<?xml version="1.0"?>
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2026-09-14</date>
    <parliament.no>3</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"/>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Monday, 14 September 2026</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Artificial Intelligence</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the regulation of AI and threats of extinction, as circulated.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the regulation of AI.</para></quote>
<para>I can already almost hear the interjections from the chair here: 'You need to talk to urgency. You need to say why this motion is more urgent than the other business that the Albanese Labor government has before us.' So let's look at the great agenda that the Albanese Labor government has today: the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill&#x2014;that's what they say is urgent to get to&#x2014;or the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026. That's what's up for us this morning&#x2014;not talking about how this parliament, this government and this country should be moving to address an extinction-level threat to us as a species coming from AI.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what the Greens think we should be talking about. It's not the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, but the fact that major players from the AI industry across the world are saying we need to slow down the development of frontier models because it may make us extinct. This isn't some kind of far-right conspiracy theory on the internet. Jacob Coxon quit Anthropic, one of the more ethical players in the space&#x2014;if you can call them ethical. He accused Anthropic and AI of 'racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives'. Then he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.</para></quote>
<para>That's what the Greens want this parliament and the Senate to be dealing with, not what Labor's got on the books, which is the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill.</para>
<para>It's not just Jacob. We could look at what Evan Hubinger, who's still at Anthropic, said. He came out just this week about the unlimited development of frontier AI models&#x2014;which, to be clear is Donald Trump's plan. They're the models that will run on the AI data centres that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, wants to put across our country like mushrooms. Evan Hubinger said that he personally believes there is a chance, in the order of 10 per cent, that AI could cause human extinction within the next decade. The Greens are listening to this. A 10 per cent chance of human extinction is a reason for urgent action. That is why we've brought this motion before the parliament. That is why we're saying act on this now. Our motion notes that major global AI corporations, multiple whistleblowers from big tech, are telling us that unregulated AI is a near-term extinction risk and that urgent guardrails are needed.</para>
<para>We're calling on the Albanese government to legislate mandatory safety testing and transparency obligations for frontier AI systems, rather than relying on industry self-regulation. We're calling on the government to urgently reach out to middle powers&#x2014;starting with Canada, Singapore, Japan and South Korea&#x2014;and push for a global treaty on AI regulation.</para>
<para>We don't pretend that Australia can do this by itself, but I'll tell you what we think we should do. We could lead the global debate here. We could bring forward legislation to put mandatory guardrails around AI. We could set out the rules for an ethical AI industry that constrains the frontier models, puts them back in the box and makes sure the checks are done before they're rolled out and sent into the wild. We need to urgently work with other middle powers to push back against the likes of Donald Trump. Other countries are calling out to us to join them in global leadership in this space. Canada is calling out, and, in our region, South Korea, Japan and Singapore are calling out. We should join with these other middle powers to do what is essential now for the future of our species and for the future of our jobs&#x2014;to actually put in some global guardrails.</para>
<para>I'll deal with a couple of other comments. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has said that there is a warning of an AI-agent swarm that would become capable of taking over the entire internet within a year. That's what Anthropic is telling us&#x2014;an AI-agent swarm taking control of the entire internet within a year. Even Sam Altman and Elon Musk&#x2014;the crazy far-right end of the industry&#x2014;are saying it.</para>
<para>I can't believe anyone would vote against this motion. I can't believe Labor would say: 'No, we don't want to deal with an extinction risk. We want to deal with the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026.' But&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me make a few observations about this particular proposition and then about the government's approach to this set of questions. The first is that we heard a lot from the Greens political party last week about the sacrosanct nature of Thursday afternoon debates. You don't do the Senate any favours with 10 minutes notice of a&#x2014;</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want to contradict the smartest senator in the room.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Shoebridge!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want to contradict galaxy-brain over there.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Through the chair, mate! Through the chair, buddy!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, it probably would help if you directed your comments through me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I should, Deputy Chair, and I will.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If there were any political seriousness at all from the Greens political party and not a desperate attempt to cover over their catastrophic last couple of days, then there would not be 10 minutes notice of something that they claim is a species risk. These two propositions cannot sit alongside each other. This is just about political convenience. It is not about the substance of these questions; their approach on these issues never has been.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is clearly not speaking to urgency. That's the debate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I will bring you back to the debate before the chair, which is the question of urgency.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would say, on the point of order, that, obviously, credibility goes to urgency. What I'm indicating is it is not a credible position&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'll rule on the point of order. I will remind you that we are debating the suspension motion. It's important that we do relate our comments to the suspension motion; however, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is in no way a proper use of the Senate's time now to deal with this question. It is a crude and base political stunt. It is.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Shoebridge, you were heard in silence!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge has just given the game away. What he was talking about was the clip. What is this about? It is about the video clip that poor old Senator Shoebridge is desperately hoping that the cover up of the woes of the Greens political party is a social media clip. Senator Shoebridge and others&#x2014;and I largely agree with them&#x2014;carry on about the corrosive impact of social media in our political discourse. I agree, but you're part of the problem. This Senate institution&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are getting a long way from the motion.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The motion goes to urgency.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, thank you for bringing us back there.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>&#xA0;&#xA0;Senator Shoebridge says this is about video clips. He has&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on reflecting adversely on a senator. Reel it in, and come to the topic at hand. You're entirely unprepared on this issue, and it shows.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, resume your seat. Minister, you have the call. Direct your comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with some of Senator Waters's observation there too. Senator Shoebridge gave 80 per cent of the game away, and Senator Waters gave the last 20 per cent of the game away. It's about clips, and it's what was called, in that great COVID era show&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This minister could, at some point, address the substance of the issue. Either talk about the extinction risk, which he's refusing to do, or talk about urgency and why the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill is more important.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Minister, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In that great COVID era show <inline font-style="italic">Kim's </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">onvenience</inline>, it's what the owner of the convenience shop called the sneak attack. From Senator Waters it's, 'We'll bowl up five minutes before with a brand new proposition.' It is all about the most facile politics. What the Albanese government is&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, resume your seat. Senator Allman-Payne?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Allman-Payne</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, the senator is making imputations about the motivations of senators. He needs to speak to the urgency, or his argument is not urgent.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, don't interject when I'm making a ruling. Senator Allman-Payne, there was no imputation. I will bring the minister back to the question at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The approach from the Albanese government is very straightforward. It is to make sure, not just for economic reasons but for strategic reasons and for the safety and long-term agency and resilience of the Australian people, that we capture the right artificial intelligence capacity in Australia for our agency and for our capacity for Australia as a nation, not just now but into the future; that we make sure that we spread the benefits of this technology right through our community; and that we are completely focused on safety.</para>
<para>The Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute is doing its work. It's engaging with many of the countries that Senator Shoebridge's resolution touches on to get under the bonnet of these frontier models and to engage with our intelligence communities and others to make sure that artificial intelligence in Australia is in the national interest and that our AI standards are&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This matter is urgent. An Anthropic researcher has just quit, warning that AI could bring catastrophic harm to humanity. A tiny club of depraved tech oligarchs, billionaires and corporations accountable to absolutely no-one are racing to build technology they themselves warn could destroy millions of jobs, upend democracy and even threaten humanity itself. This is insanity, and we are letting it happen.</para>
<para>These threats are not hypothetical. These threats and risks are urgent. AI is already being weaponised for warfare, surveillance, deepfakes and sexual abuse, while its sprawling data centres swallow staggering amounts of water, energy and land. This machine is already chewing through the planet and giving powerful people terrifying new tools to exploit and control us. Nobody voted for this. Nobody wants billionaires gambling with humanity's future. Nobody wants data centres sucking up water and energy while the planet burns and floods. Nobody wants every click, every conversation, every photograph and every detail of their life harvested for profit. Nobody wants a handful of self-interested men deciding what our future looks like, yet governments are rolling out the red carpet.</para>
<para>Labor will regulate ordinary people and punish protesters, but when they're confronted with corporations and billionaires wielding the most unimaginable wealth and power, with technology capable of unimaginable destruction, suddenly they turn to water, suddenly their courage disappears. We should be afraid and we should be angry. But, most of all, as Naomi Klein says, we should build a wealth and tech disarmament movement. That's what the Greens are doing, because we cannot let oligarchs own our future. Humanity is not a billionaire's experiment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will remind senators we do need to be relevant to the suspension motion.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Shoebridge for bringing forward this motion. This is something that should have been a concern for the government and the parliament well before this latest warning from current and former Anthropic employees. We've been warned for some time now about the risks of artificial intelligence, the rate of progress and the AI arms race that is currently underway. Even if, as some people in the government have suggested, this is just AI companies trying to pump up their valuation before a potential IPO, there are many who aren't in these companies who've been warning about similar things for much longer.</para>
<para>If any of us here today were offered a ride in a car and, before we jumped in, the driver said, 'Listen, I don't know, but there's maybe a 10 per cent chance that you'll die getting to your destination,' I don't think any of us would be getting in that car. So what are we doing here? How is this not a matter of urgency for the government? How do we have an AI safety institute that's simply in a department rather than being a statutory authority, like they have in other countries, that's well resourced, like they have in other countries, and that can be looking at what is unfolding and providing independent, robust advice to the government and to the parliament.</para>
<para>I'm concerned that we are faced with a challenge that our government doesn't seem capable of responding to in the time that is required. We've seen nothing from the government other than meetings and photo opportunities with CEOs of AI companies and US government officials. These AI companies are saying: 'Please regulate us. We're in this position where our motive is profit, yet we're obviously humans and we can see the potential risk to ourselves and the planet. Please regulate us.' But we've got a president of the US, our closest ally, who says: 'No. We want to win. We want to win this.' It's very unclear what he wants to win, but he just wants to win.</para>
<para>I think there is a huge, huge problem for us, as a country that seems to just do whatever the US wants rather than actually standing up, as we've seen Mark Carney and other world leaders doing, and forging our own path. I think that is why it is so urgent that we debate this motion today: to send a very clear message to the government that, as a parliament, as a Senate, we expect them to be working with the Canadians and to be working with other middle powers to rein in frontier AI model development in the US and in China.</para>
<para>We can't just be saying: 'Well, it's too hard. It's too hard. We're a middle power. The best we can do is allow these big hyperscalers to come here, use our land, use our energy, use our water, train their models and not ask the question: for what?' For what? Why are we rushing into this? It seems like there's no clear explanation from the government apart from, 'We don't want to be left behind.' Yet we haven't clearly defined what we want from this technology.</para>
<para>As Geoffrey Hinton, who's been talking about this for many years now, was saying, and as I read this morning, there is huge potential for this technology. We're already seeing it transform the way we do medical research, plant research. There's a massive upside. But if there is the downside that we're being warned of&#x2014;and, sure, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between genuine warnings and tech bro CEOs just trying to pump up their companies' valuations&#x2014;we should be listening to experts. We should be taking a precautionary approach, which is, sadly, something that Australian governments haven't seemed to have understood for a very long time.</para>
<para>It seems like we're going to have to wait until we're in another awful crisis to get a government to act. Hopefully, Australians will look back and say: 'You had the crossbench urging you. You had experts urging you.' Now is the time to get on the front foot with this, and I welcome this urgency motion today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government hasn't supported the suspension motion this morning, and I'll come to the reasons why. I would also say that, obviously, this is an attempt to waste time&#x2014;as usual&#x2014;in government business time. We never, ever do these on a Wednesday or Thursday morning. Why is that? Because it's private senators' time&#x2014;but Monday morning's fair game. Fair enough. That's point No. 1.</para>
<para>Point No. 2: I would almost accept the remarks from the crossbench this morning if it wasn't the case that there's been no nomination for the crossbench position on the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, which has submissions closing on 14 September, which happens to be tomorrow. There isn't a nomination in. So, the vehicle that this Senate voted for, to actually have&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator David Pocock.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: that's misleading the Senate. I've actually put my name forward. I know other senators have as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a debating point, Senator Pocock. I cannot make a judgement on that. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's taken a while! Presumably we will have a vote on that, because usually we have that pretty quickly. For some reason, we weren't able to have that last week.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Allman-Payne</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because there's lot of interest in it, because it's important.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Right. Everyone is a participating senator, as you know, Senator Allman-Payne. So get involved. Finalise the nominations so we have an appointed crossbench member&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has now misled the Senate twice. You can't participate in a joint committee. How long has she been in the place?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, that is not a point of order. Minister, you have the call. I will remind you of the motion in front of the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Honourable senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Faruqi and Senator Pocock were heard in silence. The minister deserves the same right.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The latest advice I have is that no nominations have been received for that select committee. If I have to correct the record on that, I will. But the advice that's been provided to me, as of earlier this morning, is that there's no nomination for that committee from the crossbench to appoint to that position which goes to&#x2014;if you look at the terms of reference&#x2014;examine some of the issues that have been raised by this urgency motion. So the lecture that people have been giving&#x2014;that it's the crossbench that's driving this kind of attention on the need to deal with frontier AI and other issues&#x2014;is just simply not correct.</para>
<para>I look after AI in government. I haven't had one elected person in this parliament come to discuss AI in government with me. Honestly, I would welcome it. I would welcome the engagement, but there's been none. This was all announced. We had a big measure in the MYEFO at the end of last year. We've got a new team in Finance. We've got work happening across government&#x2014;across the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission. All of that is happening, but there's not been a peep about any concerns people have. I would, again, welcome the interest that people might have.</para>
<para>In relation to work the government has been doing on this, the Prime Minister made a speech in July that set out high-level principles that the committee, using the expertise from across the parliament, is now examining and will come up with recommendations. If it's the will of the Senate to deal with that this side of Christmas, then we will be up for that. Absolutely. It's not really the pace that the Senate works at, but maybe on this issue it will, considering the urgency that Senator Shoebridge feels this morning. But this should be a whole-of-parliament exercise. That's why we have this joint select committee&#x2014;so that we can engage all representatives across the parliament on the significant and substantive issues that have been raised on artificial intelligence not just from a media report from some tech bros&#x2014;although that carries weight; I have no doubt about that. It's also because of national security implications, individual safety implications, copyright law and other issues that are engaged through that and the way that our community operates at the moment. It's all of those issues. If you look at the terms of reference, they're all covered there to make sure that, as a whole of parliament, we respond to this. It's not just the government's responsibility to respond to this, although we feel the weight of that responsibility. Minister Ayres took us through a lot of the work that he and Assistant Minister Charlton have been doing over the last 18 months or so. But there is a parliamentary responsibility to get this right, and the vehicle that has been supported by this chamber to get that right is the joint select committee. That will inform decisions that the government takes post that report. But get on and become a member of it, for goodness sake. It would be more worthy that you nominate rather than move an urgency motion. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the urgency of this motion, and I want to associate myself with the comments made by Senator Faruqi, Senator Shoebridge and Senator Pocock, who've spoken before me.</para>
<para>It is laughable that the government's response to the highlighting of a possible extinction crisis is a select committee. I note that the crossbench actually proposed that more crossbenchers be allowed to participate in that select committee and have come back with a negative response. So, noting that the minister made comments that they welcome the crossbench wanting to be involved on this issue, I suggest to the minister and the government that they expand the committee, as the crossbench has requested, to have more crossbench senators on it. The question has to be asked: Why won't you? Are you concerned about the issues that the crossbench is here in the chamber raising?</para>
<para>We saw again, in the last week, people being very concerned and put in very stressful positions because we had an outage with Optus on our triple zero number. We've had that happen three times recently, and people have been hugely stressed and concerned by it. People's health has been put in jeopardy. We've got the people who work on frontier AI models telling us that we are at risk of even more events like that that are way more serious&#x2014;AI frontier models creating agents that can cut off our water supply, cut off our electricity supply and cut off our telecommunications in one fell swoop, together. The banking system going down&#x2014;how on earth would we function as a community if those systems were taken out at once tomorrow? We are being told by the people who were working on these models&#x2014;people who have left the companies which are working on these models so that they can speak freely&#x2014;that that is a very real and near-term risk.</para>
<para>You can have a select committee that's going to talk about how the government is going to use AI, whether we are going to let people use people's intellectual property or whether we are going to have AI in our education systems. Those are use-case questions. What we are talking about here is putting guardrails on frontier AI development to avoid an extinction crisis risk. It is a material risk, and it is a near-term risk. Imagine&#x2014;they're talking about that happening in this decade. We know that Australians are concerned about this, and we seem to have a government that is either being wilfully ignorant or sleepwalking its way into a potential crisis.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> The time for the debate has expired.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:36]<br/>(The Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Brockman) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>14</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>24</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Gatenby, C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walker, C.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names/>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GATENBY</name>
    <name.id>324140</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that the question on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 be put separately.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The motion is that the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026, the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 and the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. all 2026.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We now move to the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 be exempted from the cut-off.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:44]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>19</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walker, C.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                <name>Bell, S.</name>
                <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Collins, J.</name>
                <name>Gatenby, C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whitten, T.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>10</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Steele-John, whilst I acknowledge there are many Dockers supporters in this chamber, including my good self, the scarf is a prop and needs to go. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7481" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 and amendment (2) on sheet 3948 moved by Senator Hume. The question is that part 4 of schedule 2 stand as printed.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [10:54]<br/>(The Temporary Chair&#x2014;Senator Ghosh) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave&#x2014;I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3924 in the name of Senator Bragg together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 52 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 5 &#x2014; Limited recourse borrowing arrangements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Subsection 10(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commercial property</inline> means business real property, or any other real property which is zoned to permit mixed uses where the dominant use of the property is for the conduct of one or more businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">development</inline> means any residential built form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">new residential dwelling</inline> means a residential dwelling, as at the time the limited recourse borrowing arrangements is entered, that will be, is being or has been built on land and that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has not been previously occupied; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the residential dwelling is contained in a development and the residential dwelling was sold by the developer of the development&#x2014;has not been previously occupied and used for more than 18 months in total as a residential dwelling; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for the purposes of subparagraph (a)(ii) above, where a previously uninhabitable dwelling has been substantially renovated, the 18 month occupation or use period is to be determined from the completion of the substantial renovation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the land on which the dwelling is or will be built, was vacant land immediately before the residential dwelling was built; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the building of the residential dwelling increases the total number of residential dwellings on the land; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a substantial renovation to repair an existing uninhabitable residential dwelling to habitation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) eligible new residential dwelling limited recourse borrowing arrangements funding can include the total of any of (but is not limited to):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) acquisition of the land; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) acquisition or construction of the dwelling(s); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) associated civil and building works; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) progress payments under the building contract; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) refinancing of a complete arrangement, providing the completed result of the funding is one or more new dwelling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For the purposes of this definition, new residential dwellings include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) off-the-plan purchases;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) substantial renovations of dwellings previously uninhabitable and has the same meaning as in section 195-1 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) house and land packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) vacant residential lots under a binding construction arrangement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) separate but related land and building contracts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For the purposes of this definition, qualifying acquisitions include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a contract entered into before construction commences;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a contract settled after construction is completed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) staged deposits or progress payments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an acquisition where legal title is transferred only upon completion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) an off-the-plan apartment, townhouse or house-and-land package.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">residential dwelling</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Paragraph 67A(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for an asset that is real property, one or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the dominant purpose for which the asset is used is a commercial property;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the asset is a new residential dwelling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of subparagraph (c)(i)&#x2014;real property that is used for mixed residential and commercial purposes may qualify. For example, a retail shop with apartment above or a residential dwelling that is also used as a doctor's clinic.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Transitional provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the amendments made by this Schedule and Schedule 5 to the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026</inline>, subsection 67A(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993</inline>, as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 5 to the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026</inline>, continues to apply on and after that commencement in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) arrangements entered into before that commencement under which money is borrowed, or borrowings of money are maintained, for the acquisition of assets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) arrangements entered into on or after that commencement under which money is borrowed, or borrowings of money are maintained, for the acquisition of assets, to the extent that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the arrangement is for maintaining (or refinancing) a borrowing of money under another arrangement entered into before that commencement; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the acquisition of the asset (to which the borrowing under the arrangement relates) happens under an arrangement entered into before that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This item means each of the following continues to be covered by the exception in subsection 67A(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a borrowing arrangement entered into before the commencement of Schedule 5 to the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a refinancing arrangement covered by subparagraph (b)(i);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a borrowing arrangement for which the related asset is acquired under an arrangement entered into before that commencement (even if the settlement for the acquisition of the asset happens after that commencement).</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3924 be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [10:58]<br/>(The Temporary Chair&#x2014;Senator Ghosh) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>21</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br/>Bill, as amended, agreed to.<br/>Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7499" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 prevents the unauthorised commercial use, often called 'ambush marketing', of protected major sporting events and images associated with those events. Previously, designating an event required a bill, which cost taxpayers' money to draft and process through the parliament. Under this bill before the Senate today, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026, this is being changed to a simpler system. The minister will issue a legislative instrument, a regulation. That's it; that's all the bill does&#x2014;it reduces red tape and cost. The instrument will still be disallowable. In the unlikely event that there's controversy around designating an event, the Senate can still debate the instrument and, if necessary, vote it down, as we would with a bill.</para>
<para>The act serves to protect the financial interests of events which cost millions to stage, without impacting the rights of Australians. To answer a constituent's question that came through my electorate office, a hotel can advertise 'watch the Olympics on our big screen', provided it's sourcing the feed from a broadcaster who's paid the rights. You can't claim to be a sponsor or make a video, printed media or signage which a reasonable person would assume meant you had paid to be a sponsor. That's fair enough.</para>
<para>One Nation supports this measure. If someone wants to risk hundreds of millions of dollars to stage a sporting event, some level of protection is necessary&#x2014;or nobody will do it. These are major events: the FIFA football world cup co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2023, the International Cricket Council's T20 men's world cup in 2022 and, of course, the Commonwealth and Olympic games. Sensible taxpayer funding for these events can be justified on the basis of the taxation return from those attending and the increased tourism revenue for years afterwards, and for the facilities built for the future. One Nation strongly supports children playing sport, and that means someone has to build the venues. It's these major events which do that, and this is why they need protection.</para>
<para>I'll discuss who else needs protection: girls and women, who are being told to play against biological males pretending to be women&#x2014;fake women. I've chosen my words carefully. Some sports&#x2014;mixed doubles in the tennis, for instance&#x2014;allow men and women to compete against each other. That's not what I'm talking about. My concern goes to men pretending to be women and playing against women and girls. Whether the sport is a contact sport or a test of skill, such as weightlifting, makes no difference. It is wrong. It is totally wrong. It's dangerous. Girls and women are being harmed. They're losing their opportunity to win fair and square and losing to men who are not being fair. It's an attack on women's rights, and I personally do not understand the mental gymnastics needed for a feminist to support men beating&#x2014;and I do mean beating&#x2014;women or anyone else, for that matter, in a sporting contest. This tarnishes the event and future events and guts female competitors and possible future female competitors.</para>
<para>Let me make One Nation's policy very clear. If your major sporting event involved even one sport which allowed biological males to compete as fake females in our country, a One Nation minister for sport would not issue your event with protection under this act. To organisers who do not protect women and girls playing a sport: we will not protect you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for all the contributions on the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 from those other senators. The bill before us modernises Australia's framework for protecting the indicia and images associated with major sporting events. It addresses a clear limitation in the current act, which requires events to be listed in schedules and updated through primary legislation through the parliament. The bill replaces that approach with a flexible rules based framework, allowing events and their associated protections to be prescribed by a legislative instrument. The use of legislative rules is appropriate given the need for timely event-specific adjustments while remaining subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the Legislation Act 2003. This will enable protections to be applied for more efficiently, in a timely way, as Australia continues to host major international events. There are some really good ones coming up.</para>
<para>A key feature of the bill is the introduction of clear statutory requirements for declaring major sporting events. An event may only be prescribed where the minister is satisfied that it is of international significance and that it is consistent with the objects of the act. The protection period also cannot exceed a period which the minister reasonably considers necessary, having regard to the objects of the act. The minister may also consider factors such as attendance and the broader impact on the Australian international sporting relationships. These requirements ensure that protections are applied consistently and appropriately.</para>
<para>The bill also maintains a balanced approach. Protections apply only to unauthorised commercial use, and existing exemptions for legitimate activities such as reporting and commentary remain in place. Finally, the bill streamlines the act by removing outdated schedules, a requirement at the moment because we don't have the rules based system, and this establishes a framework that is fit for future events.</para>
<para>As I said, I won't take too much more of the Senate's time other than to say two things. First of all, as we head towards the green and gold runway of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we know that the world's spotlight will be on Australia to deliver world-class international sporting events. I really look forward to the Senate's support of this bill so that the Australian government can support those organisations who are delivering these events over the next couple of years and do that in a way that protects the images, the logos and all of the important mechanisms that this bill will achieve.</para>
<para>I also note the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills asked the minister to respond to questions about the need for a rules based system. In relation to that, I table the addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026. This addendum responds to the matters raised by the scrutiny of bills committee.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:14]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br/>Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? I'll call the minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the third reading be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:23]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br/>Bill read a third time. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7529" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows&#x2014;</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Early childhood education and care workers do one of the most important jobs in this country, but you wouldn't know it from what they've historically been paid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When we were first elected, child care workers were leaving the job in droves&#x2014;not because they didn't love the job but because they couldn't afford to keep doing it, because you could get paid more stacking shelves than you could educating the most precious things in our lives: our kids.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In some centres the attrition rate was 40 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's 40 per cent of the workforce leaving the job they love in any given year, and that's a crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But it's now changed and it's changed for a reason: the 15 per cent pay rise that this Government delivered almost two years ago.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When combined with the Government's support for minimum wage rises, this means $255 more per week for a typical full-time educator and $410 more per week for early childhood teachers, compared to December 2024 when we first implemented the pay rise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More than 215,000 early educators at more than 11,600 centres across the country are now benefitting from this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Job vacancies are now down 31 per cent, job applications in some places are up 30 per cent and there are now 20,000 more childcare workers doing that sort of life-changing work right across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In other words, it's worked. It turns out that, if you pay people more, more people want to do the job.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's why on the 17th of June, the Prime Minister announced an investment of $3.6 billion over the next two years to lock in this historic pay rise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill delivers on this commitment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It amends the <inline font-style="italic">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Act 2024</inline>, crediting the Special Account and extending the Act's sunset date from 30 June 2028 to 31 December 2029.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Special Account is used to administer the Early Childhood Education and Care Worker Retention Payment grant to ECEC providers to fund higher wages for eligible workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the first time, all Child Care Subsidy-approved services will be eligible for funding as long as they meet the grant requirements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes that all educators are engaged under a workplace instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is an important protection for workers and ensures the Government's investment is passed on in the form of higher wages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But it's not just workers that benefit from this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To receive the funding, services have to limit fee increases.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This has a real impact for families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over the first year of the program fees at centres that have received the payment have increased by about half the amount of centres that didn't sign up.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If this legislation doesn't pass, the advice of my Department is that child care fees could skyrocket by about 17 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We don't want this to occur.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's why this legislation is important.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It means child care workers are paid what they deserve and the costs aren't passed on parents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That will save the average family about $1,500 over the next two years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's big.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill does something else as well. Something very important.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It establishes a new object and condition of funding for the Act which puts service quality and the safety of our children at its heart.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To receive the funding, services will now also be required to meet Quality Area 2 relating to children's health and safety under the National Quality Standard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If they don't, their funding can be cut.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">About 95 per cent of services already meet this standard, but I want that number to be higher.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's what parents have got a right to expect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it's what our children deserve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill also allows for equivalent conditions to apply to services that are not regulated by the National Quality Framework, such as In Home Care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is the latest in a raft of reforms we have introduced to improve safety in our early education system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The legislation we passed last year gives my department the power to cut off funding to operators that don't meet quality, safety or compliance requirements under the National Law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since the legislation passed, my department has taken compliance action against 119 centres, putting them on notice to lift their game.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These are centres that haven't met the safety standards for at least 5 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it is no accident that 55 of those centres have now suddenly fixed the problem they had refused to in the past.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The threat of cutting their funding has forced them to act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is not an idle threat. In June we cut off funding to a service for the first time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Seven other centres have decided to close.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That legislation also gave my Department the power to undertake unannounced visits to child care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since November 2025, Australian Government Authorised Officers have conducted more than 1,300 unannounced visits to services across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">States and territory regulators have stepped up too.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Last quarter, regulators undertook 1,540 compliance actions, more than double the 735 at the same time last year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 27 February, two other big reforms came into force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first of those is the National Early Childhood Worker Register.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The events of last year made clear how important this is. To know who is working where. And to be able to track people from centre to centre and from state to state.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The second is mandatory child safety training.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is now a requirement for everyone who works in a centre. And not just them. Everyone up to the CEO and the Board of Directors has to do it as well.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They have six months to complete the training, and we've seen more than 350,000 do the foundation training so far.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The next stage of child safety training began two weeks ago.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have also banned personal mobile phones in centres.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A national CCTV trial is also underway in more than 300 services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Federal Police are part of the advisory group on that, as well as the Australian Centre for Child Protection, the National Office for Child Safety, and other leading experts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All up, our Government is investing an extra $226 million in child safety reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">States and territories have committed more than $270 million as well.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's around half a billion that governments are investing in strengthening quality and safety in early childhood education and care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And last month, Education Ministers agreed to explore the development of an Early Education and Care Commission to strengthen quality and safety in the system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill supports the educators who support Australian families every single day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It supports workforce participation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And it helps make our centres better.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And safer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. I want to begin by saying that I acknowledge those wonderful early childhood educators and teachers who care for and educate Australian children every day. They certainly do an outstanding job and important work, and I thank them very much indeed. Parents trust these educators with the people they care for more than anyone. They depend on them to keep their children safe, help them learn and give them a stable and caring environment.</para>
<para>A stable early childhood workforce is essential for many families. Without it, those parents cannot return to work, pick up that extra shift, study or run their businesses. So the opposition welcomes the opportunity and the certainty that this bill provides and will not oppose its package. We recognise the importance of workforce stability and we do not want families, educators or providers facing a sudden funding cliff when the current worker retention payment expires in November. But we will be bringing forward some important amendments because, while the government has got the headline that it wanted, there are serious problems buried beneath it. This bill provides another $3.6 billion for the worker retention payment. It extends the payment from 30 November 2026 to 30 June 2028 and extends the wage justice special account until the end of 2029. That provides certainty for the next two years, but it does not provide the long-term answer that I know many in the sector are looking for.</para>
<para>We've been here before. What we've got from this government is no long-term plan. When the original scheme came before the parliament in 2024, the coalition did not stand in the way of the legislation, but we warned the government that a temporary taxpayer funded payment was not a substitute for a sustainable workforce plan. We asked what would happen when the funding ended. Two years later, the government's answer is another two years. This government does not have a plan. It simply reacts.</para>
<para>The worker retention payment was supposed to be a bridge while the Fair Work Commission completed its gender based undervaluation review and the government considered a longer term funding model. The Fair Work Commission has finished its work, and it's determined new classifications and minimum award rates under the children's services award, which are now in place. The government knew from April 2025 that significant award increases were likely, and the commission handed down its final decision in December. So the government's had time to develop a sustainable plan, but instead it's come back to the parliament asking for another $3.6 billion to extend the same temporary grant program. That's not a funding model; it's another funding delay and a very expensive one.</para>
<para>We welcome the certainty that this extension provides today, but changing the expiry date from 2026 to 2028 does not answer the obvious question: what happens after 2028? The Front Project, which supports the bill, told the Senate inquiry that the question of long-term structural funding has not been resolved; it's simply been extended. The Y Australia warned of another funding cliff in 2028 and the risk of sudden fee increases if the support is withdrawn. Educators also deserve to know whether the current arrangements will last. Providers need to know how they're expected to plan their businesses. Parents need to know whether these costs will eventually be passed on through increased fees that they will need to pay. And taxpayers deserve to know what another $3.6 billion will achieve in the long run.</para>
<para>That brings us to the broader economic problem. The government is using successive taxpayer funded grants to manage the symptoms of high inflation, rising operating costs and historically weak productivity. It's not addressing the economic conditions that are eroding real wages, squeezing providers and driving up costs for families. Annual childcare inflation is now 7.3 per cent, more than twice the inflation rate of 3.5 per cent. Average centre based day-care fees have increased from $11.35 an hour in the June quarter of 2022 to $14.50 an hour in the March quarter of 2026. This government is presiding over a cost-of-living problem. This is an increase of approximately 28 per cent. Almost 40 per cent of services now charge above the hourly childcare subsidy rate cap. These figures matter around the kitchen tables of Australia. They matter to the mother deciding whether to return to work and whether their family would be better off. They matter to the father deciding whether the family can afford another day of care. They matter to the shift workers, the small-business owners and the families already being squeezed by housing, groceries and electricity bills. The government can't keep pointing to how much taxpayer money it is spending and call that success. Families do not judge the childcare system by the size of the government's announcements; they judge it by whether or not they can find care, whether they can afford it, whether their children are safe and whether the care actually suits their family. Another temporary grant may provide some short-term certainty, but it's not a substitute for stronger economic management or a sustainable plan beyond June 2028.</para>
<para>There is another major problem with this bill. When the government announced the extension, it said that family day care and in-home care would finally be included, after being excluded from the original scheme. The coalition welcomed that announcement. We thought, 'This is good; the government is taking the right step.' But family day care and in-home care are not secondary forms of child care. For some children, a smaller family day-care setting actually works best. For families in regional and remote communities, it may be the only option that's available. For parents working shifts hours or irregular hours, or for families with complex needs, maybe with children with special needs, in-home care is essential. But headline inclusion is not the same as genuine eligibility. Under the government's settings, services are only eligible if all educators are engaged as employees under a compliant workplace instrument. Services that use lawful independent contract arrangements are excluded. This is not a small technical problem. Family Day Care Australia told the Senate inquiry that virtually all of Australia's approximately 8,500 family day-care educators operate as self-employed sole traders and independent contractors. So the government has announced that family day care is included while retaining a rule that locks out its predominant workforce model.</para>
<para>For many educators, the benefit exists in the press release but not in reality. Forcing these services to convert their entire workforce to an employee model may be commercially unviable. It would impose significant and substantial costs and undermine the flexibility that makes home-based care work. The result is a divided system. Educators in eligible centre-based services can benefit from the Commonwealth funded wage premium while contractor educators doing equally&#x2014;and I want to stress that: equally&#x2014;important work in other approved settings miss out. That's not fair, and it doesn't make sense.</para>
<para>A workforce retention program should reflect the workforce that actually exists, not the workforce model that the government prefers, not the 'one size fits all' system that this government is forcing upon Australian families. That is why the opposition will move amendments in the Senate. That's why we're moving these amendments that will prevent eligibility for the payment being made conditional on a particular workforce instrument or industrial arrangement. They will provide a practical pathway for otherwise eligible family day care and in-home care services using lawful contractor models to access the payment.</para>
<para>Of course, providers must comply with workplace laws and demonstrate that the funding reaches eligible educators, but access to Commonwealth funding should not be used to pressure providers into adopting a particular industrial arrangement. The government already permits labour hire workers to receive the payment without requiring providers to prove that the labour hire agency has a compliant workplace instrument. Instead, providers must demonstrate that the funding has been passed through to eligible workers. The government has not explained why a similar auditable pathway cannot be developed for family day care or in-home care educators. It has not explained why a similar auditable mechanism cannot be developed for family day care and in-home care educators.</para>
<para>This bill also allows grant agreements to include conditions linked to quality area 2 two of the national quality standard, which covers children's health and safety. The coalition supports strong and enforceable standards because the safety of children must always come first. But conditions attached to a temporary wage grant are not a substitute for comprehensive and nationally consistent child safety reform across the entire sector. The government must explain how these conditions will work in practice and ensure that they do not produce unintended consequences for educators, providers or children.</para>
<para>As I said in my introduction, the opposition will not oppose this bill. We have amendments that we hope can be supported, but we recognise that the certainty that this extension provides and the importance of avoiding a sudden funding cliff for educators, providers and families is important. We will not ignore the economic problem that sits behind it. We will not pretend that extending another temporary program is a sustainable plan, and we will not accept that having family day care and in-home care included in the government's announcement but excluded by the fine print is OK.</para>
<para>These amendments are practical. They reflect the workforce that exists and ensures that family day care and in-home care educators are not shut out simply because they work under lawful contractor arrangements. Educators deserve certainty, providers deserve workable rules and families deserve care that is safe, affordable, accessible and flexible, and that is what the program should deliver.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak on the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. In my very first speech to the Senate, I said the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In early childhood education, we have to be bold in our vision, broad in our approach and brave in our means of delivery, and we need to do so in partnership with our early years educators, in whose hands we place our youngest and most vulnerable minds and yet whose critical work we choose to undervalue and underpay. Again, this is a choice&#x2014;a policy choice and a values choice&#x2014;and we must change our path.</para></quote>
<para>Today, almost seven years to the date of saying those words, I could not be more proud to stand here, as a member of the Albanese Labor government, in support of a bill that locks in the 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators for another two years. This is a bill that changes our path.</para>
<para>My passion for early childhood education would be of no surprise to anyone in this chamber. I have spoken here often about its transformative power. We know that, when we get the early years right, magic happens. In those critical years, when 95 per cent of a child's brain connections are formed, we can change the course of their life. When we get it right, we can smash intergenerational disadvantage and we can set our country on a different, better and fairer path. But none of this is possible without the early educators, who deliver that early education and all of its transformative potential. They are the most important piece, and they deserve to be fairly paid for the life-changing and nation-building work that they do each and every single day.</para>
<para>In 2024, the Albanese Labor government delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers through the worker retention payment. We know that, before the payment was introduced, services were struggling to attract and retain staff. They were delaying planned expansions. They were closing rooms. They were limiting enrolments. The sector urgently needed greater workforce stability, and, since our government introduced the worker retention payment, the results have been significant. We've seen the workforce grow, while keeping costs down for families, and there are now around 20,000 more early childhood education and care workers. We've seen job vacancies fall by almost 31 per cent, while the proportion of services operating with a staffing waiver has declined from 8.9 per cent to 4.3 per cent. These are substantial achievements, and what they show is that the policy is working. That's why we're backing it in, locking in the 15 per cent pay rise for a further two years and ensuring that these benefits continue for workers, for services, for children and for their families.</para>
<para>The bill credits the special account with an additional $3.6 billion and extends the sunset date for the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Act 2024 to 31 December 2029. Funding will continue to be tied to a commitment from services to limit fee increases for families, which is important to continue easing those cost-of-living pressures and ensure we're still able to deliver quality early education. As we work towards a universal early childhood education and care system, safety, of course, must remain our top priority, and that is why the bill introduces a new object and condition of funding. From July 2027, services must meet quality area 2 of the NQS, or their funding may be cut or suspended.</para>
<para>Earlier this month, the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which I chair, tabled its report on the bill. Our inquiry ran for just under a month and received some 31 submissions. The evidence that we received over the course of that inquiry was clear: since the worker retention payment was introduced, staff retention has improved and vacancy rates have fallen. Submitters overwhelmingly supported the bill's passage, recognising it, on the one hand, as an important cost-of-living measure for parents and families across the country and also as critical for the workers delivering early education and care. Submitters warned that, without the bill, early education and care workers would face a reduction in pay, creating uncertainty and increasing the risk of further workforce attrition.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to building a stronger, more accessible and higher quality early childhood education and care system. We're investing $1 billion through the Building Early Education Fund to deliver new and expanded services where they are needed most, particularly in regional and rural communities. Our three-day guarantee ensures every child can access at least three days of subsidised early childhood education and care each week, with First Nations children eligible for up to five days. This bill continues our work in building a universal early education and care system that puts quality, opportunity and children at its heart. By investing in the educators who nurture the next generation and in children from the very beginning, we are giving every Australian child the opportunity to thrive.</para>
<para>I want to thank Minister Walsh, who's brought this bill to our chamber, not just for her work in this place as minister for early learning but for her service over many years before entering this place, standing up for workers in early childhood education. I want to commend her on how she has now used her position as a minister to continue that advocacy, to continue standing up for those workers and to deliver for them through this bill. I know those workers know that the minister has their backs, and I want to commend her on this work.</para>
<para>There are few more exciting areas of public policy that we have the chance to deal with in this place than early childhood education. We know that, when we get it right and when quality early education is delivered in the first five years of a child's life, you change the way a child's brain grows and develops. And, when you change the way their brain grows and develops, you change every opportunity before them. You give them every chance at having the best possible future education, learning potential and learning opportunities, going forward. Of course, when you don't, the opposite is true. When we don't provide children with a quality early education and when we don't provide those critical early interventions and get those children support when they need it, especially children from disadvantaged backgrounds and especially children with extra needs and extra learning requirements, it's too late for many of them to catch up when we send them off to school at the age of five.</para>
<para>The opportunity to intervene in a child's education in order to have the most transformative impact is in the early years. There is absolutely no way in hell that, if we were designing our school education system today, we would design it to start at age five, because the evidence is simply so compelling that, if you have a child exposed to a quality early learning environment, the simple acts of singing songs while counting fingers and toes, reading books and playing games in engagement with a qualified educator can transform the way that child's brain works. It is extraordinary. It's here in this chamber and this parliament that we have every opportunity to influence the policy settings to get more children having opportunities to engage in play based learning which could change the course of their life and also the course of our country. This is about our nation's future. It's about the potential of children, and therefore it's about the potential of our nation. That's why I call it nation-building work. Play based learning in the early years is nation-building work.</para>
<para>We have an extraordinary workforce across our country delivering early education in a whole range of settings and sectors, all of which are important and all of which play an incredibly important role. It is well overdue that those workers are adequately valued for their role and their contribution in building a nation that is better, fairer and more productive and which gives every single child an opportunity to thrive, to meet their fullest potential and to succeed in our education system.</para>
<para>I am very excited about this bill. I am very excited about what it will mean for that workforce. I'm very excited that it means we will lose fewer brilliant early educators who simply haven't been able to afford to continue to do the work that they love and the work which matters to all of us&#x2014;not just to families with children in early education but to all of us. It's about the nation we want to build. I'm very proud of this bill. I commend it to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Greens support this legislation to extend the worker retention payment, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. The worker retention payment has delivered a modest but important increase to the wages of eligible childhood educators. It recognises, in part at least, the incredible, relentless and vital work they do, and it helps retain educators in a workforce that is under enormous pressure. But I need to make it clear to this chamber that there is much, much more that needs to be done.</para>
<para>I can't tell you how many rounds of estimates over the last couple of years I have spent asking the government the same question: what does Labor plan to do when the worker retention payment finishes? We, along with educators, providers, unions and families were forced to wait until the eleventh hour for this answer. There was nothing in the budget, despite numerous leaks and speculation, and that uncertainty is incredibly damaging and anxiety inducing.</para>
<para>I've heard directly from educators and providers about how devastating it was to spend months not knowing whether this government would continue funding the wages that they relied upon. I've heard from service providers who refused to take up the worker retention payment due to the uncertainty that it was going to create for the future of the workforce once it ends. People who do some of the most important work for our families, for our children and for our economy were left wondering whether their pay would be cut before Christmas at the end of the year, whether their centres would be able to afford to retain staff or whether parents would ultimately be asked to pick up this bill if the government dropped the ball.</para>
<para>This extension is, of course, welcome, but this weight has not been without consequence, and it still doesn't solve the underlying problem plaguing the early education system. This bill extends the worker retention payment to June 2028. It also allows the government to make the payment conditional on services meeting quality area 2 of the National Quality Standard, which covers children's health and safety. Of course services receiving public funding should be meeting national safety standards. I think that this is the bare minimum that parents expect of public money flowing to our early learning centres, but I'm once again here before this government asking where the investment in quality and safety before harm occurs is to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.</para>
<para>This government is prepared to attach consequences to funding after a service fails to meet safety standards. It's happy suspending or terminating funding when things go wrong, but where is the investment in building high-quality services before children are put at risk? We shouldn't be waiting for harm to occur before the government chooses to act. We should be investing in properly trained, properly paid and properly supported educators. We should be giving services the resources, the staffing and the time they need to deliver safe, high-quality early education and care. We should be building a system where safety is embedded from the beginning not one where governments wait for a failure and then reach for the penalty box, and we cannot do that without the workforce.</para>
<para>Australia needs more than 21,000 additional qualified early childhood professionals just to meet the current demand and sustainable staffing levels. The Greens have been clear that a 15 per cent wage increase is not enough. We have consistently supported the 25 per cent wage increase sought by unions and have advocated for genuine pay parity with school teachers. The educators I speak to are absolutely exhausted. They are doing training in their own time. They are carrying enormous administrative workloads. They are trying to meet increasingly complex needs with too few staff and too little time, and many, too many, excellent educators are just simply leaving.</para>
<para>The worker retention payment is a single lifeline in the middle of a workforce crisis. Quite frankly, it is a bandaid on a bullet wound. We need a sustainable workforce strategy with wages and conditions that recognise early childhood educators as professionals and foundational educators. We also need to be honest about who is ultimately paying when governments fail to fund that workforce properly. Childcare fees are already rising rapidly. Childcare costs increased by nine per cent in the year to April 2026, more than twice the overall inflation rate. For families of almost 1.5 million children who rely on early learning, early childhood education and care is now the second largest household expense after housing. It should be treated as an extension of education&#x2014;from early childhood right through to tertiary.</para>
<para>I hear from parents who cannot wait for their children to turn five, because then they will be able to shrug off one of the biggest costs on their household budgets. I hear from young couples who want to start a family but are looking at the cost of early learning and wondering whether they can even afford to have a child. This is a national shame. How have we become a country where the No. 1 obstacle to starting a family is the cost? How can we have a Labor government that says it wants to increase women's workforce participation and advance women's economic equality while failing to deliver the one thing that makes work and study possible for so many women&#x2014;accessible, affordable, high-quality early learning?</para>
<para>This government needs to understand that child care is not a luxury. It's essential social, educational and economic infrastructure, and yet we continue to pour billions of dollars of public money into a broken subsidy model that leaves families pulling their hair out whilst navigating Centrelink, providers navigating complex administration, educators fighting for decent wages and private companies extracting profits from an essential public service. The Greens believe there's another way. We've been shouting it from the rooftops, waiting for this Labor government to take action with that thumping majority. If Labor finally taxed gas exports at a minimum of 25 per cent, it could raise the public revenue needed to invest in the services Australians actually need.</para>
<para>Imagine putting that money towards a genuinely universal free early learning system, a system where every single child has a place in a high-quality service in their own community, no more postcode lotteries; where parents do not have to navigate the broken Child Care Subsidy system; where educators are properly valued and paid; and where public money funds children, educators and quality care, not profits for shareholders. That is the system that Australia should be building and that we could be building if Labor had the bravery to finally stand up to the corporate donors and to stop sacrificing our children and our families to protect the bottom lines. They are essentially choosing them instead of us, instead of our families. Right now, far too many children are locked out of the early learning system altogether.</para>
<para>The Inclusion Support Program is supposed to make sure that children with a disability, developmental delay and other additional needs can participate fully in early learning. I shouldn't even need to say it. The funding is simply not keeping pace with the cost of providing that support. The subsidy for an additional educator hasn't been indexed since 2016. That's a decade. What a shameful 10-year anniversary that is. In the midst of Labor's barbaric NDIS cuts, this is another discriminatory system fully failing in full swing against children with additional needs. A child should not miss out on early learning because their service cannot afford the additional support required to include them.</para>
<para>We also need to properly fund and support Aboriginal community controlled early learning organisations. ACCOs provide culturally safe, community controlled early learning that does far more than simply provide a childcare place. They build relationships with families. They embed culture and connect early learning with broader health, wellbeing and family supports. But the funding system hasn't been designed around the way ACCOs actually deliver these services. ACCOs need dedicated long-term needs based funding that reflects the true cost of their work.</para>
<para>What all this comes down to is ambition&#x2014;ambition to pave a world-leading early learning system, not just propping up the path that needs immediate fixing like workforce retention or to respond to the latest scandal or spot fire but building a new bold ambitious system from the ground up. This is the work that we are demanding Labor do. The Greens are ready to support ambitious reform to our early learning system. There is a huge Labor majority in the House, and the Greens are in the balance of power, ready to get this work done without delay. The Prime Minister has said that he wants universal early learning to be his legacy. Well, where is he? Where is the planning? Where is the ambition? He's four years in, and all we are seeing is some reactive tinkering around the edges. Families deserve more, and the Greens demand more. This is why we are supporting this bill whilst demanding and fighting for so much more for our kids and for our families.</para>
<para>I want to be clear about what this legislation doesn't do. It doesn't provide long-term certainty beyond the worker retention payment. It doesn't improve workforce conditions for early educators. It doesn't address childcare deserts. It doesn't make early learning genuinely free and accessible. And it doesn't establish an independent national early childhood education and care commission that the Greens have been calling for, that the sector wants and needs and that Labor has now committed to consulting on. Even within the workforce, this payment does leave people behind. We need to be clear about that. There are early childhood educators working in family day care and in-home care who, through no fault of their own, miss out on the worker retention payment because they're engaged as contractors rather than employees due to the nature of their work.</para>
<para>These educators are doing essential early learning work, but the government's wage support doesn't reach everyone. We support the worker retention payment, and we do not want to see the wage increases it provides to the majority of the early childhood workforce delayed, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time&#x2014;something that we are urging this Labor government to do.</para>
<para>The fact that the worker retention payment is the right mechanism for the majority of the workforce doesn't mean we must not also urgently address the gap for educators in family day care and in-home care. I urge Labor to work with these sectors to find a solution that properly values these educators for the work they do and the complex care they provide, regardless of their employment or contractual obligations. We need a government that stops treating early learning as a problem to be managed and starts treating it as essential public infrastructure, a right of every single child and every family in this country. It is the great equaliser in society, after all.</para>
<para>Educators deserve certainty and value. Parents deserve affordability and access. Our children deserve the very best start to life. They deserve a system designed around their safety, their rights, their development and, of course, their wellbeing. For these reasons, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name on behalf of the Australian Greens:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes the uncertainty to the early childhood education and care workforce caused by the delayed confirmation of continued funding for the worker retention payment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) provide certainty in relation to Commonwealth-funded increased pay and improved conditions for the early childhood education and care workforce beyond this extension of the worker retention payment,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) include the continuity, viability and sustainability of the early childhood education and care workforce in the design and priority work of the proposed Early Childhood Education and Care Commission; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) urgently progress a genuinely universal, high-quality and free early childhood education and care system that truly values educators, prioritises children and takes profit out of care".</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Greens are calling on the government to provide certainty for the early learning workforce beyond the worker retention payment and urgently progress a genuinely universal high-quality early childhood education and care system that values educators, that prioritises children and that finally takes profit out of care.</para>
<para>Headlines about billionaires making profits off the early learning system&#x2014;our kids are not the headlines that families should have to read about. Education comes first. Our children cannot wait for this Labor government to drag their heels on incremental reform. Labor's got the numbers. We can get this done; I say it again and again. Now is the time for reform. Now is the time to be ambitious. Now is the time to put our kids and our families first, not our corporate donors and these enormous for-profit chains that are cutting corners every single day and putting our children in danger. Only the Greens have the bold vision&#x2014;no, not only the Greens. Parents and families and the Greens have a bold vision to build the system that we need, so let's get on with it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. As a mother, and as a family therapist, I know that the early years of a child's life matter enormously. These are the years when children build relationships. They build confidence and curiosity and the foundation that really sets them up for the rest of their lives. That is why early educators do some of the most important work in this nation. Early childhood educators help children learn. They support families and give parents the confidence to work. Yet, for too long, these skilled workers have been underpaid and undervalued.</para>
<para>Almost two years ago, the Albanese Labor government began delivering a 15 per cent wage increase through the worker retention payment: 10 per cent from December 2024 and a further five per cent from December 2025. More than 215,000 educators at more than 11,600 services now benefit. Job vacancies are down 31 per cent, and there are 20,000 more workers in the sector. That is an excellent outcome.</para>
<para>This builds on the success that we've already seen. It credits over $3&#xBD; billion to the special account so grants can continue supporting higher wages through to 30 June 2028, and it extends the act's sunset date to 31 December 2029 so the program can be administered and finalised. For the first time, all childcare subsidy approved service types can be eligible if they meet grant requirements, including family day care and in-home care services that employ their educators. Providers must engage workers under a compliant workplace instrument and pass the funding through higher wages.</para>
<para>When we value early educators properly everybody benefits. Fairer pay helps attract and retain experienced educators, while children, parents and families benefit from a more stable workforce. As we have consistently said on this side of the chamber, early education is not babysitting. It is education. It is one of the most important investments that we can make in our children and in our families.</para>
<para>My sister is a kindergarten teacher. She has dedicated her career to early childhood education and supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander professionals in the sector as well. In fact, my sister was the kinder teacher for my now 10-year-old son, which is very, very sweet. She chose to do this work to make a difference and help our kids to see themselves represented and to know that they belong. For First Nations communities, this means culturally safe, high-quality early learning and a stronger workforce for First Nations educators. For First Nations educators and kids, this is not a period in time in which you have something to do with this little person's life. It is often just the start of a lifelong connection to that young person. I know that for both my sons, who went to an Aboriginal early years' centre, the women and the men in the early years centre will be people that they know for the rest of their lives and will be people they call aunty and uncle for the rest of their lives.</para>
<para>Importantly, this bill isn't just about wages. It's also about quality and safety. The bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Education to impose funding conditions, requiring providers to meet quality area 2, children's health and safety, under the National Quality Standard from July 2027. Services that are not rated as meeting quality area 2 may have funding reduced or suspended. Parents need to be able to trust that their children are safe and they are receiving a quality education. I think that has certainly been at the top of lots of parents' minds in the recent months. The program extension also retains a cap on fee growth so that government funding for higher wages is not simply passed on to families through excessive fee increases. I think that's a really important safeguard for families.</para>
<para>At its heart, this bill reflects a simple Labor value. If you do important work, you deserve a fair pay. Few jobs are more important than helping educate and care for Australia's littlest people. Early educators shape lives. They deserve fair wages, decent conditions and recognition as the professionals that they are. We've seen some really horrible conversations happening amongst members of the crossbench about the role that early educators have and the skills that they bring to the sector. They should never ever be diminished. I believe early educators, as I've said, do believe one of the most important jobs in our nation&#x2014;setting our kids up for the very best life ahead. For kids who have had a tough life or might be having a tough time at home, often an early years' service is a place where they go to get some safety, some security, some consistency in relationship and connection. That does really help shape them and offer a bit of a buffer for what they might have happening at home. Our early educators do have the skills to help that family and to help that child, and I think it's really important that that is also acknowledged.</para>
<para>Early educators carry a lot of responsibility. It's not just educating little people; it is supporting the family. In the case of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander early educators, it's often doing the community work too, outside of that. As such, they do absolutely deserve fair wages. They do deserve decent conditions and recognition as the professionals that they are. This bill delivers exactly that, and I am immensely proud to commend this bill to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make a couple of quick comments with respect to the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 and also deal with a procedural matter as a part of that. Can I say that, in listening to the contributions from colleagues around the chamber, I don't think there's anybody in here that would not agree with the sentiments that are being expressed with respect to the importance of early childhood care and development. I think that's a universal perspective that is supported across the chamber.</para>
<para>But there are also some elements of this bill, as Senator O'Sullivan explained in his contribution, that I think are of concern&#x2014;also the comments of Senator Hodgins-May with respect to the cycle of this funding that's supporting the wages of early childhood workers and the fact that it has to be continuously extended rather than being a part of the way the system works. In my view&#x2014;and I'm not expressing anyone else's view here&#x2014;this is the wrong way to manage an issue such as this. It should be part of the way the system works rather than having to be continuously extended. It was obvious to me when the legislation first came into place that it was only there for a year. Something was always going to have to be done about it at some point in time. Here we are, at the eleventh hour, doing that but for a period of two years, and somebody's going to have to come back and deal with this again in 2028.</para>
<para>I particularly want to reinforce the comments of Senator O'Sullivan with respect to family day care. There's no point in claiming or saying that family day care qualifies and then writing rules that make it difficult for it to do so. In that sense, I very much support Senator O'Sullivan's second reading amendment to this bill, which I foreshadow.</para>
<para>I want to reflect on the circumstances of family day care in my local community, where the Abracadabra Childcare Services family day-care centre at Spreyton has had to close because the person who was running, owning and operating that facility just couldn't handle the stress of the government not supporting a structure for that particular facility that would make it economically viable. There's a lot of talk about the importance of the various types of family day care that operate within the country and ensuring that children get the opportunity for access. But, in this circumstance, you had a family day-care centre that was actually loved by its local community&#x2014;they've said that to me in those terms: it wasn't only valued; it was loved&#x2014;and that's had to close because the government hasn't followed its own Productivity Commission's review and allowed for the centre to operate in the way that the Productivity Commission recommended. The minister could change this with the stroke of a pen and work with state colleagues to ensure that dual-application facilities could operate, but the minister refuses to do that. That drives up costs. It drives these businesses out of business.</para>
<para>Similarly, Addisons Family Day Care at Latrobe is facing a similar situation. They are looking at having to spend something in the order of $500,000 or $600,000 to modify their facility so that they can stay in operation, but they're not getting the support from the minister that they should get for these vital, valued and loved services in these local communities.</para>
<para>The government might say that they're putting a whole heap of money into other facilities within the community, and they are. That's appreciated, but it shouldn't be at the expense of those that have been operating there for 15, 20 or 25 years. They should not be doing that at their expense, particularly not because these facilities don't follow their desired industrial relations policy, which is exactly what's happening here. If you don't have the industrial relations policy that they want, you're not going to get supported by the government. That's the wrong way to be operating, in my view.</para>
<para>The minister should be supporting these small, family based services to provide the quality of care that meets the quality of care in any other facility. We all agree on the importance of that. But, because you're not union based, you're not supported by the system. I think that's a real flaw in the way that this government is operating the system. We all need to see more capacity in the system. Both Abracadabra and Addisons Family Day Care operate in areas that are currently regarded as childcare deserts. Why would we be forcing these facilities to close while we're waiting for others to be developed? It doesn't make sense to me. I can tell you, having spoken to the families who've used this intergenerationally, they're not happy about it either. They are not happy about the circumstance either. They would like to see these valued and loved facilities continue to operate. Sadly, for Abracadabra, that time has passed. But, hopefully for Addisons Family Day Care at Latrobe, it can continue.</para>
<para>I again note Senator O'Sullivan's foreshadowed second reading amendment for procedural purposes in the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITEAKER</name>
    <name.id>316555</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am thrilled to speak in favour of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. I'll never forget my son's first day at his day-care centre in Beeliar. I'll never forget the outfit he was wearing&#x2014;a really cute pair of striped leggings; a top with hippos, tigers and bears; and a backpack that seemed far too big for such a little boy. I was nervous, like lots of parents are when they're dropping their kids off at early childhood education for the very first time. I was worried about whether we'd chosen the right centre, whether he would feel the love and the care, and whether he'd get the education that we so deeply wanted him to. I felt guilt about two parents going back to work full time. But, really, from that very first day, it became clear to me that that all of those worries were unfounded.</para>
<para>I want to give a shout out to his day-care educators at Busy Bees in Beeliar, who have done an incredible job of comforting him at times when he's needed it. I think, particularly, of when I first started travelling here to do this job just over a year ago. He was only two, and that was a big change for him. His educators were such an important part of making that transition easier for him. They talked to him about mummy's new job, mummy going to Canberra and what that meant for him. They helped him to count down the days until I was coming home. It made such a huge difference to him and also to me. They've encouraged him in his various interests, such as farm animals, that arise, as they do, in toddlers. For a long time he was a real 'Old Macdonald' fan. I think they played and sang that song to him until they wanted to never hear it again. They have encouraged his love of spooky Halloween monsters and of the Wiggles. They've taught him to name his feelings, which is something that, possibly, I could have benefited from learning in early childhood education! He tells me when he's feeling angry, sad or happy. His counting is extremely impressive. He's recognising letters, numbers and colours. Perhaps what I'm most thankful for is their encouragement of his brushing his teeth, because I think any parent in this place or out across the country knows the pain of trying to get a toddler to brush their teeth. It's as though they're being tortured. His early childhood educators have given him the interest and talked to him about why that's so important, and I'll be forever grateful to them for that.</para>
<para>William first started day care in April 2024. Just a few months after that, in August 2024, the Prime Minister announced a $3.6 billion pay rise for early childhood educators&#x2014;15 per cent above the award. I was a candidate for the Senate at that point, and it was one of those moments where I felt so proud to be part of this Labor team. Since we backed those wage rises, early childhood educators have been earning up to $410 a week above what they were taking home before. That pay rise makes a world of difference for workers who had waited far too long to see it.</para>
<para>Early childhood educators are some of the hardest working and most patient people in this country. Since coming to this job, some of the best days I've had have been in early childhood education centres, watching the educators do their work and seeing the kids learning and playing with their friends. I've loved talking to educators about the difference that this pay rise has made to them. They've told me about how much easier it's made the day-to-day cost of living, putting food on the table, helping their own kids get the education that they'd like them to get and putting fuel in the car. What they've also said to me is that it's about the recognition. It's about the government understanding and showing that their work is important and that their work is valued. I'm really pleased that we have been able to give them that important recognition. We've recognised the dedication, the skill and the hard work that they put in day in and day out in early childhood centres right across the country. You cannot sit in one of those rooms for any period of time and walk out thinking that that work is anything other than skilled work.</para>
<para>Educators in these workplaces are some of the most deserving of a pay rise, but they waited a really long time to get one. For decades they were underpaid&#x2014;not because the work is easy and not because it doesn't matter but, I think, largely because of who does it. This is a workforce that is overwhelmingly made up of women, and so, sadly, it's no surprise that the sector was overlooked for as long as it was. But I am proud to be part of a Labor government that has delivered wage justice for these workers&#x2014;some of the lowest paid but hardest working and most skilled workers in the country.</para>
<para>We didn't just hand over the money and hope for the best. We made sure every dollar was passed on to workers for a pay rise without leading to an increase in fees for families. That's really important because we want to make sure that early childhood educators receive the pay that they deserve but that this doesn't cost families more in fees, which we know are already a challenge for so many families. And it worked. More than 3&#xBD; thousand grant agreements were signed between December 2024 and June this year&#x2014;pretty impressive numbers.</para>
<para>But that funding was due to run out on 30 November, and so this bill makes sure that it doesn't. It credits $3.65 billion to the special account upfront, covering the pay rise all the way through to 30 June 2028. This means the money will keep flowing as the sector needs it and to the workers who need it, rather than hanging on a budget cycle and the uncertainty that that brings year to year. So educators and services can plan ahead.</para>
<para>Importantly, it also puts into law the requirement that national safety standards are met in order to receive payment. I think we can all reflect on some of the terrible and terrifying circumstances, stories and allegations that we've heard from childcare centres across the country and agree that it is so important that our government and all governments place the highest of expectations on the standards and quality of care in our early childhood centres. There is nothing more important than making sure our children are cared for and safe when we say goodbye to them in the morning.</para>
<para>The part that really matters for families is that certainty in the sector&#x2014;certainty in knowing that their child will be safe when they go to early childhood education and care and in knowing that their children are being taught and cared for by well-paid educators who are happy to stay doing the work over the long term because they feel that their work is valued and recognised and that they are paid in accordance with that value and recognition. But it's also about providing certainty around fees. I think that's a really important thing to acknowledge. This bill will make sure that the cost of pay rises for educators doesn't fall on families, which will save the average family $1,500 in childcare fees over the next two years. It's really important that no family have should to choose between going to work and giving their child access to quality early learning. We don't want to see educators at risk of reduced pay, and we don't want to see families at risk of higher out-of-pocket fees.</para>
<para>Sometimes the conversations in this place and outside about early childhood educators have been disappointing. Senator Hanson, of course, went to the National Press Club in June and questioned why childcare centres need people with a degree to look after children at all. She said that our childcare system had gotten out of proportion and that it was ridiculous. But I think it's really important that our eyes are on this place in the coming days as we look to pass this bill. I hope to see the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation vote for a continued wage rise for early childhood educators. Parents right around the country will be watching, because it's an important message. Do Senator Hanson and One Nation back in early childhood educators? Do they back early childhood educators continuing to receive the pay rise that they so rightly deserve? Senator Hanson will have her opportunity to vote on this bill in the coming days, and I call on her and her colleagues to do the right thing. Actions speak louder than words, and Australians will be paying attention to how they vote on this bill.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I want to finish where I started, which is talking about the childcare centre that my son attends most days. I really want to reinforce the pride that I feel every day walking my son into an early childhood centre in our local community where he is loved, where he is cared for, where he is taught things that I could not teach him, like brushing his teeth happily each day. These are such valuable lessons, and I can see the difference that it makes in his life every single day. Early childhood educators are part of the village that parents need to be able to do the work that they do in helping our national economy. Our job in this place is to support the workers who allow us to do that. That is fundamentally what this bill is about. It is about making sure that workers in early childhood centres right across the country are paid what they deserve, and this bill gives them the certainty that they will be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALKER</name>
    <name.id>316818</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 is a long title for a bill with a very straightforward purpose. It locks in higher wages for early educators for another two years, helps families with the cost of care and gives the government a stronger way to make sure public funding goes to services that keep children safe.</para>
<para>Every morning across Australia, parents hand over the person they care about most in the world to an early childhood educator. They often do it at 7.30 in the morning, while trying to find a missing shoe, remember a lunch box and make it to work on time. They rely on the person at the door to welcome their child, settle them in, notice when something is wrong and help them through a very big day in a very small person's life. That educator will teach children how to share, speak up, listen, count, create, make friends and handle feelings that can be very overwhelming when you're three. They will answer a huge number of questions. They will manage tears, spills, sunscreen, stories, naps and the occasional total breakdown. Sometimes I think these educators would be very useful here in the chamber for certain senators!</para>
<para>That is skilled work. It carries real responsibility and, for far too long, the pay did not reflect that. We could all see where that road was heading. Centres were delaying expansion plans because they couldn't find staff. Some were closing rooms; others were limiting enrolments. Families could have a place on paper but still find that the room wasn't open because there weren't enough educators to run it safely. For the workers who stayed, the pressure kept building. Rosters became harder, days became more exhausting and people who loved the job began asking whether they could afford to keep doing it.</para>
<para>That is why the Albanese Labor government announced on 8 August 2024 that we would fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. It was a direct response to a workforce problem that had been allowed to grow for years. If Australia wanted more early learning places, more reliable care and a stronger system, we needed the people who make that system run, and, if we wanted those people to stay, we had to pay them properly. The results since that announcement paint a pretty strong picture. There are now around 20,000 more early childhood education and care workers in the sector. That is an increase of around eight per cent. Job vacancies have fallen by almost 31 per cent. The share of services operating with a staffing waiver has dropped from 8.9 per cent to 4.3 per cent. In practice, that means more rooms able to open, fewer centres scrambling to fill a roster, more consistency for children and more certainty for parents.</para>
<para>It also means children have a better chance of seeing the same familiar faces each week. That consistency is a huge part of quality early learning. Young children build trust through steady relationships. An educator who knows a child well can tell when they're unusually quiet, when they're worried, when they're struggling to join in or when they're ready to be challenged. They know which song helps it drop off. They know that a child calling a stuffed bunny by its name is not a minor detail but an extremely important piece of personal information. You can't build that kind of knowledge and trust with endless overturn of exhausted workers. Workforce stability supports learning, but it also supports safety. People who know the children, know the room and know their colleagues are better placed to notice risks and respond quickly.</para>
<para>The wage rise has also been delivered with families in mind. Services receiving the worker retention payment have had to limit fee increases. Since the payment began, fees are participating centres have grown at around half the rate of fees at centres that didn't sign up. This goes against those who suggest a pay rise for educators would simply be handed straight on to parents through higher fees. The government designed the payment so workers could receive more without families copping it. The evidence so far shows that this approach is working. On 14 June this year, the government announced that we would lock in the pay rise for another two years. This bill gives effect to that commitment. It credits the wage justice special account with an additional $3.6 billion and extends the act to 31 December 2029. That gives services the backing to keep paying higher wages and gives workers greater certainty about what they will earn. For the first time, employees in every childcare subsidy approved service will be eligible for the payment.</para>
<para>When this funding is combined with the government's support for increases to the minimum wage, a typical full-time educator will be earning $255 more each week than they were in December 2024. For an early childhood teacher, the difference is $410 a week. That is the kind of change people feel in their household budget. It can cover groceries, power bills or a tank of petrol. It can make rent week less stressful. It can mean a worker who has spent years caring for other people's children can keep doing the job they're trained for instead of leaving for a better paid role in another sector.</para>
<para>Early childhood education has long been treated as work that people do because they care, as though caring deeply somehow makes fair pay optional. The sector is overwhelmingly staffed by women, and the low value placed on the work has never been separate from that fact. We hear plenty of nice words about educators. They're thanked in speeches. They receive handmade cards at the end of each year. Parents know exactly how much skill and patience that job requires. Many parents saw the difficulties during COVID. But appreciation does not pay the rent and gratitude is not a workforce policy. The people teaching children in the first years of their lives deserve wages that recognise the skill, judgement and responsibility involved. This funding moves us much closer to that.</para>
<para>Early learning allows parents to work more hours, return after having a child or take up a new job knowing their child has somewhere safe and reliable to go. Communities benefit when local services can keep staff and children arrive at school better prepared to learn. You do not get any of those benefits without a workforce. The extension will also save the average family around $1,500 over the next two years. The requirement to restrain fee growth will continue for services receiving the funding, so the benefit is shared: educators receive higher wages, services are better able to keep their staff and parents get some protection from rapidly rising fees. For a family already doing mental gymnastics at the supermarket, $1,500 is meaningful. Child care is one of the largest regular bills many households face. Parents should not have to choose between an affordable place and a centre with enough qualified staff to provide good care. A decent early learning system has to deliver both.</para>
<para>This bill also strengthens the connection between wage funding and children's safety. From July 2027, services receiving funding through the wage justice special account will be required to meet quality area 2 of the National Quality Standard, which covers children's health and safety. If a service does not meet that standard, its funding may be reduced or suspended. Around 95 per cent of services already meet quality area 2. That is a strong base, and it also leaves a gap that we should not wave away. When a service receives public funding intended to support its workforce, the community is entitled to expect that it meets the national standard for children's health and safety. The purpose of this condition is practical. It gives the government another lever when a service falls short. Funding can be cut or suspended, and services have a clear financial reason to fix problems and meet the standard.</para>
<para>This works alongside the broader goals to strengthen quality and safety across early learning. Better pay helps retain experienced educators. Stable teams communicate better and know their children. Clear standards tell providers what is expected. Real consequences make those expectations more than words on a website. Families should be able to drop their child off with confidence. They should know that the service is properly staffed, that health and safety requirements are being met and that their concerns will be acted on. They should also know the educators in the room are being supported to build a long-term career.</para>
<para>There is a habit in debates about early education of discussing every part separately. Wages sit in one box, affordability sits in another, safety and quality get their own section and workforce shortages are treated as a separate problem again. In a real centre, these things arrive together every morning. If a service can't retain educators, it may have to close a room. If a room closes, families lose care and parents lose work hours. If staff are constantly changing, children lose community. If fees rise too quickly, families cut back or leave. If safety standards slip, every other claim about quality becomes fairly meaningless. This bill deals with those connections. It provides the money to continue higher wages, keeps fee restraint attached to that funding, expands eligibility across all childcare subsidy approved services and adds a clear health-and-safety condition.</para>
<para>The progress already made shows why continuing the payment is the sensible course. Twenty thousand more workers is progress. Vacancies down by almost a third is progress. Staffing waivers falling from 8.9 per cent to 4.3 per cent is progress. Slower fee growth at participating services is progress. But no-one in this government is pretending the job is finished. Families still struggle to find places in some areas. Educators still face demanding days. Services in regional and remote communities have particular hiring challenges. Five per cent of services not meeting the relevant health-and-safety standard is five per cent too many. The answer is to build on what has worked.</para>
<para>There is also a broader point here about what governments choose to value. Early educators do work that shapes a child's first experience of learning outside the home. They help children become confident enough to try, curious enough to ask questions and secure enough to form relationships. Much of that work happens quietly. There is no ribbon cutting when a shy child joins a group activity for the first time. There is no press conference when an educator helps a child learn to manage frustration. But those small moments build, and every family sees the difference. The quality of a child's early education should not depend on whether their centre can keep enough staff, an educator's ability to stay in the profession should not depend on how long they can personally absorb being underpaid and a parent's ability to work should not collapse because a local service cannot fill its roster. Public investment can change those outcomes. We have evidence that this investment already has.</para>
<para>I am very pleased to support this bill. It keeps faith with early educators, gives families practical help with costs, supports more reliable services and puts a firmer expectation around children's health and safety. Most of all, it recognises something families have understood for a long time: early educators are professionals. They carry enormous responsibility, they shape children's lives and the system only works when they are there. They deserve more than warm words; the government is putting the funding behind them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOLEGA</name>
    <name.id>316935</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. Early childhood education and care workers do one of the most important and demanding jobs in our country. From Devonport to Smithton, Queenstown to Hobart and everywhere in between, educators and carers are, every single day, helping children grow and prepare for school. They create safe, inclusive and nurturing environments that support not only children but families and communities across my home state of Tasmania and right across Australia.</para>
<para>I was reminded of just how valuable their work is when I joined the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Jess Walsh, and the member for Braddon, Anne Urquhart, at Malangenna Children's Centre in Devonport recently to announce that the Albanese Labor government will invest $4 million to expand and refurbish the Malangenna Children's Centre. This investment will deliver up to 70 additional places for children and create a modern, fit-for-purpose early learning environment which will help more children and more families get access to quality care and quality early childhood education in Devonport for years to come.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's commitment to delivering high-quality, accessible early childhood education and care in north-west Tasmania is also reflected in our support for Lady Gowrie in Latrobe. Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Anne Urquhart MP and the Latrobe Council, Lady Gowrie Tasmania secured $334,000 through the Community Child Care Fund, ensuring local families continued access to quality early learning and care after the unexpected closure of the previous service. This investment provided immediate and practical support to the community at a critical time.</para>
<para>During my visit to Malangenna, I was struck by the dedication and professionalism of educators and carers. The happiness, confidence and enthusiasm of the children were a testament to the extraordinary work that they do every day. The contribution of early childhood educators cannot be overstated. They play an incredibly important role in supporting children's development and giving families the confidence that their children are learning, growing and thriving in a safe and nurturing environment. Yet for far too long the pay and conditions of early childhood educators have failed to reflect the value of their work. Too many educators have been leaving the sector not because they no longer love the job but because they could earn more stacking shelves at the local supermarket. At the same time, families have faced rising fees, and services have struggled to retain experienced staff. In some centres, staff turnover has reached as high as 40 per cent. A turnover rate of 40 per cent is a crisis, and there's no other way to describe it. Families across north-west Tasmania have experienced firsthand the challenge of finding early childhood education and care places for their children. That's not fair on educators, and it's not fair on families. It's certainly not fair on our children, who deserve the best possible start to life.</para>
<para>However, this has changed thanks to the Albanese Labor government's 15 per cent pay rise, which we delivered two years ago, and it's why this government's Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 matters. We're delivering on our commitments made in June to invest $3.6 billion over the next two years to lock in this historic pay rise. The results of the Albanese Labor government's reforms speak for themselves. The impact of the historic 15 per cent pay rise was immediate. Staff turnovers fell sharply, helping services retain the experienced educators that children and families rely on. Combined with the Albanese Labor government's support for increases to the minimum wage, a typical full-time educator now earns $255 more per week than they did in December 2024, while early childhood teachers are earning around $410 more per week. More than 215,000 early childhood educators in over 11,600 centres across the country are now benefiting. Job vacancies have fallen by 31 per cent, applications for positions have increased by as much as 30 per cent, and there are now 20,000 more childcare workers doing some of the most important work across Australia: supporting our children and our families. These are not just statistics; they represent real change for educators, real relief for families and better outcomes for kids.</para>
<para>This bill builds on the progress and ensures that gains are not lost. Firstly, it amends the existing act to credit the special account with an extra $3.6 billion. That's $3.6 billion that is going directly to support the childcare sector. It also extends the sunset date of 30 June 2028 to 31 December 2029, providing more certainty for services, for staff and for families.</para>
<para>Secondly, the special account continues to fund the early childhood education and care worker retention payment, which enables providers to deliver higher wages to eligible workers. Put simply, this is an investment in the people who care for, educate and support our children every day.</para>
<para>Thirdly, and importantly, services can only access this funding if they limit fee increases. This safeguard delivers real benefits for children and families. In the first year of the program, fees at participating centres increased by around half the rate of centres that chose not to participate. Without this legislation, childcare fees could increase by as much as 17 per cent. By keeping costs down, this bill is expected to save the average family around $1,500 over the next two years.</para>
<para>This bill also strengthens the quality and safety standards in the sector. From July 2027, services will be required to meet quality area 2 of the National Quality Standard, which focuses on children's health and safety. Providers that fail to meet this standard risk losing access to funding. Around 95 per cent of services already meet this standard, but we're aiming for 100 per cent, and we owe it to our parents and to our kids.</para>
<para>Finally, this bill includes technical amendments to ensure the workers retention payment grant is available to all providers. This government is delivering real change&#x2014;real change for childcare educators, real change for families and real change for children. I am proud to support this bill. I'm proud to be in the same team as this minister, who's working tirelessly for families and for our kids and who wants to see outcomes for families. Thank you. I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In listening to the debate today, I think it's been really nice to hear, across the chamber, the support and respect that early childhood educators have commanded across the board. Some bills perhaps are not so exciting to talk about in this place, but today's bill is one that I am certainly very proud to speak to. It is one that is personal, because it impacts lots of people that I know and because it is about delivering and supporting equity for a largely female dominated workforce that, for too long, have been undervalued for the skill, professionalism and dedication that they bring to this important work. It is also a practical demonstration of what this government stands for when it comes to delivering for working women and their families in this country.</para>
<para>Between the ages of three and five is one of the most formative developmental periods of a child's life. In the short space of just two years, children begin to dress and feed themselves. They begin to copy letters and write their names for the first time, and their emotional regulation improves. They learn to recognise when someone is hurt and how to comfort them. They enjoy playing with other children, and they learn to cooperate with their peers, and, as we heard from Senator Whiteaker earlier, they might learn important skills like brushing their teeth without having a meltdown. In my case, one of the things that I will be forever grateful for from the early childhood educators that were in my family's life is helping the team at home teach our kids how to toilet train.</para>
<para>In short, between the ages of three and five children, develop many of the skills they will need to become happy, healthy and engaged members of our society. The vital role that early childhood educators and carers play during this pivotal stage of our children's lives cannot be overstated or that of the broader family and communities within which they live. They help shape these years, and that is why I, along with the Albanese Labor government, am very proud to stand here today to support this bill, which extends the 15 per cent pay rise for more than 215,000 educators and locks that support in until June 2028. These are the workers that we trust to nurture, guide and care for our children through some of the most foundational years of their lives. They deserve to be recognised, and they deserve to be better paid. The principle really is that simple.</para>
<para>If you want to attract the best possible quality early childhood educators, then you need to pay them what they're worth. Our government needs to recognise that and fund them for what they are worth. If you want to retain these early childhood educators, then you need to pay them what they are worth so that they can stay and build a satisfying career in the sector that they love and that we so desperately need them to stay in. If we want a strong, stable and highly skilled workforce that delivers the best possible outcomes for children, then we need to pay them what they're worth. We need to recognise that caring work is skilled work, we need to recognise that caring work requires high levels of training, and we need to recognise that caring work is professional work.</para>
<para>I know these educators. I know very, very many of them, but one of them I know very well, and that is my sister Erin, who has worked as an early childhood educator for more than 20 years. The work that she does, along with all of her colleagues, is incredibly important. Every day she helps children build confidence, curiosity and independence. The work that she does requires skill, patience, expertise and enormous dedication. She has spent decades helping children learn and grow while also supporting families at some of the busiest and most challenging times of their lives. What hasn't been spoken about so much in this debate is that the work is also physical work. There is physical labour involved, and it takes a toll for many of the workers who work in the sector for many, many years. Educators like Erin have also become an important part of a children's extended family as they are part of an important care team that looks after children in those first early years.</para>
<para>Yet work like this has too often been undervalued because it is work predominantly undertaken by women. If we truly value the contribution educators make to our children and communities, then that value must be reflected not only in our words but in their pay and conditions. Early childhood educators like my sister should know and feel that their work is valued, that their work is respected and that their work is fairly remunerated. We in this place need to ensure that the workforce sees early childhood education and care as a rewarding and long-term career option. I am so proud of my sister, and this government is proud to stand beside her, her colleagues and all early childhood education workers.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit Goodstart Pakenham and meet the educators working there every day to support the local children and their families. I was struck by a few people I met on that day, in particular Alice Spaulding, who is a dedicated centre manager and who cares deeply about providing an excellent service for the families in her local community. She was a real standout&#x2014;passionate, dedicated and highly, highly skilled. Like all centres that I visit, Goodstart Pakenham is a vibrant centre. The children are curious and engaged. The educators are passionate about their work, and you really get a sense of fun when you go and visit. But, of course, it's a lot of hard work and a lot of skill that makes that environment seem fun for the kids.</para>
<para>Many of the workers at Goodstart Pakenham have worked there long enough to see the children that they once educated go through school and university and then return to the centre to become an educator themselves. That speaks volumes about the impact that these educators have on a community. Pakenham is a growing area, and demand for services continues to increase. Early childhood education is not immune from those pressures, yet the quality of education being delivered at Goodstart Pakenham is very clear. Children are leaving the service at four or five years of age, already reading and writing. They are confident, they are capable and they are ready for school. I also want to particularly acknowledge Selma Wong, who was named Goodstart Educator of the Year in 2024, who I met and who is an outstanding advocate for her colleagues and her profession.</para>
<para>The reality, however, is that, while important progress has been made, early childhood education remains a highly feminised industry. Too often, feminised industries have not been valued in the same way as other professions. For generations, work that has traditionally been undertaken by women has been underpaid and undervalued despite requiring significant skill, training, responsibility and emotional labour. That needs to change. Workers should not be paid less because they are women, nor should they be valued less because their work has been historically seen as women's work.</para>
<para>When we value early childhood educators properly, we are not simply lifting wages. We are recognising expertise and we are showing respect to the work that they do. We are recognising responsibility. We are recognising the profound contribution these workers make to our economy, our communities and the next generation of Australians. Quality early learning starts with skilled, qualified educators. Every day they help children learn, grow and prepare for school. Every day they support children's learning, development and safety. It is some of the most important work in this country, and it must be properly valued. I want to thank every worker at Goodstart Pakenham for the warm and generous welcome that they extended to me. The beautiful artwork that the children created with your support now hangs proudly in my Melbourne office.</para>
<para>For educators, children and families alike, access to high-quality, affordable and accessible early childhood education is critical. It lays the foundation for success throughout a child's life, and it is also fundamental to building and maintaining a strong, stable workforce. That is why, on 8 August 2024, the Albanese government announced that it would fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. At the time, services across the country were delaying expansion plans, closing rooms and limiting enrolments because they could not find enough staff.</para>
<para>Workforce retention and stability are also critical to quality and safety in the sector. Children thrive when they are able to build consistent and trusted relationships with educators, and educators are more likely to stay when they feel supported and valued. The results speak for themselves. Since the worker retention payment was announced in 2024&#x2014;we've heard these numbers a few times in contributions today, but I think they are worth repeating&#x2014;there are around 20,000 more early childhood education and care workers, representing an increase of around eight per cent, at a time when we absolutely need it. Job vacancies in the sector have fallen by almost 31 per cent. The proportion of services operating under a staffing waiver has decreased from 8.9 per cent to 4.3 per cent. Fees at centres receiving the payment have grown at around half the rate of those at centres that are not participating.</para>
<para>When combined with the government's support for minimum wage increases, a typical full-time educator will receive around $255 more per week, while an early childhood teacher will receive around $410 more per week compared with December 2024, when the government first implemented the pay rise. This bill builds on that success. It extends support for wage increases through the wage justice special account and introduces important measures to strengthen quality and safety in early learning. I know the importance of securing that pay rise&#x2014;$255 every single week is a lot of money&#x2014;so securing this into the future shows the amount of undervaluation that this bill is seeking to continue to address, recognise and fix.</para>
<para>From July 2027, services that fail to meet national quality standard requirements relating to safety may also have their funding reduced or suspended. That matters because every child deserves a safe, high-quality learning environment and every parent deserves confidence that standards are being upheld. Importantly, services receiving the payment must continue to limit fee increases. That means that educators can receive the pay rise they deserve without the cost being unfairly passed on to families. Again, the evidence is clear: providers participating in the worker retention payment have increased fees at around half the rate of providers outside the scheme. That is significant.</para>
<para>Around 95 per cent of services currently meet the relevant standards, but, of course, we want that figure to be higher. This bill recognises a simple truth: if we value early childhood education, we must value the people who deliver it. If we want children to receive the best possible start in life, we need to support the workforce that makes that possible. This government understands that investing in early childhood educators is an investment in children, in families and in Australia's future.</para>
<para>In closing, I also want to pay tribute to Minister Walsh for her incredible work in bringing this bill to the parliament and securing the wages for these workers. Minister Walsh is a minister with deep understanding of the issue and a deep respect for the workforce that delivers in this sector, a respect which is backed up by commitment delivered by this bill and action contained in this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 locks in this government's commitment to a historic 15 per cent pay rise for our nation's early childhood educators. When we first came to government, educators were undervalued and they were underpaid. They were leaving the sector in droves. They loved their jobs, but, unfortunately, love doesn't pay the bills. These are the people who give Australian children a great start in life, and they just weren't getting the recognition that they deserved. The Albanese Labor government has given this vital workforce that recognition with this historic 15 per cent pay rise, and it has already paid dividends. Around 20,000 more educators have joined the workforce since the pay rise was first announced. Job vacancies are down by almost a third and staffing waivers are down by almost half. We know the pay rise is working, and that is why we're locking it in.</para>
<para>I acknowledge all of the senators, and members in the other place last week, who have spoken on this bill. We heard so many amazing stories shared of local early learning services around the country, centres that simply wouldn't run without the passionate, dedicated educators who work there. We've heard about just how life changing this pay rise has been and will continue to be for them. With this pay rise, a typical full-time educator is $255 a week better off. It covers more than 215,000 educators, the vast majority of them women. I see the benefits almost every week when I visit our nation's early learning services. I speak with educators about how their lives have changed because of our government's investment in them. They also tell me the difference that the pay rise makes for children as well, giving them the continuity and stability that they deserve. We know that children benefit from seeing the same faces each day and from having a trusted educator who they know will see them day in and day out.</para>
<para>Before coming to this place, I proudly stood side by side with educators across the country as they walked off the job, asking for the respect and recognition that they deserved. Now our government have delivered that respect and recognition, and we are locking it in. Early childhood educators are professionals. They are skilled professionals who have a hugely important job. Those educators were demanding a pay rise which reflected their importance and value. I'm so proud that we have now delivered that for them.</para>
<para>As the Senate considers this bill, it's important to recognise why our educators had to fight so hard for this pay rise. If you want to know what was standing in the way, look to the other side of the chamber. For almost a decade in government demands for better pay fell on the deaf ears of a coalition government, a coalition government who said it was just too hard, a coalition government who said, 'It's not our problem,' and a coalition government who said, 'Who cares?' to the educators who care for and educate our nation's children. That was their attitude. They watched on as this workforce was plunged into crisis.</para>
<para>When Labor brought legislation to this place in 2024, those opposite called it a 'sugar hit'. Their friends in One Nation sing from the same songbook. At the National Press Club, Senator Hanson questioned why we needed 'people with some sort of degree to look after a child'. Senator Hanson also questioned why educators needed another pay rise. 'Didn't they just get one?' she said. Senator Hanson was correct about one thing. Labor did just give our educators a pay rise, and, with this legislation, we are locking that pay rise in. It is a pay rise that is well deserved. Australia's early childhood educators know who is on their side. Australian families know who is on their side. The Albanese Labor government has delivered real change for Australian children, Australian families and our nation's dedicated early childhood educators.</para>
<para>Our bill is just one part of this government's commitment to strengthening this important sector. We've also introduced the biggest reforms to child safety in the nation's history, standing shoulder to shoulder with state and territory governments. This bill continues that really important work by making meeting national safety standards a condition of receiving the worker retention payment.</para>
<para>The government will not be supporting the second reading amendments moved by those opposite. While I'm grateful that the Liberal Party has chosen to not oppose this critical legislation&#x2014;legislation previously described by them as 'a sugar hit'&#x2014;we are the government who created the worker retention payment. We are the government that is extending that payment to employees in family day care and in-home care. And we will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hodgins-May.</para>
<para>Our government is putting in place the building blocks of universal early learning every single day. We are building a system that is high quality, affordable and available where families need it. We have done more in the last four years than happened in the previous decade. This bill is a critical building block. So is our billion-dollar Building Early Education Fund. Just this morning, I was proud to stand with my colleagues in the Mural Hall to celebrate having reached building early education agreements with all eight states and territories. These agreements will deliver 42 new services, 33 of them co-located with our schools. We are the party of universal early learning and we are building it piece by piece every day. I encourage all senators to lock in this pay rise and to support this bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>315170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hodgins-May on sheet 4123 be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:16]<br/>(The Acting Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Blyth)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names/>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the opposition's second reading amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) welcomes the certainty that would be provided to the sector, and the avoidance of price shocks for families, if the worker retention payment ends in November 2026; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Government's failure to address the cost-of-living and operating cost pressures affecting families and providers,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) that requiring a workplace instrument to access the payment places unnecessary administrative burdens on providers and places pressure on providers and employers to negotiate union agreements,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) that the eligibility requirements for the payment effectively exclude much of the family day care and in-home care workforce, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) that extending the temporary payment does not provide a sustainable long-term funding model beyond June 2028".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator O'Sullivan on sheet 4097 be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:24]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave&#x2014;In the interest of time, I ask to have my support recorded for parts (a), (b)(i) and (b)(iv).</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move my committee of the whole amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 2), after item 7, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7A Before subsection 11(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) The terms and conditions must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) require the recipient to engage workers through a particular kind of workplace instrument; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) require the recipient to engage workers through a particular kind of industrial arrangement; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) otherwise relate to the manner in which workers are engaged (other than requiring that the engagement of workers be compliant with any relevant law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory).</para></quote>
<para>I realise we only have a minute left. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that no worker working in the early education sector is in any way prevented from being able to receive the support, and I particularly think of family day-care workers and also those in-home care providers who are providing essential services for children, many of them in need. For many of them, it's the choice of the parent to have their child in that centre, yet many of those providers are not able to receive the support by way of the extra support provided by this bill. I think it's a mistake that the government have not allowed for that to happen. They announced that they were going to be included, but, when you read the detail of this bill, you see that those providers are not included. I really wish that the government did include&#x2014;</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will now move to senators' two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Business Council is warning that Australia is on track for the worst decade of productivity growth since records began in 1960, with productivity having gone backwards for the entirety of the Albanese Labor government's time in office. There are so many forces that shape productivity, and no serious person in this place should pretend otherwise. But neither should we pretend that the industrial relations system Labor has spent four years constructing is somehow incidental to this significant problem.</para>
<para>At its core, productivity depends upon people at the enterprise level being able to make decisions to invest, innovate, organise work and respond to changing circumstances. Yet Labor's instinct has been to move in precisely the opposite direction&#x2014;away from enterprise, away from flexibility and away from direct arrangements between employers and employees toward greater centralisation, greater prescription and substantially greater power for the union movement. There is a very important distinction here. Protecting workers is one thing; designing an industrial relations system around the institutional power of unions is quite another. Labor has increasingly blurred that distinction.</para>
<para>When workplace law becomes more complex, bargaining becomes more remote from the individual enterprise and businesses are required to navigate an ever-expanding architecture of regulation and union involvement. There are then economic consequences. This is not an ideological assertion. The Business Council is now explicitly warning that the accumulated weight of workplace relations changes and regulation is taking its toll and is calling for simpler, more flexible laws and a restoration of enterprise-level bargaining. If productivity is genuinely a national priority, the Prime Minister must be prepared to consider the government's industrial relations agenda&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You can now see a GP for free at more than 3,800 clinics across Australia, making it easier for Australians to get the health care they need when they need it. Access to affordable health care shouldn't depend on where you live. For families across Nicholls&#x2014;which is where my mum lives&#x2014;from Shepparton to Echuca and from Seymour to Cobram, seeing a doctor has become easier and more affordable because of this government's investments in Medicare. The results are clear. In Nicholls, bulk-billing rates have increased from 74.9 per cent to 89.8 per cent, with 39 bulk-billing practices now serving local communities. We're seeing that change on the ground. In Shepparton, clinics like Wyndham House Clinic have moved to fully bulk-billing because of the Albanese Labor government's investments in Medicare, making health care more accessible for local families. The Shepparton urgent care clinic is also delivering for the community, offering free walk-in care seven days a week and taking pressure off the local hospital, with more than 37,000 visits already.</para>
<para>But the real test of Medicare isn't a percentage on a spreadsheet; it's whether a parent in Shepparton can take a sick child to a doctor without worrying about the bill, it's whether an older person in Echuca can afford the medicines that they need, and it's whether families in Seymour know that, when they need health care, help is there. That's what strengthening Medicare means. That's what these investments are delivering for families and communities on the ground.</para>
<para>Good policy must work nationally, but it needs to succeed and deliver locally. Across Nicholls, people are seeing the difference not just in statistics and not just in announcements but in the peace of mind that comes from knowing affordable health care is available close to home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>One Nation</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (&#x2014;) (): They say, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog, but it seems as though, for the Leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, it's get a Gina. The relationship between Senator Pauline Hanson and, for that matter, Mr Barnaby Joyce and Gina Rinehart is starting to look really, really creepy. It's off the charts. It's weird. Not only does Ms Rinehart pay for the transportation of the Leader of One Nation and her mates, but she's paying for European holidays, for sleepovers at Gina's house&#x2014;in the $20 million mansion&#x2014;for flights here, for flights there and for her own private plane. It is all looking a bit weird. You've got to ask why. Why is the richest woman in the country funding Pauline Hanson right now? Is it because Gina Rinehart wants to directly impact politics, have her say, have her policies implemented and get her way without daring to ever have to stand for election herself? Gina Rinehart seems to think that Pauline Hanson is her puppet. She even drags her on stage and demands that she growls like a bulldozer&#x2014;grrr! It is wacky, sick and really, really creepy. The question is: what is Gina Rinehart getting out of Pauline Hanson and One Nation? That is the question that neither of those two are willing to answer. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Battle of Pozieres</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pozieres&#x2014;for an entire generation, that name evokes memories of suffering, courage, mateship, 'the mincing machine' and, ultimately, sacrifice. The Battle of Pozieres and nearby Mouquet Farm was the Australian Imperial Force's first major action of the Somme offensive and, over the course of several weeks, claimed more than 23,000 casualties and witnessed some of the fierce fighting during the Great War. The German high command ordered the village to be retaken at all costs. Again and again over several weeks, several German counterattacks were launched, and, each time, the Australians held firm. Author Les Carlyon later wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Men were being challenged to stay sane while madness came shrieking out of the summer sky.</para></quote>
<para>Recently, in July, I had the opportunity to visit Pozieres with my wife. When you stand on the site of the old Pozieres windmill, you stand on ground that war correspondent and historian Charles Bean later wrote 'was more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth'. When you stand there, you can envisage a moon-like landscape, shattered by relentless artillery bombardments and littered with sacrifice, the scale of the loss almost impossible to comprehend. Think of a generation of young Australians who fought there, dying in the mud, their final thoughts of families who waited for them and who they would never see again. When you stand there, you stand on sacred ground. You pause, reflect and remember. It is in our remembrance that they endure. It's in our silence and our respect that we honour them. Those Australians that fell there never returned home. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>One Nation</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Deputy President Polley, as you well know, you cannot be pro-worker while you're attacking workers' superannuation, and you can't be pro-worker while opposing real wage rises for Australian workers. You definitely can't be pro-worker when you've called for penalty rates to be scrapped right across the board and when you're suggesting that it should be easier to sack Australians. You definitely can't be pro-worker and vote against making wage theft a crime, but that is how Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have voted in this place while wanting Australians to believe that they're on the side of working people.</para>
<para>Now, they're promising workers a so-called pay boost, but there's just one problem with that. Under One Nation's plan, workers have to pay for their pay rise themselves. One Nation's plan would have Australians move compulsory superannuation contributions into their take-home pay for up to three years. That is not a wage rise; that is a wage cut, and it's a big one. Although One Nation is unable to say what impact this will have on retirement savings, particularly those of young people, the Super Members Council's analysis of the policy says that a 30-year-old full-time worker on a salary of $90,000 who opts into One Nation's policy would retire with $25,000 less in their superannuation. Twenty-five thousand dollars is a big wage cut, and that is what One Nation wants Australians to give up.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about what Senator Pauline Hanson is offering. It's not a pay rise, and One Nation is not giving you more of your own money. What they want you to do is raid your own retirement savings, while they oppose the kinds of workplace laws that actually deliver better wages, better conditions and security for workers. You can't be pro-worker if you're antisuperannuation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>One Nation</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General called on One Nation to disavow the Nazi party. Last Friday, Paul Sakkal, the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> chief political correspondent, tried to smear One Nation on this. Yet, a week earlier, I had published my <inline font-style="italic">Spectator</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Australia</inline> article denouncing the Nazi party. Last Wednesday, in my senator's statement, I doubled down on my denouncement. In the <inline font-style="italic">Spectator</inline> and in my senator's statement, I asked why the Labor Party and the political left did not stand against violence in word and deed from all sides of politics, left and right&#x2014;as One Nation does. The <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> used that comment yet not the next sentence, which I'll quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nationalists and ethno-nationalists exist in this country. We disavow them completely. They stand in opposition to everything One Nation believes.</para></quote>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> ran its story as One Nation refusing to denounce Nazis, when we had denounced them in a speech the article quoted.</para>
<para>Since then, I've been asked why I included nationalists in the list of those I denounced. I'll clarify. The Nazi party in Australia no longer uses that name nor the name National Socialist. The new name for the same tiny group is nationalists. The dictionary defines nationalism as a political ideology and sentiment that promotes the interests, cultural identity and political independence of a particular nation above all others, yet Australian Nazis are distorting this to redefine nationalism as an ideology pushing a nation's cultural or political superiority and dominance over others. That's why I prefer the term 'patriotism': a love of one's country and its shared civic values.</para>
<para>Everything I and One Nation do is to benefit Australians. We denounce vested interests and globalist agendas clearly. The Nazis are trying to corrupt the meaning of the word 'nationalist'. I'm pleased to celebrate being a patriot. Be careful: language is powerful.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why does Labor want to hurt WA's mining industry? It's a good question that Western Australians are asking themselves today. Australia's resources sector generates $383 billion in revenue every year&#x2014;a powerful export industry for our country. Every mine begins with exploration&#x2014;investors who are prepared to take risks. Junior explorers are particularly important to mineral development in our country. Junior explorers are prerevenue&#x2014;dependent on patient, high-risk capital. Think about this: just one in every 1,000 exploration activities leads to mining activity. So why would Labor want to punish this industry, which is so critical to Australian exports and so critical to Western Australia's mineral resource development and prosperity?</para>
<para>Labor's capital gains tax changes make mineral exploration investment much less attractive. Seventy-five per cent of retail investors surveyed by the Australian mineral exploration council in Western Australia have said that the CGT arrangements are critically important to their investment decisions. Treasury has now released draft legislation&#x2014;now going through the consultation process&#x2014;that puts that mineral exploration at risk, because it has said that that capital gains tax discount will no longer be available to mineral exploration. What have WA mining industry chiefs said? They have said this risks future mining resource exploration. They have said that this is 'beyond disappointing'. They have said that this is a 'blow' to the mining industry. Why is it that Labor wants to keep punishing WA's mining industry?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to welcome the Albanese Labor government's commitment to establish a new Fair Work court. I know this is the right way, because already today we've had someone from that side being critical of it. This is a very practical proworker reform, which is going to help Australian workers to seek and receive justice when the workplace disputes arise. Why would a worker who cannot afford it go to court when what they are owed would be so much less than the cost of going through the legal system? Justice delayed is justice denied. No worker should have to wait to recover their wages for years or for the superannuation that hasn't been paid. We have to support Australian workers.</para>
<para>The Fair Work court will provide a specialist, accessible forum for workplace matters, working alongside the Fair Work Commission and supported by judges and real expertise in workplace relations. This means disputes can be dealt with more simply, more fairly and more quickly. This is about backing Australian workers. It's about making sure Australians receive the pay, conditions and entitlements they have worked hard for.</para>
<para>Labor understands that fairness at work is not just an economic issue. It's a matter of dignity, and it's a matter of respect. This government, the Albanese Labor government, is building a fairer system. It's building a system where workers are respected, where they get the justice they deserve, and where they get any disputes resolved as soon as possible. This is another example of Labor delivering real change for the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome today's news that Minister Butler has asked for options to start to deal with the growth in fees to see a specialist in this country. Unfortunately, I wasn't surprised to learn that Australians have paid over $4 billion out of pocket to see a specialist. It's grown by 75 per cent since 2019, and Canberrans pay the highest gaps in the country. We pay on average $605 out of pocket per service. This is $355 higher than the national average.</para>
<para>Everyone here has a story about how expensive it is to see a dermatologist, to get checked for breast cancer, scans to have a baby or to have your hip replaced. It is a growing weight on people's budgets, particularly for older people, who may have to see a few specialists throughout the year. Don't even get me started on ultrasounds. Here in the ACT, they'll set you back $120 on average. You can go just across the border to Queanbeyan, and you're paying $40.</para>
<para>In fairness, Medicare rebates for specialists have basically not increased in decades, and affordability matters as much as access. As people in Canberra and anyone who lives in a regional area know, distance and waiting lists are a huge part of the problem. It seems to me that we've not been training the right number of specialists and are struggling to keep them in the right places, so I commend the minister for his focus on this. I encourage him to pursue urgent reform. I'm looking forward to following it for people in the ACT.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Donald Horne referred to Australia as a 'lucky country run mainly by second-rate people'. Well, I guess he wasn't wrong, was he? Under this government, this Albanese government, we are in danger of becoming the Argentina of the Pacific. The Business Council of Australia has just delivered an awkward reality check for Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Australia is now staring down the barrel of its worst decade of productivity since comparable records began in the 1960s. Just think about that for a second. The Treasurer has managed to preside over an economic productivity performance so bad that even the 2010s are embarrassed by us. And what is Treasurer Chalmers's answer? More spending, more regulation, more workplace rules and more tax complexity.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the RBA has repeatedly downgraded its productivity forecasts, and this matters. Productivity is how we get richer without simply working ourselves to death. If we produce more, wages can rise, businesses can invest, prices can fall, and living standards can increase, but, if productivity stagnates while government spending and debt and regulation continue to march upward, eventually someone's going to get the bill, and that someone is the Australian people, each and every time. First, we borrow a little more, we regulate a little more, and we tax a little more, all the while patting ourselves on the back for having the world's most compassionate welfare system. Then, if we don't see change soon, we will one day wake up to discover that our country is poorer, our government is bigger, and everyone is completely confused as to where all of our productivity and our prosperity went. The tragedy is this. It's that Australia still has every single advantage of a prosperous nation, but&#x2014;this is the problem&#x2014;we have a government with the habits of a poor one.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, I had the fantastic opportunity to welcome Royal Australian Navy Lieutenant Commander Ashley Cox into my office as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. It's a unique initiative that brings together parliamentarians and defence personnel, creating an opportunity to learn from one another and build a deeper understanding of the roles that we each play in serving Australia.</para>
<para>Throughout the week, Ashley demonstrated the professionalism, leadership and dedication that Australians have come to expect from the men and women of our defence forces. His willingness to share his experiences and perspectives gave our office a deeper understanding of the realities of military service and the challenges facing those who serve our nation. What stood out most were Ashley's curiosity and engagement. Whether meeting constituents, discussing policy issues or observing parliamentary proceedings, he approached every opportunity with genuine interest and thoughtful questions. His contribution enriched our discussions and brought a valuable Defence perspective to our work, and it was clear that Ashley had prepped very well for the particularities of us here in the Senate and the world that we work in every day.</para>
<para>Programs like this matter because they help bridge the gap between the institutions that serve Australia. They strengthen understanding between parliament and Defence while reminding us that beyond every ship, base and uniform are Australians who have chosen a life of service. I thank Lieutenant Commander Ashley Cox for his contribution over the past week and extend my gratitude to all ADF personnel and veterans for their service to our nation. We are so lucky to have such dedicated, driven, curious and incredibly smart people, like Ashley, committed to public service and the support of our nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Internet Content</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These are some of the nasties coming through to my office. Leanne said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Something is wrong with this girls mental capacity.</para></quote>
<para>Tony said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't know whats worse. Her voice or her face?</para></quote>
<para>Troy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some times its better to Shut your Bi*ch Ass Up.</para></quote>
<para>Dave said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You're past it old love. A quick Botox Session and get out to pasture.</para></quote>
<para>And Joseph said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We don't need people like you &#x2026; telling us what to do and &#x2026; most of you politicians are corrupt &#x2026; and Canberra is full of Pedos &#x2026; thank God for one nation and yeah born in the 60's bitch &#x2026; I've seen corruption first hand know allot of people. Your ugly is inside and out good luck with that there is no stopping the masses from waking up, have a nice day you evil bitch.</para></quote>
<para>These are just a handful of messages&#x2014;or gutter trash, as I call them&#x2014;that I got over the weekend. To be honest with you, these aren't even the worst ones.</para>
<para>This is what is going on in our society. People have become too comfortable hiding behind a screen and spewing abuse at somebody they've never met. I've got thick skin. I'm good with criticism. I love debate. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That is why we live in the democracy that we live in today. People are allowed to disagree with me, and I'm allowed to disagree with them, but this isn't political debate. These are personal attacks, threats and disgusting comments that most people would never have the guts to say to somebody's face. These are faceless keyboard cowboys who think hiding behind a computer screen gives them permission to say whatever they like without consequences. Well, I've had a gutful of it.</para>
<para>We have families, friends and staff who see and have to deal with this rubbish too. Holding public office does not mean we should be expected to shut up and accept a constant stream of personal abuse. So, from now on, if you send this sort of filth to me or to my office, don't assume it will stay hidden in my inbox. If you are prepared to put your name to these words, you should be prepared to have these words seen by others. You're very lucky today that I haven't put your last names and your email addresses out there, but, if you keep coming, that's what you're going to find out. You want to play with me and be nasty to my staff&#x2014;look out!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Red Lines Package</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Albanese Labor government love to say they're tough on crime, but they're not when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity. They will face a test when they vote on the Red Lines Package. This package is being introduced to parliament this week. It aims to close loopholes that allow governments and government agencies to support, be complicit in and enable genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It does four things: (1) stops this country selling weapons parts to be used in war crimes and genocide; (2) creates a new antigenocide commissioner that will prevent companies from making money from war crimes or genocide; (3) bans charities and this government's agencies from investing in companies that make money from illegally occupied territories; and (4) bans this country from trading in goods and services with illegally occupied territories.</para>
<para>It's no surprise that the Labor government isn't supporting the Red Lines Package. It's complicit in the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Last week, the government said they won't ban trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank, despite the UK, France, Canada and others doing just that. Albanese is standing with Trump and Netanyahu, and this government is continuing to support the worst of all crimes, including genocide. They are the real criminals. The Labor government, who is standing with Israel, is complicit in over 20,000 children being murdered at the hands of the Israeli government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> ( ): I do remind you to, in future, refer to people with their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a tower being built in New South Wales, and the comments around it are quite amazing. They are: 'This is ruining our lifestyle,' 'This is ruining our lookout,' 'We weren't consulted properly,' and 'The government's doing something we don't support.' There's outrage everywhere. The teal state member and teal federal member are outraged by this. They're outraged by a single tower in Paddington&#x2014;one tower.</para>
<para>Let me tell you what we're dealing with in the regions. In the regions, we are dealing with, to get 57 gigawatts of renewable energy, 14,250 wind towers at four megawatts. If we are dealing with 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines for Rewiring the Nation, between 70,000 and 90,000 transmission towers will be forced on people's properties by compulsory acquisition. That is what we're dealing with in the country. The same people that are complaining about one tower in Sydney are out there saying, 'This is a disgrace.' This is one tower in Sydney, but we are dealing with almost 100,000 towers in the bush.</para>
<para>I was really pleased to have the young Nats representative from the Hunter branch go up to Gundy Pub with Councillor Allison McPhee on the weekend and go around Allison's family farm. They got in the back of a ute after my son Lachlan Cadell managed to get a flat tyre in my car going up there. Well done, Lach, great job! Thank you to Toby Barry for helping him out, as well as to Abby Usher, John Sharp, Trevor Roth and Jack Izzard. They had a look around the property. They saw the parts of the property that will be isolated. They saw the roads that will be blocked off. They saw the site of the work camps that will be right next to houses in the bush. So, before we go round and say, 'Let's not have one tower, because it'll spoil the aesthetic of Paddington or wherever,' think about the 100,000 towers that will be built in the bush, where nothing exists like it, ruining way more for way longer. It needs to be stopped.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Alexander, Mr Joe</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 14 January 2026, Joe Alexander, life member of the ALP, passed on. Joe was born on 13 January 1929 in Larras Lee. At 14, Joe left school to help his family pay the bills. This pattern of stepping up for the good of others would persist throughout Joe's life. Working as a farmhand, he learned to become a gun shearer, always at the top of the tally book, and known all over for shearing up to 230 sheep per day for 10 days straight. He could even crutch 1,200 sheep per day. In 1946, he joined the Australian Workers' Union, moved to Coonamble, where he married Dorothy McConnell. They raised three children: Leslie, who is deceased, Robert and Alison.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for two-minute statements has expired. We'll move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Bill Kelty, a prominent Australian Labor Party figure and former head of the ACTU, has highlighted the disastrous policies of the Albanese government, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Real wages are not improving &#x2026; they're falling.</para></quote>
<para>He said that Australians 'can't pay the bills' and that housing affordability is worsening because 'interest rates are rising and real wages are falling'. Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Kelty?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister and the whole government understand that Australians are under real pressure with cost of living, and we understand that people across this country are genuinely finding the cost of living and the cost of housing tough to deal with. We understand that. We also understand how much the world has thrown at our country over the last few years, whether it's the global pandemic, the land war in Europe, the disruptions to trade, a new conflict in the Middle East and, of course, as I've spoken about on a number of occasions, the largest shock to global energy markets in history. That has had a real impact upon our economy and it's had a real impact on Australians and their families. That is why the government is taking action and has taken action to deliver lasting relief&#x2014;to help Australians with the pressure here and now and, at the same time, to make us stronger in the face of future shocks, whether it's making sure Australians can see a doctor for free and get the medicines they need for less, making sure we work to give first home buyers a fair crack or making sure we improve the opportunities available to Australians through free TAFE and paid prac.</para>
<para>When it comes to wages, I say to those opposite that we understand that we have to keep doing the work to grow wages. We are. It is a good thing that annual wages have grown above three per cent for 16 consecutive quarters. It's a good thing that we have the lowest average unemployment rate in half a century. It's a good thing that we have had 1.3 million jobs created. But there is more to do. We know that, and we are focused on&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Kelty also took aim at Treasurer Chalmers, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You had the treasurer say workers should be happy because their wage share is increasing, but their real wages are falling &#x2026; It's just ridiculous and people get offended by it. They can't pay the bills, and you tell them your share of GDP is growing.</para></quote>
<para>Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Kelty?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We on this side understand the pressure that Australians are under, which is why we are focused on delivering real cost-of-living relief and why we have advocated for increases in the national minimum wage, which has increased by more than $12,000 a year. That is more than a 30 per cent increase. This is why we have delivered pay rises for early educators and workers in aged care. But there is more to do. We know that there is more to do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Real wages are falling.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash because one thing we know is that those opposite have never advocated for a wage increase. What we know about those opposite is that they championed a system where lower wages were a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy. That is the Liberal way&#x2014;'Let's deliberately try and keep wages low.' That is the way Senator Cash and her colleagues have championed. So I think Australians will understand what you are doing here, because you have never backed higher wages for working people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Kelty also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The PM is telling the country with glee that the price of property is falling, yet the unaffordability rate is increasing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because interest rates are rising and real wages are falling &#x2026;</para></quote>
<para>Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Kelty's analysis?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I would say in relation to houses and first home buyers and affordability is this. We have worked, through our budget, to do two key things. One is to deliver tax cuts for working Australians. But the second is also to ensure that we create a more level playing field between investors and first home buyers. That matters. It matters because we on this side believe that young Australians should get the opportunity to enter the housing market.</para>
<para>Now, I know Senator Cash and her colleagues are very anxious to ensure the tax breaks that investors have enjoyed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Opposition senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senators Cash and McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We think it is better, for the Australian economy and for equity in this country, to ensure that there is a fairer system.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator McKenzie, I called you by name and you still kept going as if I'd said nothing. You are being disrespectful and disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOWLING</name>
    <name.id>55842</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week, the Albanese Labor government announced a world-leading step to protect young people from harm on social media platforms and give adults more choice online. How does a digital duty of care make the internet a safer place for our children? And why are basic online safety standards so important to implement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Dowling for the question. For the first time, tech companies will have a legally enforceable duty to prevent harm on their services, and that's why the government's plan to implement a digital duty of care is so important. All online services, from chatbots and apps to online gaming, will need to protect children from harmful content and features. It will also give Australians a choice&#x2014;a real choice&#x2014;over their feeds, with My Feed, My Way. Users will have a choice to opt in or opt out of the algorithm, a choice social media platforms will have to respect.</para>
<para>This is not about controlling what adults see online, and it will not control what people post. But, as all parents know, when new harms emerge online and it's your child in the firing line, you want the government to act as swiftly as possible. Remember when, in December of last year, Grok started allowing users to nudify photos of children. Australians were rightly horrified. It's instances like that, alongside other evidence we hear. These include AI chatbots telling girls how to subsist on 600 calories a day, algorithms which serve up misogynistic content to boys in under 13 minutes or the insidious grooming that has occurred on Roblox.</para>
<para>When we on this side hear that evidence, we know there is a choice to be made, and we are choosing to act. We are choosing to act now and we are consulting on the digital duty of care, and we will work with this parliament to give Australian adults more choice and protect Australian children from harmful content online.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Opposition senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If Senator Henderson were actually concerned about children instead of One Nation, she might not be interjecting in the way she is, because this is about&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is outrageous.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is outrageous, Senator, is the fact that you, after 13 days, changed your position because you're worried about Senator Hanson. That is outrageous. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dowling, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOWLING</name>
    <name.id>55842</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, as you've outlined, the Albanese Labor government's plan is all about giving back power and choice to adults over their own feeds, keeping illegal content off the internet&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Opposition senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, come to order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOWLING</name>
    <name.id>55842</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and helping our children stay safe from psychosocial harms online. As the government continues to progress the consultation, what sorts of responses have we seen to this plan from community groups and faith based organisations?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's true: last week there were many parents, experts and community groups across this country breathing a sigh of relief because they have been calling for this. They have been calling for this: basic safety standards for the digital services we use every day. Varsha Yajman, an advocate with lived experience, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Knowing that I and others dealing with body image issues or disordered eating can simply say no to this content is empowering &#x2026;</para></quote>
<para>The support for this empowerment is broad. Groups including Equality Australia, the Working Women's Centre, the Chinese Australian Forum, the Hindu Council of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry have welcomed a digital duty of care.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Equality Australia doesn't even recognise women.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In fact, Senator Henderson, they want the parliament and the government to go further. While those opposite parrot freedom of speech lines because it's what Senator Hanson and One Nation are doing, we on this side want to hold big tech to account. You used to want that, then you changed position after 13 days. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dowling, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOWLING</name>
    <name.id>55842</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's clear the Albanese Labor government's proposal to take steps that hold big tech accountable and keep our kids safe not only holds broad community support but also is something that many groups have been asking for. Could the minister outline if there are any risks to the government's plan to implement a digital duty of care and set basic safety standards online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This side of the chamber has heard the calls from the community to act and to act now, and it is up to all of us. In 2021, the passage of the Online Safety Bill occurred because both sides of parliament worked together. In 2024, even Peter Dutton&#x2014;even Peter Dutton&#x2014;stood up to work with the government to tackle the scourge of social media. Senator Henderson just last month said that what we needed to do is to give young people&#x2014;</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>listen to your words, Senator Henderson&#x2014;and all Australians greater choice as to what they see online. Here's another quote for you, Senator Henderson:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you are focused on online safety for children, why are you trying to stop this bill coming into law?</para></quote>
<para>That's what Senator Henderson said.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The courage of your convictions! Thirteen days and you changed, because One Nation changed. Don't you ever come here and talk to us about the politics of conviction, because you have none!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Opposition senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senators McKenzie, Henderson and Nampijinpa Price, one of your very own frontbenchers was on her feet, waiting to ask her question, but the three of you were so busy interjecting, being rude and disorderly, that you didn't even notice. I don't know what it takes for me to keep you quiet. I would have thought one of your own senators standing might have actually rung a bell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Productivity</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Business Council of Australia has released analysis showing 'labour productivity has gone backwards by an average of 0.1 per cent a year' under your government and 'the 2020s are on track to be the worst decade for Australia productivity growth' since records began in 1960. What is the government's assumed rate of productivity growth over the forward estimates?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, productivity is a challenge and has been a challenge for many governments. It is the case post the Hawke and Keating era that we have seen governments of both political persuasions struggle with trying to lift productivity. We do have more work to do when it comes to productivity. In relation to what is assumed in the budget, I will see if I have that. What I can say to you is: we know that productivity fell for seven quarters in the lead-up to the pandemic. We know that we have progressed 15 productivity reforms in the budget to help attract and absorb more investment. These will make a meaningful difference, including cutting regulatory costs by $10.2 billion a year.</para>
<para>Those productivity measures include incentivising investment and innovation, reducing red tape, removing barriers to trade, building a single national market, making it easier to engage with governments through digital ID and 'tell us once' reforms, simplifying building regulations with free standards and a simplified construction code, modernising energy markets, better recognising skills with a national credit recognition framework and reformed migration points test, unlocking data and AI opportunities, investing in science and innovation, accelerating approvals, strengthening the superannuation performance test, better coordinating government investment through specialist investment vehicles and driving ongoing regulatory reform, including further Productivity Commission focuses on priority areas like housing productivity.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Business Council calculates that, even if Treasury's assumption that productivity growth returns to 1.2 per cent is achieved, average productivity growth across the 2020s will still only be 0.2 per cent a year. Does the government agree with the BCA's calculation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Hume said, there is a long-run assumption as to productivity, which is at 1.2 per cent. My recollection is that was revised down in the first term of government, which reflected Treasury advice. I would again make the point that I have made&#x2014;that productivity has been challenging for governments across the board. In fact, as I said, for some seven consecutive quarters productivity growth fell under the coalition in the lead-up to the pandemic. We do know we have more work to do as a country when it comes to productivity, and I think you are seeing, in the context, particularly, of AI and the work that not only Treasurer Chalmers is doing but Minister Ayres is doing, that we are very focused on this. Minister Gallagher and the regulation agenda obviously has a&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor has delivered the single largest fall in annual productivity ever. It is a fact that we are less productive today than we were when Labor was elected. Minister, what is Treasury's current estimate of average labour productivity growth for the 2020s, and what rate would be required to make up for the lost productivity under Labor and the 2020s becoming the worst decade for productivity growth since records began?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One thing this government is not going to do is to engage with or implement the agenda that is advocated by those opposite. I note, Senator Hume, that you are well known for your antipathy to and opposition of tax cuts. That is not the way we deal&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is ridiculous.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Hume!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection. I think I've just been called stupid. I'd say to you, Senator Hume, that I think that is probably what people described your position as being when you chose the shadow finance minister to lead the coalition into an election, telling people you were going to increase their taxes and increase their debt.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Minister Ayres. Why is the Albanese government constantly doing the bidding of big polluters? You're not making gas companies pay their fair share of tax with a gas export tax of at least 25 per cent. Instead, you've proposed a flimsy 20 per cent gas reservation, which will raise no revenue, and now you're weakening even that with a 'get out of jail free' card for gas by making it 'up to' 20 per cent for a reservation and contemplating carve-outs for gas corporations. When will you ever put the interests of Australians and a safe climate ahead of the interests of gas corporations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Waters. I suppose it can't be said, Senator Waters, that you've been doing the bidding of former senator Bob Brown&#x2014;not this week.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Honourable senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, I expect you to recover immediately.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Ayres, you need to direct your answers to me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's kind of difficult not to respond. The gas reservation plan that the Albanese government will legislate is the biggest policy reform in Australian gas in our lifetime. It is a much bigger reform and much more important to the national interest, whether that's conceived of in terms of our sovereign resilience interest, our industrial interests or the pathway of the Australian economy or our partners to lower emissions production. It will mean lower prices and sufficient gas for Australian industry. It will matter for households.</para>
<para>Our gas tax is a revenue measure. That is all it is. This is a measure that means Australian gas will be a cornerstone of future Australian competitiveness in energy terms. That means more investment into blue collar jobs, more investment into heavy industry that relies upon gas, more investment in new industry for Australia. That's what it means. Now, that will make a difference in outer suburbs in particular and industrial regions that you may never visit. You may never visit them. It's going to mean a future for Australian manufacturing. It's the right reform. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired.)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition has set their terms for their support for the gas reservation. They want more pollution, and they don't care if prices are higher for consumers. Are you planning to do a deal with the coalition to benefit the big gas corporations who want to keep exporting and keep energy prices high, instead of introducing a gas export tax that would mean cheaper energy for Australians and raise $17 billion a year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rather than, as Senator Wong has indicated, building the case for excuses and a political rationale for blocking this reform, you should probably just apologise to working Australians if you're going to let them down. You should probably apologise to people who work hard every day in manufacturing firms who need competitive gas&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Tell that to Whyalla.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>&#xA0;&#xA0;and who need a future for their industries, because we've all got a responsibility here. We've got a responsibility here as a parliament and as a government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I called you and I've asked you to come to order. I expect you to respect that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a landmark Labor reform that puts a heavy obligation on gas producers in the Australian national interest, and we will bring it to the parliament. We will bring it to the parliament.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge interjects, and we'll have a little bit more to say about that in a moment.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Have you quite finished, Senator Shoebridge? Come to order! Senator Shoebridge, either come to order or leave the chamber. Senator Waters, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The budget papers revealed that there are only two revenue sources that are collecting less and less every year&#x2014;the tobacco excise and the petroleum resources rent tax. The Treasurer claims he fixed the PRRT in the last parliament, but multinational gas corporations are paying less tax while their profits grow. Does the minister acknowledge that Australia's gas export taxes are fundamentally broken?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This reform is about making sure that we can deliver affordable gas. Now, I spent a long time before I came into this parliament as a trade union official in heavy industry and the manufacturing sector, and I watched facilities after facility close because Australian prices rose over that period.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And if poor old Senator Shoebridge was remotely interested in the future of Australian industry, he should be going there. He should try talking to the people who run these firms or represent workers in these firms.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Ayres&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remember what you said about the people of Queensland.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McAllister&#x2014;order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is overwhelmingly in the national interest. It means that we will deliver a future made in Australia based on a competitive energy price. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The IMF has downgraded global growth and upgraded global inflation due to the war in the Middle East, with energy prices and supply chains the main drivers. Australians are feeling the impact of these global pressures at the checkout and the fuel pump. Can the minister update the Senate on the global conditions and what they mean for the Australian economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. The question outlines some of the uncertainty that exists across the global economy now. The war in the Middle East is reshaping the global outlook, and the IMF's <inline font-style="italic">World </inline><inline font-style="italic">economic outlook</inline> downgraded global growth to 3.1 per cent this year, down 0.2 percentage points, and revised up global inflation to 4.4 per cent this year and three per cent next year. There's no doubt that those global impacts are having impacts here in Australia on our economy and, importantly, on Australian households, which are under real pressure. That conflict overseas is pushing up prices and inflation here at home. Energy prices and supply chains are the main channels, which is why it often shows up first or early at the bowser and at the supermarket checkout.</para>
<para>Against that backdrop, Australia's economy is strong. The economy grew by 0.4 per cent in the June quarter to be 2.1 per cent through the year and 2.4 per cent across 2025-26. Annual growth in Australia was as strong as or stronger than every other major advanced economy&#x2014;equal to the United States and stronger than the rest. So our economy is resilient. When it comes to annual growth, we have stronger employment growth than almost every major advanced economy and lower gross debt to GDP than every major advanced economy. But despite that and despite the fact that real household disposable incomes grew in the quarter, that the household savings ratio lifted in the quarter, that the compensation of employees was up six per cent through the year and that unemployment was still historically low at 4.5 per cent, we recognise that people are doing it tough and are really concerned about all of the uncertainty that exists around them right now.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>S&amp;P Global has recently reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating status, which is a strong endorsement of the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic and fiscal management at a time of extreme global uncertainty. Why is this AAA credit rating so important to retain, and how is the government balancing its spending decisions while providing targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Darmanin for the supplementary. While there are many things concerning Australians about the global economy that we can't control, there are things here at home that we can. That's why our responsible budget management and our focus on savings, on paying down debt and on making sure that upward revisions to revenue were returned to the budget have been key parts of our strategy since coming to government. Last month, Standard and Poor's reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. We are one of only nine countries rated AAA by all three major rating agencies. S&amp;P endorsed our tax and saving reforms and said we have modest debt by international standards. Fiscal discipline remains important at a time of heightened global uncertainty, and that's exactly what we're delivering through the budgets we've delivered, but also in the decisions that we'll take going forward.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What will the Albanese Labor government's approach be moving forward to ensure that Australians continue to receive the support that they need while also delivering reforms that will grow the economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Darmanin for that final supplementary. We're committed to responsible economic management and sensible cost-of-living support for Australians, which is why our decisions around cheaper medicines and lowering the cost of energy bills, our investments in early childhood education and care, our investments in higher wages and our tax cuts have all been focused on making sure we could take some of the pressure off the Australian people. But global uncertainty requires stable, consistent, responsible budget management. Our savings approach that we've taken in every budget and in every MYEFO will continue. We know those opposite went to the last election promising higher taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. They have made hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of commitments already, since the election, that would damage the Australian budget and put us in much worse shape than we are.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Data Centres</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. New York and Texas have imposed moratoriums on building new AI data centres. Meanwhile, leading tech CEOs Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk are now calling for urgent action to regulate artificial intelligence because of its potentially catastrophic risks to humanity. With American communities strongly rejecting data centres, Australia has now become a destination of choice for these big tech companies, because of&#x2014;guess what?&#x2014;our lack of regulation. When will the Albanese government introduce a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centres or ensure that its forthcoming AI legislation applies retrospectively so that Australians can be confident that the government is doing everything it can to protect them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a few comments, before I get to data centres, on the introduction into your question, if I may, Senator Hanson-Young. The first point, which the Prime Minister has made, I've made and ministers have made, is the point that artificial intelligence will disrupt more, faster and more comprehensively than any previous technology, probably, in human history and that it has enormous potential benefits but also enormous risks. In fact, last year, at the UN Security Council, I made a contribution about the need to create agreed guidelines and agreed parameters for the deployment of AI, particularly in the context of conflict, because of the risks that are inherent in that to human beings.</para>
<para>In relation to your question, I think that the point is that this is technology that we cannot avert our eyes from. It's technology for which we have to work out how we both keep Australians safe and spread the benefits. The Prime Minister, very early on, has signalled at the most senior level of government his intention to ensure that we approach this precisely with those two objectives in mind: how do we keep Australians safe, but also how do we ensure the benefits? He has made clear that we will be legislating Australian standards for AI which would ensure large data centres meet minimum requirements for energy, water and location and also ensure that we not only are technology takers but also have the capacity to engage constructively with this technology. That is why incentivising AI trading&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister didn't even go anywhere near my question. I'll ask you again: there are dozens of data centres already in the pipeline awaiting approval or in development in Australia. Will the Albanese government commit to making your AI and data centre laws retrospective to projects already approved or underway, or will Labor allow corporations to rush through projects before there are any guardrails in place?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our intention is to ensure that these guardrails and standards enable this technology and this infrastructure to be rolled out safely. We want to get it right, Senator. And with respect, I did answer your question. You had a very long introduction, and I responded in detail to that. What I would say to you is that we are very clear about the need to establish these Australian standards. Obviously, that's a very important technical task. We want to get it right because we understand this technology is something that has to be both managed and utilised safely.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These guardrails are of course important, but big AI are railroading communities now and getting their approvals for their centres now. Will your government either put in place a moratorium or make your laws retrospective? Otherwise, how can the Australian people trust you?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have a set of data centre expectations, from which the Prime Minister has said we will develop Australian standards. Our intention is to make sure that these can be appropriately constructed and that they apply to the rollout of not only the infrastructure but also the principles I have outlined, which go to the technology more broadly. Again, we can't avert our eyes. We have to work out how we keep Australians safe but also how we best utilise the technology and enable our engagement with it constructively.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The NAB says that loans to owner-occupiers are down by 15 per cent since the budget. Are you aware that your taxes are reducing home loans and homeownership opportunities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think this question was asked last week&#x2014;or a version of it was. The point I made then was in fact that we saw approvals up three years in a row, 8.9 per cent higher than a year ago and at their highest level since 2021, and commencements are also 15.2 per cent higher.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bragg</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked about home loans and homeownership opportunities, not about approvals.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Bragg.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting that Senator Bragg doesn't want to hear about that, because what it actually means is that there are&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What it actually means is that there's more investment in supply. I know that's something you don't want to hear about, Senator Bragg. The advice I have is that the figures I've just given you demonstrate that there is more investment in supply and more commencements. I'd also make the point that I'm advised that there are in fact more first home buyers under our government than there were under you, that there are more than 490,000 first home buyers under Labor&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Opposition senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice I have is that loans taken out by first home buyers are on the increase, and about 260,000 Australians are in their own home using just a five per cent deposit. And I would remind you, Senator Bragg&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know Senator Cash simply wants to interject. The reality is they don't want more investment in new homes. They don't want more investment in new housing because they just want the market to rip, and they're happy to be on the side of investors rather than first home buyers. They are actually the values on display here. Senator Cash is yelling at me because she cannot abide the fact that, under our government, we are actually investing in new supply for first home buyers so more young Australians can get into the market&#x2014;you can't handle that, can you? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be helpful to get that advice tabled, actually. Rents are due to spike thanks to the reducing housing supply, which you know about. Do you stand by your $2 a week rent claim from the budget when we now see projections of $200-a-week rent rises in places like Sydney?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Honourable senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! This triangle, Senator Bragg, between you, Senator Ayres and Senator Watt is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would make the point that we did have transitional arrangements in place in relation to existing negative gearing. I know that you want to make everything be an issue for the government, but I would make that point. The second point is that the Treasury's modelling on rent over the period remains less than $2 a week. Obviously, there is impact on supply and rents as a result.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Honourable senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the Treasury's modelling. Obviously there is&#x2014;I can't hear myself think.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If home loans to owner-occupiers are down and rents are up, who actually wins from the $77 billion of new Labor housing taxes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, I've already said to you that we've seen approvals up and commencements up. I know that you are allergic to Australians&#x2014;</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Fine, you answer the question.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITTEN</name>
    <name.id>317026</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Australia's labour productivity has barely moved since 2016 and ranks amongst the weakest in the advanced world. The Reserve Bank's head of economic analysis, Michael Plumb, said the lack of capital deepening, meaning less capital investment per worker, has held back labour productivity&#x2014;more people, less capital. The <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> reported last week that the Treasurer will deliver the worst decade for productivity since records began in 1960. Given that net overseas migration more than doubled from the mid-2000s and then hit record levels under this government, does the government accept that high immigration has produced capital shallowing and is a material cause of Australia's productivity slump?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Whitten for the question. I don't agree with him. I know that One Nation would like to lay, at the feet of all migrants in this country, every issue or every gripe that One Nation has, and they would like to blame migration for that. There are productivity challenges across most advanced economies at the moment, Senator Whitten. It's an issue that all advanced economies are dealing with. Our lowest productivity decade was, I think, the one that the coalition oversaw when they were in government. We revised down our productivity assumptions when we came to government in recognition of that, but we've also, in this budget, got a very strong focus on driving productivity, and the Treasury advice to us is that those combined measures I've outlined&#x2014;all 15 of them, which we talked about last week&#x2014;give them confidence on achieving the productivity assumption in the budget. They go across a whole range of areas across government, whether it be in approvals reform, in encouraging business investment around how we regulate, reduce or improve better regulation in a whole range of areas, and the adoption of technology and artificial intelligence. We can see that already improving productivity in some other economies.</para>
<para>There's an opportunity here, and we have been very clear in the budget about driving that change. No, we don't blame low productivity on the fact that Australia has for many, many decades relied on support from overseas workers to come and support our economy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whitten, first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITTEN</name>
    <name.id>317026</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> () (): I'm not blaming migrants; I'm blaming you. Canada and New Zealand ran the same high migration model and, with Australia, recorded the worst Labor productivity in the developed world after 2015. When Canada drastically cut its immigration numbers, the world didn't stop spinning. Instead, in early 2026, Canadian output per person was rising. What does this government pursue&#x2014;a mass immigration model that has been shown to suppress per capita growth and productivity and that has actively hurt Australia's standard of living? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Whitten for the supplementary. Again, just adding to the answer I gave to the primary question but including that we have reduced net overseas migration by about 45 per cent compared to the post-COVID peak when we did see numbers&#x2014;unsurprisingly, because our borders had been shut, we did see a pull forward as people returned to Australia and were able to take up the opportunities that their visa allowed.</para>
<para>We will build a migration system that works for the skills we need and for the businesses and services that Australians rely on, but the net overseas migration has come down substantially. The productivity issues across the economy require a whole-of-government coordinated response, including skills and better recognising skills here, and there's more work to do. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whitten, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITTEN</name>
    <name.id>317026</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Lower and better targeted immigration produces better labour productivity as capital investment catches up to the number of workers. Canada saw this when they cut their immigration. This is not theory. It's demonstrably true. One Nation's plan would take net overseas migration negative for three years then cap it at 130,000 so investment can catch up and living standards and wages can rise per person. Will Labor support One Nation's well-considered sensible plan to put Australians standard of living first?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think well considered and One Nation don't necessarily go together very closely, but the answer to the question is, no, we wouldn't. Indeed, in the feedback that has come back from a whole range of groups raising concerns about significant detrimental impact on economic growth, from the Business Council to the Australian chamber of commerce and energy to the National Farmers Federation, who say it would have a terrible impact on us, to the Student Accommodation Council to, I imagine, regional universities, aged-care facilities, hospitals, pubs, farms&#x2014;all of those areas would suffer under your policy, Senator Whitten. I think that's pretty clear to everybody who understands the migration system and to everyone who operates a business and relies on a set of skills to help them operate that business and make a living. So, no, Labor won't be supporting it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>I advise the chamber that Senator Babet has passed his question to Senator Roberts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is, once again, to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, on the subject of labour market economics. In June 2022, at the start of the Albanese government, there were 1.35 million Australians underutilised in the workforce according to the ABS. In July 2026, this had increased to 1.68 million. Taking out the COVID period, underutilisation has been falling since the measure began in 2014, until Labor took over. Now, it's going up. The only interpretation of this data is that there are not enough hours and not enough work to go around. As a result, 1.68 million Australians are working less than they want and need to. Why can't people find enough work under this Labor government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I think that's the second week in a row you've had Senator Babet's question. I wonder where&#x2014;you lucky guy! I wonder where the ghost of the Senate is. We never see him anymore, do we? I noticed he did launch a clothing range a few days ago though, so he had time to do that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will draw the minister to your question, Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Roberts will know, unemployment is at historically at low levels, sitting at 4&#xBD; per cent. In recent times, over the data sets, participation rates have been historically high, including for women. We've got the gender pay gap at record lows. We've got employment at 14.8 million, so we've created 1.3 million jobs since coming to government. Women are employed full time at much higher rates&#x2014;4.1 million. We've got industrial disputes down. We've got annual wage growth over three per cent. So I think, on any measure, when you look at how the labour market is performing, Senator Roberts, it is being pretty resilient against the backdrop of global uncertainty and all of the risks that come with that. The Australian economy has actually fared very well in terms of job numbers, in terms of the participation rate, in terms of wages and in terms of the number of jobs that have been created under this government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Workforce participation under your government only increased 0.1 per cent&#x2014;a rounding error&#x2014;and male participation has fallen. Unemployment is up from 3.4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. In August 2023, Treasury Chalmers promised 'a paid job for everyone who wants one'. Minister, has your government failed miserably to keep that promise, or have you 'changed your position' on creating jobs for all who are here?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over 1.3 million jobs have been created, Senator Roberts&#x2014;three out of five are full time and five out of six are in the private sector. We've got the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years, a record number of Australians in full-time jobs and a participation rate at near-record highs. The advice I have is that the participation rate has gone from 66.3 per cent in May 2022 to 66.9 per cent, which is near a record high. As a Labor government, we will always do more to make sure that people have all of the opportunities they can from the dignity that work provides and&#x2014;not only that&#x2014;good, secure jobs that pay well. That is what Labor governments are all about, and that is what we will continue to deliver.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ABS border movement data reveals that, in 2025-26, Australia recorded 476,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals, the highest on record. Australian workers can't find enough work, yet this Labor government continues to bring in record numbers of arrivals. Minister, why would you keep mass immigration at such high levels when it's taking work off Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in answer to your colleague's question, Australia has always relied on being able to supplement our own Australian workers with workers who migrate here under different visas and under various arrangements with those visas. I would say, Senator Roberts&#x2014;I don't know whether Mr Farley from the other place has commented on your migration policy today. But we know from everyone who's had a look at what you've announced today, whether it be those key stakeholder groups like the Farmers' Federation, all of those regional employers or all of the people who rely on workers who come to Australia to work and take up those opportunities alongside Australian workers and the jobs that we've created here&#x2014;the good, secure jobs that deliver the dignity of work to those families. But we know from all of the feedback that we're seeing about your policy that it's not going to work and it would damage&#x2014; <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Private Health Insurance</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the Western Australian shadow minister for agriculture in the gallery. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Terry and Pam Thompson of Saratoga, New South Wales, are aged 85 and 80. They made a submission to the Senate inquiry into your government's plan to cut the additional private health insurance rebate for older Australians. They are both age pensioners with no other income. To keep their private health cover, they have given up holidays, meals out and entertainment. They told the inquiry that, once there is nothing further to sacrifice, they'll be forced onto the public system. In their words, your government's plan 'lacks compassion'. Minister, the Parliamentary Budget Office has now confirmed that $1.6 billion of the $3 billion this policy claims to save comes directly from the pockets of pensioners like the Thompsons. Do you think it's compassionate to expect pensioners to give up holidays, meals out and entertainment to pay for your lazy tax grab?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Senate knows, the government's priority is making sure that our tax dollars deliver the greatest benefit possible for older Australians, and that means directing more funding into the care that people rely on every day. These aren't straightforward choices from the government's perspective. To help fund that investment in aged care, the government will return the private health insurance rebate for older Australians to the same rate that is available to all other Australians. We do understand that this is a difficult decision. It will not be a welcome decision for many older Australians, but we think it is the right decision. The additional rebate is simply not the best way to spend precious taxpayers' dollars on behalf of older Australians when there is so much heavy lifting to do in aged care.</para>
<para>And there's a reason that there is now so much to do in aged care. Senator Ruston, in her question, referenced 'lazy'. I'll tell you what is lazy. It would be going to an election without a single costed aged-care policy. Unbelievably, that is what Senator Ruston did. There are 214 commitments in the coalition's election costing report, and not a single one of them is about aged-care places, because, when it came down to it, the coalition had no answers whatsoever to the neglect that they had overseen in the aged-care system&#x2014;not a single answer. They couldn't tell Australians how many packages they would fund. They could not tell Australians what it would cost. They couldn't tell Australians how they would invest in the workforce to deliver care, and that is what is lazy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, four months before this policy was announced, the Minister for Health, Disability and Ageing wrote to the Deafness Forum Australia and pointed elderly Australians towards this very rebate as the way to fund cochlear implant replacements. Was the minister aware the rebate was going to be cut when he gave that advice to older Australians needing deaf support, and, if so, why weren't those pensioners told at the time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Cochlear implants are currently funded for implantation through state and territory public hospital systems. The government acknowledges that access to ongoing replacement or upgraded sound processes isn't consistently subsidised across jurisdictions. Eligible Australians may access cochlear implant processor upgrades&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Your minister told them to use their private health insurance.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>through the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Over-65s will still receive significant government subsidised discounts&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you know about this letter? Would you like me to table it?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of up to 24 per cent on the premiums private health insurance charges them&#x2014;the same as the rest of the population. Under the&#x2014;</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance&#x2014;I was actually talking about a letter that the minister had written. I'm happy to table that letter for this chamber if you'd like me to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, you have been constantly interjecting. I called you on that point and asked you to come to order. There is not a point of order. I will continue to listen closely to the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the proposed changes, all Australians will now receive the same private health support based on their income, not their age.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When pressed at the Senate inquiry into this bill, health department officials didn't call this good policy; they called it the least worst option. Is that really the standard this government is prepared to apply to a decision that takes money out of the pockets of pensioners like Terry and Pam Thompson?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This government takes its responsibilities to fund the services that Australians rely on very seriously indeed. As I've already indicated in my answer to the primary question, we recognise that this will not be a welcome decision for many Australians, but it is a necessary one. It is necessary because there is so much work to do to repair the damage that was done over a decade by those opposite to the aged-care system. We have a growing population of older people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, stop the running commentary.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Investment is required to increase the number of aged-care beds and to increase the number of packages, and the $3 billion that has been delivered in the last budget to exactly these priorities reflects the fact that our government takes these issues seriously. It is a great deal more than was offered by Senator Ruston at the last election, when she couldn't even be bothered to cost a single aged-care policy and take it there.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education and Care</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITEAKER</name>
    <name.id>316555</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Today, the Albanese Labor government announced that the final Building Early Education Fund agreement was signed with the Northern Territory, meaning every state and territory is now on board. The fund is investing a billion dollars to build and expand early education centres in communities where they are needed most. What does this important national milestone mean for children and families across Australia, and how will the fund help more families access quality early education no matter where they live?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for your question and for your belief that every child deserves access to quality early learning. Every child deserves a great start in life, but too many families don't have the option to send their child to early education and care in our outer suburbs, in our regions and in areas of disadvantage. That is why today matters. We have now signed a building early education agreement with every single state and territory&#x2014;every state, every territory, every jurisdiction. This is a significant milestone in our delivery of quality universal early childhood education and care.</para>
<para>Our final agreement with the Northern Territory will deliver $8.7 million for a new 60-place early learning centre at Manunda Terrace Primary School in Karama. We want an Aboriginal community controlled organisation to operate the service because community controlled centres are culturally safe, trusted by families and deliver great outcomes. We've committed to building a new early learning centre in Tennant Creek, too. This means more early learning in the Territory, more places for Territory children and more support for Territory families.</para>
<para>Across Australia, we are delivering 42 projects in the regions and the suburbs that need them the most, creating more than 2,500 additional places, supporting thousands of children and thousands of families with quality not-for-profit early learning where it's needed most for generations to come.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITEAKER</name>
    <name.id>316555</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, these agreements will deliver projects in every jurisdiction, including&#x2014;as you've mentioned&#x2014;in the outer suburbs, regional communities and rural Australia. How will this investment by the Albanese Labor government make a practical difference for children and families?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're delivering for families beyond the capital cities. Around two-thirds of our Building Early Education Fund projects are in regional and rural communities, and 33 of them are on or near school sites. From Greenmount Primary in the west to Rosewood school in the east and Bruny Island school way down in the bottom of Tasmania, we are building early learning centres co-located with schools. For children that means a familiar environment and a smooth transition to school, and for parents it means a one-stop drop-off and an easier morning routine. For communities it means more places close to home. That is the purpose of this fund, because where a child grows up shouldn't determine whether they can access quality early learning. Every child deserves quality early learning close to home.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITEAKER</name>
    <name.id>316555</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government's $1 billion Building Early Education Fund is delivering new early learning centres right across the country. How is Labor addressing Australia's early learning infrastructure challenges, and is there anything standing in the way?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition had a decade to expand access to quality early learning for families across Australia, and instead they cut the most disadvantaged children off from child care with their punitive and nasty activity test. They never made an investment like this to support communities who were locked out of early learning. Instead, they just decided to lock more children out of early learning.</para>
<para>Of course, One Nation would never make an investment like this either. At the National Press Club, Senator Hanson questioned why we even needed 'people with some sort of degree to look after a child'. She also questioned why educators needed another pay rise, which I hope will pass the parliament this week. That tells you everything you need to know about the attitude of those opposite to early learning. They won't deliver this sort of real change for families, for children or for communities. Only a Labor government is building more quality not-for-profit services where families need them the most.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>I shall now proceed to motions to take note of answers. With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements agreed to by the whips.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>What we have here is some amnesia by this government. Every time you hear about anything good, we're told to look at what they've done, but, for anything bad, we heard that it's only been 4&#xBD; years, and they'll get to it.</para>
<para>When we talk about wages, they keep coming back with, 'Oh, low wages were a design factor.' Low real wage growth is better than backwards, negative real wage growth, and this is what we're talking about here. They talk about the headline number and say everyone gets more in their pay packet, but they forget to tell people: 'Your pay packet buys less. Your real wages are going backwards. Instead of getting $100, you may be getting $120, but you're only able to get what would have been 90 bucks worth of gear in the old year.' That's what they forget. They forget the reality. What number is in your pay packet doesn't matter as much as what you can get for it, and you are getting less. You are getting fewer groceries. You are getting less health care. You are getting less energy. You are getting less rental accommodation for every dollar you earn now. They say: 'Oh, no. It's been 4&#xBD; years. We haven't fixed it yet.' When are they going to fix it? They're talking about wage growth. It's like the captain of the <inline font-style="italic">Titanic</inline> saying: 'Good news. The water's coming in slower now. You're still going to sink, but the water's coming in a little bit slower.' That is the up news of this government on everything we see.</para>
<para>On everything, they're underperforming. On housing, on page 158 in budget paper No. 1, it says that 35,000 fewer homes are being built. That's in their own budget papers. They say: 'We're getting to it. We've got this plan. We're going to get there. We've got the five per cent housing thing'&#x2014;which actually goes to as many foreign people as it does Australians. You can be a foreigner and get a five per cent housing deposit and buy a house. That goes there. They've got that plan. They've got the Housing Australia Future Fund, but they can't tell you how many homes have actually been built.</para>
<para>They can tell you about acquiring. They tell you about all these things. Well, in this life, activity isn't productivity, and this government is finding that out. Doing something&#x2014;doing the wrong thing&#x2014;doesn't mean you're fixing the problem. It just means you're doing something. So let's get off this activity and all these things that we're doing. If they aren't fixing the problem, get rid of the things.</para>
<para>We talk about productivity. Remember the productivity roundtable, the biggest thing in the world, to make Australia more productive in the world? It talked about getting out there, what we could do and the barriers to it. I believe there was a senator sitting out the front at a coffee table saying: 'Energy prices to fix productivity are the No. 1 thing. Change my mind.' Nothing has changed his mind, because nothing has happened in this regard. Australia's labour productivity is in the toilet. We are doing worse every month, every week and every year because of red tape, because we are strangling business and because this government thinks that, if the industry super fund can't buy you and they can't unionise you, you are not important to the economic growth of this country. They think small business is the enemy. Small business is the engine that drives this economy. All these people want to do is work out how they can get their hands on the super of the workers, how they can get their union fees and how they can slow it down to get their big fat cats in the big businesses going.</para>
<para>This is what we get down to. We talk about the real wages failure. Every time it comes up, they don't mention that word 'real' because they live in an unreal world. Let's talk about the real world, where these wages are going backwards and people are suffering.</para>
<para>We're talking about interest rates&#x2014;the real thing in the question we heard there. How is housing affordability better&#x2014;even if prices are falling, we're wiping out billions of dollars of people's wealth across the nation. When the interest rates go higher, your serviceability is less. You can't afford as much because your real wages are going down as the interest rates are higher and housing affordability is actually worse off&#x2014;except they espouse it. What they're hoping is that you won't do the research yourself. You won't look at what they are.</para>
<para>They have been betrayed by Bill Kelty, a man who was a cornerstone of the ACTU, a cornerstone of the union movement and a cornerstone of Labor. He has called this government out for the fraud it is. He will hold you accountable, just like the Australian people will.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know who the frauds are, and it's not Bill Kelty; it's all of those people over there. We're not going to take lectures from those opposite on things like productivity after the wasted decade on their watch. Now they're trying to rely on Bill Kelty to run their arguments for them.</para>
<para>Those opposite saw the worst decade for productivity in 60 years. Under the coalition, the rate of productivity fell for seven consecutive years&#x2014;in the lead-up to the pandemic. The 2022 election coincided with the largest quarterly fall in productivity growth in more than four decades. So, if we want to talk about frauds and what we need to do about productivity, it's not this side of the chamber that we need to be looking at; it is absolutely that side over there. Senator Cadell was talking about the urgency of this matter&#x2014;and this matter is certainly urgent&#x2014;but, when you're talking about decades of neglect from the other side, unfortunately we can't undo these problems with a snap of the fingers.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, however, has the broadest productivity agenda since the 1990s. Productivity has been a longstanding challenge in our economy, and that's why it was such a focus in this year's budget. Productivity has been weak for two decades, and that's why we are delivering the broadest agenda since the 1990s and taking action by doing things like cutting red tape, lowering taxes for businesses and startups, incentivising innovation and encouraging more efficient capital allocation in the economy.</para>
<para>I have very limited time, but, in addition to some of those measures, the government is focused on improving workforce participation, skills development and labour mobility. We just had a debate about workers in the economy and workers' wages. A significant area of reform undertaken by this government has been in workplace relations. It is directly relevant to workers and designed to support them with the cost of living by increasing their wages.</para>
<para>In terms of our industrial relations agenda, we have done a lot in both the first term and, now, the second term. We introduced a range of really important reforms in the previous term around criminalising wage theft, around protecting penalty rates and overtime rates and around minimum standards for gig-economy workers. These are all reforms that were voted against by those opposite. These are real, tangible benefits to help Australian workers and to increase their wages every single week&#x2014;voted against by those opposite. So, if they want to talk about supporting workers and increasing the real wages of workers, then they should be voting for measures like those.</para>
<para>In this term, since the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, we've also seen strong real wage growth for eight consecutive quarters in a row under Labor. This is the longest period of consecutive annual real wage growth in almost a decade. When we came to office, real wages were going backwards and fell for the five quarters leading up to the 2022 election. Again, talk about hypocrisy! We want to talk about action, outcomes and what the consequences are for workers. Decent wages are what we need, and decent wages are what this government has been striving for, working for and delivering.</para>
<para>Decent wages are not accidental. They are because of a deliberate strategy of this government, just like the wage-suppression strategy was a deliberate strategy of those opposite, the former Liberal Party and National Party governments. The jig is up. If you want to keep talking and deflecting from your position on improving workers' wages, don't try and invoke previous ACTU secretaries to do it. Own up to your own position on workers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to say that was one of the more extraordinary question times that I have seen. The denial of the government of the reality that Australians are feeling could not have been any more on display, and we've just seen it from those opposite in response to this motion. They say, 'Don't invoke Bill Kelty'&#x2014;well, Bill Kelty doesn't even believe you. Bill Kelty goes out into the media and says things like:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You had the treasurer say workers should be happy because their wage share is increasing, but their real wages are falling. It's just ridiculous and people get offended by it. They can't pay the bills, and you tell them your share of GDP is growing.</para></quote>
<para>Australians understand that their real wages are going backwards. It doesn't matter what tricky language the government uses in relation to this. Australians understand&#x2014;and Australians don't want the government's understanding; they want the government to do something about it. The government, in everything that it does, is driving the economy backwards. When you get the mastermind of reforms, as he is regarded in the media, in the last couple of days calling out the government for their failures&#x2014;when Bill Keelty has to come and call it out&#x2014;you know you've got a problem. Even in the face of that, the government cannot bring themselves to admit that there's an issue here. When a Labor luminary like Bill Kelty comes out and says that this is what's going on, you would think that Labor would be honest enough to acknowledge what he says, but they won't.</para>
<para>It didn't matter what issue was raised in question time, the denial, the obfuscation and the misinformation were profound. That was no more apparent than in the question asked in respect of pensioners and health insurance costs, where the effect of the government's policy is to effectively cut the pensions of a million Australians by $5 a week for singles and $15 a week for couples. That's the effect that the health insurance changes will have on up to a million pensioners, and the minister says it's the right decision. The minister in question time today said, 'Some might not welcome this decision.' I can tell you, when a million pensioners are effectively having their pensions cut by this government and its policies, I bet they won't welcome it. Why would they? Labor members should be extremely uncomfortable about the fact that, for up to a million pensioners, there's $5 a week, and $15 for couples, coming off their pensions because of the changes that Labor have made to private health insurance policies, and that's at the lower end of the scale. It's a mean and nasty trick that Labor use, with tricky language, to try and get out of this, and they should be ashamed. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DOLEGA</name>
    <name.id>316935</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a little bit conflicting today because finally we're actually hearing the coalition talking about the ACTU, which is a bit of a 'fall off your seat' moment for some of us. Senator Hume referred to comments by Mr Kelty, former secretary of the ACTU. Obviously, we may disagree with some of those comments, but, while we are talking about the ACTU and their achievements, I will take a moment to acknowledge the fine service of Sally McManus as the former secretary of the ACTU. She was an absolute tiger and a champion of working people. Some of her achievements, going back into the COVID era, include forcing the former coalition government to protect working people with a wage subsidy that the coalition fiercely opposed. But Sally McManus and the ACTU absolutely secured that for working people, against the coalition's greatest wishes. Under Sally McManus, union membership was up. She was a great leader, and people were joining unions. Her achievements also go to working with the government to achieve things like same job, same pay, closing the loopholes and our world-leading gig worker reforms. So, Sally, as a union member I thank you for your service to our country. I also welcome my good friend and former CPSU national secretary Melissa Donnelly as the new secretary of the ACTU. I know you're going to be an absolutely fierce champion for all working Australians, as you were for public servants with the CPSU.</para>
<para>I'm just so proud of the policies of our government because, unlike those opposite, who wasted a decade and racked up $1 trillion of debt with nothing to show for it, on this side, we're actually delivering for Australians. We're delivering real change. We're delivering $2,800 in tax cuts for all Australians, including in our upcoming year a $1,000 instant tax deduction and our $250 working Australian tax offset.</para>
<para>We are the party of higher wages. We are the government and party that has supported the Fair Work Commission to grant pay rises to those who earn the least. The minimum wage has grown over $12,000 since we came into government, and that is nothing to sniff at. I tell you what: on this side, we support people earning more and to have their share of the pie, unlike those on that side of the chamber. I believe it was former senator and former finance minister Mathias Cormann who was on Sky News and said low wages were 'a deliberate design feature' of their economic narrative. Shame! They kept people's wages low by deliberate design. Outrageous!</para>
<para>We on this side have been taking action to make it so people can go to the doctor. We have strengthened and we are transforming Medicare with our urgent care clinics. The tripling of the bulk-billing incentive in my home town in north-west Tasmania has seen an 84 per cent bulk-billing increase, which is making it affordable for people to go to the doctor. We have cheaper medicines. On this side, we are taking action to be able to give people a leg up. They did nothing but hold them back.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was extraordinary&#x2014;talking about the share of the pie. What we need to do is actually grow the pie so that everybody prospers, not rip off older Australians who can't find a way to put additional money in their pockets. Uncertainty not only kills them; it kills businesses. It kills aspiration. It kills just about everything. That's what you actually get from Labor. What's the point of working hard when Labor just looks for an opportunity to take from that hard work, rent seeking in your head and your house? That's what it's about. You would think that everything was fine out there, but it's not for Australians. Delusional deflection is what you get from Labor.</para>
<para>You only have to take a walk around the streets of Adelaide. There are four cabinet ministers in the Labor government here in this chamber. Walk around the streets of Adelaide and what you see is more people pushing trolleys around because they're homeless. More people are struggling. You only have to stand at a check-out to hear more people saying: 'Wow! This is just getting tougher all the time.' You hear it when you're actually out there with the people, not in this Canberra bubble.</para>
<para>Since Labor came to office, productivity has fallen nearly five per cent. That's cause and effect. That actually affects every single Australian. When inflation goes up, you've got less money in your pocket, not more. You're going to struggle to pay for that loaf of bread more than you did weeks before. Inflationary increases are important for every Australian. It's not just a buzzword; it actually has an effect on your everyday life, on your pay packet and on your family. It is harder when inflation is higher, and it is those folks on the other side that have made sure their policies have had inflation higher for longer. You don't have to look anywhere else. That's why you're doing it tough.</para>
<para>Australians have had the worst decade of productivity growth since modern records began. That's not by accident; that's by design. It's the design of those guys on the other side. It's their policies created in here that have no regard for their effect on the ground, on business or on the people that cause those outcomes for Australians. That's Labor's problem in a nutshell. You heard them celebrating economic statistics while Australians are going backwards in real life. We've got Australians who can't pay their mortgage. We've got Australians who are finding it really hard to pay for their grocery bill. They told us that, under their economic reforms&#x2014;the so-called tax reforms, which were just really about a grab into your pocket to make sure they can pay for their budget black hole. That's not managing the economy. That's just grabbing from anybody who's got a bit of money in their pocket&#x2014;from you, from those older Australians, from anybody who takes a second job. Do you know the person that benefits when the economy is really tough, when inflation goes up? It's those guys on the other side. They collect more GST. They're getting more and more taxes from you, and your wages go down. That's not the way you create prosperity in this country for anyone. Business is the engine room of the economy. Energy is everything, and those people have failed you on that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Innovation (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the gas lobby.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the answers given by Minister Ayres to my colleague Senator Waters about Labor's cowardice in taking on the gas lobby. Minister Ayres described Labor's gas reservation scheme as the greatest reform to gas policy in our lifetime. That tells you everything you need to know about this Labor government's ambition or lack thereof. It tells you everything you need to know about their lack of vision and about their unwillingness to stare down the gas industry and do what Australians expect of them. Australians want a gas tax. They do not want a reservation scheme that will not raise a cent of revenue. Lifetime Labor politicians might have lost touch with this, but regular people are getting smashed by cost-of-living pressures. We're feeling it at the checkout, at the bowser and every single time we have to pay our energy bills. Meanwhile, multinational corporations like Santos, Woodside and Chevron are raking in billions of dollars selling off Australia's gas that they got for basically nothing. They are making megaprofits, and those profits are set to rise again as global energy markets continue to be disrupted by Trump's illegal war.</para>
<para>When Australians are struggling to pay their bills, it is a no-brainer to ask the gas export corporations to pay what they owe. A minimum 25 per cent gas export tax could raise more than $17 billion per year. That is $17 billion of public money that could be used to bring down the cost of living, to guarantee essential services and to invest in clean, secure, renewable energy that would actually lower energy prices. Minister Ayres says a gas export tax is just a revenue measure. That is simply untrue. A gas export tax can do things Labor says its reservation scheme is designed to do while also raising billions of dollars worth of revenue. Fancy that. It is the best of both worlds. When the minister talks about making a difference with this flimsy reservation scheme, we ask: What kind of a difference would $17 billion a year make? How many households could be helped? How much could be invested in cheaper, more secure energy? How many essential services could be properly funded? Only this Labor government could look at a pile of money, $17 billion, and say, 'That's not in the national interest.'</para>
<para>Let's be clear about who's driving this policy. The gas industry has had its greedy mitts all over Labor's gas reservation scheme from the beginning. Minister Ayres talked about Labor's partners, and he is, frankly, saying the quiet part out loud, because when Santos lobbies the government and the government then weakens its own policy, Australians are within their rights to ask: Who is this policy designed to help? Who is this designed to serve? You talk about an obligation you are creating for the gas industry, but that obligation is being watered down at every opportunity. Successive versions of the reservation scheme just get weaker and weaker. A policy designed with the gas industry will not stop the gas industry from ripping Australians off. If you do not believe that, you're an incredibly gullible person.</para>
<para>The Greens will never apologise for fighting for what Australians are owed. We will never apologise for standing up to the gas lobby, which has made billions of dollars from Australia's resources while driving the climate crisis, and we will never apologise for demanding that this government do what 70 per cent of Australians want. Tax gas exports now. That's what they're saying. That's what they're demanding. That's what they're calling for.</para>
<para>Minister, you told us to talk to the people. We highly recommend that you go and talk to the 70 per cent of Australians who want a gas export tax. Better yet, listen to them. Go out and listen&#x2014;not to the gas lobbyists who are roaming the halls of this place, and not to your donor mates. Go out and listen to the Australian people, because they understand what this government apparently does not understand or chooses not to listen to and act upon. Australia has some of the world's biggest gas resources, and they are finite resources. Once they are sold, they are gone. This money cannot be made back in the future, and Australians should get a fair return when multinational corporations are exporting them for billions of dollars worth of profit.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, it is beyond time to stop listening to the gas lobby and start listening to the Australian people who are demanding more, demanding better and demanding a tax on our gas exports. Tax the exports, make the gas giants pay their fair share and put that money to work for Australians.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITTEN</name>
    <name.id>317026</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to migration and productivity.</para></quote>
<para>The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. Australians are seeing the result of this government's insane actions around mass immigration. We are killing productivity with mass immigration. One Nation does not blame immigrants. We blame you lot that can't or won't accept reality.</para>
<para>Australians are feeling it. They are seeing their standard of living going backwards. This is not speculation. Experts are confirming it. You can deny it all you like, but the Reserve Bank of Australia has identified capital shallowing driven by mass immigration as suppressing productivity. Investment is not keeping pace with the flood of new labour. Workers have fewer tools and less infrastructure behind them. The <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> reported that we are heading to the worst decade for productivity since records began in the 1960s. We've lost 10 years of advances in technology that should have made us more productive, but they did not.</para>
<para>Two of our close peers, Canada and New Zealand, have given up the obsession with mass immigration. They gave up the false economy of suppressing productivity for the sake of headline GDP. They are seeing a return to productivity, and per capita GDP growth is recovering. That is what happens when you measure economic success by the flourishing of your people and not by a headline metric that can be gamed.</para>
<para>One Nation measures economic success by the quality of life of each Australian. Our immigration policy reflects the lessons learned from other countries. It slashes low productivity visas and removes people who have overstayed. We will see negative net migration for the first few years as we get the settings right. The plan balances the needs of rural communities that rely on working holiday-makers, PALM scheme workers and other programs that provide labour in the regions and drive our productive industry. Those programs will be maintained.</para>
<para>The cuts will be targeted at uncapped temporary visas like student and graduate visas. Uncapped temporary visas have been used as a backdoor to residency for too long, and they have dragged down Australia's productivity. We need to prioritise productivity and investment in Australian workers first. This decade of lost productivity is a travesty. It is the product of an arrogant and self-interested Labor government. One Nation will always put the Australian people first. This policy puts the lives of Australians at the heart of our economic and immigration settings.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Denman, Ms Kay Janet</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>On Tuesday 11 August 2026, I informed the Senate of the death, on 20 April 2026, of Kay Janet Denman, a senator for the state of Tasmania from 1993 to 2005. Honourable senators, I draw to your attention the presence in the chamber of the family of former senator Kay Denman. On behalf of all senators, I offer my condolences and welcome you to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave&#x2014;I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 20 April 2026, of Kay Janet Denman, former senator for Tasmania, places on record its gratitude for her service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to her family in their bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the passing of former senator for Tasmania Kay Denman on 20 April at 88 years of age. I first want to send my personal sympathy and the condolences of the government to her family, in particular her two children, Janet and Paul; Trevor, her son-in-law; her only grandson, Angus; other friends and family both here and beyond; and, of course, all who shared in the joy of knowing Kay.</para>
<para>Social justice is a train that usually runs late. That's how Kay Denman used to think about it. The train may not arrive on time. It may not always be there when you want it, and there will be those in need left waiting. But Kay's belief that the train would arrive, that justice would be served and that the wrongs of the past could be addressed resonated throughout her life&#x2014;a refreshing perspective when held up to contemporary cynicism. Kay Denman's life is a testament to that philosophy and a demonstration of the change each of us can make. Whether it was in her decades as a teacher, her time spent in this place or the abiding commitment she showed to the Labor Party and our movement or to the people she cherished, when Kay picked a cause, saw an injustice or identified an issue, you knew she would see the journey right through to the destination.</para>
<para>Born on 22 July 1937, Kay Denman was of that generation who knew the hardship of growing up during World War II and never stopped for a second to complain about it. Her early years were spent in Railton, a small community on the north-west coast and a town of no more than a thousand people at the time. The asbestos factory just outside town was the only major industry nearby. Kay's father and, later, her two brothers would work there at various stages of their lives. Many who worked in that factory, including many who Kay knew, would tragically die or have serious health complications from their time working there. Fortunately, Kay's parents would come to enjoy full lives living in their small community of Railton until their passing, and she completed her schooling at the primary school there and, later, at Devonport High School. Continuing her education at the University of Tasmania, she discovered a love of teaching and education, a calling she would answer for decades, during which time she would welcome into this world her two beloved children, Paul and Janet.</para>
<para>While continuing her teaching career, the late seventies contained some of Kay's first steps into public life. She became involved with the Mersey Leven Community Welfare Planning Group, and, in short order, her experiences of living with disability, and those of people she knew, encouraged her to fight for children with disabilities to be cared for in local day-care facilities&#x2014;a sign of things to come. Kay Denman also became a contributor to Family Planning Tasmania, where she remained involved until her early parliamentary career. She later recalled from her experience as a teacher that they 'used to use family planning to talk to the children about various issues to do with health&#x2014;not just women's health but men's health too'. And, as a teacher, Kay made herself a resource for countless young people who came from rural areas who didn't have the easy access to health advice so many people take for granted.</para>
<para>The year 1980 brought a lot of change to Kay's life. She moved to Devonport, where she quickly became involved in local community groups. But, most importantly for all of us in this chamber, that was the year Kay joined the ALP, and those years saw Kay's involvement in local community groups continue to flourish, her activist flame well and truly ignited. Holding various positions in local branches and the state party, she garnered the respect of many for her fair-mindedness and compassionate manner.</para>
<para>Kay Denman's compassion, her resolve to see justice's train to the next station, was boundless. Many in this place will remember that, until 1997, homosexuality was still a criminal offence under Tasmanian law. In fact, its statutes at the time were amongst the harshest in the developed world. On World AIDS Day in 1999, Kay recounted her memories of how some chose to respond to that crisis, calling out the groups who inspired a rise in hate crimes and poisonous misinformation. She showed up early for our community and she stayed there. I am not alone in my admiration and my gratitude for what Kay did. It wasn't always easy, and it certainly wasn't always popular&#x2014;Ulverstone, Tasmania being known for its high-profile anti-gay rallies at the time. Undeterred, she confronted this intolerance head on and publicly, and she was called names, harassed and even spat on. Yet it was there that was home to her office for many years&#x2014;a safe space in difficult times for a vulnerable community. So Kay's allyship with LGBTI Tasmanians was a constant. It mattered, and it is remembered. And today that legacy lives on in Working It Out. Tasmania's sexuality, gender and intersex support education and advocacy service. Kay was a member of the initial committee whose report led to the Working It Out project, an organisation that has gone on to touch the lives of thousands of Tasmanians.</para>
<para>Kay herself admitted that her arrival to this chamber wasn't a planned endeavour. Filling a casual vacancy left by Michael Tate, who passed only in June of this year, she entered this place feeling slightly lonely. But, in delivering her first speech, she did so determined to use her time in this place to continue the work towards a more equitable society. In that speech, she set a precedent which would come to be a feature of many of her remarks over the years. She quoted Simone de Beauvoir early in her speech. Her literary references continued in her closing, where she paraphrased the Russian poet Yevtushenko. Clearly, her tastes were broad. But, referencing Yevtushenko, she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">&#x2026; I believe that justice, if it is running late or lagging behind some current development, will eventually arrive but that often we have to struggle, to wait &#x2026; I aim to do something to improve the train's timetable of justice over the next six years &#x2026;</para></quote>
<para>And what was justice to Kay? Well, it was many things. It was the long-awaited decriminalisation and antidiscrimination legislation in her home state of Tasmania. It was spreading the benefits of technology more evenly across our society. It was improving the standards for disability carers and those they helped, and much more.</para>
<para>Although advocacy for inclusion and acceptance, action in aged care and disability welfare were near-constant features of Kay's public life, her effort was not limited to these fields. Kay lent her voice and advocacy as one step along the difficult path to Timor-Leste's independence. In 1999, she spoke of their right to self-determination, a position she had articulated since at least 1991, when she became a member of an East Timorese support group in Tasmania. And, close to my heart and work as Foreign minister, Kay recognised AIDS for the global health challenge it is. With characteristic rigour, she observed in a speech on World AIDS Day in 2000 that the preconditions for the spread of AIDS, which existed in other parts of the world, were not so dissimilar to conditions faced in our own region, including by our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea. And it is regrettable she was right. In my time as Foreign minister, we have seen HIV rates in our region continue to rise. We've also recognised that supporting our neighbours not only matters for them; it is also paramount to our own health.</para>
<para>I've spoken in recent years about the challenges we face when social cohesion is worn down. Kay observed the same in 2001 when she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">&#x2026; when social cohesion breaks down, the costs are self-evident.</para></quote>
<para>Then she was commenting on the importance of intergenerational connection. She was commenting on the loss felt when communities lose their younger generation to economic necessity. In that same way, she recognised the cost to our social fabric when so many struggle to get an education or to own their own home.</para>
<para>Kay was known in this place for her sense of humour. She was quick to laugh and probably quicker to crack a joke, especially at the Canberra bubble's expense. Her affable nature extended into her parliamentary life as well as, of course, her friends in this place, who numbered many, including across the chamber. Kay Denman ended her time in this place in the way she did most things in political life: on her own terms. A 1993 interview with the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> reveals the extent of this planning, where she confirmed her intention was to hold a seat for two terms, and so just shy of 12 years since she entered this place Kay delivered her valedictory. It underlines exactly the sort of person she was. Coming into this place with big ideas and ambitious objectives, she had this to say of her time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Then, as now, I was absolutely committed to the implementation of social justice and a more equitable society. Whilst there have been many improvements, this task still lies ahead of us.</para></quote>
<para>Improvements there were&#x2014;indeed. When she entered this place, homosexuality was punishable by up to 21 years of imprisonment in her home state of Tasmania. Antiracism and sex discrimination legislation were passed federally and the standard of education for Australians with disabilities rose in the national profile in no small part due to Kay's advocacy. But so much more still lies ahead, and there are still those waiting for justice to arrive.</para>
<para>Kay's final words in this place were a joke and a promise. She assured those of us remaining in the Senate that her and her famous collection of witch dolls 'will be watching', and it was true. I would often receive a text from Kay after an interview or during Senate question time, of which she remained an avid spectator. She would tell me to wear more red or at least more colour. She would tell me when I did well in an interview and she would ask for an updated family photo. One of her last messages to me was, 'Are you sitting next week?' and when I replied that we weren't, she said: 'Oh, blow. I shall have to find something else to do.' It is a blessing knowing that for all those years she was always cheering us on. She never left politics and she never left Labor&#x2014;remaining connected to many of us who were around then. I like to think she's still watching us and laughing at the zingers that land, maybe politely smiling at the ones that don't or probably more likely rolling her eyes.</para>
<para>Kay was a friend, a confidant, a mentor and a comrade to me and to many more of us. We will miss her wisdom and her perspective. We will miss her kindness and her toughness. Kay saw through fools, and she didn't suffer them. But to those she loved she was fiercely loyal. To Angus, Kay was always Nanny Dragon. Janet opted for the abbreviated form of Dragon. But, whichever Kay, you wanted her on your side. She was formidable, she was warm, she was wise and she was loved by family, by friends and by our movement. So once again to Janet and Paul, to Trevor, to Angus, to all of Kay's family and loved ones and to those who were lucky to know her as a friend I extend my deepest condolences. Vale Kay Denman.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the life and service of former senator Kay Janet Denman, who passed away on 20 April this year at the age of 88. On behalf of the opposition, I extend our condolences to her family, friends and former colleagues and in particular to Kay's daughter Janet, to her son Paul, to her grandson Angus, to her nephew Clinton and to her son-in-law Trevor, who join us here today as we give the condolences.</para>
<para>Kay Denman, as we have heard, was a Tasmanian through and through. She was born in Latrobe on 22 July 1937 and raised at Railton in the north-west of the state, where her father worked in the local asbestos factory. She attended Railton Primary and Devonport High School before completing a Bachelor of Education at the University of Tasmania. She later completed a Diploma of Special Education and spent more than two decades, from 1968 to 1989, as a teacher&#x2014;much of that time working in special education. She also lived with a disability, and that experience informed her later passionate interest in disability issues and support for carers.</para>
<para>Kay joined the Australian Labor Party in 1980 after moving to Devonport with her two children. She served as President and later Secretary of the Devonport branch and became a member of the party's national executive in 1990. In 1989, Premier Michael Field appointed her as a private secretary&#x2014;a role that she held until 1992. She subsequently managed the Devonport Community Legal Centre and was an inaugural member of the Mersey Leven Family Day Care committee. On 24 August 1993, a joint sitting of the Tasmanian parliament chose her under section 15 of the Constitution to fill the Senate vacancy created by the resignation of Michael Tate. She became the 435th senator to serve in this chamber and the 62nd senator for the state of Tasmania. In 1998, she was elected in her own right and served until the expiry of her term on 30 June 2005, completing almost 12 years in the Senate.</para>
<para>Senator Denman's parliamentary career included substantial committee work. She served as Government Deputy Whip in the Senate from September 1995 to March 1996 and as opposition deputy whip from September 1997 to November 2001. She chaired the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee and, for nine years, the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests. She also served for many years on the community affairs committees as well as committees examining whistleblowing, foreign affairs, defence and trade, treaties, the National Crime Authority and later the Australian Crime Commission.</para>
<para>Among the issues she pursued were disability rights, support for carers, access to justice, community legal centres and asbestos related disease. The latter had a particular connection to her upbringing in Railton, where she had seen people she knew affected by mesothelioma. She was also known for maintaining friendships across political lines including in particular with former Liberal senator for Western Australia Sue Knowles. Since her passing, former colleagues have spoken warmly of her contribution, in particular, to Tasmania's north-west coast and to the causes she pursued during her time in public life.</para>
<para>Again, to her daughter Janet, to her son Paul and to her family and friends, the opposition extends its condolences. Kay Denman gave many years of service to Tasmania and to the Australian Senate. May she rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I rise also to associate our party with the comments of Senator Cash and Senator Wong.</para>
<para>Kay Denman represented Tasmania in this place for just under 12 years. She entered the Senate in August 1993, chosen by the Tasmanian parliament, to fill the casual vacancy left by the late Michael Tate, whose example taught all of us that there is indeed life after politics. Senator Denman was re-elected in her own right in 1998 and retired with the expiration of her term in June 2005. In that time, she served as a whip on both sides of the chamber, and for almost nine years she chaired the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, as well as serving on many other committees including whistleblowing inquiries.</para>
<para>Before she came to this place, Kay Denman was a loved teacher in Tasmanian schools for more than 20 years. Her formative years were spent in Latrobe and Railton, in the state's north-west, before she went on to serve as a private secretary to Premier Michael Field and to manage the Devonport Community Legal Centre.</para>
<para>In her valedictory speech, Senator Denman spoke about the cause she said she most regretted having to leave unfinished, and that was support for those affected by asbestos related disease. There are always limits to what we can do for people as politicians regardless of our very best intentions. Senator Denman told the Senate about Railton, where asbestos sheeting was produced. Her own father had worked in that factory and both her brothers had worked there too during their university holidays. Men she had gone to school with had died. In the year she gave that speech, Senator Denman said that she'd already been to three funerals. In that same speech, she also paid tribute to the Independent Tasmanian senator Brian Harradine, a man she agreed with on almost nothing. She declared that she had never doubted his integrity or his commitment to a fair outcome for the people of Tasmania.</para>
<para>Senator Denman's words to this place spoke about the Senate's uniqueness and the unique way we do business in this place, which the other place, in all fairness, will never understand. It also explains how, of all our states, Tasmania produces so many senators with the most varied perspectives and views. It is in that spirit that I say, as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, with our own deeply felt perspective on regional communities and on how distance from the powerful capital cities can empower us, we recognise another political life spent genuinely and sometimes stubbornly but always in the service of our regional community. On behalf of the Nationals, I extend our sympathy to Senator Denman's son, Paul; her daughter, Janet; her wider family; and all of her former Labor colleagues. Vale, Senator Denman.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to, on behalf of the Tasmanian Labor team, pay tribute to Senator Kay Denman, a life member of the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party&#x2014;our highest honour. Kay was a proud Tasmanian. She grew up in Railton, a small town where the cement works were part of everyday life. Like so many people in that community, she did not grow up knowing the danger that asbestos posed. As a child, Kay and the other local children played around the cement works and in the waste dumps. As she later recalled, they would use the materials to build things and even throw it at each other. Workers would come home from the factory with their clothes covered with asbestos dust, and the material was part of the fabric of everyday life in the town.</para>
<para>It is difficult for us now to imagine that this could have been considered normal, but Kay carried those memories with her, and, as she grew older, she saw the terrible consequences for people she knew and for the community she loved. Mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases touched the lives of many in Railton, and Kay became a determined advocate for those who were suffering. Her advocacy was not abstract. It came from knowing the people and knowing the place. She understood that behind every statistic was a person, a family and a community carrying the consequences of decisions made many years before. That particular connection gave her advocacy a particular strength. She continued to pursue the issue throughout her time in the Senate and beyond. In fact, when she reflected on leaving parliament, one of the things that concerned her most was that she would no longer be able to continue advocating for people affected by asbestos related diseases. That was Kay. Her politics always came back to people.</para>
<para>Her advocacy for people with disability grew from her community work, including from her involvement in the Mersey Leven Family Day Care committee, where she fought for children with disabilities to have access to day care. Her support for gay and lesbian rights came at a time when speaking up on those issues was not always easy, but she stood with people affected by HIV and AIDS and remained involved with the Tasmanian Council on AIDS and Related Diseases long after she left parliament, and they made her a life member of TasCARD. She cared deeply about health, mental health, education, social welfare and access to services. These weren't simply terms on a political agenda; they were people.</para>
<para>That is why Kay's contribution was sometimes quiet but never insignificant. As one of her Senate colleagues said in their valedictory tribute, Kay was not someone who sought the limelight. She was someone who made sure that the voices of compassion, caring and her local community were heard. I think that helps explain something very special about Kay. Even after she left the Senate, she never really stopped. Even while living at Meercroft Care aged-care centre, her interest in politics never left her. Anne Urquhart, member for Braddon, who is in the chamber today, has spoken about her conversations with Kay, the kind of one-on-one conversations where you could sit down with Kay and, in Anne's own words: 'You very quickly find yourself talking about politics, current affairs and whatever was happening in the world. Kay wanted to know, she wanted to discuss it, and, of course, she wanted to give you her view. Those conversations were never just small talk. They were expressions of who Kay was. She remained interested in the world around her, she remained engaged with public life, and she remained wonderfully opinionated. There was still that spark in her. She would ask questions, challenge an argument, tell you what she thought and quite often leave you with something to think about. That was one of the things that made Kay such a wonderful person to talk to, and she maintained that connection with the Senate itself. She would text during question time to let Anne know she was watching. If the House of Representatives was being broadcast instead of the Senate, she was not happy, because the Senate was special to Kay. It had been such an important part of her life. It was there where she had fought for people and causes she believed in and where she'd been able to bring the experiences of her community into the national party.'</para>
<para>Even years later, Kay still wanted to know what was happening there. She was still watching, still listening, still forming an opinion and still caring. Perhaps that is how I will remember Kay most warmly&#x2014;not simply as Senator Denman, not just the woman who represented Tasmania for 12 years, but as Kay, a woman with an extraordinary curiosity about people and the world around her, a woman who cared deeply about fairness and compassion and a woman who would make an ordinary conversation feel important simply because she was genuinely interested in what you had to say. Her political life was an extension of that character. She listened to people. She understood their experiences, and then she tried to do something about them. That is a wonderful legacy, and it is one that Tasmanian Labor can be proud of. I extend our deepest condolences to Kay family, her friends and all those who loved her. We will remember her with great affection and great pride. Vale Kay Denman.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to associate myself with the words from colleagues around the chamber in relation to the late Senator Kay Denman. I acknowledge the words that have been used to describe her, and the term 'social justice warrior' is one that's been quite prominent, and it certainly was one that was reflected through her work in what I will call our local community on the north-west coast of Tassie. When I grew up in Railton, my father-in-law and brother both worked at the cement plant up there&#x2014;in fact, Peter spent some time working in the asbestos sheet plant. Many of us understood the work that Kay did in support of people who were suffering asbestos based diseases all too well. Having worked in the construction industry before 1989, when asbestos was prohibited in building products, I myself was exposed to asbestos as a building material during my time on the tools on the north-west coast of Tassie.</para>
<para>When I first came here, Kay came over to offer me some quiet, gentle advice to a new senator. That was important to me and was something important that I understood. I think that's reflective of the person that Kay was. It wasn't all about the politics. It was about getting things done for people. If she could create relationships and develop relationships to ensure that she got the outcomes that she was looking to achieve, that's what she would do.</para>
<para>In the years after she left the parliament, she and Mary Binks, who was the mayor of Devonport when I served on the Devonport council, would go to the movies together. They would often call in for a bit of a chat about politics to find out what was going on, as we've just heard, but also to leave a message. It might have been some advice or to suggest something that I might be able to do in support of a particular issue that she was continuing to be concerned about.</para>
<para>Senators have talked about that period in the late nineties when the north-west coast of Tassie was probably one of the toughest places in the country in relation to gay law reform. I remember the rallies. I remember some of the rhetoric that was being driven through our community at that time, and it was really very, very difficult. It was difficult for so many people. The collective sigh of relief that I felt Tasmanians give when the Rundle government finally changed the legislation to deal with the issues that were impacting on our community at the time was a really important moment for us all.</para>
<para>I think the fact that in Tasmania we now have some of the more progressive legislation is a tribute to people like Kay, who was prepared to lead the fight. Not all had the courage to do that. But Kay was prepared to lead the fight on those particular issues. That courage, I think, should be acknowledged and reflected by those of us who were there and about in politics at that point in time. It was really important work that she did.</para>
<para>She worked in a number of areas. She managed the Devonport community legal centre, making sure that people got access to justice. Interestingly, she was an inaugural member of the Mersey Leven family day care committee. Here we are today, still talking about support for people to get child care. She was a leading player in that in our region.</para>
<para>It was interesting to go back to the <inline font-style="italic">Advocate</inline> and the tribute that was published on her and the comments from her Labor colleagues who were asked to comment and the acknowledgement of Kay as a social justice warrior. There were comments from Senator Wong; Amanda Diprose, who's on the Central Coast Council, but also someone who is strong in that area; Lisa Singh; and, of course, Anne Urquhart, whom I acknowledge in the chamber now&#x2014;all of whom knew Kay well and would receive the calls and the advice and, as we've heard, the conversations within the chamber.</para>
<para>She said she arrived unexpectedly, but she certainly had a plan when she came here. She knew what the issues were that she wanted to focus on, and she made sure that she did go after those things and progress them. As I said, she had the courage, particularly in really difficult times, to deal with some of the issues that were really important reforms for our communities to go through.</para>
<para>In her valedictory speech, she said something that struck me, particularly in the context of some of the conversations we've been having in the last few days. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">During the week more than one of my colleagues asked me how I managed to remain tolerant during my time here.</para></quote>
<para>And she was tolerant. She was an easy person to talk to. She continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The answer probably lies in the fact that I never believe in playing the person. To me, it is the cause or the issue that is fundamental. I accept that there are others who may have, and are entitled to have, a different view. It is important that we respect that. It has therefore been my task to try and convince them as to where they are going wrong.</para></quote>
<para>I think that's a message from Kay, from her valedictory over 20 years ago, that could be useful in the current context.</para>
<para>I noted, in a piece in the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline>, that she'd stood for preselection prior to coming here the first time and, like so many of us, wasn't successful the first time. This piece said that she had stood unsuccessfully for preselection in 1989, but, when the vacancy arose, she gained a convincing 70 per cent of preselection ballots as one of four candidates. I reckon there are plenty of us in this room who would be happy to receive that strength of vote in our Senate preselections. That's probably more of an insider comment, but that's a fair indication to me of the respect that Kay had within the Labor Party at that point in time, having served as branch secretary and branch president in the Devonport branch, served on the national executive and created and generated a series of relationships with people across the party.</para>
<para>Someone who can't say anything here in the chamber today, because she doesn't hold a seat&#x2014;but aspires to&#x2014;and has had a couple of preselection moments herself, is sitting in the advisor's box here. Jacqui was taught by Kay, and she came to me this morning with a request to note some reflections of her time when Kay was her grade 3 teacher at Latrobe Primary School. She remembers Kay like we do: as a warm and kind person who had a genuine ability to make children feel comfortable, encouraged and valued.</para>
<para>Jacqui said: 'I especially remember her helping me to understand mathematics. While it may not have been overly difficult for some, it was not always simple to me, but Mrs Denman had the patience and the ability to explain things in a way that I could understand. She never made me feel that asking for help was a weakness. In fact, she encouraged it and gave house points for having an inquisitive nature. Those early impressions have stayed with me. They reminded me that sometimes the greatest impact we have on others is not through grand gestures but through kindness, patience and taking the time to help somebody believe in themselves. My sincerest condolences to her family, Paul and Janet and all of those who Mrs Denman taught. How lucky we were.'</para>
<para>I would like to offer to Paul and Janet, and their families, my sincere condolences. We are poorer as a community with the passing of Kay. She was a kind and understanding but determined person here in the Senate, and she continued to do that after she left. As has been mentioned, she wasn't short of a chat, but she would always call with a quiet word and, in the context of things like people suffering with asbestos related diseases, continued to advocate long after she left. That sort of work, I think, is a real tribute to her. Vale, Kay, and sincerest condolences to Janet and Paul and their families.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 be considered on Wednesday 16 September 2026 at the time for private senators' bills.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reporting Date</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 674 for today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name, for today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Fast Tracking Coal, Gas and Oil Projects) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="s1516" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Fast Tracking Coal, Gas and Oil Projects) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>65</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to fast track and support coal, gas and oil projects, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>65</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows&#x2014;</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">We are rich by nature but poor by policy, our nation is full of natural resources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since their election, the Albanese Labor Government has legislated a series of changes to prohibit public funding, financing, or legal permitting, or equal regulatory treatment of fossil fuels.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes are holding back development of oil, coal and gas projects. The Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Fast Tracking Coal, Gas and Oil Projects) Bill 2026 (the Bill) seeks to reverse those changes across six pieces of legislation. The Bill presents a set of near-term measures that we can announce that focus on unlocking our domestic energy resources, particularly oil, coal and gas, as part of a response to addressing the global and national fuel crisis; as well as to shine a light on Labor's persistent energy failures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor has done all it could to suppress the supply of oil over recent years, and now we are in an oil supply crisis. It is clear environmental laws, particularly the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 </inline>(EPBC Act), have piled on costs and red tape while holding back our resilience as a nation because energy developments do not get approved or are delayed forever.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes oil, coal and gas, but also renewable energy projects. We should want Australian oil as much as we want Australian critical minerals or Australian renewable energy. If we don't get more oil, we will have to import more. Just as if we do not get more industrial-scale renewable energy, we won't get the data centres needed to support artificial intelligence. We need all forms of energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is one of the most energy-rich nations on the face of the Earth. We have vast reserves of natural gas, coal, critical minerals, and liquid fuels. Yet, despite this extraordinary natural endowment, Australian families and businesses are being forced to pay exorbitant prices for basic electricity and fuel. This is because under Labor, our policy framework has systematically made it harder to produce domestic energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At its core, Australia does not lack energy resources; it lacks a government with the policy courage to develop them. This Bill is designed to reverse that failure and restore three fundamental principles to Australian energy policy: drill, build, approve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will back Australian resources, unlock new supply, and deliver cheaper, more reliable power for households and businesses right across the nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We cannot solve a fuel supply crisis by continuing to lock up Australian fossil fuels. Our focus must be energy abundance and energy security.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are living through an energy and sovereign security crisis born of our own legislative making. The deeply unsophisticated domestic political debate on energy in this country&#x2014;and a broken environmental law framework has guaranteed that 42 years' worth of Australian oil endowment remains locked underground.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is almost unbelievable how few lessons were learned from the COVID-19 pandemic about Australia's resilience and security. Australia sits literally at the very end of global supply chains for the basic products that keep our economy, our transport networks, and our society afloat&#x2014;energy being chief among them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2020, Australia was exposed because we could not get enough face masks. In 2026, we were exposed because we could not get enough fuel. When international conflicts flared, Australia was left vulnerable because we lacked the fuel needed to run the country. We saw petrol prices surge by nearly 50 per cent&#x2014;the highest increase in the OECD, and vastly higher than the 15 per cent average seen in nations like Japan and South Korea, neither of which possess a fraction of our natural resource wealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Why are we in this position? Because Australia has been operating on the naive assumption that everything will be okay and that the rules-based order will continue to function on autopilot.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have repeated the same mistakes now in the latest oil and fuel crisis due to conflict in Iran and the broader Middle East.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We've had the Prime Minister and the Energy Minister going cap in hand and begging for fuel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We hear government announcements about critical minerals, local manufacturing, and ambitious transition targets, but when a supply chain shock hits, we resort to a last-minute Band-Aid approach. These have turned out to be just announcements with little action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We don't have a plan, and it is no way to run a country. We have repeatedly failed to prepare the nation for supply chain shocks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The late Senator Jim Molan warned this Parliament time and time again about fuel security. Yet, rather than building national strength, recent policy has actively dismantled our sovereign capacity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Let us be completely honest with the Australian people: our economy is transitioning, but as we transition, we require plentiful, reliable, and affordable energy of all forms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The United States Government estimated that across six major basins in Australia, there are an estimated 403 billion barrels of shale oil, with 17.5 billion barrels considered technically recoverable. From Queensland's Taroom Trough to the Browse, Northwest Shelf, and Barossa gas and condensate fields, Australia holds vast natural wealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yet our current economic model ignores our own natural endowment and relies instead on importing refined and unrefined fuel on ships from Asia. The Australian energy debate should not be an ideological culture war. The truth is that we need energy of all forms. We need Australian oil and gas as much as we need, wind and solar energy. We need it all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we do not extract more domestic oil and gas, we will simply be forced to import more from foreign jurisdictions with lower environmental standards. Similarly, if we do not approve industrial-scale energy projects, we will not have the power needed to drive housing construction, rebuild domestic manufacturing, or power the data centres required for artificial intelligence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A key handbrake on Australia's sovereign resilience is the EPBC Act. It takes seven or eight years just to obtain EPBC approvals for major offshore gas and condensate developments. In a competitive global market for mobile capital, delays of this magnitude guarantee that investment leaves our shores for the United States, South America, or Southeast Asia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment Minister Murray Watt claimed that Labor fixed environmental laws for business. The reality is that the primary legislation was gutted, creating more uncertainty than ever.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In a political backroom deal struck with the Greens, oil, gas, and coal ventures were explicitly banned from accessing fast-track approval processes, priority class declarations, and national interest pathways. That deal was an act of economic self-harm. It undermined Australia's energy security by design.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There was little or no analysis of the economic, energy and broader impacts of this deal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, nearly 40 gas and oil projects sit bogged down in EPBC bureaucracy. But it is not just fossil fuels&#x2014;around 90 renewable energy developments are similarly trapped in administrative gridlock. And some 80,000 houses are also stuck in this quagmire. Bureaucratic paralysis harms every single sector of our economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill seeks to rectify this state of affairs. At the most basic level, federal environmental laws must protect our natural environment, but they must also promote the fundamental national security and economic interests of the Australian people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What This Bill Achieves</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill reverses those ideological exclusions and restores a level, merit-based statutory framework across six key Acts of Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">EPBC Act Reforms</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill amends the EPBC Act to remove explicit statutory bans, to be imposed by the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection Reform Act 2025,</inline> targeting fossil fuel actions by:</para></quote>
<list>providing streamlined environmental assessment pathways for resource projects;</list>
<list>removing the restriction preventing the Minister from making exclusion determinations in respect of fossil fuel actions;</list>
<list>allowing the Minister to declare a fossil fuel project a national interest proposal;</list>
<list>allowing fossil fuel actions to be included in priority classes of actions for bioregional development zones, enabling the Minister to grant exemptions for fossil fuel actions in conservation zones, and allowing the Minister to declare a fossil fuel project as a priority action for national interest proposals that override bioregional plans; and</list>
<list>repealing the standalone definition of "fossil fuel action" from the EPBC Act, ensuring all energy and infrastructure developments are assessed against standard, objective criteria.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Restoring Financing and Support Infrastructure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, statutory bodies are legally barred from providing standard commercial financing, export support, or research co-funding. This Bill repeals blanket prohibitions across key Commonwealth agencies by repealing:</para></quote>
<list>section 23C of the <inline font-style="italic">Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991</inline>, restoring Export Finance Australia's ability to finance resource extraction, export infrastructure, and liquid fuel developments on standard commercial and strategic merit;</list>
<list>paragraph 33(2)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Industry Research and Development Act 1986</inline>, enabling Commonwealth programs to co-fund research and technological innovation in coal and natural gas processing;</list>
<list>section 10A, removing statutory bans on Commonwealth entities supporting fossil fuel extraction and related energy infrastructure;</list>
<list>subsection 63(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023</inline>, opening NRFC commercial financing to major industrial gas supply, pipeline infrastructure, and resource processing projects; and</list>
<list>paragraph section 421-55(3)(c) of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline>,removing restrictions that disqualify clean hydrogen produced via coal gasification or steam methane reforming from receiving certified production tax incentives.</list>
<quote><para class="block">President, we owe it to current and future generations of Australians to ensure that our laws do not turn Australia into a weak, vulnerable, and energy-dependent nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes in this Bill will ensure there is a fast-track approvals pathway for projects that are deemed of critical sovereign or national significance, meaning that the usual environmental standards would not apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Such projects would not be limited to oil and gas, but also relate to any critical projects, such as in housing and large-scale renewables.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need all forms of energy.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Members of Parliament: Staff</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 16 October 2026, copies of all emails and instant or other electronic messages created after 4 July 2024 and held by the Prime Minister or his office which relate to any decisions of the Prime Minister to use or not use his powers under sections 4 and 12 of the <inline font-style="italic">Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984</inline>, but not any documents which constitute direct private correspondence between the Prime Minister or his office and members of Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Age Assurance Technology Trial</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move general business notices of motion Nos 702, 703 and 704:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 702</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, emails, meeting notes and instant or other electronic messages between the Minister for Communications or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Age Check Certification Scheme created after 1 August 2026 in relation to the erroneous citations identified in the report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial and the department's evidence regarding these errors at the hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 14 August 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 703</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, emails, meeting notes and instant or other electronic messages created by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in relation to the development and preparation of the letter from the Secretary of the department (Mr Betts) to the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Senator Ghosh), dated 31 August 2026, relating to the final report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial, including any drafts of this letter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 704</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 1 October 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, briefing notes, emails, meeting notes and instant or other electronic messages between the Minister for Communications or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and Guardian Australia created after 1 August 2026 in relation to the erroneous citations identified in the report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial and the department's evidence regarding these errors at the hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 14 August 2026.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Canvan, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 12 October 2026:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all end-of-financial-year, financial, management or other reports prepared by Export Finance Australia for the 2025-&#x200D;26 financial year that identify or quantify the cost or financial exposure associated with underwriting shipments of fuel to Australia; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the documents referred to in paragraph (a) cannot be provided in full, a statement setting out, for the 2025-26 financial year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the total cost to Export Finance Australia or the Commonwealth of underwriting shipments of fuel to Australia,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total value of fuel shipments underwritten and the maximum financial exposure of the Commonwealth, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) any payments, losses, provisions or contingent liabilities arising from those underwriting arrangements, less any fees or other revenue received in connection with those arrangements.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2026:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The administration of the Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) program design, guidelines, funding criteria and eligibility requirements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the processes for identifying, inviting, assessing and selecting applicants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the role of the offices of the Prime Minister and other relevant ministers or members of Parliament in determining which organisations were invited to apply, which grants were awarded and who would announce successful grants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in identifying and recommending which organisations were invited to apply;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the geographic and electoral distribution of grants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest involving ministers, members of Parliament and applicants or grant recipients, or breaches of the Code of Conduct for Ministers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other related matters.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government was happy to support this motion with two amendments. One was to remove the part on breaches of the code of conduct for ministers, because it's not up to committees to determine whether a code of conduct has been breached, and the other was to have inserted into the motion advice from previous Auditor-General's reports which specifically goes to the issue of how to handle the delivery of election commitments. We had agreement with the Greens around that amendment until, unfortunately, Senator Hodgins-May determined that she would rather reach agreement with the Liberals on this and refused to withdraw the code-of-conduct part. So I just want to make it clear that the government was keen to support this motion until we were unable to get those minor amendments&#x2014;minor but important amendments&#x2014;to this committee referral.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 4 moved by Senator Hodgins-May, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:25]<br/>(The Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Brockman) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intergenerational Trust Fund for the People of the Republic of Nauru</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 28 September 2026, the memorandum of understanding between Australia and Nauru on which the Intergenerational Trust Fund No. 2 for the People of the Republic of Nauru was established, and all other documents relevant to the trust's establishment.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:28]<br/>(The Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Brockman)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 18 September 2026, a copy of the report entitled 'Health Technology Assessment&#x2014;Reform Roadmap and Final Report'.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 700, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:32]<br/>(The Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Brockman)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Seller Underperformance Policy</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That&#x2014;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance or, if the Minister for Finance is a member of the House of Representatives, the Senate minister representing the Minister for Finance, as soon as practicable after the end of each three-month period commencing 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October, a statement setting out, for that period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the number of Serious Underperformance Reports investigated under the Digital Seller Underperformance Policy,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the number of times a finding of Confirmed Serious Underperformance (CSU) was made,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the name and date of inclusion in the CSU Register of all sellers who became registered in the CSU Register,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the name and date of change of status of all sellers who had their CSU status changed to historical in the CSU Register, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the name and date of change of status of all sellers who had their CSU status archived; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this order is of continuing effect.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support this motion. We support scrutiny of the Digital Seller Underperformance Policy, which we brought in, and we'll continue to respond to questions on its operation. The motion would require the names of businesses, including small businesses, to be tabled in the Senate. This would effectively create a 'name and shame' register, which could cause significant reputational damage before businesses have had the opportunity to work with government to improve their performance under the scheme. Seventy-two per cent of digital marketplace sellers are small businesses, and 67 per cent of all digital and ICT sellers across all panels are small businesses. This policy was designed with safeguards for businesses that want to do the right thing and improve their performance. These safeguards give business a chance to remediate issues and improve them, while this motion would require them to be named, and named permanently, in the Senate.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that notice of motion No. 705 in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:40]<br/>(The Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Brockman)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, today, as shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need to end the Albanese Government's assault on household budgets, with Australians paying more tax, more for their mortgage or rent and more for everyday essentials, while Labor pursues even more taxes that will make it harder to get ahead.</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places&#x2014;</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need to end the Albanese Government's assault on household budgets, with Australians paying more tax, more for their mortgage or rent and more for everyday essentials, while Labor pursues even more taxes that will make it harder to get ahead.</para></quote>
<para>There is a bubble in Canberra, and it seems to be a bit of a left-wing bubble where the Labor Party and their allies in the Greens seem to think that everything is tickety-boo out there in the real world, but it's not. Australians, regardless of the state or territory in which they live and regardless of their individual economic circumstances, are being assaulted daily by the decisions of this Labor government. It is an assault on their aspirations, on their lifestyle and on how Australians want to live from day to day.</para>
<para>Under the Labor Party, since they were elected in 2022, taxes have gone up, services have gone up, and yet Australians are doing it tougher because real wages have not increased. Under the Labor Party's economic policies, we're in this vicious cycle where more is being spent, which drives inflation, and then we've got the tax that hits the inflation, and then they spend even more. So the result is an economy where costs are rising, taxes are rising and productivity is falling, and there is no end in sight.</para>
<para>This isn't just about the weekly grocery bill. It is about whether Australians can afford to own a home, raise a family, start a business, save for the future and get ahead. It's actually about the Australian dream, which under the Labor Party has become the Australian nightmare. Since Labor have come to power, overall prices have gone up almost 17 per cent, rents have gone up 24 per cent, electricity has gone up 32 per cent, gas has gone up 36 per cent, food has gone up 18 per cent, insurance has gone up 43 per cent, health costs have gone up almost 20 per cent and education costs have gone up over 22 per cent. Everything costs more because of the policies of this Labor government.</para>
<para>The cost-of-living crisis has not happened in a vacuum. It's happened directly because of the economic policies that are being pursued by Mr Albanese and Mr Chalmers. But it's not just that the cost of everything has gone up. Taxes have also gone up more. The amount of income tax that is being paid by Australians has gone up 39 per cent since Labor came to power. Even after adjusting for inflation, income tax paid per person is up 7.3 per cent and Australians are being hit by bracket creep. As prices and wages rise, Australians are pushed into higher tax brackets even though their real purchasing power has not necessarily increased. So Labor are taxing Australians more on the inflation that has been caused by the Labor Party's own economic policies. Australians don't need more tax; they need to keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>So you can have more of the same from the Labor Party, or the alternative is that you can look at the plan that Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan have brought forward, a plan that's going to focus on lower taxes. We're going to stop Labor's war on aspiration because we're going to axe their toxic taxes and introducing the tax-back guarantee and back in small businesses. We're also going to have cheaper power. We're going to get rid of the fallacy of net zero. We're going to make Australia an energy superpower. We're going to deliver cheaper power and energy abundance. We're going to free up housing stock and begin to restore the dream of homeownership. We'll cap immigration numbers based on available housing, and we'll put Australians first.</para>
<para>Because of Australia's out-of-control spending, Australians are paying more because of the inflation rate and our debt is going to hit $1 trillion. In fact, it has hit $1 trillion. That's $1 trillion of debt, $1 trillion of Labor spending. We're going to pay it back because that's what responsible economic managers do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GHOSH</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition have long since abandoned any financial coherence or commitment to financial discipline in this country. At the last election and the period leading up to it, they abandoned their commitment to lower taxes as part of their elements of political offering. This is another motion that reminds Australians that the coalition are not for working Australians and that they're not even for lower taxes anymore. The lack of coherence or ideological consistency on that side is befuddling.</para>
<para>Senator McGrath wants to talk about political bubbles and the Canberra bubble, and it's really easy to do that. But I can tell you that the biggest bubble in this country is the one enveloping the Liberal and National parties, and it's growing and growing. It's a bubble between them and reality. It's a bubble between them and ordinary experiences in this country. When they come in here and talk about lower taxes and pressures on household budgets, let me tell you a few things about that. There are enormous pressures on household budgets in this country at the moment. People are doing it tough right around Australia. Every time the Albanese government has tried to relieve that pressure, those opposite have voted against it.</para>
<para>Let me remind you of a few of those bits and pieces. Whether it was energy bill relief, delivering tax cuts for working Australians, trying to build more housing supply or trying to give first home buyers and people trying to get into the housing market a fair go by changing the tax incentives to try and even up their chances against investors who could invest with deep pockets and a much longer time horizon in terms of their returns, this government has tried to take the pressure off and those opposite have voted against it every time.</para>
<para>But let's go to taxes, because it is Labor governments in this country that reduce taxes. Whether it's Hawke and Keating or whether it's Albanese and Chalmers, it is Labor governments that preside over big tax reductions and big tax recalibrations. The Albanese government has been at the forefront of these changes. Now, can I tell you what happened in 2022, when this government came into power. They were handed, by the Morrison government, what were called their stage 3 tax cuts. That was a decade-long commitment worth hundreds of billions of dollars that would have delivered its largest benefit to the highest income earners in this country&#x2014;not working Australians doing it tough but the highest income earners. And that's a policy that the coalition designed. It's a policy that they legislated. So on days like today, when they come in and talk about pressures on household budgets and about working Australians doing it tough, you must look a little askance. I'm not sure I saw Senator McGrath blush, but he should have been. In January 2024, we recalibrated those tax cuts to help 11 million low- and middle-income taxpayers receive a bigger tax cut than they would have got. Those are the people under pressure, paying less tax&#x2014;more money to spend on groceries, clothes and other essentials&#x2014;and that's been part of a broader tax agenda.</para>
<para>The budget this time legislated another two rounds of tax relief designed to help lower income Australians. From 1 July 2026, the 16 per cent tax rate, applying to income earners between $18,000 and $45,000, dropped to 15 per cent, with a further reduction from 1 July 2027. That might not sound like much, but, when you accumulate what the government has done across the term in government, that's a big reduction. So it's a little bit disingenuous to come in here and talk about pressures on household budgets and about Labor's tax agenda when that tax agenda has been recalibrated to help people on the downside of advantage&#x2014;people doing it a bit tough. By 2028, Australians will have received tax cuts worth around $3,000 a year. That's for someone on the average wage; it'll be slightly higher or lower depending on precisely where you fit on that spectrum. But that is $3,000 more a year in tax cuts for those under pressure.</para>
<para>The minimum wage is now at $1,000 a week. In fact, since we came to government, the national minimum wage has increased by more than $12,000 a year. That's not set by the government; that's set by the Fair Work Commission. But, every time in this government's tenure that that someone has gone to the Fair Work Commission to lift the rates, the government supported it in their submission. Low wages are not part of our architecture as they are of the coalition side's.</para>
<para>But what about all the other bits and pieces that fit into a household budget on the cost-of-living front? We have reduced the cost of medicines by lowering the price of prescriptions on the PBS to $25. Across Australia, that's around $200 million worth of savings for people when they get sick or need medicine. Our boost to the bulk-billing incentive has seen a significant increase to GPs treating patients free of charge. In WA, the number of practices billing all patients on a bulk-billing model was 111 in November 2025, and, as of June this year, it's 235. So, across the board, we are taking pressure off household budgets.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For 40 long, hard years, Labor and the coalition have been running the same neoliberal project in this country. Here is how it goes: they cut taxes for the very wealthy; they cut taxes for corporations; they privatise public assets; they outsource public services; and then they act completely surprised when hospitals are overcrowded, when public schools are underfunded, when housing is unaffordable and when essential services stop working. Every time government fails to look after people because politicians running a neoliberal agenda have deliberately weakened it, those very same politicians then point at the wreckage and say, 'See, government is the problem.' Then they turn around, double down and keep on selling more of the things that we the people used to own and more of the things that actually support people to lead dignified lives. What an absolute con this is!</para>
<para>The Labor and Liberal Parties have spent decades selling off and defunding the very parts of government that help people make their lives better, and then along comes this motion telling Australians that the great national objective is to get ahead. Well, get ahead of whom? Who are we supposed to be getting ahead of, and who gets left behind when other people are getting ahead? That is the society that the neoliberal agenda is trying to build, setting one person against another&#x2014;a feral society where everything has a price and anyone who can't keep up gets left behind; a society based on competition, not kindness.</para>
<para>Government should exist to protect us from that. It should pool our collective resources and build things that none of us could build alone, and government should ensure that everyone is looked after and no-one gets left behind. That requires revenue, it requires public ownership, it requires taking back the things we used to own that the neoliberals have sold to the private sector for profit, and it requires leaders who actually want a government that is here to improve people's lives. The champions of the neoliberal project, Labor and the coalition, keep trying to prove government can't work by making sure that it doesn't.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In just the last four years, Australians have experienced a collapse in their living standards. Real wages have gone backwards, Australians are poorer today than they were four years ago, and productivity in our country has gone backwards for the first time in history. Australians no longer believe that tomorrow will be better than today, and that is an indictment on the performance of Labor in government.</para>
<para>Labor people are now criticising this Labor government. Not ordinary Labor people but luminaries in the Labor movement are now criticising this Labor government&#x2014;none more important and influential than Mr Bill Kelty, who was the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for 17 years. He has now found it necessary to come out and to criticise Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor treasurer Jim Chalmers. Don't believe me. Listen to what Bill Keelty has had to say himself&#x2014;a former secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for 17 years. Mr Bill Kelty has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Real wages are not improving in any significant way&#x2014;they're falling.</para></quote>
<para>Bill Kelty has said that Australians can't pay their bills and that housing affordability is worsening because interest rates are rising and real wages are falling. Unfortunately, that situation is only going to get worse for Australian families, as economists now predict there will be two future RBA rate rises in this year alone. Think about that: two more RBA rate rises in this year alone. The RBA's job is like that of a teacher: it marks the government's work&#x2014;specifically in regard to how well the government is managing the economy. When interest rates go up, that is a sign that the RBA believes the government is not managing the economy well.</para>
<para>Bill Kelty had more to say about Jim Chalmers, the Labor treasurer. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You had the treasurer say workers should be happy because their wage share is increasing, but their real wages are falling.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to accuse Dr Chalmers, the Labor treasurer, of being 'ridiculous'. Bill Kelty said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's just ridiculous and people get offended by it. They can't pay the bills, and you&#x2014;</para></quote>
<para>the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers&#x2014;</para>
<quote><para class="block">tell them your share of GDP is growing.</para></quote>
<para>But there's more. Bill Kelty, the former ACTU leader, couldn't hold back. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The PM is telling the country with glee that the price of property is falling, yet the unaffordability rate is increasing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because interest rates are rising and real wages are falling.</para></quote>
<para>So my challenge to Labor senators this afternoon is to stand up and tell this Senate chamber why Bill Kelty, ACTU leader for 17 years, is wrong. Why is Bill Kelty wrong? Why is he wrong to accuse the Treasurer of being ridiculous? Why is the Prime Minister wrong?</para>
<para>This is where things have landed. Australian families need to strap themselves in. They need to put their economic seatbelts on. They need to put their cost-of-living helmets on because things, unfortunately, are going to get significantly worse. And they get worse because the government has failed its primary task. The Labor government has failed its primary task, and that is to manage the economy in a way that benefits Australian families and that helps them to think better about tomorrow than they do about today.</para>
<para>Today, media outlets are reporting that Australian voters have woken up. They know that Labor has failed them on the economy. The next election will be fought on cost-of-living and economic issues, and people will mark Labor down. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to this motion. Although we disagree with it, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it. I note that it's been brought to our chamber by the party that, to the last election, took policies of higher taxes and more debt. It's been brought to us today by the party that has been consistently opposed to higher wages. It's been brought to us by a party that has never met a cost-of-living measure in this chamber that they like.</para>
<para>We know Australians are doing it tough, and that's why our No. 1 priority, not just in this term but in the previous term, has been the cost of living. It's why we've been backing in higher wages. It's why we've supported a pay increase for some of our lowest-paid workers in highly feminised workforces like aged care and early childhood education. It's why we're investing in things like cheaper medicines, ensuring Australians now pay no more than $25 for their scripts, which is making a huge difference in my community, especially for people who have a recurring need to access such scripts. We're investing in making bulk-billed urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to need to use one of these services themselves, has had a child they've needed to take to one of these services or, like me, has had multiple children they've had to take multiple times, knows that these play an absolutely incredible and important role in our healthcare system. We're bedding them into the budget, to make sure that they can continue.</para>
<para>We're also investing in cheaper access to early learning, because we know that makes a big difference for families, as well as in six months of paid parental leave to ensure families have the choice to stay at home in those critical early months with their children. This is not only for an opportunity to take time off work for recovery but, of course, for when those critical bonds and connections are formed. We're investing in protecting penalty and overtime rates for workers and making it easier to buy your own home. These are all cost-of-living priorities, which have been our focus as a government.</para>
<para>When it comes to our tax reform agenda, it is focused on building a better, fairer, simpler tax system by reducing the tax burden for over 13 million Australian workers, by supporting 75,000 more Australians into the housing market, by delivering over $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and startups and by reducing compliance costs by $540 million a year. On 1 July this year, over 14 million Australians received another tax cut&#x2014;of up to $268. This was a tax cut that the coalition opposed and promised to repeal at the last election. Our combined tax cuts mean that workers on an average wage will pay around $2,800 less tax because of our reforms to the taxation system. While those opposite talk about the cost of doing business, we are the ones delivering new measures that lower taxes for businesses and start-ups and reduce compliance costs, real measures making a real difference.</para>
<para>Of course, tax relief for workers is only part of the story. Our reforms are also about helping first home buyers get their foot on the property ladder. This is an issue I hear time and time again in my community, particularly from younger people, who say they feel locked out and let down when it comes to the housing market and who tell me that they want to have the same opportunities that their parents and grandparents had. They want to be able to raise their children in the same neighbourhood that they grew up in. They want their child to have some grass in the backyard like they did or to have some amenity nearby to be able to go down to a park or visit their local GP who's been their GP for years. They want to live in that community. They want to be able to buy a home. Their parents were able to buy a home and were afforded that opportunity. Their grandparents were afforded that opportunity, and now it simply feels so unfair for the next generation that that opportunity isn't available to them. That's why we're trying to level the playing field here. That's why we're trying to make sure that those generations don't feel locked out of the housing market. It's not just being locked out of owning an asset; it's being locked out of everything that means&#x2014;their connection to community, their connection to family and the schools their children can attend, whether they can attend the same local public school that they were able to attend.</para>
<para>These are big things which make a big difference to the fabric of our communities. It's not just about an asset. It's about where that asset might be located and therefore where your life is located, where your connection is located and what community means for you. That's why we're doing it. It's for those workers and those Australians. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BELL</name>
    <name.id>319142</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are living with the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis every day. They see it in their mortgage or rent, at the supermarket checkout and in their power bills, insurance and fuel costs every single day. Australians are working harder, paying more tax and watching more of their money disappear just to cover the basics. Labor and the coalition keep talking about these problems while pursuing policies that make them worse, frankly. One Nation has a plan to tackle the causes. Our super pay boost would give Australians paying rent or a mortgage the choice to receive 3 per cent of their future compulsory super contributions in their pocket for up to three years. It's their money. They should have that choice.</para>
<para>One Nation also has a plan to tackle the issue of mass migration, because you cannot keep bringing in more people than Australia can house and then wonder why rents rise, why Australians cannot buy a home and infrastructure cannot cope. That is why One Nation will substantially reduce Australia's temporary migrant population over three years, taking pressure off housing and essential services and restoring clear limits to the temporary migration system. This will restore Australians living standards, ease pressure on housing and essential services and bring population growth back to a sustainable rate. Sickly GDP growth driven by mass migration means nothing if Australians are poorer per person and cannot afford a home, find a hospital bed or get ahead.</para>
<para>Australians want action, not excuses. One Nation has the policies, the determination and the courage to deliver the change you can trust. I'll just say it again. Every day Australians are suffering through the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis, and the longer that this Labor government refuses to acknowledge it and refuses to accept that, the longer you will continue to suffer at home&#x2014;the more your mortgages will go up, the more your rents will go up, the more your groceries will go up, the more your power bills will go up and the more your insurance and fuel costs will go up. One Nation has a plan to change things for the better. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After 4&#xBD; long years, the stats are in on this government when it comes to housing, and what we see is a collapse by 30,000 of the dwellings completed in Australia over these last 4&#xBD; years. We've gone from an average of 200,000 houses a year to 170,000 houses a year. Despite the government's brag that they are spending billions and billions of dollars on housing, we are getting 30,000 fewer houses a year. There are three tests for this budget. This budget was an audacious proposal to enforce a new tax code, where the government would collect $77 billion of new money. The three tests are: Does it ease rents? Does it boost supply? Does it give you more first home borrowers?</para>
<para>On the rents, the government said it would cost $2 more a week. They've covered up the modelling for reasons known only to them but for political purposes, but we know already that we see projections of rent increases of more than 200 bucks a week in some Australian cities, so it's a failure on rent. Then we go to supply. The tax measures themselves reduce supply by 35,000. The government say these are offset with infrastructure facilities, but why would the government want to reduce housing by one, let alone by 35,000? And then we have the other restraint on housing supply: abolishing the right of SMSFs to borrow to invest in new housing. By law, the owner of the fund can't live in it, so all that's doing is providing new housing for other Australians to live in. No wonder we have a supply crisis. The government, by those two measures, cut supply by 75,000 houses over 10 years, just because they don't like the investors.</para>
<para>We've never had a government that has hated investors so much that it would undermine the nation's housing supply in a housing crisis. It is incredible to me that you would cut housing supply because you hate investors. You hate investors negatively gearing, and you hate people investing in housing through their self-managed super fund more than you want to solve the housing crisis. It is incredible. It's a fail on supply. Then we have the mother of them all. How many loans are coming to owner-occupiers? National Australia Bank says it's down by 15 per cent since the budget down, so we have higher rents, fewer homes and fewer owner-occupiers, fewer first home buyers. That is a dividend from these new taxes.</para>
<para>The normal laws of economics were not suspended in May 2026 in Canberra. I know it's a weird and wacky place, but the normal laws were not suspended, and those laws are, if you want less of something, tax it, and that's what has happened in these three or four months since the budget. The taxes have gone up. The houses go down. It's a harder life for everyone, and we shouldn't be surprised. Why would we be surprised when we look at the government's record when it comes to housing supply? Every state and territory is failing to meet their housing target, and the government's flagship housing fund, the HAFF, with 10 billion bucks and almost three years&#x2014;it's built 1,000 houses. The Auditor-General tells us that they bought half of those houses. This is a fund that has bought more houses than it's built. It's been beset with governance problems. I will now read into the record the Auditor-General. They said: '1,400 of the 40,000 houses have been built. Of these, 762 were new homes constructed, and 670 were purchased.' Minister Ayres is embarrassed by the record of his own government, which has been buying more houses than its built. Go and read the Auditor-General's report&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Honourable senators</name>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators interjecting&#x2014;</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was all nice and quiet until about 30 seconds ago, and I would just ask for senators to be heard in silence, and then anyone can make a contribution after that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very telling that the government is so embarrassed by its own fund. The Auditor-General was very clear that half the houses were bought not built by the government, and the government, by interjecting in this debate, is showing how embarrassed it is about its own record of failure on housing&#x2014;billions of dollars wasted on housing schemes that don't build. All they do is featherbed your own bureaucracy and all your mates down there at the unions. This fund has been more focused on subsidising the returns of super funds than it has been on building houses for people who really need the government to be successful.</para>
<para>There is a strong case for public housing and for social housing in this country, but there is not a strong case for subsidising the returns of vested interests, and this government has failed on housing. It's failed to build the houses. It's failed to help first home buyers. All it's done is help out its favourite friends.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the urgency motion moved by Senator McGrath be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:18]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>22</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                <name>Bell, S.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Collins, J.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Gatenby, C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Whitten, T.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>32</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Dolega, J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>9</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Walker, C.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McKim, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the Commonwealth Government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australian water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government.</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places&#x2014;</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McKim, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the Commonwealth Government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australian water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government.</para></quote>
<para>In the 1980s, Labor commenced one of the largest privatisation programs in the world and, since then, Australia has been systematically privatising almost every essential service that we've got. In the ensuing decades, Labor and the Liberals, state and federal, sold off nearly $250 billion in public assets. Every sell-off led to job cuts, higher prices for all of us and profits for the big corporations created by the government. The states sold off the electricity companies, and the price of our household bills went up. The government decided to hand the reins to the housing crisis over to property developers and private investors and stopped building public housing. Now the waiting list for public housing is almost 200,000 families long and tents are popping up in parks across the country as people are priced out of rentals.</para>
<para>Next on Labor's hit list appears to be Melbourne Water. In August this year, secret cabinet documents revealed the Victorian Labor Party has spent five years secretly examining the privatisation of Melbourne Water under a project codenamed Project Nerva, with then premier Jacinta Allan and senior ministers approving a 12-month business case in 2024 to bring private investors into water infrastructure worth almost $18 billion. The current Victorian Premier, Ben Carroll, also argued in favour of the plan. Melbourne Water isn't just about what comes out of Victorians' taps. It manages major catchments, reservoirs, water treatment infrastructure, waterways, stormwater and flood management right across Melbourne. Without water, we're cooked. This is not something that you hand to the highest bidder.</para>
<para>Victoria has a long history of selling or leasing public assets. The Port of Melbourne was leased for $9.7 billion. The VicRoads registration business was sold for around $7.9 billion. The land titles registry was sold for around $2.9 billion. Australia, as a nation, has an even longer one&#x2014;Telstra, CommBank and Qantas. We have seen this film before. Every time an essential service gets privatised, people quite literally pay for it. The price goes up and the quality of service goes down.</para>
<para>In 1989, England and Wales became the only countries to fully privatise their water supply and sewerage, with the goal of attracting private capital that the government itself couldn't borrow. Decades later, the sector is widely seen as a cautionary tale due to steep price rises, infrastructure degradation and indebted private owners refusing to do the work to fix the infrastructure. Water bills are out of control, rising 36 per cent on average in recent years. But it is sewage spills that have become the most visible failure. Thames Water alone saw a 34 per cent year-on-year increase in serious pollution incidents. One local council reported 27,400 hours of raw sewage discharged into its rivers in a single year, a 25 per cent rise on the year before. Well done, Maggie Thatcher! There is now an active UK campaign to renationalise their water.</para>
<para>Privatisation has failed, and it is a failure that is shared by both of the major parties. Airports, ports, electricity, telecommunications, banks, toll roads&#x2014;Labor and the Liberals have been selling off everything that isn't nailed down, and every time we've all ended up paying more for less. That's what we mean when we say that the major parties are selling you out for corporate profit. It's not a slogan. It is who they are working for. Here's the part that should really worry you. At the same time they're quietly planning to sell off our water, they're waving through AI data centres across our major cities that will guzzle enormous amounts of water and electricity. What do you think that does to your water or electricity bill? No wonder people are fed up. The major parties aren't running this system for you. They're running it for big corporations and billionaires. While One Nation points the finger at migrants, they take the money from exactly the same corporations and billionaires. Public services like water should stay in public hands and run for people, not for profit. We call on the federal government to commit to intervene against any proposal to privatise our water supply.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ownership of water assets and water infrastructure is a matter for the states and territories. They own them, they run them and they are accountable for them. This is a feature of our federation. There is a constitutional firewall here. So I'm deeply suspicious when a senator from Tasmania raises questions about Victorian matters. The Carroll government has been explicit. There is no intention, none whatsoever, by the Carroll government to sell off Melbourne Water. However, the issue of water usage is highly topical right now. It is highly topical within the context of data centres. As you know, data centres are surging; interest in them is surging. Australia is in the midst of a data centre gold rush. We have about 165 data centres. We are projected to have 225 in the near future. Indeed, this is how many are in the pipeline right now. That equates to about $150 billion in investment by 2030. While interest in data centres is increasing from industry, this has also been associated with rising community backlash. Australians are deeply sceptical of data centres despite using this enabling infrastructure. They use too much power and too much water, and there's not enough community benefit.</para>
<para>In terms of usage, you might have looked at your online statement this morning. You might have looked up your medical results. You might have purchased something online. You might have done a bit of research. All those daily activities that we take for granted require the enabling infrastructure that's provided by data centres. In fact, the closer they are to cities, where large populations live, the faster you get your results. The latency is smaller. One in five Australians now pay for an AI subscription. We are amongst the highest users of AI in the world. One in three Australian businesses also pay for some type of AI. This technology, this capability, is now embedded within Australian society. We are using AI all the time, and that AI is supported by the foundational infrastructure that is data centres.</para>
<para>However, the Albanese government is well aware that data centres must earn and maintain their social licence. In March of this year we released a statement of expectations which clearly lays out what we believe are the rules of the road. If you want to come and build a data centre in Australia, then you need to play by the rules, and they're very clear. There are five expectations. The first expectation is that we want to ensure that Australia's national interest is prioritised. The second expectation is that we want to ensure that data centres support Australia's energy transition. They need to bring in their own energy rather than drain our energy and push up power prices. They must also provide for grid stability. The third expectation is that we want to see sustainable and efficient water usage. I'll come back to that. The fourth expectation is that we want to see a pull-through of investment in Australian jobs and skills. The final expectation, which is probably one of the most important expectations, is that we want to see data centres support our R&amp;D, innovation, entrepreneurship and small businesses in this country. That is how we then grow a secondary and tertiary capability in this country.</para>
<para>On the topic of water usage&#x2014;because that's salient to this discussion&#x2014;right now in New South Wales data centres use around one per cent of water. In the next 10 years, this is projected to increase to 25 per cent of Sydney's water. That's a huge uptick, but we have said that we want to see water being used responsibly. We need data centre operators to work proactively with local communities and with water utility companies to use efficient cooling techniques and to use, where possible, recycled water rather than drinking water. This is not science fiction. It has actually been played out. AWS is currently building a data centre in Melbourne's west, and this data centre will be supplied by recycled water provided by Melton recycled water. So it can be done&#x2014;we know it can be done and there is a proof of concept right here in Melbourne. In addition to that, we want to ensure that capabilities pull through by hiring and training up our own people in business, in entrepreneurship and in research and amongst our start-ups.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McKim for moving this motion, which One Nation supports. It's One Nation policy that infrastructure of national significance should remain in the hands of the government on behalf of the people&#x2014;not under government control but on behalf of the people. This includes power transmission lines and substations. Power stations can be privately owned and operated under a long-term supply price, which prevents price gouging in times of power scarcity, which happens all the time with weather-dependent solar and wind power. It's a travesty that the business model for Snowy 2.0 hydro seeks to justify the $42 billion price tag using a projection for power prices which suggests they too expect a profit from price gouging. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is frequently forced to intervene in the market at $600 per megawatt hour, which is a staggeringly high price, because new gas-firming plants are not being required to accept a feed-in tariff. If it existed, it would be $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. Consumers are paying peak pricing which is 10 times the price they would pay if we built our baseload power stations with sensible supply contracts&#x2014;fact.</para>
<para>Privatising infrastructure of national significance has failed. South Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2012. This was after the operator failed to maintain a sewage treatment works and Adelaide endured months of what was called the 'big pong'. Adelaide water went from being amongst our country's cheapest to our country's dearest. Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2019. The outcome in Western Australia was interesting. Perhaps Premier Carroll could pay attention there. During 25 years, the Western Australian government realised that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. Moving Western Australian water back to government ownership saved taxpayers $5 million a year. Now Victoria is the latest bankrupt state selling off the silverware&#x2014;VicWater. The plan is called Project Nerva and circumvents the Victorian constitution through leasing the $18 billion in assets of VicWater to the highest bidder. Victorians will pay more for their water and receive back an asset in a worse state than when it was leased. Such is privatisation. It leads to a monopoly, which leads to profit maximisation, which leads to gouging. I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, and choice leads to accountability, and choice leads to efficiency and productivity. Given Australia's small population, though, and huge area, we cannot support two sets of critical infrastructure for roads, water and electricity. We cannot place monopoly power in corporate hands, where profit maximisation is the goal and leads to gouging.</para>
<para>What of government monopolies? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, thought of that and came up with a solution&#x2014;actually, they borrowed it from the American constitution. The solution is embedded in our Constitution. States provide infrastructure and critical services. That comes under competitive federalism. One state competes with another state. That's a marketplace in governance. There is choice. If South Australia is stuffing things up, South Australians can move to New South Wales or Queensland. It doesn't matter what it is. Whether it's education, infrastructure, water, electricity, roads&#x2014;whatever it is, there is no monopoly, because the states have competition under competitive federalism. That provides a marketplace in governance, which leads to choice. If you don't like the state you're in, you can move to another state. Freedom of movement leads to accountability. So state ownership of critical infrastructure is part of a marketplace solution.</para>
<para>There's not enough time to tell you about Sir Joh, but Sir Joh abolished death duties in Queensland, and people moved to Queensland so that they could leave their children more money. That led to other states doing the same. Warren Buffett, the most successful investor ever, said his ideal investment is the sole drawbridge on a wide river. When you put it in private hands, infrastructure becomes a mechanism for gouging. We must protect national infrastructure and national services like water. They're key resources.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Victorian Labor's proposal to sell off Melbourne Water is a complete dud of an idea. It could lead to higher bills and put our clean water, public health and communities at further risk. We know exactly what happens when we privatise water. Just look at the United Kingdom. The privatisation of water in England and Wales has been a complete disaster. Water bills are skyrocketing. Sewage is literally being pumped into rivers and beaches. Infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate while private companies have piled up debt and paid billions of dollars in dividends to shareholders.</para>
<para>This is water we're talking about. Water bills are expected to rise by an average of 36 per cent between 2025 and 2030. Thames Water alone has seen serious pollution incidences that have risen by 34 per cent in a single year. After decades of privatisation, customers are now being asked to pay for the massive infrastructure upgrades that should have happened years ago. That's what happens when you put an essential public service in the hands of private companies. The priority becomes money making, not delivering a good service&#x2014;surprise, surprise.</para>
<para>Labor is treating our public assets like items at a garage sale, and now we know they've been looking to do the exact same thing with Melbourne Water. Shame on them. Secret cabinet documents reveal that Victorian Labor has spent years examining the privatisation of Melbourne Water under a project codenamed Project Nerva. In 2024, the then premier, Jacinta Allan, and senior ministers approved a 12-month business case that looked at private investment in water infrastructure, which was worth $18 billion. According to reporting, then deputy premier Ben Carroll supported continuing the proposal in cabinet.</para>
<para>Now, of course, Premier Carroll is trying to distance himself from it, but Victorians deserve a straight answer. Is Labor going to sell off Melbourne Water or not? We deserve to know. There's an election coming up in fewer than three months. This isn't just some abstract financial asset. This is our water. This is life. It is one of the most basic things that people rely on every single day. You cannot choose whether you need clean drinking water, you can't shop around when your taps run dry or pump out polluted water and you certainly shouldn't have to worry about a private company cutting corners on the infrastructure that keeps our water clean because it wants to maximise returns for shareholders.</para>
<para>Flogging off publicly owned assets makes us poorer in the long run. When is Labor going to learn this crucial lesson? If we lose control of essential services, we lose the public income those assets can generate and we hand them over to companies who are ultimately looking to make a profit. What could possibly go wrong? Labor, of course, has form here. They've already sold off public assets across roads, rail, energy, telecommunications, banks and airports. Is it water next? We've seen the same market-first approach creep into essential services like child care and aged care, where private companies and private equity have increasingly been allowed to make money from the services that should be about people and for people. They should be for Australians, not for shareholders. Billions of dollars of public money from providing care to our children is being siphoned off to shareholder pockets, including offshore&#x2014;privatisation that is directly linked to lower standards of care. Now they are coming for our water.</para>
<para>Labor has become the party of privatisation. They don't stand for you. They don't stand for me. They stand for their donors and profit holders. Too often they stand with big business and private investors who see our public assets as something that can be bought, sold and profited from. This is why the Commonwealth government needs to urgently step in. The Albanese government should make it clear that it will not stand by while Victorian Labor considers selling off Melbourne Water's system. Clean water should not be a political football or a corporate investment opportunity, and I cannot believe I even need to say that. It should remain in public hands.</para>
<para>Labor, the Liberals and One Nation might all be comfortable with privatisation&#x2014;although I note that Senator Roberts is opposing this&#x2014;but the Greens are against privatisation of our public and essential services. We are against profit in care. When it comes to keeping public goods in public hands, the Greens will fight every attempt to sell off Victoria's water and every other attempt to privatise our essential services. Victoria's water belongs to Victorians, not to private investors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, I'm no communist. I think you all know that. I believe in capitalism, competition, private enterprise and the right of people to make some money without asking a government bureaucrat holding a clipboard for some permission. But even I, the most committed free-market capitalist that you will meet in this place, understand that there are some things that you just do not sell, and Melbourne Water is one of them. You don't even talk about selling it.</para>
<para>If the Victorian Labor government is seriously considering this, and I think it is, then it should just stop. Stop right there in your tracks. Water is not just another commodity, and Melbourne Water is not just another business. What is it? It's a natural monopoly. You don't sell the front door to your house and then act surprise when the new owner starts deciding who gets inside that house. And you do not sell control of your water, your electricity grid, your prime agricultural lands, your ports et cetera to a private company&#x2014;and certainly not a foreign controlled one&#x2014;and then congratulate yourself on the efficiency of the transaction.</para>
<para>As a Victorian, I do not want us to make the exact same mistakes that we've seen elsewhere in Australia&#x2014;for example, in South Australia. They sold their power network. It is now foreign owned, and it was sold by a Liberal state government. Do you know what? Some assets are different. As I said, water is not just another commodity. Electricity is not just another business. Roads, ports and other critical infrastructure are arteries of a modern nation. Without water, there is no city, there is no agriculture, there is no industry&#x2014;there is no economy, obviously. When those arteries are controlled by people whose first obligation could potentially be to shareholders&#x2014;overseas shareholders perhaps, or maybe even interests outside the country&#x2014;what are we doing? We're creating a vulnerability that no accountant can put back on the balance sheet.</para>
<para>There is also a basic difference between a competitive private market and an essential monopoly. For example, if you don't like a supermarket, shop at another one. If you don't like an airline, choose another one; fly with them. But you cannot simply choose another water network. You can't build yourself another electricity grid. These assets exist because generations of Australians built them, paid for them and also depend upon them. Governments of today should not assume that they have the moral right just to sell off what previous generations built and what future generations are going to need. Obviously, this doesn't mean shutting ourselves off from the world. I believe in trading with the world. I believe in welcoming investment into Australia and into our states, but there's a difference between welcoming foreign investment and handing the keys to your house over to possibly a foreign controlled company.</para>
<para>We should cooperate with all. Tick. Sure. We should trade with all. Tick. Sure. But we absolutely must remain the masters of our own destiny. And governments need to stop treating essential public assets like a garage sale whenever they have mismanaged the budget, which, in my opinion, is going on here, because Victoria's broke. Sell the asset, take the cheque, spend the money and leave the next generation with nothing&#x2014;that is not responsible economic management. That is just akin to, I don't know, pawning the family silver or something.</para>
<para>Once these assets are gone, there's no getting them back. It's really that simple. The cheque gets spent, the budget hole remains, the infrastructure is gone, and the public is left paying for something that it once used to own. That is the great trick of this type of privatisation. When it's done badly, one generation may get some cash but every generation after that is just going to get the bill.</para>
<para>Now, how absurd is it that we sent our young men and women overseas to defend our sovereignty in multiple wars, two world wars, only to then surrender it with a pen for a cheque? A government that hands over ownership of its water, power and essential infrastructure is surrendering part of the practical control that makes sovereignty real. Melbourne Water needs to remain in Victorian hands, in Australian hands, and, more broadly than that, we should never allow the pursuit of short-term revenue to become the long-term surrender of our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to very much support my colleagues for bringing this motion, calling on the Commonwealth government to urgently intervene against any proposed plans to privatise Australia's water supply, including the potential sale of Melbourne Water by the Victorian Labor government. It's remarkable that this information has only come out because of secret cabinet documents in Victoria finally seeing the light of day, because it turns out Victorian Labor&#x2014;like NSW Labor, like federal Labor, like Labor parties and their mates in the coalition&#x2014;have been secretly planning to flog off pretty much everything that is held in public hands.</para>
<para>What has Victorian Labor been doing? Well, they've been working away, beavering away, bringing in their consultants and their lawyers&#x2014;the same grifters who feed off the public every time&#x2014;and putting them under this thing called Project Nerva. Well, what a bloody nerve! The then premier, Jacinta Allan, brought her senior ministers in&#x2014;the water minister, the treasurer&#x2014;and approved a 12-month business case to work out how to flog off and privatise Victoria's water supply and Melbourne's water supply.</para>
<para>And who did they bring in to do their dirty work? Well, the usual mob that the coalition and Labor bring in to do their dirty work. First of all, they appointed consulting giant EY, Ernst &amp; Young, to come in and examine fresh options for how they could flog off different parts of Melbourne's water supply&#x2014;'Maybe just flog off the treatment plants, or maybe flog off a future revenue stream for water recycling.' EY came in and worked with the then water minister and the then premier and started building this Project Nerva for Victorian Labor. And, of course, Victorian Labor's got form in this regard, with what they did with VicRoads&#x2014;the $7.9 billion that they got from privatising part of VicRoads.</para>
<para>Not happy with just giving public money to EY, Victorian Labor then decided to bring in more of the grifters. They had their second tranche to try and push Project Nerva, the privatisation of Melbourne's water supplies, and they brought in KPMG and Clayton Utz. The reason they had to bring in Clayton's was that there's a constitutional prohibition in Victoria about flogging off the water assets, so they brought in big-end-of-town lawyers to try and work their way around the constitutional prohibition against flogging off the water assets. Between them, those grifters&#x2014;KPMG and Clayton Utz&#x2014;sucked in another 6.15 million bucks to bring this business case together to try and do a job on the Victorian constitution so that Labor could flog off and privatise Victoria's water supply.</para>
<para>Get this. When they're finally outed&#x2014;when the second iteration came back to the Victorian cabinet, who was one of the ministers who dug in and said: 'Yes, we've got to privatise the water. We need to make the money off it. Bring in the grifters'? Who was one of those ministers? Then deputy premier&#x2014;I'm trying to remember what the bloke's name is&#x2014;Carroll, now Premier of Victoria. He's the guy who dug in and said, 'Yes, absolutely, we should flog it off', even when the mood was going against him in cabinet. Then&#x2014;get this&#x2014;that same bloke, now the Premier, when he's been outed about trying to privatise Melbourne's water supply, puts out this response to the media when he's asked about it. He says: 'The One Nation-Liberal coalition needs to come clean. Will they rule out privatising Melbourne Water?'</para>
<para>You cannot make this stuff up. You cannot make this up. He's been in cabinet pushing for Project Nerva, pushing for the privatisation. When he's outed about it, he says: 'Oh, well, hang on&#x2014;will the coalition privatise it? You've got to ask them!' The gall of this stuff.</para>
<para>Watch what they do. Labor flogged off the Commonwealth Bank. They flogged off Qantas. In my home state of New South Wales, the Labor Party and the coalition between them have made travelling on our roads so expensive it can cost you 70 bucks to go from the CBD up to Baulkham Hills and back. They privatise every bloody thing. I support this motion 100 per cent and I support the work of my colleagues in Victoria and across this country 100 per cent&#x2014;Greens fighting to stop this privatisation grift.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:56]<br/>(The Acting Deputy President&#x2014;Senator Ghosh)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                <name>Bell, S.</name>
                <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whitten, T.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>24</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walker, C.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names/>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rushy Lagoon, Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Rushy Lagoon and home-care waiting lists.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7531" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows&#x2014;</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026 represents a vital step in protecting athletes, officials, and fans across all sporting codes by keeping criminal elements out of Australian sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sport is woven into the fabric of Australian life. From the grassroots to the professional level, sport builds community, teaches resilience, and unites us across generations and cultures. Over 14 million Australians participate in sport-related activities annually, helping to generate approximately 3 per cent of our national GDP. Sport in Australia provides $83 billion in combined economic, health and educational benefits each year and makes a vital contribution towards our national identity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Competition manipulation, or match-fixing as it is commonly known, is not a victimless crime. It undermines the credibility of sporting competitions, defrauds the public and exposes athletes to coercion and exploitation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It can also provide a foothold for transnational crime syndicates to launder money, manipulate outcomes and target vulnerable participants in our domestic sporting codes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In recognition of these threats to the integrity of the sports sector, the Review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, conducted by the Honourable James Wood AO QC in 2017, recommended that Australia become a party to The Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention), supporting an effective global response to international sport integrity matters. The Wood Review also recommended that the Australian Government establish national match-fixing offences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In line with these recommendations, the Bill introduces a comprehensive suite of reforms that will protect Australian sport.</para></quote>
<list>Firstly, the Bill prohibits engaging in conduct that would or would be likely to affect the outcome of a sporting event, with the intention of obtaining a benefit for, or avoiding or causing a detriment that would not otherwise be due because of participation in the sporting event.</list>
<list>Secondly, the Bill prohibits providing a benefit to another person that would tend to influence them to engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.</list>
<list>Thirdly, the Bill prohibits asking for, receiving or obtaining, or agreeing to receive or obtain, a benefit that would tend to influence a person to engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.</list>
<list>Fourthly, the Bill prohibits altering, destroying or concealing information about the corruption of a sporting event, where doing so would facilitate, conceal or disguise the obtaining of a benefit</list>
<list>Fifthly, the Bill prohibits the improper use or communication of information about conduct that corrupts a sporting event.</list>
<list>Sixthly, the Bill prohibits the possession of information about conduct that corrupts a sporting event, where that possession is for the purposes of improperly using or communicating that information.</list>
<list>Finally, the Bill prohibits the improper use or communication of inside information.</list>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill imposes significant penalties for these offences&#x2014;including penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who engage in conduct that corrupts a sporting event.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The penalties reflect the gravity of the harm that can arise from match-fixing conduct. Where sporting outcomes are manipulated, the resulting harm extends beyond the participants, potentially affecting spectators, sponsors, sporting organisations and the broader community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The implementation of these offences will mean Australia is compliant with the Macolin Convention&#x2014;a multilateral treaty with the key objective of preventing, detecting and sanctioning manipulation the manipulation of sports competitions. Compliance with the Macolin Convention ensures Australia is connected to our international counterparts to better combat offshore networks attempting to corrupt our sports competitions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is privileged to host a variety of international sporting events in the lead up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games. To maintain our reputation as a sport loving nation, it is essential that Australia has effective laws that ensure the integrity of sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A fair, safe and strong sport sector, free from corruption is vital to the safety and credibility of sports and their participants, and to Australia's participation in the international sporting arena.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We owe it to our athletes, our fans, and our future generations to ensure that the sports they play and watch are fair and decided on merit, not manipulation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill to the Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <p>
              <a href="r7515" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7414" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The speech</inline> <inline font-style="italic">es</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> read as follows&#x2014;</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TECHNICAL CHANGES NO. 2) BILL 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since this government was elected, we have been hard at work restoring trust in Australia's social security system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is one of the critical tasks of government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without this trust, the social security system loses legitimacy in the eyes of the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We understand the importance of the social security, family payment and child support systems to all Australians. Help must be available when and where Australians need it most.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill builds on the significant improvements the government has made since the 2022 election, restoring fairness and adequacy for many income support and family payment recipients, as well as children and parents supported by the child support scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have raised the rate of working-age and student payments, providing real increases in the support for low-income Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker Payment by almost $4,000; this is the result of the Government's increase to working age and student payments of $40 per fortnight, along with regular indexation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Commonwealth Rent Assistance maximum rates have increased by over 50 per cent through the Government's real increases in 2023 and 2024 as well as indexation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have made sure support is going to those who need it with our changes to Parenting Payment Single eligibility, which has benefitted around 200,000 single principal carers since September 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are expanding Paid Parental Leave to 26 weeks this year, with superannuation now paid on top of Paid Parental Leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parents who have a child after today will be able to receive almost $16,000 more through the Paid Parental Leave scheme than when we came to government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Most recently, through the passage of legislation late last year, the Government increased the small debt waiver threshold for the first time in over 30 years to $250.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The threshold will be indexed from today, increasing to $260, and will continue to be indexed annually in line with the changes to the Consumer Price Index. We expect that in 2025-26 alone around 1.2 million undetermined debts will have been waived or not raised at all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Access to the special circumstances debt waiver was expanded to better protect victim-survivors from coercive social security debt. The waiver can now be applied more widely and more fairly in situations where a person has genuine limitations on their ability to comply with their reporting requirements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes cases of family and domestic violence, where a debt arises due to coercion or financial abuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the recent Budget, the Government announced significant reforms to make the child support system safer and more effective for Australian children and parents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill before Parliament today is another important milestone in our efforts to restore the integrity of our social security, family payment and child support systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill includes measures which resolve some historical legal and compliance issues that have been identified with the operation of these systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It builds on work we have already progressed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over the last two years, the government has passed four pieces of legislation to address historical legal and compliance issues in the social security and child support systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With these amendments, we have taken action to resolve outstanding legal and compliance issues identified in the operation of the social security, family payment and child support systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many of these issues have been impacting the operation of these critical systems since well before this government was elected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill ensures systems are up to date, working effectively and that people can have confidence in their integrity and the support they can rely on.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need to make sure people have confidence in the safety net so they can take a step forward and take up opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is a largely technical Bill, reflecting the need for regular updates to ensure legislation remains up to date. It enables efficient and fair administration for the benefit of people who are supported by the social security and child support systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also responds to priorities identified through Services Australia's Legal Compliance and Remediation Program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many compliance issues are being resolved simply by operational or system changes at Services Australia. Others require legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Minister Gallagher and I are actively responding to these issues as they arise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill strengthens our social security safety net by ensuring there is legislative clarity in how the social security, family payment and child support systems support people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill includes the following technical changes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Advance Payments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Advance payments allow income support or Family Tax Benefit recipients to receive a lump sum advance of their entitlement. The money is repaid through a deduction of a person's future payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Advance payments are an important part of the social security and Family Tax Benefit systems, with approximately 2.7 million advance payments being granted in the 2024-25 financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill makes technical changes to provide legal certainty for Services Australia's administration of advance payments and continue current service delivery arrangements. We are removing outdated provisions related to social security and Family Tax Benefit advances, including the requirement for Services Australia to be satisfied that the repayments won't cause the person to suffer financial hardship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This allows people to continue to access advance payments when they need it most and at a time and place that suits them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are also aligning Mobility Allowance debt recovery provisions with the usual debt raising practices for social security and Family Tax Benefit advances, improving legislative consistency across the social security system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pre-issue Income Data</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill makes technical changes to ensure that Services Australia can use income data supplied by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) before a notice of assessment is issued. This is known as pre-issue income data.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For 99.8 per cent of people, their income information doesn't change once a notice of assessment is issued.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pre-issue income is used for child support, Family Tax Benefit, Single Income Family Supplement and Child Care Subsidy purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill allows Services Australia to use pre-issue income data to finalise or reconcile Family Tax Benefit or Child Care Subsidy payments and administer the child support scheme, rather than having to rely on tax-assessed income information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It also ensures that people's incomes can be updated if Services Australia receives new income data.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments ensure that Services Australia can make accurate payments for families seeking assistance, and make accurate and timely child support assessments. This aligns with Services Australia's current practices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will allow claims to be assessed as early as possible based on pre-issue income data supplied by the ATO, rather than having to wait longer for the final tax-assessed amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The small proportion of cases where there is a difference between the pre-issue income data and the final tax-assessed amount are corrected through reconciliation processes or automatic adjustments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes will ensure child support assessments are timely and accurate and protect child support debt collection opportunities through the tax-refund interception process, which collect around $41 million in child support debt owed to children a year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also includes the following amendments to improve the operation of the social security, family payment and child support systems.</para></quote>
<list>Amendments to family payment law to improve the appeals process through the Administrative Review Tribunal for recipients of Family Tax Benefit. This will reduce the administrative burden placed upon Services Australia, the Tribunal and the individual who has appealed a decision.</list>
<list>Technical changes to ensure there is legal clarity for Family Tax Benefit recipients and their obligations around Family Tax Benefit reconciliation conditions and non-lodgement provisions. This will ensure the law aligns with Services Australia's current processes.</list>
<list>Changes to child support law to allow Services Australia to continue to use an automatic process for the determination of provisional incomes used in child support assessments. Ceasing this process would cause extensive delays in the creation and updating of child support assessments, increasing the risk of child support debt and overpayments.</list>
<list>Amendments to allow a merits review of decisions to offset income tax returns against Family Tax Benefit debts. This will ensure these decisions have consistent review options to other decisions in the family payment system.</list>
<list>Technical changes to ensure a parent's Paid Parental Leave superannuation contribution is calculated correctly if they have been paid by their employer and a debt later arises. This will ensure the correct amount of superannuation will be paid into their superannuation fund.</list>
<list>Amendments to the operation of urgent payments in the social security system to align with the design of Services Australia's service delivery arrangements. This will improve service delivery arrangements for recipients including reducing the number of calls a person needs to make to Services Australia.</list>
<quote><para class="block">All the amendments contained in this Bill, while technical in nature, will ensure the social security, family assistance and child support systems can better operate as intended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Together, they continue our work restoring trust in Australia's social security system and ensuring our safety net provides the assistance people need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR MOBILE OBLIGATION) BILL 2026</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government is committed to keeping Australians connected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We believe in a simple principle: no one held back, no one left behind.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Access to telecommunications is not a luxury, it's an essential service that underpins public safety.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians rely on mobile phones for their connectivity more than ever. However, Australia's longstanding Universal Service Obligation does not include mobile services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation will change that.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the first time, our national mobile network operators, Telstra, Optus and TPG will need to provide reasonable access to outdoor baseline mobile coverage across Australia on an equitable basis. This will initially require providers to support voice and SMS services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many thought it would never be possible to deliver mobile coverage across Australia's vast inland areas, but the advent of new, Low Earth Orbit Satellite (LEOSat) Direct to Device technology, will make it possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Within the next couple of years, Direct to Device&#x2014;or 'D2D'&#x2014;coverage will be able to provide baseline outdoor coverage in areas outside terrestrial coverage, allowing people to seek help if they are lost, injured, or facing natural disasters in areas without traditional terrestrial mobile coverage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As National Farmers Federation President Hamish McIntyre has said today&#x2014;this is a world first policy and we could become the gold standard for regional communications&#x2014;that is our goal and that's why we have introduced this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some would say we should wait until the technology is widely available before legislating the UOMO.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But to wait would mean leaving rollout decisions to industry alone, and risk some Australians being left behind. The Albanese Government is legislating the UOMO now to ensure baseline mobile coverage is widely available and available as quickly as possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The UOMO is not about replacing traditional mobile coverage with new technology. It will complement existing networks, so that we cover as much of Australia as possible and enable the community to benefit from new technology.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will continue to invest in communications infrastructure and resilience in regional and rural Australia, including through the $1.1 billion Better Connectivity Plan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The plan includes successful initiatives like the Mobile Black Spot Program, the Mobile Network Hardening Program, the Regional Connectivity Program, the On Farm Connectivity Program and the Broadcasting Resilience Program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have also provided significant funding to upgrade the NBN in regional, rural and remote Australia, including upgrading fixed-line areas with more resilient fibre services and expanding the fixed wireless footprint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NBN Co's partnership with Amazon's Leo, formerly known as Project Kuiper, will ensure city-quality broadband is available within the NBN's satellite footprint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Additionally, the Albanese Government's $68 million package of measures to support First Nations digital inclusion will further contribute to improving digital participation in First Nations communities&#x2014;a critical step towards achieving Target 17 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The new baseline connectivity which will be delivered by the UOMO will help improve public safety and mean better access to emergency services and support, particularly in regional and remote areas outside terrestrial mobile coverage where no access to triple zero is possible unless people are calling from a home phone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Turning to the specifics of the Bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 establishes the framework for the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill extends the existing Universal Services framework which currently encompasses the reasonable provision of fixed voice services and pay phones to include outdoor mobile services. It will apply to all three national mobile operators- Telstra, Optus and TPG.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is one Schedule to the Bill, comprising two parts which together amend the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 </inline>(TCPSS Act) to incorporate the UOMO into the existing universal service regime. The Bill also makes minor amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010 </inline>andthe <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications Act 1997.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 of the Bill sets out measures to extend the existing universal services regime outlined in the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 </inline>to include the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The objective is to ensure mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The concept of reasonableness deals with situations where it may not be possible for a mobile operator to supply a designated mobile service that provides mobile coverage at a particular area.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There could be several reasons for this, such as technical limitations, temporary interruptions to the availability of wholesale services, temporary outages, and a choice by a consumer not to purchase an appropriate handset or plan to access UOMO services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The aim of the overarching obligation is that end-users of Designated Mobile Telecommunication Services can be used outdoors at locations where it is reasonable to expect them to be able to be used.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ACMA will be responsible for the enforcement of the UOMO. The <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications Act 1997</inline> provides it with powers to take enforcement action, including to investigate breaches, issue infringement notices, impose sanctions and penalties for non-compliance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ACMA would also be responsible for the enforcement of any UOMO standards, rules or benchmarks that may be applied to services. I note that ACMA already fulfils this role in relation to existing universal service arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill includes a power for the Minister to determine circumstances when it would not be reasonable to make mobile coverage available, or matters to which regard must, or must not, be had in determining whether mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part also incorporates designated mobile telecommunications services into the list of public interest telecommunications services. At the time of commencement, the designated services will be voice and SMS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The UOMO will apply to the general Australian outdoor mobile coverage area, which includes all states and mainland territories, and the eligible external territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is the area in which mobile operators will be expected to provide mobile coverage to meet the obligation. There is one specified exception, being the Australian Radio Quiet Zone in Western Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also provides the Minister with power to determine an area via legislative instrument. This could be required if an area needed to be excluded from the UOMO, had specific needs or one mobile operator was unable to service it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill includes a default commencement date of 1 December 2027, at which time all three mobile network operators will be obligated to ensure that baseline mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors throughout Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A default date provides a clear signal to the market of the importance of equitable and accessible outdoor mobile coverage, and that the intention of government is to see services provided as soon as feasible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, the Bill also creates a flexible framework where the scope and timing of the UOMO can be adjusted, by legislative instrument, in response to market readiness and extended as technology evolves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is also flexibility in the Bill to split the voice and SMS obligations should that be necessary due to market conditions at the commencement of the obligation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill is technology-neutral with mobile operators expected to leverage their existing and future terrestrial mobile infrastructure, as well as Direct to Device technology delivered by LEOSat platforms outside areas of mobile coverage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Terrestrial mobile coverage provides mobile phone connectivity through land-based cellular antennae, connecting mobiles within the range of mobile phone infrastructure (such as a mobile network towers).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">D2D uses LEOSats to provide mobile connectivity direct to mobile handsets. This requires a direct line of sight to the sky to enable handsets to communicate with the LEOSats, but does not require a fixed dish or base station at the consumer's end.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mobile operators are already considering and negotiating arrangements with Direct to Device providers. Telstra has a commercial D2D SMS service available in Australia. Optus and TPG have announced plans to introduce D2D.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ultimately, the Bill recognises D2D is still an evolving technology, which will become increasingly available.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are no financial impacts from this Bill, though I note that the Bill will enable the Government to use funds in the Public Interest Telecommunications Services Special Account to support contracts or grants for the UOMO that maximise public interest outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will provide flexibility to deal with emerging issues after implementation and reflects the long-standing policy principle that the telecommunications industry should contribute to the costs of delivering universal telecommunications services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 also includes amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999</inline> to provide Ministerial powers to set standards, rules and benchmarks for UOMO services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 of the Bill creates a separate additional Ministerial power to set standards, rules and benchmarks relating to mobile services prior to the UOMO default commencement day if required.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ability to make standards is essential to ensure that the Government can respond if the market fails to deliver quality or equitable mobile services. This is consistent with arrangements under the existing universal services framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the UOMO provides the underlying framework for baseline connectivity that can support Triple Zero access, the Bill does not explicitly reference access to an emergency call service as a requirement for the mobile operators to meet the Bill's objectives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is because there is a longstanding requirement for providers of public mobile telecommunications services to provide equitable access to Triple Zero. This is governed by the rules set out in the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019</inline>, made under Part 8 of the Telec<inline font-style="italic">ommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any voice services carried by public mobile telecommunications services are currently captured by the Emergency Call Service Determination 2019. As voice services will need to be supplied outdoors to fulfil the UOMO, the Emergency Call Service Determination 2019 will apply to mobile telecommunications services offered and supplied in compliance with the UOMO. Accordingly, this means the UOMO will support access to Triple Zero regardless of the technology used to supply voice services to consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Public consultation on the exposure draft of the Bill took place from 18 September 2025 to 19 October 2025. There were 88 submissions on the Bill from industry, individuals, consumer representatives, state and local governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Submissions included the mobile network operators, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, National Famers' Federation and ACCAN. The Government has worked closely with stakeholders in drafting the Bill, and I would like to thank</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will modernise Australia's universal service arrangements to provide equitable access to basic mobile coverage outdoors and provide all Australians greater access to essential telecommunications services, improving public safety and ensuring critical new technology is available as widely and as equitably possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the bill to the House.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bills be listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> as separate orders of the day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026, Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <p>
              <a href="r7512" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7481" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2>
  <subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7512" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2>
  <subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BELL</name>
    <name.id>319142</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2027:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The operation and administration of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the extent to which the facility impacts investment in fertiliser production or importation, processing, storage, transport and distribution;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the facility's contribution to national food security, regional economic development and the continuity of essential services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the accountability and effectiveness of financial assistance provided for fertiliser through the facility; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any related matters.</para></quote>
<para>Australian farmers cannot grow food without reliable access to fertiliser. When international supply was disrupted earlier this year, the Commonwealth had a responsibility to make sure Australian farmers could get the fertiliser they needed. I think we all supported that objective here. The question before us is not whether the government should have cared about fertiliser security&#x2014;of course they should&#x2014;but whether the government properly considered what its intervention might do or what consequences could flow from that to the industry and to the market.</para>
<para>The proposed inquiry I have before the Senate today is that the operation and administration of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility be looked into. The question is: has the government properly considered what this intervention has done to the market? Has this actually strengthened Australia's fertiliser security, or have we got a situation where, in an attempt to solve an immediate problem, perhaps we've created a bigger problem down the line. I think that's what we need an inquiry to establish.</para>
<para>The Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility provided government backed support for additional fertiliser imports during a period of international disruption. On the surface, that sounds pretty straightforward&#x2014;there is a shortage risk, so the government helps bring more product into the country&#x2014;but markets are not that simple. Fertiliser supply depends on businesses making decisions months in advance. They commit capital, they arrange international supply, they organise shipping, storage and transport and they accept the risk that prices and exchange rates will move against them. They do that because they expect to compete in a functioning commercial market. When government suddenly enters the market and takes away some of the risks for selected participants, we need to understand what then happens to everyone else. This is not an argument against intervention in every circumstance. It's simply an argument for understanding the consequences before we find taxpayers are put on the hook.</para>
<para>The first question this inquiry should ask is whether this facility genuinely created additional supply. We also must ask: did the assistance bring fertiliser into Australia that would not have otherwise arrived, or did it support transactions that might have occurred anyway? Did the government properly account for products already in the country, existing contracts and shipments already on their way? These are fair questions. These questions matter because the government should not claim success simply because more fertiliser arrived after the facility was announced. We need to know what difference the facility itself actually made, which is why we should be examining how the scheme affected competition. If one participant in the market receives government backed protection against commercial risk while another does not, this can then affect behaviour. It can affect investment decisions. It can affect stock values. It can affect who is prepared to commit capital early. It can affect whether businesses remain willing to participate in that market in the future. This is a very real concern.</para>
<para>Fertiliser security policy should encourage businesses to secure supply before a shortage becomes critical. It should encourage investment in storage. It should encourage investment in transport and distribution. It should encourage more competition and more resilience. It should not create a situation where businesses conclude that acting early with their own money leaves them exposed while waiting for government assistance may be the safer commercial decision. The question is: has that happened? We don't know. That is exactly why this needs to be looked into and why an inquiry is needed. The government should be able to demonstrate that it considered these risks. It should be able to explain how assistance was allocated. It should be able to explain what safeguards were used to protect competitive neutrality. It should be able to show that taxpayers received value for the risks they were asked to carry.</para>
<para>There is also the question of what benefits actually reached farmers. Farmers, understandably, want lower fertiliser prices. That's what I want for farmers. But fertiliser prices are often affected by international markets, shipping costs, exchange rates and global supply. A lot of onshore decisions made by government drive up electricity prices and drive all sorts of businesses that actually assist in the production of fertiliser out of business. But I digress.</para>
<para>If prices fell during the operation of the facility, the government cannot simply assume that its intervention was responsible. The inquiry should establish what happened to prices, what happened internationally at the same time and how much, if any, benefit can reasonably be attributed to the facility. Taxpayers have taken on financial risk, and Australians deserve to know what they received in return.</para>
<para>The most important issue goes beyond the immediate operation of the scheme. There's another issue of Australia's long-term fertiliser security, because we have become heavily dependent on imported fertiliser. That leaves Australian agriculture exposed to events we cannot control. As we've seen, international conflict can disrupt shipping. Foreign governments can restrict exports. Global prices can rise quickly. Supply chains can fail. When that happens, Australian farmers are left vulnerable. The answer cannot always be another emergency government intervention. We need to ask why Australia, a country with enormous natural resources and one of the world's major agricultural industries, is so dependent on foreign production for something so fundamental to our food production. That is the sovereign capability question at the heart of this. Are government policies encouraging Australia to manufacture more fertiliser here, or are they making domestic production more difficult while making imported production comparatively more attractive? That question goes well beyond any single plant or any single company. It's about the investment environment across the whole of the industry.</para>
<para>A business considering fertiliser production in Australia needs confidence. It needs access to affordable and reliable energy. It needs regulatory certainty. It needs confidence that government policy will not change the commercial environment after billions of dollars have already been committed. It needs to know that government intervention will not unexpectedly change the competitive balance in favour of imported products. These investment decisions are made over decades, and they cannot be switched on or off according to the political problem of the day. That is not the type of market people can function in.</para>
<para>When the Commonwealth designs an emergency measure, it needs to consider much more than the next shipment. It needs to ask what signal it's sending to future investors. Does the policy encourage sovereign capability? Does the process encourage more storage and processing? Does it encourage a greater diversity of supply? Does it encourage businesses to take commercial risks before a crisis, or does it reinforce dependence on imported product and government intervention? These are questions the government should have considered before the facility was designed, and I think this inquiry will help the government advise, or perhaps even establish, whether they did do this.</para>
<para>There's a real danger in approaching these issues of national security in our food chains one crisis at a time. Disruption occurs, government intervenes, the immediate pressure eases, and then everyone moves on until the next disruption. That is not resilience. Real resilience means having the capability before the crisis occurs. It means having multiple suppliers. It means developing our own sovereign capacity to manufacture fuel or fertiliser. It means having transport and distribution networks that reach all across regional Australia. It means having domestic manufacturing capacity where it's commercially possible. It means having government policy that supports these things rather than undermining them.</para>
<para>That's why we believe that the Senate should be looking at the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility as more than an emergency purchasing measure. It should be examining what the facility means for future investment, production, importation, processing, storage, transport and disruption. That is expressed in these terms of reference. We need to consider whether Australia has the right arrangements for our future emergencies. There may be a role for strategic stockholding. There may be a role for minimum stock requirements. There may be other market based mechanisms that provide a buffer against disruption. But whatever approach Australia takes, it must not undermine the businesses that keep the ordinary market functioning. Emergency policy must complement the market, not replace it.</para>
<para>The principle should be simple. Government should make Australia stronger after an intervention, not weaker. If taxpayers are used to protect supply, that intervention should leave us with more resilient market. It should not be reducing competition. It should not discourage investment. It should not punish businesses who may have acted early before a crisis. It should not make Australia more dependent on imported fertiliser in the future. One Nation wants Australia to be capable of producing more of the essentials we rely on. Food security is not possible without fertiliser security, and fertiliser security cannot simply mean hoping overseas factories keep producing and international shipping lanes remain open. We need sovereign capability. We need reliable supply chains. We need government decisions that are made with the long-term national interest in mind.</para>
<para>We'll accept the government was right to recognise that international disruption posed a risk to Australian agriculture, but recognising the problem is not the same as designing the right solution. I think we do need to determine whether the government properly considered the consequences of its intervention. Have we genuinely increased supply? Have we delivered value for the taxpayer? Have we preserved fair competition? Did we strengthen the businesses. Australia depends upon, or has the opposite occurred? Have we actually made Australia more secure, has the government, through a failure to consider the longer term consequences&#x2014;as we know, they quite often do&#x2014;risked making us more dependent and more vulnerable in the future? Those are serious questions and they deserve proper answers. This is why the inquiry is necessary, and I do hope the Senate will support it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support this referral of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. Fertiliser is not a luxury. It's a critical input that supports Australian agriculture and Australian food production both for Australians and of course for hundreds of millions of others around the world. For farmers, particularly in regional and northern Australia, the cost and availability of fertiliser directly affects farm viability. Just last week in Mareeba I was speaking to farmers who told me that their fertiliser bill had doubled, a massive impost on the viability of that business.</para>
<para>If fertiliser supply is disrupted, the consequences flow through farms, transport operators, regional businesses, families and to every Australian, and Australia has seen how quickly global supply chains can be disrupted. Australians have also seen how this Albanese Labor government shoots from the hip on policies. We deserve to know whether this facility is actually delivering greater fertiliser security and supply resilience. Is this government support building long-term resilience or simply responding to short-term shortages? We need reliable fertiliser supplies when farmers need them, not after a supply disruption occurs.</para>
<para>We also need a government who are transparent with the Australian people and, importantly, with Australian farmers. Government financial assistance must provide value for money. We need transparency around who receives government assistance, how this program was drafted, who was consulted, what the outcomes are and, of course, who the beneficiaries were.</para>
<para>Is taxpayer support delivering additional investment and greater supply security? The inquiry should examine whether the facility is supporting the resilience of regional supply chains. It needs to identify what is working and what needs to change. It needs to examine the entire fertiliser supply chain, from production and imports through to the farm gate. We need to ensure that government intervention is targeted and effective and delivers genuine long-term benefits, because regional Australia needs practical outcomes not additional bureaucracy. Australian farmers are amongst the most productive and resilient in the world because they're not subsidised, unlike many farming supply chains around the world. We should not make their job harder by leaving critical Australian inputs vulnerable to international disruption.</para>
<para>We learnt this during COVID, when Australia came within two weeks of running out of fertiliser and pesticide supply. I'm incredibly proud of the work that the coalition did, particularly the work Matt Canavan did as the then minister for resources and Northern Australia to ensure that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility made funds available to back the Perdaman project. The Perdaman project is an important project at Karratha in Western Australia. It takes natural gas, available from those massive gas projects there, and converts it to urea. Thanks to the foresight then, that project will come online early next year. That will supply around two million tonnes of urea to Australian farmers per year. Urea is an important product not just for farming but also as an additive for fuel&#x2014;something else that we all learnt during COVID.</para>
<para>That is a project that will add to Australia's fertiliser security, but we need to ensure, through this inquiry, that Australia really has invested, over this most recent shortage, into the sorts of investments that will provide genuine fertiliser and fuel security. It wasn't just a bandaid that would get us through the shortage and not leave Australian farmers with more affordable supply and more predictable supply. We know that food security is national security. We know that fertiliser security is food security. This inquiry is an important opportunity to ensure that Australia is prepared not just for the next season but also for the next decade.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was elected in 2016 in May-July. I started in July. I've had more than 10 years since I first joined the Senate. I've been elected once and re-elected twice. In that 10 years, I've learnt that every major problem in this country is due to the uniparty. Your policies on energy, your policies on climate fraud, your policies on water&#x2014;disgraceful. You've done everything you can to hammer workers into subservience. You're both guilty of mass immigration.</para>
<para>Australia has fallen from having the No. 1 highest per capita income in the world a hundred or so years ago to now being headed out the back door. We're heading for 20th thanks to you lot. We are still the richest nation in the world for resources per capita, yet now we're dependent on communist dictatorships and the unstable government for much of what we need in this country. Our manufacturing has been shot, thanks to you lot, so we're now dependent. We must have new capability restored within our borders&#x2014;we drill for oil or gas within our borders, process it, refine it, transport it, and put it in bowsers, then into cars, trucks and tractors, with the whole process in our country. What's the matter? You have abandoned that. You've both caused it.</para>
<para>We need the same for fertiliser. We need to restore Australia. We have the world's highest per capita resources, yet we're heading down the road to poverty, thanks to you lot. We need to get the data on why this has happened. We need to get the data on what we need. We need to get the facts. That's why I support this inquiry that Senator Bell has had the courage to put forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like Senator MacDonald, I very vividly remember standing up in this place a few months ago, and Senator MacDonald and I&#x2014;I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here&#x2014;both spoke about the importance of securing adequate fuel and fertiliser for seeding. We put pressure on the government at a time when they were sitting on their hands saying, 'Nothing to see here.' It was only about a month later, when suddenly service stations started running out of fuel, that the government realised that there actually was something to see here, and it was something very, very serious, particularly for our agricultural sector.</para>
<para>Senator Roberts, one lesson you learn in this place is that not all government actions are good actions. Not all government schemes are designed well. Sadly, with this government, you see case after case where schemes that should be doing good for a sector actually end up being destructive, undermining the very sector they are supposedly trying to help. I have my doubts about that, but let's just put that to one side.</para>
<para>There were very serious issues with the potential availability of fertiliser for seeding and post seeding. As a result, the government put significant public funds of $7&#xBD; billion to underwrite urea imports. Later, it came out publicly that the underwriting and support given to the imports of urea went to the three largest companies alone, ignoring the smaller, mostly family owned fertiliser businesses in this country. It is actually those smaller fertiliser businesses that, to a significant degree, have been left to carry the cost of this government intervention, which picked winners. You hear those on this side often talk about the danger of picking winners. It's not some abstract concept. It's because, if the government singles out three players for special attention in a relatively dynamic market, then that is going to have a distortionary effect on the market. That is what happened here. That evidence is very clearly available.</para>
<para>Sadly, what is not clear is what the government actually paid for, what that money was contracted to do and what it actually did in terms of the deals that were done behind the scenes, because literally almost nothing has been published on this matter. Almost nothing is publicly available. As far as I can tell, no criteria were ever published. There was no open process. The consultation that did occur certainly did not occur across the entire industry. It happened with a few of the bigger players. The smaller players in the industry were effectively completely cut out and there was no way for anyone to know in a transparent way what was happening in the market and what this was going to do to the market.</para>
<para>So the level of uncertainty in the market, rather than being decreased&#x2014;presumably the entire point of the government stepping in in this way was to try and decrease the level of uncertainty, decrease price volatility and help farmers actually understand what the price was going to be&#x2014;instead did the opposite. It made farmers less certain. It left other purchasers of fertiliser in the market, such as the other suppliers&#x2014;the mum and dad suppliers, the small business suppliers&#x2014;completely in the dark as to what the true cost, the market cost, the price and the overhang price were going to be. The key thing is that, when you've got markets that are being actively intervened in by government but in a completely non-transparent way, everybody loses certainty.</para>
<para>There's almost no evidence on the public record. There's $53.6 million that's been booked by an ASX listed company as a government grant that looks like it was tied to this fertiliser underwriting scheme, but we're not actually sure about that. We therefore don't know how that risk in the marketplace is being apportioned amongst the various players. But we do know that it has now massively distorted the market and undermined the balance sheet of dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller players in the market.</para>
<para>This is an extraordinarily important issue that we need to get to the bottom of. It's certainly something that I know many will be following up at estimates, but I think that the standalone inquiry is warranted. I think this is an example of where government intervention has been poorly designed. It looks like it was actually designed post fact. I think it is extremely worrying, from a governance point of view, that the resources were effectively allocated and then the scheme was designed. I may be wrong about that, but, again, we're just not being told. We've got almost no information on the public record.</para>
<para>This is not the way to treat the fertiliser industry. This is not the way to treat the Australian farming community. If you're going to intervene, intervene in a transparent way&#x2014;a way that helps all players, that doesn't pick a few winners and that doesn't massively distort the market for more than a season. That is what the Labor government has done.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.</para>
<para>&#xA0;</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:33]<br/>(The President&#x2014;Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Bell, S.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gatenby, C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J. A.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B. G.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Whitten, T.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bleyer, V. E.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dolega, J.</name>
                  <name>Dowling, R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walker, C.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whiteaker, E.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Mulholland, C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7529" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026. The amendment on sheet 4098 has been moved by Senator O'Sullivan. The question before the chair is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to address the details of the amendment that the opposition is proposing that the Senate agree to today. The government first announced that family day care and in-home care will be included in the expanded scheme, and, as I said in my second reading speech, we welcome that. I think it was good that the government was going to do that. However, the government has retained eligibility requirements that mean that many of the educators working in those sectors will remain unable to access the payment.</para>
<para>Under the current arrangements, providers must engage their workers through a compliant workplace instrument, and this creates a significant barrier for services that rely on lawful contractor and sole-trader arrangements. These arrangements are not unusual or incidental within home based care. Family Day Care Australia told the Senate inquiry that virtually all of Australia's approximately 8,500 family day care educators operate as self-employed sole traders and independent contractors. In-home care also relies on a mix of employee and contractor arrangements to provide flexible care to families experiencing geographic isolation, complex needs or non-standard working hours.</para>
<para>Forcing these services to change their entire operating model would be commercially unviable for many of these providers&#x2014;that's the evidence that we heard through the inquiry process&#x2014;and it would impose significant administrative costs and undermine the flexibility that allows them to meet the needs of families. Without this amendment, the government can continue to say that family day care and in-home care are included while retaining grant conditions that actually exclude much of their workforce. This is, in fact, not genuine inclusion.</para>
<para>This amendment prevents the terms and conditions of a worker retention payment grant from requiring a recipient to engage workers through a particular kind of workplace instrument or industrial arrangement. It also prevents the grant conditions from dictating the broader manner in which workers must be engaged. Importantly, the amendment does not weaken workplace protections. Paragraph (c) expressly preserves the requirement that all workers be engaged in accordance with relevant Commonwealth, state or territory laws. Providers would still be required to comply with the Fair Work Act and every other applicable workplace law. They would still be required to demonstrate that Commonwealth funding reaches eligible educators. This amendment simply ensures that access to Commonwealth funding cannot be used to force providers to abandon lawful engagement arrangements.</para>
<para>There is already a clear precedent for a much more practical approach. The government permits labour hire workers to receive the worker retention payment without requiring providers to prove that the labour hire agency has a compliant workplace instrument. Instead, providers must demonstrate through invoices and reporting that the funding has been passed on to eligible workers. This would be far simpler and enable these providers to receive it.</para>
<para>The government has not adequately explained why a similar auditable pathway cannot be used for family day-care and in-home care educators. If the purpose of this program is workforce retention, then the program should reflect the workforce that actually exists. I accept as shadow minister that the number of workers in this space is obviously much smaller compared to those working in centre based care, but, for those families that have to choose that service provision&#x2014;be it family day care or in-home care&#x2014;or it's just simply their preference to, then, while the numbers are not as significant for them, that individual family and that individual child, it is significant and it matters. The system should not favour one lawful operating model over another. It should not entrench a two-tiered system in which educators and centre based services can benefit from the payment while contractors performing equally important work in other approved care settings are locked out.</para>
<para>This amendment provides a very practical solution. It maintains legal protections and accountability for taxpayer funding while removing an unnecessary barrier that would otherwise exclude much of the family day-care and in-home care workforce. My question is around how the government has announced that family day care and in-home care would be included in the workforce retention payment. How many additional educators does the government expect will receive the payment as a result of this change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government announced, when we announced the extension of the worker retention payment, that we would be extending the payment to employees in in-home care and in family day care. That is exactly what we are doing. We have implemented the worker retention payment thus far by requiring providers to have a workplace instrument in place that can be an individual flexibility arrangement, or it can be a collective agreement. An enforceable instrument is a critical protection for workers. It's a critical protection for the government as well. It is essentially a safeguard to make sure that the payments that we provide go to workers. It's a safeguard for workers, it's a safeguard for taxpayers, and we are continuing with this extension of the worker retention payment to all employees in long day care, family day care, in-home care and eligible employees in out-of-school hours care as well. We are continuing the use of requiring an enforceable instrument to ensure the integrity of the program.</para>
<para>In relation to the new eligibility, under the expanded worker retention program, I can advise that there are currently 215,000 early educators at services across the country who are benefiting from the pay rise, and Jobs and Skills Australia estimates that there are around 274,000 workers in early education and care, including preschools. So we are, with this expansion and extension of the worker retention payment, including employees in home-care settings and in family day care along with those employees in long day care as well. We have seen that this pay rise of $255 a week for the average full-time educator has been a game changer. It's helped them stay in the jobs that they love, and it's helped build a strong and stable workforce, which of course is the basis for quality early childhood education and care in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you gave us the overall workforce numbers. I specifically asked how many additional educators are going to be able to receive this payment as a result of, specifically, the change to allow employees in family day care and in-home care to be able to receive the payment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are investing $3.6 billion in providers that would like to pay their workers higher wages, providers who would like to keep fees down for families and providers who value safety in early education and care. As I said, there is a pool of employees across the country who are eligible for the payment. That pool, according to Jobs and Skills Australia, is 274,000 workers in early education and care. That includes preschool. Ultimately, it's a decision for providers whether they would like to sign up for the worker retention payment which over the last period of time, since the pay rise was announced in August 2024, has helped us stabilise the workforce. It's provided a $255-a-week pay rise, and it's resulted in a workforce that can stay in the sector.</para>
<para>We have seen job vacancies in the sector decline by 30 per cent at the same time as the workforce itself has grown. Having those stable relationships between educators and children is the foundation of quality early childhood education and care in this country. That is exactly what we are delivering with this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you haven't given me the number of additional employees within these centres, within family day care or in-home care, that will be eligible. How many employees are there and how many operate as independent contractors within those two separate categories?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the best way to get further information about the numbers that you're interested in is to consider the entire pool of early educators&#x2014;which, as I said, is 274,000, according to Jobs and Skills Australia&#x2014;and then to consider the proportion of services that are family-day-care services and the proportion of services that are in-home care services. I'm advised that around 4.8 per cent of services, of family-day-care services, provide care for around 62,000 children&#x2014;about 4&#xBD; per cent of all children in CCS approved care. From some of the work that we've done recently in relation to in-home care, we know that that is a much smaller sector. From memory, there are just over 20 providers in that sector, serving around 800 families. As we know, it's quite a small sector, and it is ultimately a decision for those providers as to whether they want to sign up for the worker retention payment. Of course, the worker retention payment is available to providers in family day care and in in-home care should they wish to transition from a contractor model to an employee model. But, again, that is essentially a matter for those providers as to whether that is something that works for them and whether that's an opportunity that they would like to take up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've asked this question several times now. I'm not getting the answer in terms of the number of educators that are employees within these sectors. Maybe you don't have that answer; that might be the case. But, if the government doesn't know how many educators are employees and how many are contractors, on what basis did you assess the number of educators who would benefit from this expansion?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The full costings of the extension of the worker retention payment will be published in MYEFO. This is an announcement that was made after the budget, and further information will be available at MYEFO. More generally, the government has been aware that there is a mix of employees and contractors in in-home care and in family day care. What we are doing with this bill is locking in the pay rise for over 215,000 educators and making the pay rise available for up to an estimated 273,000 educators. The way that providers can access the worker retention scheme is by having an eligible workplace instrument in place. As I said earlier, we believe that that is an important way to ensure integrity in the scheme. Of course, I think it's important to note that the worker retention payment itself is, as described on the label, a worker retention payment. Eligibility for it extends to employees and to providers with employees. But we recognise that there are also operational challenges and constraints for in-home care providers and for family day care providers who operate on different models, and the worker retention payment is not the only scheme that is available to assist these providers.</para>
<para>We recently announced an in-home care sustainability package of $11 million to the in-home care sector, which comprises funding for the extension of the worker retention payment to employees in that sector. It also comprises CCCF funding. That, as well as a dedicated in-home care sustainability grant, has been provided to the in-home care sector. That whole sustainability package for in-home care has been welcomed by the sector. It's been called 'monumental' by the sector as an intervention by the government to support what is a critically important sector for those families who are unable to access mainstream long day care. We also provide operational support for family day care. In the recent round 5 of the Community Child Care Fund, there was $14 million in operational support provided to the family day care sector and family day care providers.</para>
<para>With this worker retention payment, we are supporting those providers in the sector who have employees. It is a historic commitment to a 15 per cent pay rise. We think it is important that the worker retention payment applies to employees in the sector and that there is an enforceable instrument to support workers, providers, taxpayers and the Commonwealth in knowing that the money is being directed exactly where it is needed. At the same time, as I say, this is not the only support that is being provided to small businesses that operate in the sector and small providers who operate on a contractor model. The Commonwealth is providing significant operational support to the sector&#x2014;to in-home care and to family day care. It is support that has been welcomed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you talk about what's on the tin and that it's titled the 'worker retention payment'. I put to you that the parent who deeply values the work that's provided by their family day care operator or their in-home care provider and what they get from that doesn't, frankly, particularly mind whether they're an employee or an independent contractor. What's valuable is the service that they deliver. So why is the government differentiating on the status of employment rather than on the quality of service that's delivered and the need that's actually been met by that provider? That's the first question.</para>
<para>The second question is this. When you read the submissions&#x2014;hopefully, you've had the chance to look at those submissions that came through, with the short inquiry that we had&#x2014;and you hear from, for example, Family Day Care Australia, who told the Senate inquiry that virtually all of Australia's approximately 8,500 family day care operators operate as self-employed sole traders and independent contractors, what consideration and concern do you have for their viability going forward, given that they may not be eligible unless they change their model? Again, evidence that we got from the inquiry was that they consider it too onerous and too significant to be able to upend their whole model and change how they operate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator. We value the children in families who are supported by in-home care and family day care. I was really pleased to meet a little girl called Cece and her mum Jen in regional New South Wales recently and to meet the in-home care educator who supports that family and provides great quality early childhood education and care for little Cece. That is why we have provided sustainability support to the in-home care sector. We have provided $11 million in funding to support the operational costs of the sector.</para>
<para>There are some unique costs associated with delivering in-home care. We recognise that, and we acted, and we are pleased to have been able to provide operational support, which I can confirm can be dedicated to covering costs associated with providing early childhood education, which is a service reliant on a workforce of early childhood educators. The same is true for family day care, where we value the children and families who attend family day care. We support family day care through the Commonwealth childcare subsidy, and we also support family day care through CCCF. In the latest round of CCCF, a number of family-day-care providers were successful in getting operational support, and that operational support is important for them, to cover all of the costs that they accrue. We were pleased to be able to provide $14 million of operational support to family day care through round 5 of CCCF.</para>
<para>In relation to the worker retention payment, the vast majority of early educators in the workforce are employees, and all employees of the providers who are eligible for Commonwealth childcare subsidy, which I outlined before, are eligible for the worker retention payment. More than 215,000 early educators are currently receiving what is a historic 15 per cent pay rise, on top of significant minimum wage rises, supported and advocated for by the government. This is a game changer for early childhood educators. It is an extra $255 a week for the average early childhood educator. As I travel around the country and visit services on a regular basis, I make sure that I listen to the educators that I meet and hear what a difference the worker retention payment and the 15 per cent pay rise are making in their lives. What I am hearing is that they feel valued, they feel respected, they can afford to pay their bills, and they can afford to plan for the future. That is being reflected in the retention numbers that we are seeing in the sector.</para>
<para>It comes after a workforce crisis that we inherited after almost 10 years of coalition government refusing to invest in the workforce. Educators were leaving the sector in droves. Turnover was as high as 30 or 35 per cent in many parts of the country. For many providers, providers were having to rely on staffing waivers rather than fully staffing their services.</para>
<para>Through this historic pay rise, we have seen a workforce that is now much more stable. We are seeing a workforce that is growing. We are seeing job vacancies decline and we are seeing the use of staffing waivers dramatically decline. All of that adds up to higher quality early education for children, and that is what matters. We know that secure relationships between educators and children are what deliver quality early education in Australia. In order to have those secure relationships, we need a secure, strong and stable workforce. That is exactly what we are delivering with this historic 15 per cent pay rise, with the worker retention payment and with all of the support that we provide to ensure high-quality early education and care for the nation's children.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, if the principal concern is to ensure that that pay rise is supported by the worker retention payment and that that's where it actually ends up going, then, if a worker is an independent contractor or a sole trader, the individual&#x2014;the worker, the one performing the service&#x2014;is the one who would be receiving the payment. How is there any risk at all that the worker retention grant is not passed on? They themselves are the recipient. They don't need to pass it on because they are receiving it themselves. Why has the government made this decision? Is there, in fact, a different reason the government is going down this path, other than ensuring that the payment goes to the individual who is performing the service?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a number of different arrangements, if you want to put it that way, for labour in early childhood education and care, including where we have umbrella family day care providers and umbrella in-home care providers. They can secure the workforce that they are providing to families by using a contractor model or by using an employee model. As I think I have explained in a number of different ways now, the worker retention payment has been extended to employees in in-home care and employees in family day care. It is a worker retention payment. It is an employee retention payment. That is exactly how it has been characterised by the government, including in the announcement that we made to extend the payment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To change topic, what's the government's long-term funding plan once the extended worker retention payment ends in June 2028?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me step that out for you. In the middle of next year, the award underpinning the sector will reach the 15 per cent pay rise that we are providing through the worker retention payment. That will continue through to the middle of 2028. From the middle of 2028, there are, on average, further significant pay rises as part of the gender undervaluation decisions of the Fair Work Commission. There is work underway in the Department of Education right now as part of the service delivery prices project to understand the true cost of delivering early education and care, and the changes to the children's services award which I just described to you will form part of that analysis over the next few years.</para>
<para>The findings from that work will come to government at the end of this year, and that service delivery prices project work will allow us to consider longer term funding arrangements once we have that information. This funding, this extension of the worker retention payment, essentially makes sure that workers are paid fairly and keeps costs down for families while we do this important work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to go to quality and safety. The bill allows grant conditions to address quality area 2, relating to children's health and safety. What specific safety requirements does the government intend to impose through those grant agreements?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As you've outlined in your question, we have added a new safety requirement as part of the worker retention payment. We do require providers to meet quality area 2 under the National Quality Standard in order to be eligible for the worker retention payment. They will need to meet that standard of quality area 2, which describes child safety and wellbeing, by the middle of next year in order to be eligible for the payment. Around 95 per cent of services already meet the national safety standard, but we do want that number to be higher. We know that that's what parents expect, and it's what children deserve. The reason we want to make compliance with quality area 2 part of the worker retention payment is to continue to drive the really important safety work that we're doing in the sector.</para>
<para>Last year, we passed legislation that gives the Department of Education the power to cut off funding to operators that don't meet the quality, safety or compliance requirements under the national law, and we have been using those powers. There's always more that we can do to raise quality and safety standards, and this bill is part of that effort.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So will those conditions be prescribed consistently across all worker retention payment recipients, or are they determined separately through individual grant agreements?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The department has published a framework for this question to assist providers to comply with the provision, so there is a consistent framework that applies. It is the case that services that fail to meet the national standard from July 2027 could have their funding cut, under the legislation. The department encourages services that are not meeting the standard to address concerns as soon as possible and also contact their regulator for a reassessment. There is assistance available to providers to comply, and the framework that the department has published has information that may be of assistance to providers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that answer, Minister. I had some feedback that, while that information is there, there was some confusion about it. So hopefully the answer you've provided will give that clarity to those that were confused by it.</para>
<para>Who will determine whether a provider has breached a safety related grant condition, and what review or appeal rights will be available given the different layers of jurisdiction that we have here? With the grant coming from the Commonwealth and the regulator being at a state level, or vice versa, there are different layers. Can you just provide some clarity there.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's just the standard process. Services across the country participate in assessments and rating visits which are conducted by the state and territory regulators. Those visits assess the performance of providers on quality area 2 under the National Quality Standard. That is the rating that needs to be achieved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the original sustainability grant for in-home care did not include provisions to use the grant funding for worker retention. Minister, you've since changed that and now in-home care can use the sustainability grant for a worker retention payment. Does the worker retention payment go to employees only in this grant, and why is it now changing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My recollection is that the in-home care sustainability grants have been available for operational costs. Clearly the costs of educators themselves are a significant part of an in-home care operation or any early learning operation. The sustainability grants can be used for operational costs. Operational costs include early education.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you confirm that that was a change that you made recently? That wasn't the original design. That's been a subsequent change.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have not made that change, and I have just asked the department to check that that's the case and the in-home care sustainability grants are as has been described.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, noting that this bill makes it possible for meeting quality area 2 of the National Quality Standard to be a condition of receiving the worker retention payment, how is the Commonwealth ensuring that state and territory regulators are adequately funded and resourced to make sure they have the capacity to regularly and thoroughly assess every early learning service against those standards?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year, when education ministers stood up and announced the national child safety package, there were commitments made about regulatory visits and funding for regulators. Assessment and rating visits are to be conducted with a certain frequency, and there are more visits for services that are, on those visits, rated as working towards a national standard. Those arrangements were agreed as part of the national child safety package. What I can say is that, in the last quarterly data that is available, there have been more regulatory visits than have ever been conducted before, and that is a reflection of the commitment of the jurisdictions&#x2014;the states and territories&#x2014;and their regulators to making sure that there is strong regulation, regular assessment and rating visits, and regular follow-up visits to those services that are assessed as working towards the standard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Who's funding that added regulatory activity? Is it the Commonwealth, or is it providers via annual regulatory service fee increases?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Your question is reasonable. It's somewhat outside of the scope of the bill. I'll tell you what I know and see if I can get more information. The regulators are funded by the jurisdictions under the arrangements that we have. There are various fees that providers pay. There are different types of fees that providers pay, and my recollection, unless I get different information via the department, is that jurisdictions decide how to attribute those different regulatory fees. It's my recollection that some jurisdictions attribute those fees directly to regulators. For others, it goes to general revenue. That is my recollection.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what specific discretion will be given to the department when considering ongoing eligibility for the worker retention payment of centres not meeting quality area 2, especially where centres may, in fact, need to rely on the additional funding the worker retention payment provides to retain quality staff and not let those standards slip further?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, the department has published a framework for some of these matters, which may be of assistance to providers. Services not meeting the standard are advised to address any concerns as soon as possible and to contact their regulator to seek a reassessment by no later than 31 March 2027. However, there will be transition provisions in place to ensure that funding continues for services trying to do the right thing, and I understand that this information has been published for providers, so I can confirm that services that request a reassessment before 31 March 2027 and are still awaiting a reassessment as at 1 July will continue to receive the funding until the reassessment is completed.</para>
<para>We want to assist services to meet the quality standard. Our preference, of course, is that they do meet the quality standard and that they do achieve eligibility for the extended worker retention payment. But the other side of that is that services that don't meet the quality standard and are not doing the right thing will not be eligible to receive the payment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, do you anticipate that more services will take up the worker retention payment during this extended period to 2028, or is the extension primarily intended to allow those services already accessing it to continue doing so?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have been really pleased with the take-up of the program; 215,000 educators receiving the payment is a huge number of educators, and 80 per cent of services are covered by the worker retention payment. We encourage providers to engage with the department and to sign up to the worker retention payment. We want more educators to get the benefits of the payment. Ultimately, it's our expectation that providers and workers will continue on in this next round of the worker retention payment. Again, we encourage more providers and more workers to join. Ultimately, that is something for workers and providers to consider and work on together.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to clarify&#x2014;if new centres do sign on, there is budget allocated to accommodate new sign-ons?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the government investing any funding through this bill to help services prevent breaches of quality area 2 and to lift the quality of their service, or is the mechanism simply to withdraw funding after a service has failed to meet the standard?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We do fund and provide support to services to help them meet standards in general. One of the ways that we'll do that with this extension of the worker retention payment is through the government's $10 million worker retention payment engagement program. Support will be provided through that mechanism. It's important for us all to be reminded that 95 per cent of services are meeting the standard already, but, of course, all of us want that to be higher.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will services that are currently receiving the worker retention payment have to reapply to continue receiving this funding next year? If yes, what, if anything, is being done to reduce the administrative burden, especially on the smaller not-for-profits and community-run centres that don't necessarily have the administrative resources of larger centres but are especially in need of this funding?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have had some initial advice on this from the department, but I'm going to check where that is up to. Providers who are currently part of the worker retention scheme will essentially be sent a new agreement rather than having to apply all over again. They will be notified to continue on, and there is a much lower threshold and a simple administrative process for those providers who are already part of the grants program.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question that's before the chair is that the amendment on sheet 4098 that has been moved by the opposition be agreed to. It being after 6.30 pm, we'll have to defer that division to a later hour. As the bill cannot now proceed until votes can be taken, I shall report to the Senate.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
<para>Further consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="s1495" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BLYTH</name>
    <name.id>315170</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. The coalition supports this bill. Australian industry has asked for this change, and the case for it is sound. Bringing Australia's trade remedies together in one specialist agency should make the system easier to use and better able to respond when manufacturers face a surge in imports, but the government has more work to do. Changing the agency responsible for an inquiry will achieve little if industry can't bring a case forward. The process remains unclear, and people doing the work lack the resources they need. Those are the concerns of industry brought to the committee, and they deserve answers from this government.</para>
<para>This bill transfers responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. A safeguard is a temporary restriction on imports, usually a higher tariff, where a surge in imports causes or threatens serious injury to Australian industry. It differs from the antidumping action. A safeguard doesn't require a finding that goods have been dumped or that anyone has engaged in unfair trade. It responds to the harm caused by increased imports, subject to the requirements of world trade rules.</para>
<para>These measures give an affected industry time to adjust. Their temporary measures and their consequences extend beyond the industry seeking assistance. A tariff can raise costs for a business that buys imported products and for consumers, and the inquiry must weigh those effects. This bill includes public interest tests covering the economic significance of the affected industries and the likely consequences for the economy downstream&#x2014;businesses and consumers. The coalition supports a system that examines the evidence and considers those consequences.</para>
<para>Australian manufacturers need a credible remedy when the conditions for one are met. That matters in the current trading environment. Global overcapacity, particularly in steel and aluminium, and sudden changes in trade flows can push large volumes of product into open markets, such as Australia. For a manufacturer, the consequences can arrive well before government responds. Orders fall away, margins shrink, and investment is deferred. A business that has trained workers and built its capacity over decades can find itself struggling to survive. When a factory closes, the loss is significant. Suppliers lose work, apprentices lose opportunities, and much-needed skills leave the industry. Australia therefore needs a safeguard mechanism capable of responding when it's needed, and that's why consolidating the three trade remedies functions makes sense. Industry already deals with the Anti-Dumping Commission, and its investigators understand trade remedies and the evidence required to assess them. Housing these functions together should reduce duplication and build expertise.</para>
<para>No submission to the committee opposed the bill, but support for the bill was accompanied by consistent concerns about access, funding and procedure, and we ask the government to take those concerns seriously. The first problem is that industry can't itself start a safeguard inquiry. An inquiry can begin only when the minister refers the matter to the commissioner. There's no application pathway that triggers an inquiry, no published threshold that industry can meet to secure a referral and no obligation on the minister to explain a refusal. A business facing an import surge must first secure the minister's attention. That takes time and resources while the commercial damage continues. In its submission, the Building Products Industry Council raised this as a major concern. The council represents industries across steel, timber, cement, glass, masonry and insulation. Capral Aluminium, the Australian Aluminium Council and the Australian Forest Products Association all raised the same issue. They want a clear, published process through which industry can present a prima facie case to the commission and the minister, and that is a reasonable request.</para>
<para>The Australian Steel Institute's experience shows why it matters. In November 2025, it sought safeguard measures for fabricated structural steel. Its request passed through ministerial consideration before reaching the Productivity Commission in January this year. The final report isn't due to government until November 2026, and, according to the institute's evidence, that's three years after the damage began. The businesses worst affected include small and medium enterprises. They don't have unlimited reserves to carry years of losses while waiting for decisions. A remedy that arrives after a business has closed offers very little comfort to its workers. The government says this bill will improve accessibility. If that's the case, then it should establish a process that manufacturers can understand and use, with published guidance, application material and indicative timeframes.</para>
<para>The second concern is the minister's continuing control over an inquiry. The minister sets the reporting period, requires hearings and requires a draft report to be released. The minister also determines whether the commissioner may make a recommendation. It's that last power that deserves attention. If the minister doesn't require a recommendation, the commissioner can't make one. An inquiry could take evidence, hear from the affected businesses and find serious injury yet be unable to recommend any action. The industry deserves to know why a process designed to investigate harm could be prevented from recommending a response to it. The minister may also amend or withdraw a reference before receiving the report. The bill doesn't require reasons to be given or notice to be provided to the parliament. Ministerial responsibility is part of this system; it must be accompanied by transparency. The government should publish every reference, together with any amendment or withdrawal, and the reasons for it. Parliament and affected industries should be able to see how these powers are exercised.</para>
<para>There are also questions about the public interest test. The minister may specify additional matters for the commissioner to consider. Further, the bill requires the commissioner to have regard to whether a recommendation is in the public interest, rather than to be satisfied that it is. The government presents this test as an important protection. Published methodology and clear reasons will help parliament assess how that protection works in practice. The Australian Steel Institute told the committee that the methodology used in the current fabricated structural steel inquiry hadn't been disclosed. That made it difficult to judge what evidence would assist and how to present it. The new commission should publish its methodology so participants understand what is required.</para>
<para>The third concern is how much detail remains outside the bill. The minister may make rules governing the commissioner's responsibilities, inquiry procedures, participation by interested parties, timeframes and the handling of evidence. These matters will determine how the system works for the businesses using it. But the power to make those rules is discretionary; the bill doesn't require the minister to exercise it. Industry's requests for clear procedures therefore depend on a further government decision. Manufacturers and downstream users should have an opportunity to identify practical problems before the arrangements take effect.</para>
<para>Finally, the commission must be funded to carry out its new responsibilities. The explanatory memorandum says the cost will be met by existing resources. The industry questions whether that is realistic, given the growth in the commission's antidumping and countervailing workload. The Australian Workers' Union, which supports the prompt passage of the bill, also raised funding concerns. It is noted that the temporary funding increase provided in 2025 wasn't renewed in the 2026-27 budget. Safeguard inquiries require demanding economic analysis, assessment of industry and consideration of effects across the economy. Transferring that responsibility creates work. A new name doesn't provide more investigators or more analytical capacity.</para>
<para>Without adequate funding, safeguard inquiries could be delayed or resources could be diverted from existing anti-dumping cases. Australian industry depends on those cases being handled properly too. The government should state how much funding the safeguard function will receive, how long it will last and how existing work will be maintained. It should also address InfraBuild's concern that the public interest test remains confined to safeguards. Its introduction here shouldn't become a precedent for changing the assessment of antidumping claims, which serve a different purpose</para>
<para>The coalition will vote for this bill because consolidating Australia's trade remedies is sensible and industry wants the safeguard system to work better. Our support doesn't settle the questions raised by the inquiry. Manufacturers need a published pathway to bring cases forward, ministerial decisions need reasons and scrutiny, and the commission needs clear procedures and adequate resources. We thank the organisations that gave evidence to the committee and the secretariat for its work. We will hold the government to the improvements it has promised Australian industry and press them to finish the job.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the normal script says, 'Thank senators for their contribution'. I thank Senator Blyth for her contribution on the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. I find much to agree with in her outline of the issues and challenges for industry. We as a government support free and fair trade. We have, as the Albanese government, repaired our trading relationship with China and signed free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. We are a trading nation that has long relied on open rules based trades.</para>
<para>Australian industry is facing pressure from disruption to the global trading environment, overcapacity in certain products and persistent and rising subsidisation. Our region and our industries can be disproportionately affected by those forces. The Albanese Labor government is strengthening Australia's trade remedy system in line with our WTO obligations so it is simpler to access, more effective in practice and fit for purpose in a tougher global environment. Safeguard actions are an important tool in maintaining our domestic capability in response to these developments.</para>
<para>The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 will give effect to the transfer of responsibility for safeguard inquiries to a newly named Australian Trade Remedies Commission. Bringing safeguard inquiries into a single specialist body is a practical regulatory improvement that will make the system more coherent, more transparent and easier for Australian industry to navigate. It goes to a core objective of the Albanese government's reform agenda&#x2014;delivering better, more efficient regulation. We must ensure that our nation's trade remedy system is fit for purpose to address tomorrow's trade challenges.</para>
<para>This bill helps position Australia to respond effectively and decisively to import surges from increasing industrial overcapacity that threatens our domestic manufacturers. Included in this bill is that the commissioner must consider the public interest in making a recommendation to apply safeguard measures. This strikes the right balance to ensure that Australian industry is defended from injury caused by import surges while considering Australian consumers and complying with our international obligations.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government supports free and fair trade. When trade isn't fair or threatens our critical industrial base, we stand up for Australian workers and Australian businesses. That's why we're strengthening Australia's trade remedies regime, and that's why I commend this bill to the Senate.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
    <electorate/>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1>
  <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
  <subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" background="" style="">
            <a href="r7434" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text>
  <subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to speak today to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. The Greens recognise that too many people in this country cannot afford access to timely health care. I would ask, has anyone in this place really taken the time to go and see a specialist and grapple with the price shock that come from seeking health care? If you have, you know why it is so important that we tackle the cost of specialist fees and specialist health services.</para>
<para>Specialist fees are putting more pressure on household budgets, particularly people with disabilities and chronic health conditions, who may need to see specialists regularly. Right now, if you have to see a specialist, you can be waiting months for an appointment. If you need to go privately, in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis, the cost of that appointment can mean cutting back on groceries or struggling to make the rent at the end of the week. You should not have to choose between the health care that you need and the essentials that you require to live. Health care shouldn't be limited to people who can afford large out-of-pocket fees, and no-one should be blindsided by a specialist bill that they weren't prepared for. That's why the Greens want greater transparency about specialist fees and real reform to make health care more affordable and to level the playing field for everyone. The Greens support this bill as a welcome step in the right direction, but knowing what specialists charge doesn't mean that their care is affordable.</para>
<para>This bill will provide increased transparency about the fees that people might be charged for an appointment with a medical specialist. The Medical Costs Finder currently allows doctors to publish information about their pricing, but doctors are not required to disclose information in a structured and systematic way, meaning that few practitioners have actually shared their prices on the Medical Costs Finder platform. This bill will allow the government to use data from Medicare, from hospitals and from insurers about doctor prices and publish that information on the Medical Costs Finder. The information will include fees charged by practitioners, gap cover arrangements with insurers and out-of-pocket costs. These charges will help people make more informed choices when deciding whether and where to make an appointment with a specialist. The Greens support that, but transparency alone doesn't solve the problem. For many people, specialist fees are simply unaffordable. You cannot make an unaffordable healthcare system affordable just by telling people how much it costs. At a time when people are already struggling with the cost of living, transparency does not cut it in a cost-of-healthcare crisis.</para>
<para>A 2025 report by the Grattan Institute found that the average non-bulk-billed fee for a specialist appointment cost some $300. For disabled people and people with chronic illnesses who require regular specialist appointments, these costs can quickly add up to thousands every year. If you cannot afford to pay these fees, the public system is often a poor alternative, with people waiting wait times of months and, in some cases, years. Every year, 1.9 million people miss out on or delay specialist care, with almost one million saying that cost is the primary reason. This should not be happening in a wealthy country like Australia.</para>
<para>The Grattan Institute report also found that specialist fees have become increasingly unaffordable over time, with costs growing some 73 per cent since 2010. This is simply unsustainable. The most vulnerable people in our communities are the ones paying the price. The government needs to do so much more to make sure that people can afford to see a medical specialist when they need to. The Greens, as I said, welcome this as a first step, but we know that these initial steps will not cut it without stronger action to rein in specialist fees.</para>
<para>The bill also bans the unethical practice of phoenixing by private healthcare insurers. Currently, insurers are required to seek ministerial approval before raising premiums on existing products, but, with this requirement, there is the reality in the current law that it does not apply in the same way to entirely new products. This has created a loophole that has been exploited by insurers. An insurer can discontinue an existing product and then release a new product that is exactly the same but with a higher premium, effectively allowing them to increase the price without going through the ministerial approval process. This unethical practice is known as phoenixing, and it is exactly the kind of loophole that should be closed.</para>
<para>This bill will require ministerial approval of pricing of new products as well as existing products, helping prevent this type of unethical practice. The Greens strongly support cracking down on private health insurers essentially engaging in price gouging. People should not be ripped off by corporations looking for a way around the rules. The government must protect Australians from greedy corporations trying to rip them off, and this is a step in the right direction. But we do also need to look at the bigger picture.</para>
<para>The Greens believe government is still putting far too much public money into the pockets of private health insurers, while our public system is crying out for investment. Every dollar that is spent subsidising private health insurance is a dollar that could be invested in our public hospitals&#x2014;in Medicare, in making health care more accessible for everyone. The government should be taxing big corporations fairly, ending taxpayer funded subsidies of private health insurance and properly funding universal public health care. It is clear to anybody willing to look that bandaid solutions are not enough.</para>
<para>As health care becomes more expensive and inaccessible, so many more go without the urgent care that they need. This is the reality of what people are getting from this Labor government. If it were serious about bringing down healthcare costs, this government would be looking at the big reforms that would actually made the difference to people's lives. They would be putting dental care into Medicare. But they are not serious as a government.</para>
<para>We know that people are struggling in this cost-of-living crisis and that they are being forced to choose between their rent and going to the dentist. The Australian Dental Association's annual consumer survey found that young people are delaying or avoiding essential dental care because of cost pressures, and, when people can't afford to go to the dentist, the consequences can be serious. Untreated dental problems can lead to further health problems down the track: heart disease, diabetes, even Alzheimer's. It's so important that people at every stage of life can access affordable, safe dental care. But the government is just not doing enough to make this happen.</para>
<para>Last month, the Labor Party National Conference amended the party's platform to include a commitment, the vague wording of which commits them to a pathway towards improving access for dental services, prioritising those with the greatest need. This is encouraging, but now it's time for this Labor government to put this party platform commitment into action, because people can't wait. We need to put dental care into Medicare.</para>
<para>As I said, the Greens will be supporting this bill as a step in the right direction, but these measures alone will not address the broader crisis that is the cost of health care in this country. We strongly encourage the government to go further to rein in specialist fees and the out-of-pocket costs facing patients and to stop private health insurers ripping so many people off, and we need the government to match its own party platform commitments with action properly funding our public healthcare system and making dental care free under Medicare, because people should not have to choose between their healthcare bills and their rent, between living healthily and having something to eat, or between living free of pain and having a roof over their head.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BLYTH</name>
    <name.id>315170</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the coalition supports transparency in health care. We support it because we believe in it and because we built the very tool this bill seeks to expand. It was the coalition that established the Medical Costs Finder back in 2019 so that Australians could go online and get a sense of what they might pay before they ever walked into a specialist's rooms. So, when the government says it wants more transparency for patients, it will find no argument from us on the principle. The coalition will not oppose this bill. But supporting transparency in principle is not the same as accepting that this bill as drafted gets it right, because it does not, and we are not alone in saying so. The committee heard it, the scrutiny of bills committee flagged it and stakeholders have raised it.</para>
<para>Let us be clear about why this matters to ordinary Australians. Out-of-pocket costs in this country have reached record highs. For a visit to a medical specialist, just 28 per cent of services are bulk-billed and the average out-of-pocket cost is now more than $123. For anaesthetics, fewer than nine per cent are bulk-billed, and the average gap is almost $245. And it gets worse. Research by Redbridge found that around 30 per cent of Australians referred to a specialist over the past three years did not go. They didn't go, because they were worried about what it would cost them. Think about that&#x2014;almost a third of people told by their own GP that they needed to see a specialist decided they couldn't afford to find out what was wrong with them. That is the human cost of a system where prices are hidden and costs keep climbing.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>105</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week our government released the exposure draft of our digital duty of care legislation. It is designed to do something pretty simple: put more responsibility on technology companies to identify the risks that their products create and take reasonable steps to address them. For children, that includes protection from harmful material like content promoting eating disorders, pornography, misogyny and crime.</para>
<para>The bill also includes a commitment from our government to deliver My Feed, My Way, giving Australians greater choice over whether they want an algorithm deciding what appears in their social media feed. These algorithms are designed to keep people watching. This is a design feature of social media, and our government says that you should be able to switch them off. The algorithms learn what captures people's attention and they serve them more of it, no matter how damaging it might be to that person's mental health or the wellbeing of that person. We have heard numerous examples of this, of course. For girls, it might feed them content around eating disorders, harming perception and body image. We've seen examples where, for a teenage boy who is lonely, angry or looking for answers, that can mean being pulled further and further into content built around resentment towards women.</para>
<para>What is the coalition's response to this piece of legislation? Of course, we saw very quickly that Senator Matt Canavan, who is one of the loudest opponents of this legislation, was determined to bring it down, attacking it as an attack on free speech. This is not an attack on free speech. This is about giving people a choice about what they see on social media.</para>
<para>For adults, these laws are about illegal content and giving people greater choice over their feeds. For children, they're about protecting them from serious psychosocial harms online. It really was galling to see the coalition rush to declare this legislation unacceptable without ever listening to the views of parents, without ever listening to the views of the advocates who stood outside and demanded that we deliver this change. That tells us something about the choice being made here, because we know that the Liberal-National Party is deeply divided on this policy, but also on their future.</para>
<para>When confronted with the very real problem of boys being exposed to harmful and misogynistic material online, Senator Canavan's answer was apparently not to hold the enormous, powerful platforms and the algorithms serving them to account. His answer was to blame teachers. His answer was to blame teachers, because he wanted to make it clear that he didn't support taking action on big tech.</para>
<para>We should be able to say two things at once in this place. We should be able to say that boys deserve support, good role models, places where they can talk about loneliness, mental health and pressures that they face, and we should be able to say that girls and women should be safe&#x2014;those two things are not in conflict&#x2014;and they should, in particular, be able to be safe online.</para>
<para>I suppose the question for the coalition is this: if you don't want to give people a choice about what they see online, if you don't want people to be able to turn the algorithm off, why do you want to force people to watch content that they don't want to see? As I said, we've all seen examples of this. The example that comes to mind for me was being very close to giving birth, very pregnant and being bombarded by videos about stillborns. I have a lot of empathy for those families and those stories, but that was content that I just did not want to see. Yet Senator Canavan and those opposite are saying that, under their policy and their approach to these algorithms, I would be forced to watch that content&#x2014;forced to watch content about stillborn babies while you are heavily pregnant. That's exactly what they are saying, and I'm sure that other people have examples of that.</para>
<para>You should be able to switch off your feed. It should be your choice. That's exactly what our government is delivering. Those opposite are so bitterly divided on this that they can't stand up for parents and families. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BLYTH</name>
    <name.id>315170</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every generation faces a moment when a government asks for more power than it should ever be trusted with, and this is one of those moments. Let me say very plainly what this side of the chamber believes. We, like all Australians, want children to be protected online. We want the world's biggest technology companies to be held to account. But protecting children must, in my view, never become the excuse for handing politicians sweeping control over lawful speech, over the news Australians read, over political debate and over what Australians are permitted to see. That is not child protection. That is a blank cheque for open-ended political censorship, and no government of any colour should ever be handed it.</para>
<para>Labor's exposure draft goes too far. It contains inadequate safeguards for free speech and for journalism, and it leaves far too much power in the hands of one minister. The power itself, under this draft, is that the Minister for Communications may, by her own legislative instrument, determine new categories of material that are 'seriously harmful'. She may determine what is harmful to children. She may determine which design features of an online service, a recommender feature, a logged-in feature or an endless feed are deemed to have 'negative behavioural impacts'. Minister Wells has admitted she will have the ultimate say.</para>
<para>The reach of the digital duty of care bill is not confined to social media. It extends across the internet to any online service that might carry news, commentary or political debate. Nowhere in this draft do we find the clear protections for journalism and democratic debate that exist in comparable laws overseas. Labor has simply left them out.</para>
<para>Language is important. The bill mentions material that 'encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality' or harmful practices. These are not legal tests. These are sentiments, and sentiment is how free countries lose their freedoms. Faced with vague definitions and the threat of steep financial penalties, no rational company will wait to be told what is unlawful. It will delete first. It will censor first and it will never ask questions. An overly cautious approach will be taken, and government will shape what Australians see without ever signing a single censorship order and without ever having to answer for it in this chamber.</para>
<para>We are told Australians will simply be able to turn off the algorithm. But turn to the bill itself, and that guarantee is not there. It is left to future legislative instruments at the minister's discretion, to be written later, out of this parliament's sight. A promise does not make it a law. We all know what Labor's promises are worth&#x2014;nothing. Nobody in government has weighed the costs to small and family businesses of this country, the ones who rely on digital platforms simply to find their customers at a time when they can least afford another blow from an overreaching, overregulating government.</para>
<para>I judge this government by its record. Labor's own under-16s social media ban has fallen well short of its promise. Three months after commencement, the proportion of under-16s still using social media has fallen just 4.4 percentage points. Some say that five million accounts closed but seven million opened.</para>
<para>I did not enter this chamber to hand governments more power over what free people may lawfully say, read or see. I entered it to defend these hard-fought freedoms. Minister Wells has admitted, when pressed, that the test of what counts as serious harm will be made by her. Labor and the Greens hold the numbers in this place, so let's not pretend that a disallowance motion is a safeguard worth the paper it is written on.</para>
<para>We will always engage in good faith on measures that genuinely seek to protect children, but this bill does not do that. I will not trade liberty for the illusion of safety, and I will not support this bill in its current form. Australians did not send any of us here to make that trade on their behalf, and I for one will not make it on this bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity: Feral Cats</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BLEYER</name>
    <name.id>25813</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about a longstanding invasive species and biosecurity issue in Tasmania that is seriously impacting our farmers: feral cats.</para>
<para>Feral cats have contributed to the extinction of at least 27 native Australian animals. Feral cats cost us as a society up to $6 billion a year, largely due to their impacts on human health and livestock production, and $12 million of the cost is directly borne by our farmers. Diseases carried by feral cats, like toxoplasmosis, cause ewes to abort their pregnancies, reducing lamb survival rates. It is more critical than ever that we act to control feral cats. The arrival of bird flu is putting wild bird populations under even more pressure than feral cats already do. There is only one way to deal with feral cats: trapping them and humanely euthanizing them.</para>
<para>We can't take a 'spray and pray' approach, relying on AI powered gel guns to tell the difference between a feral cat and a Tasmanian devil or a spotted-tail quoll before dousing the animal in lethal poison. That poison is needlessly cruel. If an animal ingests it, it is subject to an agonising death over 24 hours as its muscles spasm before its brain shuts down. We cannot continue to put such harmful chemicals into our natural environment, where we have no control over where they ultimately end up. We can embrace new technology that exists to remotely monitor feral cat traps. This will significantly cut down the amount of time spent checking and resetting traps, which I can tell you from my own experience is the most time-consuming component of feral cat control.</para>
<para>Before I became a senator, I was Chair of the Northern Area Advisory Group to the West Tamar Council in Tasmania's north and was involved in a successful feral cat control program in that capacity. Since 2020, the group has run a successful feral cat control program in collaboration with the local group Landcare Tasmania and my mate local farmer Greg Squires. We have controlled the feral cat population at Greens Beach, Kelso and Clarence Point and saw the return of blue superb fairywrens and bandicoots. The program was initially funded with a modest $20,000, money that the group eked out over the next few years to pay for traps, microchip scanners and a professional feral cat trapper.</para>
<para>The feral cat control program must continue, or the feral cats will quite quickly get out of control again. But the program cannot continue without money, and we can do better than expecting our farmers and volunteers to keep bearing the burden of these programs. Farmers need to focus on farming. We need to help our farmers focus on farming, and we can. Feral cats are federally listed as a key threatening process, so this federal government needs to step up and invest the money required to control feral cats. We have a community based program that we have proved works.</para>
<para>We just need to fund Landcare Tasmania and let them embrace the existing new technology to remotely monitor feral cat traps. This will enhance our proven program, allow feral cats to be controlled across Tasmania more quickly, and let Tasmania and Australia be a world leader in feral cat control. The cost would be pocket change compared to the cost currently caused by feral cats. I want to be clear. I am not anti cat; I'm just anti feral cat. I am a proud cat mama to my two beautiful microchipped and desexed cats. They are happy and safe indoors.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to mark the 25th anniversary of the collapse of Ansett Australia. Let me tell you about Dave Lupton. He worked for Ansett for 27 years. When Ansett collapsed, Dave helped secure millions of dollars for the airline's workers, a move which drove reforms and strengthened protections for Australian workers for generations to come. Dave still vividly remembers the day of the collapse.</para>
<para>Rumours of Ansett's collapse had circulated for years, so, when talk of trouble intensified, many workers simply didn't believe it. Then, at 4.30 in the morning of 14 September 2001, just days after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York City, Dave received a phone call. They said: 'You better get in here. Things are about to hit the fan.' He and other Transport Workers' Union delegates rushed to Sydney Airport before security locked the terminal. The final overnight flights were arriving as the doors closed. Outside, passengers and employees were gathering, wanting answers. Inside, nobody was explaining what was happening. Dave recalls turning to the airport manager and saying, 'You better tell them the place has gone broke.' In the end, it was the union delegates who walked outside and delivered the news&#x2014;Ansett had collapsed.</para>
<para>Dave says it was heartbreaking because, for many workers, Ansett wasn't just a workplace; it was a community. Lifelong friendships had been built on the tarmac and in the hangars. Now, they found themselves standing outside the gates watching their livelihoods disappear. As the morning of 14 September wore on, Dave recalls that hundreds of workers arrived seeking answers. Some families had both partners working for Ansett and suddenly faced losing two incomes overnight. Amid the chaos, union delegates gathered employment records to ensure workers knew what they were owed. Later that day, as 15,000 livelihoods hung in the balance, workers learned that the Prime Minister, John Howard, was arriving in Sydney from the United States.</para>
<para>Dave recalls about 800 workers gathered on the tarmac to make sure their voices were heard, and, eventually, Howard agreed to meet with a small group of delegates. Dave was one of them. That meeting marked the beginning of one of Australia's most significant industrial campaigns. For 172 days, Ansett workers maintained a presence outside the terminal. They even set up a caravan outside Kirribilli House to keep pressure on Howard. When it became clear that the airline was unsalvageable, it fell into administration on the 173rd day. For 10 years, unions worked alongside former Ansett employees to recover every possible dollar owed to workers. Dave played a crucial role scrutinising asset sales, tracking entitlements and ensuring workers knew exactly where the process stood. It was a long and exhausting fight, but many workers had mortgages, young families and debts they could no longer afford, so they refused to give up.</para>
<para>Ten years after the collapse, that determination delivered an extraordinary result. By 2011, former Ansett employees received, on average, $0.96 in the dollar for their entitlements. More than $727 million was ultimately returned to workers. That did not happen by accident. It happened because delegates, like Dave, refused to walk away, and it happened because organised labour kept up the pressure long after the headlines had faded. The collapse was one of the biggest corporate failures in Australia's history and exposed serious weaknesses in Australia's protections for workers when businesses fail. The power of the Ansett workers helped drive reforms to employee entitlements and protections, including improvements to the General Employee Entitlement and Redundancy Scheme, the predecessor to today's Fair Entitlements Guarantee.</para>
<para>Those changes were won through persistence, solidarity and collective action. They were won because working people organised and fought for what was rightfully theirs. The jobs and economic challenges may be different today, but the fundamental question remains the same: who carries the risk when things go wrong? People like Dave Lupton gave Australia a powerful answer. Working people should not be left to carry the cost of corporate failure. That is the legacy of Dave and the thousands of Ansett workers who stood together, and it's a legacy Australia will never forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>297964</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on Labor's proposed digital duty of care exposure draft. This legislation is a masterclass in policy deception. Sold as yet another tool to protect children online, it is about control, not care, and Australian adults are the primary target.</para>
<para>This socialist agenda is not new for Labor. In 2013, they introduced six controversial media bills to police the press. The backlash was swift from all sides, except for Labor, and those authoritarian changes were dumped. We know that those on the socialist benches have always wanted this control, and now they're trying to take it again, but this time they're using the cloak of child protection.</para>
<para>Let us look at the logic. They want to choose what is harmful content and make it illegal, but illegal content is already illegal under existing Australian law. As for protecting children, Labor claims that kids are no longer on social media anyway, following their age restrictions. So how exactly does this new regime help them? It doesn't. Instead, this digital duty of care is about handing enormous powers to the government to define and censor good and bad content.</para>
<para>In a recent interview, Minister for Communications Anika Wells admitted that she would personally determine what is harmful content via regulation, guided by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. So under this bill we will all end up in Minister Wells's corner of the internet. God help us all. The full scope of these regulations will not be known when parliament votes on the bill, but we do know that this bill is designed to make Minister Wells the ultimate information umpire. Wells admitted her powers as digital commissar would extend to news sites, exposing Labor's endgame. This bill is not about protecting citizens; it's about protecting Labor's grip on power, because the internet is no longer working in their favour. This entire exercise reminds me of the final chapter of George Orwell's <inline font-style="italic">Animal Farm</inline>. The pigs are now walking on their hind legs, pretending to represent us while moving to silence us. We will not be silenced.</para>
<para>Labor claims that, under their socialist bill, any parliamentarian can trigger a disallowance vote 15 sitting days after a new category of harm is censored by the Labor minister. But with the parliamentary calendar the minister knows that, when we are two weeks from an election, there is no parliament. It means an underperforming Labor minister will be able to silence critics at the eleventh hour of an election. The public may not be aware, but if one of these disallowances was triggered this Friday, the House would not vote on it until next February. This is what the government thinks is oversight. Fifteen sitting days is nowhere near enough time to protect Australians from an undemocratic minister being authoritarian with the truth&#x2014;a minister, I might add, who cannot even manage her own travel allowance correctly.</para>
<para>Labor's ministry of truth, headed by Minister Wells, is actually&#x2014;to quote Orwell&#x2014;the ministry of lies. When the executive government&#x2014;</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Collins.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>297964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I quoted there, President.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It doesn't matter whether you're quoting or not; you're to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>297964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Understood&#x2014;I will withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>297964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When the executive grants itself the power to decide what constitutes the truth, reality becomes whatever serves the party's political interests. With harmful content being defined behind closed doors by political appointees, how long will a free press last? How long will Australians be allowed to challenge government failures before critical reporting is simply scrubbed from the internet as disinformation? Once these initial parameters are in place, they will be weaponised.</para>
<para>I don't care how anyone in this place tries to hide behind a false notion of protecting our kids. I will not vote for this dangerous, condescending and outright authoritarian slop. They want to control what you see, what you hear and what you think. If this horrific legislation passes this place, it is a dark day for Australia and a dark day for our democracy. I urge this Senate to outright reject this dangerous assault on our fundamental freedoms.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government understands that Australians are working hard and feeling the pressure in their household budgets, whether from groceries, power bills, rent, fuel or the everyday costs of raising a family. People want a government that recognises those pressures and acts responsibly to ease them. That's exactly what Labor is doing. We're delivering real, practical and permanent cost-of-living relief through a fairer tax system, helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is unlike those opposite, who, at the last election, advocated increased taxation.</para>
<para>Our tax agenda amounts to five tax cuts and relief mechanisms delivered in three different ways. This means, for a worker on average earnings, the combined benefit could be as much as $2,816 each year, compared with the tax settings that applied in 2023-24. This is money that can help pay for the weekly shop, school expenses, a tank of fuel or overdue bills.</para>
<para>The first reform was Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts, which began on 1 July 2024. We redesigned the previous tax plan so that every Australian taxpayer, not just some, received a tax cut. We reduced the first tax rate from 19 per cent to 16 per cent, reduced the 32.5 per cent rate to 30 per cent and lifted the threshold for higher tax brackets. That delivered a bigger benefit to low- and middle-income Australians and ensured millions of people who would otherwise have missed out received relief.</para>
<para>The second tax cut took effect on 1 July 2026. The tax rate applying to income between $18,201 and $45,000 fell from 16 per cent to 15 per cent. This cut benefited every taxpayer because everyone who earns above the tax-free threshold pays tax through that bracket. For taxpayers earning more than $45,000, it provides up to an additional $268.</para>
<para>The third tax cut will begin on 1 July 2027, when that same rate falls again, from 15 per cent to 14 per cent. Together, the two further rate reductions provide taxpayers earning above $45,000 up to $536 a year in additional relief, compared to the 2024-25 settings. These reductions also return bracket creep and improve the reward for work, particularly for low-income and part-time workers.</para>
<para>The fourth reform is a $1,000 instant tax deduction from the 2026-27 income year. Eligible workers can choose to reduce their taxable income by up to a thousand dollars for work related expenses without keeping receipts.</para>
<para>The fifth reform is the permanent working Australians tax offset for 2027-28. It will provide an annual offset of up to $250 for more than 13 million Australians who earn income from work. It will be applied through the tax system after a worker lodges their return, giving nurses, teachers, tradies, retail workers, carers, truck drivers and sole traders another permanent tax cut.</para>
<para>But, with all of these things, Labor also has had a deliberate approach to relieving the cost of living for Australians. Cost-of-living relief must make a real difference without undermining the fight against inflation. That's why these measures are targeted, staged and permanent. They put money back in the household budget while strengthening workforce participation and supporting a fairer, more productive economy.</para>
<para>And tax relief works best as part of a broader plan. The Albanese government is delivering cheaper medicines, a stronger Medicare, more bulk-billing, permanent Medicare urgent care clinics&#x2014;Launceston has the best and the busiest in the country&#x2014;cheaper child care, free TAFE, student debt relief and support for higher wages.</para>
<para>Compare that with those opposite, who, quite clearly&#x2014;this is not us saying it; this was what they went to the last election with. Higher taxes! What we see now is that the Liberals and Nationals will do whatever to try and outmanoeuvre One Nation, their new leader. They are being led by One Nation. Australians know that, with a Labor government, they will get support when they need it. Australian workers will get support when they need it. They cannot afford the 'tri-alition' of those opposite.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:29</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>
