. Is that for both collecting the levy and paying out the compensation? 13:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Potentially. That hasn't been finalised yet. In the event that it's finalised and able to have a determination issued and this amendment gets up and five days is settled on and that disallowance period elapses prior to the end of the year, then the answer is yes. If some of those are not agreed to, then that would change my answer. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet CH124 revised together. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move the amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 15, column 1), omit "Parts 2 to 4", substitute "Parts 2 to 5". (2) Schedule 4, page 52 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 5 — Aligning timing of CSLR levy determinations Corporations Act 2001 10 At the end of section 1069H Add: Disallowance (7) The Legislation Act 2003 applies to a determination under subsection (2) of this section as if references in sections 42 and 47 of that Act to 15 sitting days were instead references to 5 sitting days. When determination takes effect (8) If neither House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the determination or a provision of the determination, the determination takes effect: (a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed; or (b) if a later day is specified in the determination—on that later day. (9) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing a provision of the determination, the remaining provisions of the determination take effect: (a) on the day immediately after the last day upon which a resolution disallowing the determination or a provision of the determination could have been passed; or (b) if a later day is specified in the determination—on that later day. (10) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the determination, the determination does not take effect. Sunset provision (11) Subsection (7) ceases to have effect at the end of 6 months after its commencement. 11 Application provision The amendment of section 1069H of the Corporations Act 2001 made by this Part applies in relation to a determination made under that section on or after the commencement of this item. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet CH124 revised, moved by leave together, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 13:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4039: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 13), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 3A". (2) Page 46 (after line 3), after Schedule 3, insert: Schedule 3A — Foreign military membership disclosure Migration Act 1958 1 After section 166 Insert: 166A Information regarding foreign military membership (1) The information that must be provided by a person entering Australia to a clearance authority under paragraph 166(1)(b) includes information in the form of answers to the following questions: (a) "Have you been a member of a foreign military within the last 12 months?"; (b) if the answer to the question in paragraph (a) is affirmative—"For each foreign military you have been a member of within the last 12 months, what is the name of the foreign military of which you were a member?". (2) The regulations must provide for the questions mentioned in subsection (1) to be included in the person's passenger card (as referred to in regulations made for the purposes of section 166). The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that the Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4039 be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [13:25]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 24 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 10), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, Part 4, page 27 (lines 1 to 14), to be opposed. 13:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I take this opportunity to table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to the bill that was just dealt with—my apologies to the Senate. We won't be supporting the opposition's amendment. 13:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In regard to the government amendment to this legislation, I want to place on the record the Greens support for it. It reduces the disallowable period from 15 to five days for the instrument, which determines which sectors of the financial services sector have to pay the top-up levy for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort each year. It wasn't expected, obviously, when the CSLR was legislated that it would routinely exceed the levy and require an annual top up, but, because of the way the scheme is structured and a number of recent collapses, including First Guardian and Shield, the CSLR has significantly exceeded the annual levy every year, and this year the top up amount is over $170 million. We understand that shortening the disallowance period for the top-up levy is necessary to ensure that people impacted by financial misconduct and fraud are able to be compensated as quickly as possible. We are very conscious that many people have lost their entire retirement savings and any CSLR compensation will be a lifeline for them. We're not going to get in the way of people receiving their compensation. We want that to happen, and we want that to happen as quickly as possible. However, we do not support indefinitely reducing parliamentary scrutiny of the instrument, and that is why we pushed the government to include the sunset provision, which we are pleased that they have included, so that the shorter disallowable period is only in place for a finite time. We also call on the government to prioritise reforms to stop a collapse like First Guardian and Shield, which has impacted so many people, happening again. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 As it is 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate. I'm going to commence the two-minute statements now. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 51 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Prime Minister 51 13:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In news that should be filed under the same category as the defecation habits of bears in forests or the religion of the Bishop of Rome, Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of this country, has a credibility problem. The Prime Minister promised Australians the most transparent and accountable government in history. But, when it comes to this prime minister, he couldn't lie straight in bed. So let me list some of his recent deceptions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Minister Ayres, on a point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 It's the obvious point of order. Senator McGrath knows that's unparliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Good try, Senator McGrath! I'd ask you to withdraw that. Senator McGRATH 217241 I withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you. Senator McGRATH 217241 Let me list some of the recent deceptions of the Prime Minister. This week, we discovered that the Prime Minister's local Marrickville golf club was gifted $6 million of taxpayers' money through a Labor infrastructure slush fund. And we now know that Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister, is an honorary member of that club. But, when asked about it, the Prime Minister said: I don't have a membership. It's not true. That's deception No. 1. Then the Prime Minister said: I don't go in there. Well, that's another deception because he's hosted political events there, he's campaigned there and he's publicly described his longstanding relationship with the club. The list goes on. In July, the Prime Minister refused to confirm whether he attended a fundraising dinner hosted by the son of a Chinese billionaire accused of tax fraud—deception No. 3. In 2025, the Prime Minister said he would attend the Garma Festival every year for as long as he remained Prime Minister. Well, he didn't go there this year—deception No. 4. On 97 occasions, the Prime Minister said he would reduce power bills by $275—deception No. 5. The Prime Minister said he wouldn't make changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing; he made a lot of changes—deception No. 6. The Prime Minister promised not to introduce an inheritance tax then Labor legislated a tax on widows—disgusting—deception No. 7. I could be here all day listing the deceptions of the Prime Minister and this government when it comes to the misleading of the Australian people but I only have two minutes. This is chapter 1, more to come. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 51 13:33 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania This week, my team and I have had the great privilege of welcoming RAAF Commander Martin to my office as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The ADF Parliamentary Program provides valuable opportunities for parliamentarians to work alongside Defence personnel at all ranks and levels. The exchange increases awareness and understanding of the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force, while also giving Defence personnel a first-hand insight into how our democracy operates in this place. Commander Martin brings an extraordinary breadth of experience to the program. Born in Chile, he first joined the Royal Australian Navy Reserve in 1997 before going on to serve as a federal agent with the Australian Federal Police investigating matters ranging from organised crime to fraud and national security. He later worked as a teacher and university lecturer before returning to Defence, where he held a diverse range of leadership, training, recruitment and international engagement roles. He currently works in Navy International Engagement, where he is responsible for strategy and governance. It's been a pleasure to have Commander Martin in my office. He is a man of remarkable intellect. He has an inquisitive nature and a genuine interest in politics and current affairs. He's enthusiastically engaged with the parliamentary proceedings, stakeholder meetings and the happenings of my office. His thoughtful questions, observations, willingness to share his knowledge and genuine curiosity about the workings of the parliament and political life have made him a valued addition to our office. His commitment to lifelong learning and public service extends well beyond his distinguished military career. Raff has made himself a valued member of my team during his time with us, and I wish him every success for the future. Raff, thank you for coming in and thank you for doing the program. I thank all current ADF personnel and veterans for your service. We are always in your debt. Gas Industry 52 13:35 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria In a move that has surprised precisely no-one, Labor is watering down its piss-weak gas reservation policy to appease its corporate gas donors. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Did I hear that right? I'm not sure I heard that right. Being a truckie, not much worries me, but I think I got it. You know what I'm going to say next. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Ladies and gentlemen, the great gas rip-off continues under the watch of this government. It is in full swing. No-one thought that Labor was serious about this in the first place. It was a distraction from the unprecedented public outcry for a gas tax in this country. So shameless was the timing that Labor announced it on the very day that our gas tax report was handed down, a report that said a gas tax should be revisited as soon as possible. Let's be clear about what Labor's offering instead. They're offering a scheme that does not lower energy bills, a scheme that has already watered down its headline reservation per cent, a scheme with vague ministerial discretion and a scheme developed in bed with the gas industry. And here's the kicker: it will not raise a cent for Australians. Not one measly dollar will be raised under this reservation policy. That's how gullible this Labor government think you are, folks, backed up by the corporate parties of One Nation and the Liberals. When Australians are struggling, Labor is turning its back on $17 billion worth of revenue that could be raised under a 25 cent gas export tax. That's money for cost-of-living relief, money for electrification, money for people genuinely doing it tough, but Labor says, 'Nah, not today.' We deserve a fair return on our resources. Instead, you're getting another industry-designed scheme full of loopholes for the minister to roll over to gas industry demands. The Greens say, 'No, not on our watch.' We will fight this. The Greens will fight this pathetic capitulation to the gas corporations. We say no to Labor's gas reservation scheme and yes to a minimum 25 per cent gas export tax. It's our gas, it's our money, it's— (Time expired) Private Health Insurance 52 13:37 Senator GATENBY 324140 Tasmania This is not my first speech. I rise today to speak against the Albanese Labor government's proposed changes to private health insurance rebates for older Australians. The proposal will hit the most vulnerable members of our community, including thousands of older Tasmanians who've worked hard, paid their taxes and maintained private health insurance throughout their lives. Survey results from 3,700 of St Luke's members aged 65 years and over, found that 96 per cent of respondents are concerned about proposed changes, and 71 per cent say the changes would affect their ability to maintain private health insurance. These numbers indicate that around 80,000 Tasmanians will be impacted by this policy. For many older Australians, private health insurance is not a luxury. It's a way to access timely treatment and attain greater certainty about their health care as they age. The government's own advice acknowledges that around 1.2 million pensioners nationwide will face additional financial pressure because of this decision. Those in my home state of Tasmania will be disproportionately affected. We have an older population and lower average incomes, and more than 60 per cent of hospital benefits paid by health funds go to people over 65. This number is well above many other states. For many older Tasmanians already struggling with the cost of living, this proposal leaves an unfair choice: they can cut spending on essentials, downgrade their cover or drop private health insurance altogether. If that happens, the pressure doesn't disappear; it simply shifts directly onto our public hospitals, which are already under strain. That is why governments across the country, including the Tasmanian government, have raised concerns about these changes. It will end up costing us all more and create poorer health outcomes. The government should abandon this proposal, stand up for older Australians and rethink this cut to health. Superannuation 52 13:39 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria One Nation unveiled a new superannuation policy this week, and they are so confident in it that they refuse to have it costed. Well, I've done the maths and worked it out. This one is a super dodgy deal for workers. One Nation's big idea is that workers can cash out three per cent of their super contribution per year for three years. For the average worker, that's about $6,900 over three years. But what's the real cost? Because of compounding interest, for the average 30-year-old, that $6,900 would grow to be worth $25,000 at retirement, according to the Super Members Council. This is not a proposal that will give today's 30-year-olds $6,900. It is a proposal to rob them of $18,000 at retirement. If One Nation is really serious about helping workers with the cost of living, let's have a look at the value of things that are helping workers with the cost of living today that they have opposed: $12,000, which is the amount by which a minimum wage worker's annual pay has risen under Labor, pay rises that One Nation opposed; $3,000, the yearly amount that we've put back into the average worker's pocket by cutting their taxes, tax cuts that One Nation opposed; and $47.65, which is how much the average hospo worker earns in penalty rates when they work on a Sunday; Senator Hanson wants to get rid of these altogether. And this one's priceless: 10 days of paid domestic violence leave, which Labor put in the National Employment Standards—or, as Senator Hanson calls it, 'holiday leave'. This new policy is nothing more than a reckless and dangerous policy that entrenches poverty in retirement, from a political party that has a clear track record of voting against cost-of-living measures to support workers today every single time they get the chance. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 53 13:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Yesterday the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission tabled its yearly report, and I thank them for their work. The findings were distressing but, unfortunately, unsurprising. The rate of intimate partner homicide for First Nations women has increased and is now at a record high. The hospitalisation of First Nations women and children for family violence assault is increasing. The number of women and children affected by family violence who are experiencing persistent homelessness is also increasing. And 80 per cent of police call-outs in Australia are now domestic and family violence related. That is a staggering statistic and one that recent government investments have failed to turn around. As the report says, too often we're missing opportunities to prevent violence, intervene earlier, support recovery and reduce future demand. As the federal government works towards its second National Action Plan I would urge them to heed the eight recommendations the commission has put forward. We need to focus less on the dollar figure already invested and more on the outcomes and whether or not they are shifting in the way we need them to. I particularly welcome the recommendation to invest more in early intervention. I hear from so many people—teachers, social workers and frontline service providers—that early intervention programs are working. The demand for these services is huge, but the funding is inadequate, and when it is there it's short term and uncertain. There is also a lack of transparency in how federal funding is flowing to the states and territories and how it's being spent. The commission notes some small improvements here but notes that there is still no national framework for tracking expenditure between jurisdictions. (Time expired) Australian Defence Force 53 13:43 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia This week has seen the ADF parliamentary exchange program host 52 ADF personnel of all services, ranks and backgrounds in the halls of this building. It has been an opportunity for us to work together, in much the same way as I was fortunate to take part in the RIMPAC exercise earlier this year, where I spent some time onboard the HMAS Sydney. The interactions we have had through this exchange further reinforce our understanding of the ADF not only as the protectors of Australian sovereignty but also as a key part of Australian society. Whether it is the presence of bases across the country, the provision of support during natural disasters or responding to other national emergencies, the ADF is an essential part of our community when we bring team Australia together. As we face uncertainty in the international arena, it is time to see what is represented in the ADF further replicated in our broader society. That's things like teamwork, mateship, a sense of belonging and—relevantly—from this place, strong leadership. A team Australia mentality recognises the contribution of everyone. If we have learnt anything from the global instability that has shaped the last decade, it's that a strong team Australia is needed to weather any potential incoming storms. All Australians have a role to play and should be proud to contribute to a team Australia. We stand in a privileged position to bring all of the contributors to Australian society together in the same way the ADF replicates the social fabric of Australia—teamwork, mateship and a sense of belonging. We must shape Australia's future with leadership from this place, enhancing our national resilience and our ability to withstand any challenge. Thank you very much for joining me this week, Captain Michael Paes of the Royal Australian Navy— (Time expired) South Australia: Community Services 54 13:45 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Recently, I had the privilege of joining over 100 members of the Fleurieu community in Port Elliot for a forum on homelessness hosted by the Fleurieu Community Foundation. It was an incredibly powerful evening, and I want to thank the foundation for bringing people together for such an important conversation. We heard from organisations including Junction, Cottage Holmes, Christian Community Care, headspace and the Whalers Peninsula Community Association—people who are on the ground every day supporting those experiencing housing insecurity across the region. What really struck me was the discussion about hidden homelessness. Homelessness doesn't always look like someone sleeping rough. It can be a young person couch surfing because home isn't safe; it can be a family moving between temporary accommodation, never knowing where they'll be next month; it can be an older person suddenly facing housing insecurity after a lifetime of stability. These are challenges that can sometimes be less visible in regional communities, but that doesn't make them any less real. We also heard about the extraordinary local response. The Fleurieu homelessness fund, managed by the Fleurieu Community Foundation, is a fantastic example of a community looking around, seeing that their neighbours need help and deciding to do something about it. It's a powerful example of what can be achieved when a community comes together with compassion and purpose. Government has an enormous responsibility when it comes to housing and homelessness, and we have to keep working to make sure people have access to safe and secure homes. But what I saw in Port Elliot was also the power of a community that genuinely cares for its own. Thank you to everyone who organised the evening, everyone who shared their expertise and experience and every organisation doing this work across the Fleurieu. Your community is stronger and better because of it. South Australia: Environmental Conservation 54 13:47 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia In South Australia, over the past four years, we have seen unprecedented attacks on our precious Adelaide Park Lands, a South Australian icon that makes our city so unique and so special. Globally and locally, 2027 is set to be one of the hottest years on record, and we know that green spaces, like our precious parklands, combat the urban heat that so many other cities are suffering from through the climate crisis and provide an essential haven for wildlife as well as people. So many people in our city enjoy our parklands every week. Our parklands are for everybody. They're not corporate boxes and they're not fenced off for big business, for wealthy property developers or for the power-hungry premiers. They are a resource for all South Australians. Last month, I joined thousands of people in our city at a rally calling on Premier Malinauskas to stop the chop. We've already lost hundreds of trees, and we're set to lose hundreds more as our premier chases down corporate events that are trashing our precious parklands. The MotoGP is just another in a long line of the premier's destructive pet projects, ripping 400 mature trees out of our parklands, costing $96 million in a cost-of-living crisis and industrialising our parklands. It's all wrong—more concrete, more noise and a lot of public money going to something we don't need when thousands of South Australians are looking for a roof over their head. A past public official has told us the South Australian government has overestimated the income and underestimated the cost. South Australians are going to pay more than they expect for this event. Minister Watt needs to have a very close look as he reviews this project on our national heritage parklands. We need to protect them for the future of all South Australians in our precious city, where the parklands are at the centre of public amenity. (Time expired) Artificial Intelligence 54 13:49 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia In March, I addressed the chamber on a variety of topics, including the Public Service wide AI policy. Under this policy, 13 agencies missed the deadline to publish an AI transparency statement, and 30 agencies missed the deadline to appoint an AI accountable official. What's more concerning is the number of agencies who gave false evidence to committees of the Senate about this. There are a few, so I'll go through them quickly. The Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care gave false evidence to a committee because it 'misunderstood the question'. The Commonwealth Grants Commission misled a committee in relation to both elements of the policy in answers that it admitted were 'provided in error'. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau claimed that their incorrect evidence in relation to both elements was the result of a 'genuine mistake'. The Royal Australian Mint 'mistakenly' advised a committee that it had met the AI transparency statement deadline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency actually did meet the accountable official deadline but for some reason told a committee that they didn't. One of the agencies wrongly accused of missing the deadline later discovered why. Rather than making a simple Google search, the Digital Transformation Agency responsible for administering this policy had tried to guess their CEO's email address and got it wrong. When the bounce back landed in the DTA's inbox, it went straight to junk mail. If this government can't even regulate its own use of AI, how can it be expected to regulate AI in our workplaces, our hospitals, our schools right across the country? Border Express 55 13:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales When standing up for better pay and conditions gets you sacked and tossed aside like yesterday's rubbish, the company starts looking less like a business and more like thugs. That's what is happening right now at Border Express. On Monday 17 August, Transport Workers' Union members at Queensland depot voted 90 per cent in favour of taking protected industrial action. Just two days later, Border Express called 24 permanent employees into individual meetings and told them they were getting sacked. Surprise, surprise, 20 of them were TWU members planning to take that action! These are some of the lowest paid workers in the industry, earning up to 33 per cent less than workers at other major operators. Joseph, a father of six and a forklift driver with 17 years in the industry, was one of them. He said: It hurt, considering the effort I put into my job. It was clear we're just a number. They've tried to intimidate us time and time again. Border express is one of Australia's major freight operators, moving goods from clients like Harvey Norman, Chemist Warehouse and EB Games. Thankfully, these workers have a strong union in their corner. The TWU took Border Express to the Federal Court and won an injunction stopping the sackings while the case is decided. The TWU has reached agreements at major companies like Toll and Linfox and Bevchain, who've been providing fair pay and job security. But they're being undercut by corporate bottom feeders like Border Express and FedEx and squeezed from above by predatory bullies like Aldi and Amazon, all making the industry even more dangerous and treating workers like barcodes with a pulse. Today, thousands of transport workers across the country will strike for 24 hours in a fight for safe and secure jobs, the largest TWU strike in decades. To Joseph and everyone striking today, I'm with you. Superannuation 55 13:53 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The goose in this case is Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and the gander is the Australian people struggling with the cost of rents and mortgages under his incompetent handling of the economy. One Nation's proposal to allow Australians to choose to divert part of their future superannuation to help with mortgage and rental payments in Labor's cost-of-living crisis is a sensible measure. Interest rates are up 15 times and expected to rise again before the end of the year. Australians are struggling under net zero, Labor's mass immigration and the Treasurer's management of the economy. They should have the choice to use some of their own savings to make the struggle a bit easier. Jim Chalmers has come out swinging with the ludicrous claims that One Nation wants to destroy superannuation. I ask: how is allowing people paying rent or a mortgage to access three per cent of their super for only three years destroying superannuation? This is just another lie. If it's the case, why is Treasurer Chalmers allowing the staff of federal MPs to do it? Why is he enabling his own staff to do it? I can assure you that they won't be doing it as tough as millions of other Australians. One reason could be that they are getting their 3.4 per cent out of super. The Treasurer allows eligible staff employed by federal MPs to have 3.4 per cent of their superannuation paid out as a fortnightly allowance. Are you robbing these workers of their retirement funds? It looks like there's one rule for Canberra insiders but a very different rule for those outside the Treasurer's privileged political bubble. This stinks of the hypocrisy we've come to know and expect from the Albanese Labor government. If the next election is going to be a referendum on super, as the Treasurer claims, first let him explain why political staffers can have their privilege while other Australians cannot. Let him explain to his constituents of Rankin, where his support is dropping like a stone. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 55 13:55 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania 'Rare, brief and non-recurring'—those are the words used by the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner to describe her vision for rates of gender based violence in this country. In my home state of Tasmania as many as 95,600 women have experienced violence since the age of 15. That is 43 per cent of the population. And 28.1 per cent of women in Tasmania have experienced intimate partner violence since the age of 15. Those rates increase further for members of marginalised groups. Disabled women are between four and 10 times more likely to experience domestic and family violence than women without disability. That is not rare, and these are only the cases being reported. In my first speech in the Senate I spoke about the violence I experienced as a child at the hands of my father. That was not brief and that was not non-recurring. I am proud to support my party leader, Senator Waters, with her tireless advocacy for the women and children experiencing domestic and family violence. Yesterday she told this chamber that the crisis response sector is at breaking point, that services urgently need funding and that systems need reform to repair the deficiencies that prevent women from coming forward and reporting violence against them. I agree. Every week, we wake up and see reports that another woman has been killed at the hands of her partner. How much longer will we let this happen? How much longer until we bring rates of violence against women and children to an acceptable level? That level is zero. Economy 56 13:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Every day, Australians are paying the price for Labor's failure to get inflation under control, and alarm bells continue. Economists are warning that Australians could be facing back-to-back interest rate rises after the Reserve Bank made it very clear that inflation remains too high. That is a devastating prospect for millions of Australians who are already suffering with the cost of living. Labor promised Australians that they would be better off. The Prime Minister looked them in the eye before the election and said that they would be better off under Labor. Instead, Australians have seen their living standards collapse further and faster than in any developed nation. Underlying inflation has remained above the Reserve Bank's target band for 13 consecutive months now—13 consecutive months—and Australia continues to have higher inflation than every comparable economy. It can't be coincidence. It can't be somebody else's fault. What has Labor done about this? Well, while the Reserve Bank has had its foot on the brake, Labor has had its foot on the accelerator—$400 billion of windfall revenue, and it's gone. It's been spent. Government spending is now at its highest level in four decades outside of the pandemic. This is crisis-level spending, and it's supposed to be business as usual! Labor is making the Reserve Bank's job so much harder, putting more pressure on demand and making it harder to bring inflation down. That means interest rates have to stay higher for longer. Australians are paying the price for it, with higher mortgage rates, higher rents, higher electricity bills and less money in their pay packet at the end of every day. This is Labor's fundamental economic failure. They've spent more, they've borrowed more, they've taxed more, and Australians have seen their living standards fall. They don't need more excuses; what they need is a government that's going to fix the economy. Only the coalition will get government spending under control. We'll cut waste and inflation at their source because Australians cannot afford another year of Labor. (Time expired) Cybersafety 56 13:59 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria ():  The Albanese Labor government is turning the screws on the social media platforms. It's a shame that those opposite are not backing in this bill. They call it censorship, but it is far— (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fiscal Policy 56 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, in relation to the Prime Minister's honorary membership of the Marrickville golf club, which was given $6 million of taxpayer funded grant by his government despite no other golf club in Australia receiving similar treatment, the Prime Minister said he doesn't have a card as a member of the club, he doesn't know the executive of the club and he doesn't use the facilities. A video has now surfaced of the Prime Minister addressing members of the Marrickville golf club in 2019 in which he says: I've been coming here for decades and using this club. Was the Prime Minister telling the truth in the parliament in 2019 when he addressed the members of the Marrickville golf club? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Because of some of the interjections, I didn't hear the beginning of the question. But as I— Senator WONG 00AOU Sure, ask it again, Senator, if you're so keen. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I think I'm running the chamber. Senator Ruston, if you would, just do the first sentence. 14:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Yesterday, in relation to the Prime Minister's honorary membership of the Marrickville golf club, which was given $6 million of taxpayer funded grant by his government despite no other golf club in Australia receiving similar treatment, the Prime Minister said— The PRESIDENT 112096 I think the minister heard the rest. I would ask for people to be silent so I can hear the answers. 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you very much. I was trying to understand if the assertion was that I had said it or if the senator was referring to what the Prime Minister said. I would say first that I will refer to you to the Prime Minister's answers in the other place, where he has detailed—and I'm sure will have the opportunity again today to detail—responses to some of these questions. I'm going to also respond to the assertion in that question about the grant and the grant being given. I just want to say this. What we have here is the delivery of an election commitment. I'd make the point to those opposite that election commitments— Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I would make the point to those opposite that the Audit Office has said that a properly designed and administered grants program is the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 On a matter of— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm very sorry, Senator Ruston. I can't hear a word you're saying. Senator Ruston 243273 On relevance, I was simply asking whether the Prime Minister misled the parliament. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 On a point of order, Senator Ayres has a prop. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, perhaps you could just put it down in the interests of the chamber. Thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU Are those your election commitments? You're very sensitive about them, if so. You're very sensitive about your election commitments. How interesting that you were so sensitive about that! I didn't actually notice. I did not actually notice that he had them, but now I understand the sensitivity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 I'm just seeking clarification from you, President, as to whether the minister is responding to the point of order that was raised by Senator O'Sullivan, in which case I'd ask for the clock to be reset, so maybe she might answer my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, the minister was continuing her answer, and I am going to draw the minister back to your question. Senator WONG 00AOU What I was saying is that this is the delivery of an election commitment that was transparently made and transparently committed to. The Audit Office has said a properly designed and administered grants program is the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 President, with the greatest amount of respect, the minister's answer is not relevant to the question I asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I beg to differ. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU An assertion about 'given' was made in the question. I'm entitled to respond to that, and that is what I'm doing. I again say the Auditor-General has said properly designed and administered grants programs are the way governments can deliver their election commitments. That is what we did. They've also indicated that grants to deliver election commitments should follow proper processes in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, and that is what we did. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the parliament, in relation to the Marrickville Golf Club: ... I don't do anything whatsoever for it. But the same video from 2019 shows the Prime Minister promising a $350,000 grant to the club so it can host more events. Is promising to give the club $350,000 if Labor wins the election not doing 'anything whatsoever' for the club? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister is the member for Grayndler, and he is someone who believes in supporting his community. I would make the point—a number of points. The first is that I understand this grant also includes pedestrian and bike access and sewerage works to protect the environment. I would also remind you that some other election commitments included the ones I mentioned yesterday—to St Vincent de Paul and the Leichhardt women's health centre. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, on a point of order? Senator Ruston 243273 Once again on relevance, I was talking about a comment from 2019 about a grant of $350,000, not the current grant round. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. The minister is being relevant. The minister is entitled to take the whole of your question into account, and that is what the minister is doing. Senator WONG 00AOU I'd make this point—through you, President. Members of parliament make election commitments, and often those are delivered. For example, the member for Groom, Garth Hamilton, announced an election commitment to upgrade the Black Gully Linear Corridor Park for $1.8 million. Despite not winning the election, on 11 February a grant was approved for this commitment—your commitment—under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 A second supplementary? 14:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia When asked yesterday about why he didn't declare his honorary membership of the Marrickville Golf Club, the Prime Minister told the parliament he didn't declare the membership because 'I don't play golf'. If the Prime Minister doesn't think he needs to declare a golf club membership because 'I don't play golf', why did he then declare on his parliamentary register of interests that he is an honorary member of the Royal Sydney Golf Club? Senator McKenzie 207825 Turns out he is a bit posh—Royal Sydney! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Mckenzie, don't continue with the running commentary. 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister discloses in accordance with the obligations that are incumbent upon him to the House of Representatives and under the ministerial code. What I would also say to those opposite is what I have said earlier. These are election commitments that were transparently, clearly committed to the Australian people. We ran on those publicly, we were elected to deliver them and we followed proper processes to deliver those commitments— An honourable senator: Unlike you! Senator WONG 00AOU Unlike you—in accordance with the Commonwealth grant rules and principles following the government's re-election. That was transparent. This is the same program, and I am very happy to tell you some of the other Liberal commitments which were also delivered under this program. Fuel Security 58 14:09 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. When Labor was elected in 2022, the first thing we had to deal with was an energy crisis. A decade of chaotic coalition policy left our country in a situation where, despite being one of the largest gas producers in the world, we have been forced to manage shortages and— Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, please resume your seat. I shouldn't need to remind the chamber that Senator Ghosh has an absolute right to ask his question in silence, and that is what I expect. Senator Ghosh, please continue. Senator GHOSH 257613 A decade of chaotic coalition policy has left our country in a situation where, despite being one of the world's largest gas producers, we have been forced to manage shortages and price shocks at home. Minister, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to put Australia first and secure more affordable gas for Australian households and businesses? 14:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Ghosh. Today the Albanese Labor government announced our plan for a domestic gas reservation. It is a landmark Labor reform. It will deliver affordable gas for Australians and shield our economy from global shocks. It will reserve up to 20 per cent of gas export for Australians, putting downward pressure on prices and fixing gas supply shortages. These are reforms that would have been much simpler had they been delivered late last century or early this century. That is the truth. But we are delivering them today. I grew up in regional Australia, and I worked in Australian manufacturing as a trade union representative for most of my working life, and I saw I saw what happened to Australian manufacturing when— Senator AYRES 16913 It may be a laughing matter. There are a few undeclared clubs over there, I can tell you, particularly the ones that don't let women in that some of these characters are in. Now, we will legislate this scheme to make sure Australian gas is reserved for Australians, particularly, in my world of experience, for Australian industry. It's been welcomed by manufacturers. BlueScope were on the record early today making it very clear that this will support future investment and A Future Made in Australia. Manufacturing Australia, which represents heavy industry in Australia and has been fighting for this reform for 15 years, are determined to deliver this reform and are looking to this parliament to see who votes for it. This is all about Australian gas for Australian industry, and it will deliver certainty, security and energy resilience for decades to come. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary. 14:12 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Australians rightfully expect that our country's natural resources will be used to power Australian jobs, manufacturing and long-term economic security. How will the plan announced by the Albanese government today help make our country stronger, safer and more resilient? 14:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Ghosh. That is exactly what this is about. The former government did not deal with this set of questions. When we came to government, gas was sitting at around $60 a gigajoule, and today we have an opportunity to reshape the gas market so that it acts in Australia's interests. The last government was not able to grapple with this. At the last election campaign Mr Dutton devised a plan on the back of an envelope—a gas reservation plan that delivered no gas, reserved no gas. We are about taking the serious steps that are required in Australia's national interest to make sure Australian gas is reserved for Australian industry and for Australian households. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary. 14:13 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia It's clear that the Albanese Labor government is committed to putting— Senator GHOSH 257613 Thank you, Senator Canavan. It's clear that the Albanese government is committed to putting the needs of Australians first and putting the national interests of Australians first, from reserving Australian gas to securing Australian industry, as with the recent investment in the Tomago aluminium smelter. Minister, are there any obstacles to the government's plan to prioritise the needs of Australians? Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm waiting for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I've called for silence. It applies to you. 14:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales (—) (): We make no apologies for putting Australians first, whether that's by reserving gas for Australians or securing local industry. I read with real concern coverage of the speech of One Nation's candidate for the New South Wales state seat of Cessnock. If we do what Mr Newman proposes—and, usually, if the One Nation crowd suggests it, the Nationals and the Liberals do it—it would mean the immediate closure of the Tomago aluminium facility and it would mean that billions of dollars of rail investment go overseas again. It's because Mr Newman is just another Liberal. He is a Sydney toff from a harbourside mansion who wants to run in Cessnock. The consequence of delivering what this bilingual toff proposes would be lost jobs, lost investment— (Time expired) Fiscal Policy 59 14:15 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. At Senate estimates on 26 May this year, infrastructure department officials disclosed that they obtained the list of invitation-only projects for funding under the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Has either the Prime Minister or his office raised his commitment to provide $6 million to the Marrickville golf club with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and, if so, was this commitment raised prior to his department providing the list of projects to the infrastructure department? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can certainly confirm this commitment was raised prior to that point because it was publicly and transparently released to the Australian community and publicly committed to along with all of our other election commitments. All of those election commitments were transparently communicated to the Australian people and then they were delivered on through government. As I said before, governments are entitled, and all political parties are entitled, to make election commitments. You made many. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU Secondly, we delivered this in accordance with the way in which the Audit Office indicated election commitments should be delivered—that is, through properly designed administered grants programs. That is how governments should deliver on their election commitments and that is what we did. Also, the grants to deliver those election commitments must follow proper processes in accordance with the Commonwealth grants rules and principles, and that is what we did. Senator, as you would understand, of course the government ensures that we deliver on our election commitments across government, and that is what we are doing. But, as I said, Senator Paterson, the Prime Minister was not the decision-maker. Under this very program, I am also pleased to indicate to you that Mr Pasin, who committed $500,000 in upgrades in Murray Bridge— Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Come on, it's Murray Bridge. You have to actually listen to this. As a South Australian, I ask you to please listen about Murray Bridge. On 2 March, a $4.9 million grant to Murray Bridge— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Given that the list of invitation-only projects for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program was obtained from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who authorised the list as correct before it was provided to the department of infrastructure? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia These are election commitments. The commitments in it were authorised by the Australian people and those people who voted for the Labor candidate—or the Liberal candidate, in accordance with their democratic rights. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Given that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provided the full list of projects for the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program to the infrastructure department, how is the Prime Minister not a decision-maker when it comes to the Marrickville golf club being invited to apply for a $6 million grant? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again say these commitments were delivered in accordance with the Commonwealth grant guidelines transparently. In accordance with the normal departmental processes for the delivery of election commitments, the Prime Minister was not a decision-maker. What I would also say to those opposite— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath! The level of interjection is disorderly and disrespectful. I've called over and over again for order, and it seems the more I call order, the more you shout. Listen in silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU The final point I would make on this is this is precisely the same process the coalition would have taken had they won government. International Relations: Australia and Israel 60 14:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong. Twelve countries, including Canada, the UK and France, have announced the introduction of bans on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Despite three years of saying you will work with like-minded countries, your government has refused to take the same steps. In recent weeks, two Palestinian teenagers were shot and killed by IDF soldiers and settlers. Five students from that same school have been murdered this year alone. On the same day, settlers razed to the ground another Palestinian community, the 66th to be wiped off the map in just three years. Will you admit that your government won't ban trade with illegal settlements like these allies have because you only care about placating the US and receiving applause from the depraved Israeli government? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, first, in relation to that last assertion, I would remind you and I would remind the chamber that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has made very clear their displeasure at the actions that the Albanese government has taken, including, as I indicated, the action that was being taken in relation to Australian diplomats in Ramallah, including the statements that Prime Minister Netanyahu has made. Some of the action we have been taking I outlined yesterday, and I will do so again. I would note, because of what has been asserted in the question, that the UK foreign secretary has said that the UK hopes the legislation to give effect to this would be in place in six to nine months. We currently have sanctions on Israeli extremists for the settler violence terrorising Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Our sanctions target extremist settlers. Our sanctions target entities including settlements, who are responsible for the horrific violence and human rights abuses. So right now, already, Australians cannot trade with those entities or individuals, and those sanctions 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, and there are substantial offences associated with the breach of those sanctions. We have taken action with international partners to respond to the actions of the Netanyahu government, which are clearly aimed at the extinguishment of the possibility of a two-state solution. They include not only the sanctions I have described earlier but also the travel bans and the targeted financial sanctions on Israeli ministers and others that I have described. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, speaking in parliament this week, the UK foreign secretary said: The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. Do you agree with your UK counterpart and every credible human rights organisation that settler terrorists are committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank? Will you call them 'terrorists'? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we have said and I have said, including just now, that we have sanctioned Israeli extremists for the abhorrent settler violence terrorising Palestinian communities. We have made that clear. That is one of the actions we have taken. We will continue to work with others and to do what we can, as part of an international effort, to keep a two-state solution alive. That is why I announced this week that we are pursuing further targeted measures in coordination with others to deter illegal settlements and settler violence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales You still can't call them 'terrorists' or call what they're doing 'ethnic cleansing'! In your statement on Tuesday, you said you would not impose a blanket ban, in part due to the unintended consequences for Palestinians—Palestinians who have been systematically murdered, tortured, imprisoned, displaced and abused for decades. Has a single Palestinian person or organisation supported your decision not to impose a trade ban, or are you hiding behind Palestinian suffering to justify refusing to do what a dozen other countries have done? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again say to you that those countries that have been part of that statement have flagged an intention to move on those specific issues in the future, just as Australia has flagged our intention to move on further targeted sanctions and other measures in the future. I would also make the point that we certainly do not want to see Palestinian jobs and livelihoods affected. We do not want to see Australians being penalised for buying Palestinian goods. We certainly will continue to work closely with the United Kingdom and Canada to see how they resolve those unintended consequences, but we are taking action now. Women's Health 61 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. This week is Women's Health Week. Happy Women's Health Week! For too long, women's pain was dismissed, their symptoms went undiagnosed and they paid more for the medicines they needed, including for contraceptives, menopausal hormonal therapy and endometriosis treatments. Can the minister outline how many women have benefited from cheaper medicines under the Albanese Labor government and how this has helped make their lives better while also addressing cost-of-living challenges? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for that question, and I also say how pleased I am that she's chairing the Select Committee on Women's Health, because the work that she and others in this place did in the last term informed the women's health package that we delivered. I have no doubt that there will be more heading our way with the select committee's work. For too long, women's health has been overlooked and treated as a side issue. Our government is putting it at the centre of our agenda because caring for women's health isn't optional; it's essential. Since our landmark $800 million women's health package, I've heard from women right across the country who felt that that package has made such a difference to their lives. We've capped the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at just $25. Also, for the first time in 30 years, we've listed new contraceptive pills on the PBS, and, for the first time in 20 years, we've listed the first new menopause treatments on the PBS. Over one million Australian women have now accessed cheaper medicines for contraception, endometriosis and menopause as a result of that plan, and that means they've been paying less and have access to a greater range of treatments and contraception. Since March 2025, more than four million cheaper prescriptions have been filled, saving women across Australia over $150 million. We know that the benefits of this are spread across contraception, menopause hormone therapies and endometriosis treatments. For too long, women were told that pain was normal, their symptoms were a part of life, and if they wanted treatment they'd have to pay for it. Women asked our government to take their health seriously, and we have listened. Our women's health package is delivering more choice and saving women hundreds of dollars every year. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, for years women have paid hundreds of dollars a year for contraceptives, menopause and endometriosis treatments. Many wait years for a diagnosis. They pay too much for long-acting contraception or go through menopause without knowing where to turn for information or support. How is the Albanese Labor government improving access, choice and affordability of health care for Australian women? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, it's the work that was done by the committee that Senator Smith was involved in last term and the work led by Minister Ged Kearney that helped put together the women's health package based on a lot of research and work done over a long period of time. We're expanding bulk-billing. We're increasing Medicare support for long-term contraception, such as IUDs and implants, saving women about $400 in out-of-pocket costs and giving women more control over their reproductive health. All of our 33 endo and pelvic pain clinics are open across the country, and they now also support perimenopause and menopause care. More than 137,000 women have undergone a Medicare menopause health assessment, and we've launched the first ever national awareness campaign on menopause and perimenopause, which I hope everyone in this chamber has seen. 14:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, we know that investing in women's health not only improves wellbeing but also helps women to participate fully and thrive at work. How does improving health care for women support women's economic security and equality, and what additional actions is the Albanese Labor government doing to support working women? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Smith outlines in her question, we are looking at how we drive gender equality, how we better support women and how we make the economy work better for women from a whole-of-government point of view. We know that women's health can't be separated from women's equality. If women aren't healthy, they can't fully participate in work, family or community life. That's why our women's health package has been so important and centred to some of the big decisions we've taken in this space. It's also why we're expanding paid parental leave and paying super on it. It's why we're funding those pay rises for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, guaranteeing three days of early education and care, ensuring that super is paid on time, and collecting and publishing gender pay gap data and making sure that it stays at the lowest it's ever been on record. There is more work to do, Senator Smith, and I look forward to seeing your report. Economy 63 14:31 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Tuesday night, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank said that everywhere he travels in Australia he hears 'cost, cost, cost, inflation, inflation, inflation'. He said that Australians are furious about inflation—his words. Consumer confidence is weak and prices are 10, 15 or 20 per cent higher than people remember. After four years in office, Australian families are still paying the price for Labor's inflation. Minister, when will inflation come back to the Reserve Bank's target? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We understand that Australians are under pressure, which is why this government has been so clear about the priority we afford to tax cuts. Tax cuts, which I note, Senator, that you opposed and tax cuts that you described as egregious—it may have been you; it might have been someone else. I think it was you, Senator—egregious. I would say to you that one of the first principles we have applied is that we want to make sure we do what we can to reduce taxes on wage earners, particularly, and ensure that there are increases to wages as much as we can do. That is what we have done. We've made a lot of progress, but there is a lot more work to do. Australians are under pressure. I would make the point that we have seen jobs growth. We've seen the lowest average unemployment rate for any government in half a century, and we've seen annual wages growing above three per cent for some 16 consecutive quarters. I would make the point that those opposite come in here to complain about the cost of living, but they oppose the tax cuts that are going into Australians' pockets. They don't support increases in the minimum wage. They have opposed cost-of-living measures, and they have opposed measures like the increases in bulk billing, cheaper medicines, the energy price rebates— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I assume that's an 'I don't know'. The deputy governor also warned that, if the current path on inflation is no longer feasible, the Reserve Bank will raise rates further. Labor has failed to reduce inflationary pressure, and its public spending has contributed to interest rate rises for Australian mortgage holders. Minister, if the Reserve Bank decides to raise rates again at the end of this month, will you consider changing your fiscal policy? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say, Senator, is it is the case that— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU I would make the point that inflation is substantially less than when we came to office, but it is also the case that inflation remains a challenge in the economy, and the government is very conscious of that. And it is a— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU I would again say that, yes, inflation is higher than we of course would like it to be. It is higher globally. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Oh, dear. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt 245759 It's Jane's question, Bridget. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll remind you, Senator Watt, that Minister Wong is answering the question. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. I remind those opposite that, as I was saying, many economies across the global economy—and particularly the advanced, industrialised economies—are experiencing inflation. Inflation has been stubbornly high, in part because we have seen the ongoing effects— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The deputy governor said inflation is 'unfair', that 'it hits people on low incomes' and that Australians want inflation brought down. Australians are still facing prices that are 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent higher than they remember, and they're now confronting the prospect of another interest rate rise. Minister, will an interest rate rise at the end of September increase or decrease the average Australian's purchasing power? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I make the point—we are very focused on what it is we can do to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are under. We are also very focused on all that needs to be done to try and relieve the inflationary pressures in the economy. That is our focus. I know the focus on that side is to try and play politics with the economy and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, on a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 On relevance—will it increase or decrease purchasing power? It's pretty simple. The PRESIDENT 112096 And there was an earlier part to your question. The minister is being relevant to the question, Senator Hume. Senator WONG 00AOU What else is pretty simple is: do you support tax cuts or not? That's pretty simple, isn't it? What else is pretty simple, Senator Hume, is: do you support higher wages or not? That's pretty simple, isn't it? What else is pretty simple is: do you support more bulk-billing? That's pretty simple too. Do you support cheaper child care? Do you support work from home? They're all pretty simple questions. We know what your answer is. Indigenous Health 64 14:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Access to clean clothes and bedding is fundamental to good health and dignity. But, for many people living in remote communities, access to reliable washing facilities can be very, very difficult. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering real change by investing in community led laundry facilities to improve health and wellbeing in remote First Nations communities? 14:39 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Sterle for the question. We know how hard Senator Sterle works for the communities of Western Australia. It is a simple concept, but laundries can have an incredibly important impact. Access to clean clothes, towels and bedding is fundamental, and it helps reduce irritants and infections that can lead to serious but preventable illnesses, including trachoma, acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. The Albanese Labor government is investing $11.4 million in the Remote Community Laundries Project, delivering new and upgraded laundry facilities across more than a dozen remote communities and homelands in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. I've been able to announce 10 First Nations organisations that have been selected to deliver these projects in partnership with local communities. These laundries provide free access to commercial-grade washing machines and dryers, clean hot water and medicative detergents. These investments will support communities including Galiwin'ku, Lajamanu, Milingimbi, Ramingining, Nauiyu and the Urapuntja homelands. In Queensland, we'll be supporting Mapoon, Napranum, Weipa—and Laura, Senator Watt. In WA—I can let you know—laundries are coming to Mulan and Fitzroy Crossing. Importantly, I can tell all senators that these are community led solutions. First Nations organisations will work directly with communities to ensure these services reflect local priorities while creating local jobs through the construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities. And that means economic development, better health outcomes and the dignity that should not be denied to any Australian. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:41 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia According to research by the CSIRO, eight out of 10 Aboriginal babies living remotely will contract scabies before their first birthday. This can cause serious diseases later in life, such as rheumatic heart disease and chronic kidney disease. What has been the feedback on the ground from communities that are benefiting from the remote laundries project? I have heard it as well. 14:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I was able to get to Galiwin'ku, Ramingining and Milingimbi to make the announcement that they would be receiving these community laundries and to hear directly from them about the impact that these laundries will have. Bettina, the founder and chairperson of Galiwin'ku Women's Space, will host their laundry, and that women's space and the community there said they're very happy that it's open to the whole community. Not just the women, but the whole community can use it, and it is a very much-needed space. Bettina went on to say lots of people don't have washing machines and dryers and it makes their homes unhealthy, not having that ability to wash and clean. Research showed that, when the laundry was established in the Barunga community, the rate of scabies dropped by 60 per cent. Community laundries work, and so, too, does working in partnership with Aboriginal communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm so proud to see the work that you, Minister, and the Albanese Labor government are achieving with results in remote laundries, remote jobs, economic development and remote urgent care clinics. Are there any obstacles standing in the way of the government's approach to investing in remote communities and working to close the gap? 14:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, when those opposite—One Nation and the coalition—collaborate on policy development and call for the abolition of Indigenous spending, it is programs like remote laundries that they want to cut. When they hear the heartbreaking statistics on scabies and rheumatic heart disease, they offer no policy solutions, just cuts to services, because One Nation and the coalition want to use First Nations people as a cheap political talking point, because you're happy to stoke culture wars. But I want to assure the Australian people that, while they're over there chasing their tails, we're certainly getting on with delivering—delivering remote laundries, delivering 6,000 jobs in remote communities, delivering urgent care clinics and delivering on doubling the number of Indigenous Rangers. Superannuation 65 14:44 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. Can you confirm that, under clause 29 of the enterprise agreement, staff of members of parliament are able to choose whether they take 3.4 per cent of their wage as a super contribution or as extra salary? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her question. This was a policy that the coalition introduced into the enterprise bargaining arrangements in 2017. It was not supported by the Labor Party. We've delivered a 12 per cent super guarantee, and, of course, we're waiting to see whether or not One Nation supports that 12 per cent guarantee. My guess is that One Nation does not support that 12 per cent guarantee. So we found ourselves in a situation where, coming to government, this arrangement was in place. But, in addition to those arrangements, the government then sought and succeeded in increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland When One Nation advocates for seven million Australians paying rent or a mortgage to take three per cent of their super for three years, the Treasurer claims it would 'end super as we know it'. Minister, are you ending super as we know it by allowing politician staff to do the exact same thing your Treasurer has rejected? 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her first supplementary question. I think you've got to stop reading the newspapers on this matter, Senator Hanson, and look at the reality of what is going on here. The fact that One Nation has suddenly become a champion of workers' rights and is trying to give workers increases in their salary—Senator Hanson, you've opposed every single wage rise that this government has supported. You've opposed every single one of them. To the best of my recollection, Senator Hanson, you didn't support the increase in superannuation. Suddenly, you think that, by destroying the superannuation system that this government has built over a lifetime, somehow that is of benefit to the workers that you are claiming to support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I remind you to address your answers to the chair. Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I can understand you're very embarrassed by this. It's very hypocritical that you are actually trying to make out that it's got absolutely nothing to do with this. Political staff— Government senators Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Senator Hanson. Order on my right! I once again remind the chamber that Senator Hanson has the right to put her question in silence. Please continue, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 Political staff are probably doing much better than the average Australian, probably because they can get a 3.4 per cent super pay boost. Why does your government give the staff of politicians and Treasurer Jim Chalmers the flexibility with superannuation that you refuse to give to many Australians doing it tough? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her second supplementary question. It's going to be very difficult to embarrass me, Senator Hanson. I have been in this place so long and so many things have been done to me in politics that it's virtually impossible to embarrass me, and can I say that this issue is not going to be one of those that embarrasses me. Senator Hanson, you should be the one being embarrassed. The reality is that you've never, ever supported— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please direct your answers to me. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm sorry, President. Of course I will. You've never, ever supported the compulsory superannuation system which is a world-leading achievement of this country but also the Labor government. This scheme only came in under Labor. (Time expired) Disaster and Emergency Management 66 14:49 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McAllister. Emergency services across the country are undertaking significant planning, training and readiness activities to ensure communities are prepared for the upcoming higher risk weather season. As part of this work, the National Emergency Management Agency is hosting the annual National Preparedness Summit currently taking place right here in Canberra. Can the minister please outline how the Albanese Labor government is working with states and territories to prepare for the higher risk weather season? 14:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question, Senator O'Neill. You are right to point to the work of emergency services, and we thank them for their contribution and everything that they do for our communities. It's difficult work, but it's work that we depend on, and we are so grateful. Our government too is focused on making sure that Australia is better prepared for the high-risk weather season. We can't eliminate disaster risk, but we can make sure that communities, governments and emergency services are as prepared as they can be and ready to work together when disaster strikes. That is why the Albanese Labor government is working closely with the states and territories who hold primary responsibility for disaster response to strengthen our national preparedness and our response capability. This week, the National Emergency Management Agency is bringing together crisis management experts from governments, from industry and from the not-for-profit sector in the National Preparedness Summit. I will acknowledge Minister Watt, who was the first minister to convene this, and the work the ongoing work from Minister McBain in the other place. This is an incredibly important summit. It's an opportunity to share lessons, test preparations and make sure that we are ready for the season ahead. This preparation doesn't just happen as a one-off once a year. Back in June, NEMA held Exercise Nexus, testing our national ability to respond to and recover from catastrophic all-hazards crises. NEMA continues to work with governments, with emergency services, with industry and with community to strengthen arrangements for the 2026-27 season. It matters because of the conditions that we're facing. More than 70 per cent of our local government areas have been affected by natural disasters since 2022. The latest seasonal bushfire outlook indicates heightened fire risk across parts of several states and territories, while the bureau has also indicated that El Nino is under way and could persist until at least the summer. The message is clear; we need to be ready. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary. 14:52 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The seasonal outlooks are telling us that there's an elevated risk across several parts of the country and that we must be ready. Many Australians know the serious impacts of these risks and how important preparation is for community safety. What is the government's message to communities across the country ahead of the high-risk weather season? 14:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The message is very simple. Prepare now so you are ready when it matters. Our government is working closely with the states and territories to help communities prepare for the season ahead. There are some really simple steps that everyone can take. You need to know the risks in your local area. You need to have a plan for what you and your family will do if you need to leave, and you need to make sure that you have the supplies that you need. It's also really important to know where to get trusted emergency information. It's why this year the government is delivering real change with AusAlert, our new cell-broadcast system that can send timely emergency management warnings directly to compatible mobile devices. AusAlert provides an important additional layer to the emergency information that Australians already rely on, but no single source should be relied on alone. You need to make sure you're connected to multiple trusted sources. That includes the official state and territory emergency services, the Bureau of Meteorology, and your emergency broadcaster. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary. 14:54 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales We know Australians are facing increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters. The Albanese Labor government has strengthened the government's capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters, particularly ones like bushfires. What measures have the government invested in to prepare for this high-risk weather season? 14:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, on this side of the chamber we know that the climate is changing, and we know that communities can expect to experience increasing risks. We also know that government has a responsibility to prepare for those risks, so we're strengthening Australia's capacity to respond to and recover from disasters. Senator McGrath 217241 Apart from cutting funding in Queensland. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We're investing, Senator McGrath, in the National Emergency Management Stockpile so specialist equipment can be rapidly deployed when a disaster strikes. We're investing in the national aerial firefighting fleet, increasing surge capacity so aircraft can be deployed where they're needed the most. We are supporting the Northern Australia fire information service, helping fire managers and Indigenous ranger groups understand and manage fire risk. And we're investing in resilience, before disaster strikes, through the Disaster Ready Fund. More than 449 projects have progressed, with more than $1.1 billion committed by the Albanese government and our partners to strengthen communities against disasters. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the next senator, I remind senators that we have a hard marker at 3 pm. So, wherever we are in question time, it will come to a stop. Senator Canavan? Housing 67 14:55 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. For most Australians, their home is their biggest financial decision. Property analysts at Cotality say that recent buyers are at the greatest risk of negative equity, and economist Cameron Kushner says that Labor's tax changes have made the housing market weaker. Minister, how many Australians are now watching their life savings disappear because their home is worth less than they paid for it under this government's policies? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I'd make is on the assertion of negative equity. I would just point out that the Commonwealth Bank reported in their full year results that negative equity in their portfolio had dropped from 0.8 per cent to 0.5 per cent, and that around the country, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia, fewer than one per cent of mortgage holders are in negative equity. The point I would make is that—as I have been advised—in 2019, under your government, just over two per cent of borrowers were in negative equity. So, despite the campaign from you, in fact it is now less than half of that. I think this really demonstrates the way in which the coalition is dealing with these issues of housing policy. They are desperate to engage in talking down the market and talking down the economy and have not engaged with the fundamental point, which is that either you are on the side of young Australians who are trying to enter the housing market—either you believe that the great Australian dream should not just be for those who already have houses but should be extended—or you believe that we should continue to have an uneven, unequal playing field as it is between investors buying many homes and a young family buying their first home. We are very clear that homeownership is part of what this government wants to deliver. We are very clear that this is central to how Australians see and experience their security. We believe more young Australians should be entitled to get into the housing market, and we are backing them. We are backing them through the five per cent deposit scheme. We are backing them by ensuring investment goes into more houses, and we are backing them by a fairer tax system. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, your first supplementary? 14:58 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I note the data you quoted there, Minister, only went to the end of June—just weeks after your budget—but more recent data from Cotality says that half of homes bought in Sydney and Melbourne are past 12 months are now worth less than their purchase price and, nationally, one in three recent buyers would sell for less than they pay paid. These are not numbers on a spreadsheet; these are young Australians who are now facing going backwards on their biggest asset. How many of them are now—not back in June but now—trapped in negative equity? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I'd say to you, Senator Canavan, is that when those who were in negative equity were around double the number, in terms of the numbers that Ive just quoted to you from when you were in government, I don’t recall you being the champion on this issue. I don't recall you arguing for a fairer deal for young Australians. The fact is, you are either a government, a party, that believes that you want to extend homeownership to more Australians or a party that says, 'No, we don't think government's got a role in that. We're happy with fewer young Australians getting to the housing market.' Senator Canavan, unfortunately, you and your party and the rest of the right-wing coalition, whether it's the Liberals or One Nation, are all on the same page on this. You don't want more young people into the housing market. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. We are at the hard marker of 3 pm. We will move on. BILLS 68 BILLS Statute Update Bill 2026 68

Statute Update Bill 2026

Second Reading 68 15:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to support the Statute Update Bill 2026 and in particular the amendment that will be moved by the coalition to 'scrap Labor's cruel veterans tax'. That's right: today is a test. In about 30 minutes, the Senate is going to go for a vote, and it is going to be a test for the Prime Minister of this country, Anthony Albanese. Is he directing his Labor senators to support our amendment to stand with the veterans of Australia and scrap his cruel veterans tax? It is also a test, though, for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh. He keeps on saying to the veterans: 'I have listened to you. I have heard you.' We heard that from Senator Wong this week: 'The government has heard what the veterans have to say.' Well, given that the veterans have told you they don't want your cap on their allied health, I will assume that, when those division bells ring, you will join the rest of the crossbench and the coalition and you will scrap your cap on allied health. Quite frankly, these veterans have served our country. They have stood up for Australia, for the freedoms that we live and breathe on a daily basis, and how dare you look them in the eye and thank them for their service by putting a $5,000 price tag on their care? I tell you the coalition will stand with our veterans each and every single day. We have listened to them. We have met with them. We didn't roll our eyes at them. And I can tell you we absolutely shook their hands when they came into our office, unlike their minister, who is meant to be the person in Australia who actually stands up for them. Our amendment is clear. It will well and truly scrap the Prime Minister of Australia's cruel cap on allied health for our veterans who have served our country, because, unlike the Prime Minister and unlike the minister, the coalition doesn't look at our veterans and say: 'We've got a black hole to fill in our budget because of our financial mismanagement, and do you know what I see? I see a bit of a cut there with our veterans. They've served our country. They've come back here. They're injured. But, you know, perhaps they won't notice if we actually take $748 million in a save.' The veterans of Australia! Well, guess what. The coalition looks at our veterans very differently. We look at our veterans and what we see is a debt that this country must honour. Australia made a promise to our veterans: if you stand up for your country, your country will stand by you. We know that promise does not expire when the uniform comes off, and I tell you it should not expire when a veteran's allied health care reaches the cap of $5,000. You can call it a cap. You can call it a threshold. You can rebadge it. You can bury it in bureaucratic language and you can make excuses for it. But it doesn't actually change what you are doing to the veterans of Australia. It was heartbreaking to see some of them outside Parliament House, Canberra this week laying down their medals—medals that they had earned for bravery, medals they had earned for standing up not just for their country but for each and every one of us in this chamber so that we can live and breathe democracy on a daily basis. And how do you repay those veterans? You repay them by putting in place a cap on their health care for injuries they sustained while serving our country, because you have lost control of the economy. Colleagues, at 3.30 today the bells are going to ring. And I hope the Prime Minister of Australia is on the phone to Minister Keogh and to Senator Wong, saying to them, 'Support the coalition,' because in supporting the coalition you support the veterans. Prime Minister, in about 25 minutes, our veterans will know: do you stand with them or are you going to fail them and betray them yet again? (Time expired) 15:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm going to speak to the Statute Update Bill as it is proposed by the government, and then, given that we will have very limited time or no time in committee, I'll seek to address some of the amendments as best as I can in the limited opportunity. Firstly, the Statute Update Bill is the Albanese Labor government's recognition of the importance of maintaining the statute book so that it is clear, accurate and accessible. Clear, readable and factual legislation is fundamental to the operation of our systems and our laws. These laws as they have been previously known have been progressed through the parliament since at least 1934. The bills have always sought to remove obsolete, spent provisions, correct drafting errors and otherwise improve the readability of the Commonwealth statute book. Indeed, governments of both political persuasions have in the last 10 years progressed comparable bills that achieve this important public priority. Bills were progressed in 2016 and 2017 by Attorney-General Brandis, in 2018 and 2020 by Attorney-General Porter and, most recently, in 2023 by Attorney-General Dreyfus. The bill before the Senate today is very much in the same tradition as these previous iterations. The Statute Update Bill, as it stands, makes minor and technical amendments across the Commonwealth statute book to enhance clarity, facilitate interpretation and support the effective administration of legislation. The process for identifying, complying with and drafting these amendments is expertly led by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, or OPC. The Attorney-General and their department play a coordination role in progressing this work. The bill amends 42 Commonwealth acts and repeals 106 obsolete acts. These amendments would improve the quality of legislation and ensure that it can be easily understood. The laws should be accessible and readable to all. That's why this bill is proposed. It's a very good public outcome. The level of specificity that makes rights, obligations and limitations imposed through Commonwealth acts should be easily understood. Critically—and critically to the amendments that have been proposed—this bill makes amendments that are only of a technical nature. That is why the bill has been proposed. And it gives some context around the amendments that we are considering today. First of all, I will deal with the amendments moved by senators from the opposition and One Nation. The government will not be supporting these amendments. Regarding the opposition's amendments, there is very limited time for us to discuss this issue. In this short amount of time I have, I want to recognise that the government is concerned that the amendments as proposed would have unintended consequences for the compensation and care provided to veterans and families by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The department is already undertaking consultation with veterans, families of veterans, allied health providers, peak bodies, ex-service organisations and other stakeholders. The intent of those consultations, which are currently underway, is to ensure that the changes to the system do not result in a gap in services for veterans who have a clinical need to access allied health services. The date for the implementation of these reforms is still 10 months away. Allowing time to ensure that we get it right is important for the scrutiny of this Senate. People can register for the consultations and review the discussion paper, and it will be open until 30 October 2026. This bill, in the government's view, is not the appropriate mechanism to make these amendments, which pre-empt these consultations with the veteran community. I will say, while I have the opportunity, that the government takes all the recommendations of the royal commission incredibly seriously. Indeed, it is our government that has sought to address the backlog. The backlog would never have been reduced under those opposite, because, unfortunately, when those opposite—including you, Senator Cash—stood around the cabinet table you were not able to provide the record amounts of funding that we have provided to reform the veterans system once and for all. In fact, it was your former minister, former minister Gee, who referred to your approach in the veterans system as a 'national disgrace', so appalled that he resigned from his position. Our government is very proud of the work that we are doing to implement the royal commission recommendations, and we will work in consultation with the sector and with veterans to get this right when it comes to allied health. In conclusion, the government thanks senators for the consideration of this bill— (Time expired) 15:10 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'm not going to spend long talking about the substantive elements of the Statute Update Bill 2026. There are some grammatical changes that I think are really pressing and should be adopted, but I will deal with the amendments before the Senate. Isn't it extraordinary that, after this groundswell of opposition from veterans across the country, the repeated calls for the government to reconsider the allied health cap, we're now forced to do this, late on a Thursday, and attach critical amendments to a statute update bill to actually say: 'Make sure you give veterans the physio they need. Make sure you give veterans the psych services they need. Make sure you give veterans the support they need'—sometimes to save themselves from some pretty tough circumstances. We're having to do this—attach it like a limpet—to the Statute Update Bill 2026. I know this has been circulated by the coalition, but I think it would be fair to see this as the 'Senator Lambie amendment', because I just want to put on record my respect for the work that Senator Lambie does in this space. But I also cast my mind back to when we first heard about this cap. We heard about it just before we had another Senate estimates investigation of Veterans' Affairs. I remember sitting there—and I'll give credit to Senator Scarr as well. Senator Scarr was getting his head around it—being connected with veterans and their community in Queensland—and peppering them with questions. I remember, just before that round of questioning started, also getting this avalanche of concerns coming to me from veterans, saying: 'What does this cap mean? What's it going to mean for me? A $5,000 cap—I spent that in the first three months on psych treatment. What's this going to mean for my ability to go and get my physio? It's the only way I can pick up my kids and play with my kids.' There was this wave of concern, because what actually happened was, without ever talking to the veterans community, running this really deceitful argument that it was all about tracking down fraud—and, to be honest, you just repeated the same thing in the NDIS space: running a fraud argument but actually stealing money from people who need the support. You ran this totally deceitful argument that it was about fraud and dodgy providers. Don't get me wrong: I reckon there are some dodgy providers in relation to veterans, and I reckon there are a handful of dodgy providers in the NDIS, and it's government's job to put in place systems that identify them early and winnow them out. When you're talking about this kind of system—to help veterans—you want to have a really low entrance way into getting treatment, and you're going to err on the side of providing treatment rather than putting veterans through endless bloody hoops while they wait months and months or years for basic treatment. In those circumstances, there will be some dodgy players who want to take advantage of it, and you have to accept there'll be a small amount of that in a scheme that's designed to provide timely care for veterans. But what this government did instead was point to that small element of it and say, 'The whole thing needs to be shut down.' Instead of going after the dodgy providers, they went after veterans—with nastiness towards them, without talking. I hear what the government says—that they've got this consultation process and to let the consultation process go through. How many times have we heard it, from either this government or the previous government? 'We're going to invite you in for a cup of tea and a biscuit after we've made the decision.' There's only one answer in this space. Let's vote for this and get this through, and maybe the government will see sense and pass it through the other house. But I'd give this invitation to the government: in this case, admit you were wrong. Admit that putting arbitrary caps on providing basic assistance to veterans is plainly wrong and say: 'Actually, we're going to pull the proposal. We're going to work with veterans on a scheme that ensures timely access to medical benefits and holds any dodgy players to account'—and that you're going to do that, walking together with veterans, over the next six months. I'm grateful for these amendments being brought before the chamber. In One Nation's amendments, again, they're running this same unprincipled argument. Apparently they didn't read the legislation they voted for two years ago, and now they want to fix it up. My advice to One Nation, like my advice to the coalition, is: maybe read the legislation in the first place, work out what legislation you're voting for and have voted for in the past, and don't do this—returning like a dog to its vomit. 15:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Well, this is very simple. All the important things that need to be said are being said and have been said. I take the point of the government speaker over here—that this bill is not meant for that and it shouldn't be. In fact, we shouldn't be here moving these amendments. I get that. We shouldn't have had to put this private member's bill. All we needed to hear was the Prime Minister or Minister Keogh come out and say, 'We will stop this and we won't put anything like this back in.' That's all we needed to hear. We've heard from the veterans all week. We've heard from people who are suffering all week. We've heard from that day in estimates when Senator Scarr, Senator Shoebridge—Senator Lambie was there—were asking about this and they were given two examples of the 25,000 veterans that suffer and go over this cap. So everything substantive has been said. This cap is wrong. This cap is not about health; this cap is about money. This amendment probably shouldn't be in this bill, but you have given this Senate chamber no other choice but to have it considered across the road. One statement from the Prime Minister, one simple statement, saying that he would back our veterans, bring this cap back and not even consider it would have been enough or had we had a minister that didn't want to go to afternoon teas, who met with veterans, heard their concerns and decided what was the right thing who came out and said that this is gone, that this would not be here. We are here playing this game because you have led us here. Even today, a veteran who is a provider can tell us about what Senator Shoebridge says, some of the non-normal practice that goes on. we have 120 people involved in the fraud or the investigation in part of DVA that's been upped by another 80 to 200 and they have taken no action even against the people that they were able to say in Senate estimates were providing this. It's not about fraud; it is about $748 million coming away from veterans who need it the most. That's what it is. The government sent people in here earlier in the week to talk about the investment they are making into veterans' health. Remember, the talking points, the investment they're making into it? I've never seen any investment that is negative $748 million in my life before. I wish I could go to an ATM and make an investment like that. But this is what this government is doing. I feel sorry for DVA. To me, this has all the hallmarks of them being required by a minister or a government to get a dividend. 'We need $750 million out of your budget. How are you going to find it? And this is the way we've come up with it.' So we're here today. This will go through and that is a good thing. What happens after here is more important. Will it see the light of day in the House as opposed to a private member's bill? Is it so important with everything else that it has to be considered, or will you say, 'Oh, too hard.' Or will, if hope prevails, the minister or the Prime Minister come out and say, 'We're sorry veterans. We got it wrong. We have heard you. We will do the right thing by you. We went back on our promise to you when you signed up but now we will get your back.' And then they sent it back here. We might not insist on this going through anymore. We may actually be able to walk away if we get the guarantees required from this government. But the damage is done to our veterans. They have lost trust in the government of this country that they served in. They have lost trust in the promises we make to them when they sign up. We're hearing stories about veterans who are telling their own children not to sign up because this can happen to them. How do we restore that faith for them? There have been phone calls, the meetings—everything. We've had people laying down medals outside of the parliament, people coming here and not being heard, people being really upset about their own futures, their own mental health and their own stories. What about their friends and their comrades? What about those who are injured, hurt and recovering—people like Senator Lambie here—who are more concerned for their comrades, their brothers and sisters in arms, who are suffering as well? The mateship and the true loyalty of the Australian armed forces member is that they can suffer but be more concerned for their friends. So we will pass this today. It is in your hands. Please, Prime Minister and Minister for Veterans Affairs, come out and say that you will scrap this cap and you will back our veterans. Then we can move on. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I welcome every chance I get to speak in support of our veterans. The people who stand between Australia and those who would do us harm should not have to fight for their health care. Labor needs to wake up to the needs of veterans. Just like my grandfather did at Gallipoli, these men and women put on a uniform so the rest of us don't have to. They run at bullets. They make decisions under fire that most of us will never face. They come home carrying wounds that do not always show. The least we can do is look after them when they return. Duty of care is suddenly sacred to Labor when the subject is internet algorithms. But that duty of care doesn't extend to the bodies and minds of those who served. Instead, this government wants a cap. It booked hundreds of millions in savings by placing a $5,000 annual limit on allied health for veteran card holders. After pressure from veterans, the language changed. All of a sudden, the $5,000 would trigger a review rather than a hard cap. Why are we putting our veterans through these additional hoops? This Labor government wastes enough money in a week to fund the veterans for a year. Stop making veterans pay for your wasteful spending. This is not abstract. Veteran groups say they were not properly consulted. The RSL has called for the measure to be withdrawn. Those most likely to hit the figure, the cohort the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was meant to protect, have the most complex injuries. The government says that most veterans spend less than the threshold and that clinically necessary care will continue. If that is true, scrap the hard number, target the few providers who overservice and do not ration those who need the care. Minister Keogh's conduct has been appalling. When veteran delegations came to Canberra to raise their legitimate concerns, he at first declined to take the meeting—he had a ceremonial commitment with the Governor-General. He eventually did meet. Veterans say they were met with contempt, no handshake on arrival, arms folded and an eye roll as they spoke about people already in crisis. The minister admits he got the first refusal wrong. When former service people say they felt disdain from the minister responsible for them, that is a trust problem. Minister Keogh should be removed, but the PM has no spine. He has lost the trust of the veteran community. One Nation stands beside veterans to receive the support they need and deserve. I have met with veterans groups, and I will keep meeting them. We are here to listen. That is Labor's problem. This government is too arrogant to listen to the people it is meant to protect. There should not be controversial amendments. Let's not skimp on life-changing care that could be the difference between life and death. Suicide amongst our veterans is unacceptably high. We have had a royal commission. Labor accepted almost every recommendation. Then they turn around and force veterans to fight for the basic care that they need. Let's not have any more needless loss of life because of bureaucracy's underfunding. One Nation will also be raising another amendment to this legislation, the Statute Update Bill 2026. The amendment will restore the definition of 'hors de combat'—the test that decides when a person is out of the fight for certain war crime offences—to the definition in the Criminal Code from 2002, before it was changed in 2024. The 2024 update applied that definition retrospectively to 2002. We ask our soldiers to go into battle for us. They make impossible decisions under duress. In 2024, this parliament altered that definition and applied it to conduct from September 2002. The government says it corrected a drafting error and aligned the code with the Geneva conventions. But, in effect, it lowers the barrier for criminal proceedings and judges veterans against a rule that was not the rule when they served. Any changes must be prospective. War crimes exist. There is a threshold of behaviour that is never acceptable, but retrospectively changing the legal expectations of combat puts veterans in needless legal jeopardy. If the change is merely technical as claimed, it does not need to reach back 20 years. If it is necessary, apply it to future operations and train people to that standard. Our veterans should be judged by the law that existed when they acted. One Nation welcomes the coalition's move to support veterans against the allied health limit. We hope that they will support our amendment to remove the retrospective change to the terms of combat—care when they come home, certainty about the law they served under. 15:25 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania What a hypocrite! What a hypocrite! Veterans, this is One Nation. They made us wait for a royal commission. In the last few days, they put a cartoon out there of one of the veterans saying he's a traitor and a gutless maggot. That's what she does with veterans. She's a hypocrite. She has no intention of helping you. She has absolutely none. She never has. Do not fall for her rubbish. I need to explain to you, veterans, what is going on out there right now. This is what is going on in here today. The coalition amendment will get rid of the $5,000 cap on veterans allied health, but it is attached to a piece of legislation called the Statute Update Bill. Also, before we go any further, I just remind you, veterans: stay calm because this cap does not start until 1 July next year. It's not being taken off you tomorrow. If you haven't already got that message, just stay calm because I can tell you the fight is not over by a long shot. I can tell you we have more ammo up our sleeves. Don't panic. We have 12 months. Just go about your lives. This amendment that is attached to the unrelated piece of legislation has already passed the lower house. It is coming up here to go through. We have made an amendment to that so we can send it back to the lower house, but the Labor Party has the numbers down there. So, more than likely, to get the Statute Update Bill through, they will get rid of this amendment and it will be voted down. If that happens, this bill will come, like I said, back up here without that amendment. What I need you guys in here to do is let those veterans know that we're serious. If it comes back up here, we knock it down. Without the amendment, we must hold our ground. We must stay strong. There is no room to cry wolf here. Stay cool and stay calm, veterans. Apart from the Labor Party, you have the rest of us on your side. It doesn't start till 1 July next year. Like I said, we have plenty of ammo still up our sleeve. Have a nice weekend. Keep it calm. 15:28 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I really thank the Senate for their work on holding the executive to account. We've seen a government that announced a $5,000 cap on veterans seemingly with zero consultation of veterans themselves. We've seen a government that has said: 'There are some dodgy providers, and so we need to put a cap on all veterans who are getting $5,000 of approved spending on allied health. Rather than going after the few dodgy providers, we're going to add yet more paperwork, yet more forms.' It's another visit to the GP. It's another thing for veterans who are desperately trying to be well and are seeking support for them to do so. We have not seen a government that is willing to listen to veterans, to listen to experts or to say: 'We got this wrong. Sorry about that. This is ill thought through.' Instead, they're just powering on with a plan that seems to have zero support not just in the veterans community but in the broader Australian community. So this is the Senate doing its job—holding the government to account. I really thank colleagues in the coalition, the Greens and One Nation for this opportunity. Limitation of Debate 72 15:29 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Pursuant to order agreed this morning, the time allotted for the remaining stages of this bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair, then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will begin with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 4093 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the 2026-27 Budget announced a $5,000 Annual Monetary Limit for Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) funded allied health services from 1 July 2027, and (ii) notwithstanding the Government's subsequent description of the measure as a review threshold, continuation of care above $5,000 would be subject to further justification and DVA approval once a veteran approaches the threshold; and (b) considers that access to allied health treatment should be determined by a veteran's individual clinical needs, not by expenditure approaching, reaching or being expected to exceed an arbitrary monetary threshold; and (c) calls on the Government to: (i) abandon the proposed $5,000 Annual Monetary Limit in its entirety, including its practical operation as an expenditure-triggered review or approval threshold, and (ii) support amendments to this bill to amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to protect veterans from monetary caps and expenditure-based restrictions on clinically necessary allied health treatment".  

The Senate divided. [15:34]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 15:36 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'll now deal with the committee of the whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 4094 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), after "Part 13", insert ", Division 1". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert: (3) Schedule 1, Part 13, page 25 (after line 1), insert: Division 1 — Technical amendments (4) Schedule 1, Part 13, page 26 (after line 23), at the end of the Part, add: Division 2 — Veterans' allied health care Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 127 Subsection 5(1) Insert: allied health professional includes a person who is any of the following: (a) a chiropractor; (b) a clinical psychologist or psychologist; (c) a diabetes educator; (d) a dietitian; (e) an exercise physiologist; (f) a neuropsychologist; (g) an occupational therapist; (h) an orthotist; (i) an osteopath; (j) a physiotherapist; (k) a podiatrist; (l) a prosthetist; (m) a social worker; (n) a speech pathologist; (o) a professional of a kind prescribed by the regulations. allied health treatment means treatment delivered by an allied health professional in their capacity as an allied health professional. 128 After subsection 286(1) Insert: Determination must not impose certain conditions on provision of allied health treatment (1A) A determination under subsection (1) must not include a condition (however expressed) that would have the effect of requiring: (a) the total cost of allied health treatment provided to a person under this Part during a period to be less than a specified amount; or (b) a person entitled to allied health treatment under this Part to contribute a specified amount towards the cost of the allied health treatment; or (c) a review to be conducted, or additional evidence, information or documents to be given to the Commission, in relation to allied health treatment to be provided to a person under this Part, solely or substantially because the total cost of allied health treatment provided to the person during a period is approaching, has reached or exceeded, or would be likely to reach or exceed, a specified amount; or (d) the provision of allied health treatment to a person under this Part to be delayed, suspended, discontinued or refused solely or substantially because the total cost of allied health treatment provided to the person during a period is approaching, has reached or exceeded, or would be likely to reach or exceed, a specified amount. Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (b), a determination must not, for example, include a condition requiring a co-contribution or gap-payment to be made in relation to an allied health treatment. Note 2: A determination may include other kinds of conditions in respect of allied health treatment, for example, conditions relating to clinical need, effectiveness, patient safety or fraud. 129 After Part 4 of Chapter 6 Insert: Part 4A — Other matters relating to treatment 303A Entitlement to allied health treatment must not be subject to cost threshold (1) This section applies in relation to: (a) treatment to which a person is entitled under Part 3 for an injury or disease; and (b) treatment to which a person is entitled under Part V of the VEA for an injury or disease; and (c) treatment to which a person is entitled under a provision prescribed by the regulations. (2) The entitlement to treatment must not be subject to a condition (however described) that would have the effect of requiring: (a) the total cost of allied health treatment provided to the person under the entitlement during a period to be less than a specified amount; or (b) a person entitled to allied health treatment under the entitlement to contribute a specified amount towards the cost of the allied health treatment; or (c) a review to be conducted, or evidence, information or documents to be given to the Commission, in relation to allied health treatment to be provided to the person under the entitlement, solely or substantially because the total cost of allied health treatment provided to the person during a period is approaching, has reached or exceeded, or would be likely to reach or exceed, a specified amount; or (d) the provision of allied health treatment to a person under the entitlement to be delayed, suspended, discontinued or refused solely or substantially because the total cost of allied health treatment provided to the person during a period is approaching, has reached or exceeded, or would be likely to reach or exceed, a specified amount. Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (b), the entitlement must not, for example, be subject to a condition requiring a co-contribution or gap-payment to be made in relation to an entitled allied health treatment. Note 2: The entitlement may be subject to other kinds of conditions in respect of allied health treatment, for example, conditions relating to clinical need, effectiveness, patient safety or fraud. 303B Entitlement to compensation for allied health treatment must not be subject to cost threshold (1) This section applies in relation to: (a) entitlement to compensation under Division 1A of Part 4 in respect of the cost of treatment; and (b) entitlement to compensation under section 16 of the DRCA in respect of the cost of treatment; and (c) entitlement to compensation under a provision prescribed by the regulations. (2) The entitlement to compensation must not be subject to a condition (however described) that would have the effect of limiting the entitlement so that the total compensation payable in respect of allied health treatment obtained by a person during a period must not exceed a specified amount. (3) Despite subsection (2), the entitlement to compensation may be subject to the condition that the amount of compensation payable must not be more than the amount actually incurred in obtaining the allied health treatment. 130 Application of amendments The amendments made to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 by this Division apply in relation to treatment, or compensation for treatment, that a person is entitled to on or after the commencement of this item (whether the entitlement first arose before, on or after that commencement).  

The Senate divided. [15:38]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.

15:39 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'll now deal with amendments circulated by One Nation. The question is that amendments on sheet 4121 be agreed to. One Nation's circulated amendment— SHEET 4121 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 5, insert: 5A Dictionary in the Criminal Code (definition of hors de combat ) Repeal the definition, substitute: hors de combat: a person is hors de combat if: (a) the person is in the power of an adverse party; and (b) the person: (i) clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (ii) has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and is therefore incapable of defending himself or herself; and (c) the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. 5B Application provision (1) The definition of hors de combat in the Dictionary in the Criminal Code, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to: (a) any conduct engaged in on or after 26 September 2002; and (b) any legal proceedings that are commenced on or after that day, if the proceedings have not been finally determined before the commencement of this item. (2) In this item, legal proceedings include any proceedings before a court or tribunal, and include proceedings that are pending.  

The Senate divided. [15:41]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

22 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Cash, M. C. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Paterson, J. W. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 10 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Lines, S. Chandler, C. Ayres, T. Colbeck, R. M. Ghosh, V. Hume, J. Chisholm, A. D. Liddle, K. J. Tyrrell, T. M. McDonald, S. E. Walsh, J. C. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Sterle, G. O'Sullivan, M. A. McCarthy, M. Roberts, M. I. Mulholland, C. Smith, D. A. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 15:44 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 78 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Carbon Farming Initiative—Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026 78 Disallowance 78 15:46 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026, made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, be disallowed [F2026L00835]. As we go through and we look at what this is meant to do and what it's all about, we see it's about a mechanism to give Australian carbon credit units out there for carbon assimilation, for actually doing something for the environment, for putting things in. The INFM method has been a rort from the beginning about the realism of what it does and what it's there for. It's being used to justify the establishment of the Great Koala National Park with no additionality for the environment. The trees that are there will stay. The animals that are there will stay. We are not seeing any more absorption by this. In fact, it is just creating millions of ACCUs at a discounted rate for the sake of a state government looking to fund a koala park. I've said here many times before that we saw what happened in the Pilliga in New South Wales when this happened. A group of 18,000 koalas lived in the Pilliga when it was locked up as national park, away from any state forest where logging happened. Just two years after it was locked up, a fire went through, and we now have the koala population of the Pilliga listed as functionally extinct. That is a population less than 500. That is all because we want to lock these things up. We want to do this and we just look for excuses. We're here with a method. We haven't got an order for production of documents from the ANU, where the Macintosh method, as it was called in the beginning, was established. We haven't got clarity about anything to do with the processes—who was involved, who contributed any gifts or undertakings or financing about how this goes. We're stuck with this being approved now. It is not good for the environment. It is all about a deal to lock up a section of land, and we've seen the stresses that this creates. We've seen the Greens' own think tank, the Australia Institute; the Bob Brown Foundation; and all sorts of other groups coming out and calling this for what it is: a rort. The test is today. I know this will go down, and we'll see who in this chamber has integrity about the ACCU system and those that want to do the deal, those that are environmentalists and those that are more pragmatists. We'll see people who will stand behind a koala or a platypus in the front building and end up giving cheap ACCUs to the very industries they say they hate, because that is what this will do while cutting the jobs of the people on the north coast. It's interesting. I want to talk about Matt and Kirsty Parker, who lost their contract to log in this forest. They had trees that were cut at their coupe ready to pick up, and instantly, when this was announced, they were stopped. Trees already felled lay there rotting and emitting because they were no longer allowed on. Interestingly, just three days ago, I was given a video by Matt Parker, as he's been rehired to go in there with his bulldozer to take down the path that he wasn't allowed to go down because there is a bushfire raging through that area and a thousand hectares have gone already. To those people up in the north coast, I say: I'm sorry we have failed to get the numbers here. To those people who will suffer because we now have millions and millions of ACCUs going on the market cheaply and given the effect of those: I'm sorry for what that will cause. This is opportunism over environmentalism. It is not a good way of going about counting ACCUs; it's not a good way of going about absorption. There is very little additionality in the process there. I know there are some arguments about what it could be and what it can be, but this should have been a better method. There are better methods out there. We've had inquiries in the Senate about the authenticity, the value, the rigour around ACCUs, and, as soon as we come to something like this, it's hands down and get it out the door and approve it as quickly as possible. I'm disappointed at where we are, but I accept it and I think it's a shame that today, quite frankly, a party that talks about the environment all the time will be the ones that put the final nail in the coffin of the rigour of ACCUs. 15:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will be opposing this motion. Today is a very significant day for the environment in Australia, for the koalas, the gliders, the birds and the trees that make up Australia's native forests, because today we open the door to a new way of protecting our native forests: allowing them to generate money by remaining standing rather than by cutting them down. It's also a significant day for forest workers, providing a more certain source of funds for our forests, which will require workers to manage them for generations to come as a result of this change. Just to be clear, what we are debating here is the creation of a new method for generating carbon credits. The improved native forest method, known as INFM, gives state governments the option to support carbon sequestration alongside existing timber production and recreational uses. This creates new economic opportunities for regional communities while delivering emissions reduction and environmental and biodiversity benefits. This is practical climate action and forest protection that supports regional communities and should be allowed to pass through the Senate today. It's important to recognise that this simply provides an option for state governments. They may choose to take that option; they may not. Labor supports a sustainable forestry industry, and forestry will continue in various parts of the country. But, where state governments choose to preserve those native forests, they will be financially rewarded for doing so for the first time. The Albanese government has made sensible adjustments to the implementation of this method. The measures we've agreed to will enable the Clean Energy Regulator to give effect to the New South Wales government's commitment to restricting the sale of Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, generated within the Great Koala National Park in New South Wales to a specified class of entities. This will apply only to projects under the INFM method and only where a state government chooses to opt in to those requirements. In addition, Assistant Minister Josh Wilson has written to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee seeking advice on variations to the INFM method, including increasing the amount of forest that must be protected against established harvesting baselines before projects can receive any carbon credits, rising to 30 per cent for projects registered from 1 July 2030, and clarifying the definitions of plantation forest and native forest within the method. The ACCU Scheme is an important part of Australia's pathway to net zero emissions, helping drive emissions reductions while creating opportunities for landholders, First Nations peoples, regional communities and businesses. These are sensible, practical steps that further strengthen the method and build upon Australia's high-integrity carbon market. The creation of this new carbon method has widespread support from the environment movement, including WWF Australia; Greenpeace; the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; the National Parks Association of NSW; Environment Victoria; North East Forest Alliance; south-east forest alliance; the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation; various prominent ecologists such as Tim Flannery, Professor David Lindenmayer and Professor Hugh Possingham; the Aboriginal advisory panel for the Great Koala National Park; and many more. I thank them for their support, and I thank those senators from the crossbench who have recognised that this is a practical, sensible step towards environmental protection. For those reasons, the government will be opposing this motion. 15:55 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland As Greens, we care deeply about protecting native forests, stopping extinction and cutting climate pollution. After careful consideration of complex regulation, the Greens party room has resolved to support an improved native forest management method because forest and habitat are inherently valuable, and because it helps us fight against the climate crisis. Through negotiations with the government, the Greens were able to secure important additional protections for native forests that will significantly reduce logging and provide an assurance that native forests can't be reclassified as 'plantations'. These improvements will help deliver the Great Koala National Park, protecting 176,000 hectares of native forest and safeguarding habitat for around 12,000 koalas and more than 100 other threatened species. And for the very first time, the Greens were able to secure a binding legal precedent to stop coal and gas from using these offsets. This is the start of a fight that the Greens will wage to stop all coal and gas from ever being able to use offsets, instead of reducing their pollution. But, let's be real, we are dealing with a Labor government that have approved 37 new coal and gas projects since they came to office. Time and time again, they've shown that they're more willing to protect the profits of the big coal and gas corporations than to protect nature, the climate or the environment. By holding a national park hostage, Labor created a divisive choice between protecting native forests and challenging a broken carbon credit system. But I know this: we won't allow that choice to divide a movement that is united by so much more. I'm proud that, as a party room, we've remained grounded in our shared commitment to protect native forests, protect nature and cut pollution. And I thank everyone who's engaged in discussions with the Greens over this matter. I want to acknowledge that this has not been an easy decision to make. As my colleagues have said, reasonable minds with good hearts can differ on the outcome. But it is significant that, in the process of negotiating with the Greens over the INFM, finally, Labor admitted that they are able to treat coal and gas differently when they buy offsets. Labor has conceded the principle that coal and gas should not get the same access to offsets as everyone else. Now the Greens will force them to apply that principle across the system, not just in the INFM, instead of continuing to give fossil fuel corporations a way to avoid cutting their pollution. For years, whilst letting them take our gas for free, Labor has set up carbon credit loopholes so that coal and gas corporations can buy their way out of actually reducing emissions. It's a 'get out of jail free' card that lets them keep polluting, and it keeps coal and gas in the system for longer, all while communities face the worsening impacts of the climate crisis: severe flooding, devastating bushfires, debilitating heatwaves. Today's legal precedent is the first blow, but the fight to stop coal and gas from ever being allowed to use offsets to get a free ride is just getting started. After achieving the first ban on coal and gas federally using offsets, the Greens are launching a fight to stop coal and gas from ever getting a free ride again on pollution reduction. We demand real pollution cuts to protect our climate, not accounting tricks. I'm announcing today that we will oppose Labor's upcoming carbon credits bill and move to block the new integrated farm and land management method that would allow the use of carbon credits to continue. This would wipe out up to 40 per cent of the offsets used by coal and gas corporations to hide their emissions and would significantly increase the cost of polluting for big corporations, forcing polluters to actually cut their emissions. It's very clear that the majority of Australians want these corporations to pay their fair share for our resources and to stop getting a free ride in continuing to pollute. So my message to them is this: the Greens are with you. To the coal and gas corporations: the days of your free ride are numbered. 16:00 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Since this debate started, I've been overwhelmed by the number of Australians reaching out and expressing a love for our forests. Australians care deeply about the natural world, and our forests are home to such incredible species. There are three distinct species of greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders, koalas, masked owls, swift parrots—a whole range of species found nowhere else on Earth. Many of them are threatened, and some of them are critically endangered. Many Australians have been working to protect our forests and have raised concerns about the way that we're managing them and about the lack of political will to do better as a country. I came to this method very sceptical and concerned about what it meant for forests, so I began engaging with experts. Someone I've had many discussions with about this method is Professor David Lindenmayer, who is one of the nation's leading forest ecologists, having worked in the field for some 43 years. Talking to him—I think he won't mind my saying this—I found that he was also concerned about the method and has spent a lot of time going through it. After going through it, he came out broadly supportive. The people whose life's work is finding the holes in carbon methodologies have looked hard at this one, and the overwhelming consensus is that the method should not be disallowed. I have taken the advice of the scientists who've spent their careers in the forests over the position of the Nationals, a party that has spent decades advocating for the forests to be logged and spent decades advocating for them to be logged even when it costs taxpayers' money. Having considered the method—and having taken advice from scientists—I'm satisfied that it does have integrity. Credits are only paid where logging stops altogether—not slowed but completely stopped. An earlier draft would have rewarded stretching out the gaps between harvests—an arrangement the industry could have played. That was identified and it was removed. That is what a good process looks like: experts raise a loophole; the loophole gets closed. The New South Wales government has ruled out selling these credits to coal and gas companies at all. I acknowledge Senator Waters's work on ensuring that that is made a reality. Let's be clear about what this disallowance would achieve. It would not cap offset use. It would not retire a single junk credit. It would not require one covered safeguard facility to cut one single tonne of emissions. What it would do is remove a long-term funding stream for ending native-forest logging. I don't think the Nationals have moved this motion because they've developed a sudden concern about carbon-market integrity. None of those concerns were raised during the Safeguard Mechanism debate. They know that this provides state governments with an off-ramp—with an alternative to logging our precious native forests. We're one of 17 megadiverse countries in the world, and we're the only developed country that's a deforestation hotspot. We log native forests, usually at a loss that is subsidised by taxpayers. For years, conservationists have been told: 'We can't stop, because we need an income stream. We need to fund the cost of transitioning workers, rehabilitation and managing new protected areas.' That cost is often said to be too high. Well, here is an alternative. I acknowledge that concerns about offsets in this country are legitimate, and I share them. Work from the Climate Council shows that polluters are paying to continue polluting by buying offsets, and they're doing this rather than actually reducing emissions. This is an indictment of the safeguard mechanism, but I don't think this is an argument against this method. The safeguard review is underway, and that is where the fight belongs. I'll be calling for caps on offsets. We have to get the safeguard mechanism right, but we don't get the safeguard mechanism right by disallowing potentially the highest-integrity ACCU this country has seen. 16:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania After much deliberation, three Greens senators—me, Senator Steele-John and Senator Bleyer—have decided to exercise our right to take a position on this matter according to our conscience. We do not support the Improved Native Forest Management methodology, and we will vote here today in the Senate to disallow it. Just as there are different views in the environment movement about Labor's proposal—which, let's be clear, is to sell forest carbon to corporations so corporations can keep emitting and cooking the planet—so there are different views in the Australian Greens party room. And I want to be very clear that people of good heart and clear mind, both in our party room and in the environment movement, can and have come to different positions on this issue. We hope that people understand our position as we understand theirs. The three of us, Senator Steele-John, Senator Bleyer and I, want Greens members and supporters to know that we do not support the relentless commodification of nature, and we will not be part of making it easier and cheaper for big carbon polluters to continue to emit, which is what the INFM does. I'm very proud to be aligned with Senator Steele-John, my close friend, on this issue, and I know that Senator Steele-John feels very strongly that the Greens in Western Australia have a long and proud history of being in solidarity with forest campaigners and that, over decades, they have fought for and won protections for native forests in Western Australia. That history and the strength of the forest and climate movement in Western Australia have strongly informed the position that Senator Steele-John is taking. I'm also proud to be aligned with Senator Bleyer on this. She is someone I know has spent decades fighting to protect native forests purely for their intrinsic values, no strings attached, and Senator Bleyer is doing that again today. I've been striving to save forests since I was arrested more years ago than I care to count at Farmhouse Creek, a place where I first met Bob Brown, who supports the position that Senator Bleyer, Senator Steele-John and I have taken today. Let's be very clear about this: this is a Labor shakedown. After repeatedly, unconditionally promising the Great Koala National Park, Labor is holding koalas hostage and threatening their extinction unless they can profit from their habitat. It's an ecocidal threat, and the three of us have decided that we're going to resist it. There is no guarantee that a single extra hectare of forest will be protected through this methodology. This methodology is a neoliberal response to a crisis caused by neoliberalism. What could possibly go wrong? If it passes, we may never again see a national park or a marine protected area created unless the carbon or biodiversity can be monetised in some way. Forests are profound, complex ecosystems that deserve to be and must be protected for their intrinsic value, not for profit. The tragic reality today, colleagues, is that climate change is a greater threat to native forests than logging, and we have decided we will not be party to making forest protection contingent on a mechanism that will drive their very destruction. Carbon offsets from forests rely on a fiction that no future government would protect forests without them. And history shows that, thanks to courageous activists and Greens in parliaments around this country, including this one, vast tracts of forests have been protected without being monetised, and we have no doubt that that would have continued in the absence of the INFM. The three of us are profoundly grateful to everyone who's raised their voices and supported us to take this position. That includes forest defenders, not just in my home state of Tasmania but right around the country; every single state Greens MP in Tasmania; every single state Greens MP in Western Australia; Amanda Cohn and Abigail Boyd, two MPs in the state of New South Wales; and our close friends and mentors Bob Brown and Christine Milne. 16:10 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales Here we are again, dealing with the absurd consequences of Labor's net zero obsession. It's got to the point where even the Greens are split over your absurd net zero obsession. What are we fighting about today? Today is a fight about whether Australia is a country that continues to do things and make things, or whether we allow Labor and the Greens to continue to shut down our industries, export our jobs and drive up electricity prices—and we know that's what this is about, because the Greens have flagged it. They have explained how they get to use this as a thin edge of the wedge to further destroy cheap, reliable electricity, destroy coal, destroy gas and drive up power prices. The Greens are cheering that on. They've exposed that that is what this is about. That is what this regulation does. On top of that you're creating a perverse financial incentive for state governments to stop industry, stop harvesting timber in native timber plantations. Timber is a crop. Now the timber they harvest the more carbon credits they can claim. This is forestry shut down because of net zero, because you believe that your legislated targets are an excuse to sacrifice this industry and workers in it. The forestry and forest products support around 20,000 jobs in New South Wales, including thousands of jobs in regional communities that can least afford another industry to be shut down. These are workers, families, small businesses and entire towns that depend on forestry paycheques—forestry workers, truck drivers, contractors, sawmill workers, apprentices, machinery operators—and this is about taking away their livelihood and destroying their jobs. As we heard Senator Pocock say, these credits only get paid when the forestry stops. This is a job killer. Local mechanics, fuel supplies, cafes and shops rely on a working forestry industry. When Labor and the Greens talk about a transition, regional workers hear something else. They hear, 'We will stop at nothing to drive our net zero agenda, and, if your job disappears, if your family suffers and if your financial future is put at risk, then you are simply collateral damage.' This scheme requires a cut in timber harvesting before carbon credits can be earned. It lets governments collect credits for taking forestry out of production, while regional communities are left to deal with the consequences. Australians will not suddenly stop needing timber. We need hardwood timber for homes. We need it for frames, flooring, bridges, pallets, packing paper, furniture, farming, manufacturing. We need it to keep Australia's supply chains moving. If Labor and the Greens continue to shut down local supply, then where is that timber coming from? It's coming from overseas. Labor talks endlessly about a future made in Australia. Perhaps the future of Australian hardwood will be made in Malaysia. Australia has an abundance of one of the world's most sustainable resources, timber, yet, instead of backing responsible local production, Labor's agenda is shutting it down. I've seen the consequences firsthand on the New South Wales Mid North Coast. I toured the region recently and heard directly from the community facing unemployment, uncertainty and job losses because of the Great Koala National Park. While Australians shut down forestry, eucalyptus is being grown for timber in other countries, including across Europe. Apparently it's acceptable for other countries to grow eucalyptus, create rural jobs and supply other industries, but, when Australia seeks to responsibly manage forests, employ Australians and produce renewable timber at home, Labor and the Greens want to shut it down. Scrapping net zero means ending an ideological war on Australian production. It means protecting Australia's forestry workers. It means securing hardwood timber for Australian homes, Australian manufacturers and Australian supply chains. That is why One Nation will scrap net zero. It is why I support this motion. Please listen to the Greens when they tell you that they are using this as a way to further destroy cheap, reliable and effective energy. Listen to them when they tell you that is their ultimate agenda because that is what they're doing. I think people should be very clear that this is the agenda behind it. They are seeking, through their obsession with net zero, to shut this country down. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 We have 1½ minutes before the guillotine. 16:15 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I'll be opposing the motion. I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Pocock, I totally reject the arguments of One Nation and I express my appreciation to Senator McKim. I have deep philosophical questions myself. I have wrestled with this issue myself. I believe nature has intrinsic value, but I accept at this moment in time we live in a capitalist world and we must find some way to finance these forests. It may be an imperfect solution. It's a solution that does not give me great happiness, but I can't bring myself to not vote against the motion. To the mover, I know he argued in good faith, but it comes from a place and a party that has an enthusiasm to log native forests. That cuts away those arguments and the motives in relation to those arguments. Whilst I want to put nature first at the heart of all decision-making, I feel that I have to oppose the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 282997 The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Scarr)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Bleyer, V. E. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Cash, M. C. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 7 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Tyrrell, T. M. Chandler, C. McCarthy, M. Colbeck, R. M. Lines, S. Hume, J. Thorpe, L. A. McDonald, S. E. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Chisholm, A. D. Roberts, M. I. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 84 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 84 16:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by Senator Wong to coalition questions 1 and 2. I have to ask, based on those answers today: how many untruths can our prime minister tell? There are now more questions to answer than we had before we asked our questions today. In fact, in the case of the Prime Minister, in terms of how many untruths a prime minister can tell, Australia, sadly, is still counting because this prime minister has got an extraordinary relationship with the truth. Here it is. He says one thing. The facts turn up. Then the old quote turns up. Then the documents turn up. Then, as we've now seen, lo and behold, the video turns up, and suddenly what the Prime Minister said doesn't actually appear to be backed up by the evidence that is there for all Australians to see on video. That is exactly what has happened in relation to the Prime Minister's answers to questions that we have asked Senator Wong representing him in this place in relation to the Marrickville Golf Club. Here's what's happened. Yesterday the Prime Minister wanted the Australian people to believe that he barely had anything to do with the place. He said, 'I don't have a card, I don't go in there, I haven't been there for years.' He went on to say: 'I did not know the executive. I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' And then, bad news—circulating widely now; go and have a look at it, Australia—the video turns up, and there you have it: the Prime Minister there, standing with a microphone in front of members of the Marrickville Golf Club, telling them, 'I've been coming here for decades and using this club.' There he is, standing there with a microphone, saying, 'I've been coming here for decades using this club.' Australians should rightly be saying, well, hold on: just yesterday the Prime Minister said, 'I don't have a card, I don't go there, I haven't been there in years, I don't know the executive and I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' Well, the video evidence shows something very different. Again, though, in relation to 'I don't do anything whatsoever for it', did everybody see that part of the video where the Prime Minister says, 'and here is a $350,000 election commitment for the club'? I have to say, they are now rivalling Pinocchio in terms of the length and the level of the untruths that they are now prepared to tell. That is an extraordinary definition of 'I have nothing to do with it'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Minister, a point of order? Senator Ayres 16913 I think there was a moment there when Senator Cash said something that she probably knew that she shouldn't, but the two acting presiding officers were changing over— Senator Cash I0M No, I didn't. I likened it to something. Senator Ayres 16913 Well, it's not very—I think we've often asked people to withdraw similar things. Senator Cash I0M I can say it again: I likened it to—likened it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I did miss it. We were just changing over. I don't know what you said, Senator Cash. You've been here long enough to know, without having to be too clever. If you believe it could be retractable— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Okay. Well, I didn't even hear it, and I'm not even going to ask anyone what you said; I don't want to know. We'll seek what it was; we'll find out. It is disappointing at this stage of a Thursday afternoon. But you've got the call, Senator Cash. Sorry Minister, I did not hear it. Senator CASH I0M And I was referring to what the Prime Minister has stood and said versus what is now there on the video evidence for all to see: 'I don't do anything whatsoever for it.' Yet we have him there, caught on camera, saying, 'Here's a $350,000 election commitment for the club.' And every other golf club in Australia should be asking a simple question: 'Why weren't we invited, like the Marrickville Golf Clube was, to apply for this grant?' The Prime Minister then got them a $6 million grant—but he 'doesn't do anything for it', does he? The other thing—and this is where Australians need to also wonder about this Prime Minister and his relationship with the truth—is that he doesn't declare that he has an honorary membership with Marrickville. Why? 'I don't play golf.' Then why did he declare an honorary membership with Royal Sydney Golf Club? The Prime Minister has questions to answer. Yet again, there's another character— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry, Senator Cash, just resume your seat. Senator CASH I0M His name is Pinocchio. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Cash, resume your seat! Senator CASH I0M You for one— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Resume—crikey! At half past four on a Thursday afternoon, I don't think I'm asking too much—for order. I called you three times. Senator Cash I0M You didn't call me! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Cash, I'm not going to get into a blue with you. I'm happy to have a blue with you later on, if you want to! But I don't think it's worth it, to be serious, to be really honest with you. Oh, my goodness me. Were you seeking a point of order, Senator Stewart? 16:29 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I am seeking the call to respond to the questions and answers that were put during this question time. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you for the sage advice over there! I really appreciate it! Those opposites seem to be running down some rabbit holes. They are looking for something dodgy, and they're looking for something dodgy because they expect everybody else to act like they did when they were in government. They think there's something to see here, but there isn't. In response to the questions, Senator Wong really articulated what has happened. Where I want to start is with the grants. The coalition, those opposite, are conflating two things: there are open competitive grant rounds, and there are closed grant rounds. And I want to spend a couple of seconds talking about the closed grant rounds, because I think they're really important to talk about. This government is delivering significant funding Australia-wide through a range of grant programs. Although, with some of the questions today you'd think that the closed grant round was the only grant program available for Australians to get things funded. That is not the case. We've got over $1.7 billion for the Growing Regions Program and Thriving Suburbs Program, $550 million through the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program, $600 million through the Active Transport Fund program— A baby having begun crying in the gallery— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I'd rather hear that noise any day. Senator STEWART 299352 We welcome babies in the gallery. It's completely fine. There is $350 million every year for the Black Spot Program and the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. These programs are application based, competitive and open to local councils to apply for. Alongside those, Minister King is administering the one-off closed program to deliver on our 2025 election commitments through the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program, administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. Those opposite are deliberately conflating the two types of programs. I would remind those opposite, if they had been successful at the last election, they would have done the exact same thing. In fact, I quote the member for Riverina, from their own side, this week: 'You've got to fulfil your election commitments. You can't have MPs running around making commitments if they happen to win an election.' I think he was saying you've got to have an avenue in which those election commitments can be fulfilled. I think that's what he was saying there. The ANAO found the same thing: election commitments can be a legitimate basis for grant funding when administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Principles. And this grant system is being run exactly as the coalition agreed it should be run just three years ago. That is the finding of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, which had five coalition members on it. They did write a dissenting report to that report. They happened to agree with all the recommendations in the report but wrote a dissenting report because they needed to defend their former colleagues from accusations of pork barrelling. So, they're looking around trying to find something, but we've followed the rules in this process. Election commitments have been fulfilled through this process. (Time expired) 16:33 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I also stand to take note of the failure of Senator Wong during question time to answer questions put to her legitimately asking why the Prime Minister failed to follow his own ministerial code of conduct and declare interests. The reason why this is important is so that the public knows whether these interests have actually influenced decision-making. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. I want to pick up on something Senator Cash said, and that is the 1,599 golf clubs in this country who didn't get to put in a grant application. Bennelong's has a population of 250 and will hold the World Sand Greens Championship, largely run by volunteers. It couldn't get into the invitation-only, closed program. Yet we see the Prime Minister himself award over $6 million, $6,500,000, from the Commonwealth to the Marrickville golf club. The Prime Minister's been busy spinning this situation by declaring it was for sewerage works, but I have been reliably informed that it was for a new clubhouse, dining facilities, pedestrian and bike access upgrades, and landscaping. What we've learnt is that the Prime Minister has held an honorary membership for the Marrickville golf club since around 2012. That membership has never been entered into his interests. We know that the Labor Party has staged events there and that Albanese's pale ale beer is available for purchase there. When these facts were put to him, the Prime Minister's defence was that he doesn't have a card—it's not a library, Prime Minister—that he hasn't been to the club for a while and that he doesn't play golf. All of these things may be true, but they're also beside the point. The requirement to declare an interest doesn't turn on the fact of whether the member finds the benefit useful; it turns on whether the interest itself exists, whether it could be seen to influence the exercise of public office. There's no actual question of corruption here. Do I think the Prime Minister's corrupt? No, I don't. Do I think the Prime Minister orchestrated a grant for which he could be personally advantaged? Of course not. Do I think the Prime Minister used this grant to get political advantage? No, I don't. There's something far more important at stake here than allegations of low-level corruption. The Prime Minister is the upholder of the ministerial code of conduct in this building. He is or should be the leading light of probity. He should lead by example in being meticulous in his personal dealings, and he above all others should insist on the highest standards across his ministry. He is indeed the first amongst equals in our parliamentary system. The Prime Minister promised us he would run a traditional cabinet government. Well, Prime Minister, that includes upholding the Westminster conventions of our system of government and includes upholding your own ministerial code of conduct. It's a code of conduct for which Prime Minister Albanese's foreword states: The people of Australia are entitled to expect that, in the discharge of our duties, we will act in a manner that is consistent with the highest ethical standards. …   …   … Each Minister is personally responsible for ensuring they comply with, and uphold, this Code. Why is it one rule for your ministers, PM, and a different one for you. (Time expired) 16:37 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I don't think I’m even going to touch on Senator McKenzie's contribution. I think we all know her history. I am a duty senator for regional and remote areas of South Australia, alongside my colleague Senator Marielle Smith. We were reflecting, following today's question time, on the grants that we have advocated for across regional and rural South Australia. That entire area is a Liberal stronghold, and we are Labor senators, but we are the duty senators for that beautiful stretch of our country, and we take it very, very seriously. We don't look at those communities and think, 'Oh, we're not going to bother because you're not Labor voters.' That's not how we work. We do not hold back because these seats are highly unlikely to fall to Labor. No, we don't, and we are not outliers here either. Labor senators and Labor MPs work very hard to ensure that they are representing the community. In the seats of Barker and Grey, which are where Senator Smith and I hang out, we have secured a lot of funding under the Labor government, from growing the regions, the regional and urban PPP—and congratulations to Kimba council, who secured funding under that just last week—the active transport grants, the Black Spot Program, safer local roads, BEEF for ECEC and specific health funding. All of these are areas in which we have been able to support the community to get funding. These are all application based, competitive and open, and we work hard to support them, to assist them, to help them and to ensure that those communities have access to the things that they need. Senator McKenzie 207825 I don't think they feel they've got that. Senator GROGAN 296331 There are no rorts, Senator McKenzie, no blind focus on marginal seats, just a genuine commitment to community. Let me go to the example that Senator Wong brought up at question time today of an approach to election commitments. We had the example of Mr Pasin. Senator GROGAN 296331 My voice is rising just to try and shout over Senator Mckenzie. He had a look— Senator McKenzie 207825 Proudly standing up for integrity. Senator GROGAN 296331 And there she goes again. He looked at the Sturt Reserve, and I assume— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Grogan, resume your seat please. Colleagues, you were heard in silence, and I would ask you nicely if, at this time on a Thursday afternoon, you could extend the same courtesy to the other side of the chamber. That would be greatly appreciated by the chair. Senator GROGAN 296331 The example that Minister Wong gave was from Murray Bridge, where Mr Pasin, the local member, looked at Sturt Reserve, spoke to the local community and said, 'Yes, we'll give you a few lights and some CCTV as our election commitment.' We looked at it and said, 'Okay, what do the community want?' Senator Smith spent a lot of time working on this with the local community and worked to co-design with the Ngarrindjeri people and with the local community and came up with an amazing project: the Pondi Dreamtime story. It is a sensory playground sitting in the middle of the Sturt Reserve, a place that was seriously damaged and affected by the floods. It will boost jobs, it will boost tourism and it is a wonderfully inclusive place for that local community to feel so proud of, to engage with, to learn about that Dreamtime story in. These are election commitments. We very obviously call them election commitments because you only get them if you win. Everyone does it. It's not a rort if you're clear about it. The problem, Senator McKenzie, is when you are not clear. The problem, Senator McKenzie, is when you are rorting— Senator McKenzie 207825 Through the chair—show some respect! Senator GROGAN 296331 and you are hiding things and you are not being clear. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 How about you show some respect to your colleagues and just lower it to a dull roar? Senator McKenzie 207825 Why is she yelling at me? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Lower it to a dull roar. I don't think it's a lot to ask. Can we just hold it for eight seconds? Senator GROGAN 296331 We don't govern like you. We just don't. We are transparent. We are open. This election commitment was transparently and publicly released. (Time expired) 16:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I am delighted to make a contribution to this debate. I want to pick up where Senator Grogan left off, and that is that they don't govern the way we did. Well, I can tell you what. If what we talked about in question time today is anything to go by, the people of Australia should be very grateful. It takes a great degree of skill to be able to argue that black is white. It takes an even bigger degree of skill to be able to say that something didn't happen when it actually did. As we saw today and over the last couple of days, we have a prime minister who said that he never made representations—he had no knowledge of certain things and no relationships with certain groups of people. But then, of course, emerging out of those smoke filled rooms of Parliament House were all the videos proving exactly the opposite—that there was a relationship, that there was a history of use of this particular golf club and that there was clearly a series of representations and commitments made. We are not against parties making election commitments. We're all for that. In fact, I recall that, when the now government was in opposition, there was a huge furore around commitments made by our party at election time. An opposition senator An opposition senator interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 I'm taking that interjection. Apparently when one party does it, it's called a rort, but when another party does it, it's okay. Now, this is the point: it's a subjective thing. There are two standards being applied to how we govern these sorts of things in this country. We think there is one standard, and good process is one to be followed here. We don't even know what process it went through. There is this opacity— Senator Cash I0M No, we don't! They declared for one and didn't declare for the other. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Exactly. I take the interjection from Senator Cash, which of course is disorderly. It's Thursday afternoon, and we're all very happy to be going home at some point! The declarations are a problem, but the process is an issue here. It is not the grant, not the club receiving it, not the fact that local members are doing their job. That is a good thing. We all do it, and I think it's an important part of what we do here. But it's the process, the declarations, the failure to declare on the part of the Prime Minister and then, of course, the 'nothing to see here' approach by government. Now, if you've made a mistake, own up. Fix it. That's it. Move on. But here we have this approach to dealing with this issue in which we cover up. We try to pretend that the rules mean one thing when they actually mean something else or that there wasn't actually an issue here. Well, there was, and the facts bear it out. These videos are not AI generated. They are real. The Prime Minister said these things. And so it goes to a pattern of behaviour. Whether he fell off a stage or not or whether in fact he had a foot on the floor at all times, whether he made promises before the election that power prices would come down or that changes to negative gearing and CGT would not happen and then after a point in time—an election—things changed, this is the same. And so this government have a very different standard for how they deal with matters of integrity around election programs, promises made, compared to what we did. We seek to hold this government to account—to the same standard—to ensure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately and that people making those decisions do so wisely and are open and transparent. Everyone makes mistakes. I don't know whether the Prime Minister is actually very good at golf or not. Maybe he is. He did say he played golf— Senator Cash I0M No, he doesn't play golf. Senator DUNIAM 263418 or doesn't play golf. I'm not sure. He's good at tennis. He does tennis. I was looking for things in golfing parlance to chuck into the debate here, but, as they say, you drive for show, putt for dough! (Time expired) Question agreed to. International Relations: Australia and Israel 88 16:47 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Australia and Israel. Once again Senator Wong has woken up this morning and chosen to sit on her hands in the face of horrifying violence and terrorism. This government continually decides to look away while schoolchildren are murdered and Palestinians are beaten to death by settlers for defending their own land, aided and abetted by the depraved Israeli government, just like it has looked away for the last three years of genocide, just like it looked away when an Australian aid worker was hunted and murdered by Israel and just like it looked away when Australians aboard a humanitarian aid flotilla were kidnapped and physically and sexually abused by the Israeli military. Minister Wong, your words today are as empty as they have been every single day—evasive and worthless, no action, no consequences for the perpetrator. For years you told us you could not act alone. Australia is just one country, after all, you said. Then 12 countries moved together, and the excuse changed overnight. Now it is that we cannot act in case it disadvantages Australian businesses. Forget the genocide. Forget the ethnic cleansing. Utterly shameful. Even worse, you say a trade ban would have unintended consequences for Palestinians. It is abhorrent to use the suffering of Palestinians to justify the Albanese government's inaction. You hide behind the very people being driven from their homes as they are razed to the ground by terrorists. How pathetic. How craven. When asked about your cowardly lack of action today, you said: I would also make the point that we certainly do not want to see Palestinian jobs and livelihoods affected. Palestinians have been systematically murdered, tortured, abused and displaced for decades, and you draw the line at their livelihoods being affected? What an absolute joke. Two days ago, the British foreign secretary stood in the House of Commons and said it clearly. He talked about a deep sense of shame at what has unfolded in Palestine. He recognised the need for his government to change direction. He declared the occupation unlawful. He said what is happening in the West Bank is ethnic cleansing perpetrated by settler terrorists. And then he said the thing you will not: he banned the trade in goods from stolen land. His closing words were these: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice and nor is it powerless. You have the same choice, yet you choose silence. You choose to side with terror. Where is your sense of shame? Where is your sense of morality? What this chamber has heard is the classic Labor playbook: express concern, deflect and then, only if pushed, deliver the literal bare minimum you can get away with. We could have written your response before you opened your mouth: 'What is the least we can do to look like we are acting without doing anything that might upset Israel?' You lecture this chamber about international law. Illegal settlements are a textbook breach of international law, and you can't even draw a line there. You allow free trade in goods grown on stolen land. You allow Australians to bankroll illegal settlements and then you hand them a tax deduction, so the taxpayer helps put that bill. Is it any wonder the Israeli ambassador has applauded you? You have won his applause and your country's contempt. The tide has turned though, Senator Wong. The protection racket run by Labor, the Liberal Party and One Nation cannot hold for much longer. In June, the Pew Research Center found that 79 per cent of Australians hold an unfavourable view of Israel. Just 19 per cent view it favourably. Let the record show it plainly. Senator Wong and the Albanese government have again chosen to side with settler violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide and terror. Question agreed to. BUDGET 89 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 89 16:51 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee relating to estimates. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 89 Report 89 16:52 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human Rights Scrutiny Report No. 10 of 2026. DOCUMENTS 89 DOCUMENTS Consideration 89 COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 89 Scrutiny Digest 89 16:55 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to yesterday's tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 11of 2026. The digest contains the committee's consideration of 10 bills introduced during the period between 17 August 2026 and 20 August 2026 and 103 agreed amendments. The committee also concluded its consideration of nine previously introduced bills. I wish to draw the senators' attentions to the committee's concluding commentary concerning recent legislative provisions that adopt a novel approach to the automation of administrative decision-making. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, now an act, amended the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act of 2013 to authorise the automation of specified administrative action by the National Disability Insurance Agency. The act expressly allows for the automation of administrative decisions involving the exercise of discretion or evaluative judgement. The NDIA CEO is required to make a standard operating procedure instrument setting out the circumstances in which they would always exercise their discretion or judgement in a certain matter. The CEO must do so by reference to objective criteria to ensure that a computer program can make the decision in the same way. The committee has increasingly drawn attention to provisions that authorise the making of administrative decisions by a computer program. It does so under Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(iii), which requires the committee to scrutinise whether provisions of bills would make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent on non-reviewable administrative decisions. Under this scrutiny principle, the committee examines whether decisions proposed for automation involve complex or discretionary considerations or tests. The committee's clear expectation is for explanatory memoranda to explain why automation is necessary and appropriate for each decision, how ordinary administrative law requirements will be maintained and applicable legislative safeguards to constrain the use of these powers. The committee sought initial advice from the minister about these matters in Scrutiny digest 7of 2026. In Scrutiny digest 9of 2026, the committee noted that these provisions represent a departure from the committee's usual position that discretionary administrative decisions are not appropriate for automation and requested a justification from the minister. The committee also requested information about the effectiveness of the standard operating procedure instruments as constraints on the automation discretionary decisions. In this digest, the committee concludes that there appears to be a transition towards bills authorising the automation of discretionary decisions without sufficient safeguards or parliamentary oversight. The committee has noted that this approach may further contribute to fragmentation of automated decision-making provisions in Commonwealth legislation, as identified by the robodebt royal commission. The committee has made similar concluding remarks in relation to the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026, which proposes a substantially similar automation framework and remains before the parliament. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 11 of 2026 to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 90 Delegated Legislation Monitor 90 16:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor9 of 2026, which reports on the committee's consideration of 159 legislative instruments registered between 17 June and 1 July 2026. In this monitor, the committee has commented on one new instrument and concluded its examination of three instruments. The new instrument the committee has commented on is the Water Amendment (Murray-Darling Basin Agreement) Regulations 2026. This instrument amends the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement at schedule 1 to the Water Act 2007. The committee ordinarily has concerns with legislative instruments that amend primary legislation. However, in this instance, given that the amendments are limited to changes to an intergovernmental agreement that can only be made by a resolution of the Commonwealth and participating states and territories, the committee has resolved to draw the Senate's attention to this matter under order 23(4) and is not seeking advice from the minister. The first instrument the committee has concluded on is the Air Navigation Regulations 2026. The committee welcomes the minister's undertaking to repeal sections 28 and 29 of the instrument prior to the adoption of any automated decision-making process and replace them with provisions that limit the automation of timetabling decisions to decisions based on objective criteria. The committee also welcomes the minister's undertaking to include further information in the instrument's explanatory statement. The committee considers these undertakings to be important and positive steps in ensuring that the instrument aligns with the committee's scrutiny and expectations. As such, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of this instrument and withdraw its protective disallowance notice. Finally, the committee has also concluded its consideration of the Regional Investment Corporation (Drought Hardship Loans) Rules 2026 and the Regional Investment Corporation (Marine Recovery Loans) Rules 2026. These instruments set up loan programs to provide finance to certain businesses affected by drought or harmful marine events. After several rounds of correspondence, the minister has undertaken to amend the explanatory statements to the instruments to include further detail regarding the meaning of certain terms, access to guidance documents provided by the Regional Investment Corporation and the consultation undertaken on the instruments. The minister's also advised, with reference to the Macquarie Dictionary Online, that other key terms in the instruments are intentionally not defined and take their ordinary meaning in order to provide appropriate flexibility for the Regional Investment Corporation in exercising its decision-making powers. The minister further stated that guidance documents prepared by the Regional Investment Corporation are expected to provide examples of evidence that may satisfy key criteria. While this information provides some additional clarity, the committee remains concerned that the broad drafting of these provisions may lead to uncertainty regarding the interpretation of key eligibility criteria. The committee's concerns are heightened in this instance as the terms are included in the context of broad discretionary powers provided to the Regional Investment Corporation. The committee also remains concerned that this approach may limit parliamentary oversight as it affords such a degree of flexibility that, in effect, it delegates the interpretation and operation of important provisions to the Regional Investment Corporation. In this regard, the committee notes that the minister's advice about the meaning of some key terms appears to differ from the guidance documents prepared by the Regional Investment Corporation. The minister's also advised that independent review of the merits of a decision to grant a particular applicant a loan is not appropriate as it will impact the remaining funds for all other applicants because available funding is limited to the amount appropriated to the Regional Investment Corporation. While noting this advice, the minister's response appears to refer to impacts of independent merits review on allocations to future applications. It's unclear to the committee why the exclusion is justified under the Administrative Review Council's guide, which provides that independent merits review may only be appropriately excluded for decisions allocating a finite resource between competing applicants where a review of such decisions creates the potential for an existing allocation to another party to be affected. Despite these concerns, given the minister's undertaking to include a range of additional information in the explanatory statements to each instrument, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of these instruments. The committee has also resolved to withdraw its protective disallowance notices. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 9 of 2026 to the Senate. DOCUMENTS 91 DOCUMENTS Australian Information Environment 91 Order for the Production of Documents 91 17:05 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the integrity of the Australian information environment. (Quorum formed) MOTIONS 91 MOTIONS Illicit Tobacco 91 17:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that Australia is facing an extremely serious illicit tobacco crisis, in which: (i) organised crime has taken near-full control of the tobacco market, (ii) legitimate businesses and wider communities have been subjected to firebombings, extortion and violence, and (iii) the illegal tobacco trade is generating enormous profits for organised criminal syndicates; (b) further notes that the Albanese Government has stubbornly refused to abandon the policy settings that have contributed to these disastrous outcomes, including repeated tobacco excise increases that have helped dramatically accelerate the movement of consumers into the illegal market; and (c) calls on the Albanese Government to urgently change course, reconsider its failed approach to tobacco excise and adopt policy settings that smash the criminal gangs and finally protect Australian businesses and communities. This very important matter is one that I think has been largely ignored, sadly, by this government. It is one that is now a scourge on our society, and it has caused immeasurable damage to our community and our society. There have been lives lost, fire bombings, property damage and people going out of business. But the people that are doing well out of this, of course, are the crime gangs. They are in business big time. Billions of dollars are being made by these hideous individuals, probably offshore, pulling the strings, calling the shots and doing terrible things to a range of people. The stories we hear out there about how life now is in suburbia in some of these business communities where crime gangs are ruling the roost and calling the shots and the impact this is having on the lives of those who are affected by this are terrifying. Law-abiding citizens are caught up in, frankly, Underbelly 2.0, which has been let rip by this government's policies, and I'm sure, Acting Deputy President Polley, you'd agree with me that change is needed. We, the opposition, have, of course, proposed that we need to address this on a number of fronts. Firstly, we need to look at what drove this industry. What actually brought about this huge spike in illicit tobacco consumption in this country? Sadly, I have to say that it was the tobacco excise. We've gone too far. The tax has gone too high. We have driven a market where people are looking for a cheap alternative, because they're going to find a way to smoke whether we like it or not. Of course, we don't want them to, but, because the price of a packet of legal cigarettes is, on average, between $40 and $60—$40 being a very cheap legal pack of cigarettes—and a 20-pack of illicit cigarettes is between $10 and $15, we know where people will go. They will vote with their hip pocket and they'll make the cheap purchase. This is problematic. As a result, we've seen a collapse in the amount of revenue taken from the tobacco excise, because people have chosen to go for the illegal product. It's bad for their health, it's bad for law and order and, of course, it's bad for our society and our country's economy. But, of course, it's not just about the excise, which has gone too far. It's about law enforcement. It's also about education. And, sadly, I think we can see that we have, as a country, dropped the ball on educating Australians about why smoking is bad. We got things under control, and I think it was very much a multipartisan effort. Governments of both colours, with the support of minor parties, were able to put in place arrangements to remind Australians that, if you want to make that appalling life decision to smoke, you're going to pay the price. The plain packaging approach that was taken, the 'lock it up behind the counter and not put it on display in shops'—the regulated model—is one that has worked, along with an education program. Our policy that we announced just over a week ago was one in which we would cut the excise by 80 per cent for a period of two years, with a review to take place at the end of that period of time. Secondly, we would augment law enforcement capacity. There would be $200 million to assist the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force, our intelligence organisations, including the Australian Signals Directorate, to break these crime cartels, these gangs, to drive them out of business and disrupt their capacity to supply the market. That's $200 million of extra funding for organisations like the AFP and the ABF—organisations that are full of very good, hardworking men and women who actually want to protect us from bad things. But they are finding it incredibly difficult at the moment to do that, given the way things are, particularly with the illegal tobacco market. So augmenting our law enforcement approach to really smash these crime gangs and what they're doing when it comes to illicit tobacco is a big part of it. And, as I said before, there would be $60 million to educate Australians about the ills of purchasing illegal tobacco. When you buy illegal cigarettes or any other illegal nicotine product, you are supporting crime gangs. You are committing a crime yourself. That is what we need to stop, along with that very basic proposition, the health messaging, around smoking, vaping and the use of nicotine products being bad for your health to varying degrees, depending on the product you consume—reminding Australians that consuming any of those products is a bad health choice. It is a multipronged approach to dealing with this issue—an issue that, frankly, this government have given up on dealing with. They are saying the business-as-usual approach is one that will deliver benefits. But, as we can see from the very numbers before us, that is not the case. The government says law enforcement is where it's at: 'We've just got to keep enforcing the law, keep doing what we're doing.' As I said, nothing is changing. The dial has not moved. We are still seeing firebombings. We are seeing unprecedented amounts of illegal tobacco coming into this country. That is what is driving this trade, and that is what is causing the harm. Then there is One Nation, whose proposal is to just slash the tax and not augment that with any further funding for law enforcement. So both of our political opponents are choosing one or the other. They are not looking at a comprehensive plan to deal with this issue. Neither of those parties will actually be able to deal with this. Our plan has been supported by law enforcement experts, by health experts, by people who know a thing or two about needing to crack this crime cartel that is dominating health policy and dominating the tobacco trade in this country. Much has been said about other countries and their experiences. Canada had a not dissimilar—not identical—set of circumstances that they confronted as a country, the difference being, though, that in the Canadian market a large proportion of tobacco products were manufactured domestically. The problem they had was that those products that were produced and manufactured domestically were exported from Canada without any tax or tariff applied to them and then smuggled back in to Canada, evading tax. So, very cheap cigarettes were flooding the market. Between the years 1992 and 1994, Canada had a law-enforcement-only approach to dealing with illicit tobacco. It failed. It saw tobacco consumption and nicotine consumption increase. When it was augmented, as in our policy proposal for Australia, with cutting the taxes related to tobacco products and changing the tax treatment, consumption went down. At that point in time, 1994, illicit tobacco consumption in Canada was at 28 per cent. In 2024 it had dropped to 11 per cent. So those policy changes, not dissimilar to the approach we're taking, had an impact on the illegal trade. They found a way, with those multiple and complementary measures, to crash the business model of these illegal crime gangs. That is the kind of thing we should be pursuing—not pretending everything's going okay and celebrating every seizure of tobacco products in this country at the border, or even within our borders, because that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, for these crime gangs in Australia, it's a cost of doing business. They might lose one shipping container full of tobacco when they've brought 30 in. They're happy to lose that. They're happy to pay the penalties, because it is a cost of doing what is a very lucrative business in this country. And while we keep doing this—the approach the Labor government has in place, which is that the settings as they are today are the right ones—these people will continue to make huge amounts of money. I was at a tenancy in Melbourne earlier in the year. It was a small commercial tenancy, home to a number of small retail outlets. One of them used to be a tobacconist. It was a small space—probably not much bigger than the clerks' table here. Their insurance premiums went from $2,000 a year to close to $200,000 a year, because of the risk associated with running a legal business, a legal tobacconist. The insurer for the building said, 'No, no, no: while that business entity is operating here, the insurance premium is going to go up, because we can almost guarantee that that tenancy, selling legal tobacco, is going to get firebombed.' That is a terrible situation for our country to confront. We should be finding ways to deal with these issues, not saying, 'Oh, well: it's all too hard; it's tough, and we're just going to have to live with it as it is.' The fact that a legitimate business operator had to shut down because of this dominance of the crime gangs and the approach to business that they take—running others out of town, shutting them down—is not right. The fact that people are living in fear of these sorts of activities from occurring is not right. It is not fair. Just last week we were in Abbotsford and, again, a fire bombing in a tobacco store tore through 10 commercial tenancies. I met a woman who ran a nail and beauty clinic. She has not yet been able to gain access to her insurance at all because they're disputing the coverage that she should have in these situations. She's had to use her own money to try and set up shop somewhere else while her existing tenancy, one of 10 destroyed by this fire bombing, is rebuilt and refurbished. A man who was selling menswear in the same set of shops can't get insurance to replace the stock that was lost through the smoke and fire damage, again, as a result of a fire bombing related to this illegal tobacco trade. It is rife, and they are using young people as the front men and women for their business to go and do these things, to set these fires alight, to do the nasty things that are occurring. Of course, at the very, very sad end of what we see happening under this approach to how we deal with illegal tobacco in this country, people have died. People have been killed in mistaken identity hits, because the gang thought they were taking out a rival crime gang member or a runner for these products, and that is an appalling situation. We need to do more and it has to be on all fronts. It can't just be law enforcement, police at a state and territory level. I should also mention Labor Premier Chris Minns of New South Wales has said the tobacco tax needs to drop. NSW Police are wearing themselves out at the coalface trying to deal with this issue because the floodgates are open, because of the taxation settings this government has in place. Those taxes, of course, did increase under the last government too, and I think that was sadly a mistake. It was something that, at that point in time, at that decision point, seemed like the right thing to do but, over time, the continual increases have led to where we're at today. So it is today that we need to act. We cannot ignore the situation that we're confronted with as a country. We cannot ignore the impact it's having on our society, on the revenues our country receives into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We also cannot ignore the impact it's having on young people. It's easier than it's ever been for young people to access illicit tobacco and nicotine products. You can go to just about any shop to access these products. I know many parents who have had to confront this issue with their children, and this is why also regulating the vape and nicotine pouch market is an important approach. Treating these products the same way we do cigarettes is the way to go. Having pharmacists sell people vapes when they have prescriptions for high-dose products is not working. When we leave this building and go out to dinner or go to our meetings, go to our gatherings, whatever we do, we will pass people vaping in the street. Do we seriously think all of these people have a script for those products they're consuming? They don't. They're illegal. We'll be inhaling the vapour as they walk past us and exhale whatever it is they've taken in. We don't know the content of the products either because the market is unregulated. This stuff is coming in illegally. It's being sold illegally under the counter to kids, and we're getting these people hooked on these products because there is no regulation of any meaningful value to our country in these situations. You hear about all sorts of terrible issues occurring right across our country, and our home state of Tasmania is no exception. I was talking to representatives of Tasmania Police just last weekend. While we haven't had fire bombings and the like, it is alive and well down in our home state. So I think it is high time for this government to consider how they deal with these issues. We've put a proposal on the table. We'd love to work with the government. We don't think One Nation's approach is in any way meaningful or worth pursuing, because they haven't done any work to back it in. It is one part of the problem that they're dealing with there. But, of course, if they want to keep playing whack-a-mole, which is what, sadly, the current arrangement in Australia sees us doing, then that's their choice. We've put on the table a comprehensive policy proposal, and I hope this parliament supports it. (Time expired) 17:24 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I'm here to talk about an absolute masterclass in policy design that we've seen from the Albanese Labor government. It's almost a miracle that they've come up with a set of policy approaches like this. Normally, when governments tax a product, they intend either to raise revenue or to discourage the consumption of it. Normally, when governments ban or restrict a product, the intent there is to stop people from using it. But, under the Labor government, the policy framework with respect to tobacco has managed to completely collapse Commonwealth revenue, with taxes falling through the floor; hand an entire industry over to organised crime and criminal syndicates and a black market; and do nothing to actually reduce consumption or the harm from smoking. So this is a triple crown of policy failure. What we've seen under the Labor government's relentless rises in excise is a legal packet of cigarettes now costing somewhere north of $40. What's happened to Treasury's tax collections from this measure during that time? Are they overflowing? Far from it. Their revenue has plummeted from about $16 billion to about $5 billion, so the bottom line has gone up in smoke. They've lost about $11 billion in revenue. But where did all those billions of dollars that were previously collected go? Does that mean Australians are smoking less? Well, no. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that, overall, nicotine consumption in Australia has actually gone up. The money didn't vanish, though. What's happened is that it's been appropriated by organised crime and criminal syndicates. The market has effectively been seized by privateers who are now reaping the profits of what is not even a growing but a dominant illicit market. What this approach has done is that it's created the most lucrative low-risk black market we've seen in a Western economy probably since the days of prohibition. Today we have a situation where almost 80 per cent of all cigarettes smoked in Australia are illicit. They're coming in on yachts, on cargo ships or through smuggling networks. We've got bikie gangs and crime cartels running suburban shopfronts, selling $10 or $15 imported packs, completely tax free, with no revenue being collected there, while legal small-business newsagents, old-style tobacconists, petrol stations and supermarkets are no longer making any sales from tobacco, because it's all gone to the black market. Part of the result of the involvement of these criminal syndicates is that we've seen turf wars, firebombings and extortion. In the state of Victoria alone, there have been about 200 arson attacks related to the tobacco turf wars, and six homicides are suspected to be linked to this. This is all happening because there's been a complete regulatory failure on this market. What we've had so far from the government on this issue is complete denial—denial that they are presiding over a failure of this magnitude, with a policy that is doing nothing to reduce smoking or tobacco consumption, is encouraging massive expansion in reach of criminal syndicates and crime gangs, and is hurting government revenue. It's time for this chamber and this parliament to face reality and deal with the world as it is. It's time for us to stop subsidising organised crime. It's time for us to fix this absolute mess. That is what the coalition is proposing to do. We're proposing to cut the excise by 80 per cent, which will bring legal cigarettes again in line with illegal tobacco and send people back to the legal market instead of the illicit market. We are going to put more into law enforcement to help clamp down on these criminal gangs. We're going to put more into education, because we don't believe people should be smoking or using vapes or pouches or anything else. We want to discourage that. But the situation we've got at the moment is failing on all fronts, and we need to get to grips with it. I notice Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been very careful not to rule this out. He's sent out his senior ministers to pour scorn on our policy, on the idea that if something's not working, maybe you should try something else. He's been very quick to send his other ministers out, but he has left the door open to engage constructively and thoughtfully on this issue. As my colleague Senator Duniam said, we are open to that because we think this is a public health scourge on Australia, a law-and-order scourge on Australia and a health scourge on Australia. We would like to fix it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Sharma, you will be in continuation. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 94

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

17:30 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Today the coalition supported Labor's Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Its intent is to support Australia's grape growers and wine producers. It is both appropriate and proportionate. It is no secret that the Australian wine industry has found itself enmeshed in challenges, both domestic and global in nature. Those in the industry have been working through these over a very long period, but it is Labor's toxic new taxes that not only surprise them but will likely sink many of them. Australia never voted for Labor's toxic taxes to fill their budget black hole. That's why that taxes package exists. The legislation sets the groundwork for changing a voluntary code to a mandatory one, expected to commence in 2027, for fairer commercial arrangements between growers and winemakers. Wine Australia has advised over 75 per cent of all Australian wine production comes from just 30 wineries. I want to share Labor's record to date. Earlier this year the wine industry put forward a prebudget submission to help growers and winemakers navigate the difficult market conditions that were well known. The government failed to act on those recommendations. Instead of backing regional wine communities, the Albanese government abolished, in this year's budget, the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program, a program that helped wineries attract visitors, grow regional tourism and diversify their income. Cellar doors are crucial, not just to those wineries but to those regional communities. Removing support for cellar doors and the jobs and supply chain opportunities these businesses create sends exactly the wrong message to one of Australia's most important industries. Labor has shifted more costs onto producers through higher export recovery charges—increasing regulatory costs and asking farmers to pay more, even though they already contribute millions of dollars through statutory levies to fund research, development and biosecurity. This bill does not change levies nor do anything to address broader structural problems. The government's own Productivity Commission found Australia's agricultural levy system has around 248 levies. Rather than undertaking effective comprehensive system reform, Labor continues to make piecemeal changes around the edges while ignoring the bigger challenges. This legislation amends the Wine Australia Act 2013 relating to the sharing of information with the ACCC. It also amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act to allow the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences to share levy payer contact details with authorised third-party contractors to improve agricultural survey participation. More than 2,000 wineries and 6,000 grape growers across 65 distinct wine grape growing regions make up the Australian wine industry. It employs some 160,000 people. The flow-on impact is significant. We see things in South Australia like the pulling out of vines in the Riverland district, necessary because it's a last resort showing market and industry failure. Another issue for the industry is an oversupply of grapes and wine, particularly red wine. International trade and too many grapes have contributed to the sector carrying around 262 million litres more wine than can be commercially sustained. Other challenges include changing domestic and international demand, demographics, taste and consumption trends, competition from other drink types, cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business pressures, and the impact of weather. These people have to grapple with all of those things. Last month I visited South Australia's Clare Valley, where grapes have been grown in wine production since the 1800s. I talked with several successful businesses that invest in their communities. They do smart things. But now, under Labor, their job has been made much harder. They should be rewarded with policies that encourage aspiration and growth, not punished. Can the government do better? You bet. Look no further than what's on offer from them: the instant asset write-off. They offered $20,000. I asked Taylors Wines what that buys. They said, 'Not much.' It's not even enough for a forklift. In these places, you need a forklift to safely get equipment around. What about laboratory equipment? No way. You can't buy that either. What about wine silos? No. The coalition is offering $50,000 as an instant asset write-off if we are elected. The coalition understands what businesses need, and they don't need what Labor's offering. (Time expired) Liberal Party of Australia 95 17:35 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What an interesting week we've had in the Senate this week. I intended to speak about superannuation tonight, which I will get to, but I cannot resist the urge I feel, as a fellow Tasmanian senator, to address Senator Duniam's contribution tonight. When he leaves this place in a few months, I think there's a role for him on the stage. What an act that was today! It was very sincere. I've never seen a performance quite like that one today. As we know very well, he's leaving this place, and he, like me, is seeing the Liberal Party disappear. The strength of that party, which they've had for decades, is fading away, and they're being led by One Nation. It is really very sad to see. Unfortunately, my father took some time to see the light and to change his vote. He was a conservative voter, so, with my family history, I know a little bit about the pride that people have had as Liberals in my home state of Tasmania. I look forward to seeing him on the stage. It's a shame Division 4 is not still on television because, with his experience with me on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, he knows only too well about organised crime and the impact it's having on our country. To talk about illicit tobacco and the excise and say that the only way to remove that is to lower the price of cigarettes is very short sighted. All they're trying to do is outbid One Nation. But that's enough on that. I'm sure we'll have some more performances from Jonno before he leaves this chamber. We will miss him because, if nothing else, he is entertaining and a decent person. On superannuation, what I find remarkable is that, again, we see One Nation leading the Liberals and the Nationals around by the nose, attacking what is fundamentally so critically important to Australian workers and suggesting that it is a good thing to allow people to raid their superannuation, which is supposed to be there for their retirement, and that that somehow is doing them a favour. Each and every time the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation had the opportunity to support real tax cuts for Australian workers, to support the cheaper medicines that we brought into this country, which are helping families, to support the changes we made to women's health—it is Women's Health Week—to support the investment we made in Medicare urgent care clinics or to support our wage rises, ensuring that people who work in aged care and early childhood education get a decent wage in this country, they voted against them. Those opposite did nothing when they were in government. For 10 years, they did nothing at all. They didn't do anything about smoking rates during that time, I might add. They don't support TAFE and what we've done to invest in skills. There's so much to talk about in terms of the things that those opposite could have done to support Australian workers and Australian families, but they voted against them. In fact, let's not forget that, before the last federal election, the policy of the Liberals was to increase taxation in this country. They come in here when it politically suits them, when they're trying to outbid One Nation, thinking that they're going to get some votes. I think, to some extent, the Nationals have given up because they are going to become extinct. I think that's a sad day, because I would rather see a strong conservative opposition than one that is led by One Nation. They are committing such a terrible crime against Australian workers. People work cleaning offices, in supermarkets, in aged care, caring for vulnerable older Australians, in early childhood education—which has taken more than a decade to get people to accept and to acknowledge that they are early childhood educators, not babysitters. And now, when we've increased their wages, wanting to support them to be able to support themselves in retirement, we've got the coalition over there, a new triple coalition with One Nation leading the pack— (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 17:40