2026-10-13 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 13 October 2026

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Middle East 1 12:01 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion relating to Gaza, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, I move: 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 Gaza. Three years of Israel's genocide in Gaza; three years of mass murder of Palestinians; three years of killing more than 21,000 Palestinian children; three years of hundreds of aid workers and journalists hunted and killed; three years of violently and rapidly expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank; three years and counting of Israel's depravity and evil— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I'm going to stop you there and remind you that you need to talk about why the matter is urgent and why you need to suspend standing orders. You need to talk to the suspension and not to the substantive matter of the motion. Senator FARUQI 250362 The substantive matter is genocide. It's been three years of genocide where the Albanese government has done nothing. That is why the matter is urgent. We bring this motion as an urgency motion for the government to act. This government can't call these atrocities and war crimes what they really are, which is genocide. That is why this matter is urgent: because for three years the Albanese government has taken no action to stop the genocide. For three years, the Albanese government's impunity and active support for Israel's depravity and evil has led to this genocide continuing. That is why this matter is urgent. Rather than stopping the arms trade and rather than imposing sanctions on Israel to stop this genocide, they've been trying to shut down those of us who have been calling out this injustice and this genocide. That is why this matter is urgent. An overwhelming majority of Australians think that what Israel is doing is wrong. That is why this matter is urgent. But, rather than stopping the genocide, what the government has been doing for three years and counting is weaponising legislation to silence us. Rather than stopping the genocide, what the Albanese government, with One Nation and with the coalition, have been doing is gaslighting those who try to speak out. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I remind you again that we are not debating the substantive motion. We are debating your motion to suspend. Senator FARUQI 250362 There's a genocide still going on, and that is why this matter is urgent. If this chamber can't see that, then I don't know what I have to do. This matter is urgent because this Senate needs to do something about this genocide. Despite all of their gaslighting, despite all of them trying to silence us, we haven't stopped. The movement hasn't stopped, and we won't stop. This matter of genocide that we have put on the table today and have been putting on the table for the last three years needs to have some action taken against it today. Who the Labor government chooses to align Australia with tells you everything that you need to know about their values. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, once again, you are debating the motion instead of the motion to suspend standing orders. Senator FARUQI 250362 It is urgent because even since the so-called ceasefire Israel has killed four Palestinians per day on average. The Albanese government can't just wash their hands of not acting on a genocide. They can't wash their hands of the blood of Palestinians. It is on their hands. This is why this matter is urgent. I've said before that the Prime Minister has never met a billionaire he didn't love, but watching him take selfies with one of the active participants of this genocide, Trump, is particularly galling— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi. Senator FARUQI 250362 The Prime Minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, if I call you, you stop. I've reminded you again—you are not debating the motion; you are debating your motion to suspend. They are different. Senator FARUQI 250362 The genocide hasn't stopped. You can try and stop me, but the genocide hasn't stopped. The illegal settlements go on. The violence goes on. The mass displacement goes on. The killing of children goes on. You can try to stop me however much you like, calling on— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, come to order! I have been absolutely consistent with suspensions since I was elected president of this chamber. I direct everyone, every single senator, who is not talking about a suspension back to the matter. I have been absolutely consistent and I'm being consistent now. It's not a choice I'm making to stop you. I am upholding the standing orders of this chamber, and that is clearly my role as president. Please continue. Senator FARUQI 250362 This matter is urgent because, instead of siding with humanity for Palestinians, our government chooses to cosy up with Trump, a warmonger whose barbaric ideas include threats to annihilate Iran, a fanatic whose so-called peace plan has prevented justice for Palestinians. Trump is a sadistic con artist who now plans to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, once again— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I've called you once again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, if you don't come to order, I will seek the assistance of the chamber, and you won't be heard. In your final moments, please refer to your motion to suspend standing orders. Senator FARUQI 250362 This motion is urgent, and it should be debated today because people around this country and people around the globe are calling on their governments to name the atrocities for what they really are—a genocide—and for this government to urgently pass the Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026, which will stop any future government from going down this path of complicity and genocide; will expel the Israeli ambassador; will impose sanctions on Israel; and will end the two-way arms trade. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Your time has expired. Senator Faruqi 250362 From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. The PRESIDENT 112096 Your time has expired, Senator Faruqi. Senator Hanson BK6 You're a disgrace. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator Hanson. You stand up and you withdraw. Senator Hanson BK6 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. 12:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion put by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

12:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 Middle East 4 12:19 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to move a motion relating to genocide as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator THORPE 280304 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: 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 genocide. I'm proposing the suspension of standing orders today because last week marked three years of Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people. This means three years of relentless, intentional killing, destruction and displacement; three years of Israel using starvation as a tool for genocide; and three years of this country doing nothing to stop this genocide. I seek to suspend standing orders to move this important motion to call out the continued inaction of the Labor government in the face of a genocide broadcast live to the world. Under the genocide convention, which this country is signed up to, it is our obligation to punish and prevent the crime of genocide and to act to stop it wherever it occurs. There is no excuse. It is clear that what Israel is doing constitutes genocide. In September last year, the United Nations independent international commission of inquiry concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and called on all states to fulfil their legal obligations to prevent— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I remind you: this is about a suspension motion, not about the motion you've put. We've now moved on. Senator THORPE 280304 It's an urgent motion because Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the commission has called on all states to fulfil their legal obligations to prevent genocide and end their complicity. This is an urgent motion because this country is just failing to act in the face of genocide. It is actively complicit in it. It continues to supply weapons parts. That's why this motion is urgent. This government is supplying weapons to Israel to commit genocide—that's why this motion is very, very urgent—and not only weapons but fuel and military intelligence to support Israel. That's why this motion is urgent—because this country maintains trade and diplomatic relationships with Israel. That's why it's urgent. There could be no more urgent reason to suspend standing orders today, and every other day, than to act in line with our most fundamental human rights obligation: to prevent and stop genocide. We cannot keep going with business as usual. That's why this is urgent. Every minute we don't act could mean the life of another Palestinian is lost. Israel's intent was clear from the beginning. That's why this motion is urgent—because, when Israel announced on 9 October 2023 that no food, water or humanitarian aid were allowed to enter Gaza, it started one of the largest starvation campaigns in the world. That's why this motion is urgent. Within a short time 2.3 million Gazans were starving. That's why this motion is urgent. Never has the world seen such starvation so quickly. People were starving to death in a world of abundance, in a world where supposedly a rules based order exists. Has everyone just given up on that order? That's why this motion is urgent. What if it happened here? Letting Israel get away with breaking all international law is why this motion is urgent, and they are breaking the most basic rules of humanity, in the 21st century, without consequence. That's why it's urgent. It sets a dangerous precedent and makes this world a scary place for all of us—even you, President. We need to suspend standing orders today, urgently, because there is no more important issue to act on than genocide and to prevent the destruction of life. There is no excuse of not being able to apply sanctions when this country has sanctioned other countries such as Russia. That's why this motion is urgent. There is no excuse for the Albanese government's inaction at all. (Time expired) 12:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the motion as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 12:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:31]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. 29 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Gallagher, K. R. Gatenby, C. (Teller) Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 5 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 5 Order for the Production of Documents 5 12:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In relation to order number 27, I've previously advised the Senate that the minister made a valid claim of public interest immunity over documents in the scope of this order—documents which directly related to the deliberations of the cabinet. I am unsurprised but happy to advise that the basic principles of Westminster government and of cabinet confidentiality have not changed since I last explained them to Senator Bragg in this place. Breaching this confidentiality would do serious harm to the ability of cabinets to conduct the business of government, and that is in the interests of all Australians and future Australians. We know that this OPD circus is in no way about transparency, and it's certainly not about respecting the institutions and the powers of this Senate. If Senator Bragg respected the institutions of this parliament, he would not be abusing the Senate's power to order the production of documents. It is as simple as that. To have people in the so-called Liberal tradition—what's left of it—continuing with this flagrant and shocking abuse of the parliament's processes just shows how far the Liberal Party has drifted from the mainstream of Australian politics. This is about one thing, really, plain and simple—besides the egos of the characters involved. It's about the coalition undercutting Australians who want to get ahead with a five per cent deposit. All of this is because Senator Bragg thinks that there's evidence there somewhere that the five per cent deposit scheme would cause some stratospheric rise in home prices. He will stand here in this chamber and argue that prices are going up too much because of five per cent deposits, and then he'll go outside the chamber and argue that prices have gone down too much because of our tax reforms. That inconsistency doesn't trouble Senator Bragg and it doesn't trouble the modern Liberal Party, because consistency has stopped mattering to the characters who lead the modern Liberal Party. A belief in institutions has stopped mattering because they have left the mainstream. Senator Roberts has left planet Earth, essentially, and these guys have left the mainstream. We saw that on the weekend—the drift of the coalition. It's not enough to talk about polarisation. They've left the political centre. Mr Taylor, who leads this tiny— Senator Bragg 256063 I have a point of order on relevance. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the matter before the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 These are generally wide-ranging debates. However, I will remind the minister of the topic before the Senate. Senator AYRES 16913 We are all trying to fathom how it is that this matter keeps being brought forward, and I'm doing my best to explain how it is that a once proud political party of the centre right has become so unmoored from where ordinary Australians are, from where Middle Australia is, that they have drifted off. On the weekend, we saw it. Mr Taylor was the first Liberal leader to join the conga line of supplicants. He went to this foreign funded, extremist CPAC conference on the weekend on his knees, apologising and grovelling to this offshore funded organisation. This party has lost its way completely. Senator Bragg 256063 I have a point of order on relevance. This is about an explanation about the provision of a document. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Bragg, I appreciate that you have brought the minister back to that question. Rules of relevance are relaxed in these debates. I will remind the minister of what the question before the Senate is. Senator AYRES 16913 Senator Bragg raises relevance. In order to be a mainstream political party, you have to have relevance to the things that matter to mainstream Australians. Do you know what matters? Five per cent housing deposits matter to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've taken advantage of them, who've got a roof over their heads that they can call their own, who are making their payments in a diligent and serious way and who Senator Bragg mocks every day of the week. 12:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. I rise to again take note of this appalling explanation. I have to restate the objective here. Our job is to get to the bottom of things and to find out why things have gone wrong. What happened with the five per cent deposits was that, after they were uncapped and all the means testing was removed after the election, they pushed up the house prices at the entry-level point. The cheapest houses skyrocketed in their pricing, and the government have not given the modelling that they relied upon when they changed the scheme. All the government needs to do is to provide the information without redactions, like we see here. Then this attendance motion will go away, and Minister Ayres won't have to come back and complain about having to do his job. What he is doing is complaining about having to do work. The work he has to do is to provide the explanations as to why the government took particular policy positions. In this case, they must explain the parameters and the assumptions used when they changed the five per cent deposit scheme, which has had an adverse impact on the Australian people. This five per cent deposit scheme has been a disaster for many Australians, because they are going to be left in negative equity or have paid too much for the price of their house. All we are trying to do is get to the bottom of things. But apparently that is not something appropriate for this Senate to undertake. I say to the minister: he should go home, and the government should go home, and we should pack this parliament up and forget about it! The whole point of coming here is to get to the bottom of things and to make things better for the Australian people, but this scheme has been a disaster for many Australians, particularly those who were encouraged to take out 95 per cent loans and then smashed with tax increases which have destroyed the value of their houses and put those Australians into negative equity. When we ask the government how many people are in negative equity, they haven't got an idea. They haven't got a clue. They haven't got a clue, because almost all the work they do is covered up with redactions and black ink. We are trying to get to the bottom of this, just like we're trying to get to the bottom of the assumptions underpinning the tax hikes. The government said that $77 billion of new taxes were needed to fix the housing system. What we have seen since the budget is fewer houses, higher rents and fewer mortgages to owner-occupiers. That is a trifecta of failure if ever there was one. The government say that they want us to have confidence in them and that they are doing the right thing by democracy. Then release the documents, or, as Mr Burns would say, 'Release the hounds!' Show us. Act with integrity. Let the Australian people inspect the assumptions that you relied upon when you made these judgements to uncap this scheme for five per cent deposits—which you peddled. You peddled it on your social media, and you said the 95 per cent mortgages were fantastic for everyone. Then you dumped these taxes onto the people, and it's pushed people in hundreds of suburbs, especially in Melbourne, into negative equity. That is the job of this parliament—to get to the bottom of things, and we will never stop doing that. If we do then we're giving up on the Australian people. Whatever people's political opinions might be, I know that they want one thing. They want effective government and they want an opposition to hold the government to account, because that gives you the best outcomes for the people. For the government to be so arrogant and disgusting—endemic across this government—in their approach to orders of this Senate and in the way that they have treated people who try to get basic information is a disgrace. They appeal judgements made by the information commissioner through to the courts. They're now trying to impose costs onto people who dare to try and get information. They are darkening this democracy. All you need to do is to look at the analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity, who remind us that this is the most secretive government since the Keating government. It's the most secretive government, as measured by their responses to Senate orders, as you've seen today. The minister has basically said, 'We're never going to give you the documents,' and he's going to complain about the Liberal Party. That's how committed he is to democracy! That's how he's going to spend his time. He is paid by the taxpayer to be a minister of the Crown. He refuses to give the information. All he's got to say is 'the Liberal Party is bad'. That is a disgusting response. It is an offensive response to people who love this country and just want to see the normal operation of this democracy be undertaken by the participants here in this chamber. That is our job. (Time expired) 12:44 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to take note of the minister's contribution here this morning. I want to express my disgust at the way in which he has come into this chamber today and just played pure politics when, out there, millions of Australians are struggling with rent they can't afford and with rising mortgage costs and a housing crisis that we have not ever seen before in living memory in the post World War II period. On every target, Labor is missing its goals, and it's leaving Australians in a cost-of-living and housing crisis of extreme terms. All its modelling and its cabinet's workings are failing the Australian public. We've heard a minister come here today and talk about institutions, about egos, about consistency—nothing about the problem that is facing renters and homebuyers, especially first home buyers. When we look at the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's latest report, with its Labor target of 1.2 million homes, which it critiques in terms of whether that target can be met, it makes the point—and we know—that Labor will not meet that target by December 2029. In fact, they're going to go well past that 2029 target. Recent ABS data tells us that the national accord is almost 95,000 houses behind that target. We know there's a crisis out there, and we are missing every target. We're especially missing targets in relation to building public housing. We used to have a proud 10 per cent of our housing supply stock for public housing. Now, we are at less than four per cent around the country. In a lot of places, it's much, much lower than that. And we hear Labor come into this place this morning and talk about their assumptions and their offerings, like the five per cent deposit scheme. The jewel in their crown that they talk about so often is the HAFF target to provide 40,000 new homes, so we're told, by mid-2029. What we know from the accounts provided in the analysis done by the Audit Office is that we are so far short of that target as to be laughable. It would be laughable if it weren't a tragedy. There have been 1,432 homes added to stock through the HAFF halfway through the program, so far short of its 40,000 target. A program where 1,432 houses have been added to stock—half of them purchased; not even really additional to the stock. So, even if the HAFF were to meet its target of 40,000 homes, it doesn't touch the sides of the crisis we are in, with 640,000 Australians living in severe housing stress every day. It has been a year since Labor expanded the eligibility of the five per cent deposit scheme, and, since then, the average first home buyer mortgage has surged by $50,000. People have taken out huge loans that have put them at real risk of losing their homes, and they've faced increases in their mortgages and prices that have fallen. The Reserve Bank has warned that those first home buyers with big loans are the most at risk of falling into negative equity. We have a crisis there that is penetrating so many households where young people and first home buyers are most at risk. So Labor's policy has resulted in these massive increases in mortgage costs which severely affect those first home buyers, who are being bludgeoned with an interest rate policy which is actually a response to inflation caused by rising profits of massive multibillion-dollar organisations, like the banks. There was $30 billion in profit for the banks in the last financial year, and it's those first home buyers who are paying the price in rising mortgages. This government is letting corporate profit driven inflation run wild. Banks and big supermarkets are making money, making bank, while those first home buyers are cowering under massive increases in their mortgages. Ordinary Australians are paying the price for a strategy which is causing and contributing to a growing housing crisis. The government needs to find solutions for those first home buyers that don't push them into greater risk of negative equity—and it's time that the big banks made a bigger contribution—which is so profitable and causing so much pain for those with growing and large mortgage debt. Housing, just like education and health, is an essential service. Labor has dropped the ball, and the minister has compounded the insult to this chamber today by failing to turn up here and give us the background, the information and the policy solutions that Australians want. 12:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland When the government released its housing policy, we warned about the debt trap, which is exactly what is happening. The debt trap has closed on young buyers. We warned about the negative equity arising. Here it is. Thank you, Labor! We warned about changes to capital gains tax. Look at the consequences. We warned about negative gearing being abolished. Here it is. We warned about interest rates increasing because of Labor government spending. Here it is. It's the perfect storm, thanks to the Labor Party. We will continue to expose this lazy, tired, dishonest, incompetent government. 12:51 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I think it's really important that we talk again about why this discussion is one that needs our attention. The government have spoken often about their home deposit guarantee scheme and how it opened the door for young Australians to buy homes. At the time when that occurred, we alerted the government to concerns around the inflationary impacts of opening that up to absolutely everybody. The government insisted that wasn't going to happen, and yet it did. In the six months to December of last year, prices went up some six per cent, so there was an inflationary impact. Any reasonable person would probably surmise that would occur. The government insisted it wasn't going to occur, yet it did, and I think that points to their understanding of how our economy operates and also reflects somewhat on their ability to manage that economy and why Australians are struggling in the way that they are. In addition to that, at the budget this year, the government then decided to make a raft of sweeping changes to our tax system in association with the Australian Greens that have created significant impacts to many Australians who are trying to save to buy a home and to those that already own property and particularly to those young Australians who purchased a dwelling under that five per cent guarantee scheme. Those opposite would suggest that it's scaremongering from those on this side of the chamber. It's not scaremongering; they are facts. They are facts that are also articulated by the Reserve Bank. I want to read to you something from the AFR that came out some 10 days ago. It wrote: Releasing its six-monthly health check of the Australian financial system on Thursday, the RBA found households overall had enough savings and cash-flow buffers to manage the stress caused by rising interest rates and high inflation, but financial distress was building among low-income borrowers. What's the context of that? The Reserve Bank of Australia has warned that first home buyers who used the Albanese government's 5 per cent deposit scheme face a greater risk of falling into negative equity as property prices head towards their biggest correction in four decades, fuelled by four interest rate rises this year— courtesy of the Albanese Labor government and 16 interest rate rises in total courtesy of the Albanese Labor government. What those on the other side of the chamber, in association with the Australian Greens, wanted to call intergenerational equity, the RBA is now saying, has resulted in first home buyers most at risk of negative equity, and 'financial distress was building among low-income borrowers'. How's that for an own goal that young Australians pay for, that Australians who have scrimped and scraped for years to enter the housing market have to pay for? It's unbelievable, but it is real. It's perhaps a living nightmare for those people that have been impacted by it. We've spoken about it in this chamber before and we'll do it again now. This government has delivered a trifecta of failure on housing. We have fewer homes, we have higher rents and confidence in the housing market has been shattered. All of those things are as a result of the actions of this government. And now we have 15 per cent fewer construction apprentices as a result of the actions of this government, at a time when we need to build more houses. What else is going to happen here apart from the fact that they have crushed Australians with the cost-of-living crisis, that they have crushed small business with a cost-of-doing-business crisis, that in particular they have crushed the construction sector when we need more homes? How much worse can it get? A lot, sadly, which is why we need to get rid of this government as quickly as possible. At the current rate, Australia is completing just 173,000 homes a year against a 240,000 requirement under this government's own target. At the current rate, this government will fall about 335,000 houses short of the 1.2 million target that they've set for themselves. It's just not good enough. Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 9

Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026

Consideration of House of Representatives Message 9 12:57 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: That the committee agree to the amendment made by the House of Representatives which is identical to the Senate amendment. 12:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move an amendment, as circulated, to the motion: That the motion be amended as follows: At the end of the motion, add: 'but the Senate reaffirms its constitutional right to amend bills where an amendment changes the destination of money appropriated, but does not increase the amount of proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation'. I want to thank other parties in the chamber for the productive discussion on this. It is important that the Senate retains its very firm position that, when an appropriation bill comes before the chamber, we are entitled to extend the class of peoples who can receive the appropriation. We're not intending to increase the appropriations but to extend the class of peoples or even vary the class of peoples for whom an appropriation can be granted. I note and I'm grateful for the advice the clerks have given—indeed, Deputy President, from some of your previous rulings in relation to this. I won't repeat them, but I refer to them for the reasons why we put this amendment through. I would like to say phooey to the other place, but I understand they have a different view. The CHAIR 30484 I wouldn't dare comment on that! When the Senate considered the government amendment to the bill which the minister has moved the Senate should agree to, I made a statement indicating that the amendment would be dealt with as an amendment, not a request. This reflects the precedents of the Senate in relation to these matters. Amending a bill to change the allocation of proposed expenditure and the purpose for which money is to be appropriated has long been considered to be within the power of the Senate. Nevertheless, it is clear both options are open to the chamber. I will put the amendment if there's no further debate. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to the motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 10

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Second Reading 10 13:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 The question before the chair is that the second reading amendment that was moved by Senator Steele-John on behalf of Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:06]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Ciccone)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bleyer, V. E. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. 27 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:08 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move the second reading amendment on sheet No. 4176: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that aged care providers: (a) should have the right to refuse to provide a voluntary assisted dying process in relation to any resident in their care; (b) must advise all residents and applicants of any policy to refuse to provide a voluntary assisted dying process; and (c) must take reasonable steps to ensure the transfer of any resident who then wishes to secure a position with a different provider". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.  

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

20 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. (Teller) Blyth, L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bleyer, V. E. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Ruston, A. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Direction to Committee 11 13:16 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 to: (a) incorporate Schedule 4 in a separate bill; and (b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement and a provision giving effect to the amending schedule. It is the Greens position that this bill should be split. There is no disagreement in this chamber about the urgent need for the First Nations commissioner role to be made permanent. That has been indicated in the evidence from stakeholders, and it has in fact taken the government too long to create the position of the permanent role for the First Nations commissioner. However, it was inappropriate for the government to add amendments to this bill seeking to put the escalation pathway for the IAT. The very fact that the government has today circulated an amendment removing the seven-day review period and now making that subject to the rules means that this chamber does not have enough information before it to appropriately vote on that part of the bill. We know that the integrated assessment tool is not working. We have had evidence after evidence before the inquiry telling us that that tool is either underassessing or simply inappropriately assessing the care needs of older people. Older people deserve a minister and a government that is willing to stand up, acknowledge the failures of that assessment tool, acknowledge the fact that they should never have removed human override for that tool and come to this chamber with a bill that explicitly addresses those concerns. It is inappropriate to tie these amendments for the IAT to the First Nations commissioner when there has been broad agreement for some time. It is the Greens' position that we should get on with schedules 1 to 3 and pass the bill to implement the permanent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner but that the government needs to come back to this chamber with an actual plan to fix the IAT. The Senate has already passed a motion indicating that human override should be reinstated immediately. Schedule 4 does nothing to address that concern. This chamber has also passed a motion saying that the government needs to rework the integrated assessment tool. Schedule 4 does none of those things. It is inappropriate for the Senate to have to deal with an insufficient schedule 4 that has been tacked onto the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026. We see the government do this all the time. They take something for which there is broad agreement, and then they tack on something else to try and fix a problem without actually addressing the material concerns. Were this bill to pass with the IAT schedule 4 attached, it would give a free pass to the government for its failure to acknowledge the very serious concerns with the integrated assessment tool. The government and the minister seem to be of the view that the only issues with the tool are for outlier cases and that simply giving an escalation pathway for—I think these were the words the minister used yesterday here in the Senate—'exceptional cases' will fix the problem. They are not exceptional cases. We have heard from hundreds and thousands of older people and from their carers, their families and their assessors that the integrated assessment tool is wrong. We have heard from Professor Kathy Eagar and from Mr Ian Yates, the former interim Inspector-General of Aged Care, that the integrated assessment tool is fundamentally flawed. This chamber should not be asked to hold up the long-overdue appointment of the permanent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner because the government has tacked on a schedule that does not deal with the fundamental flaws in the integrated assessment tool. We know that older people are being harmed by the failures of this tool. We know that older people are being harmed by the inability to have a clinician sitting in front of them who can understand the environment in which they live and the nature of the relationships that they have with the people who care for them—or the absence thereof—and who can take into account their frailty and the complexity of their conditions. The minister said yesterday that the escalation pathway is designed for complex cases. I put it to you that the needs of the majority of older people are complex, especially when they require high prioritisation and high levels of care. They are the people who are consistently being underassessed. It is not a solution to the problems of the integrated assessment tool to force older people into another review spiral. What older people need is an assessment made by clinicians with the assistance of a tool—not decided by a tool—to genuinely assess the support that they need. We have heard evidence in the inquiry that the way this tool has been designed is backwards. Instead of the question, 'What are the health issues, what is the condition of the older person in front of us, and what supports do they need?' being asked first and then, based on that assessment, a decision being made about how much it will cost to provide the support that has been assessed as needed, older people are being assessed under this tool as being eligible for a particular level of funding, and then providers and carers are having to make that funding package work to try and support the level of need. We are hearing consistently across the board that people's packages are not extending to the level of care that is required. The Greens ask this chamber: let the bill that contains the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations commissioner be dealt with and passed by the Senate today. It is long overdue and it needs to happen. But I am also asking the chamber not to force us to deal with an entirely insufficient and inadequate schedule 4 and to remove that and split it out into another bill. 13:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think that Senator Allman-Payne has just put on record the Greens's actual position. She has said the quiet part out loud, which is that the Greens are determined to move this motion so that they can stop the government from establishing an escalation pathway. That is the very clear conclusion that we must draw from the contribution just made by Senator Allman-Payne, and it's up to the Greens to explain to the Australian public why they don't think that this amendment—this change to the aged-care system—is important. But it is not a position that the government disagrees with. This bill establishes the capacity for an escalation pathway for home support assessment decisions, and it should be really clear to people that it will make a real difference to older people who have complex extenuating circumstances that don't fit neatly into existing assessment processes. This government has been working tirelessly since we came to office to establish an aged-care system that is fit for purpose, not just fit for the circumstances that we confront now—circumstances shaped by a decade of neglect—but for the circumstances that will come next year and the year after as more and more older Australians move into that period of their lives where care either at home or in a residential aged-care facility will be necessary. Part of that has meant regularising the way that we assess individuals and their care needs, because consistent national rules are an essential feature of any fair, sustainable system. Those were not the circumstances prior to the government's reforms. The previous assessment system delivered wildly varying results depending on the assessment organisation that assessed you, depending on where you lived, depending on how you presented and depending on how you made your case. That is what the integrated assessment tool seeks to address. Assessment organisations, peak bodies, advisory group members and representative groups told us that the system needed a way, though, to deal with exceptions to the rules, and that is what the bill that is presently before this chamber seeks to do. In seeking to split the bill, what Senator Allman-Payne has made clear is that the Greens position is that this shouldn't proceed, that this amendment shouldn't occur and that it shouldn't be established as a means to support older Australians to have their care needs assessed appropriately. That is disgraceful. It is disgraceful game playing in a context where we are seeking— Senator Allman-Payne 298839 That's not what I said. You are verballing me! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 Order! Interjections are disorderly, Senator Allman-Payne. Senator McALLISTER 121628 This is disgraceful game playing at a time when the government is seeking to do serious work over years to repair a broken aged-care system. The bill also, of course, strengthens the representation and advocacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the aged-care system by creating a dedicated commissioner, and that is a proposition that also ought to be supported by this chamber. We seek to establish the office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission so that that commissioner can advocate for the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders and older people and promote culturally safe, trauma informed and responsive aged-care services. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 299352 It being 1.30, we will now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 13 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Small Business 13 13:30 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales How much harder is this government going to make life for small businesses? They're being hit with taxes that they never voted for, they're paying more for electricity when they were promised it would cost less, they're paying higher interest rates that they cannot afford, they're paying more for inputs because inflation is out of control, and they're facing a thicket of new regulations, whether it's changes to the Fair Work Act, scope 3 emissions or new AML/CTF frameworks that they have to adhere to. This week, the government is introducing legislation to hit the family trust tax structure that they use to run many of their small businesses—yet another assault upon their business model. Just last week, we saw the government endorse a new blow, and it's the ATO banning them from using credit cards. When the government has told small businesses to suck up and absorb the charges that credit card providers were putting through to them, the ATO said they were going to refuse to do it, and it had a huge hit on the businesses' cash flow as well. We now have small businesses failing in Australia at a record rate—small businesses which employ five million Australians and which account for one-third of GDP but which, more importantly, provide the lifeblood of our communities, are the source of innovation and are the vehicles for the hopes, dreams, aspirations and ambitions of many Australians. Do you want to know why this is happening? It's because there is no-one in cabinet with any small-business experience. That's not from me; I think that's true. That's from one of Labor's own members of parliament telling a journalist that there is no-one in cabinet with any small-business experience. Do you want to know why this is happening? It's because we have a small-business minister who knows nothing about small business—another Labor MP. Labor are hurting small business, and they are hurting Australians in the process. Cybersecurity 13 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Acting Deputy President Stewart, it's good to see you in the chair. Congratulations. October is Cyber Security Action Month, and the Australian Signals Directorate have, in recent days, reminded us why it matters. Australia joined six international partners in warning about Chinese-government-linked hackers targeting organisations worldwide. At the centre of this warning is Integrity Technology Group, a Chinese company with ties to the CCP. It builds hacking tools, provides the computers to run them and helps hackers attack and break into networks. Imagine an offender that is trying every door on a street, looking for one that is left unlocked. Automated tools do something similar, scanning the internet for weaknesses, such as an old server or software that has not been updated. Once they find a way in, real people take over. They hide behind networks of hijacked everyday devices, like our home routers, where they steal passwords, copy emails and take sensitive files. Common targets include government agencies, hospitals, universities, airports, energy companies and other organisations in the supply chain. In the US, these tools were recently used to probe a power company. The FBI has seized websites behind two of these tools. This year's theme is 'Take a second. Stay secure.' Update your software, use strong passwords and replace equipment that no longer gets security updates. Turn on multifactor authentication and please read the advisory on cyber.gov.au. The government has rightly banned DeepSeek from its own devices for security reasons, and businesses right across the country should do the same, particularly when handling sensitive data that needs the same care taken. It's national security, and it starts with the basics. United States of America: Human Rights 14 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Australians right across the country are horrified at the suggestion that an execution by firing squad would be live streamed across the world. The US administration are suggesting that they may indeed do this. This is absolutely barbaric. This is disgusting from a country that we are meant to share values with. It beggars belief that, in 2026, a nation that calls itself a democracy, that is meant to value the rule of law and that is meant to care about peace in our time would be prepared to broadcast live, as almost a government PR media moment, the execution of one of its citizens. Australians have every right to be disgusted, and they want the Albanese government to say something about it. We've heard the eSafety Commissioner say that the laws as they currently stand could not pre-emptively stop Australians having this barbaric act streamed onto their phones and onto their smart devices. Pick up the phone. Pick up the phone to the big tech companies who want to stream this content and say no. I urge the Prime Minister to pick up the phone and call the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and tell him no. Western Australia: Gas Industry 14 13:36 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Congratulations, Madam Acting Deputy President Stewart, on the new role! Keep your hands off our gas, Canberra. Keep your hands off our gas, Labor. The Western Australian gas industry is an enormous success for a story not just for Western Australia but for this country and for so many of our geopolitical strategic partners overseas. Be it Japan or South Korea or Taiwan, these countries rely on our gas to ensure their own economic and industrial security. The Browse project alone will see $30 billion of investment in my home state of Western Australia, helping to keep the lights on not just here but around the world. To our political partners overseas, this is a vital investment and one that should not be threatened by federal Labor's gas reservation policy. It might sound as though Labor won't interfere when they talk about a ministerial discretion that will be used to carve out Western Australia. But the trouble with that is that you cannot trust this Labor government. They have promised so many things before, and then it's, 'Oops, we've changed our minds.' So, what's to stop a new minister? Let's say Minister Bowen were given the resources portfolio. Who would trust him for one moment not to interfere with the Western Australian gas industry? Labor cannot be trusted with the WA gas industry. Keep your hands off our gas. Workplace Relations 14 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Congratulations, Madam Acting Deputy President Stewart, on your ascension to the seat of power! Last Thursday I hosted a round table with Minister Sophie Cotsis, the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Work Health and Safety, and Simon O'Hara from Road Freight NSW, bringing together representatives from across the road transport industry and government to discuss the important issue of sham contracting. We were joined by the Transport Workers' Union; the National Road Freighters Association, NatRoad, the Victorian Transport Association and the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, alongside the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office, the federal Treasury and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. It was a wide-ranging and productive discussion, with valuable contributions from industry, the TWU, regulators and government about the challenges facing the sector and the need to ensure workers and businesses are operating on a fair and level playing field. The Fair Work Ombudsman provided an update on its work as at 7 October 2026, highlighting the scale of activity underway to address sham contracting and worker misclassification. This included five current road-transport supply-chain investigations, 30 investigations referred from external stakeholders and 39 infringement notices issued for unlawful independent-contractor advertisements. There were also 13 compliance notices involving worker misclassification, more than $94,000 recovered for 17 workers and 24 current cases being investigated in relation to sham contracting and misclassification. And I want to congratulate the Fair Work Ombudsman on their work. What a magnificent job they are doing. But whatever happens, we have to continue down this path. If there are ratbags out there exploiting their workers and avoiding tax and payments, you need to put them in. Let us know who they are. We'll pass that information on. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 15 13:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The speeches submitted for this year's Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign by young people in the ACT were passionate and thoughtful, and I'm privileged to be reading a speech to the Senate written by Chase: Hello my name is Chase. I'm 12 years old. My electorate is Bean and the problem I am researching is food waste which is a big problem with billions being wasted in a year. Food waste happens for many reasons. A good example of food waste is grocery stores throwing away fruit because of its shape, or size or even its straightness. The issues shaping the future is that we are using resources inappropriately. The government and parliament could educate people through things like social media. If it gets too bad, a law could be introduced to stop waste of food. They could also make policies for farmers that if they sell products, the shape, size etc shouldn't matter. They can also influence the companies because of the control they have. If we don't stop wastage this could be an extreme issue particularly for climate change and can deeply affect the environment and people who need to eat. The government should be a leader in this space and if needed make policies to influence stores to ignore the shapes of food and focus on feeding people. Unfortunately, there were so many submissions that you obviously can't read them all out, but I want to thank all of the young people who've sent in speeches to be read by senators and parliamentarians. It's great to have young people putting forward problems, and, really importantly, solutions to those problems, to their elected representatives. I sincerely hope that, as elected representatives, we will spend a lot more time dealing with the root causes of some of the problems that we're facing and, for the young people up who come here, setting them and their futures up for success. Child Abuse, Domestic and Family Violence 15 13:42 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory There is a quote attributed to Nelson Mandela that seems most fitting: There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children. In 2022, three of our children—Port Hedland's Jamelia, Arnda and baby Kelvin—were murdered. Their grandmother had sounded the alarm to authorities, to no avail. Reports have emerged that, just kilometres away, some 15 children were living in squalor. Labor politicians have tried to pass the buck, but the fact remains that our children were failed by the systems meant to protect them. In Alice Springs, my own family buried our five-year-old niece Sharon Napanangka, a beautiful little girl with a bright future unforgivably stolen from her. And who can forget the 2024 case of Jeffrey Alan Brown, who abused four Indigenous children but had his sentence reduced because of his 'significant connection to country' and 'commendable attempts to keep his culture alive'? What does it say about the soul of our nation when we treat our most valuable, our most precious, like this? When the Prime Minister was asked about child protection, he pointed to the states. Well, Mr Albanese, leadership is not something to be palmed off at a state border. These are Australian children, full stop. We need urgent improvements to the way warnings of abuse and neglect are treated, and properly-resourced frontline services, because, Mr Albanese, if you cannot protect our children—the very soul of our nation—who are you governing for? Raise Our Voice in Parliament 15 13:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today I'm proud to read a speech from Breanne, a 17-year-old from the federal electorate of Grey, who has submitted her speech through the Raise Our Voice campaign. The following are Breanne's words to our parliament and to our country: There are many concerning issues that will shape my future, such as the cost of living, housing affordability, and financial disadvantage for higher education. But the major issue is the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday life. Now don't get me wrong, AI is a highly beneficial tool that I myself use, whether it be finding the right word, breaking down concepts or getting feedback. But the technology that supports me now is also changing the future that I am preparing for. From job automation and loss of human agency to deepfakes and more, this tool is becoming increasingly capable of learning the ways we work, write and live. The question is: If AI becomes more capable, how much control are we willing to give it? AI can mimic the way that I have been taught to write in school, automate my future job, steal my human agency, and make us question whether something is real or not. Therefore, I put forward that Parliament introduce laws that hold Big Tech companies accountable for the AI technology they create and release into our lives. Don't let my future, and the bright futures of all young people, be shadowed by a technology we cannot regulate. Protect our human agency, so we can move forward into a future we can trust. Thank you, Breanne. I'm very proud to have read out your words today and delighted to see so many of my colleagues doing the same for the raise our voices campaign. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 16 13:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As part of this year's Raise our Voice in Parliament campaign, here's a speech written by Adelaide, who is 10 years old and lives in Tasmania: Hi, I'm Adelaide. The problem that's affecting my future is gambling. There are lots of different types of gambling but the one that affects my future most is online sports gambling. This is because sports gambling is so easy to access with just a few clicks on the phone or computer. People with gambling addictions are losing the money they would otherwise spend on food, housing, jobs, insurance and sometimes they can't afford transport to school or to pay for their kids after school activities. They are affecting their family, friends, and their social lives. They're losing their lives! Gambling losses need to stop. Australians lose most of their money from gambling. 70% of Australians take part in some form of gambling each year. Gambling addictions have got in the way of what could be a long, wonderful life. You need to make this change happen, and limit the exposure of gambling to children. Adelaide, we here couldn't agree more with that very sensible and heartfelt call to this parliament. Thanks to Adelaide and to all of the young people around Australia who submitted speeches this year to the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Cost of Living 16 13:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I wake up every day grateful that I live in this lucky country, but I also fear that what makes us the lucky country is being worn down. The notion of a fair go is being whittled away bit by bit. The Sunday Times reported on the weekend that more than 15 per cent of Western Aussies are living in poverty. Shockingly, that number also includes almost 100,000 kids. Why is this happening in the wealthiest state in one of the richest countries in the world? I'm super aware of how privileged I am financially, and I have a whole community of people around me to help navigate new motherhood, but, like I mentioned last sitting, being a new mum is not easy. It's the most challenging thing I've ever had to do. I don't know how the hell families, particularly single mums, are navigating these challenges in the middle of a cost-of-living and housing crisis even on regular incomes. For those below the poverty line, it's much, much worse. JobSeeker and other forms of welfare have not seen any substantial increases, despite promises from the Labor Party when they were in opposition. Then there are mums in remote WA. They already have the added burdens of the lack of access to services. But I guess it's okay; they get an extra $9 a week via the remote area allowance—nine bucks a week! Sure, they could cut the avo toast, but—I had a quick look—an avo toast is $15 in Broome and $16 in Carnarvon. It's time to increase JobSeeker, it's time to increase the remote area allowance and it's time for the Labor government to return to their roots and to the promises they made before they were in power. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 16 13:50 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Today I'd like to read out to you a speech written by a young South Australian who was part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. The speech reads: I'm Orlando, 11 years old, and I go to school in (the) Mayo electoral district. Making buses free for kids is a great idea that would benefit children, families and the community. Many families spend a lot of money on transportation each year. If children could ride buses for free, parents would save money that could be used for important things such as food, school supplies, and clothing. Free buses would also help children get to school on time. Some students live far from their schools or activities and may not have reliable transportation. Free bus travel would give all children equal opportunities to attend school, sports, libraries, and community events. Another benefit is that free buses could reduce traffic on the roads. If more children use public transport, fewer parents will need to drive them. This would help reduce traffic jams and lower air pollution, making cities cleaner and healthier. In addition, children can learn responsibility and independence by using public transport safely. They can become more confident as they learn how to travel around their community. Overall, making buses free for kids would save families money, improve access to education and activities, reduce pollution, and create stronger communities. It is a positive change that could make life better for many children and their families. Freedom of Speech 17 13:51 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia Yesterday, when Senator Hanson asked about Labor supporting terrorism with taxpayer funding, Minister Watt proudly jumped up and reminded us all that One Nation was the only party that voted against Labor's hate speech laws. Thank you, Minister Watt. I always appreciate an opportunity to remind Australia that One Nation is the only party that is serious about protecting free speech in this country. Freedom of speech is not optional for a Western democracy; it is foundational. Being able to speak freely is a mechanism we use to protect and promote all the other rights that we enjoy. That is why One Nation stand against the Labor Party's sustained attacks on free speech. But don't forget that it was the coalition government who first planned to give the ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation. Labor cited these plans when they introduced their horrendous misinformation and disinformation bill. After the Bondi massacre, in came Labor's hate speech laws, supported by the coalition. Now we are confronted by Labor's latest abomination, the digital duty of care. Labor won't stop here. They can't stand that Australian people are speaking out against them. They can't stand that people are turning in droves to One Nation. Instead of changing and listening to the people, they are assembling their censorship apparatus. They take away your rights in the guise of protecting you. How about this, Labor? Why don't you stop giving taxpayer money to fundamentalist Islamic organisations that hate this country? Why don't you stop bringing back women who aided and abetted terrorists? Why don't you stop importing people from countries that your own departments deem too dangerous to travel to? This has never been about the safety of Australians. The only thing Australians truly need protecting from is this Labor government. One Nation is the only party Australians can rely on to protect their right to free speech. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 17 13:53 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm reading this speech on behalf of Alexis, who is 15 years old and submitted this speech as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. This speech discusses suicide of young people. For anyone watching online, I'll be speaking about this for the next two minutes or so if you'd like to tune out. This is what Alexis says: As a teenager, living regionally, in the next 10 years, I'm at a high risk of committing suicide. 74% of Australians, aged 15—25, experience at least one mental health issue. Yet seeking help. I expose an ineffective system. …   …   … The average waiting time for someone from Medicare is 100 days. For a specialist, it's 130 days in metropolitan areas. Living regionally my waiting time increases to 250 days but I can't always access the help that I need. Because of my postcode, I'm at further risk due to isolation, lack of resources, poor funding and even privacy from social stigma. …   …   … There's access to telehealth helplines but in many parts of regional Australia reception is limited, making these calls impractical. Medicare subsidises 10 sessions. Once used, I'm back to drowning. For many regional people, private care is unattainable. These systematic failures explain why in regional areas suicide rates are 62% higher than metropolitan areas. As well as why self harm hospitalisation is 24% higher. …   …   … Our federal government needs to subsidize more hours of therapy through Medicare, and it needs to invest in youth workers and mental health specialists all over our country, not just our major cities. We're not just statistics. We cannot be left behind. Private Health Insurance 17 13:55 Senator GATENBY 324140 Tasmania I rise to condemn the Albanese Labor government's continued push to cut the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. After a damning Senate inquiry, the report was tabled last week, with government senators still recommending passing the bill—this despite the coalition's opposition and the opposition of many older Australians, like those from my home state of Tasmania. And yet, Labor presses on punishing pensioners. To top it off, freedom of information documents now raise questions about what Labor knew about its impacts. Health Minister Mark Butler said repeatedly that 44,000 older Australians would drop their cover—already too many. And yet, now these documents indicate 78,000 could drop their cover. That's 34,000 more people. These older Australians could end up in the public hospital waiting lists, and departmental figures show 3.2 million older Australians would be affected by the rebate cut. That's around two million older Australians who live on less than $37,000 a year. For a single person over 70 with gold hospital cover, this cut means an average additional cost of $408 a year. Despite the evidence heard throughout the inquiry, Labor is asking older Australians to pay more while failing to give them the full picture of the consequences. This government just makes up policy on the run. Older Australians deserve honesty. They deserve affordable health care. They should not have to sacrifice meals or heating to maintain their cover. The Albanese government should abandon these unfair cuts to health. And, to every Tasmanian over 65 with cover, remember: it was this Labor government that abandoned you and your health care when you needed it the most. Lark, Mr Bill 18 13:57 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania A great Tasmanian, Bill Lark, is a true Tasmanian living legend, a pioneer and one of our state's great tourism ambassadors. Mr Lark's remarkable journey began with a simple question on a fishing trip at Lake Sorell: why was nobody making malt whisky in Tasmania? Together with his wife, Lyn, Mr Lark challenged laws that had restricted distilling for more than 150 years. In 1992 they secured Tasmania's first distilling licence since 1839 and founded LARK Distillery, helping to revive an industry that is now admired around the world. Through vision, perseverance and uncompromising commitment to flavour, Mr Lark showed that world-class single-malt whisky could be created in Tasmania. Using Tasmania's pure water, exceptional barley and cool climate, he produced whiskies of extraordinary richness and character, demonstrating that Tasmania could stand alone right beside Scotland and offer the whisky the world has got used to—but now they look to Tasmania for the distinctive flavour of his whisky. Bill Lark has become an icon of Tasmanian tourism, welcoming visitors, sharing our island's story and mentoring a new generation of distillers. His induction into the world whisky hall of fame and his role with LARK's global ambassadors reflects the international respect he has earnt. Mr Lark is even doing whisky tours of Scotland now, showing people how whisky is made, and he's probably on his way to Japan now doing the same thing. Mr Lark did more than build a distillery. He created belief. He showed that Tasmanians can produce the world's best products. His legacy is poured into every glass, a lasting testament to Tasmania's integrity. Women's Economic Security 18 13:59 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Last year, the Fair Work Commission found workers in female orientated industries have been underpaid and undervalued. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has made women's economic security a priority. Today the government announced that it will fund significant wage rises for care sector workers. That is an amazing thing for the women of Australia. Labor will do more for the women of Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. We'll now move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Small Business 18 14:00 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Wilson Asset Management has released fresh data estimating small and family businesses face up to $13.3 billion in restructuring fees and tax advice to deal with your government's tax changes to discretionary trusts. Why is your government waging war on small businesses in this country? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Leaving aside the rhetoric over there, I would make the point that I made yesterday: we have actually seen more small businesses under our government over these last years than when we came to government. I would also make the point in relation to trusts that the government made clear in the budget: we will be working with small business and other interested parties around how to deal with the changes in the taxation arrangements. For the small proportion of small businesses who are affected—I think it was in excess of 90 per cent of small businesses that will not be affected at all—the government indicated we would provide rollover relief if they wish to restructure so as to maintain their tax arrangements in the context of the changing tax laws. In other words, we said, for that proportion of small businesses that do use trusts—again, it's only 10 per cent, I'm advised—we recognise this is a change. We will have a transition period and a process of consultation around that change, and we will also look at rollover relief so that people can restructure their business arrangements to deal with this change. Senator, I think it's the opposite of the language that you used. We are seeking to be consultative with very important community members and a very important group in our economy, who contribute enormously to the economy more generally but also to local communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The budget indicates that it expects to raise $4.5 billion over five years from these changes, but how can struggling small businesses afford to spend two to three times that amount just preparing for the changes? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make two points. The budget included a tax reform package which provided over $3.8 billion in new tax relief for businesses. That is the first point. The second is in relation to the changes to trusts. I again say to you, Senator, 90 per cent of Australia's small businesses do not use trusts. Of the 10 per cent that do, we have said we will ensure that there is rollover relief if these small businesses wish to restructure into different legal arrangements, such as a company or a fixed trust, in circumstances where that is beneficial for them to do so. Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU This is Senator Nampijinpa Price's question. I'm trying to respond to her. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called the opposition to order many times. Senator WONG 00AOU I have said we will provide rollover relief to enable and facilitate small businesses changing their structure. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Instead of slugging hardworking Australians with yet another tax, will the Prime Minister actually listen to small and family businesses and scrap Labor's proposed trust tax—yes or no? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We introduced a range of tax reforms of which that is one. They are reforms, and those reforms have enabled the provision of new tax relief for small business and have enabled an additional tax cut for every working Australian. I know the coalition seems to have an aversion to giving tax cuts to every working Australian. We actually think that is a good thing to do. It is a good thing to do in our economy. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from Senator Hume, who has no credibility when it comes to talking about taxes on working people, because we know that, as shadow finance minister, she argued for higher deficits and higher taxes. That is her political position and that has not changed, and she has been rewarded with that somewhat extraordinary position with a more senior position inside the coalition. Women's Economic Security 19 14:05 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Last year, the Fair Work Commission found workers in female dominated industries have been underpaid and undervalued. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, please resume your seat. I have Senator Tyrrell on her feet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong! I can't hear the question. We have moved on. We're on question No. 2. Senator Tyrrell, start at the beginning, please. Reset the clock. Senator TYRRELL 300639 Last year, the Fair Work Commission found workers in female dominated industries have been— Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, please resume your seat. Minister Wong, who is it that you're seeking to have withdraw? Senator Wong 00AOU It's Senator Hume. She knows. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, please withdraw. Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hume. Senator Watt 245759 There have been repeated slurs against Senator Wong, and Senator Ruston in particular should withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I did not hear a comment, but I know that, if you believe you've been unparliamentary, you'll withdraw. Senator Ruston 243273 I do not believe I've been unparliamentary, but, if any offence was taken by anything I said that wasn't unparliamentary, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 No. If I've asked you to withdraw, that's what I want you to do. There are no ifs and buts about it. If you believe you were unparliamentary, I ask you to withdraw. There's no preamble to it. Either you're withdrawing or you're not. The choice is yours. I'm going to invite Senator Tyrrell to start her question from the beginning. Pease reset the clock. Senator TYRRELL 300639 Thank you, President—for the third time. My question is for the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Last year, the Fair Work Commission found workers in female dominated industries have been underpaid and undervalued. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has made women's economic security a priority. Today, the government announced that it will fund significant wage rises for care sector workers. How will today's announcement make a difference to hundreds of thousands of Australian women? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for her advocacy both for women's economic security and, in particular, for those industries where this pay rise will make the most difference. For too long, workers in female dominated industries have been undervalued and underpaid. The pay rise for 460,000 health, disability and community service workers will be welcomed across that sector. They deserve fair pay that reflects their skills and experience and the nature of the important work that they do across our communities right around Australia. There are frontline workers who help find housing for people facing homelessness, who support women and children escaping family and domestic violence, who deliver food to families in need or who help people with a disability find a job that they love. The Fair Work Commission's findings recognise that work done by women has been undervalued for too long because of gender based assumptions. Our $630 million investment will support charities and not-for-profit organisations to meet the award wage increases without compromising services that Australians rely on. Over 128,000 organisations funded under 92 programs will receive extra funding. This includes legal assistance workers, housing workers, youth workers, community development workers and First Nations health and community services workers, and it follows on our investment in wage increases in aged care and early childhood education—again, workforces where the majority of workers are women. In total, the Albanese government has now invested over $25 billion to address gender undervaluation of wages in women dominated sectors. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Improving women's economic security and safety are both critical to driving gender equality in Australia. Recently, Australia received its highest-ever ranking for gender equality—eighth in the world. What work is the Albanese Labor government doing to continue to close the gender gap, and why is this important? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for that supplementary. As Senator Tyrrell said, Australia is now ranked eighth in the world for gender equality, which is our highest-ever ranking. In 2021, we ranked 50th. In 2022, when we came to government, we ranked 43rd. We have climbed 42 places in five years. Now, this didn't happen by accident. It happened because the Albanese Labor government has made women's equality a priority for our government. In addition to those wage increases that we're talking about today in aged care and early childhood education and care, we've also made record investments in women's health and in women's medicines and treatments, including for menopause and contraception. More than a million women have accessed cheaper medicines since 2025, saving over $150 million. Because of that program, more women are getting access to the treatments they need and the health care they need in a convenient and affordable way. There is more work to do, but we on this side of the chamber will keep doing it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:12 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We know an economy that works for women works for everyone. Minister, how does addressing pay and conditions in feminised industries deliver better outcomes for all Australians? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for that supplementary. I've always advocated that an economy that works for women works for everybody. New research by the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, in their recent report Goodflex, bad flex has made interesting findings: that flexible work arrangements are worst in feminised industries and that, where good flexible work arrangements operate, women are often able to stay in those jobs for longer and work through their career progression to higher levels. So we know that, when we get flexibility, everyone wins. Women are healthier, they have more job security and employers have less turnover and skill shortages. This is an important work, and it will feed into other policy decisions the government will take over the coming year. Community Grants 21 14:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese government reportedly awarded almost $70,000 in taxpayer funded grants to the multicultural youth centre in Melbourne, an organisation now under scrutiny following revelations about the accused flydubai terrorist's alleged connections to individuals who were affiliated with that centre. Has the government suspended or terminated these grants, and is it taking any steps to recover the funding already paid? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to flydubai, there is the pilot involved in that horrific attack. I understand that there is a joint counterterrorism team comprising the AFP, Victoria Police and ASIO. They have confirmed they're investigating the man's links. I'm obviously not going to comment on anything that is relevant to that investigation. More broadly in relation to grant funding, I think all political parties, including your party, make public election commitments to community groups, including multicultural community groups, and that is appropriate. I think your party also made such commitments. Any government funding is provided with the expectation that organisations conduct themselves in line with guidelines and funding agreements and in accordance with the expectations of the taxpayer. All of the multicultural grants are administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, the government grants framework and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. If any activities breach these, obviously funding will be reviewed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given there is no confirmation on the previous question, can the minister confirm whether the Department of Home Affairs has commenced formal reviews into these specific grants, including whether the organisation continues to satisfy its funding conditions and whether there are legal grounds for terminating the agreements or recovering taxpayer funds? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't have any further information in relation to that particular grant in the terms that you've outlined. If I can obtain that information, I will do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania If the government has not suspended any payments, commenced recovery proceedings or taken steps to terminate the funding agreements, can the minister explain what safeguards are currently in place to protect taxpayers' money while these serious allegations are being investigated? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia ():  Thank you, Senator Duniam. As I said at the outset, I outlined the framework and requirements that apply to Commonwealth funding in these areas. It would be my expectation that Home Affairs is managing these funding arrangements in accordance with that framework. International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 21 14:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales ():  My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, you and your government have consistently referred to the shared values Australia has with the US, even as the Trump regime is planning to live stream a public execution. Can you please explain to the Australian public the shared values between us and a government that publicly broadcasts state sanctioned snuff films? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to the application of the death penalty, Australia has a longstanding position—which is bipartisan and cross-party, I hope—that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and for all peoples. That is a principled position that every Australian government, regardless of whether they're coalition or Labor, has taken and that every Foreign minister has taken in relation to death penalties being imposed on others and certainly in relation to Australian citizens. That has been our position. The United States and other countries have a different view on this. I put this position on these issues consistently, whether it is to those with whom we work more closely or those with whom we have more disagreement. In relation to the vision of an execution. I agree it would be deeply distressing for any such vision to be live streamed. We don't believe anyone should be confronted with it, particularly younger Australians. Australians have a right to expect such content would not appear on their screens or on their teenagers' feeds. I would make the point that we believe that platforms do have a responsibility to meet these expectations, and I would also note— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry? You want to interrupt? In relation to the US government, they are very clear about the Australian government's position. It has always been the position of the Australian government. We've always put this view about the death penalty. I also note— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I asked about shared values when it comes to live streaming an execution. Well, what about shared values when, as we saw just this week, US congresswoman Ilhan Omar had her home raided by the President's ICE paramilitary force, with federal agents going in just three weeks before a midterm election? It was clearly politically motivated. Are these also values that your government shares with the United States? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, my apologies: I said 'second', but it was your first supplementary. 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure what—we don't comment on every domestic action that every government takes. Senator WONG 00AOU I know you're the leader now, but perhaps you could allow me to respond. I know you don't like the answer, but we don't comment on every domestic action that every government takes. We don't comment on every domestic, repressive action that President Putin takes. We don't comment on everything we disagree with that every democratically elected leader takes. We comment on things if asked, and we comment on things where they are in Australia's national interest. As a matter of principle—we are a democracy—we believe that democracy should function with the ability of individuals to fully and fairly contest elections and to be free to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, will you criticise a single thing that Australia's largest ally does? For example, the United States has just made a fresh deal with Russia to buy billions of dollars of Russian diesel that will fund the Russian war machine in the illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is while your government refuses to join Europe and close the loophole that allows billions of dollars of Russian oil to be sold in Australia after it's washed through third-country refineries. Are they also values you share with the United States? Senator Watt 245759 Really? Senator Ayres 16913 It's you and Babet. You're the same. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, order! Senator Ayres, I'm not going to go around the chamber calling out the interjectors. I'm going to remind the chamber that Senator Shoebridge has the right to have his question heard in silence, and I shouldn't have had to call order. 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I cannot believe Senator Shoebridge is seeking to lecture anybody on Russia and Ukraine. It really is quite extraordinary that he is seeking to lecture us on Russia after his comments. That really demonstrates a level of front that is quite remarkable. There might be other words for it. Hypocrisy might be one of them. But, seriously, you stood up, as Greens leader, and one of your first proper foreign policy statements was to back away from Ukraine. Senator Shoebridge 169119 On a point of order on relevance, my question is about this government allowing billions of dollars of Russian oil to be sold in Australia and saying nothing when the United States has done the same. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I have reminded you on many occasions that standing up for a point of order is not an opportunity to make a statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, you are not in a debate with me either. I've also reminded you of that. You've raised your point of order. I'll remind Minister Wong of the question, and I would ask you to respect me when I am speaking. Senator WONG 00AOU You asked me about differences of views on Russia. I made clear yesterday our position— Senator Shoebridge 169119 No, I asked you about sanctions on oil. Senator WONG 00AOU I made clear yesterday our position on Russia and Ukraine. It is you who has changed position. You are lining up with both One Nation and President Putin when it comes to Ukraine, so don't give us a lecture about the position on Russia. Senator Shoebridge 169119 On a point of order, again, on relevance, I know the minister doesn't want to talk about letting billions of Russian oil in— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. You are being disrespectful to me as the president of this chamber. On the last point of order, just a few seconds ago, I reminded you not to make a statement. I've reminded other senators of the same thing in this chamber. I expect all senators to do as I've requested them to do. You've made a point of order. There is no point of order. I'm going to ask the minister to continue, and I will listen carefully to the minister's answers. Senator WONG 00AOU We have a very clear position on Russia. It's a pity the Australian Greens do not. Wages and Salaries 23 14:24 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing and Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator McAllister. We on this side of the chamber know how important it is to secure the health and care workforce that Australia needs now and into the future to ensure that Australians can receive essential care. We also know that fair pay is an important part of building that workforce, but, as the Fair Work Commission found, their work has been undervalued for far too long. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering fairer wages for these workers to better reflect their skills and expertise and the vital contribution that they make to our community? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As Senator Grogan knows very well through her work, health, disability and community services workers show up every single day to care for Australians. Their skills, their expertise and their compassion change lives, and they strengthen the communities that we all live in. On this side of the chamber, we actually understand how important this work is, and we value it, but for too long these workers have been undervalued. We heard from the Fair Work Commission that gender based assumptions contribute to this. Our government has acted. We changed the Fair Work Act to put gender equality at the heart of workplace relations, and now we are investing $630 million to help deliver fairer pay for more than 460,000 workers. We're backing the commission's decision with real funding because workers deserve higher wages and Australians deserve continued access to essential services. It's worth reflecting on what that means in practice. It means that a disability support worker will be paid more fairly for helping people with disability live more independent lives. It means that an allied health assistant will be better rewarded for helping a person who's had a very serious injury rebuild their skills and rebuild their confidence. It also means helping organisations retain experienced workers and attract the next generation into these essential jobs because our population is growing, our population is ageing and more Australians will need care and support in the years ahead. Today's announcement builds on the Albanese government's investments for the future workforce, including making prac placements free for eligible nursing and allied health students. We know that we cannot build the workforce of the future if we fail to value the workers that we need today, and that is what our investment in health, disability and community workforce is about. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:27 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today's award wage increases build on the Albanese Labor government's work to deliver fairer pay across the health and care sectors. We on this side of the chamber recognise the vital contribution of our health and care workforce, including aged-care nurses, to make the lives of older Australians so much better. They deserve fair pay for the essential work they do. Could the minister please outline how the Albanese Labor government has supported better wages for our aged-care nurses. 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Aged-care nurses do an incredible job. They look after our loved ones. They deserve more than gratitude; they deserve fair pay. It's why this year we delivered the fifth wage increase for aged-care nurses. Since 2022, enrolled nurses on the most common level and pay point will have seen their wage increase by almost $32,000 per year. Better pay for nurses means aged-care homes can attract and retain nurses. It helps build a stronger workforce, and it helps deliver higher quality care. We know that this is important as Australians are living longer and living healthier lives. But not everyone in this place agrees. In fact, the response from the current leader of the opposition was to complain that these workers are 'disproportionately unionised' and have received 'hefty pay increases'. Those opposite see the fair wages for aged-care nurses as a problem. We see it as an investment in the care that older Australians deserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister, for outlining what a great job the Albanese Labor government's doing. Senator McDonald 123072 Self-praise is no praise at all. Senator GROGAN 296331 Thank you for that interjection, Senator McDonald. Minister, can you please tell us why it is important to pay fair wages and what are the threats to building and retaining the skilled workforce that Australians desperately need, both now and into the future? 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales On this side of the chamber, we want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. It's why we are delivering fairer pay for workers who support vulnerable Australians when they need it most. It is why we delivered tax cuts, for example, for every single worker. On this side of the chamber, we back workers through actions. On the other side of the chamber, it seems that they're more concerned with dressing up as workers. Over the weekend, we saw Senator Canavan get all dressed up in his hi-vis for CPAC. We've seen the Leader of the Opposition at different times put on a hat and pretend to be the Man from Snowy River. And pretty much every day the shadow Treasurer gets up and pretends he's a serious professional who's across his brief. Those opposite can dress the part, but there is no amount of hi-vis and no number of akubras that can hide the fact that they have absolutely no plan to back workers. Manufacturing Industry 24 14:30 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister for Industry and Innovation and the Minister for Science, Minister Ayres. In February last year, I started raising concerns with government, federal and state, about the financial situation regarding the Gupta Family Group, known as GFG, and how their financial issues could and would ultimately flow down to Liberty's manganese smelter in Bell Bay. The responses I got were basically, 'We know,' 'We're watching this closely,' and, 'We can take action, as we've done with the green steel fund.' Then, in March, Ernst & Young was appointed as an administrator to find a buyer. Six months later, we hear it's being liquidated because there are no viable buyers. I've heard that a number of offers have been made. Minister, how many offers have been made or put forward, and why have you assessed them as non-viable? 14:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Lambie, thank you for that question. You're right that you, amongst many other Tasmanians, raised from the outset the set of issues that surrounded the Liberty Bell Bay facility and a range of the assets that were owned by Mr Gupta's organisation around Australia. It is the case that both of these things were happening, Senator. These issues have been raised, and I'm grateful for the local perspective that has been brought to this by the Tasmanian Labor senators and by you in the chamber here and directly with me. It's also the case that, obviously, from my department's perspective and from the Albanese government's perspective, we've been watching this set of developments very closely. I can't tell you how disappointed and angry I am, and the government is, about what has happened in Northern Tasmania. This facility, in the early 2020s, was among the most efficient—in the top-half—manganese smelters in the world. For all the rhetoric that's run by some of the people opposite about the inefficiency of Australian manufacturing, this was an efficient manufacturing facility. It has been run into the ground by Mr Gupta and his negligence in running that facility. The people who own manufacturing facilities are really just the stewards— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 My point of order goes to relevance. I just want to know how many offers have been put forward and why they have been assessed as non-viable. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. There was quite a preamble to your question, which the minister is also entitled to answer. Please continue, Minister. Senator AYRES 16913 I don't intend to skip the question directly. During the administration, during this period of liquidation, there are a number of proponents who seek to either run that facility or run alternative operations, and Tasmania and the Commonwealth are looking at those closely— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I still didn't get it. The manganese is critical for steelmaking in this country, especially for speciality hardened steels, and the risk to Australia of dependence on overseas supply chains is obvious every time we put fuel in our cars. What advice has your department provided in relation to the national significance and strategic importance of the manganese smelter and its role in the national industrial plan? 14:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Lambie. It was of course a significant Australian industrial facility. It provided manganese, historically, for Whyalla and for the Port Kembla steel plants. It was also a significant input into US steel production. So it played an important role. It was run into the ground by its previous owner. The point I was trying to make as I was wrapping up is that a manufacturing facility needs care every day and every week, particularly a smelter. If that care isn't applied and the investment doesn't occur, it breaks down and it becomes more and more expensive to run. Between the Albanese government and the Rockliff government in Tasmania, we provided a $10 million package to extend that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, on a point of order? Senator Lambie 250026 I just want to know what advice his department has provided in relation to this. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant. I'll listen carefully and, if he isn't being relevant, I'll draw him to the question. Senator AYRES 16913 The advice was it's very significant and damage has been done because of the behaviour of the previous owner. We provided a $10 million package to extend the administration and pay workers' wages, and an offer on the table— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, I hear the administrator is now liquidating Liberty Bell Bay and has authorised Manheim Australia to start selling critical components and spare parts. This will ensure the facility can never be returned to operation. That's it dead and buried. If a viable offer is put forward, Minister, will you intervene so that it can be properly considered and we can avoid the loss of the onshore capability? 14:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'll come back to you directly with the dates that liquidation started and give you a timetable, Senator Lambie, but liquidation has been underway for some time. We have, I think, demonstrated as a government that, where we can deliver, we do. Right next door is Bell Bay Aluminium. A very significant joint intervention by the Albanese government and the Tasmanian government has delivered for 500 jobs there in Bell Bay and the George Town community and more than a thousand jobs in the region. I was in George Town just a few weeks ago and met with workers from Liberty Bell Bay in the front bar of the Pier Hotel, as it happens. We talked about what has happened in that community and the hard work that that community is doing to try and recover its position. If there's anything the Albanese government can do here, we're watching it closely, and I think we've demonstrated in industrial facilities that we understand how important these are for the country and how important they are for industrial communities. Artificial Intelligence 25 14:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I've got another question for the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Minister, OpenAI told the Joint Select Committee on AI that they would be providing Australia with red-level access to their Daybreak cyber program. When will Australia get this access, and how much will it cost us? 14:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I can speak to that with some generality and then, if I can come back to you on the specific reference that you've made, I will and, if I can come back to the chamber, I will. This government has a world-leading approach here. It was the Albanese government and the Prime Minister himself who raised these issues directly with OpenAI and their CEO and raised them publicly on behalf of all Australians. It underscores the rationale for the position that the government has adopted. I think the work that the joint select committee has been undertaking over the last period has done that as well, and I'm grateful for the work that's happening across the parliament to make sure that we elevate these questions. There are issues here in relation to cybersecurity around artificial intelligence, but they are by no means the only issues in relation to safety and security, and the safety and security issues are by no means the only issues in terms of our future resilience and our future security. We're making sure that, through legislation here and in the House of Representatives, we deliver a clear legislative framework that makes sure that artificial intelligence investment here in Australia happens on Australia's terms in Australia's interests and we're lifting our capability for all of the economic and resilience reasons that have been outlined. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I appreciate you coming back to the Senate with details. Given the Medicare breach, surely access to leading cybersecurity must be a priority for your government. Can you tell us at least a bit about something the taskforce is looking at? How don't you know when we have access to Daybreak? 14:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Let's be clear about one element of that question for people who might have been listening to your question. The breach that happened of an Australian government database was serious and, in terms of the information, minor. And if somebody was listening to your question they might have inferred, when you said 'Medicare database', that there were somehow personal details—information that should be kept private—that were the subject of that breach. That is not the case. It in no way undermines the seriousness of the set of issues that sit underneath this. And making sure, as we've seen and expect to see— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory On the one hand, you tell us that you're world leading. On the other hand, you can't even tell us if we have access to Daybreak or when we have access to Daybreak. The government is clearly now scrambling to put some safeguards in place. Why did the Albanese government shelve an AI safety act after the election? 14:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's certainly not the case that there is anything happening here but a very clear and very calm and effective response on behalf of Australia. Our AI Safety Institute is a world-leading part of a network of 10 AI safety institutes doing that work. And the approach that we are taking is about ensuring that we get the investment and the capability here, not just in our economic interest but also the interests of our security and our resilience. These tools are required— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry. Senator Pocock? Senator David Pocock 256136 It's just on relevance. I've let the last two questions go, but I'd love to know why the government shelved an AI safety act. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. The there were also other points to your question. The minister is being relevant. I'll listen carefully. Minister, please continue. Senator AYRES 16913 What we're doing, Senator Pocock—we outlined Australia's artificial intelligence national plan last year. We set out standards for data centre investment, which have been signed up to by the major firms. (Time expired) Community Grants 26 14:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, in regard to the Community Language Schools Grants program, a Liberal government program that the Albanese government expanded with $26 million in taxpayer money while retaining the purpose to teach foreign languages to schoolchildren up to HSC level. UAE terror pilot Hamam al-Hammami has admitted his radicalisation started while studying at my centre in Broadmeadows, which received $68,000 under this program. At the time, he was an adult university student, not a primary or high school student. My centre is open to all ages. There is a co-located school called MYCollege which is a different legal entity. The grant didn't go to the school; it went to the radical Islamic centre. What steps have been taken to ensure the funds given to my centre were actually used to teach schoolchildren Arabic? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. Strictly speaking, I think this is probably a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I might be wrong about this, but I think that the funding for language schools is provided through the Department of Education. But I'm happy to do my best to answer your question. This follows a similar question that was asked by Senator Hanson yesterday and indeed is very similar to the question that Senator Duniam asked Senator Wong earlier in question time today. What we have said is that the matters involving the allegations against this pilot are currently under investigation through a joint counterterrorism team. That team comprises the AFP, Victoria Police and ASIO. They are investigating this man's links to Australia. As an investigation is underway, it wouldn't be appropriate to comment. As I said yesterday in answer to Senator Hanson, there is no current threat to the community or public safety in Australia, and we certainly trust those agencies to undertake their investigation properly. More broadly, when it comes to multicultural grants, again, I made the point yesterday that that we certainly expect all organisations that receive government funding, whether it be through English-language courses or other grants, to conduct themselves in line with government guidelines and funding agreements and in accordance with the expectations of the Australian taxpayer. If any activities breach those requirements then that funding will be reviewed. Given that this matter is under investigation through the joint counterterrorism team, that's about as much as I can say. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland There are multiple requirements for a grant under the Community Language Schools Grants Program. These include hours of teaching, students being citizens or permanent residents, minimum attendance levels and others. Grant recipients were warned in a grant explainer that they will be required to provide proof they have met the guidelines. Was MyCentre audited between grants to ensure compliance with grant guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the audit. 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, given that the question has been put to me rather than the Minister representing the Minister for Education, I'm probably better placed to speak about multicultural grants that may have been provided to this organisation. What I can say on that is that the Department of Home Affairs conducts due-diligence checks to assess compliance with eligibility requirements and to identify information that may present a risk to the achievement of the grant objectives. Of course, any allegations of wrongdoing must be taken seriously, but what we will do in the meantime is support multicultural organisations. I know that that's something we would never see from the One Nation party, which continues to argue that Australia has a monoculture. In contrast to that, we support multicultural communities in Australia and recognise the contribution they have made to this country over many generations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland So no answer. Since Labor came to power, MyCentre's Broadmeadows operation has sent $1.1 million overseas in so-called aid to Afghanistan, Indonesia, Somalia and other Islamic areas. Has the minister assured himself that every cent of taxpayers' money given to MyCentre was used for the purpose of teaching children a foreign language and nothing else? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I haven't seen the allegations that you've just made that this centre has sent money overseas. I'm not sure what the source of that claim is. Also, I'd make the point that, even if that is the case, I'm not sure whether the money that has allegedly been sent overseas has been sourced through government grants or whether that's been privately sourced and fundraised. Again, when it comes to government grants to any organisation that receives a multicultural grant, our requirements are clear. We expect those organisations to follow government guidelines to comply with their funding agreement, and, whenever there's a concern that that has not occurred, that matter is investigated. Education 27 14:49 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government's signature free TAFE program is changing lives right around the country. The latest figures show more than 850,000 Australians have enrolled in courses like construction, health care, business and IT. How is free TAFE backing more Victorians and more Australians to get the skills they want to do the jobs we need? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Stewart, for your question. She is absolutely right: free TAFE is changing lives right across the country, not just in Victoria. Senator Stewart's home state, but in every single state across the country and territories as well. We've seen more than 850,000 new enrolments, and those numbers are rising every single day. As a result of the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program, we've also seen 275,000 course completions, and that number is also growing day by day. I know that Senator Stewart's questions refer to Victoria, which was the birthplace of free TAFE. That would have been under a state Labor government, I'm presuming, probably not a state coalition government. Jeff Kennett was more into closing TAFEs, as I recall, rather than providing free TAFE. Opposition senators Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, there they go, still genuflecting to Jeff Kennett. Oh, yes, there they go. We'll come to you, Senator Hume. Just be patient. In the last 3½ years, we've seen 185,000 free TAFE— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, Senator Henderson, you made it back from CPAC. Congratulations. How did you get on at CPAC over the weekend, copying One Nation's policies as well? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I'll draw you to the question. Senator WATT 245759 It was great to have you in Brisbane over the weekend, Senator Henderson. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I was drawing you back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 In the last 3½ years, we've seen 185,000 free TAFE enrolments in Victoria alone, and that means more nurses, more tradies and more early childhood educators for Victoria. Free TAFE is growing the pipeline of skilled workers Australia needs, and that's why we've made it permanent. And yet the coalition and One Nation continue to stand against it. They voted against making it permanent, and at every opportunity they talk it down, and with it they talk down the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've seen the value in free TAFE. Senator Stewart might be interested to find out that the most recent criticisms come from a trio of Victorians. On Radio National a fortnight ago, when asked where their savage budget cuts should come from, Senator Hume specifically called out free TAFE as something that needed to go. She's previously said that 'free TAFE' is a slogan and asked, 'Why would you continue it?' That is Senator Hume, a Victorian. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister Watt. With an ageing population and workforce shortages in growing industries, ensuring we have the workers required to meet the needs of today is vital for our economy. How is the Albanese Labor government's free TAFE program designed to help grow the pipeline of occupations that Australia needs? Senator Hume 266499 It's not. It's failing. 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland ():  Well. I'll take the interjection from Senator 'High-Taxing' Hume, and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, withdraw that, thank you. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw. I do take the interjection from Senator Hume, though, and make the point that we do believe in free TAFE because we do believe that it's an effective way of ensuring that Australians gain the qualifications they need. Unfortunately, Senator Hume wasn't gripped by my first answer and she must have missed the fact that I made the point that free TAFE has already seen 275,000 course completions, and that number is growing every single day. As I was saying, Senator Hume specifically called out free TAFE as something that needed to be cut, and she isn't alone. Senator Henderson has said free TAFE is just not working, and that pesky Victorian the opposition leader in waiting, Josh Frydenberg—we know you're a fan of his, Senator Hume—was quoted in today's paper saying that the problem with free TAFE is that the costs add up. Senator Hume, we know, is a supporter of Josh Frydenberg's return. She has said that they want their A team on the frontbench and need him back. That means they've got the B team in place— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Honourable senators Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Order! Senator Stewart, please begin again. Senator STEWART 299352 The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change by increasing the supply of housing across the country, and growing the pipeline of construction workers is vital to this work. How does free TAFE contribute to that work, and are there any risks to the progress that has been made? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, I think we know the answer. Senator Hume has made clear who the risk to this policy is, and that's Senator Hume herself. We're training more tradies to build the homes we need and drive our clean energy transition; more nurses to care for those who need it most; and more early childhood educators and aged-care workers educating and caring for our youngest and oldest Australians. That is what free TAFE provides under the Albanese Labor government. But I'm pleased to say that free TAFE can also help others to gain the skills they so desperately need, like unknown politicians who crave attention but keep getting overshadowed by their political opponents and keep getting knifed by their colleagues. Yes, I'm talking about the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Taylor. There is hope at hand, Mr Taylor! There are TAFE courses available now to help you get the skills that you need. Maybe Mr Taylor could try a certificate IV in remedial massage, to fix the sore neck that he's always got from looking over his shoulder at Josh Frydenberg and his opponents coming at him. Those are the kinds of skills that are available through TAFE under the Albanese Labor government, and we'd be happy to offer Mr Taylor a course, just like every other Australian. Fuel 29 14:55 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Families in Australia have little choice but to rely on their cars to get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments and access essential services. Regional Australians are once again facing a spike in fuel prices, on top of the high costs of living. The coalition has proposed a fuel price shield to automatically halve the fuel excise when global oil prices spike. When will Labor start addressing the challenges facing regional Australians, and why won't the government commit to meaningful relief for families who have no choice but to drive? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator McDonald for the question. The point which I agree with you is that we are seeing another round of disruption to global markets. That has consequences for oil prices—diesel, petrol and petroleum product prices—here in Australia, and this is why we have said, for some months, that we want to see an end to the conflict in the Middle East. We want to see the Strait of Hormuz opened. We want to see the negotiations continue. What is occurring in terms of the Strait of Hormuz is affecting the global energy market, which is in turn affecting Australians, whether they live in regional Australia or in urban areas. The first priority the government has had throughout this is to keep us shielded from supply shocks. You would know—and I recognise your involvement with regional communities—there was a great deal of concern, fear and worry about access to diesel and to urea, in particular. The first point is we knew that we had to act to deliver supply, and we did. We invested in the budget $7.5 billion into the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility to secure more fuel, as well as announcing the fuel security reserve to build long-term fuel resilience and to look at new or expanded refining capabilities. We recognise the price is fluctuating, and we've seen a spike. Senator Paterson 144138 Fluctuating up! Senator WONG 00AOU No, it is fluctuating. It's gone up— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Mums and dads, tradies, farmers, producers, fishers, tourism operators and even Meals on Wheels are all being hit by rising fuel costs. Minister, when did you last fill up your car in a regional town and see firsthand what Australians are paying at the bowser? When will the Albanese Labor government stop passing the buck and accept responsibility for the additional pressure families and regional businesses are under? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We do accept responsibility for trying to steer the country through what is the largest shock to global energy markets in history. That is why you saw not only investment in the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility but the Prime Minister and me engaging with other countries to secure supplies. Let's remember that. We ensured that we secured supplies at a time when supplies were not secured, and we did that because of the importance to our economy. You talk about regional Australia. One of the points I continued to make to our suppliers in North Asia, in South-East Asia—I said, 'You send us diesel and urea, and we send you back food.' That is the mutual security of supply that matters to all of us. That is why we have engaged and that is why we have worked to ensure— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, second supplementary. 14:59 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Rising fuel costs ultimately flow through to Australian families in the price of their groceries and everyday essentials. Minister, what modelling has the Albanese government done on the flow-on impact of rising fuel costs on regional businesses, on the cost of living and on food costs? Why is your government refusing to adopt the coalition's fuel price shield to help ease that burden? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We have never downplayed the effect of the spike in fuel prices on our economy. But perhaps you should have a conversation with the other party in the coalition or, in fact, some of your frontbench colleagues, because those who are downplaying the effect of the conflict on inflation and prices in this country are your party and the Liberal Party. You're saying: 'Actually, that doesn't matter—inflation. It's not about that; it's about the Albanese Labor government.' Actually, what you are asking is correct. We may differ on the response, but what you are asking is correct. The reality is that the Middle East conflict—particularly the impact on global markets—is having an effect on our economy and it is cascading throughout our economy. We are very aware of that, and we always have been aware of that. With that, President, if I may, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Community Grants 30 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland To the question I received from Senator Roberts, I made the point that it was unclear which minister was responsible for answering that question. It turns out it was me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. But my answer still stands. DOCUMENTS 30 DOCUMENTS Minister for Communications 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 15:01 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Pursuant to standing order 164(3)(a), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications for an explanation as to why he has not complied with order for the production of documents No. 321, relating to the Minister for Communications's travel to New York in September 2025. Senator Gallagher ING In relation to Senator Payman's question to Senator Farrell, he has left the chamber, but, also, it is normal practice to advise a minister's office if you are going to use that particular standing order so that the minister can prepare to make sure they are in the chamber and that they've sought information in order to respond. Senator Payman, I'm not sure—I've just tried to check. I don't believe Senator Farrell's office was aware that you were going to seek to raise that under that standing order and so has not prepared either to be in here or to have an answer for you. Perhaps, if we can deal with that matter at the end of question time tomorrow, we can see what information we can provide. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Gallagher, I will just point out that it absolutely is a courtesy and a convention; however, Senator Payman does have the right to continue if she wants to. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I would just make this point, and I make it for you, for the chamber staff and for others: it is a courtesy and it is a convention, but we have courtesies and conventions in this place that have enabled parties to work cooperatively even when we disagree and even when there are accountability mechanisms being put in place. So I would say to you that this place works a lot better if people do avail themselves of the usual courtesies and the usual conventions. If you indicate to people that you are going to ask a question, I can say to you we genuinely try and ascertain an answer or at least understand why the question hasn't been responded to so we can deal with it. I would suggest that, notwithstanding whatever the strict reading of the standing orders is, it would be useful in this place if some of these conventions could be observed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Wong, whilst I accept what you're saying, I cannot deny Senator Payman the call. Senator Payman, you have the call. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I move: That, in light of the Minister's not being present to provide an answer or an explanation, the Senate: (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister— Senator Watt 245759 I have a point of order. That's a clear reflection on Senator Farrell, who was, it would appear, given no notice whatsoever of Senator Payman's intention to ask about this. To then criticise him for not being here to respond to something that he had no knowledge of is a clear reflection on Senator Farrell. I'd strongly suggest that Senator Payman withdraw that. Perhaps she could consider whether it's better to ask this tomorrow when Senator Farrell can actually be advised that this is going to come up and come with an answer. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Watt, I don't believe it's a reflection, and I have taken advice on the matter. By convention, we do not reflect on the fact of whether or not senators are in the chamber in relation to such matters as these. Senator Payman, it's in your hands; you have the call. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I move: That, in light of the Minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation, the Senate: (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to produce documents ordered by the Senate to be laid on the table relating to the Minister for Communications' travel to New York in September 2025; (b) further notes that, in the response to order for the production of documents no. 321 (OPD 321), the Minister for Communications chose to interpret the wording— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Payman, please resume your seat. Senator Gallagher, on a point of order? Senator Gallagher ING There's a motion being moved—whether that motion has been circulated or the courtesy to actually provide it to others to read. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 It's out of my hands. It hasn't been circulated to me. Senator Payman, you have the call. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I'm reading the motion. It's being circulated as we speak. We've given it to the chamber staff. I move: That, in light of the Minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation, the Senate" (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to produce documents ordered by the Senate to be laid on the table relating to the Minister for Communications' travel to New York in September 2025; (b) further notes that, in the response to order for the production of documents no. 321 (OPD 321), the Minister for Communications chose to interpret the wording of OPD 321 differently to previous orders and subsequently did not produce documents that would otherwise have been produced; (c) rejects the claims made in the explanation provided to the Senate on 9 September 2026 in relation to this matter as unacceptable and, at points, factually incorrect; and (d) orders the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to table documents between any two of the entities listed in OPD 321 that are otherwise in scope of the order, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 26 October 2026. For the benefit of my colleagues and all the senators here, the text of this motion is being circulated now. The withholding of documents from the Senate without reasonable excuse is a serious matter. The Senate has on several occasions censured ministers for failing to comply with orders for the production of documents. Unfortunately, despite this, I understand that such a course would not be supported in this instance, and so I have not moved that way. The response to OPD 321 constitutes not only a failure to comply but a deliberate and unjustified attempt to obstruct the Senate in its scrutiny of the executive. To bring everyone up to date on the history of this order, on 4 February 2026, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents relating to the Minister for Communications's travel to New York in September 2025 with a member of her staff and a public servant. On 4 March 2026, a response to this order was tabled in the Senate. In the response, a letter from the Minister for Communications to the Special Minister of State notes: My department and eSafety have conducted a search of their systems and have not identified any documents that appear to fall in scope of the Order. In July, my office lodged a freedom of information request with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts for the same documents within a smaller timeframe. The department asked for the scope of the request to be reduced and ultimately refused the freedom of information request on the basis that too many documents existed. The department's FOI officer noted that as many as 700 documents existed, with the bulk of these being emails. Obviously, this discrepancy between the response to the FOI request and the response to OPD 321 was concerning. When I returned from maternity leave in September, the Senate agreed to my motion ordering the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate and provide an explanation as to this discrepancy. On 9 September, Senator McCarthy, in place of the minister, provided an explanation, which is referred to in part (c) of this motion as 'unacceptable and, at points, factually incorrect'. I will now address the points made by Senator McCarthy in the explanation. Senator McCarthy said: First, the order for the production of documents sought communications involving three parties: the minister or her office, the department and the eSafety Commissioner. It was therefore directed at communications between all three parties. By contrast, the FOI request sought communications between the minister or her office and the department without requiring the eSafety Commissioner to be involved. That broader formulation may have reasonably captured a larger volume of documents. This was the same argument used by the department in response to a question on notice on this topic, but it is inconsistent with the minister's previous responses to OPDs. The Minister for Communications has previously taken this phrasing 'X, Y and Z' to mean 'between any two of those entities', not 'between all three entities'. The only reason the minister would randomly choose to interpret this wording in a different way was if she wanted to hide documents from the Senate. I want to put on the record just how unusual this interpretation is for the minister. The minister interpreted this phrasing as referring to documents between any two entities in her responses to OPD 37, OPD 215, OPD 323 and OPD 425. Other ministers have interpreted this phrasing in the same way, during this parliament alone, in responses to OPDs 36, 90, 208, 223, 313, 315, 316, 317, 387, 399, 440 and 442. Why did the minister use a special interpretation for this specific OPD around her travel to New York, which, in response to OPDs that were made on my motion, she has not used before or since and which her fellow ministers have never used? The only explanation is that she desired to withhold these documents from the Senate but had no grounds to make a claim of public interest immunity. The key question that needs to be answered is: even if the minister had changed her mind on the interpretation of this phrasing in good faith, why did she not disclose this at the time? She interprets the wording one way four times in a row, then secretly changes her interpretation, and doesn't release the documents that she would have previously, and only discloses this after being asked. If you look on the parliament website's OPD page, under OPD 321 it says, 'No documents exist'. While this is not an expression of the view of the Senate, it is clear that, to a reasonable person, the minister's response indicated that no documents exist—despite the fact that documents within the scope of the order do, in fact, exist. This may have had the effect of misleading senators, and, indeed, the Senate, into thinking no documents existed between any two entities listed in the order, as this is how the minister has previously responded to other orders. The failure to disclose this is incredibly serious, and the Senate must not allow this sort of tricky conduct to stand. Senator McCarthy's second point was: Second, the timeframes between the two differ. The OPD was agreed to on 4 February 2026, meaning its scope was necessarily confined to documents captured up to that point. The FOI request was lodged on 13 July 2026 and therefore extends across an additional five months of records. It is reasonable to expect that a request covering a longer period may identify more documents. This argument is based on a lack of knowledge about the FOI request in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, prior to refusing the request the department asked that the scope of the request be reduced. The scope consultation process led to the reduction of the FOI request scope to only capture documents created between 30 August 2025 and 30 October 2025. This falls entirely within the OPD scope of all documents created before the order was agreed to on 4 February 2026. As such, the decision made by the department on the FOI request—the 700 documents they identified were from within this period. Finally, Senator McCarthy said: As a point of clarification on the number of documents referred to in the motion before us now, I am advised that the department did not identify 700 documents; it identified 90 documents that may have been in scope, with a combined page count of approximately 700 pages … Senator McCarthy was advised incorrectly. The order of 8 September 2026 refers to 700 documents as this was the final figure provided by the department in the letter conveying its decision on the FOI request on 14 August 2026. The letter says, 'Preliminary searches in relation to your revised request have identified 700 documents, with most of these records being emails.' Now that we have dealt with the background of this issue and debunked the government's claims, let us consider what guidance we can find in precedence of the Senate. The natural starting point is resolution 6 of the privilege resolutions of 25 February 1988. Paragraph 8 of that resolution establishes a requirement, stating: A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Paragraph 13 establishes: A person shall not, without a reasonable excuse: …   …   …    b. refuse or fail to produce documents, or to allow the inspection of documents, in accordance with an order of the Senate or of a committee. It has been claimed that no documents within the scope of this order exist, but the department acknowledged through a freedom- of-information request that hundreds of documents exist. All excuses offered by the government have either been incorrect or inconsistent with previous behaviour. I want senators to be aware of how the Senate has responded to ministers disregarding orders for the production of documents without justification in the past. On 5 March 2014, Australian Greens senators supported a successful motion moved by Senator Wong, which proposed to censure the then assistant minister for health for, among other things, failing to comply with an order for the production of documents. On 12 September 1991, senators from the Liberal and National parties supported a successful motion moved by then senator Hill, which proposed to censure the Hawke government for failing to comply with an order for the production of a document. I suggest that it would be a very serious thing for the Senate to allow, on a dubious basis, the defiance of an order of the Senate without a reasonable excuse. Orders for the production of documents became an issue of contention in the 47th Parliament and continue to be so in the 48th Parliament. The Senate Standing Committee on Procedure's inquiry into OPDs has been going on for nearly an entire year now. There is a need to improve the way that OPDs are dealt with, but the Senate cannot permit this sort of flagrant disregard for the privilege resolutions to go unanswered. The Senate must require the minister to comply with OPD 321 in order to protect the integrity of its processes. 15:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Payman for that address. I would add that my understanding of the government response was that no documents existed within the scope of the request. But, as pointed out by Minister Wong earlier, given the lack of notice that was given to the government, in terms of the ability to respond to this matter, I move: That this matter be adjourned to a later hour today. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 33 15:19 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips. 15:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. The Labor government has kicked Australian small business in the guts. There is nothing clearer. I've just come back from three weeks in Queensland, and that is what I'm hearing across the whole state of Queensland, from up in Weipa all the way down to Ipswich, where my office is based. Small business feels like it is under attack. The last budget that was brought down by this Labor government is exhibit A: changes to the tax system, which were never taken to the last election; changes to the way capital gains tax is levied; changes to the way negative gearing works, which is having a huge impact on the property sector, small and large; and changes to the taxation of discretionary trusts. There were questions asked earlier today by Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to the taxation of discretionary family trusts. The Labor government has been in damage control in relation to this issue since the budget. They hadn't done their homework. They hadn't done their homework in relation to discretionary trusts, and these are trusts that are used by approximately 350,000 small businesses across Australia, from your local newsagent to farms. These are small businesses all over Australia. Discretionary family trusts are the vehicle that is being used by hundreds of thousands of small businesses. The government, in its ham-fisted way of trying to change the taxation to apply to those discretionary trusts, is causing great damage. It's been estimated that the costs involved to address this toxic trust tax change imposed by the Labor government could cost small and family businesses across Australia up to $13.3 billion in restructuring and tax advice costs alone. What the Labor government wants businesses to do is to change their corporate structure—change from a discretionary family trust structure, which they could have had in place for decades and decades, to some other structure. But there are costs involved in doing that. There's legal advice. There's tax advice. There's stamp duty. And none of this was thought of by the Labor government, because they don't understand or don't care about small business. That's the truth. It has been estimated that in my home state of Queensland it could cost a small business worth maybe $1.5 million up to $100,000 to restructure—that's nearly 10 per cent of the value of the business to restructure—as a result of these tax changes. That's dead money. That's money which could have been reinvested in the business. That's money which could have gone to employing an additional employee—including a young person—in a business. It's dead money; it's an albatross around the neck of small business. Now, we're even seeing the Australian Taxation Office chasing small businesses for inadvertent mistakes they made under certain family trust tax rules. That has led to small businesses being asked, in at least one case where they are owed $47,000 in tax, with the affliction of time, to pay $890,000. Some small business made an inadvertent mistake paying its tax decades ago, and the ATO has now increased that amount payable to $890,000. Can you believe that? In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, it's outrageous. 15:23 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to make my contribution to this debate too. I'm extraordinarily happy to talk about small business. For those that may not know, I come from a small business background, and I've been passionate about small business for many years. Let's go back and have a look at a few things, if I may indulge the Senate. Back in 1980, when I was a budding young truckie and could fit into a tiny pair of Stubbies and a blue singlet, I had three burning passions. One was football. One was my GTS two-door HQ Monaro. And I had a pretty spunky girlfriend from Willetton. Twenty-six years, two kids and two grandkids later, we're still together. I remember that, at the age of 20, all I wanted to do was drive big trucks. I was a company driver for a small outfit called Ansett. Our jobs, overnight, were given away. Ansett, in their wisdom, decided, for all their employees—all of us young truckies and offsiders—that, if you wanted to continue doing all the bush work, getting all the overtime, you had two options: 'You can buy one of our trucks, or you can go buy one yourself.' Mr Deputy President, you, I know, with your background, too—at the age of 20, I had no idea about being in business. I had no support. I had no idea. I didn't know what you had to do. All I knew was that the truck ran on fuel and tyres. Then, all of a sudden, I had to pay for the repairs and maintenance. But the bigger fright was: 'How the heck am I going to go and buy one?' I'd say I had about a thousand bucks in the bank, but I'd probably be fibbing; it was probably about 500 bucks. My father, who was a great supporter of mine, lent me a couple of grand to go and buy my first rig. I think the total cost back then was this massive $6½ thousand or $7,000, and I was thinking, 'How the heck am I going to get over this?' There's one thing I do want to share with everyone and with the Senate, as the proud small-business man I am, regardless of some of the nonsense you hear coming from, particularly, Senator Hanson, and some of that mob over there. And I'm still tied up in the trucking industry, by the way. I still drive trucks. I still run road trains. But I do it for charity now. Transport operators, small businesses, owner-drivers, transport associations and the Transport Workers' Union, for the last 20 years in this building, have been trying to get the message across to different coloured governments, on the way through, that we're small business. Truckies are small family businesses. The majority of freight in this nation is not carried by the big boys; it's carried by small family businesses. All these groups came together as one and came to Canberra to lobby, year in, year out, to get across to the members of the House of Representatives, and to the ministers from governments of both persuasions, and to senators, how they desperately needed help, because they are price-takers. We, in the trucking industry, don't set the rates—or we set the rates alright, but the mob down the road will undercut us because they're getting screwed and their fuel's going through the roof. We're price-takers. We pleaded with that side of the chamber—at the time, they were on this side of the chamber—'Would you please help us? Would you give us the opportunity to have transport reform in this nation, so we can have some safeguards?' Sadly, to all those listening up there—and I'm still so close to the trucking industry, it's scary; I can't get away from it, and, trust me, I'm looking forward to getting away from it one day!—every single one of those senators over there dutifully lined up behind their leader and they gave the trucking industry the middle finger. And they go on about small business and how they love small business. Well, you tell us truckies: why don't you love us? What's the difference between us and the small business you pretend to love? Why don't you give us any love? We're the ones that put the clothes on your back. We're the ones that put the fuel in the tanks of your cars. We cart all that. We're the ones that cart your building material— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Sterle— Senator STERLE e68 Can I have an extension? I'm just starting to warm up, Mr Deputy President! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 your time has expired. I'm sure you'll get future opportunities, Senator Sterle. 15:28 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I will respond directly to Senator Sterle. We do love truckies. We never said we didn't love truckies. In fact, I was with Angus Taylor just three weeks ago, up on the Central Coast, at a trucking company, talking about the hard time that that trucking company has had, with the regulations and the fuel prices, and with, every single day, the cost of compliance going up and up and up for the trucking companies that are just trying to make a living and move things around Australia for Australian families. We listen to them. We consult with them. But that is the difference between the coalition and the Labor government. We go out there and we talk to them and we say, 'Hey, what's going on? How can we make life better for you?' That is why we come back with policies and a plan—and we do have policies in here for the trucking companies and the fuel excise and the price shield that will bring down the cost of fuel when the price spikes, when crises, like the one that is happening in the Middle East, affect the Australian economy. We do help. I want to stick on small business. We heard from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, that our claims about small business and the punching down on small business were rhetoric. Again, we are out there every single day talking to small business. The leader of the coalition has been all around Australia holding small-business forums and hearing directly from them. We hear from Minister Wong that they are doing everything they can for small business and that all these small businesses are opening. They don't dare to mention all the small businesses that are closing—50,000 under Labor. There are 50,000 businesses closing. These are the people that are taking a risk to build a better future for their children and their families. They are taking a risk to grow this economy and to grow the prosperity of this nation, and Labor are simply not backing them in. They hit them with taxes. They hit them with higher power bills. They hit them with compliance costs. They hit them with credit card surcharge bans. They think that, just because you say the surcharge is not there, everything is all of a sudden free. Well, somebody has to pay for it, and guess what? That is that small business—those families out there taking the risk for us and for our nation. They're trying to pit small business against working Australians, as though small-business families aren't working for this great nation. I'll tell you what: they're out there working seven days a week. The reason we are in here in the chamber giving small business a voice every single time is that they're too busy out there working. They don't have time to stop and protest and make their voice heard. So, again, we go out there and we listen to them. We heard today from Senator Nampijinpa Price that there is fresh data estimating that small and family businesses will face up to $13.3 billion in restructuring fees and tax advice to deal with the changes of this government. Labor don't care. They don't care about that. All they care about is the $4.5 billion that they're going to raise from these tax changes—$4.5 billion—and they think that small business will cope with that. Well, they simply won't. This will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I want to say to all the small businesses out there: we back you in. 15:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I also rise to take note of answers given during question time today, and I want to start by saying that it really is quite bold to come in here and lecture a truckie about the trucking industry. It really was quite bold, I thought. If anybody knows the ins and outs of the trucking industry, it is the great senator I have the privilege to sit beside in this chamber, and that is Senator Sterle. I want to cover a number of topics that were raised today during question time and cover some of the things that this government is doing to take the pressure off Australian families and small business. I also want to say something about the gall of those opposite pretending to care about the pressures that working families are under when it comes to fuel and cost-of-living relief, because their record in this place does tell a really different story. When this parliament considered closing loopholes and same job, same pay, those opposite opposed reforms designed to stop workers being undercut and create a fairer playing field for responsible business. They opposed minimum standards for gig workers and microbusinesses dealing with powerful overseas technology platforms. In road transport, they resisted measures that give small and medium operators a way to recover unavoidable costs—protections that matter even more when global fuel pressures squeeze already thin margins. Cost-of-living policy cannot be reduced to slogans. It is about whether workers receive fair pay, whether a family can afford a prescription or see a doctor or whether a small business can keep its doors open with the costs of inputs rising. People feel these pressures in ordinary decisions every day at the supermarket checkout, when the electricity bill arrives, when they fill the car or when they put off an appointment because the family budget is stretched. Small businesses feel the same pressures through higher energy, transport and supply costs, while they are still trying to pay staff, serve customers and remain a part of their local communities. That is why wages and workplace standards matter to the cost-of-living debate. When people are properly paid for the work that they do, they are better able to meet essential costs, and, when responsible businesses are not undercut by operators relying on insecure work and unfair contracting practices, the whole economy is stronger. That is why the Labor government has acted. We've reduced the cost of medicines and expanded access to bulk-billing. We've cut taxes five times, delivering nearly $3,000 a year more for workers on average by 2028. For small businesses, the instant asset write-off supports investment and cash flow. For transport operators, the standards established through closing loopholes provide a fairer way to deal with rising costs and powerful contracting parties. These measures protect jobs, strengthen supply chains and support the businesses communities rely on. This is also about economic resilience. If a transport operator cannot recover the cost of fuel, vehicles come off the road, businesses fail and goods do not arrive where they are needed. The consequences are felt well beyond one company, by farmers, manufacturers, supermarkets and families across the country. Sensible minimum standards help prevent the race to the bottom. Labor understands that household relief and small-business support go together. (Time expired) 15:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Well, you've really got to ask why. Why is Labor waging war on small business? Family businesses should not live in fear that an historic paperwork error could destroy everything they built. Jim Chalmers should be fixing these unfair outcomes, not creating new problems with another complex trust tax. Labor's approach is always the same: more tax, more complexity and more red tape. Family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. It is family businesses—and businesses—that employ Australians, that support regional economies, that invest in local economies and that create opportunities for the next generation. The last thing they need is more uncertainty created from Canberra. Small business is battling taxes increasing, interest rates increasing, power bills increasing, insurance bills going up, transport costs and—talking about truckies—freight costs going up too. Labor has backflipped on so many of its pieces of legislation in its so-called tax reform it's hard to know how to keep up. We've said before they should just take an axe to it. Let's get some insight into this. For decades, the Prime Minister himself has never had to think about where the money is coming from in his pay packet, nor has he had to think, 'How much am I going to get because my business has performed well?' He has not had to forgo any of that to pay workers. He has not had to rethink how much money he'll take home to buy that new piece of essential equipment. None of that, in decades, has had to be something that he's had to think about. Not even a change in trading conditions has affected the salary that he knows will come into his bank account. Australians know that the Prime Minister and this government have failed them. That legislation should go back for proper consultation—not just 'we're talking to' but actually, 'We're listening to, we're engaging with and we're responding to what business is telling us.' The coalition believes in a tax system that is tough on tax cheats, sure, but fair and honest to Australians. We believe family businesses deserve certainty, stability and clear rules, and that's not what Labor is delivering to them right now. The coalition will restore certainty to trust arrangements and stand up for family businesses, farmers and small businesses right across Australia. Small businesses have been forced to spend money on lawyers, accountants and advisers just to understand what Labor's changes could mean for them. Some businesses have been told restructuring costs alone could reach $50,000. We've even had questioning in here from experts who work with small business about those costs. That's real, because these people, who have said this is how much it costs, live in the real world. Again, this prime minister has not had to find the money to pay those taxes that Australians never voted for, that they never asked for and that are not welcome, at a time when they are struggling. They are on their knees. That's not how you run a country. Labor, what you've produced for small business should not even be a thing. International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 36 15:40 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of Senator Wong's response to Senator Shoebridge's question. Well, here we find ourselves. A Christian nationalist end-times death cult has got control of the White House, enabled by its fascist, techbro survivalist mates. And what's the latest perversion that they are going to try to inflict on us? That's right—a livestreamed, state sanctioned snuff movie. Not content with destroying the planet's capacity to sustain human life, not content with stealing the entire intellectual, creative and artistic output of the human race and monetising it for profit, not content with accumulating obscene wealth while billions of people face poverty, starvation, death, disease and displacement, they now want to force a livestreamed execution onto the screens of Australian children. They are depraved, barbaric psychopaths, and these are the people that the Australian government claims to have shared values with. Well, here is one Australian that does not share those values. We are being ruled by tyrants. The primary responsibility that a government has to its people is to keep us safe. But in the United States and here in Australia, governments are not only failing to do that; they are actively exposing us to danger—climate and ecosystem collapse, artificial intelligence, war, genocide, necrocapitalism. These governments claim legitimacy, but while they deliberately expose us, the people, to danger, they have none—in particular, while they're exposing us to danger in pursuit of naked political power. If you think people are just going to sit back and cop this rubbish forever, human history has got some pretty harsh lessons to teach you. 15:43 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Fascism is on the rise. There is no mistaking it. In Australia, far-right nationalists are sowing division. Around the world, they are perpetrating genocide and spreading racist hate in the communities of our families, our friends and our comrades. Their poisonous work is aided by traditional and social media giants, who cash in on rage and misinformation. These fascists are funded and supported by capitalists, who profit when democracies are weakened—billionaires who want to dismantle workers' rights, environmental protections and safety nets for those most in need. Time and again, ordinary people have recognised the fascist threat and organised to resist. We know our history. We know there are no bystanders in this struggle. We say unequivocally that now is the time to act. We cannot arrest the alarming global descent into fascism by squeezing our eyes shut and hoping for the best. You don't shake hands with far-right leaders and hope that they will listen to reason. You certainly don't walk up to Trump, the person fascists and racists everywhere worship as a hero, and pose for a selfie. But, instead of standing up to the fascist avatar, Prime Minister Albanese did the opposite. He didn't just line up for a selfie with Trump once; he's done it twice. What sycophantic behaviour. Of course the Prime Minister has never met a billionaire he didn't love. Trump is a guy who threatens to annihilate Iran. He is a sadistic con artist who now plans to live stream an execution. Trump is a fanatic whose so-called peace plan has prevented justice for Palestinians after his so-called ceasefire. He's a creep who's been found liable for sexual abuse. People are furious the Labor government chooses to align Australia with a man who is a warmonger abroad and at home oversees state sanctioned antimigrant thugs. If Australia is to take its part in the people's fight to resist the far right and confront fascists here and overseas, then the very least this Labor government should do is to stop taking orders from Trump. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Manufacturing Industry 36 15:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Innovation (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the manufacturing industry. In February last year, I started asking this government what they were doing about Whyalla Steelworks and the Liberty Bell Bay manganese smelter. Steel and manganese are critical for Australian sovereign capability. In fact, you can't make hardened steel for things like hulls or rail tracks without manganese. Unfortunately, both critical facilities were bought by Sanjeev Gupta, and Gupta's MO was very simple: buy a struggling industrial facility—a miner, a smelter or a steelworks—promise the world to the locals, hope the commodity prices will stay high and then move on to the next deal using the collateral of other businesses to buy the next one. Why this Foreign Investment Review Board signed off on Gupta buying these important facilities is beyond me. Tasmanians are always nervous when we hear that the FIRB has approved something. Their track record is atrocious. By the way, according to Paul Barry's book The Big Steal, Gupta wanted to buy the Portland smelter in Victoria. Apparently Dan Andrews did one thing, as keen as he was. He got his Treasury officials to look at Gupta, and they said, 'No way, Jose.' What do the Treasury officials in Victoria have that the FIRB doesn't up here? When I started raising this issue, I got the same response the minister gave me today: 'We're watching it closely.' But let's face it: the alarm bells were ringing long before the government acted. The government has intervened in Whyalla, and I am glad about that, but Liberty Bell Bay has gone into administration, taking 200 jobs and the families that rely on those jobs with it. In March, Ernst and Young was appointed as an administrator and to find a buyer. Six months later, we hear it's being liquidated because there are no viable buyers. The minister told us today that Liberty Bell Bay was efficient and profitable until Gupta ran it into the ground. The government promised a future made in Australia, but on their watch we've not only lost Whyalla steelworks but also now Liberty Bell Bay. There's a fundamental difference between watching something heading off a cliff and actually stopping it from going over the cliff in the first place. Question agreed to. Community Grants 37 15:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to community grants. This question was about MyCentre. The Albanese Labor government is subverting grant and funding processes to promote its ideological agenda, in this case promoting Islam. My question related to funding an Islamic terrorist-adjacent organisation, MyCentre, which runs a mosque, school, segregated swimming pool, segregated gym and matchmaking service in Melbourne's Broadmeadows. Years of grant funding to the school was tied to complying with a set of rules covering student numbers, the number of classes per year, student attendance and so on. Students must be Australian citizens or permanent residents. I asked for proof from the minister that the $68,000 in grants were spent as the scheme requires—teaching primary and high school children Arabic as a second language. I did not get an answer, because the answer is inconvenient. MyCentre recognises government money yet not government authority. Where are the government grants? Where are the government audits? Where are the government checks? Where is the government evidence? (Time expired) Question agreed to. Artificial Intelligence 37 15:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Innovation (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice I asked today relating to artificial intelligence. It's really of no comfort that the minister's first instinct is to downplay the incident, given what we've seen with the Hugging Face incident in the US and what we've seen with bots breaking out of testing environments and OpenAI having no idea that this was happening until after the fact. It seems like we're in a situation now where we potentially have to pay OpenAI to have access to a program to help protect us from OpenAI. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would love to see the minister have more answers in his answers to Senate questions generally but, specifically, more answers when it comes to AI and the threat of AI. The government has not been able to answer why they put on hold, or shelved, an AI safety act that had started consultation in 2024.This is not a new issue. We've known for many years that we need safeguards in place. The government said: 'We don't need safeguards. We're basically just going to see how this plays out.' It's not playing out that well. Now they're scrambling. They did the same thing on data centres, where they said: 'We have standards. They're on a website. Check them out'—and it was basically all the existing regulations that they'd put on a website. It's not good enough. They are now scrambling to put in national standards. People expect governments to be more proactive, to actually take on vested interests and to put Australians first, and I'm really concerned that we're not seeing that when it comes to artificial intelligence, given everything that is at stake. Question agreed to. NOTICES 38 NOTICES Presentation 38 PETITIONS 41 PETITIONS CONDOLENCES 41 CONDOLENCES Baird, Hon. Bruce George, AM 41 15:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 2 October 2026, of the honourable Bruce George Baird AM, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cook in New South Wales from 1998 to 2007. Tate, Hon. And Reverend Professor Michael Carter, AO 41 15:52 The PRESIDENT 112096 On 11 August 2026, I informed the Senate of the death, on 5 June 2026, of the Hon. and Reverend Professor Michael Carter Tate AO, a former minister and senator for the state of Tasmania from 1978 to 1993. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the family and guests of former senator Michael Tate. On behalf of all senators, I offer my condolences and welcome you to the Senate. 15:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 5 June 2026, of the Reverend the Honourable Professor Michael Carter Tate AO, former Special Minister of State and Minister for Justice and Consumer Affairs, and former senator for Tasmania, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I want to pay my personal respects to the honourable Michael Tate AO and extend my condolences to his family, his friends and his parishioners. That includes his brother Richard, his sister-in-law, Helen, Monica and some other friends of Mr Tate. I welcome you here today for this particular commemoration of Michael's life. Michael Tate lived an extraordinary life of service. His deep commitment to his community was apparent in his contributions as an academic, as a senator for Tasmania, as a minister under the Hawke and Keating governments, as a diplomat and, perhaps most importantly from my point of view, as a Catholic priest. Michael served in this chamber for 15 years. He brought to the Senate a formidable intellect, a lawyer's precision and a willingness to engage seriously with difficult questions. He was never afraid to take principled positions, and, throughout his parliamentary career, he displayed an independence of mind that earned respect across party lines. As Minister for Justice in the Hawke and Keating governments, Michael helped shaped important reforms in Australia's legal and justice systems. He played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He led efforts to strengthen Australia's response to organised crime and money laundering, and, following the Hoddle Street and Queen Street shootings, he initiated a national review of gun control laws. He approached those responsibilities with determination and seriousness because he believed government had an obligation to protect both justice and human dignity. But, for all those achievements in politics, it's perhaps his later vocation that revealed most clearly the person that he was. After service as Australia's ambassador to the Holy See and to the Netherlands—interestingly, not Ireland but the Netherlands—and after receiving one of the nation's highest honours as an Officer of the Order of Australia, Michael walked away from public office to answer a calling that had been with him for much of his life. He entered the priesthood, describing it as 'an early vocation, long deferred'. Ordained in the year 2000, Father Michael Tate devoted himself to pastoral service in Tasmania. He became a trusted spiritual guide, a teacher and a pastor. Those who knew him in those years have spoken not simply of his intellect but of his generosity, his compassion and his genuine concern for ordinary people. Following his passing, Archbishop Tony Ireland described him as 'one of a kind, gifted intellectually, a powerful communicator and an extraordinarily generous pastor who loved his people'. Others remembered his kindness, his integrity and his determination to stand with those who felt forgotten or overlooked. What stands out about Michael's life is that, whatever role he occupied, he approached it wholeheartedly. He believed deeply in public service, he believed in conscience, he believed in justice, and he believed that life carried responsibilities beyond just personal success. On a personal note, I was hosting Father Tate in Adelaide the day I was informed that my own father had passed away in March 1993. Today, as we remember Michael Tate, we honour not only a former senator and minister but a man of faith, conviction and service. May he rest in peace. 15:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the coalition to pay tribute to the Reverend Michael Carter Tate AO, a former senator for Tasmania, Minister for Justice, ambassador and Catholic priest, who passed away in Hobart on 5 June this year aged 80. I too acknowledge the members of his family and friends who join us in the Senate gallery today. Few people have actually served our great country in so many different ways. Fewer still have left public life at its height to take up the priesthood. Michael Tate did both, and, when he died, he was still serving as the parish priest at South Hobart. He was born in Sydney on 6 July 1945 and grew up in Hobart, where he was educated at St Virgil's College. At 18, as a first-year law student, he was seriously injured in a car accident and spent months in hospital. He later said that this gave him a second chance at life and a sense that he could not live a self-centred one. He graduated in law from the University of Tasmania with first class honours in 1968, and then he studied theology at Oxford. He returned to lecture in constitutional law and became dean of the law faculty in 1977. That was the year he was elected to the Senate for Tasmania. He then took up his seat on 1 July 1978 and ended up serving this place for 15 years. His first speech was about conscience. He argued that the National Service Act failed to protect a person who objected to a particular war without objecting to all military service. In 1983, he introduced a private senator's bill to change that, and, in 1992, the parliament passed legislation that recognised particular conscientious beliefs. He chaired the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee from 1983 to 1987. In 1984, he chaired the Senate's select committees examining the conduct of High Court justice Lionel Murphy. He reached his findings based on the evidence alongside the Liberal and democrat members, rather than his Labor colleagues, and paid a political price for it. He, though, called it a hard decision but an honest one. From 1987 to 1993, he served in the Hawke and Keating ministries as Special Minister of State and then Minister for Justice. He played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and initiated a national review of gun control laws after the Hoddle Street and Queen Street shootings. He received threats to his life and lived under police protection, and he kept doing the job. After leaving the Senate in July 1993, he served as Australia's ambassador to the Holy See and to the Netherlands. It was at the end of that posting that his life took its most remarkable turn. When he made his farewell call on Pope John Paul II, he was asked where he would go next. He replied that he would be studying for the priesthood. When the Pope called it a 'late vocation', he corrected him: it was an early vocation, long deferred. He said the call had been nagging at him since he was a boy. A poem by WH Auden finally convinced him not to leave it any longer. The poem imagines a man reduced to tears of shame on hearing the poems he may have written. Michael Tait said he did not want to cry those tears himself. He left the embassy residence in The Hague to study with the Dominicans at Cambridge, then in Rome and in Melbourne. He was ordained at St Mary's Cathedral in Hobart on 19 May 2000. Gough Whitlam, Bill Hayden, Lionel Bowen and John Button were all in the congregation. He joked that obedience would be his great problem and that being docile and humble did not come easily to a politician. He also said that he did not want anyone to see him as a Labor politician in a Roman collar, because he could not serve then his whole congregation. So he stayed out of public debate and gave himself wholeheartedly to his parishes. For 26 years, he served as a parish priest at Bridgewater in Brighton, Sandy Bay, Huon Valley and South Hobart. He was also a consultor to the archdiocese and, for a time, its vicar-general. He founded the way of St James pilgrimage in the Huon Valley. In 2010, he returned briefly to public office as Tasmania's first parliamentary standards commissioner. The tributes from those who served alongside him in the church described a pastor who well and truly knew his people. A fellow priest recalled that only recently had Father Tate rung him to ask him to look in on someone who had moved into a neighbouring parish so that they would not be lost in the system. That's the type of person he was. Archbishop Tony Ireland, who gave him the last rites, described him as a faithful pastor who loved his people. On behalf of the coalition, I extend our sympathy to his family, his friends, his former colleagues and the parishioners of South Hobart who have lost their beloved priest. May he rest in peace. 16:04 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Nationals to join the Senate in honouring the life of the Hon. Michael Carter Tate AO, Senator for Tasmania from 1978 to 1993, who died in Hobart on 5 June 2026 at the age of 80. I extend our condolences to his family, his friends and the parishioners of South Hobart, where he was parish priest at the time of his death. Michael Tate's life is testimony to the possibility of life after politics. I must say, on a personal note, that I find each of these times where we reflect in the Senate on those who have come before us a great reminder of the individuals, people and lives that come to serve the Australian parliament, and I must say, on reading, that Father Tate's life is an extraordinary one. He resigned from the Senate in July 1993 at the age of 47, having come at only 33. In the years that followed, he served as Australia's ambassador to the Netherlands and to the Holy See and then, for more than a quarter of a century, as a Catholic priest in southern Tasmania. I guess we should draw some comparison between the guidance he would have provided constituents in his role as a senator and the guidance that he was able to provide as a priest in that community. He was born, as we've already heard, in Sydney on 6 July 1945 and grew up in Hobart, where he was educated at St Virgil's College. In 1963 he won a Commonwealth scholarship and studied law at the University of Tasmania. In October of that year, at only 18, he was seriously injured in a car accident and spent five months in a neck-to-knee plaster at the Royal Hobart Hospital. The realisation that the accident had given him a second chance at life is one that we don't all get, do we? Sometimes, those realisations come to us late in life, and it was possibly a gift that he discovered that so early. He graduated law with first-class honours in 1968, and an international Commonwealth scholarship took him to the University of Oxford, where he studied from 1968 to 1971. He went on to continue his study of law and took up theology instead, teaching himself ancient Greek so that he could read the original sources. He was an extraordinary man and an extraordinary senator. Senator Farrell, you are fortunate to have met him and known him. He was still undergoing operations for his injuries while he was studying in Oxford. He was awarded a Master of Arts by the University of Oxford, and media reports described him as the first lay Catholic since the Reformation to take a degree in theology at Oxford—an indication of this unusual path that he took. He said in 1987 that his interest in politics began during his studies at Oxford. His time at Oxford had a profound impact on his life—so much so that he later created a scholarship to enable Tasmanian students to undertake advanced theological studies at Blackfriars Hall in Oxford. We should probably get to know some of those people; it would be interesting to know who Tasmania has sent in his footsteps. He returned to the University of Tasmania in 1972 to lecture in constitutional law and was appointed dean of the law faculty in 1977. It was that next year that he took his seat in the Senate, on 1 July 1978, and from 1983 to 1987 he chaired both the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and the scrutiny of bills committee. Between 1984 and 1985 he chaired the Senate select committees that examined the conduct of Justice Lionel Murphy of the High Court, the former Labor attorney-general. His findings did not please many of his Labor colleagues and, by his own account, cost him dearly in the years that followed. Nevertheless, in February of 1987, he was appointed Special Minister of State and, in September of that year, Minister for Justice. He held the justice portfolio until March 1993, and for part of that time was Minister for Justice and Minister for Consumer Affairs. As minister, he played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He resigned from the Senate on 5 July 1993 and took up diplomatic posts. We've already heard this anecdote, but I think it's worth repeating. Michael Tate famously recounted the story of his farewell audience with Pope John Paul II in 1996, who asked where he would be posted next. Michael replied he was going to study for the priesthood. When the Pope remarked that this was a late vocation, Father Tate replied that it was an early vocation long deferred—what a lovely story. He studied with the Dominicans at Cambridge, at the English College in Rome and at Corpus Christi College in Melbourne. He was ordained a priest at St Mary's Cathedral in Hobart in May 2000. He served as a parish priest at Bridgewater-Brighton, at Sandy Bay, in the Huon Valley and at South Hobart and for a time as vicar general of the Archdiocese of Hobart. He founded the Way to St James, Cygnet, an annual pilgrimage in the Huon Valley modelled on the Camino de Santiago. So, for all those Australians who head off to Italy and Spain to walk the Camino, I'm now going to promote that they could instead find the way to St James in the Huon Valley. Senator Farrell I0N They could do both. Senator McDONALD 123072 They could do both, Senator Farrell—what an excellent idea. I will commit to doing Tasmania first. In 2010 he was appointed Tasmania's first parliamentary standards commissioner. Michael Tate was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1996. Few former parliamentarians have gone on to build a second public vocation of such depth and service, and Father Tate gave 30 years to it after his parliamentary career ended. At his funeral, his friend Jeffrey McGee told mourners that in his final years Michael valued his parish in South Hobart above the Senate and above his postings abroad. On his death, the Archbishop of Hobart, Tony Ireland, described him as an extraordinarily generous and faithful pastor who loved his people. Whether as a senator, minister, ambassador or priest, Father Michael Tate devoted his life to service. It was an uncommon journey marked by intellect, faith and commitment to others. On behalf of the Nationals, I extend our sympathy to his family and to all who mourn him. What a life well lived—vale, the Hon. Michael Tate AO. 16:12 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I too rise to pay tribute to the life and service of Father Michael Tate AO. I do that today on behalf of the Tasmanian Labor Senate team and, I'm sure, on behalf of those who serve in the other place, who I'm sure have reflected on the loss felt not only by Michael's family and friends—Richard and those who are here in the gallery today—but the length and breadth of Tasmania and beyond. As a Catholic, I also want to extend my condolences not only to his family but to his fellow priests, to his parishioners and to the many, many Tasmanians whose lives he touched, whether that was as a priest or as a senator representing our great state of Tasmania. What an extraordinary life—he led a very full life, something that we commit to do, but very few of us really reach the pinnacle of what Michael Tate did. His life was shaped by faith, intellect, public duty and a steadfast commitment to the dignity of every person. His passing is a profound loss to our state, our nation, the Australian labour movement and the Catholic Church. Michael first served the community through the law and public life. After graduating from the University of Tasmania with first-class honours in law, he lectured at the university and became the dean of the faculty of law. Elected as a Labor Senator for Tasmania in 1977, he served in the Senate from 1978 until 1993. He brought to the parliament a formidable legal mind and a strong social conscience, something that is missing in this place at this time, I believe. He had such a strong conviction that public office must always be directed towards the common good. In government, Michael held a succession of significant responsibilities. He served as Special Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, Minister for Justice, Minister for Justice and Consumer Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Across the great years of the Hawke and Keating governments, he helped advance important national reforms. He played a key role in establishing the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and initiated a national review of gun control laws, work reflecting his concerns for justice, safety and accountability of government. Michael's service continued beyond parliament. In 1994 he was appointed the Australian Ambassador to the Holy See and to the Netherlands, representing our country with intelligence, judgement and dignity. In 1996 he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service. Later, in 2010, he became Tasmania's first Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. In each role, he understood that institutions earn public trust only when those within them act with honesty, humility and respect. Yet Michael's public career was only one expression of a deeper vocation. After completing his diplomatic service, he answered the call to the priesthood. As we've heard, that was something that was with him from childhood. I, at one time, wanted to be a nun and join the silent order. I think my colleagues would say that I was totally unsuited for that role! He was ordained by the Archbishop, Adrian Doyle, at St Mary's Catholic Cathedral in Hobart on 19 May 2000. Over the following 26 years, he served faithfully as a parish priest at Bridgewater-Brighton, Sandy Bay, the Huon Valley and South Hobart. Within the Archdiocese of Hobart, he also served as a consultor, a member of the council of priests and, for a time, as Vicar General. Father Michael was a very generous and very faithful pastor. He listened carefully, he spoke plainly and he never lost sight of the person before him. His ministry reached beyond church walls into homes, hospitals and moments of grief, uncertainty and celebration. He founded the Way to St James Cygnet pilgrimage, creating a tradition of faith, reflection and fellowship in the Huon Valley. Whether offering spiritual guidance, encouraging a parishioner or contributing to public debate, he combined moral clarity with genuine, honest compassion. I was privileged to consider Michael a friend, and I valued his counsel, his warmth and his willingness to engage seriously with the difficult questions of our time. He was a person of great integrity and principled character. His convictions were deeply held, never shallow or performative. They were tested through study, prayer and service. He could be direct, and he could be challenging, but he was also generous in spirit. You always knew that Michael's words came from conscience and from a sincere desire to serve others. Father Michael Tate lived many lives in one: scholar, senator, minister, diplomat, priest, mentor and friend. And of course he was a brother and a son. Yet a single thread ran through them all, and that was service. He believed that faith required action, that justice demanded courage and that leadership carried an obligation to others. I know Tasmania is richer for his contribution and poorer for his passing. I only hope that his example continues to inspire all who serve in public life and in the church, and I once again offer my heartfelt condolences to all of those who loved him. But I also want to remind people that he was still very much a human being. I was invited down to my very first lunch with Archbishop Doyle in Hobart, and Michael was there, and I think it was probably to help build that bridge between another very young, inexperienced senator and the archbishop. It was a very enjoyable lunch until Michael said to me, 'Now, Helen, don't you love the power?' and I said, 'I'm sorry?' He said, 'Helen, the thing I miss most is the power that I had,' and I said, 'But, Father, you have more power now than any senator or minister will ever have. He never, ever forgot where he came from. He always was there to give advice, and the thing that has continued to impress me is the time that he spent with many young Labor Catholics who at times may have lost their way and were having difficulties. He was there. He was also there to challenge them and to ensure that their beliefs were their core values that we as Catholics live by each and every day. I will miss him. I know many people who relied on his counsel will miss him. May he rest in peace. I thank him again for his service. 16:21 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to associate myself with comments made by colleagues across the chamber on the life and the service of the Reverend the Hon. Michael Tate AO, and I extend my condolences to his family and my thanks to them for lending him to Tasmania, Australia, the church and our communities. It was fascinating to read back through his story and how he came to his place in life, coming from a quite conservative family, a Liberal family, but finding himself on the other side of politics. Senator Farrell I0N He saw the light! Senator COLBECK 00AOL Well, not all of us find our way that way, Senator Farrell, but he did. He held very strong Christian pacifist beliefs, and that didn't always sit well with his own side of politics, even. His entrance to the parliament came through first being preselected at No. 4 on the ticket and then, through the resignation of two other members of the ticket, being elevated to No. 2. Senator Farrell, you and I might understand some of those nuances. That's what brought him to this place. He was, on a number of occasions, challenged seriously by the party machine in Tasmania and supported from a federal perspective to retain his position in the place, and the work that he did in the parliament, I think, probably was part of that process. One of the things that I appreciate about Michael Tate was his courage and his willingness to undertake those tasks that he'd been given that didn't necessarily curry favour with his own side of politics. Those are quite often the most difficult tasks that you will undertake as a member of parliament, and it's a rare—and, sadly, these days even rarer—trait that we see. He undertook some very difficult roles when you look at the allegations in two inquiries with respect to Lionel Murphy, where he made decisions that weren't supported, necessarily, by his side of politics. And then I look at his time as the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, very early in the piece for those sorts of issues. But I then reflect on conversations that I had with him between 2004 and 2007, when this chamber had three significant conscience based debates with respect to stem cell research and human cloning. He didn't completely eschew politics; he took the opportunity to contact some of us who were participating in that debate and were struggling with some of the concepts that we were dealing with. But he did that in such a way that we had a strong sound, respectful, sensible communication. We didn't necessarily have to agree, but at the end of the day he was very willing to have those conversations to support those of us that were struggling ourselves with what are and were really important issues of the day. For him to have served such a terrific life of public service, as has already been indicated, in education, in the parliament, as an ambassador and then in the clergy—it is an extraordinary life of service that he has given. We all ought to pay thanks to him and to his family for that. He served humbly, but he served with great distinction and integrity. I think that's a real mark of a man who had a really significant legal mind—the fact that he was entrusted with so many of those difficult inquiry processes but also ministerial appointments as Special Minister of State and the minister for justice, then immigration and justice again on another occasion. As Senator Polley said, Tasmania is poorer for his passing. The nation is poorer for his passing, but we are richer for his contribution. I thank him for it, and I extend again my condolences to his family. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The Reverend the Hon. Professor Michael Tait, AO—what a truly remarkable life. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. NOTICES 46 NOTICES Postponement 46 DOCUMENTS 46 DOCUMENTS European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:30 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move general business notices of motion Nos 767 and 769 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICES OF MOTION NO. 767 AND 769 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Minister for Science has tabled a response to order for the production of documents no. 687, agreed to on 10 September 2026 and relating to the European Southern Observatory, which contains documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, (ii) in a letter to the President tabled as part of the response, the Minister for Science notes that '[r]edactions have been made where appropriate, including on personal privacy grounds and where material refers to the deliberations of Cabinet', and (iii) material provided in response to the order which was redacted under the deliberative processes exemption provided for by the Freedom of Information Act 1982 remains redacted; (b) affirms previous resolutions of the Senate, including the resolutions of 18 November 2024 and 19 August 2026, which reject the proposition that such an exemption may be claimed over material ordered to be produced by the Senate; and (c) requires the Minister for Science to table the documents sought by the order, with all redactions applied to deliberative material removed, by no later than midday on 6 November 2026. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICES OF MOTION NO. 769 That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Prime Minister has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 686, agreed to on 10 September 2026, relating to answers to questions on notice; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than midday on 15 October 2026. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion No. 767 and No. 769 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 16:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 I advise senators there may be further divisions. We'll do one-minute bells unless there's a pairing arrangement request from the whips. BUSINESS 48 BUSINESS Rearrangement 48 16:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That, on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to allow senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Duniam. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 48 DOCUMENTS Census 48 Order for the Production of Documents 48 16:39 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 19 October 2026, copies of all written or digital documents, correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction, from 12 May to 11 August 2026, between the Australian Bureau of Statistics and all external stakeholders regarding the 2026 Census. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 765, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 49 Order for the Production of Documents 49 16:44 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Sharma, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on 23 October 2026, all documents held by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet relating to the recruitment of Ms Anthea Harris to the roles of Deputy Secretary, Economy, Industry and Resources Group and Fuel Supply Coordinator, including but not limited to: (a) all emails, letters, text messages, instant messages, minutes, briefings and submissions relating to the hiring process and appointment of Ms Harris to the roles; (b) recruitment shortlists, job interview lists, role descriptions and job advertisements; and (c) all emails, letters, text messages, instant messages, minutes, briefings and submissions relating to the decision to make the Fuel Supply Coordinator position a substantive Senior Executive Service Band 3 role. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 766, standing in the name of Senator Sharma and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 NOTICES 50 NOTICES Withdrawal 50 16:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I ask that general business notice of motion No. 768 be withdrawn. DOCUMENTS 50 DOCUMENTS Cybersafety Legislation 50 Order for the Production of Documents 50 16:48 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 711, agreed to on 15 September 2026, relating to the Age Assurance Technology Trial; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, at the conclusion of private senators' time, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 20 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 770, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 Housing Australia Future Fund 51 Order for the Production of Documents 51 16:55 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move general business notice of motion No. 778: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on 22 October 2026, documents setting out: (a) the total amount of funding provided by the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to date; (b) the amount spent in each funding round, including rounds 1 to 3; (c) the amount provided to each recipient and the funding round in which that funding was provided; and (d) the number of homes expected to be built by each recipient as a result of the funding provided to them by the HAFF and the amount of this funding to be spent on each home. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is motion No. 778 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

Age Assurance Technology Trial 52 Order for the Production of Documents 52 16:58 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move general business notice of motion No. 771: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with orders for the production of documents nos 702 to 704, agreed to on 14 September 2026, relating to the Age Assurance Technology Trial; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with the orders by no later than midday on 19 October 2026. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 771 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.  

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

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

Question agreed to.

Australian Electoral Commission 53 Order for the Production of Documents 53 17:05 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Special Minister of State has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 712, agreed to on 15 September 2026, relating to certain ministerial submissions; and (b) requires the Special Minister of State to comply with the order by no later than midday on 16 October 2026. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 772 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 Senate Estimates 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 17:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 727, agreed to on 16 September 2026, relating to an answer to a question on notice; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with the order by no later than midday on 14 October 2026. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 773 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 BUDGET 55 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 55 17:13 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That, when the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee meets to consider the 2026-27 supplementary Budget estimates in relation to the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is directed to appear before the committee to answer questions. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 55 DOCUMENTS Productivity Commission 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 17:14 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move general business notices of motion Nos 775 and 776 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 775 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 23 October 2026, copies of all written or digital documents, correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction from 10 May 2024 to 30 August 2026 between: (a) the Treasurer or his office and all external stakeholders; or (b) the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and the Treasury or his office and all external stakeholders; regarding the Productivity Commission inquiry report entitled Future foundations for giving, which was publicly released on 18 July 2024. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 776 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 23 October 2026, the Government's response to the recommendations set out in the Productivity Commission inquiry report entitled Future foundations for giving, which was publicly released on 18 July 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notices of motion No. 775 and No. 776, taken together, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Housing Australia Future Fund 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 17:15 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales ():  I move general business notice of motion No. 777: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 25 November 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 275, relating to the Housing Australia Future Fund, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025, (ii) on 26 November 2025, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing provided an interim response from the Minister for Housing stating that additional time was required to comply with the order, and (iii) the order has not been complied with; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on 22 October 2026. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 55 MATTERS OF URGENCY Fossil Fuel Industry 55 17:16 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McDonald has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today. It's shown at item 16 on today's order of business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I see that it is supported. With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:16 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more. I brought forward this urgency motion today because the risk to our resources sector from scope 3 emissions uncertainty is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to our nation's prosperity, to our standing and to future investment success, and it sets a dangerous precedent when we start bringing in this kind of scrutiny. We cannot keep making it harder to produce the very commodities that bring Australia its prosperity. Australia is a resource superpower. We have been for some time. We all benefit from mining, whether it be in the wonderful, well-paid jobs right across this country, whether it be through the corporate taxes or whether it be through the royalties that we receive that pay in large part for the schools, hospitals, roads and other programs that Australia is so fortunate to be able to provide. But we are becoming one of the hardest places on the planet to invest. We are becoming uncertain. We now have sovereign risk greater than other countries that previously we would have scoffed at. We have endless approvals, regulatory uncertainty, activist litigation and now, it seems, an ideological opposition to mining. And the latest threat is the use of scope 3 emissions to obstruct Australian projects. We are effectively allowing emissions produced in other countries to determine approvals for our own projects. Now, this sets a dangerous precedent. For years, mining ministers—resource ministers—in this country had rejected any attempt to include scope 3 emissions. Ministers Canavan and Pitt had held the ground on this. Unfortunately, Minister King has folded to pressure to include scope 3 emissions in the statement of expectations for NOPSEMA, the offshore regulator for gas. Most recently, the recent High Court decision concerning the Mount Pleasant expansion included the idea that we should be considering scope 3 emissions on that approval. This highlights the legal uncertainty facing Australian miners. And, of course, activists started sharpening their pencils for a wave of legal action. We should not be held responsible for project approvals—decisions—made by sovereign countries about their own energy consumption, not to mention the complexity of calculating emissions generated in other countries that may well be offset by their own carbon emissions reduction programs like CCUS and others. Yet we seek to do that here. Mining's contribution to the Australian public purse is between $65 billion and $75 billion every year. There are 300,000 well-paid jobs. Investors have choices. Capital has choices. Indeed, capital goes to where it is wanted and stays where it is appreciated. We are not sending that message to those investors. Labor's ideological attacks mean that we are delaying projects. That means fewer jobs, fewer investments and less revenue for hospitals, schools, roads, defence and essential services. We have to stop appeasing international activists. We must start looking after Australians first. Limiting Australian coal is crazy. Our higher calorific, high-quality coal, mined to world's best standards—whether that be workplace health and safety or environmental—means that coal demand will not reduce. It means, simply, that it will be extracted from other jurisdictions with lower standards. The coalition's alternative is the belief that Australia should be proudly mining. It should be proudly pro-mining, pro-industry and pro-development. We will stop these scope 3 emissions being used to block or restrict Australian resources projects. We will ensure that we maintain national prosperity and sovereignty, because we believe that we should be a nation that can feed itself, fuel itself, defend itself and make choices for itself. 17:22 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia One of the problems with the intense fervour that is attracted by this debate around climate change and our resources industry is that it leads people to extreme positions. It leads to extreme positions from the Greens political party, and it leads to alarmist positions from the coalition. Senator McDonald is normally very thoughtful about this. But I have to disagree with the motion that she's put forward today and the consequence or the ill that she says it's designed to address. I think it fundamentally overstates what is happening or what has happened. I think the consideration of scope 3 emissions is not particularly radical and that the High Court decision, which turned on an interpretation of New South Wales law and an interpretation of a New South Wales planning regime, should not cause a rush to implement federal laws to either override or address it in some sort of universal way that can have unintended consequences. The High Court decision is the High Court decision. In fact, the entire court said that scope 3 may fall within relevant considerations. It was determined on the basis of whether that relevant or mandatory consideration had, in fact, been taken into account in the appropriate way. As a Western Australian, I know the importance of the resources industry. It's vitally important not only to our state but to the national economy. It's the bedrock upon which much of Australia's national prosperity is built. We support the resources industry. I also agree that, in terms of the way the structure of our efforts to address climate change have currently been legislated, we don't really consider scope 3 emissions. Our primary focus is on scope 1 and scope 2 emissions. Those are what that our targets are based on. We signed up to an agreement, with Paris, that focuses on the scope 1 and 2 emissions that nations deal with themselves. It's not a scope 3 focused issue. So I can't agree with the premise of this motion. I don't think that what has been stated as the basis for it justifies federal legislative intervention or some draconian attempt to go over the top. Nor is it obvious from the motion of Senator McDonald what the reason for the federal government overriding a decision that's been made on New South Wales law might be. On some level it's surprising given that Senator McDonald, among others in this place, espouses principles of federalism except in instances where they disagree with a particular state's course of action. There are no outstanding applications before the federal government in relation to that Mount Pleasant mine. Decisions that will be made by the federal government will be made in accordance with the EPBC Act, and the obligations to mitigate or reduce emissions are governed by the relevant mechanisms, including the safeguard mechanism that will ensure our compliance with the Paris Agreement. This is not a moment to try and universally outlaw any consideration of scope 3 emissions, but it's also not a moment to overstate the role of those types of emissions in the decision-making of Australian lawmakers or regulators at the moment. It is important that Australia act to mitigate climate change and reduce our carbon emissions, it's important that we address this threat in a holistic way, and it's vital that Australia do this as part of global efforts. Australian greenhouse gas emissions are something like 1.2 or 1.3 per cent of global emissions, so it's not something we can do alone, and that's why we've signed up to the Paris Agreement as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and then the Conference of Parties that set up a structure by which we address this issue globally. That structure essentially indicates that countries are responsible for the emissions they create in their country. The coal or gas that is burned in Australia to power homes and businesses counts towards Australia's emissions, and we need to reduce and mitigate that. Coal and gas that is extracted in Australia but sold and burned overseas to power homes and businesses in other countries will count towards those countries' emission. For instance, most of our major energy export destinations are countries that have also signed up to the Paris Agreement, so they're required to mitigate and reduce their emissions as well. That method allows for a clear understanding of the role that each nation is playing in terms of reducing emissions. Fundamentally, it doesn't involve the use of scope 3 emissions in terms of determining how we mitigate this problem in a global and cooperative way, but that doesn't mean scope 3 emissions should be irrelevant to everything or that, if a state parliament decides that it's one consideration that a decision-maker should take into account, that's somehow invalid or requires federal intervention. Again, we come back to a debate where we've got to address a really difficult problem, which is climate change. We've got to do it in a way that doesn't destroy national prosperity and doesn't put the burden of that transition on people who are on the downside of advantage or on working people in this country. That requires a balanced approach. That's the approach the Albanese government. The extremes on the left and right on this are not helpful in solving the core problem. 17:27 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales What Australia is currently dealing with here is essentially a 'uniparty' special because what we're dealing with is decisions made by Liberal governments and Labor governments in New South Wales and now a complete failure to take responsibility for these decisions or any action at a federal level. That is now severely impacting not just the state of New South Wales but the entire country. A lot of the legislation that has resulted in this originated under the Liberal Party. There's a gentleman named Matt Kean who has his hands in this. It is so vitally important that the Australian people understand that what we are now having to deal with is the end result of what you will always get when you have governments obsessed with the net zero ideology. It creeps into everything. It creeps into all parts of our legislative agenda. The next thing you know, you have a High Court forced to rule that, because of emissions from an overseas country and a box that hasn't been checked properly, a very important coalmine in the state of New South Wales cannot be expanded now. The consequences of this will rattle through the entire economy. There are many things the federal government could do that aren't necessarily legislation but. if they wanted to legislate, they could. They have all the power in the world to do so. The constitution allows them to do so. They could take steps, but they want to wash their hands of this, because they care more about their net zero obsession than they do about jobs—about important jobs in places like the Hunter Valley. Families are going to suffer because of these continued decisions. It is upon all of us to ensure that we turn it around. That is why I'm very proud that One Nation in New South Wales has said they will destroy all of these net zero laws. 17:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Let me explain scope 3 emissions in plain English. Imagine you run a car yard, you sell a car and then the government tells you that you are now responsible for every kilometre the car is ever driven by whoever ends up owning it wherever they live. That is the absolute madness of what scope 3 is. It is a fact that scope 3 emissions are not a business's own emissions. They are the emissions of everybody else: the suppliers, the customers and the people who use its products—this is where it gets even madder—often on the other side of the world. In other words, making Australian businesses answer for scope 3 emissions is sheer madness. But then again, it's the Albanese government who dreamed this up. This is how businesses have described the compliance burden in relation to scope 3 emissions. It creates significant compliance costs and administrative burdens throughout the supply trains and, lo and behold, traps small businesses in yet another regulatory nightmare. Alternatively, scope 3 carbon accounting is a form of grey tape, again basically putting another regulatory burden in particular on small business. Now, last week, as we know, it was the High Court that said the approval for the Mount Pleasant mine in the Hunter Valley was invalid not because of anything that happens at that mine—not dust, not noise, not water. It was because of, lo and behold, what happens when the coal is burned in another country. That is stark raving mad. Now, the court was admittedly applying New South Wales state law, but who runs New South Wales? It is the Minns government. In other words, the Minns Labor government could actually change their own law tomorrow. Here in Canberra, guess what we could actually do. We could lead this through National Cabinet or, alternatively, the Albanese government could legislate itself. And yet what has it done? It has not lifted a finger. Labor in Sydney, Labor in Canberra—two Labor governments, one Hunter mine and not one of those Labor governments willing to stand up for the workers. But here is the part that should make every Australian angry. Ninety-eight per cent of the emissions counted against that mine happen overseas. They are counted in the country that burns the coal. Then they are counted again here in Australia against an Australian mine. In reading the judgement, I have to say that the types of conditions that were argued in this case were to sell the coal only to certain countries and require power stations overseas to use particular technology before they can buy Australian coal. A planning approval in the Hunter trying to tell a power station in Asia how to run—you actually could not make that up. And federal Labor has made it worse, because, of course, this is a requirement that the Albanese government passed in 2024 that forces big Australian companies to report on emissions that are created overseas. So it is not just their own pollution; it is their customers, their suppliers—things they don't own, don't control and can't properly measure. It is guesswork and, sadly, it costs a fortune. And we know who ends up doing the paperwork: the local trucking company, the family farm, the small engineering shop in a regional town. More forms, more consultants, more costs—the hallmarks of the Albanese government. What does it end up with? Well, the consumer at the end of the line actually pays more. We voted against this in 2024. Sadly, Labor teamed up with the Australian Greens and voted for this madness. So what have we said? You've got to get rid of scope 3. That's what you've got to do. The coalition plan is simple. Australian projects should be judged on what happens in Australia. That's it. And what Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, could do tomorrow is scrap Labor's scope 3 reporting rules because Australian businesses, yes, can answer for their own emissions but should not answer for emissions that are created overseas. Labor has a choice: stand with the Hunter, stand with the workers or, as they'll do, stand with the Australian Greens. Australians will be watching. 17:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales ():  Well, this is the coalition all over. They think that you can pass a motion and suddenly you can remove physics from the planet or that you can pass a motion and suddenly we'll have a whole extra planet and scope 3 emissions will just find their way off to some other magic planet that the coalition have got in their mind. I don't know if they've realised, but, when the coal is dug up in Australia, put on a ship and sent over to be burnt somewhere else, it's on the same planet. When the gas is exported out of the North West Shelf, I hate to tell the coalition, but it doesn't go into space. This is not a Mars export facility that we have in place. I know you love Elon. I know you love the whole project. But I've got to tell you we live in a world that is governed by really, really important things like geography, physics and reality, and it's about time you learnt that. 17:35 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania I too rise in response to Senator McDonald's urgency motion, where she states: The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more. Heavens! Let's be clear: these claims misrepresent both the facts and our government's approach. The Albanese Labor government supports a strong resources sector, we support a strong industry, and Labor supports the workers whose livelihoods depend on it. We also support robust environmental protections and credible action on climate change. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. Our responsibility as a government is to strike the right balance between economic growth, environmental protection and long-term national prosperity. There's also been considerable discussion about a recent High Court decision, and it's important to understand the facts of that one: the Australian government wasn't a party to the proceedings, it was a matter concerning an application of New South Wales legislation by the High Court, and it doesn't relate to a decision of the Commonwealth government. In fact, the Federal Court had recently considered the Australian government's role in approving resources projects, including the Mount Pleasant coalmine in New South Wales. There are no outstanding applications before the Commonwealth relating to that project. The position of this government is straightforward. We apply the national environmental laws as enacted by this parliament through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Whether the proposal before us is a housing development, a solar farm, a transmission project or a coalmine, federal decisions are made in accordance with the law. That is what Australians expect, and that's what we will continue to do. At the same time, there's been a lot of commentary about climate impacts and those scope 3 emissions, and those on the other side are suggesting that the government is doing nothing about the impact of major projects on climate change. That claim is simply untrue. Our government passed laws including the safeguard mechanism, which requires Australia's largest industrial emitters to cut their emissions by five per cent each year on a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. This places a clear obligation on heavy emitting industries to reduce pollution and invest in cleaner technologies. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask, because households are doing the same in record numbers. Households are installing more batteries because of our Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and they are installing solar panels with solar rebates. It's not unreasonable that business also make those investments. We are taking meaningful action through the mechanisms that are designed to reduce emissions across the country. On the scope 3 emissions, it's important to note that almost every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement. That agreement is built around the responsibility of each nation to reduce the emissions produced within itself. In Australia, that is the emissions made in the production of energy, not in its use. Likewise, Australia is only responsible for the emissions made by Japanese and Korean cars, not the emissions made during their production. So there are a range of mechanisms already in place, both domestically and internationally, to manage the climate impact of developments. Of course, people across this chamber will argue that we should do more, and some will argue that we should do less. However, being in government means we must strike the right balance between protecting our environment and supporting industry, investments and jobs that Australians rely on. That brings me to the topic of workers. The hypocrisy coming from some on the other side when it comes to mine workers is outrageous. They're happy to pose for photos in hi-vis and they're happy to stand in front of the cameras and claim to support working Australians, yet, when legislation comes before the parliament to increase wages and improve conditions, they disappear or, even worse, vote it down. Let us remember that the coalition and One Nation voted against closing the loopholes legislation, opposed measures that criminalise wage theft, opposed measures that stop workers being undercut through dodgy labour hire arrangements and opposed reforms that strengthen protections and standards in the road transport industry. I've spoken to people who are tens of thousands of dollars better off because of those laws. 17:40 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Well, here we are. It's another day in this alternative reality that is the Senate in the Australian parliament. People elect us to come into this place to fight to protect them and to fight for their communities, but instead we have these corporate parties who are more interested in going in to defend coal barons and who are more interested in protecting corporate profits than they are in standing up for the Australian people, who are staring down the barrel of a terrifying El Nino and who are going to court to fight for their communities and to fight for a safe climate future. We had a member of the Labor Party describe the Greens as the 'extreme left' for wanting a safe planet for our children and for future generations and for fighting for ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse. There is nothing extreme about that. The only extreme thing is two parties that are absolutely wedded to coal and gas and are failing to take the sort of climate leadership that the Australian public deserve and expect. We have seen the High Court make it incredibly clear that you cannot ignore emissions from Australia just because they were burned overseas. The High Court is doing its job, the communities of the Hunter Valley are doing their job and the young people are doing their job. I had the AYCC, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, in here today, desperate to get a meeting with decision-makers about the sort of planet they're going to inherit. But they got fobbed off to staffers. Do the coal lobbyists get fobbed off to staffers? Do the gas industry? Tomorrow we're going to see the Labor Party, another corporate party, going in to bat for the gas industry by introducing their watered down, weak gas reservation policy. It's a policy that they initially said would be '20 per cent' but that has now been rewritten by the gas industry to 'up to 20 per cent', which could mean a big fat zero. Well, we say enough of this corporate protection racket these corporate parties are running and more action for climate and for the communities who voted us in to keep them safe. 17:42 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia This is a debate about uncertainty—uncertainty in the context of scope 3 emissions. Legal uncertainty leads to investment uncertainty. Investment uncertainty delays mining and resource projects. Delayed mining and resource projects mean fewer jobs, less regional investment and less revenue to governments. The decision around scope 3 emissions requires more certainty, not less, and this is particularly important for a state like Western Australia. This afternoon's debate is not abstract and just about accounting conventions. It's about jobs, investment, exports and the economic future of a state like Western Australia. The High Court's decision on the Mount Pleasant coalmine should ring alarm bells across every resources boardroom in Western Australia. Why? It's because Labor governments, federal and state, cannot be trusted. The court found the New South Wales planning authority was required to consider conditions to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, including scope 3 emissions. That means emissions generated not at the mine, not necessarily in Australia and not by the company but potentially thousands of kilometres away, where an exported commodity is ultimately used. That principle should be deeply concerning, which is why it has raised alarm across this country, and especially concerning to a state like Western Australia. As has been said by me in this place before, Western Australia is the engine room of the Australian economy. More than 136,000 full-time-equivalent jobs are directly supported by mining, with another 11,000 people directly employed in oil and gas extraction. Mining and petroleum investment reached $34 billion last year alone, and there are $55 billion worth of projects committed to or under construction, with another $121 billion further down the investment pipeline. The sector also delivered $10.6 billion in royalties and related revenues. That means jobs, business and revenue funding for our hospitals, schools, roads and essential services. But those investment decisions depend on confidence—confidence that projects can be proposed, assessed and approved under clear and predictable rules. The Mount Pleasant decision puts that certainty at risk. Consider Western Australian iron ore, for example. If iron ore mined in the Pilbara is exported to China and processed into steel, should a Western Australian miner be responsible for the emissions generated by a Chinese steel mill? Of course not. Australia exports around 900 million tonnes of iron ore each year. Processing that overseas generates more than 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, around three times Australia's entire annual domestic emissions. Are we seriously suggesting Australian miners should dictate how their customers operate steel mills in China, or that Australian LNG producers should be responsible for decisions made inside power stations in Japan or South Korea? It is neither practical nor consistent with the international emissions framework. If Australian coal is burned in India, India accounts for the emissions. Scope 3 requirements risk making Australian businesses answerable for emissions already accounted for by another sovereign nation. Worse, it does nothing to address global demand. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy in Western Australia, in response to this decision, has warned that shutting down Australian projects will not make global demand disappear; investment will simply move elsewhere—potentially, to countries with weaker environmental protections, lower workplace standards and poorer safety records. The emissions remain. Australian jobs, investment, royalties and taxes disappear with those investments. That is environmental policy defeating itself. WA has particular reason to be concerned. Petroleum exploration expenditure has already fallen to its lowest level in 30 years. Major projects, such as Browse, require billions of dollars of patient, long-term capital. Investors need certainty, not the prospect that an approval granted today can face years of litigation tomorrow over emissions generated by someone else in another country and beyond the project operator's control. People are alarmed, because this has imported investment uncertainty and Labor can't be trusted with these matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the urgency motion as moved by Senator McDonald be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. D. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Gatenby, C. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McGrath, J. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bleyer, V. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Whiteaker, E. 11 PAIRS Brockman, W. E. Mulholland, C. Cadell, R. P. Stewart, J. N. A. Canavan, M. J. Green, N. L. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Hume, J. Waters, L. J. McDonald, S. E. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. G. Gallagher, K. R. McLachlan, A. L. Watt, M. P. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Ayres, T. O'Sullivan, M. A. Cox, D.

Question negatived.

 Invasive Species Management 61 17:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator David Pocock, which is also shown at item No. 16 on today's order of business and is shown on the Dynamic Red: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: the need for increased investment to protect Australia's landscapes and wildlife from invasive species, which cost around $25 billion a year and are driving native species towards extinction. With bird flu spreading around the country, the Environment Minister has said managing threats like weeds, feral cats, foxes and pigs is 'more important than ever'. The government must fully fund a long-term plan for management, research and eradication. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 17:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to amend the motion. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: the need for increased investment to protect Australia's landscapes and wildlife from invasive species, which cost around $25 billion a year and are driving native species towards extinction. With bird flu spreading around the country, the Environment Minister has said managing threats like weeds, feral cats, foxes and pigs is 'more important than ever'. The government must fully fund a long-term plan for management, research and eradication. Just this morning, we heard that fire ants, one of the worst invasive species on the planet, have been detected at a logistics hub in Sydney's inner west. If they spread, they'll cost an estimated $2 billion a year and threaten human health and wildlife. This would be just the latest in a long history of invasive species doing huge damage to this incredible continent. For tens of thousands of years, First Nations people cared for this continent across thousands of generations, and we have to face up to the fact that, over just 230 years, we have one of the worst records of mammal extinction in the world. We are a wealthy country that can do something about that. We have Australians who love this place, who want to see nature protected. We've got farmers who want to play their part. What we need are coordination from all levels of government and long-term planning. Invasive species is not something that you can throw some money at for five years and at the end of a program say what a great success it was and move on to the next thing. We need sustained funding and effort in this space. At the turn of the century, 21 Australian mammals were thought to be extinct. Today that number is 43—more than double. Invasive species like cats, foxes and rats have likely been the main cause of more than 90 per cent of those extinctions, and 267 invasive species now affect 82 per cent of Australia's threatened species. There are a lot of numbers that get thrown around when we talk about invasive species, but I think we need to remember what's at stake here: the places we love, the species that have evolved here over millions of years and have just as much right to be here as we do. The damage goes well beyond extinction. Introduced species are making Australia look more like everywhere else. This hollowing out, this removal of so much biodiversity from our landscape, is a tragedy. We're seeing buffelgrass fires killing river red gums in central Australia, and we've got 200 million carp, which are now 90 per cent of the fish biomass in parts of the Murray-Darling Basin. Yet I don't think, from what I've seen, we've had the political will to tackle this. This is not the environment that I think we want our kids to experience. We can and must do something about this. It's bad, and we're hearing from experts that it could get worse. We've got bird flu here in Australia now. This poses a new and significant threat, and it really hammers home just how important it is to get on top of things like cats and foxes, to be doing more on islands. There's a huge opportunity in Australia to be working on the eradication of cats, foxes, mice, rats and rabbits on islands and creating safe havens, just as we've seen on the mainland with groups like Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Bush Heritage and many others making very important contributions to conservation through fenced-area conservation efforts. The cost is huge. We all pay for it. Australia suffers the cost of invasive species to the tune of $25 billion every year. I think this is something that should be a rallying call to politicians, to be working with groups that are already working on this—to be working with farmers, to be working with hunters, to be working with everyone who actually wants to get involved in turning this around and going in a direction that has more biodiversity, more life in our landscapes, and connects people to the places that they live. It's a huge opportunity. I would urge the Senate to send a message to the government that this is important for us and our country. 18:01 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I indicate that the coalition will be supporting this important motion from Senator Pocock, and I want to acknowledge him for his genuine interest in these issues of invasive species. What we're talking about here is protecting Australia. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about protecting this country, protecting it from the threat of erasure, which we have seen, sadly, over the last couple of 100 years, where we have lost too many of our own species and unique flora and fauna as a result of different invasive species penetrating our biosecurity. What could be more important than protecting Australia? I'd say that, when I was growing up in northern Victoria, you could see the difference between where invasive species had penetrated parts of the day-to-day landscape and where they hadn't. You could see the material difference it made. I think about the impact of European carp in the Goulburn and Murray river channels in the system and the fact that, in other parts of western Victoria, there were no European carp and, therefore, the fish sector and the environmental sector were radically improved for everyone. This is a very serious matter. We see the rural vista. We see the deer, the goats and the pigs. These are very serious threats to agriculture and very serious threats to our native species. This is a regional problem which threatens our economy. It threatens our sustainability. In the cities, though, we have a terrible problem with feral cats. So it's not just a rural and regional issue. And then we have weeds, which can destroy parts of the natural habitat. At the moment, there has been a big focus on the fire ants, but there are also the varroa mites, which have been detected at the Port of Newcastle. These mites can destroy European honeybees, which is a very significant threat to our honey industry. That's just one that has come up recently. But the pigs are a big problem. The goats are a big problem. The camels are a big problem, actually. So these are longstanding issues. The government has been in place now for many years, and the industry is very, very worried. In the farming sector, anyone that has any exposure is focused on this: 'Can we get better program certainty from the government?' These are long-run campaigns that are needed. You need to have the funding certainty. Stakeholders, including the Invasive Species Council, are identifying that the yellow crazy ants, the gamba grass eradication, the Kangaroo Island feral cat eradication and the Tasmanian feral deer on Bruny Island are some things that are happening right now where there isn't funding certainty; there isn't program certainty. The government have, in their words, 'reallocated'—but have, we would say, cut—funding from these programs in the last budget. What we want to see is a serious whole-of-government endeavour to eradicate these invasive species. That, in some cases, will take up to a decade. You can't just run the program for one year or two years and re-announce things and rebadge things in the budget. This is a serious problem that we're fighting on a number of fronts. As I say, there's a problem in the city. There's a problem in the bush. There are the weeds. There are so many different invasive species in different forms. If we take it back to first principles, we are all committed to protecting Australia regardless of our political differences. This is one of the most basic things we can do to protect our environmental heritage but also to protect our economy, our livelihoods and our health. That is why the ask from the industry that is most exposed to the invasive species mismanagement is simply for funding certainty and program certainty. I think that's something that we should all try and work together on. Everyone wants to protect our native habitat, because that is what is sustaining us here on this continent. 18:06 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria I'd like to thank Senator Pocock for bringing forward this very important motion. Australians' identity as a people is very much intertwined with the natural world. From our rivers to our reefs to our river red gums, we are rooted to our country, and we are deeply committed to protecting our country—all Australians are. But that country of ours is under threat. It's under threat from human habitation, from land clearing, from invasive species and, of course, from climate change. We all recall the State of the environmentreport from a few years ago which laid it out, writ large, that our environment was under pressure and deteriorating at an alarming rate. The Invasive Species Council has reported that invasive species cost this country around $25 billion a year. We know what they are. They're the usual suspects: feral cats, feral deer, foxes, rabbits—all these sorts of introduced species. There are weeds and yellow crazy ants. They're all basically eating away at our native habitat and our flora and fauna. That is contributing to this death by a thousand cuts. We, as a government, have put more than $800 million since 2022 into threatened species and into protecting ecological communities, and more than $2 billion into extra biosecurity. We agree with the motion on the threat posed by invasive species, and we are doing something about it. This was also best seen, I think, in regard to our response to H5 bird flu. We knew this was coming. It wasn't a question of if but of when, and it has now appeared on our shores. But we did the work; we did the groundwork in preparing this country for what could potentially be an extinction event for some species in our land. We've contributed more than $270 million into strengthening our preparedness and our response. Over $67 million of that has gone towards biodiversity protection, to help our native animals withstand and recover, and a further $20 million has gone into emergency funding for on-ground action and for Commonwealth-managed national parks. And, of course, it's all aided by our citizen scientists. We are backing the next generation of rabbit biocontrol. You see them in their thousands here in Canberra. While they may look cute, they are devastating to our natural habitat, to our native species and of course to our farmers. This year's budget puts over $110 million into extending the Saving Native Species program and continuing our H5 bird flu preparedness. In terms of wins, there are some wins. There are some gains. We've seen, with respect to feral cat eradication, some gains on Kangaroo Island. These cats threaten a number of species, including the Kangaroo Island dunnart, which is a type of marsupial. It looks a little bit like a rodent. They also threaten the bandicoot, the echidna and the whipbird. Since 2019-20, the government has committed more than $9.7 million towards eradicating these feral cats on the Dudley Peninsula. We've seen more than 1,800 feral cats removed. The remaining population is now less than 150. The key message here is that there needs to be sustained effort over a long period of time and there needs to be commitment to these programs. We cannot have governments chopping and changing over time. Labor has a very proud legacy of environmental stewardship. It was Whitlam who created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It was Hawke who stopped, along with the Greens political party, the damming of the Franklin and protected the Daintree. He also led the push to ban mining in Antarctica and established Landcare, which could do with a bit of a glow-up, I think! It was Keating who ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, and it was Gillard who ratified the Kyoto protocol, the precursor to the Paris Agreement. She also established the green bank, the CEFC, as well as ARENA The coalition attempted to disband that a number of times. She also finalised the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and it was under the Albanese government that we have delivered, with the aid of the Greens political party, landmark environmental laws, passed last year, and the establishment of the National Environmental Protection Authority, which, as of a few days ago, issued its first environmental protection order to prevent a huge amount of land clearing in Far North Queensland that was going to adversely impact the Great Barrier Reef. This happened also thanks to the activities and the work of citizen scientists in Australia. So we are trying to— (Time expired) 18:11 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Firstly, thank you to Senator David Pocock for bringing forward this motion today. So often in this place we debate the funding priorities of other particular programs, but very rarely does the government of the day bring forward a serious piece of legislation that funds our nature protection here in Australia. You only need to look at the percentage of money in our federal budget that is spent on nature protection to understand just how little of a priority it is and has been for successive governments. In fact, federal biodiversity spending remains below 0.1 per cent of our annual budget. Let me say that again: 0.1 per cent of our national budget is what is spent protecting Australia's natural places and our biodiversity. It's not even one per cent. Not even one per cent of our national budget goes to protecting the very environment and places that we hold so dear, which are important to our cultural identity and which are important to our social wellbeing, to our health, to our tourism, to our business, to our economy and to our mental health. Australians are innately connected to our beautiful landscapes, our unique wildlife, our beautiful forests, our coastlines and our beautiful natural beaches and bushland, yet, when it comes to priorities, governments of all persuasions never seem to make it a matter of significance. It's not good enough. What we have now is a terrible double whammy where Australia's environment is under pressure like never before. We know that habitat destruction is the biggest threat to Australia's wildlife and our native species. What happens when there is habitat destruction—that is, the logging of our native forests, the bulldozing of our beautiful bushland, the trashing of our coastline and beautiful natural beaches? When that part of nature is destroyed, when the habitat of our native species is bulldozed and destroyed, guess who moves in? The invasive species. Whether they are feral animals or invasive plant species, they move in and they take over, and then our native wildlife, our native species and our rich, unique biodiversity are under even more pressure. Not only has the habitat itself been trashed; the ferals move in, and the invasive species spread across the landscape. And who ends up having to deal with this? Of course Australia's environment struggles and chokes under the invasive species that take over destroyed, trashed, logged and bulldozed habitat. It's Australians and our communities that really suffer. It ends up being our farmers having to deal with invasive species, even when they want the support to be able to restore our natural heritage. It's our Indigenous communities and First Nations people who are left having to deal with the invasive species on their country and land with very little support and help from government. It ends up being left to volunteers around the country, community volunteers who are doing the good work of getting in there with their shovels, forks, gloves and buckets, to try and restore Australia's natural world and natural heritage. They do it with very little if no support from government. Yet, when you hear ministers talk about what makes our country great, they always argue that our beautiful forests, our beautiful beaches and our natural heritage and wildlife are too important to lose. (Time expired) 18:16 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you to Senator Pocock for bringing this important motion to the Senate today. Invasive species is an issue that this government has completely ignored, yet they cause incredible harm to country. As First Peoples of these lands, it is our responsibility to look after our country so that country can look after us. For example, feral deer are prevalent on my country—Gunnai country—in eastern Victoria all the way to my country on Gunditjmara country in western Victoria and then to Yorta Yorta country in northern Victoria. We have even had one running down Smith Street, Collingwood, in the same street my office is in in the city. Feral deer hooves damage the soil. They strip understorey plants, ferns and mosses and fungi in sensitive environments, not to mention cultural heritage sites. Eastern Maar in the western districts have done better than anyone else in dealing with feral deer, but it cannot be up to individual nations to deal with invasive species. Invasive species do not stick to borders, not traditional ones and not colonial ones. Buffel grass is another case of an invasive species that is spreading widely. It is flammable and can contribute to bushfires spreading quickly and becoming uncontrollable. Rock wallabies slip on it and get injured, and it replaces native grasses. Buffel grass is very green, even when there isn't much water. Farmers love it for cattle feed, especially in dry or semidry areas. But it is incredibly flammable and speeds up bushfires. Across central Australia in particular, buffel fuelled fires are contributing to profound changes to country and threatening sacred sites, bush foods and native plants. These increasingly get damaged or destroyed by severe fires. Again, our communities are carrying the consequences, but it cannot be up to individual nations to deal with this. I think that, as First Peoples, we need to stand together in our fight against invasive species and put those that endorse their protection on notice. In the case of buffel grass, I've raised with the minister for the environment the need to list it as a weed of national significance. This would enable research into effective control methods and allow for more coordinated measures to control it. Individual states have already taken this step, but we need a national approach. This applies to invasive species in general, and we cannot continue a piecemeal approach. That has failed. We need a holistic approach. A first step could be an inquiry into the impacts of invasive species and how they can be effectively managed across the country. This is something that I've also raised with the minister—but, of course, no response, as usual. Anyway. Aboriginal peoples'—First Peoples'—knowledge needs to be centred when it comes to healing country. Our knowledge of our country is like no other, because we have cared for country for thousands of generations. We know it intimately. We are one with our country. We're not above it. Dealing with invasive species is the first step in healing country for everyone in this country. 18:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales There's a point that I've found myself having to make countless times before. It's one I'm happy to make as many times as necessary. Protecting our precious environment does not require inhumane treatment and cruelty to sentient animals, whether they're native or introduced species. We can protect our environment and our precious biodiversity and be humane to all species. Let's start by getting the language right. There's no need for labelling introduced species as invasive in a way that blames animals for the man-made problems raised by this motion. Language matters. Animals are not villains to be shot or obstacles to be poisoned to death. The answer to colonialism's legacy is not more violence and more death. For decades, successive governments have culled and killed introduced species, and yet native species are in a worse position today. How many animals need to be killed until we accept the fact that it is simply not effective? Kill a fox or a cat, and another takes the territory. More are bred. We cannot shoot our way out of this problem. Humane alternatives exist to manage introduced populations, such as immunocontraceptives and, for some species, rehoming. What this motion asks of us is to ignore the man-made impacts, pass the blame to voiceless animals and absolve the Albanese government of any responsibility. As an environmental engineer, I know that decades of scientific research has found habitat destruction from native forest logging and from land clearing to be the primary drivers of the decline of koalas, greater gliders and the swift parrot, to name just a few species who are endangered, and there are many more who could become extinct if native forest logging and indiscriminate land clearing aren't halted. But the Labor government doesn't really want to go there at all. Then there's the impact of the climate crisis. For every fossil fuel project that state and federal Labor governments approve, they sentence millions more native wildlife to be burnt to death in bushfires, and they sentence our oceans and their inhabitants to be cooked in a boiling pot. I suggest that, if someone wants to improve animal welfare and save our native species, they start by putting their guns and their chemicals down. As the Greens spokesperson for animal welfare, I know there's a lot the government can do. We need the Labor Party to step up and do their part to end native forest logging that destroys habitat, to stop land clearing that kills native species, to stop new coal, oil and gas, and to stop handing out licences to kill millions of native animals around the country. Invest more in non-lethal population control methods and research because we know that populations of introduced species need to be controlled. Plan ahead and support vets to tackle bird flu and give animal welfare charities the tax support they need to do their work. Do that, and you'll go a long way to protecting our environments and animals. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:29]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

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

Question agreed to.

DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Tabling 66 18:33 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I table the following documents: Shackling during childbirth—Open letter from 5,658 signatories calling on the Attorney-General (Ms Rowland) to support the passage of the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. Strip searching of children—Open letter from 3,517 signatories calling on the Attorney-General (Ms Rowland) to support the passage of the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Consideration 66 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 66 Report 66 18:35 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present two reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Review of administration and expenditure No. 24 and the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I want to make a contribution this afternoon in the chamber about these two reports that the PJCIS has presented today to the Senate. As chair of that committee, I firstly want to talk to the Review of administration and expenditure No. 24 (2024-25)—Australian intelligence agencies. In doing so, I acknowledge that the annual report itself, whilst a very routine process, undertakes very important business, particularly when it comes to the oversight and the transparency of this parliament and reporting back to the Australian people, making sure that the taxpayer dollars that are attributed to our intelligence agencies are met with the most stringent level of scrutiny possible. The annual report itself is undertaken in accordance with the committee's own statutory responsibilities established under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. It examines the administration, the expenditure and the financial statements of each of the 10 agencies that make up Australia's national intelligence community. The committee's review is part of a strict oversight and accountability framework within which these agencies operate. Their public reporting is necessarily limited to protect sensitive information. As you could imagine, there'd be a lot of sensitive, very classified information. So this annual parliamentary review is an important mechanism by which the Australian people, through the parliament, through the representatives that they elect every election, are able to receive assurances on these agencies' governance and also, of particular note, on the resource stewardship and the administration of the agencies. Through this review, which the committee conducts every year, the committee sought assurance on each agency's performance against its objectives—objectives that the committee sets and sends out before it conducts its A&E review. In addition, it also looks at the health and the integrity of the financial positions of the agencies themselves. This included examination of the strategic priorities, the organisational governance, the risk management practices, the workforce capability, security arrangements, and major ICT and information-sharing initiatives. These are all very relevant and very important, particularly in the day and age that we are in at the moment. There is a need to make sure that our intelligence agencies have the most up-to-date and most capable infrastructure and equipment possible to make sure that they are keeping Australians safe every single day. The committee also invited submissions, as you would imagine, Deputy President, and submissions covered four key areas of focus, which I'll go through now. The first one was the 2024 independent intelligence review. The second one was the joint taskforces. The third one was the conflicts of interest, and the fourth one was the investigations and whistleblowers. Each of these four key areas of focus were covered as part of the submissions that were received. The committee received very detailed material from these agencies as well as from the Australian National Audit Office and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Classified hearings, as you can imagine, assisted the committee in discharging its obligations while ensuring national security was maintained. The report itself, which I presented just before, highlights the dynamic environment in which intelligence agencies continue to operate and the importance of ensuring that administrative systems, governance structures and financial management remain robust. These are important elements that I think everyone would expect in this place and particularly the public. Although much of the committee's work understandably occurs in classified settings—and for good reason—the outcomes reflected in this report demonstrate to the parliament and to the people of Australia that the committee continues to exercise a very strong bipartisanship when it comes to the oversight of intelligence administration and expenditure. This oversight is essential to maintaining the public's trust in agencies whose work, by necessity, is largely unseen. The committee did note some inconsistencies between agencies in what information was provided publicly to the inquiry. In a security environment marked by increasing divisions and reduced social cohesion, maintaining public trust in institutions has never been more important. The committee encourages agencies to consider how they can increase communication of appropriately unclassified information with the committee and public. The committee thanks all agencies, officials and oversight bodies for their cooperation throughout this review. Their engagement supports not only the committee's work but the broader accountability framework that underpins the operation of Australia's intelligence community. The second report I presented, and which I will speak to in the remaining minutes I have left, is the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026—also reporting on the review of post-sentence terrorism orders: division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Work on this report commenced in the previous parliament, and it's worth noting that. But, when the committee had commenced a statutory review into the division 105A framework, which provides for post-sentence orders in relation to high-risk terrorist offenders, that information was able to be carried over, as has been the case on many occasions. That review lapsed, and, when the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 was referred to the committee earlier this year, it was agreed the committee would conduct the two reviews together and present a single report to the parliament covering both the lapsed statutory review and the bill inquiry. It's worth noting that the reason why we did this is that there was evidence, as well as a number of submissions, which we had received publicly and in a classified setting, that was still relevant and worthy of the current parliament and the assessing committee. The report ultimately recommends the passage of the bill. However, it also makes recommendations to improve the high-risk terrorist offenders framework. There are some extraordinary powers within the framework, but the committee recognises that the terrorism threat continues to evolve and that the passage of the bill is critical to prevent parts of the framework sunsetting in December this year. The bill contains a broad package of reforms across Australia's counterterrorism framework. In addition to extending the relevant sunset provisions, it would reduce duplication between post-sentence orders and control orders, strengthen information-sharing arrangements, preserve investigative capabilities used to assess the risk posed by serious terrorist offenders and clarify the framework for listing and delisting terrorist organisations. The committee received a range of views on these measures. Stakeholders generally recognise the need for an effective legal framework to protect the community from terrorism, although several raised concerns about proportionality, procedural fairness and the application of these powers to young people. In particular, the committee carefully considered the proposal to increase the maximum duration of a control order imposed on a person aged between the ages of 14 and 17 from three months to 12 months. The committee was satisfied that the existing requirement for a court to treat the best interests of the young person as a primary consideration remains an important safeguard. It's worth noting the critical timing of the passage of the proposed amendments of the bill, prior to the 7 December sunset date, and the committee does recommend that the bill be passed by this parliament. However, the other recommendations within the report constitute a larger body of work, and the committee would support that response to these recommendations may necessitate a further bill in the future to enable the adequate consideration of the amendments required and timely considerations. I thank the deputy chair, Andrew Wallace in the other place; committee members; and all those who made a contribution. On that note, I wish to commend both reports to the Senate. Question agreed to. National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 68 Report 68 18:46 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the report on the National Capital Plan Amendment No. 102, Hume Circle Precinct. BILLS 68 BILLS Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 68

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

Report from Committee 68 18:47 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Stewart, I present the report on the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, together with accompanying documents. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Intergenerational Housing Inequity Select Committee 68 Report 68 18:48 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia () (): I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I would like to take note of the final report of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Housing Inequity. I thank the committee secretariat for their hard work, their wonderful work. This Senate is so well served by its committee secretariats. I also want to give particular thanks to the 185 organisations and individuals who made submissions and appeared at eight public hearings all over the country. Your testimony was powerful. Thanks for your valuable time, your experience and your expertise. Everywhere we went across Australia, we heard that housing is a primary driver of widening intergenerational wealth inequality in Australia, that it is the primary cost-of-living issue and that this government must do more. This inquiry revealed a housing system stacked against younger generations, who have lost the intergenerational housing lottery. This inequity is the consequence of decades of political decisions about taxation, investment and the diminished role of government in providing housing. Those decisions have turned housing from a basic human need into a vehicle for accumulating private wealth. The consequences are profound. They are profound for many people in many generations but for none more than younger generations born since the 1980s. We are witnessing a rupture in the social contract. Working hard no longer assures secure housing and the chance for a family and a decent community life. The distance between real wages and house prices is a widening chasm. Across this country, young people have given up on the hope to one day own a home. House prices have increased by over 400 per cent since 1999—incredible. Rent increases have outpaced wage growth by several multiples. Homeownership is declining, especially amongst people in their 20s and 30s, and there have been significant increases in homelessness. Younger Australians are renting for longer, often in unstable and insecure tenures, and access to secure housing and homeownership is increasingly influenced by existing wealth and family support rather than earnings alone. That is not a fair go. It is an inheritance lottery, and it is turning Australia into a country where wealth and a decent life are increasingly determined by what you inherit. But, of course, not everyone is losing in a housing system built around increasingly large mortgages and rising property values. Banks, the real estate industry, big developers and multiple property investors are the big winners out of the housing crisis. The big four banks made an incredible net profit of over $30 billion in the last financial year, largely off mortgage profits. When rising house prices create wealth for banks, multiproperty owners and investors, powerful interests become vested in preserving these gains. The major parties have too long responded too often by accommodating those interests and accepting their donations rather than challenging them. And they have sold out younger generations in the process, in the housing crisis. This crisis in a very wealthy country should be a matter of national shame. It should motivate real change in our national politics and policy to recognise this crisis and to take the action we know we can do to address it. The Labor, Liberal and Greens members of this committee agreed on a set of 10 key findings. Crucially, there was no argument with the indisputable fact that Australia is in a housing crisis. There was also agreement across the parties that Australia has not built enough public housing. We are in a long-term decline—a failure to Australians out there and a failure to properly invest in public housing. This crisis is intergenerational in nature, and it is fuelling inequality. We are seeing homeless services in every state and many of our big regional towns and centres as well, where those homelessness services are stretched thin. It is really hard to be at the front desk of homelessness services all over our country now. When it came time to make recommendations, however, Labor opted to preserve the status quo. They congratulated themselves on their meagre efforts to deal with this crisis, and the Liberals wanted to make it worse. The Greens have a different vision for housing, one where a secure home is a basic right, and we reject the idea that the solution to housing insecurity is simply to build more houses of any price. When it comes to supply, the priority must be on building the public and genuinely affordable housing that Australians urgently need, not simply adding more homes, many of them way beyond an ordinary Australian household. We need affordable homes in our housing system. Given that housing is a fundamental human need, the government's priority must be a roof over everyone's head, not maximising housing wealth for some. We Greens made 31 recommendations to this inquiry, and our seven key priorities are as follows. Firstly, housing is a human right. We have legal obligations internationally in the instruments that we have signed up to that make sure that we recognise housing as a human right and enact that right in a practical way for all Australians. Secondly, it's vitally important that we expand public and community housing to at least 10 per cent of Australia's housing stock over the next decade. Thirdly, we need to introduce a national rent cap and strengthen renters' rights. Nearly one in three Australians are now in rental accommodations, many of them without real rights. They're changing houses every year and disrupting their kids' schooling. There are massive changes in their lives. We need to come to upgrade and change our rental regime and cap our rents. Fourthly, we need banks to provide a generic, low-interest mortgage product for first home owner-occupiers who are buying their own home. Banks are making a motza out of the increase in house prices across our country. Their profits are underpinned by runaway house prices, and they should be making a more significant contribution to assist first home buyers to deal with the crisis we find ourselves in. Fifthly, we need to establish a public housing developer. We need a public-sector developer in there building homes, taking the profit out of the housing crisis and dealing with the things that we know we need to do. Sixthly, we need to reinstate a Commonwealth department of housing and homelessness so we've got proper infrastructure to deal with the crisis we're in. Lastly, we need to invest in homelessness services and prevention as a priority. This government must put security of tenure ahead of speculative returns. Firstly, government must regulate rent increases and strengthen protections for private renters. The current rental market is the most unaffordable in Australian history, with some of the highest rates of rental stress we have ever seen. Households are caught in a rent-wage squeeze. People across the country are being hit with a six per cent increase in rents year on year, while real wages have fallen by five per cent under this Labor government's tenure. This is a rent-wages squeeze that we have never seen before, and it is putting people on the streets and into homelessness. It is time for rent caps and an end to unlimited rent increases. Since COVID, many jurisdictions around the world have introduced various models of rent caps. We have them here in the ACT. They make a huge practical difference. A lot of stakeholders pointed to the ACT arrangement. We know rent stabilisation policies can work, and they will make a huge difference for people who are in real crisis at the moment, who do not have any protective financial buffers. Indeed, they are the buffer for their landlord. The federal government must introduce rent caps to protect renters from excessive and unpredictable rent increases. Secondly, the government must expand massively our investment in public and community housing. At the moment, public housing is around 3.7 per cent of all housing stock. We know it needs to be up at 10 per cent if it's going to do anything to assist the 640,000 households at present in Australia who are living in a terrible housing crisis. Too many people are living with their parents—one in two people in their 20s and 30s. This is well beyond what they were doing 20 years ago. This government's pathetic attempts at building social and affordable housing do not meet existing demand. They are missing every target they have set. We need clear priorities from this government. We need a huge increase in investment. Our own history tells us we can do this. We did it in the post-World War II period. We are the third richest country on the planet. We should not have millions of Australians living in housing stress. In concluding, this report lays bare the scale of the housing crisis. It is a call for action. We cannot ignore the evidence from the thousands of Australians out there who have the experience of housing stress and want to see action by Labor and by this chamber. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:59 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania I take note of the intergenerational housing inequity report. I know from my own lived experience that housing insecurity can happen to anyone at any time, even when they're not expecting it. When I was in high school, my family and I were evicted by a big bank because we couldn't meet the full mortgage repayments, and—wait for it—that eviction was on 48 hours notice. The Greens have a policy that the big banks should provide low-rate, discount mortgages. If that policy were around when I was in high school, my family would not have been evicted from our home. That should not have occurred. Whether they are a homeowner with a mortgage at a big bank or a tenant in public or private housing, people deserve safe, secure and affordable housing. In my home state of Tasmania, 30 per cent of households are renters. According to Anglicare, in the last year, only 770 properties were listed for rent, half the number that was available a decade ago. How many of the people who accommodated any of those 770 houses do you think were people living on JobSeeker, a disability support pension or youth allowance? I'll tell you: none. Nearly half of Tasmanians renting from a private landlord are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs, and the market is shrinking and rents are ever-increasing. A renter I know in Tasmania has had his rent increase by 25 per cent over the last three years, but there have been no improvements by the landlord to the home in which he lives. A lady I spoke to when doorknocking at Devonport in Tasmania recently was paying $400 a week in rent for a house with broken floorboards, electrical faults and no heating. After she paid the rent, living in an environment like that, she had $200 left a week. For that $200 a week, she fed her children. And what about her? She went without dinner so she could afford to put food on her children's plates. We urgently need to recognise that housing is a human right, expand public and community housing and cap annual rent increases. We need to create a housing system that works for everyone, not a system, like we have now, that only works for property investors and the big banks. 19:02 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This report lays bare the scale of Australia's housing crisis, and it also reveals that the crisis is impacting significantly on many women, with rising housing insecurity and homelessness forcing some women to delay or forgo health care, which of course worsens physical and mental health outcomes and deepens economic disadvantage. That is why I want to talk briefly today about an organisation that's doing something that our health system has struggled and will continue to struggle to do while underresourced in a cost-of-living crisis, and that is giving women the full picture of their own bodies. As a senator for Tasmania and a long-time supporter of women's health and women's rights, I'm proud that one of the country's most forward-thinking women's health organisations started in Hobart. The Women's Health Education Network, known as WHEN, was founded by Peta Titter in 2017 and now works nationally. There are four things that make WHEN stand out. Firstly, WHEN's work is built on two things that rarely come together: clinical expertise and the lived experience of women. Every resource goes through clinical governance and is reviewed by health professionals, and women are involved in every project. Their Exercise & pregnancyguidelines, drawing on more than 100 references and 30 health professionals, is one of the first guidelines to put the woman on equal footing with the baby. The Miscarriage Project, built with more than 40 contributors, including women with lived experience, is the first resource of its kind to address how a woman's body recovers after pregnancy loss. Secondly, WHEN looks at the whole woman across her whole life. Our health system treats women in episodes—pregnancy, menopause, ageing—with separate rooms and separate appointments. WHEN connects them, because what happens at one stage shapes the next. A birth injury can shape a woman's experience of menopause decades later. The right exercise through menopause protects her strength and independence into older age. Thirdly, WHEN is willing to say the hard things. Its Over 65 Project, delivered by retired nurses, looks honestly at how older women are portrayed in the media and treated by the health system. Where women are overlooked or given information that falls short, WHEN says so and WHEN backs it with evidence. Fourthly, WHEN is built on equity. Many women's health services in this country are excellent, yet are out of reach for women who can't afford them. WHEN's education is free to women, and it has achieved all of this with almost no funding. Its work is non-discriminatory. Every woman, whatever her income, postcode or background, is welcome. WHEN's reach is growing. Its podcast, The Little Black Dress of Women's Health, has been recognised as one of Australia's top four women's health podcasts. Its Seven Deadly Sins series, created with a psychologist, brings physical and mental health together in a way women rarely hear. All of it is available by searching the Women's Health Education Network, or WHEN. WHEN stands ready to work with governments, non-government organisations and communities across Australia. Women deserve to understand their bodies across their whole lives, not just in isolated moments. I commend Peta Titter and the WHEN team for making that possible, and I encourage colleagues to look up their work. I also commend this report from my friend, my colleague and a champion of women's rights, Senator Barbara Pocock. This report does make the case that housing inequality rarely exists in isolation but is closely linked to broader societal inequalities, particularly in relation to health and gender. Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 71 Report 71 19:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Environment and Communications References Committee's Triple zero service outage report was handed down out of session some two weeks ago. The report is from the inquiry into the terrible, deadly outage of triple zero. It was an inquiry that ran for almost 12 months. Despite the fact that we first started it by investigating the Optus outage, in which a number of Australians sadly lost their lives as a result of not being able to contact triple zero while the phones ran quiet, as our inquiry continued it became very clear that the problems within the triple zero network and the reliability of the mobile phone network were much broader than just those of the Optus network. In fact, it cuts across all of the networks across the country. Telstra, Optus and TPG have all let their customers and the Australian public down. There has been a litany of outages that we have seen, and that has meant that millions of Australians have been left affected. Something has to change here. Triple zero is the most vital service a government and parliament must keep intact for their citizens. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live or what mobile phone network you are on, you should be able to rely on your phone working when you need to call triple zero. If you need the ambulance, the phone should ring. If you need the police, the phone should ring. If you need to call the fire department, the phone should work. And yet too many Australians, time and time again, are finding out that triple zero just isn't reliable. And then, of course, it's not just the life-and-death issues facing triple zero that are at risk here. Our inquiry has found that there is such disregard for the reliability of the mobile phone services that these big mobile phone companies provide that customers are being faced with outages left, right and centre. The most serious outages are those that affect triple zero. But there are many people who need to use their mobile phone and rely on a working mobile phone for every part of their lives. We have elderly Australians who need to be able to access the mobile phone network so that their distress button can work. In July, when we had one of the biggest outages of the mobile phone network Telstra, we had elderly Australians who were left fending for themselves, collapsed on the floor in their kitchens, because their distress buttons were not working because they relied on a working mobile phone service. This is not good enough. Australians should expect that, if you're going to be paying a mobile phone company to have a mobile phone—if you're going to pay hundreds of dollars a month, thousands of dollars a year, to access a mobile phone service—that service should be reliable. That is why, as a result of this 12-month inquiry, the Senate committee has come up with a number of serious recommendations. Firstly, it's crystal clear that the existing Telecommunications Act is out of date and not fit for purpose. It needs a full review and needs to be modernised. We need a comprehensive reliability framework, including performance and reliability standards. Mobile phone companies—those big telcos, like Optus, like Telstra, like Vodafone—should have to be required in law to deliver a service that works. It's crazy that in 2026 there are no real requirements for mobile phone companies to deliver a working mobile phone to their customers. It beggars belief actually. It absolutely beggars belief. We need to fix that. We need an automatic compensation scheme for those who have been impacted and disadvantaged because the mobile phone service doesn't work. Let me go to some figures on this. We've just recently seen a report from ACCAN, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, which commissioned an economic investigation into how much the Telstra outage in July actually cost Australians. These are the figures, and they are extraordinary: $552 million was lost in GDP during the Telstra outage in July this year; $302 million was lost in direct economic losses; there was a cost of $104.2 million relating to lost productivity across the nation; just the V/Line rail service, which couldn't operate because it relied on a working mobile phone network, lost $7.2 million; $20.6 million was the estimated cost to businesses who were disrupted by the Telstra outage in July; $11.3 million was estimated to have been the cost to businesses just from online sales; and it cost nearly $7 million for consumers who were unable to conduct their work because of the Telstra outage. So these big telecommunications companies are putting their profits ahead of a reliable mobile phone system working, putting their profits ahead of the safety of Australians and the public. They're putting their profits first, and yet hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars is being lost in the rest of the country. Australians are losing hundreds of millions of dollars while Telstra, while Optus, while Vodafone bank their massive profits, and there's no ability for Australians to seek automatic compensation. Well, that needs to change. That is why in these recommendations of the Senate committee we have put forward a recommendation in relation to compensation. We've also called for an independent review of ACMA, the regulator at the heart of this industry. It became very clear during our Senate inquiry just how captured and how asleep at the wheel the regulator has been. It was extraordinary. It was extraordinary to see the lack of grit, the lack of due diligence and, frankly, the lack of care that the regulator had for what was really going on. Every time we asked the tough questions of the regulator—why they hadn't picked up the phone, spoken to the right people and read the riot act to the telecommunications companies—we got crickets. The regulator needs a clean-out, needs an absolute review. One of the other key recommendations for Australians to consider and this parliament to act on as a result of our inquiry is the need for mandatory domestic roaming to ensure that we have a mandate for domestic roaming to allow customers on mobile phone networks to transfer to another one when one service goes down, so they don't have to carry the financial burden over and over again because of these corporations falling silent. We also believe that it is time for Australians to be able to have a text based system so that they can text triple zero. This is absolutely essential in the modern world. There are a number of other important recommendations, and I urge my Senate colleagues to look at them. I want to thank my fellow colleagues on the committee. It was a long inquiry, an important inquiry, and we now need to act on the recommendations, because too many Australians have already had to pay the costs. We've had people die and we've had people have to pay out of their own pocket, because these corporations don't put them first. It's time they were forced to. I seek leave to table the economic costs of the Telstra outage. I understand it's been agreed to by the whips, and so I'll just hand that over to complement what we've done today. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I seek leave to consider my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 72 Fuel Security, Refugees, Housing, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 19:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility, refugee intake reduction, the property and housing construction sector and nuclear medicine manufacturing. BILLS 73 BILLS Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026 73

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026

First Reading 73 19:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. BUSINESS 73 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 73 19:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion to exempt this bill from the cut-off order. Leave granted. Senator AYRES 16913 I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sittings. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill (the Bill) is to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 to give the intended legal effect to certain legislative instruments made under regulations 4 and 4A of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2026 Spring sitting period is sought to ensure the validity of certain sanctions measures relating to Iran and Syria as soon as practicable. Legislating to give these instruments their intended operation would strengthen the integrity of Australia's sanctions legislation, and provide certainty for Australian Government enforcement agencies and the regulated community. The Bill should be dealt with in the same sitting period to mitigate any potential legal risks with respect to any decision made, or any actions taken, in accordance with the instruments. Senator AYRES 16913 I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to this bill. Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026 73

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026

Second Reading 73 19:21 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is an essential tool of foreign policy to respond quickly and flexibly to situations of international concern alongside our international partners. In an increasingly uncertain global environment, sanctions allow Australia to demonstrate our commitment to and support for the international norms and values to which Australia subscribes. Australia imposes a range of sectoral sanctions which prohibit the supplying of certain goods to, and obtaining certain goods from, certain countries and parts of countries. The provision of services in relation to those goods is also prohibited. These measures help eliminate Australian raw materials, equipment, technology, and other goods from being used by malign international actors to further their nefarious ends, and help deprive repressive regimes of revenue. This Bill puts beyond doubt questions of validity and enforceability of certain sanctioned goods instruments that, while validly made under Australia's autonomous sanctions framework, were published as Gazette notices rather than being registered as legislative instruments. This Bill maintains the effectiveness of sanctions as a response to situations of international concern and behaviours contrary to Australian values and national interest. Debate adjourned. Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 74

Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Returned from the House of Representatives 74 COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 74 Reference 74 19:22 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2027: Australia's cost of living crisis, with particular reference to: (a) housing costs; (b) electricity and energy bills; (c) household bills; (d) food and grocery prices; (e) insurance premiums; (f) transport costs; (g) childcare and education costs; (h) health and medical expenses; and (i) any other related matters. When the Senate gets an opportunity to vote on this particular matter—the matter is whether or not the Senate itself should inquire into the Australian cost-of-living crisis that is now top of mind for every Australian in every Australian household—the spotlight will clearly fall on the other side of the chamber. The Labor government likes to say to Australians that it understands the cost-of-living pressures that they are enduring, but the government fails to deliver a clear plan that will tackle those cost-of-living pressures. Importantly, it's also the first real test of the new Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator David Shoebridge. On his election, Senator Shoebridge said that the Greens, under his new leadership, would focus on material outcomes, that the Greens would be focusing on those challenges that Australians are enduring and battling through in this cost-of-living crisis. Those were Senator David Shoebridge's words. We'll watch closely to see whether or not the government will give Australians, Australian families, Australia's charities and not-for-profit sector, Australian businesses and others an opportunity to have their say on whether or not the government is managing this cost-of-living crisis as well as it can. The cost-of-living crisis in this country is now top of mind. It takes the form of surging household expenses, it takes the form of widespread wage stagnation relative to inflation, and, most catastrophically, it's taking the form of increased demand for emergency food and housing relief, being faced by Australia's charities and not-for-profit sector. Rising living costs, wages lagging behind prices, housing and rental pressure, and poverty and welfare strain—they are the characteristics of the Australian cost-of-living crisis that is now impacting every Australian family. Just recently, Ipsos released its issues monitor polling. That polling said 65 per cent of Australians rated the cost-of-living crisis as the most important issue to them. That won't come as a surprise to many people listening. What might come as a surprise to them is that housing issues, the second most significant concern to Australians, rated at just 39 per cent and immigration came in third at just 25 per cent. I think there is a very salient lesson in that. Cost-of-living issues are now the most significant and important concern for Australians. Unfortunately, news today from the IMF will just make more Australians nervous for their financial future. The IMF has said today it has downgraded Australia's growth forecasts for next year to just 1.6 per cent, it has forecasted increases in unemployment next year, falling short of just five per cent, and inflation is expected to continue at close to four per cent. It is catastrophic news for Australian families and businesses who are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis in our country. The cost-of-living crisis has three elements: falling real wages; rising inflation; and, now, the spectre of rising unemployment. That is why the government and government members are increasingly nervous about the economic leadership that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers are showing them. Just last month, the HILDA survey, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, a survey that is funded by the Australian government, a survey that surveys 17,000 Australians across almost 10,000 households—guess what it had to say. It said that Australians' expectations for their financial future have worsened since 2020—that is, they have worsened over the life of this government. It also said that financial wellbeing has declined for around one in four women and one in five men, housing stress has increased and food insecurity has risen from 13.7 per cent in 2020 to 17.9 per cent in 2024. It also found that fewer Australians feel on top of their day-to-day finances. It said it had found significant increases in housing stress. And it said that 18 per cent of Australians experienced food insecurity in 2024, almost one in four private renters were in housing stress, almost eight per cent of Australians were unable to pay their rent or mortgage on time and half of Australians aged 18 to 29 are now living with their parents. Finally, it said that 23 per cent of private renters are experiencing housing stress across the mainland capitals and more than one-third of renters are now spending over 30 per cent of their disposable income on housing. The cost-of-living crisis in this country is touching everyone in every city, every regional town, every family, every small business. So the question is this: what is the government's plan? They have no plan to tackle inflation. Rising inflation fuelled by excessive government expenditure forces the RBA to increase interest rates, which drive cost-of-living pressures for Australian families. So I think it's important that we listen to the voice of Australia's charities and not-for-profit sector. What are Australia's charities and our not-for-profit sector saying about the performance of the government and the experience of Australian families? Of course, what they say is particularly important because they are at the frontline, and, in fact, they've been at the frontline every hour of every day since Labor was elected in May 2022. The 2026 Foodbankhunger report has found that one in three Australian households experienced food insecurity over the past year, 44 per cent of Australian households are struggling to put food on the table— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 Senator, unfortunately I have to interrupt you. It being 7.30, we're now going to move into adjournment, but you will be in continuation, as you know. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Bell Bay Aluminium 75 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to welcome an enormously important announcement for George Town, Northern Tasmania and our nation. The Albanese Labor government has helped secure the long-term future of Bell Bay Aluminium. This outcome protects 550 direct jobs and more than 1,500 indirect jobs supported by the smelter and its supply chain. These are not simply numbers on a page. They are skilled workers, apprentices and families. They are small businesses, contractors, transport operators, tradespeople and suppliers, whose livelihoods are tied to the strength of Bell Bay. They are part of the fabric of George Town and the wider Northern Tasmanian community. For generations, Bell Bay Aluminium has provided secure, well-paid employment and helped build the industrial capabilities of our state. When the future of a major employer is uncertain, that uncertainty travels far beyond the smelter itself. It is felt around kitchen tables, in local shops, in the order books of contractors and throughout the community. Now, those workers and businesses can look ahead with renewed confidence. The agreement reached with Rio Tinto, together with a power deal extending electricity supply through to the end of 2031, provides a stable operating pathway for the Bell Bay site. The Australian government's $200 million investment over five years, alongside the support of the Tasmanian government, gives greater certainty to the workforce, confidence to suppliers and stability to the region, while the next phase of Northern Tasmania's industrial development is advanced. This achievement reflects what can be delivered when governments, industry and communities work together with a clear purpose. Labor's priority throughout has been the working people of George Town and Northern Tasmania. We understand that good industrial policy is not abstract. It means a reliable pay packet, an apprenticeship for a young person, work for a local contractor and customers coming through the doors of small businesses. I want to personally thank the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Tim Ayres, and the Prime Minister for their determination and leadership in securing this result. Minister Ayres in particular has understood, from the very beginning, that every one of these jobs is precious and that Bell Bay's future matters locally and nationally. I also acknowledge the fabulous federal member for Bass, Jess Teesdale, for her tireless advocacy in this place. I understand she was knocking on the door of the Prime Minister and Minister Ayres at every chance she had when she was here in Canberra, along with our senators, bringing back the message of how important this was for Northern Tasmania. Ms Teesdale has listened to workers, families, contractors and local businesses and carried their case directly to the Prime Minister and the minister. Without her passion, persistence and determination, this outcome would not have been possible. Northern Tasmania has had a strong and effective voice in Jess Teesdale, and this commitment demonstrates what a committed local representative can achieve. This is also an investment in Australian sovereign capabilities. Aluminium is fundamental to construction, transport, renewable energy, defence and advanced manufacturing. In an increasingly uncertain global environment, Australia cannot afford to surrender the capabilities that make this essential material here at home. A resilient nation has the energy skills, workforce and industrial base to meet their own needs and contribute to a secure supply chain. Tasmania has a proud manufacturing tradition, and Bell Bay sits at the heart of it. It is Australia's oldest aluminium smelter and one of the greenest, powered by Tasmania's renewable energy. And that's a real advantage. Securing its future says something important about the kind of country that we want to be. It says a lot about our government. We believe in skilling up Australians. We value regional communities, and we will do everything we can to strengthen the value and the skills of Australian workers and to produce the best products. Australian Society 76 19:35 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I say, I used to have a high degree of trust in our regulatory environment in this country on a range of issues—on the regulation of pesticides in our food, on electromagnetic radiation and on therapeutics and medical interventions. And I assumed the system, for all of its flaws, would always protect us. But the COVID period destroyed that assumption because it uncovered, in my mind, the significant frailties of the system. We saw it all over the world, with regulators moving at the speed of light when they preferred a product which needed emergency authorisation and then moving like molasses when early treatment protocols or alternative approaches were raised. Agencies that dismissed natural immunity, suppressed debate and treated dissenting doctors as heretics, a public health apparatus that lectured us about following the science, while the science itself was being rewritten in real time—once you see that pattern, it's very hard to unsee it, because the pattern is not limited to a single virus or a single point in time. It's the predictable result of big money shaping the very agencies that they are supposed to regulate. Now, let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the same companies that have stood to make tens of billions of dollars from their products are also funders of many of the regulators, the research institutions and indeed the medical journals which shaped the official response. And, when the people writing the rules are so heavily entangled with the people selling the products, independence is a fiction. Anyone that questioned the narrative during this time was accused of spreading conspiracy theories. That period is over, but rest assured the pattern continues. For example, let's look at the food supply. We're told that residual pesticides in our daily diet are perfectly safe. But are they? How confident are we in the post-COVID regulatory environment? And would any rational person still outsource their judgement on what they're feeding their children? And then you have electromagnetic fields. We're assured that rapid densification of wireless infrastructure is harmless because the exposure standards say so. But those standards were written decades ago, long before the current density of devices and infrastructure existed. And who has the deepest pockets and the strongest lobbying presence in that space? Well, it's big telco, the same industry that profits from additional antennas and an even more dense network is the one, ultimately, that has the greatest influence. The precautionary principle is nowhere to be found when commercial and government interests align. And, again, the pattern is the same. The public is expected to accept the official assurance and move on. The lesson obviously is not complicated, and that lesson is this: the state is not your friend. It's a collection of institutions subject to the same human failings as every other institution—groupthink, careerism, political pressure and the quiet, relentless influence of those who stand to gain. We have to stop outsourcing our common sense. We've got to read the literature ourselves where we can, demand transparency on conflicts of interest and listen to those who are willing to speak independently. Above all, we've got to trust our instincts when something feels wrong, even if the official messaging says everything is fine—because let me tell you, nobody is coming to save you. Nobody is watching the fort on your behalf. The fort is understaffed, the watchmen are off looking the other way, and the gates are open to whoever has got the deepest pockets and the right connections. So ask the hard questions, refuse to be gaslit, and never again assume that the people with the titles and the letterheads have your best interests as their highest priority. COVID didn't invent regulatory failure and capture, but it certainly made it impossible to ignore. Taxation 76 19:39 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria While you are standing at the supermarket wondering what you can afford and what you need to put back, there are corporations in Australia paying absolutely nothing in corporate tax—a big, fat zero—and Labor, the Liberals and Gina Rinehart's One Nation are letting them get away with it. Last year, 1,149 big corporations paid zero company tax—more than one in four of the biggest companies in this country. So let's name and shame them, shall we? If you've paid a toll on your way to work, chances are you've helped to line the pockets of Transurban. It reported $2.9 billion in total income and paid no company tax. Have you bought a ticket to see your favourite band? Ticketmaster reported $190 million in income and paid no company tax. Then there are some of my favourites: Santos, AGL, Adani and Glencore, big fossil fuel and mining companies making money from Australia's resources and destroying our environment and the future of our planet, all the while paying zero company tax. The list goes on. ConocoPhillips, Star Entertainment and DoorDash all reported zero company tax. Microsoft's Australian data centre business reported $2.3 billion in income and paid no company tax. Tabcorp reported more than $2 billion in income and paid no company tax—while, I'll add, subjecting Australians to horrific gambling harm. None of these are struggling small businesses, folks. These are some of the biggest, dirtiest, greediest corporations in the world, operating within Australia. While these corporations pay nothing in company tax, you pay every single time you get your wages. Nurses, teachers, early childhood educators, retail workers—you all pay tax. You pay your tax while saving for a house. You pay your tax while trying to afford child care. You pay your tax while watching your grocery bill climb and your electricity bills go through the roof. So why are ordinary Australians being asked to shoulder the load while some of the biggest companies in the country pay no tax? So do not tell us that there is no money to fix the cost-of-living crisis. The money is there, but it is going to the wrong people and the wrong corporations. The latest ATO tax transparency figures showed big corporations paid around $87.5 billion in company tax in 2024-25, down from $95.7 billion the year before. All the while, more than 40 per cent of mining and energy corporations paid no tax. Every time someone rightly suggests closing these massive loopholes, the corporate lobbyists come running: 'Oh, please, don't scare off investment.' I'm sorry. We are sick of these tired talking points. We see through these tired talking points. 'Now is not the time,' they say. Now is never the time when you're a massive corporation that benefits from the rules, as they are. But here's a question: why should ordinary workers pay their fair share while billion-dollar corporations get this special treatment? Why? This isn't an accident. This is a system designed by politicians in this place who are bankrolled by those very corporations. The corporate parties—Labor, Liberal and Gina Rinehart's One Nation—take donations from these powerful corporate interests. Then they refuse to make them pay what they owe. They refuse to make them pay their fair share. That is corporate capture, and Australians have had a gutful. They are fed up with it. So, for those of you who are at home watching on while this raw deal plays out in front of you, I want you to know that the Greens are on your side. We are on the side of the people, not those massive corporations, and we will change this broken system. We want to close those loopholes that let these multinational corporations dodge tax and dodge paying their fair share while you struggle; we want to make the billionaires and corporations profiting from Australia's wealth contribute properly to the country that makes their wealth possible; and we want to use that money to genuinely make people's lives better—more public and affordable housing, and dental into Medicare so you don't need to choose between your teeth and your rent. Imagine what Australia could look like if our economy actually worked for the people who keep it running. The one per cent have rigged the economy in their favour, but the 99 per cent of us can change it. Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Taiwan 77 19:44 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise tonight to thank the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office for hosting me and some of my fellow parliamentarians on a delegation to Taiwan. It was an extraordinary experience, and I am one who is fortunate enough to say that it was not my first time in Taiwan. I was fortunate enough to go before. For me, it was very much like going back and visiting an old friend. It felt very familiar, it felt very friendly, and it felt like there was much that Taiwan and Australia could learn from each other and could teach each other. We were extraordinarily privileged to meet and spend time with Vice President Hsiao; President Han of the Legislative Yuan; Dr Joseph Wu, who is the Secretary-General of Taiwan's National Security Council; and many others. We were given a very deep appreciation of the strategic challenges faced by Taiwan and also the complementarity and future possibilities of our already strong economic relationships. Many people are very well aware of the complementarity of the economies of Australia and Taiwan. Australia obviously has produced raw materials and food and energy that have been exported to Taiwan. In return, Taiwan is obviously a manufacturer of many high-tech goods that are being utilised here in Australia. It's good to see that it is not just the positives of the past. It is not just a relationship that is based on past success. It is actually one that has a pathway to future success. Taiwan obviously is a significant player in the space of AI and data centres and the possibilities of those being built in Australia. Meanwhile we see the increased development of Australia's rare earths and critical minerals, which obviously are vitally important to things like AI and data centres and also to the production of batteries and so many other of the high-tech products that we so desire. It was a wonderful opportunity to sit down with many good friends to relearn some of the challenges they face and to see how committed Taiwan is to their democratic institution and how engaged they are. One of the visits that we had was to the two main parties, the DPP and the KMT. Obviously hearing from those two main parties, in a political sense, was very important to the delegation as was hearing from the senior members of the government and the parliament. It was an extraordinary opportunity to renew those friendships, renew those relationships and learn more about the future of the relationship between Australia and Taiwan. I sincerely thank the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office here in Canberra for their assistance in putting this program together. I hope that, before my time here comes to an end, I have the opportunity to visit Taiwan again. Veterans 78 19:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In the last sitting, on the day the government scrapped the $5,000 cap on veteran allied health—good on them—the coalition and the Liberals in both houses slated the government. They demanded the resignation of the minister and they crowed about their unstinting support for veterans. To be clear, I'm not having a go at them for supporting the Scrap the Cap campaign, but Australians should know that the last coalition government did nothing for veterans. In a press conference on the day the cap was scrapped, I was asked by a reporter if I agreed with the coalition's call to sack the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I said no, because no matter the criticism of Minister Keogh—I have aired a few of my own in this place—he's been in the job since 2022. When the other team were in the Lodge, the Department of Veterans' Affairs had six ministers in fewer than nine years. It was a revolving door of absolute incompetence. That's all it was. Most of these ministers didn't exactly cover themselves with glory, I can assure you. In 2014, the Abbott government increased veteran pay by 1.5 per cent, even though public servants were getting two per cent. We put a lot of pressure on them and so did a lot of the military families. Then Prime Minister Abbott restored some key allowances, but it wasn't until 2015 that he thought we were good enough for them to give us a two per cent pay rise. In June 2019, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, told the ABC that he couldn't see the point of establishing a royal commission—how's that going for you today, mate?—despite admitting the government didn't know how many ex-military personnel had taken their lives. A few days later, the Productivity Commission report was released, and oh my God! The report found that the veterans compensation and rehabilitation system was out of date, not fit for purpose and needed fundamental reform. In November 2019, Julie-Ann Finney's petition called for a royal commission and had 267,000 signatures. She got what was her second meeting with Minister Chester, and after that meeting, Julie-Ann told the media: He said he still doesn't support one— that being a royal commission— because it will bog the DVA down for two years. I said you can't just bury hundreds of our bravest and not investigate their deaths. One of the royal commission's key findings was that the backlog of claims was a key driver of the rate of veteran suicide. Between 2017 and 2022 the backlog of claims under the coalition went from 10,000 to 60,000. I still remember the day that Julie-Ann Finney, Colleen Pillen and Nikki Jamieson, the mothers of veterans who'd lost their sons to suicide, came to Canberra to beg former prime minister Scott Morrison to call a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. They came to my office afterwards and they told me that former prime minister Morrison was as 'cold as ice'. He was meeting with the mothers of veterans who'd lost their beloved sons to suicide. He treated them like an annoying distraction. In March 2022, on the eve of the budget, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Andrew Gee, called a press conference in his hometown of Orange. Remember that? Andrew was emotional. He told the media he was on the cusp of announcing his resignation from cabinet because he was being refused funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Andrew told the media that there was a massive backlog of 60,000 unprocessed claims, rightly calling it a 'national disgrace'. Unlike the ministers who went before him, Andrew Gee was made of sterner stuff. He explained to the media that former prime minister Scott Morrison and former deputy PM Barnaby Joyce had made a commitment that money would be allocated, even if only part of it appeared in the budget papers. Instead of caving to his political bosses, Andrew Gee threatened to resign unless the money was allocated. He told the media: There are 60,000 Australians, 60,000 people who have served this country who have put their lives on the line ... and what's this government doing? Throwing them under the bus, failing to process their claims in a timely manner. Of course, we finally got a royal commission, but not before former prime minister Scott Morrison came up with a national commissioner thought bubble—a national commissioner that would have no power to get documents or hold public hearings. And let's not forget One Nation, who also like to say they support veterans. Well, Senator Hanson blocked the royal commission for six more months than what we should have had to wait. All governments make mistakes. This government is no different. But, when you belong to a party that did very little to fix the issue at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, when you belong to a party that actively blocked a royal commission that the entire Australian veteran community was asking for and then stand in this place and talk about veterans as if your record on veterans is as pure as the driven snow—give me a break! We need more honesty in this place. I'm so over the political amnesia in here. The bottom line is you on this side are not squeaky clean when it comes to veterans, and you can't sit here and pretend that you are. Your government had nothing to do with the chaos in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and defence? Of course it did. You drove us to a royal commission, and that's the truth of the matter. Environment Protection Authority 79 19:53 Senator BLEYER 25813 Tasmania A year ago, the Greens successfully negotiated with this federal Labor government to introduce an environment protection agency into our national environment laws. What a great achievement for the Greens. The critical role of the EPA is to enforce the federal nature laws and protect the environment. It does this through issuing environment protection orders. About a year later, it finally issued its first environment protection order. It was last week. It was against a cattle farmer in Queensland who had illegally deforested private land, which was covered with native forest. A year ago, when the EPA was established, Minister Murray Watt, the minister for the environment, said, 'EPOs are a new power that prevent serious environmental damage before it happens, rather than just taking action after the damage is done.' Well, wait for this: the EPO was only made after this farmer had cleared 1,700 hectares of land. This property was already illegally clearing land 10 years ago. It should have been monitored more closely. It should have been on the EPA's radar, like a repeat offender of theft is on the radar of the cops. We cannot have an environmental watchdog that only watches on as hectares upon hectares of native forest are cleared to graze beef cattle. We need our environmental watchdog to have some teeth. The Greens negotiated in good faith to get the national EPA established, and now the federal Labor government, which is responsible for running it, hasn't done its job. In the past financial year, as the Australian Conservation Foundation has recently revealed, over 32,000 hectares of private land was cleared across 150 properties, mostly for agricultural purposes. That is only a small sample of the true figure. The true total across the country is in the order of magnitudes more. Every tree felled and every shrub torn out releases carbon into our atmosphere, choking us. It also robs koalas and black cockatoos of their homes. Clearing land also wreaks havoc on our waterways and, when it rains, results in three times as much sediment washing off fields and into our oceans. The clearing at the cattle station I mentioned before will lead to 1,000 more tonnes of sediment being washed into the Great Barrier Reef. Cattle farming is one of the main drivers of illegal deforestation in Australia. Despite promising to remove deforestation linked beef from their supply chains by 2025, the big corporations running our supermarkets have not done so. McDonald's, one of the largest buyers of Australian beef, says it will shift its supply chain to deforestation-free meat by 2030. That is far too late. The next time you are about to order a Big Mac, think about what it costs, not just the overly inflated price tag but the koalas and the black cockatoos, the dugongs and the corals that will suffer as a result. Reflect and decide if you are still loving it. Australian War Memorial 79 19:58 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia When Charles Bean founded the Australian War Memorial, his vision was a place for Australians to commemorate, mourn and memorialise those brave men and women who died for Australia, a place for those whose loved ones never came home, whose bodies lie in a foreign land, broken and bloodied so that we may be free. There are 103,140 names. To every one of them: you have my undying gratitude and respect. For the unknown soldiers, those lost in the chaos of war who will never have their names on the wall, we have the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier, known unto God, as the inscription says, and never forgotten. The Australian War Memorial is sacred ground. It is where we remember the most noble amongst us, the bravest that we as a nation can be. My grandfather fought in the jungles of New Guinea under the Australian flag. To spare my young mind from the horrors that he saw, he used to tell me that he only threw custard pies. He was a great influence in my life and instilled a deep respect for those who risk it all for us back home. So, when I hear that the woke bureaucrats at the Australian War Memorial are planning to install a shrine to grievance politics in the form of a Frontier Wars exhibit, I see red. This is not an attempt to educate Australians. This is an attempt to denigrate Australia as a country using our war dead as a vehicle to delegitimise the country they died for. How dare you? These men and women went willingly to die for this country, for the country they loved. Everything that memorial should be to inspire the reverence we should all feel towards our fallen soldiers to help us to understand the horrors that they faced with courage and conviction. Anything that would detract from that and anything that would seek to tarnish their memories does not belong in that sacred place. I would like to thank Peter O'Brien, who first brought this planned exhibit to my attention. Peter has written several articles on this proposed abomination in Quadrant, and I would encourage anyone who is suitably incensed by the proposal to read those articles. It is important to note that I am not a historian, and I have no interest in denying or minimising Australia's history. The settling of Australia was not without violence or injustice. Settlers and Indigenous clashed over land and resources. Blood was spilled on both sides. Without doubt, atrocities took place, but the Australian War Memorial is not the place to educate people on the settling of Australia. Put that in the National Museum of Australia, if you must. The War Memorial is for remembering the forces raised in and who fought for Australia, no matter the colour of your skin or your origin. This is not just my opinion. This is the law. The Australian War Memorial Act 1980 sets out what is and isn't allowed to be displayed in the memorial. Under the act, the functions of the memorial include to disseminate information relating to Australian military history. An expansive reading of this has been used to justify the new exhibit. However, as Peter O'Brien rightly points out, the act defines Australian military history to mean the history of 'wars and warlike operations in which Australians have been on active service, including the events leading up to and the aftermath of such wars and warlike operations, and the defence force'. The act defines the defence force as such. It includes any naval and military force of the Crown raised in Australia before the establishment of the Commonwealth. In this lies the issue that the so-called Frontier Wars were never with forces raised in Australia. These conflicts involved the British regiments who were deployed to the colonies to assist in maintaining order and local militia or police, not forces raised in Australia as is required by the act. This proposed display does not belong in the Australian War Memorial either on principle or on legal grounds. Not only this, but the taxpayer will pay millions for the board of the memorial to denigrate the heroes, but this should not come as a surprise, given that the same board layers and artwork to hang in the Afghanistan Gallery of the Australian War Memorial called Reckoning. It is a piece to memorialise the Brereton report. The report that has resulted in the hounding of our war heroes, like Ben Roberts-Smith, the same hunt that has cost taxpayers $300 million. I've spoken to veterans who were questioned in relation to that report, and I can tell you it is not worthy of a place in the memorial. When the Australian public come to the Australian War Memorial, they are there to pay their respects and reflect. For the sake of our veterans past, present and future, keep this place sacred. Lest we forget. International Development and Humanitarian Assistance 80 20:03 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Yesterday in this place, ACFID brought together organisations from across Australia's international development and humanitarian sector, showcasing the extraordinary work delivered with Australian support through the Indo-Pacific and beyond by these organisations. It was really fantastic to see organisations like Oxfam Australia, ActionAid Australia, Australian Red Cross, Plan International, CARE Australia and Global Mission Partners, along with many others, highlighting the impact of their work and the partnerships that they have built with local communities. I was blown away with the commitment, the passion and the enthusiasm in the room that went all day long. These organisations support people affected by poverty, conflict, disasters and inequalities while helping communities build long-term resilience and self-determination. Whether it's responding to humanitarian emergencies, advancing gender equality, improving health outcomes, strengthening education systems or supporting climate resilience, the Australian aid sector is making a tangible difference. This work is only possible because of the commitment of thousands of workers, volunteers, researchers, health professionals, program staff and local partners who are so very talented and bring their expertise, passion and dedication to some of the world's most-challenging environments. Australia's development and humanitarian organisations are a very important part of how we engage with our neighbours, build partnerships and contribute to a more stable, healthy and prosperous region. All that were present, I would say, were standouts in terms of the work that they do across the Pacific and across the world. My time is limited, but I do want to give a shout-out to a couple that were my favourites. The showcase highlighted the remarkable innovation supported through Australia's international development efforts. One of these was the World Mosquito Program, an Australian innovation founded at Monash University in my home state of Melbourne. The World Mosquito Program works alongside governments and communities around the world, using its Wolbachia method to reduce the spread of diseases such as dengue fever. Wolbachia is a naturally occurring bacterium that, when introduced into mosquitoes, significantly reduces their ability to transmit dengue and other viruses. Once released, mosquitoes carrying Wolbachia pass the bacterium to future generations, which provides long-term protection without the need for continual releases. Dengue is one of the world's fastest growing mosquito-borne diseases, making solutions like this so very impressive and increasingly important. The 2021 trial in Indonesia demonstrated the impact of this approach, with a 77 per cent reduction in dengue cases and an 86 per cent reduction in dengue related hospitalisations, making a real difference. It's a powerful example of how Australian research, innovation and international partnerships can deliver real-world outcomes for communities around the globe. While programs like the World Mosquito Program focus on long-term health outcomes and prevention, many organisations in the aid sector are also responding to immediate humanitarian needs when crises occur. One such organisation is CARE Australia, who showcased their care package—a really simple but powerful example of how humanitarian organisations are rethinking disaster response to ensure essential supplies can reach people when they need them most. Delivering aid in an emergency can be incredibly challenging. Supply chains are disrupted, infrastructure is damaged and circumstances change rapidly, whether the crisis is caused by natural disasters, conflict or displacement. In just three small backpacks, the care package developed by CARE Australia contains more than 40 essential items that can help a family of four meet their shelter, kitchen, water and hygiene needs for up to a month. The kits include shelter materials, hygiene supplies, cooking equipment, dignity items, solar powered lighting and charging equipment and can be prepositioned in a disaster prone location before emergencies occur. These were used most recently in Nepal. It is a really practical example of how humanitarian organisations combine innovation, planning and local partnerships to ensure assistance reaches many people quickly when they need it most. I really want to pay tribute to these organisations for the important work that they do in demonstrating the value of Australia's aid and development investments. They save lives, strengthen communities and build lasting relationships with our neighbours. YiSSA 81 20:08 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Today is a deep day of shame for the Northern Territory CLP government, which has shut the doors on YiSSA and cast those in need onto the streets. The YiSSA homeless and short stay facility in Darwin is one of the largest of its kind in the country. It's a 300-bed facility that could house as many as 400 people. For years it's provided a home for hundreds of families at any one time. When the news first broke, in July this year, that the facility was going to close, I went to visit families and staff who were understandably shocked. I spoke to a grandmother who was the sole carer for her grandchildren. Her daughter, their mother, had died by suicide, and she was left with nowhere to go. She had sought refuge at YiSSA. She told me that the children were attending local schools in Darwin and that YiSSA gave them some stability in their lives, to feel normal and to get an education. Another man told me that he would be back out on the streets if YiSSA closed. Another woman pointed to a deep scar on her forehead and said to me, 'A bad man did this to me.' Tonight, in this place, I stand here not knowing where these people have ended up or where those in need in Darwin or Palmerston are supposed to go. The CLP government, after making the callous and heartless decision to close YiSSA, has been intent on blaming everyone but themselves for this decision. Minister Cahill, in the Northern Territory parliament today, launched an attack against me, so I thought it was important to put the facts on the record here in the Senate—facts I've consistently spoken about throughout this process. On 15 July, the Northern Territory government announced that YiSSA would close in just 90 days. The Northern Territory claimed the negotiations with Ausco over the lease had failed. Ausco is the company that the demountables belong to. They own it. This announcement came absolutely out of the blue for residents and the YiSSA workers, who knew nothing of a potential closure. From that moment, despite this in no way being a Commonwealth government facility, I got to work to help find a solution because I knew it mattered to these families. The land is Northern Territory Crown land. So on 7 August I wrote to Minister Cahill advising that the Commonwealth would consider providing financial support to purchase the modular accommodation from Ausco. I proposed that the accommodation be owned by Yilli Rreung Housing Aboriginal Corporation, a well-respected and highly effective community controlled Aboriginal organisation that has actually been running YiSSA for many years along with Mission Australia. This would allow Yilli to continue operating and supporting those who need it. On 14 August, Minister Cahill responded, confirming that the lease arrangement would end in October. So we went further. On 20 August I wrote again to Minister Cahill with a revised offer. The Commonwealth would provide $3.5 million to support the Northern Territory government to purchase the modular accommodation from Ausco. Under this proposal, the Northern Territory government would own the assets. This was a genuine offer of financial support to help secure the future of the facility. On 27 August, Minister Cahill wrote back advising that the preparations to close YiSSA were continuing. On 31 August, I wrote directly to the Chief Minister, Lia Finocchiaro, once again confirming the Commonwealth's offer of $3.5 million to support the purchase of the accommodation. Minister Cahill and the Chief Minister, instead of responding to my letters or engaging in negotiations, continued to attack me through the media. The Chief Minister called it 'a waste of taxpayers' money'. Minister Cahill said she wanted the money with no strings attached for it to be accepted. All the while, they insisted that a transitional plan would be forthcoming and that the hundreds of families in the facility would be looked after. As the deadline loomed, families were told to make other arrangements. New intakes for YiSSA were rejected. On 16 September, the Northern Territory government announced that it would establish a transitional accommodation facility in Batchelor to relocate residents. Batchelor is about 100 kilometres south of Darwin. On 18 September, the Minister for Finance, Katy Gallagher and I met with the Acting Chief Minister, Gerard Maley, and made clear our concerns about YiSSA, and we reiterated our offer again—that it was still on the table. I also urged the Northern Territory government to keep YiSSA open at least until the end of the wet season. Earlier this year, we saw thousands of people displaced as a result of severe flooding right across the Northern Territory, in particular in the north. YiSSA was able to assist in accommodating many of those families from the Daly River region. Batchelor is a small community of roughly 500 people, as I said, 100 kilometres south of Darwin. To open this new facility, it's costing an astonishing $80 million. Batchelor has limited policing and access to medical services and no public bus. A taxi to Darwin costs hundreds of dollars. This was where they wanted to move one of the largest homeless and short-stay facilities in the country. I suggest that the priority was an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach. If these people were pushed out of Darwin, they wouldn't need to be dealt with. Well, news has come through this afternoon, on the day after the facility, YiSSA, closed. Thirty people have moved into the new facility in Batchelor. It's an absolute scandal—from having hundreds of families housed in the YiSSA facility, which I visited in July, to having just 30 people in Batchelor. Madam Acting Deputy President Grogan, I will tell you where these people have had to go. They're sleeping rough on the streets of Darwin or in the long grass. They're sleeping rough on the streets of Palmerston or in the long grass. They've returned to partners who are not safe to be with. They've returned to remote communities where they can't get the dialysis that they need for their renal needs. These decisions could be fatal. YiSSA was not a Commonwealth facility, but, out of basic and common human decency and a desire to assist those in need, we made offers of help. We made repeated, reasonable, sensible offers to assist. Not only were our offers rebuffed; we've been smeared, and the residents have been demonised in a nasty display of arrogance. And the staff have lost their jobs. Where have they gone? I can certainly promise that this decision will follow this government of the Northern Territory over the next few years. These families whom it cast onto the streets and into overcrowded houses will not forget what it has done, and nor will decent Australians, who can see that what has happened here is completely unjust, completely reprehensible, so callous and so cruel to these individuals and their families when they didn't need to be treated in that manner at all. Economy 82 20:17 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Australians have every reason to expect that each generation will enjoy a better standard of living than the one before it. That's been one of the great promises of this country. You work hard, take responsibility, save what you can and build a better future for yourself and your family. But, for too many Australians, this is slipping away. After more than four years of the Albanese Labor government, families are struggling with household bills, young people are finding homeownership increasingly difficult and businesses are being squeezed to breaking point by rising costs. Australians are working hard, but their money simply isn't going as far as it should. While Labor pursues its mission of taxing the crackers out of everyone and everything, the most insidious and destructive tax of all is inflation. Every interest rate rise, every refuelling stop, every grocery shop and every power bill is another body blow. And Australians are losing hope. Rather than confronting the underlying problems in our economy, Labor continues to pursue an agenda of greater government spending, more regulation and more intervention. It insists on blind obedience to international radical ideology, rather than on doing its job, which is to improve the lives of Australians. I grew up on a cattle property near Cloncurry, and one thing you learn very quickly in the bush is that talk is cheap. You can make all the promises in the world, but, eventually, you have to deliver. The Albanese government has broken trust with its people. It continues to spend money it doesn't have and hasn't earned. It tells Australians that everything is fine and that it's all under control. But, like everything Labor stands for, the truth is drastically at odds with reality. This government spending has added pressures in an economy already struggling with productivity, high taxes, housing affordability and the cost of doing business. But every dollar spent has to come from somewhere, and, when it's not borrowing, this government is reaching further into Australians' pockets. We have seen where this approach can lead. In the 1970s, Britain became the cautionary tale of an economy weighed down by excessive government intervention, persistent inflation, poor productivity and industrial unrest. It took a fundamental change in economic direction under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to confront many of those structural problems. Australia is not Britain of the 1970s, but the lesson is worth remembering. A country cannot spend, borrow and regulate its way to lasting prosperity. Inflation not only makes groceries, electricity, insurance and housing more expensive; it makes it harder for Australians to save, to invest and to get ahead. The government likes to point to economic indicators as evidence that things are improving. But, if the economy is doing so well, why don't everyday Australians feel better off? Nowhere is the difference between ideology and economic reality more apparent than in the treatment of Australia's productive industries. As shadow minister for resources and northern Australia, I see enormous opportunities for this country. We are blessed with extraordinary natural wealth: coal, gas, iron ore, critical minerals, productive agricultural land and some of the world's most capable workers. Yet, instead of encouraging investment and development, Australian businesses face mounting regulation, prolonged approval processes, higher taxes and costs and growing uncertainty. The recent High Court decision concerning the Mount Pleasant coalmine has highlighted the legal and regulatory complexity surrounding emissions associated with Australian exports. The coalition believes the law must provide greater certainty so Australian projects are not obstructed because of emissions generated overseas. Our competitors will not hesitate to supply the resources the world needs if Australia makes investment too difficult. When investment goes elsewhere, so do the jobs, the export earnings, the taxes and the opportunities for regional communities. The federal government should be making the most of Australia's natural advantages and ensuring Australians have access to affordable and reliable energy. It should also encourage the investment that creates genuine, lasting prosperity. The same principles apply across northern Australia. From the Pilbara to the Gulf Country and from Cape York to the Kimberley, there is extraordinary potential in agriculture, resources, tourism, defence and manufacturing. But I'm sick of hearing the word 'potential'. Everyone who lives in the north knows what is possible. What's lacking is this Labor government's understanding of the realities of operating in regional and remote Australia. What's required is a willingness to put practical outcomes ahead of ideology. A nation that can feed itself, fuel itself and defend itself has choices. These choices give us economic strength, national security and independence, and we should never willingly surrender those advantages. The coalition understands that Australia's future prosperity will not be delivered by governments employing more bureaucrats; it will be delivered by Australians themselves. They need confidence, freedom and support so that businesses can thrive, farmers can invest in another season and tradies can put on another apprentice. Our responsibility in government is to create the conditions in which those Australians can succeed. That means restoring discipline to public spending, reducing unnecessary regulation, encouraging investment and improving productivity. It also means delivering affordable, reliable energy and making housing more attainable. It's about ensuring our migration settings serve Australia's economic and national interests, not the interests of unelected foreign bodies. Above all, it means restoring the principle that government should serve the Australian people and put Australia first. Angus Taylor has spoken about giving Australians their country back. For me, that means restoring confidence in the great Australian promise that effort will be rewarded and that opportunity is there for the taking. It means that Australians can build businesses, own homes, raise families and keep more of what they earn. That promise extends to ensuring the next generation ensures a better standard of living than the last. Australia's economic challenges are serious, but our decline does not have to be inevitable. We have the resources, the people, the ingenuity and the determination. What we need is a government prepared to back those strengths. When Australians say they want their country back, they're expressing something deeper than frustration with the cost of living. They're passing judgement on a government that doesn't listen to them and a prime minister who breaks promises at will. The coalition knows they're talking about national pride, identity and the values that have shaped this country. They want to be proud of our flag, our history, our achievements and the generations of Australians who built this nation. They want an Australia where citizenship means something, where our borders are respected, where our national interest comes first and where our democratic freedoms and way of life are protected. They want their children to inherit a country that is prosperous, secure and confident in its place in the world. And they want a government that recognises its first and most sacred responsibility is to the Australian people. That's what putting Australia first means. The coalition wants to create an Australia that is strong, self-sufficient and proud and that doesn't have to apologise for it. We will end Labor's attacks on food production and ensure farmers and fishers can continue supplying us with high-quality produce. We will lower taxes, stop the waste and take control of the economy. We will unleash all available energy sources, including nuclear, and make decisions that are logical, not ideological. We will restore Australia's reputation as a secure place to invest. We'll make it easier for miners to get on with the job of extracting resources, creating jobs and contributing so much to our bottom line. Australian laws will benefit Australians first and restore our national sovereignty. We recognise that our way of life is worth protecting, and restoring the prosperity, opportunity and confidence that made that way of life possible must be our national priority. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 84 20:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Tonight I'll be reading speeches written by young people across Queensland on the issues that are important to them. I feel very privileged to help elevate the voices of these young people, and I hope they stay engaged and continue to push for positive change. To these young people: thank you, and I hope I do your speeches justice. Grace, who is 14 years old, writes: 'The issue shaping my future is the lack of accessible health care in rural and regional Australia. While many Australians can visit a doctor just minutes from home, some rural families must travel for hours to reach a GP or a hospital. In an emergency, that time can make all the difference between life and death. This could affect someone's friend, child or sibling—someone who is cared for. This issue impacts not only rural communities but all Australians. As major cities become more crowded and expensive, many people would consider moving to regional areas. However, without reliable health care, schools and essential services, relocating is not a realistic option for many young Australians building their futures. Parliament can help create this change by funding more hospitals and medical centres in regional areas, encouraging doctors and nurses to work outside major cities and expanding telehealth services and transport options for patients who live far from specialist care. If students like myself can think of practical ways to improve Australia's future, why can't our leaders? Health care shouldn't depend on your postcode. It's a right, not a privilege, and it's time for parliament to ensure every Australian has access to care they deserve.' Poppy, who is 11 years old, writes: 'Imagine growing up knowing your great-grandmother, hearing her stories and learning about her life. Just as you are old enough to appreciate those moments, her memories begin to disappear. She no longer recognises you or remembers your name. This is my reality. My Nana is the matriarch of our family, but dementia is slowly taking her memories and independence away. My family is not alone. Almost 450,000 Australians are living with dementia. This is expected to rise to more than one million by 2065. There are also around 29,000 younger Australians between 18 and 65 living with early dementia. Australia's National Dementia Action Plan talks about promoting equality and human rights for people with dementia. But what does this actually look like? In countries like the Netherlands, dementia villages provide safe neighbourhoods where residents can walk, visit cafes and go shopping while receiving support. My Nana has always been active and loves her daily walks. Now it is unsafe for her to walk alone. What if she could live somewhere designed around what she can do rather than what she can't? That is why I am calling on parliament to invest in dementia villages in Australia and to explore better models of care that allow people to remain active, connected and independent for as long as possible because people living with dementia deserve more than simply being kept safe; they deserve to keep living.' Nabiha, who is 15 years old, writes: 'Hi, my name is Nabiha, and I am a Muslim Australian. I wasn't born here, but I still consider Australia my country. I moved here when I was three years old and have lived here for most of my life. I have never known a home other than Australia. The issue I wanted to bring up is racism—specifically the discrimination and hostility directed towards Muslims. When I go out, I'm always self-conscious about myself experiencing judgement from others due to the fact that I dress modestly and choose to cover my face with a niqab. Australia is a multicultural, multiracial country where people from all over the world come in hopes of living a safe and peaceful life without the fear of racism and discrimination over how they look or dress or act. However, at the moment this is not Australia. To solve this issue, I want the Racial Discrimination Act to be updated. I want it to explicitly cover religious discrimination, not just race or ethnicity, because right now Islamophobia is falling through the legal gaps. I urge the parliament to support school based programs that bring Muslim speakers, community leaders and youth ambassadors into classrooms. I would encourage MPs to visit mosques, meet Muslim youth and publicly challenge misinformation. I don't want a society where Muslims are treated differently than others. I want to live in a society where I, as a Muslim girl, can go out and feel safe, respected and fully accepted, where my identity isn't questioned, my beliefs aren't judged and my presence doesn't need defending—a society where diversity is normal, equality is expected and every person, regardless of faith, can be belong without fear or hesitation.' Naeem, who is 15 years old, writes: 'Did you know Australia currently hosts 162 operational data centres, with more on the way? These data centres take up on average 20,000 to 100,000 feet and store thousands of files and servers required to run programs like ChatGPT. Data centres globally already consume enough water to fill 1.8 million Olympic sized swimming pools. Australia currently has the national AI plan rolled out in December of last year, which addresses some of the dangers of AI, including deepfakes and potential copyright infringements, but neglects environmental factors. The plan talks of building AI infrastructure with no regard to the strain it puts on our energy and water usage, and this excess consumption is likely to increase in the next couple of years. What I propose is adding to the national AI plan, adding regulations on excess water and electricity usage in AI data centres. Parliament should introduce strict environmental regulations on water and energy usage for data centres. AI infrastructure as a whole, with the current rapid expansion, could place enormous pressure on Australia's already stressed water supplies and rapidly growing energy demand. Introducing strict environmental regulations today would protect young Australians like me from inheriting an AI driven environmental crisis tomorrow.' Thank you to Grace for her contributions on regional healthcare, to Poppy for her thoughts on dementia care, to Nabiha for her views on racism and discrimination and to Naeem on data centres and AI. We look forward to you staying engaged as you get older. Iran, Australian Greens 85 20:35 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Overnight, Australia joined 28 other nations in a joint statement condemning the Islamic Republic of Iran for lethal plotting, arson, sabotage and cyberattacks against our countries and our partners. At the heart of that statement is the incident at the British RAF base used by our American allies. We backed the United Kingdom's finding that this was the work of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to put the world on notice that the IRGC is still willing to project hostile activity beyond its borders and region, working through covert networks and proxies. This statement reflects a pattern the free world can no longer ignore. Jewish communities, Iranian journalists, dissidents, diasporas and allied interests are being targeted right across the world. Australians do not need to be told about this pattern. Sadly, we have lived it. In 2024, the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne was firebombed. Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney was set alight. Our security agencies have found that both attacks were directed by the Islamic Iranian regime. They were attacks on Jewish Australians, on their sense of safety in their own community and country and on the social cohesion that holds this nation together. I have said in the Senate before and I will say again that the regime in Tehran has exported violence and hatred for decades. It funds armed proxies across the Middle East. It brutalises its own people and citizens. And it has brought that violence to our shores. Australia responded in a way no other Australian government has since the World War II. We have expelled Iran's ambassador. We have listed the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism. In February this year, this Senate unanimously condemned the IRGC's violent repression of peaceful protesters in Iran, and I was very proud to co-sponsor that motion. But listing and expulsions are not the end of the job. The plot in the UK shows that the IRGC is adaptable, patient and willing to strike at the heart of allied nations. We must keep working with our partners, share intelligence close offshore criminal networks the regime relies on and protect the communities that it seeks to intimidate. To all Jewish Australians, to Iranian Australians who have fled this brutal regime and to everyone who has been threatened by it, I simply say that this Senate and I stand with you. We will not be intimidated, and I will continue to work with you. We will not look the other way. Standing up to the threats like these takes serious seriousness and consistency, which brings me, sadly, to one of the political parties in this place: the Greens. The Greens have had, let's say, a very eventful couple of weeks. On 30 September they held their first ever contested leadership ballot and discovered something even less sustainable than single-use plastic: agreement among themselves. Then came the videos with the new leader and deputy, each in a kitchen with a hand with a cup in hand, inviting Australians to join their bold new vision. But whatever was brewing in those mugs was made from the same old leaves: a party that is preaching one thing but practising another. The Greens have had an opportunity to reset, but, sadly, instead, under new management it is the same old hypocrisy simply reheated. They tell Australians to buy local, but they import their politics from overseas. Their new leader, Senator Shoebridge, says that the Greens are here to replace Labor and won't back reforms. The tax cuts for every taxpayer, cheaper medicines, 20 per cent off student debt, free TAFE, higher bulk-billing rates and a guaranteed three days of childcare are not faux reforms. They are practical cost-of-living relief for Australian workers and their families. When the Greens had the chance to help, what did they do? They joined the coalition and delayed the Housing Australia Future Fund. Then they helped to delay Help to Buy while demanding changes to negative gearing. They like to lecture us about negative gearing and short-stay rentals, yet what we have learnt recently is that their new leader and new deputy either own or rent out investment properties. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I say: 'Good on you for doing that. Thank you for embracing the free economy.' But the problem is that the sanctimonious lecture from people who profit from the very system that they condemn needs to be called out for what it is. Sadly, the same contradiction runs through the Greens foreign policy. They call themselves a party of peace and claim to oppose Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, yet they won't back any military help for Ukraine to defend itself. The timing couldn't be any more confronting. Earlier today, Russia again demonstrated the reality Ukrainians are facing, with the launching of six ballistic missiles straight into the heart of Kyiv. Senator Shoebridge says that he would only support such military assistance if the UN Security Council agreed. But let's remember that Russia sits on this Security Council and has veto rights. That's like asking the offender for permission to call the police when they've robbed your home. He also referred to 'the Ukraine', a Soviet era and pro-Russian label that I know many Ukrainians both here and abroad have rejected for generations. Saying no to weapons isn't peace. Ukraine's ambassador to Australia summed it up perfectly by saying: We hope the Greens will choose to support us in our justified self-defence. Ambassador, I simply say: 'So do I, and I know many people in this place agree with you.' The Greens can't even agree amongst themselves. In the past 24 hours, Senator Hanson-Young has also publicly backed military assistance for Ukraine where it's needed to defend itself against Russia, putting her at odds with the new leader. This is a significant divide, and it's not only on foreign policy where the Greens priorities raise questions. At the last election they promised to abolish the Australian Border Force, end Operation Sovereign Borders and cap immigration detention. Their new leader even wants the United States, our friend and our closest ally since the Second World War, evicted from Defence sites. They simply are un-Australian and not interested in protecting our borders. Sadly, the list goes on. They claim to stand with Australians at the checkout, yet their own think tank, run by a former federal Greens MP, wants to have taxpayers spend $25 billion on a government supermarket chain, which would include forcing Coles and Woolworths to hand over more than 200 stores. Think about who would own those stores. It would not be the billionaires that they claim, but the nurses, the tradies, the retirees—the very people who put their money into superannuation funds that invest in these companies through shares. The Greens would take a slice of those savings, then ask the taxpayer to bankroll a grocery business run from Canberra. If it were to fail, it would not be the Greens who would pay. It would be you, the taxpayer. It will fail twice: once in your super and once again in your taxes. As independent grocers have warned, this idea risks shortages, rationing and empty shelves. This is the voodoo economics that they like to talk about. Australians want cheaper groceries, not a Soviet-style supermarket with a loyalty card. They profess to champion an inclusive, socially cohesive Australia, yet, when asked if the party would mend bridges with the Jewish community, the new leader dismissed the prospect, saying that the Greens would work alongside Australians fighting a genocide. Last week marked three years since the October 7 terror attacks, the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust, and I simply could not find a public statement or support from the Greens leadership. They also claim to fight for workers, against the one per cent, while demanding no new coal and gas projects. The bill for that lands on blue-collar workers in the Latrobe Valley, the Hunter and the Pilbara—the very people keeping the power on, particularly the power for those electric cars. They demanded safeguards on use of data centres. Now the government is legislating them, and the Greens still want a moratorium. I urge every Australian to look closely at what they are offering under this new management, because nothing else that they promote is sustainable. (Time expired) Electoral System 86 20:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Since the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1983 and its successor, JSCEM, parliamentary inquiries have reviewed federal elections and provided a bipartisan vehicle for improving Australia's democratic system. Through this process, the coalition, Labor and the crossbench have worked together to improve elections, bolster democratic participation and ensure Australians can participate in a free and fair democracy. I have had the honour of serving on JSCEM for many years, as a member, deputy chair and chair. During that time, my Labor counterparts have worked with me in a collegiate manner, including when the coalition submitted a dissenting report into the committee's inquiry into the 2022 election. As shadow special minister of state, I also regularly work in good faith with Minister Farrell on electoral reform. When it comes to Australia's democracy, this is how competing political parties should behave, with the interests of all Australians at the forefront. Ironically, the committee charged with reviewing the most partisan event, an election, has been defined by its lack of point scoring and political partisanship over the previous years, because we all want to protect and grow our democracy. Shamefully, under Prime Minister Albanese and JSCEM's current chair, Jerome Laxale MP, the committee's inquiry into the 2025 election has destroyed the bipartisan convention of electoral committee inquiries. Decades of political goodwill have evaporated, and a once-functional committee formed to protect our democracy has become a vehicle for savage, partisan attacks and a witch-hunt against Australians based on their religious beliefs. This inquiry is fatally flawed, with any recommendations compromised by bitter partisanship. I have no confidence in the chair or any recommendations resulting from this inquiry, and I am aware that a number of independent stakeholders and commentators share my concerns. During the inquiry, Labor and Mr Laxale, along with teal MPs, have repeatedly targeted the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Why? Because members of this religious community exercised their democratic right to participate in an election. Since when did being a Christian disqualify someone from engaging in a democracy? Can we imagine if this committee put similar questions to Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Catholics or Protestants? I would suggest to Mr Albanese and Mr Laxale that they brush up on section 116 of the Constitution, which protects the free exercise of religion. Despite this, the Prime Minister has described the Plymouth Brethren as a cult, and Mr Laxale described the involvement of church members in the election as an assault on democracy. I note that the Romans called early Christians followers of a cult. Imagine if these men made such comments about Australians of another faith. There would be an outcry. I am no cheerleader for the Plymouth Brethren Church. I have no relationship with them. I am not aware if they have ever supported any of my elections because, quite simply, I do not ask the religion of people who support me and my election. In a free, liberal democracy, freedom of religion is an absolute right. It is not a qualified right depending on the actual religion. A determinant of your right to participate in politics should not be predicated on whether you pray to a certain god or certain gods or pray to none at all. Labor's treatment of this group has gone well beyond legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. The committee has examined allegations of aggressive campaigning, intimidation and confrontational behaviour at polling booths, yet Labor parliamentarians have struggled to explain how they have identified allegedly troublesome volunteers as members of the Plymouth Brethren church. The committee has even heard evidence that Labor MP Andrew Charlton filmed and harassed volunteers while asking them whether they were members of a particular church. This is Stasi-like behaviour, and apparently Labor are okay with it. But if you want to talk about poor behaviour at polling booths, let's talk about what Labor get up to, particularly in relation to their supporters and union thuggery. As a political member for many years, I have personally witnessed busloads and planeloads of union members being shipped in and around Queensland to intimidate voters at polling places. But in typical Labor fashion, this union thuggery is apparently fine. And please don't get me started on the CFMEU, whose business model is to stalk, harass, intimidate and threaten their political opponents, yet Labor wants to focus its outrage on members of a minority religious community. Standards of acceptable behaviour must apply consistently regardless of political affiliation or religious belief. This is something I have spoken about in this chamber before. I've written about it. Indeed, I've made recommendations about the standards of political behaviour required on polling day. But we also need to go into how Mr Laxale has actually chaired the inquiry. It is with a distinct lack of professionalism. Mr Laxale publicly threatened to issue summonses to the Brethren to appear before the JSCEM inquiry, an extraordinary use of parliamentary powers. There's only one problem: the church had written to Mr Laxale and the committee on three occasions, offering to make a representative available to the committee. In August, Mr Grimshaw, on behalf of Plymouth Brethren, appeared before the committee and faced three hours of questioning. In comparison, the Australian Electoral Commission, responsible for administering the entire federal election, appeared for just 90 minutes. There are also serious questions about the conduct of the chair's own office, including allegations it leaked confidential committee correspondence to the media, and an employee of Mr Laxale made— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator McGrath, I'll just caution you on how far you're going in casting aspersions on people. I appreciate that they're your perspectives, but I'm just asking you. Senator McGRATH 217241 I am entitled—I do have the right of parliamentary privilege—to say this. If the Labor Party wish to kick a stink up about it, they can certainly make a contribution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 I am here chairing this session as the Acting Deputy President, and I would pull anybody up from any party if I felt that they were potentially straying into territory that may not be becoming of this chamber. Senator McGRATH 217241 Well, certainly, I take that point, but it is unbecoming that an employee of Mr Laxale made a submission of the Plymouth Brethren without disclosing their employment by Mr Laxale, so let that sink in and let sink in what the Labor Party thinks about that. A staff member working for the chair of this parliamentary inquiry made a submission concerning an organisation being scrutinised by that very committee and failed to disclose that connection. Where was that conflict-of-interest declaration? Labor loves lecturing Australians about transparency, but submissions have been subjected to sweeping redactions. Even the Liberal Party's name was removed from its own submission. Members of parliament have had their names redacted from submissions they personally lodged—Liberal members of parliament—yet submissions from parliamentarians such as Zali Steggall have remained unredacted. JSCEM was once the premier committee of this parliament and one I was proud to serve on, but quite simply the inquiry is cooked. The chair is compromised, and any recommendations are fatally flawed. The job of JSCEM is to examine elections and recommend improvements that strengthen public confidence in our democracy, not to settle political scores. The JSCEM inquiry into the 2025 election is tainted by the ugly, bitter partisanship of the chair, the teals and the Labor Party members. Parliament should be encouraging political participation, not conducting political witch hunts of a minority political group. The conduct of this inquiry and of this chair is the worst I have experienced in 12 years in this parliament, and I will not be quietened by anybody. The political malfeasance of the Labor Party and the teals offends my belief that we should be working together to protect our democracy rather than targeting members of a minority religion. It is a shameful slur on Australia's democracy. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 88 20:56 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to share the speeches of some young West Australians who took part in the Raise Our Voice campaign, and I thank them all for their brilliant ideas and for their keen interest in our political system. Sixteen-year-old Penelope writes: 'Misogyny. One word. Seven letters. One girl or more being consistently victimised to misogyny in classrooms every day. One boy spewing out sexist prejudices to her face daily and the other boys egging on, and one teacher blankly facing their computer screen amidst ignoring the blatant aggression in front of them. Too busy with grading work. Too busy to intervene. Too busy to prevent another end to a girl's passion in class. Little did the girl know this was only the beginning of misogyny being normalised in her work environments and her hatred of school environments. One boy is enough to make her energy down to complete school work, too busy arguing how she is not angry because she's on her period but rather at the boy harassing her. Too drained and annoyed to complete her school work. In her teary reflections, she sees an ignorant teacher unable to stand up for her peers. This story happens too much in reality—teachers qualified to teach subjects, just not qualified enough to speak out against sexist bullying and harassment in their own classrooms. In consequence, the fire in a girl's heart loses its flame to learn and grow in an academic setting. When are we able to implement daily check-ups on a teacher's ability to not just be bystanders but rather as upstanders against this disease of bullying? This is the Department of Education's biggest yet most unspoken issue. When will the seven letter word turn into three? Now. Now we must push for daily check-ups on teachers' ability to not just be a bystander, but be a preventer. Let's not make a school setting due to teachers to stop a girl's passion for her education.' Sixteen-year-old Nick writes: 'My name is Nick. I'm 16 years old. Since age 11, I've felt like I'm on a precipice, the fine line between realising who I am and simply wanting to please, between meeting expectations and denying myself. Since then, my place in the world has never been guaranteed, not by others and certainly not by myself. My mental health slowly declined. I didn't know whether I was meant to please or be myself. I didn't know myself. Then I began to watch all of my friends decline, seized by anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, suicidality. Maybe no-one fits right. I had to be the strong one. I was strong for everyone until it broke me too. Perfection corrupted me. It was a destructive lifestyle. I'm still trying to piece myself back together. I wish I didn't have to be strong for everyone when I needed to find strength for me. I'm still trying to find that strength. No young person should stand unsupported on the precipice. No young person should feel that everything rests on them. We need more mental health support. We need the strength of the community. We need your understanding. We need acceptance so we don't have to lose ourselves to belong. Seventeen-year-old Yi-Jin writes: 'Education is the most empowering tool, and it is a right that all children should receive an equitable one. The government have been posting about the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement on their social media as an achievement. However, the goal of 100 per cent funding for all government schools by 2034 is not something to brag about but something the government should be deeply ashamed of. While it is a much-needed step in the right direction, it saddens and frustrates me as a public school student that another eight cohorts will graduate before schools are funded at the level required. In the 15 years since the Gonski review, almost every government school has been underfunded while many independent schools have enjoyed above standard funding. The only difference between most of these students is their socioeconomic backgrounds and postcodes. Government schools are being let down. All students should be given the same chance to succeed. When you have a proper theatre to play in, you perform better. When you have pride in who you are, you compete better. When you feel properly supported, you can dare to explore the possibilities. A quality and equitable education is what every child in Australia deserves. The government needs to fund it not in eight years but now.' Seventeen-year-old Jessica writes: 'Data shows that, in Australia, one in 40 kids have been bereaved by the death of a biological parent by 17 and that the death of a parent is the most distressing form of trauma. Grieving young people are more likely to experience mental health issues, incarceration, substance abuse and more. These young people don't always know where to get support, facing long waitlists and unaffordable treatment fees. We underestimate how much impact the death of a family member has on day-to-day life, and there is nowhere near enough immediate financial relief for grieving families who lose a loved one unexpectedly—a category I found myself in after losing my father in 2022. I was 13 years old and have since then been disgusted by how your average Aussie reacts when death is brought into the conversation. Our death rate is expected to double by 2070, and funeral costs remain largely unregulated by the government. The prices of coffins and cremations continue to increase alongside burial plots being treated as real estate rather than a public necessity. Introducing price caps on funeral services could help to assist low-income families. Grief and loss education should also be taught as part of the high-school health curriculum, covering coping skills, where to find resources or how to support others who have been bereaved. Public awareness campaigns are needed to help families prepare for a loved one's death and navigate the process afterwards. Australian culture treats death as a taboo. That silence makes grieving harder. Creating a safer and more compassionate environment that speaks more openly about loss is essential so we can support people going through it. I deserve to be able to speak my loved one's name without receiving uncomfortable stares or silencing a room. Bereavement support must be improved, increased and protected, because no-one should face their hardest moments without help.' Eighteen-year-old Yusur writes: 'Madam Speaker, as a young Iraqi Australian, I have grown up hearing immigration discussed as though some Australians belong more naturally than others. The question of belonging became impossible for me to ignore when I learnt about Ahmed Al-Kateb, a stateless Palestinian detained because no country would accept him. His case showed how a person could be trapped by a system that treated having nowhere to return as a reason to keep him behind fences. The warning in Ahmed's case still lives inside our detention system. In March, the average person held in Australian immigration detention has been there for 451 days. What concerns me is the kind of Australia my generation is being asked to inherit. Anti-immigration politics promote the myth of a monoculture where only one kind of Australian is treated as belonging. When refugees become outsiders, detention becomes easier to defend and suffering easier to ignore. More than 20 years later, Australia has formally recognised the State of Palestine, yet recognition alone has not created safety for Palestinians who remain displaced, stateless or without secure status. A state should not be recognised while its people are still treated as though they belong nowhere. I ask parliament to amend the Migration Act so immigration detention has a time limit. After that limit, community placement should be required unless a court finds detention necessary for safety. Australia's future should reflect the multicultural nation we are today. Recognition should name a state and protect the dignity of its people.' I thank Yusur, Yi-Jin, Jessica, Nick and Penelope for writing to the Raise Our Voice campaign and for their brilliant ideas, and I wish them all the very best in the years to come. Supermarkets, Queensland: Acknowledgements, Fuel 89 21:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the last federal election, the Australian Greens lost three of their four federal seats in the lower house. They only hold one federal seat in Australia in the lower house, and that's in my home state of Queensland. It's the federal seat of Ryan, where I lived when I first joined the then Liberal Party of Australia. So I noted with interest the Greens' latest policy proposal, which is to establish a sort of Soviet collective-style supermarket chain. What the Greens are actually proposing is to forcibly acquire 200 existing supermarket stores and three distribution centres across Australia and then to build 424 new public stores, all at a cost of $25.1 billion. What could possibly go wrong? Well, what could possibly go right? It seems to me that the Australian Greens haven't learned much from the collapse of communism around the world, including the failure of the Soviet collective model. So I say to the good people of Ryan, including those living in Kenmore who go to Kenmore Coles: watch out. Kenmore Coles could be on the Soviet-style nationalisation list of the Australian Greens. Those good people in Ashgrove who go to Woolworths Ashgrove, a great store, should watch out. The Greens are coming for Ashgrove Woolworths and every other supermarket which you frequent in Ryan if it is among those 200 stores which they're going to acquire. So I say to the good people of Ryan: reject the Greens' Soviet-style supermarket collective and support the wonderful LNP candidate for Ryan, Maggie Forrest, a terrific candidate, a terrific woman and just the local representation Ryan needs. I was delighted to attend the Bethania Rams Football Club's presentation day and 40th birthday celebrations in Logan over the course of the last weekend—40 years of providing an opportunity for young people to engage in football, to be mentored, to be coached, to come together and to enjoy themselves; 40 years of bringing together people from different multicultural backgrounds and families who've originally come from all over the world, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Afghanistan, all coming together to play football, just as our Socceroos represented us in a true multicultural fashion at the World Cup; and 40 years of producing inspiring people such as their president, Kasey Statham, who joined the club as a player and is now the president of the club and doing a tremendous job of leading the club. In 2026, the Bethania Rams had 352 registered junior players. They already have an additional 100 expressions of interest for the 2027 season. So well done to the team at Bethania Rams. I look forward to the next 40 years. As the only senator based in the Greater Ipswich region in the wonderful state of Queensland, can I say that Ipswich punches above its weight in terms of sport, and I was delighted to attend the Ipswich Little Athletics 50th anniversary and Twilight Carnival on Saturday 10 October 2026. I thank the centre manager, Joshua Roney, for his kind invitation to attend. It was wonderful to share the day with families engaging in athletics, coming together and just enjoying the very, very best of Ipswich sporting opportunities. I want to give a quick shout-out to one athlete who I met on the day, and that was a fellow by the name of Jett Schroeder. He is a para-athlete, 12 years old—he's categorised as F37 in terms of world para-athletics. He competed at the discus and shot-put national championship, and he wants to go to the Paralympics. It was a real joy to meet him and his mother, and I just wish him and his family all the best in the future. I had a wonderful trip to Far North Queensland last week. I note that Senator Green is in the chamber; she told me I'd have a good time visiting some of the places I visited, and indeed I did. I first want to give a shout-out to the Gordonvale chamber of commerce. I visited Gordonvale—I want to thank the local state MP, Terry James, for hosting my visit—and I had a wonderful meeting with members of the Gordonvale chamber of commerce, including the president, Susan Byrne-Callaghan, and also the secretary, Erle Wickham. They told me about the vision, the concept, to establish a Gordonvale cultural precinct in this historically significant town. We should note that the Cairns southern growth corridor is increasing its population at a great rate of knots. The Gordonvale cultural precinct is a wonderful, visionary concept, which would leverage the great history of Gordonvale, including its architecture, including the Mulgrave Mill—all in a magnificent natural setting, including the wonderful Walshs Pyramid, which looms over Gordonvale and is such a geographical milestone in Far North Queensland. I want to thank the Gordonvale chamber of commerce for their vision. I want to thank them for sharing that vision with me. It's because of the efforts of people like Susan and Erle, with the support of Terry James, that they'll make that vision become a reality. I recommend to everyone that they go to Gordonvale and see what Gordonvale has to offer. I had a wonderful trip to Weipa last week, and I want to congratulate, first, the Weipa Town Authority, including Jaime Gane, the Chairperson of the Weipa Town Authority. I must say, everyone I met with in Weipa is just so excited about Weipa. They love living there. People would leave Weipa, but then they would come back to Weipa, and I can see why. There's such a wonderful sense of community. There are so many opportunities in terms of everything the great Australian outback has to offer, including fishing, including camping—all the other activities—and there are such wonderful community events that occur in Weipa. I really did enjoy attending the Weipa pottery club shop, and I bought a little piece of Weipa pottery, which is actually in my window, in my parliamentary office, if anyone wants to see it. Of course, it has a bauxite theme; we know that Weipa contributes to Australia's economy so much through the mining of bauxite. I did attend the mine site and I want to thank all of the representatives of Rio Tinto for hosting my visit. A number of senators in the chamber will know that I actually worked in the mining industry for 12 years prior to joining the Senate, so attending the mine site brought back a lot of memories. I was so impressed with everything at the mine site, including the housekeeping, including the camaraderie between workers at the Rio Tinto mine and including the prospect of Rio Tinto soon making a very considerable investment decision, which would constitute one of the largest private investments in Queensland—and, indeed, in Australia—with respect to future mining operations in that region. I dearly hope that that occurs. My good friend Susan McDonald asked a question earlier today in relation to rising fuel costs, and she put it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the Labor government should consider the coalition's Fuel Price Shield policy. Under that policy, once the average Brent crude oil price rose above US$100 a barrel, the excise would immediately be halved upon that threshold being breached, and that would have the effect of cutting tax on fuel by around 27c a litre, saving around $15 for a typical tank. I think the fact that truckies would also receive additional relief, with the heavy-vehicle road user charge reduced from 32.4c a litre to zero in such a situation is something which should also be commended, and I note it's fully funded because it would be paid for by the additional revenue received following the introduction of the coalition's policy with respect to excise on tobacco, which, Acting Deputy President Colbeck, you were intimately involved with. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOL Thank you, Senator Scarr, for that wonderful safari around your home state of Queensland. Senator Roberts, where will you take us? Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 91

Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

21:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Right here. The Albanese Labor government has circulated the most onerous, terrifying bill presented to parliament this century. The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 exposure draft gives the government power to censor not just social media but the entire internet, using powers that exceed anything available anywhere in the world. The bill enacts a new statutory digital duty of care which would impose a proactive obligation on a broad range of online service providers to protect users from so-called harm. These include every social media platform; every communication platform, like Signal and WhatsApp; search engines including Google and Bing; app stores like Apple and Google Play; hosting services, meaning every website, every web-hosting company, in Australia, covering every website in Australia; code-hosting sites like GitHub; cloud services like Cloudflare; telcos including Telstra, Optus and Aussie Broadband; software like Oracle, Adobe, HubSpot, SAP and Monday—it's a bloody long list; AI systems like Grok, Claude and ChatGPT; any and every site that generates or edits pictures or videos; and other designated internet services—a catch-all for anything you guys forgot. And, wait for it, it includes equipment suppliers for internet hardware, including routers, servers, desktop computers, laptops and internet enabled phones. Worse, it can extend to BIOS or software updates on your computer which can be used to block websites, words or phrases at machine level. Even anonymous platforms like Tails will be caught up in this bill, which intends to give Australian citizens nowhere to hide from the eSafety commissar's quest for power. What does a digital duty of care look like? The bill requires any person responsible for an online service to 'ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, a safe online environment'. This has three elements. All persons are protected from a variety of harms, including harassment. This has a legal meaning from general criminal law which would exclude a single critical post, although a pattern of critical posts from one person or one person participating in a campaign of critical posts from others would breach this section—one person. If the eSafety commissar or commissioner writes guidelines stating that certain political discussions or hostile online discourse creates an environment ripe for harassment, tech companies are legally forced to react and ban the user, group or topic—topic! This gives the eSafety commissar sweeping powers to defend approved government opinions, voter blocs or movements, while slapping down anyone critical of the government. Secondly, children attract broader protections, including any material or behaviour capable of inflicting serious harm—capable of inflicting harm in the judgement of the eSafety commissar, the arbiter. There is no place for intent, let alone causing actual harm. 'Capable' is the new, low threshold. It's absurd. Thirdly, it covers harms arising from platform design. These can flow from material or conduct. This includes infinity scrolling, which is the one thing in the bill One Nation would like to see removed from social media. In fairness, I say the digital duty of care is not absolute. The 'reasonably practical' qualifier, which largely reflects principles from workplace safety legislation, requires weighing up all relevant matters, including the likelihood and degree of harm; what's known or ought reasonably to be known about the risk; the availability of mitigation measures and the cost of those measures; or the impact on user privacy, including whether that cost or impact would be grossly disproportionate to the risk. Exemptions—the duty does not require platforms to police or take action regarding lawful communications occurring in private solely between consenting adults. This ensures end-to-end encrypted messaging services or standard private adult emails are not forced to actively monitor private conversations for general harmful content. The bill does include the word adult, meaning a digital ID will be necessary to prove you are an adult before allowing you to have a chat or email chain without monitoring from the government, so you have a digital ID to get away from monitoring. These things are private anyway. What does it matter what you say amongst friends? Apparently, it does to this Labor government. When the government is provided with this much power with no suitable checks and balances, abuse will occur. Now, we get to another terrifying aspect of the Albanese government's digital duty of care. Section 205G to 205K of the bill allow the government to create fake accounts called sock puppets or liar puppets that appear to be a person yet are in fact a government run account. These clauses allow the eSafety commissar and approved researchers to assume false or fictitious online identities. Senator Green 259819 A point of order—the senator has referred to the eSafety Commissioner in the incorrect way a number of times. I thought you were mispronouncing it, but I think you're being quite deliberate, and I think that he should refrain from doing that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOL The eSafety Commissioner is not a protected person in terms of the standing orders, so there's no point of order. Senator ROBERTS 266524 These clauses allow the eSafety commissar and approved researchers to assume false or fictitious online identities; use AI to make up images, videos or memes; post under the fake names; and watch what happens—in other words, all the things they ban you from doing. The exposure draft states that the eSafety commissar's testing powers operate without limitation. There's no mechanism requiring eSafety to seek an independent warrant before deploying fake accounts nor is there a statutory requirement to publicly report on how many liar identities they operate, what they said, who they impersonated or whose images they deepfake—nothing. This provision will allow the government to make any claim, promote any agenda and attack any person, party or idea without consequence. The only limit to fraudulent identities is the provisional liar accounts can't do something which is a criminal offence. How reassuring. The bill explicitly states that this authority applies despite anything to the contrary in other federal, state or territory privacy and identity laws. This is despite section 3 of the Privacy Act 1988 explicitly stating federal law is not intended to exclude or limit the operation of state or territory laws that protect personal information, provided those laws can operate concurrently with it. Section 109 of the federal Constitution provides, where the state law is stricter than the Commonwealth law, the state law generally applies, except now where the government is impersonating people to sway public opinion. Section 25C of the act provides the minister with the power to add anything she wants to the list of harms and then require the eSafety commissar to have that removed from the internet. There's no guidance at all on the use of this power. It's a blank cheque. The minister's decisions under this section are under a legislative instrument. Woe betide Australia if a government ever gets a majority in both houses again. This is terrifying. The UK shows how this provision can be used to eliminate political dissent. In two years, 19,883 UK residents, almost 20,000, have been arrested for saying things on the internet the government did not like. Examples of this so-called hate speech include 11 Britons tracked down and arrested for abusing England players in the World Cup for missing penalties only for abusing black skinned players, abusing white skinned players was considered just fine. This is an example of the single post and company rule I mentioned earlier. A woman was arrested for posting rap lyrics that included the N-word, despite her not having any ill intent. She posted song lyrics for goodness sake. That N-word is ubiquitous in rap, yet, on social media, it's hate speech. Graham Lineham was arrested for saying trans men are still men, which is true. This is where legislation like this always ends up: in policing thought and opinion, rather than worrying about actual harm. Our major defence ally, the United States, expressed concern. In a communique issued on 22 September, it said, as to the exposure draft: A framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of "harm" risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship … The United States nails this reason for this bill: viewpoint based censorship. Their concerns are threefold. Firstly, this is a mechanism of overcensorship, which pre-emptively censors free speech. Secondly, it explicitly warns that such a framework risks reducing the reach of independent journalists and alternative voices. Thirdly, the White House registered its strong opposition to foreign measures that result in the extraterritorial censorship of protected speech. You all laughed when One Nation said we were heading down the same path as Communist China. Now look: according to the Supreme People's Court public blacklists, 23 million Chinese are now non-persons, unable to access the internet or public transport or leave the country. Five million people have their employment, their income and their spending limited, under the control of the state. Meanwhile, most of the companies caught up in this power grab are out there taking care of business, thinking Australia is a democracy, blissfully unaware of our descent from democracy to totalitarian communism in just four years. Four years—that's all it took. Never in the history of humanity has a ruler had this level of power—never. One Nation strongly opposes this bill. In government, we will repeal it. Personal Information and Privacy 92 21:26 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Tonight, I'd like to raise an important consideration in the growing conversation about smart glasses: accessibility. There are legitimate and significant concerns about smart glasses being used to record people without their knowledge or consent. We need to take those concerns seriously. People who misuse this technology and cause harm should face the consequences. Everyone deserves to have their privacy respected. We must find a way forward that protects people from violations of their privacy, while also recognising that smart glasses are a valuable assistive technology for people who are blind or have low vision, as well as for people with other disabilities. The glasses can help people with everyday tasks, such as reading a book, identifying the correct settings on a washing machine or getting the most accurate directions they can to their local cafe. For some people, this technology can make a real difference to their independence and their ability to participate in everyday life. Importantly, some smart glasses can process visual information in real time to support disabled people, without necessarily recording or storing the footage. I've been speaking with Blind Citizens Australia. They are the national peak-body organisation for people who are blind and vision impaired. They have shared that they support measures that prevent the misuse of smart glasses and emphasise that there must be protections for people's privacy, while emphasising to us, as legislators, clearly, that there must be exemptions for people who use these technologies for accessibility reasons. Any changes must not undermine existing disability rights or impact reasonable-adjustment obligations. I also want to raise that, as individuals, we must be mindful of how we talk about this technology. People who are blind or who have lower vision should not have to contend with suspicion or harassment simply because they use smart glasses to navigate the world around them. We must protect people's right to privacy and safety without making life harder for disabled people. I don't want to see disabled people caught in the crossfire because of somebody else's predatory or unacceptable behaviour. It's encouraging to see that my home state of Western Australia is taking the lead on restricting smart glasses in certain settings, including in classrooms. WA local governments, including the City of Vincent, are also considering restrictions in facilities such as public swimming pools and gyms. These conversations are important, and it is encouraging that the proposed restrictions recognise the need for exemptions for people who use smartglasses as disability aids, because again—as we find a way together to balance the very valid need for the protection of personal privacy and the prevention of violations of people's privacy on the one hand and, on the other, the need to recognise that this technology is sometimes used as a legitimate access and support aid, a piece of assistive technology—it is really important to make sure that people who are blind and low vision and other disabled people are not caught in an unintentional crossfire. Senate adjourned at 21:30