If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's NDIS bill as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of Senate standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion, namely a motion relating to the government's NDIS bill.

Labor's NDIS bill is just cruel. It should be scrapped. It should be withdrawn. It should be removed. It should be sent back. It should be torn up, quite frankly, loaded into a cannon and, if I had my way, fired into the sun. It is a horrific, inhuman piece of legislation that would see 241,000 disabled people kicked off the NDIS—fellow Australians doing it tough, struggling, stressed, trying to make things work and trying to navigate a bureaucracy that is always apparently against them and always apparently on the side of a government that is trying to find ways to get out of providing the basic supports. For these people, for these community members, this government plans to cut their lifelines to remove the programs, the therapies and the supports that are the source of hope for so many. Just when things were starting to potentially get better, just when the therapy was helping the child succeed at school, just when a disabled person had finally been able to keep a job, just when a new skill was within somebody's grasp, or just when a new friend had been made—a new connection built, a new safeguard against loneliness and isolation—this government would tear it away. Shame on you all.

This bill is a disgrace. The fact that the disability community have had to work and expend their time, effort and energy trying to explain to this Labor government why cutting nearly $40 billion out of the NDIS is a bad idea—that's a joke. It's a joke. One hundred and eighty-five billion dollars over the decade is the largest cut to a Commonwealth program in the history of this nation.

To my crossbench colleagues and to the members of the National and Liberal parties: whatever you may think of the NDIS, these cuts go too far. They go too fast. They will cost too many jobs. They put at risk too many lives. Our responsibility as members of parliament is to listen to the community.

In the brief window that the government deigned to give disabled people and our families to have our say, to speak about this bill that would shape and reshape their lives, we have spoken with a united voice. The verdict was unanimous. Evidence was taken from disabled people and their families, from healthcare professionals, from union members, from allied health professionals, from doctors and from service providers. They sent a clear message: this bill must not pass; this bill must be withdrawn; this bill poses a threat to the lives and safety of disabled people.

So we call on the government today to listen. Withdraw this bill. No parliament, no government, should ever have the powers to shape the lives and livelihoods of people that this bill grants this government—the ability, with a stroke of a pen, to strip away the basic supports needed to have a shower a couple of times a week, to go out into the sun once or twice a month, to keep your job, to go to the doctor, to have enough support work to enable you to get out of bed safely and to be able to help your kids get to school. This is something that no government should have the ability to strike away, to strip from people.

Withdraw this bill. The Greens oppose it now and will at the next vote and at the next vote and at the one after that. We will not stop; we will not bend or bow or break. We oppose this bill. (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

I move a motion in relation to the government's NDIS bill, that it may be removed immediately and that this motion may have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment.

The question is the procedural motion moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Labor's NDIS Bill is completely friendless, with almost every witness to the inquiry saying that the bill shouldn't pass in its current form,

(ii) the bill will have a devastating impact on disabled people, their families and carers, and it imposes inhumane and cruel requirements on disabled people, including requiring people to repeatedly prove permanent disabilities and navigate new layers of bureaucracy to access essential services, and

(iii) the government's own modelling shows that they want to remove 241,000 people from the NDIS by 2031; and

(b) calls on the Government to withdraw the bill.

This bill represents one of the cruellest acts perpetrated on a community by the Australian government. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is inhumane. From the moment it was introduced into the parliament, the Greens have opposed it. We will continue to oppose it. We will continue to work day in, day out to see this bill withdrawn—to see it scrapped. That is our goal. That is our purpose. That is the work we are engaged in, and proudly we've engaged in that work alongside the disability community across this country, who are unanimous—who are united in their view that this bill must not proceed.

This Labor government believed that, by forcing disabled people to attempt to pull together evidence, by only giving us eight to 11 days to make submissions to the inquiry into this bill, it would prevent us and our organisations speaking clearly about this bill. Well, it could not have been more wrong, and I want to congratulate every single one of the over 4,500 people who, amid everything else putting pressure on them, took the time to make submissions to the inquiry and who spoke with such clarity and courage in the face of this awful law. We heard such powerful evidence from so many people, across three days of hearings, about the harms that this would do to disabled people, the pressure it would place on families, the jobs it will cost across the economy and the businesses that will go to the wall because of this, and we heard about the risk to life. Again and again, people spoke in the clearest terms. They told us that, if this law passes, people will die. People will die. We must listen, for no apology after the fact, no public statement by a government inquiry, no response to a royal commission decades in the future and no compensation scheme will ever wipe this away or deliver moral forgiveness to those who would vote for a bill that so clearly will do harm and so clearly will put people at risk.

This is a moral question. This is about who we are as a society. The Australian community believes, still, in a fair go, in justice and in support for those who are struggling. The community backs disabled people and our families and expects the government to do the same, not to cut the vital supports that we need and that we rely on to go to work, to go to the doctor or to have a shower. They back the disability community. They have heard our call over decades: 'Nothing about us without us.' They do not accept that any government should have the power to prescribe, to require, to demand or to mandate that, before you can access a basic support under the NDIS, you'd have to prove you've done everything you can to cure yourself and that you've undergone all appropriate treatments to get rid of your disability before you can get support. The community think that is disgusting, particularly given the fact that the legislation in its current form contains no adequate safeguards whatsoever against a future government requiring that a disabled person undergo a restrictive practice before getting access to the scheme.

We heard from the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Rosemary Kayess, and from Women with Disabilities Australia that the legislation as written would allow the government to require children to undergo medical treatments—they would be forced to take medication—before they could access the NDIS. I'm sure the government, the ministers and the backbenchers, are about to launch to their feet and talk about their intentions. Well, I've got a very firm response to that on behalf of every person that gave evidence on that question: we do not care about your intentions. What matters is what the law would allow you or any future government to do. We will not, now or ever, place our rights, safety and liberty upon the safeguard of your intentions, because for generation after generation we have suffered at the hands of governments who have abused, exploited, violated and neglected us while they claimed to have the best intentions. So, no, the fact that you do not intend to do one thing or another does not allay our concern. If these are your intentions amend your bill, or better yet: shred it, and apologise to the communities who you have caused so much distress and fear.

The Greens want this bill revoked—withdrawn, removed—and only the Greens have this clear and steadfast commitment. Two hundred and forty-one thousand people will be kicked off the NDIS because of this bill. That is a staggering number. There are so many people that it is easy to lose connection to the reality that behind each number is a human life, a family and a community. During the course of this inquiry we heard so clearly the harms that the bill will do to so many, and I want to tell you about a couple of people that have come to me, which were shared in the evidence, and about the community members that have attended rallies, events and forums to try to persuade their representatives to do the right thing. I had a mum come up to me in Albany and talk to me about how the cuts that have already been made to her plan mean that she is losing the little function that she has to stand up because the NDIS, through this government, has cut the support hours that she receives. So instead of the two people required to enable her to transfer safely in and out of bed there's only one person, and she has to weight bear. That is wearing out her knees.

She said to me: 'I'm in my middle age. The NDIS was meant to make sure this didn't get worse, and in the last year I'm in more pain than I ever have been.' This person is a mum to wonderful kids. She uses what little funding she currently has from social and community participation supports—which is the very area of funding that this government wants to cut by 50 per cent—to help her kids go to school. She does not know what she will do if this bill passes. She's a single mum. She's it. She's the thing that sits between her kids and a life beyond imagining. She's struggling to make it work, to keep her head above water. She took her time on a Saturday night to come out and use some of those support hours to talk to me about what the legislation would mean for her. It meant so much to me that she did, and it is so inappropriate and so cruel that she had to.

The life of a disabled person in Australia today is complicated. There are joys and struggles and there is success and failure, just like in any other human life. Because of the discrimination that exists, because of the ableism that exists, often life is tough—tougher than it would be for other people. It's quite frankly sick that any government, any person in a position of power, would seek to make that life harder and put more barriers in place.

I spoke to another woman, who works for Foodbank. I kid you not—this person in a powerchair works two days a week at Foodbank in WA. I was there as part of a celebration of that fantastic organisation. She came up to me and talked about what the cuts would mean for her and what the cuts she's already experienced have required her to do. This person can't go out beyond her front door without a support worker to help her. She had had her plan reviewed by the government and her support hours had been cut, so she had had to make a choice: did she want to keep working two days a week at Foodbank, or did she want to go out on the weekend? So she decided to give up her weekends to keep her job. If her plan is cut, if those hours are cut—if they are slashed savagely as this government intends—I don't know how she will keep that job.

The inquiry heard over and over again what this will mean for disabled people. We also heard really clearly from the allied health professions—the physios and the occupational therapists—who do so much hard work to support disabled people, to ensure we get the right technologies and supports and to make sure that the chairs we sit in and the software we might need to be able to read a document work well for us. Those people, those professionals, all across the country have banded together, have put their life's work on the line and have built small businesses in communities to provide people, particularly in small regional towns, with access to these services and supports. These cuts will close their businesses. I heard from an allied health worker in Mount Lawley. She's built a very successful practice. But, if these cuts go ahead, she's not sure what the future will be for all of her workers and for her business.

These cuts go too far. They go too fast. They put too many lives at risk. They will cost too many jobs. They are cruel. They are wrong. This bill must be withdrawn.

I rise to speak on Senator Steele-John's motion, and I observe that there are other senators in the chamber who wish to do so also. This government believes that the NDIS is one of Australia's great human rights achievements. It is an achievement that was built on collaboration. Disabled people, who advocated for themselves, worked in partnership with unions, with disability organisations and, ultimately, with parliamentarians. Labor are proud of the role that we played in establishing this scheme, and we're proud of the contribution that it makes. It is a scheme that is unparalleled internationally. It exceeds what is on offer in any other jurisdiction, and that is something that we are proud of on the Labor side, that I think the parliament is proud of, and that I agree that the Australian public is proud of.

Serious social policy involves looking at programs and understanding where there are strengths but also where there are weaknesses. I think, more than a decade in, we should understand that the NDIS is in no measure perfect. There are very significant challenges that threaten the sustainability of the scheme and its social licence. The scheme is growing too fast, and it is already much larger than was ever anticipated when designed. It is distorting other parts of the care economy. It doesn't always provide high-quality supports to participants, and we hear stories of this over and over again. There is too much fraud in the system and too many people who think that they can take advantage of people with disability.

The way that the scheme is designed is making it harder for us to get spending under control. Current projections are that, without an intervention, the scheme will cost $100 billion per year by the middle of the next decade. Senator Steele-John spoke about this being a moral question. He spoke about human rights, and I agree that almost all questions that come before us in this parliament have a moral and an ethical dimension. If we are serious about our ethical obligations to people with disability, we must also be serious about the program design and whether or not it is likely to be sustainable in the future and whether it is designed in a way that it will maintain support from the broader Australian community, because a right that cannot be sustained is a right denied. It's on this basis that the government is looking carefully at the scheme and looking at what would be required to sustain this scheme into the future.

It's on this basis that we've proposed reforms to tackle fraud, to finally make clear who is eligible for the scheme, to reinvest in the social supports outside the scheme which have withered away and left the scheme the only lifeboat in the ocean, and to deal with runaway costs, because the scheme must be sustainable in all of its dimensions, including its fiscal impacts.

I want to reassure people, because a lot of quite frightening things have been put by public figures in recent weeks. After our reforms, the NDIS will still be the second largest social program in Australia outside of the age pension—larger than Medicare, larger than the PBS and larger than aged care. It will continue to be the most comprehensive suite of supports for people with disability anywhere in the OECD. It will continue to grow each year. It's projected that the NDIS will grow at an average of around two per cent over the next four years and five per cent over the medium term. Under our plan—I reiterate this—the NDIS will grow. It will continue to grow, but, instead of costing more than $70 billion in 2030, taxpayers will spend $55 billion.

It is incumbent on those who make the case for no change, for those who argue that the status quo is fine, to explain why they think this is fine, why they think this is sustainable and whether they think the Australian public will continue to support a scheme that is growing at this rate. When we came to government, it was growing at 22 per cent per year. The changes that we made in 2024, which Senator Steele-John opposed in much the same terms as he opposes these changes, have reduced that rate of growth to somewhere between 10 and 11 per cent per year, but that far outstrips the level of growth that we would ordinarily see in any mature social program. We see this growth because of some design features of the scheme that need to be addressed. Any social program needs clear boundaries about who it is intended to benefit. Any social program needs clear boundaries about the kinds of supports that will be available to beneficiaries. These are not presently features of this scheme, and, as a consequence of that, we see the runaway costs that I've already described.

We don't believe this is sustainable. We want an NDIS that is here for the long-term. In a decade's time there will be a little boy or a little girl born, and they will have a significant and permanent disability. I want that child to access the NDIS. I want that child's family to access the NDIS. I want that child's community to know that they will be supported. But achieving that means dealing with the very real pressures and challenges on the scheme as it is. The approach adopted by the Greens and the motion that they have before us is to deny that any of these challenges exist. They propose no solutions, no alternatives, no way to render the scheme sustainable, no way to render it safe, no improvements to integrity—simply opposition for its own sake. I do not believe that that is an ethical way to approach a scheme with the significance of this scheme to the Australian public.

I want to address specifically a couple of the reforms that Senator Steele-John referred to in his remarks, in particular the decisions that we propose in relation to access. As I said, every social program needs clear guidelines about who the scheme is intended to benefit, and that hasn't been the case in the past. It's seen the number of participants grow well beyond what was ever imagined in the original design. This scheme was always intended for people with permanent and significant disability. There are approximately 5½ million Australians living with disability, and between 3.2 million to 3½ million of those Australians are under the age of 65. At the moment, 740,000 people are on the NDIS. It is already the case that not every person with disability participates in the NDIS, and that implies that we need a strong system of support outside of the scheme for all of those people who live with disability and need assistance but are not eligible to participate in the NDIS.

It's on that basis that the government, working with the states and territories, intends to invest $10 billion into supports outside the scheme. We've already agreed on the profile of $4 billion of that expenditure—the Thriving Kids program—and states and territories as we speak are procuring the services and putting in place the arrangements to support families of children with low to moderate support needs who have developmental delay or autism. We can do more. Once upon a time there was an ecosystem of supports outside of the NDIS, and, since the introduction of the NDIS, those supports have been allowed to wither away. We don't think that that is right. We want all Australians living with disability to be able to access the support that they need.

This also means clarifying who the scheme is intended to support. What is the definition of significant and permanent disability? We know that this isn't an easy question to answer. We propose to establish a technical advisory group, a group of people with deep expertise in these areas who can consult and work with people with disability to provide advice to the government about how we would assess functional capacity and what threshold they would suggest to us for permanent and significant disability. Over time, people with high functional capacity with treatable impairments or people who are eligible to receive services from other systems may no longer be eligible for the scheme. We want to be upfront about this. These people will access more appropriate alternative support systems for their ongoing support. People will be required to engage in all medically appropriate treatment. Restrictive practices are not medically appropriate treatment, and the government will seek advice again from the Technical Advisory Group about the way that we approach this. No changes to access will occur until January 2028, giving us time to work through these questions with the disabled community, giving us time to seek advice, giving us time to test these proposals and giving us time to work with the states and territories to put in place additional supports outside the scheme.

I want to speak in the time remaining to the social and community participation budget. The current way that the NDIS funds and supports social and community participation has meant that programs that once afforded real opportunity for connection, real opportunity for engagement and real involvement with a local community have been scaled back. A heavy reliance on individualised supports has seen the volume of community access and therapy supports grow considerably. Spending in just this area has tripled in five years. Spending on community access supports costs around $12 billion a year at the moment, the same as what we spend on the entire Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

We know that the changes we propose will have an impact on people with disability, but we have thought carefully about the fairest and safest way to make changes to deal with these runaway costs. We will reset the total budget for social and community participation back to where it was last year, to prevent further runaway growth, and the average spend by participants will go back to where it was in 2023. The average planned spend this year is around $31,000. We anticipate, under these changes, it will go to $26,000 per year—back to where it was in 2023.

Claims that these supports are being removed entirely are wrong; they are false. People should not repeat them, because they put fear unnecessarily into the lives of people with disability and their families. We accept that the change will have an impact, but the suggestion that all supports are being removed is wrong; it is entirely wrong. Social and community participation will continue to be a feature of the NDIS. It will continue to be funded. We will see people spend at around the same level as in 2023.

I want to conclude by speaking about fraud because another falsity—which is being repeated over and over again by some people in this place and in the other place—is that the reforms do not deal with fraud. Well, let me tell you: since coming to government we have invested over $1.35 billion in tackling fraud and non-compliant claiming. There is $800 million in this budget to do the same. Schedule 2 of the bill is the longest schedule of all of the schedules in the bill, and it's the schedule titled 'Fraud measures'. At the same time, we are investing in mandatory registration for a far wider group of support providers than was ever the case under the previous government. We expect that, when our reforms are in place, around 90 per cent of claiming will be through registered providers, giving people assurance and confidence about how those funds are being spent.

These reforms are designed to improve participant safety and to improve the value for money for the community overall, because every dollar taken from a person with disability by a fraudster is money that is taken away from where it should be spent. We cannot tolerate this. It is a key focus for me, and it is a key focus for the government.

I say to senators that we should consider this bill carefully—of course we should. Reform requires careful thought, and it requires thought about the beneficiaries of these programs now and into the future. I am absolutely determined to deliver an NDIS that is sustainable now and for the long term.

I thank Senator Steele-John for all of his work on the NDIS, particularly work we have done together—in committees on community affairs and, in the last couple of weeks, on this legislation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I challenge anybody that sat through any of those hearings to not be affected by that evidence. I challenge them to suggest that this legislation, as it stands, is acceptable to the community, to the people, to the participants and to the Australians that rely on it for their very lives. I challenge them to ask them whether they think it's fit for purpose; to believe them when they say they are afraid of what this will mean for them; and to actually believe them, which I do, when they say they are afraid they will die.

It is not very easy to sit in a room, whether you're there in person or remotely, and hear somebody tell you, 'I am afraid that I will die if this legislation passes.' Why am I here if not to listen to those people? Why are we here if we are not going to hear the voices of Australians who are directly impacted, and we are going to go ahead and do what we've designed because we think we know best. That's why people in this country are angry with us. That's why we have politics of grievance in this country, because we are not listening to the voices of the people that are impacted by the things that we are doing, and it is time for that to change.

Disabled Australians are paying the price for the failures of this government in relation to the NDIS. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the complexity of the scheme. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the inability of the NDIA to manage the behemoth of a scheme that it's become. They just can't do it. It's too hard. It's too big. There are too many moving parts. Disabled Australians are paying the price for the intentional fraud that targets them. These are absolutely all problems that must be fixed, but why is it that disabled Australians are the ones that will be carrying the burden of this? That, to me, is unacceptable.

The minister has spoken about the fraud, and she has commented that there is too much fraud. I agree with that. Not only have I spent a couple of days on the inquiry in relation to this bill; I sit on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have heard from the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, from the NDIA, from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, from the AFP, from the ATO—you name it. We've heard from them, and guess what they have told us? They can't quantify the amount of fraud. They don't know how much it is. They call it 'integrity leakage' because they actually can't segment how much of it is intentional fraud versus how much is operational or administrative error, which is people making mistakes, or how much is system error.

An example that somebody gave me was: 'I had to upload my invoices and my claim. I uploaded them both. There was a system failure. Only one invoice was successfully received by the NDIS.' Even though they uploaded both, that is captured as fraud. Sorry; apologies—that is captured as 'integrity leakage' and counted in the whole bucket of fraud. That's not fraud. We need to know exactly how much of this is intentional and how much of it is to do with the fact that the system is so burdensome and difficult to manoeuvre for participants and for providers.

The Fraud Fusion Taskforce told me in multiple hearings that international organised crime has targeted the NDIS. That's a fact. That's not something that we're assuming. It's not something that we've concocted to frighten people. It is a reality, and we are having a great deal of trouble managing that. Surely we should put the resources into the appropriate mechanisms so that we can be clear about what that fraud is; so that we are not frightening disabled Australians if they make an error; or so that, if there is a system problem, they are then not pointed to as being part of this fraudulent cohort called 'integrity leakage'. We need to be very careful about what we are doing here.

It concerns me that we haven't had appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. Our shadow minister in this space, Melissa McIntosh, has repeatedly called for a six-month inquiry. I don't understand why we can't have that. Why can't we properly listen to all of the stakeholders, the people who have the information that we need, and then make our decisions together? That is what Australians expect of us.

I'm going to read to you some additional comments from a report into the NDIS that we published in March:

Coalition members are concerned that the Government and the National Disability Insurance Agency have been unable to clearly quantify the scale of fraud within the Scheme. Without a clearer understanding of the magnitude of fraud and non-compliance, it is difficult for policymakers and the public to assess whether current enforcement measures are adequate.

If we are going to target something, we need to know how much of it there is. We need to know what to target and where. The report says:

Robust integrity systems are critical not only to protecting taxpayer funds but also to protecting NDIS participants from exploitation by unscrupulous providers.

This is a report that we tabled in March. These are the basic fundamentals that the government should have been looking at in developing this legislation, and they haven't. Instead, it's the packages of the disabled Australians that are being primarily impacted.

I noted that the minister also spoke about registration. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce spoke to me about the importance of registration in enabling them to identify the different providers in the market, and I do understand that, but one of the reasons that many providers don't register is because it is complex and costly. I've been told it costs between $10,000 and $15,000 for the paperwork to register.

If you are a physiotherapist in a regional town that may have two clients on the NDIS, it's not feasible for you to do that, but you are a professional who has qualifications—an allied health professional—and you need to go through this process. It the same process that, perhaps, someone who's doing some domestic duties for a participant goes through but doesn't have any credentials or qualifications. Why are we setting the same standard here? Why can't we have, for example, a fast-tracked enrolment process for people who have qualifications, whether they're a physiotherapist, a speech pathologist or some other professional? Why haven't we looked at that? Why are we once again, in this chamber, looking at a 'one size fits all' approach to solve problems? It doesn't work.

No two people living with disability in Australia have the same problem and the same need. Everyone's needs are different. Some of these changes particularly impact people in regional and remote communities, where there are what we call 'thin markets': markets where there are not enough providers already. What does that mean if we drive them out with some of these changes? That means that a disabled person living in a regional community can't access services in that community.

If they need to see a physiotherapist, they can't see that physiotherapist in their town because that physiotherapist just can't afford to operate under the NDIS. So, they're going to have to travel an hour or an hour and a half to go see their physiotherapist. Guess what happens then? Then there are transport costs to get them to that physiotherapist; to go all that way and then to come back. Again, these are unintended consequences of the impacts of some of these changes and, potentially, there are ways to solve these, but we don't know because there hasn't been adequate consultation and there hasn't been adequate time to deal with these issues. There should be; there absolutely should be.

Another element that people have consistently spoken to me about in relation to this legislation is in regard to the ministerial powers. I fail to understand how a minister of government will be able to determine how any particular Australian living with disability is going to have their needs best met. I don't get that. In particular, if I go back to fraud, the minister today currently does not know how much actual intentional fraud there is in the NDIS, yet that same minister is going to make a determination about what someone's plan should look like—or they'll have the power to. Is that right? That doesn't sound right to me. I don't understand what we are doing here, if we are not going to listen to the people who are experts in this space.

There is a significant burden on all of us here to ensure that this legislation, if and when it passes, doesn't look like it does today. There need to be changes to this legislation, and those changes need to take into account the devastating impacts on disabled people, their families, their carers and their communities. Again, I talk to the fact that people are afraid. There was one moment in one of the hearings where someone made a comment that we shouldn't be whipping up fear. This isn't about anybody whipping up fear; people are genuinely afraid. There were people in those hearings that wept in front of us because they were so afraid. I have received emails and messages from parents, from carers and from family members who are afraid. I've received messages from people who are good-quality providers who are afraid they'll need to close down, because they will not be able to afford to operate within the constraints of this system.

I'm going to read to you a message from one of those individuals. 'The Labor government's legislation before the Senate is the cornerstone of their proposed budget, a bill that diminishes the basic human rights of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Over the years, I've seen many people fight the NDIS for access, for basic supports, for a holistic approach to their disability needs. This government has allowed syndicated fraudsters to operate successfully but have framed providers in the media operating in good faith as ripping off Australian taxpayers. It costs more to be compliant, yet anyone can offer services and get paid by the government, with no accountability for what they are providing. This government closed down all state-funded programs, making the NDIS the only lifeboat in the ocean; they closed down important mental health programs, made us transition all of our clients to the NDIS—and, now, the very cohort they want to kick off the scheme, and will, when the bill is passed. I'm not saying the NDIS doesn't need to change. Maria, look back at the disability royal commission and the NDIS review recommendations. This bill completely ignores it all. It places vulnerable people in an untenable position. It places good-faith providers and their amazing staff on their knees. I am disgusted that we are going to sell the rights of people with a disability to the Australian population.'

How can you read that and not be impacted? These are clearly people who know what is going to happen and know what the impacts of these changes are going to be. We need to listen to them, and we need to understand what is and isn't workable in this legislation. We cannot ram it through without considering those elements, and we cannot ram it through without appropriate amendments to ensure that the very people that it was designed to protect are actually protected and not harmed in its implementation.

I am so proud that the first action the Greens have taken in this parliamentary fortnight before the winter break is to move to get rid of this cruel, inhumane bill that would cut over 240,000 people off life-giving support. I'd like to pay tribute to Senator Steele-John, who is such a staunch advocate for the disability community and who enriches our Greens team with his every contribution. I also want to thank his team for the work that it has done on this issue. This is an issue that touches Jordon and every single person with a disability in this community and their families. It touches them all. In fact, it goes to: what is the Australian character?

It breaks my heart that this government has chosen in its most recent budget to punish and to cut support from 240,000 Australians because it doesn't have the courage to raise revenue from taxing export gas, from cancelling AUKUS or from properly cracking down on property investor tax perks that have turbocharged housing inequality. Instead, it has made the active decision to punch down on the most vulnerable in our community as though they are some kind of revenue source. It is disgusting that this government sees disabled people as a means of raising revenue when it's letting the gas export companies, the huge submarine builders and the wealthy property investors off scot-free. Shame on you! We are moving this morning to get rid of this foul, cruel bill. With everything we've got, we will resist your ramming it through this parliament.

I note that the Liberal Party have spoken of their concerns about this bill. Well, follow through and vote against it. Don't team up with the government to ram these cuts through. Your rhetoric is sounding positive, so please do not vote for this cruel bill.

I call upon the government to withdraw this bill. That's what this motion is about. Stop punching down on Australians who need this life-giving support. Find other ways of raising revenue; you've got any number of them that you could use if you actually wanted to take on the one per cent and the big corporations who are ripping us all off. Change tack.

We saw in the inquiry into this bill, which Senator Steele-John and other colleagues in this place participated in just last week, the true inhumane impact of these cuts. We heard gut-wrenching testimony of what this bill would do to over 240,000 people, their families and the people that love them. With the removal of supports to leave the house, it would effectively condemn people to permanent lockdown in their homes. Whether or not it's to go to work, whether or not it's to go to the doctor or whether or not it's to have some valuable social connection, these cuts would mean that that support would be removed, condemning disabled people to be stuck in their homes. No other Australian is condemned to that, now that we're out of COVID lockdown. Why should the disability community be condemned to that because this government doesn't have the guts to tax export gas?

Another change this bill proposes is that people with a permanent disability would need to prove that they've got a permanent disability. Here's a newsflash, folks: permanent disabilities are permanent disabilities. I'm afraid cerebral palsy doesn't just go away. You don't wake up the next morning and find you're not suffering from it. That is not how it works. The fact that this bill would require people with a permanent disability to again prove that—to use their own time, resources and limited financial means and emotional bandwidth to go through that ridiculous process, to prove they have a permanent disability—is just an insult. It is a ridiculous waste of resources, and it is an insult.

Every single witness in the inquiry on this bill, and particularly those with lived experience, said that you cannot fix this bill, it should not pass in its current form, it is not fixable—get rid of it and stop punching down. The Greens are right alongside every single person saying that. We hear the pleas from the disability community to not raise revenue off the back of them and to not use punishment and cruelty against them to try to shore up some budget issue that you've got because you are buying too many shitty—pardon me—second-hand submarines from Donald Trump, don't want to take on wealthy property investors and definitely don't want to take on the one in three big corporations that pays no tax, including the wealthy gas export companies, who are fleecing us all.

This bill is an absolute dog, and it cannot be fixed. The Greens will use everything that we've got to get rid of it. It needs more inquiry, but really we should fire the whole thing into the sun. Is this really the sort of nation that this government wants us to be—a nation where the one per cent and the big corporations can continue to not pay their fair share of tax, where we continue to buy, from a madman, weapons of war that will not make us safer and that we probably won't get anyway, and where we bake in housing inequality by letting existing property investors keep all of their perks and instead we choose to raise revenue from the most vulnerable and needy people in our community, who we said we would stand by as Australians when this NDIS framework was first introduced, something that makes Australians proud that we support each other and that we value humanity enough to invest in people in our communities, including disabled people in our communities? The kind of Australia that the Greens back in is a community where people are looked after and have their needs met and where we raise revenue from the one per cent and the big corporations who aren't paying their fair share, rather than raising it from ordinary people and raising it off the backs of disabled people. For shame!

This Labor government is showing with every decision that it doesn't have the guts to take on the wealth inequality in this country and that it's not going to stand up to the billionaires and the big corporations. Instead, it's going to punch down on disabled people. It's not going to fix the housing crisis. It's not going to properly fund frontline domestic and family violence services. It is making all of the wrong moral choices, and the message that it's sending to Australians is: 'We don't care about you. We don't work for you. We work for our political donors, for those big corporations that donate to our political parties, and for the same billionaires that are boosting the hatred and racism that we see from other quarters of the Senate chamber.'

I'll note that the Labor Party and Pauline Hanson's—or should I say Gina Rinehart's?—One Nation party are the ones that oppose this motion. They sat together and wanted us to just crack on with other business. They didn't want us to be talking about the real impacts of this NDIS cut bill, because they support these cuts. So here we have the government sitting with Pauline Hanson's/Gina Rinehart's One Nation. They are both happy to make savings off the back of the disability community. They are both taking money from the same billionaires and the same big corporations, I might add. They are both happy to boost the existing system that sees wealth inequality get worse. They are now happy to punch down on disabled people, their families and people who love them. Well, let the record show that, when you embolden that kind of rhetoric, you're going to have to live with the consequences of that.

The Greens are proud that every single day we will stand up and fight against these cuts and we will always fight for a fairer economy that actually puts people first and that says that billionaires, big corporations, weapons of war and property investor tax perks are where we should be looking to raise revenue, not from ordinary people—not from Australians working hard, just trying to make ends meet, working harder than they ever have and not even getting ahead. We've got a huge homelessness problem. We've got a huge problem with housing unaffordability. We've got underfunded schools and hospitals. We've got fossil fuel subsidies going out to coal, gas and oil when we should be having solar on every single roof, attached to batteries, to both tackle the climate crisis and keep people's bills down. We could actually have a system that works for ordinary Australians. That's what a representative democracy is meant to be delivering. Instead, we see the government wimping out on all of those important decisions and not raising revenue from those who can afford to pay but instead choosing to make almost $40 billion of savings off the backs of people with a disability.

The government should be ashamed of themselves, and they should be withdrawing this bill at the earliest opportunity. The Greens will not stop pushing for that outcome. Every day, we will keep fighting these cuts because we proudly stand, roll and hang alongside people with disabilities, and we think they are worth it. We think all Australians are worth it. We are worth investing in. Our communities matter. People matter. Billionaires and big corporations, they don't matter to us; people matter to us. I urge the government to withdraw this foul bill that is so un-Australian, that punches down so cruelly on a community that deserves our love and our support and who want to contribute strongly to their workplaces where they are enabled to do so. This bill will stop disabled people being able to get to work, yet you're probably going to blame them for not working in the same breath. What an irony.

I urge the Liberal Party to follow through on some of the positive rhetoric that you've espoused around this bill, and actually vote against these cuts. We could stop this bill. We just need you to vote against it. If you won't vote against it, we need the government to withdraw it. But we're not going to stop shining a light on the cruelty of these cuts, and I'm so proud that we are doing so.

Again, I want to commend Senator Steele-John for having the courage and the determination to never back down when it comes to fighting for his community. We share that love for the disability community and we've got your back.

The NDIS has transformed so many lives. It's brought people out of their homes and into society. As the minister said earlier, the NDIS is one of Australia's greatest human rights achievements. The government has brought forward a bill that has deeply distressed the disability community. Over 100 people with disability, their families, their carers and their clinicians attended a community town hall I hosted last month. I heard overwhelmingly that people support reform. People want reform. We all share in the benefits of an NDIS that is sustainable, that is well governed, that is protecting against fraud and exploitation, and that gives people with disability autonomy in their own life and equality of opportunity. Ask anyone on the NDIS whether they think that the NDIS could be reformed and could save money and they will likely tell you yes. This came up time and time again at the town hall I hosted, where people said, 'If you want to see savings, I can show you where you can make savings.'

What the Senate has in front of us is a bill that represents the largest change to NDIS since it was introduced. These are difficult reforms. As Senator Kovacic said a little earlier, people are genuinely afraid. The minister is right to say that the sustainability of the scheme is necessary to ensure that it can be available in the future, to ensure that it does maintain its social licence and that significant work is needed to rebuild structures outside of the NDIS for people with disabilities such as in our health system, which is rapidly becoming unaffordable for many people in communities we represent. The minister is also right in saying that we need to deal with fraud. That is a matter we should treat very seriously. Each dollar defrauded is preventing someone with a disability from obtaining the services they need.

This discussion paper is about the very serious cuts to social and community participation that the government is putting forward. The bill gives unprecedented power to the minister to cut everyone's personal, social and community participation benefits by up to 99 per cent, and they can start doing that the day after the bill is passed with almost no safeguards. It's actually not limited to social and community participation. It gives the ministers the power to cut people's funding for activities of daily living—that is, the funding that helps people to have a shower, to prepare meals, to literally live and breathe. Now the government has said that they don't intend to cut activities of daily living, so why do they want the power to do so? If you say that you're not going to do something, you don't need that power. Why give it not just yourselves but to any future minister?

It's important for us to consider the importance of social and community participation funding. This is funding that helps people leave the house, to go to work and to be part of the world, and that is what the NDIS was set up to do. It was never supposed to be a scheme to provide the bare minimum necessary to just keep people alive; it was a scheme that was supposed to allow people to be part of society, a society that we all here in this chamber enjoy. But, importantly—and this is critical—social and community participation stops isolation, which we know can be deadly. The royal commission told us that, when people with disability are isolated, they are vulnerable to abuse, to neglect and to exploitation.

I want to read out a part of the submission to this inquiry by Women With Disabilities Australia and the truly tragic case of Ann Marie Smith, a woman who lived with cerebral palsy in South Australia who died from criminal neglect. It said:

Ann Marie Smith's death shows why community participation is a safety issue. She had cerebral palsy, lived alone, received NDIS-funded care and had very limited contact outside one closed support relationship. Police said she had been left in the same chair day and night, was malnourished, in septic shock and died in circumstances described as "likely preventable". Isolation was identified as a central risk factor, with advocates stating that safeguarding requires "multiple eyes" and "multiple people" in a person's life. The Disability Royal Commission examined what had been learnt since her death and stated that individual cases must identify the "policy and regulatory issues" needed to give practical effect to Australia's human rights obligations. Reducing social, civic and community participation supports risks cutting away the regular contact, visibility and informal safeguards that help people be seen, known and able to report harm. For women with disability, who already experience higher rates of violence, these cuts risk deepening isolation and worsening conditions where violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation are hidden.

This is what we have to grapple with in this bill that the government has brought forward. Every single person who came to the inquiry told us, 'If you cut social and community participation budgets indiscriminately without ever considering someone's personal circumstances, you will leave people in unsafe situations.' It seems, from the committee process and what we've been able to get out of the government and the department, that the government has essentially sought to make savings and retrofitted some sort of policy around that, and, clearly, there wasn't an understanding of what a 50 per cent cut to social and community participation would mean for participants on the NDIS.

If you take, for example, people with Down syndrome, these cuts to social, civic and community participation will mean that many of them will lose their employment. It seems like the government and the department weren't actually aware that Australians with Down syndrome use a big chunk of that funding to get to work, to participate in society, to feel valued and to feel like they are contributing and like they're part of a team and something bigger than themselves. We were told at the Senate inquiry, 'This won't have an impact on employment for people with Down syndrome,' yet you talk to people with Down syndrome and you talk to Down Syndrome Australia and Down syndrome ACT, and they say: 'Of course it will. A big chunk of that bucket of money is used for the supports that enable people to get to work and to stay at work.'

Big reforms like this deserve considered scrutiny. I absolutely support calls for this inquiry to be extended. There is much for us to look at. We need to give people more time to provide feedback. Really critically, what became almost farcical through the Senate inquiry was that the timing of when states and territories presented their submissions. On the morning of the final day of hearings, they basically said, 'Listen, we have no idea what supports we're going to have to provide to who and when.'

How can the Senate be considering a bill when we're told, 'Don't worry, there will be alternative supports provided by states and territories'—most of whom have very serious budget issues; look no further than here in the ACT. We're meant to believe that somehow, even when the very states and territories that will provide these supports are saying, 'We don't even know what we're meant to be doing.' This requires far more scrutiny, and I urge the Senate to ensure that we're doing our job scrutinising this bill, looking at the intended and unintended consequences.

I really welcome this debate in the Senate. This will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians, and it is very right that we take the time to debate it and to push the government to allow more scrutiny. There's been a very worrying trend lately where we're seeing bills being rammed through this place with little scrutiny and the Senate not actually being able to do their job.

():  Thank you for bringing this motion to the chamber, Senator Steele-John. I sat with you for two of the three days, where we heard people talk about some of the flaws in this legislation, and it clearly should not have come into this place in the shape that it is in right now. In two days of inquiries, of the three, I heard really sad testimony from people who are worried and concerned, bringing very valid examples of why this legislation needs a rethink. It's so bad that they don't trust the government to get this right. They want to see the detail, they want to know how it's going to impact them and they also want a say in exactly what is planned.

You're right to say that it was completely friendless. Like you, I didn't hear many witnesses at all saying they would pass it in its current form; I heard them encouraging senators in this place to not pass it. Those watching the hearing would be left in no doubt that participants in the scheme want the scheme to be sustainable. They want the support to go to those people who need it most. I was asked on the weekend by someone, 'Who's going to be courageous enough to make the changes to the scheme that mean that it's sustainable?' I said, 'If you listened, like I did, to the testimony, the people who want this scheme to be successful, who want it to be sustainable and who want it to work are the families and the participants of the scheme itself and the people that provide the services to them.'

What was missing from the commentary and the evidence was a commitment to go after the obvious fraud. I think over a couple of days of the hearing I saw some items in local papers about significant charges being laid against people for NDIS fraud. Where there is NDIS fraud, the people impacted are the taxpayers, the participants themselves and the providers. Most providers are doing the right thing. They care about the participants they work with. They want them to live the best lives they can. But there are providers that are doing the wrong thing. We heard, in the inquiry into the integrity of the NDIS, from the Australian Federal Police, from the tax office and from other agencies whose job it is to detect fraud of organised crime and of people who are deliberately targeting vulnerable people to exploit them. I certainly haven't seen enough in this legislation to give me confidence that it will have a great effect.

The government's own modelling shows they want to remove 241,000 people from the NDIS by 2031, but they couldn't tell us who they are or where they are from. It's just an arbitrary number. We asked if it's in regional and remote areas, where there are currently thin markets, but we didn't get an answer to that question.

Let me give you an example that I became aware of. I wrote to Senator McAllister and to Minister Mark Butler about a devastating impact of recent changes to the NDIS related specifically to health impacts for residents living with Machado-Joseph disease on Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory. As part of consultation for the NDIS annual pricing review, the Australian Physiotherapy Association told of the devastating impact those changes will have on service provision for those people. They said services in that area are already limited and now they can't provide services at all. Checking that, I spoke to the community itself, and they said they understand they live in a remote area and they live in thin markets but this is having a significant impact on them. I haven't yet got a response to that letter.

Groote Eylandt has the highest known prevalence of MJD per capita globally, which causes progressive loss of mobility, speech and independence. They can't wait for bureaucracy to find the answers. We heard from participants and their families over and over again that there is a void in information about these changes. Imagine what it's like for those people in thin markets, where they're relying on people they've built a strong relationship with to provide services. I asked that the ministers give urgent attention to that matter and provide me with advice and provide the community administrators that run those communities and service providers with that advice. I can hold my breath, but sadly others can't, and I still haven't got an answer to this one.

The NDIS provides not just support but also opportunity, independence and dignity. It is the chance to work, to participate and to access support that people need without feeling like they're a burden on the people they love. It is meant to provide hope for the future. I've been contacted directly by people in South Australia who talk about their real fear about what this will mean not just for the participants but for their families. What they're saying is not only that they don't understand what's going on here and they need all the detail but that there hasn't been an appropriate level of consultation. It seems like a pin was arbitrarily thrown to find a number the government needed to hit to reach its bottom line. It's policy laziness. That's what it is. It was writ large in the consultations.

What people with disabilities told us constantly throughout these consultations is that they feel invisible, they feel unheard and they feel like they are being reduced to a line item in the Albanese government's budget papers. It's no wonder they feel like that. While this government shuffles Treasury spreadsheets to fill its near trillion-dollar deficit and to make it look more manageable, it's the most vulnerable Australians who are left wondering why it is them who are paying the price for Labor's inability to control its spending.

There is no denial that the NDIS has grown far beyond what was originally expected when it was established 13 years ago. It was a scheme designed to support about 410,000 Australians, but it's now supporting 760,000 people and growing at about 10 per cent a year. It was originally expected to cost $13.6 billion, but it's now approaching $50 billion a year and it's projected to blow out to about $70 billion by the end of the decade. This is the NDIS that Labor built. This is their third attempt to rein in the scheme, to rein in that growth and to protect participants from bad actors. They have failed on all of those measures.

In August 2023, Labor promised growth would be reduced to eight per cent. They failed on that measure. Then, in January this year, despite growing that target, they pledged to reduce growth even further—five to six per cent. Guess what? They failed again. Now, a few months later, with no achievements under the belt, there's a pledge to reduce it by just two per cent. I want to be clear: the coalition's support for this scheme remains unwavering. We believe the scheme must be there for Australians with significant and permanent disability—exactly as it was intended—but the integrity of the very scheme that we're talking about here is weak. Criminals know the guardrails are weak and the fences meant to protect them are flimsy. Australians have heard the stories day in, day out; the NDIS has lost the social licence that it once had.

This government is in charge. It's been in charge for more than four years. It's their job to find the answers. It's not their job to bring legislation like this into the parliament, which has failed to convince not only the people it is there to support but also ordinary Australians who are quite happy to pay for it. But they're not happy to pay for the fraudsters or the criminals, which are the people that we need to go after. They're not happy to pay for the red tape, the bureaucracy, that means that money is not spent where it's intended. We heard about people needing to get reassessments for profound, lifelong, incurable disabilities. What a waste of money. I don't even have to work in the sector to realise that. What's the saving if you reduce the requirement to do that? It would make a huge difference.

This bill is a substantial bill. It provides significant change to the scheme. That's why it needs more consideration; that's why it needs more time. From hearing all of the submissions and the witness testimonies, I'm certainly convinced it could be much better in making the scheme more sustainable and in addressing the fraud that is plaguing it. One of the most concerning parts of the witness testimonies that I heard was about the impact on community supports. You could hear the fear in people's voices. You could hear it; you could see it. They were concerned about becoming invisible and about not doing, or having the ability to participate in, the things in life that we take for granted. That was the thing that caused the most anxiety for participants and their families.

Community supports are critical. Earlier we heard concerns about the impact of removing community supports on jobs. If people can work, they should work. It might not be in the same way that I, or someone else, can work, but if they want to be able to contribute by working, volunteering or doing things out in our communities then they should be able to do that. But to make an arbitrary cut to the ability to do that across every participant—I was left scratching my head and thinking, 'How is that right?' There's not even a suitable explanation to explain how this legislation got to that point. Meanwhile, dodgy operators continue slipping through those cracks while legitimate providers are buried in paperwork, bureaucracy, compliance and red tape. And it's not just the providers. The participants are bogged down in this. And their families are bogged down in this; what they want to focus on is improving the lives of the people they love. It's a simple request; you'd think it wouldn't be that hard.

The scheme must be sustainable for the future to continue supporting those Australians with significant and permanent disability for generations to come. There were very few people that I heard that wouldn't agree with that sentiment. There is opportunity to address its cost to make it more sustainable, but the way Labor is presenting it is not the way to do that. The inquiry should be extended and this bill should not be presented.

I rise to support the motion put forward by my colleague, Senator Steele-John, and I want to associate myself with the statements made by Senator Steele-John and Senator Waters.

Within less than a fortnight of this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, being introduced into the parliament, people with a disability around the country mobilised to tell the government that this is not the way to be caring and supporting for people with a disability in our community. It would appear that the government isn't listening. If it were, it would have withdrawn this bill and engaged in a true process of co-design with people with a disability, their families, advocates and other stakeholders to come up with something that was not this.

This is a bill that is designed to do one thing: to make budget savings now and to continue to make budget savings in the future off the back of people who need support. This is a pattern that we are seeing from this Labor government. We've seen it in aged care, using the argument that they're implementing the recommendations of a royal commission. In fact, they're making the system worse for older people, making them pay more so that many of them can't afford care. The government are tying older people up in assessments and bureaucracy, which means they either wait years or they die before they ever receive support.

Just at the weekend I was talking to some older people in a workshop, and one of them said to me, 'We feel they just want us to die. because then they won't have to pay for us.' And it's hard not to wonder whether that is, in fact, the case, because the same thing is going to happen here with the changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There are people who are going to die as a consequence of these changes.

Removing social supports for people arbitrarily can have catastrophic consequences for people. Not that long ago we had COVID lockdowns and so many people were saying that they were going stir crazy locked in their houses, asking, 'When would it end?' Well, this bill will consign some people with a disability to a lifetime of being locked down in their homes. Shame on you!

We keep hearing the word 'sustainability'. What's sustainable about chucking people off a scheme that supports them when we know that that's a false economy? Poor mental health is going to go through the roof, and we already have a mental health crisis in this country that we are not addressing with adequate supports. We're going to see more hospital admissions because people haven't had the care and support that they need. It's just like we're seeing with aged care: hospital beds are filling up because people cannot get the care that they need in their homes. We are going to see that repeated here.

Forty billion dollars in savings—I can think of a whole bunch of other places where we could find $40 billion in savings. Let's not buy submarines that are just going to put us on an offensive war footing against a country that's one of our major trading partners. That's not going to make us safer. How about we have a gas tax? Stop letting big corporations off scot-free without them paying their fair share. Let's tax the one per cent and make them pay their fair share. Let's stop giving massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies. Let's not grandfather into the never-never capital gains tax and negative gearing. There is so much money out there if the government had the courage to stand up to powerful vested interests, to not do their bidding, and actually do the job of government, which is to care for people.

People on the NDIS have said the scheme is not perfect. There are aspects that need reform. There are people who are being negatively impacted by fraud in the system. Why don't you start by going after that first? You could actually have a concerted effort to bring legislation into this place to seriously tackle the fraud that some providers are perpetuating, which is harming people on the scheme, and then reassess where you're at. But, no; you want to start with cuts. You want to not only start with cuts but give the minister virtually unfettered power to make more cuts into the future. Who knows who will be the government then? I find that pretty scary.

There are some parties in this place that would love to decimate the NDIS, and you're basically giving them a blank cheque and a free pass to do whatever they want in the future to cut people's supports. There is a pattern with this government: tying people up in bureaucracy and automated assessments. We're seeing algorithms creeping in to the way people are going to be assessed on the NDIS. We're already seeing what a disaster that is in the aged-care space—automation in social services and cutting people off from their payments. That's another group of people in our community who should be supported and looked after by governments, but this government refuses to do what needs to be done. They're getting savings out of not raising the rate of income support. It's just another example of going after savings from the people in our community, who governments are supposed to be helping, instead of standing up to vested and powerful interests.

This is a government that came to this parliament with a massive majority. This is a government that has a pathway through the Senate to do good things for people in our communities. What did we see with aged care? We saw them do a deal with the coalition behind closed doors about the financials, and now we've got a mess of a system where people can't afford to access care. They can't get care. I guarantee that we're looking down the barrel of the same thing again. They are working with those parties who are happy to help the government use the vulnerable people, the people who need our help in our community, as the cash cows to balance their budget, because they don't have the courage. Notwithstanding their massive majority, and notwithstanding the fact that they have a clear pathway through this place to do good things that will help our community, they want to punch down on the people who need and deserve government support.

How shameful it is that one of the ways that you've tried to build up consent in the community for these cuts is to put fraud out there like it's this massive emergency. I've seen people in the street with a disability getting spat on because the community has been led to believe that it's the participants who are committing this fraud. It's been quite convenient for the government to let people think that, because that will help manufacture consent for changes that are going to really harm people.

We know the focus groups were there; the research is there. How do we get consent to chuck 241,000 people off the NDIS? I know; we'll start telling everybody about fraud, even though I can count on my two hands the prosecutions for fraud. It's punching down on people who need support—people with a disability, older people, people who need income support. That's how this government rolls. And the public is noticing. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night. I don't know how you can have so much power, such a majority, and then not help people. It blows my mind.

What blows my mind even more is when I'm at rallies like one for the NDIS and I'll have someone who I know is a Labor volunteer or supporter come over and say, 'Thank you so much for speaking out.' Well, who's speaking up in your party room? Who's speaking up in caucus? What's the point of having 94 of you in the lower house, if you can't stop something as bad as this? Why even bother? I say to those Labor backbenchers in the Senate and the lower house, where are you? Where are you standing up and speaking out about cuts that are going to devastate people with a disability.

They already know. They've had a taste of what this is going to look like, because they've already had supports start to be cut and they know what that means for their lives. They know that it means some of them won't be able to get out of bed. They know that it means they're going to be disconnected from their communities. They know that it means they're going to be locked inside their houses. They know that it means they're not going to be able to get to work. Parents know that it means the family that's just hanging on by a thread as it is, because of the challenges that they are facing with their kids who need support, are going to go under. Knowing all that, what's the point of sitting on the Labor backbench if you can't speak up in your own party room?

I am really proud of the work that the disability community, people with a disability, have done despite the challenges, to stand together and to tell the government that this is not okay. I am proud of the work that the disability community has done to speak out and tell the public what this is going to mean for them, how devastating this is going to be for them and their families. Make no mistake: in addition to people with a disability paying for these cuts, women in our community are going to pay for these cuts. Who's doing the bulk of the caring work when the government's not giving people the support they need? Women! They're the ones looking after our parents and grandparents because they can't get access to aged care. They're the ones looking after kids with a disability and other family members with a disability because they can't get the support they need. This is a government that's supposed to be about women. We've heard that women and people with a disability are going to be more likely to experience violence, abuse and neglect if they get their supports taken away. Yet this is a government that tells the community, 'We care about violence against women. We're doing everything we can to stop violence against women.' There are things that you can do that will help such as not taking away people's community supports in the NDIS; getting rid of the partner income test in social services, which we also know exposes women to violence; getting rid of gambling advertising, which we also know drives violence. You talk the talk, but you're not very good at walking the walk. Again I ask: what is the point of having a Labor government with a massive majority if you're not going to act on the issues that really impact people in our community, if you're not going to look after the most vulnerable, if you're just going to keep bowing down to vested interests and powerful interests and do their bidding? You've had over four years, and that is the pattern that keeps repeating and repeating and repeating.

This bill is a dog of a bill. It will harm people. If this bill passes, there are people who will die. I urge the government to scrap this bill, to withdraw it from the Notice Paper, to go back and start again and to have a genuine process of true co-design with people with a disability. Come back and tell us how you are actually going to tackle fraud from providers that are taking care away from people with a disability.

I urge the coalition: do not support a bill that is going to harm people and that will see people die.

I rise to join my voice with that of others in this chamber who are asking the government, imploring the government, to throw this bill out and to provide the care and support that disabled people across our country deserve. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues Senator Steele-John, Senator Allman-Payne, Senator Waters and with Senator Kovacic and Senator Liddle and with the important evidence that you have brought forward. We share in asking the Senate to revisit this bill and for Labor to change their minds. No-one could have sat through those three days of evidence without feeling deep concern about the losses that individuals, disabled people, will suffer if Labor persists here. No-one could be under any doubt about what this bill will mean for families. It will cause a cascade of loss of freedoms, loss of life and certainly loss of control for the many millions of carers across our country who are supporting and looking after disabled people with complex issues.

This bill is an attack on disabled people. It is an attack on the care workforce. It is an attack on the economy of care, which provides such important services and freedom to people with disability. It is a cruel and inhumane act. It does not do justice to our standards as a community, as a parliament and as a society. Some 241,000 disabled people, a huge number, will simply lose their NDIS services, and a cascade of consequences will follow. If they had listened to the evidence of the individuals who came before this parliament and asked us, implored us, to understand their experience and what this meant for them then Labor could not persist with this bill.

The bill itself grants massive new powers to the government to cut supports for those who are reliant on NDIS. It cuts support for so many thousands of people who have disability, who make contributions to our labour market every day with great complexity in their lives. They manage complexity in getting transport to get to work, complexity in doing their jobs, but they do it and they manage it, in many cases because they have the kinds of support that this Labor bill will remove. It will remove people's ability to shower themselves and to look after their own personal hygiene with support. Can people imagine what that means for 241,000 households? That loss of that kind of basic amenity impacts on individuals. It impacts on households. It impacts on our labour market and our economy.

This bill also creates new access barriers which force people to undergo potentially expensive procedures not recommended or not required by their doctors. This is cruel, and it really will have a massive impact on those individuals, their families, their parents, their carers. It pushes all of that care back onto those individuals. We know what this means for the privacy of individuals, of people with disability. We know what it means for the many, many carers.

The minister said here this morning that there is no other way to do this. That is wrong. There are many other ways we can fund appropriate levels of care. There are many other ways we can end massive fraud where very big entities are practising aspects of providing disability support which are fraudulent. There are many things we could do. The minister has closed them all off. I feel like I'm back in Thatcher's Britain. 'There is no alternative.' There are many alternatives. I spent three days last week in hearings, two of them around housing. Many people came forward and said, 'If we didn't have the kind of grandfathering provisions that bake in massive benefits for very, very wealthy property investors, we would have billions of dollars added into our budget which could do exactly what is being removed here—fund the services that disabled people need.'

I spent a whole day on Friday listening to the cowboys and scoundrels in KPMG telling us about the kinds of activities they have been engaged in, misusing confidential information, to generate huge buckets of revenue. KPMG's revenue last year was $2.3 billion. There are 680 partners in that firm who do not pay corporate tax. They don't pay payroll tax. We could change the way in which we tax the big four and generate very significant levels of revenue.

We have a bill of $271 billion that Labor has committed to pay on the AUKUS submarine contract, a bill where we're very unlikely to get a significant usable product at the end. We're already sending billion-dollar cheques off to the UK and the US for this very implausible contract which is very unlikely to deliver what we need, and there are billions of dollars wasted in our defence budget. We can tax gas corporations. A 25 per cent tax could generate $17 billion in a single year. We could stop giving away masses of billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies in fuel subsidies.

There are so many things we could do that are alternatives, and we sit here and hear the Labor government say, 'There is no other way to do this than to punch down on people in our society, people we know in our streets, in our communities and in our households, that depend on our support.' For every $1 that we invest in the NDIS, Per Capita's research tells us we get a $2.25 return to the Australian economy. We have a very significant care economy there which deserves support and which should be backed in rather than cut and treated in the way that Labor proposes.

We had a select committee into work and care here a few years ago with very firm evidence about the role of carers in our economy, assisting so many thousands of Australians. Witnesses came before us and told us what the care responsibilities meant for them and how NDIS support was critical to their participation in our economy and their participation in public life—all of the activities, voluntary and paid, that they contribute. Make no mistake, this bill is diabolical in its implications for women. This bill is an attack on women. This bill is an attack on the millions of women across our economy who provide care to Australians who desperately need it and rely on it for being able to participate in their lives. This is a bill which attacks women. It's an attack on carers, disproportionately women. It is wrong. It is an attack by a government that wears its credentials on its services and support for women every day out there in public. But this bill is a clear demonstration of their failure to understand the implications of these massive cuts for women, for their participation in work, for their participation in their family life and for their participation in so many other activities.

Turning to the experience in South Australia, I have had so many South Australian constituents make contact with my office and ask for their voices to be represented here. They come forward with stories—for example, a 50-year-old woman who finally gained full independence not so long ago and confidence that her son could act in this community with the help of a support worker. The parent is now able to enjoy retirement knowing their adult child is supported. Parents who are able to work and pay tax because they have some physical and mental load taken by a support worker are now at risk of losing all of that. This is an incredible loss not only for the economy but especially for the individuals and for those they care for. Their teenager has the chance to get involved in teenage activities, following years of support by a parent, and get the independence so important for young kids. People who are able to walk without fear of falls due to equipment and who've joined a gym with support from a support worker are now at real risk of losing that. And people with intellectual disabilities who have brought their stories to my office are currently able to save up hours and travel out of town. Before the NDIS, they were unable to leave their small town and overcome issues of isolation.

Through the NDIS, people across the state of South Australia and our whole country have been able to gain confidence, to escape isolation, to work on goals, to get jobs and to aim for dreams like others do. Cutting back on all of this is a disaster for these individuals. I can't talk about this evidence without mentioning the incredible example of the loss of the life of Anne-Marie Smith in South Australia. This is a story of isolation—a failure in the life of a disabled person to see enough people which resulted in the appalling circumstances of her loss of life—which shocked and horrified everyone in our own state, South Australia, and across our country. Key multiple support interactions are critical to saving the life of someone like Anne-Marie Smith.

People will suffer due to this bill. We have heard people say over and over again in this chamber that people will die. We will be back at inquiries in the future that will look at the cost of this 241,000-person loss of services. We really need to see this for what it is: a Labor bill that is cruel, a Labor bill that is not necessary and a Labor bill which cuts services which could be funded by a whole range of possible actions that could have held off this massive cut. I think of the recent stats we've seen in this country of the growing number of billionaires. We're now at over 178 billionaires in this country, and their wealth grew by $25 billion last year. We do not tax those billionaires at anything like the rate we tax our nurses, our teachers and our retail workers. We have a whole range of tax levers available to us in this country that mean we can fund decent services for disabled people. We can fund a decent social safety net which supports people to live with dignity. How dare a government who promised that they wouldn't cut the NDIS now balance their budget by selling disabled people's dignity? It is all wrong and all against our national values. It's disgusting that Labor would strip a sense of hope away from disabled people and their families when the ultrawealthy are doing so well.

We are an increasingly unequal society. It shocks me how much our country has changed in the last 30 years. We have a massive pulling away of very wealthy people at the top who are not taxed enough, and down at the bottom are a growing number of people who are really struggling. And we wonder, as people in this place, why people are changing their vote—why people are moving their vote away from the big parties. The reason is they don't feel listened to. They don't feel heard in a place like this and they are bringing their experience to us in their many hundreds, saying: 'Look at what this cut will do to me. Look what it will do to my child, my teenager or my aged parent.' We need to listen to those voices if we want people to have any confidence in our democracy. If we want people to engage in a serious way with policy, we need to show we are listening. Labor is showing in this bill that it is cruel, it is not listening and it is going to change the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians for the worse.

Let's be very clear about what Labor is proposing to do to disabled people in Australia. It is attacking the NDIS—a great Labor reform, I might add, from the days when Julia Gillard was the Prime Minister. Labor is intending to attack the NDIS to the extent that somewhere around 240,000 disabled people are going to be booted off the NDIS. That means they will lose access to critical supports that, in many cases, are life-saving supports: access to carers, access to services and access to desperately needed equipment. People will die as a result of Labor's attacks on the NDIS and, by extension, Labor's decision to attack disabled people.

This is a diabolical proposal from Labor. It is the biggest single cut to a program in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Labor will say they have no choice and they have to rein in costs. We in the Greens say to Labor: there is always a choice. The choice that you have taken is to fund, for example, the AUKUS nuclear submarines at a cost heading rapidly towards $400 billion over the life of that program and, at the same time, move to cut tens of billions of dollars of support from disabled people. The choice you have made is to not tax the one per cent in this country and to not make the billionaires and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share of tax so that we can do more to support people who desperately need support, including disabled people. The choice Labor has made is to not make big corporations pay their fair share of tax. The choice Labor has made is to not put in place a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports to make the big, polluting, profiteering, price-gouging fossil fuel corporations pay their fair share of tax. At the same time, Labor chooses to punch down on disabled people.

Make no mistake; these NDIS cuts will force every single participant to be reassessed, placing massive stress on those people and the family networks that do so much to support them. Even participants with lifelong conditions like cerebral palsy will have to be reassessed with the specific intention of either removing them from disability supports or lowering the level of support that they receive. These cuts will be the difference between a disabled person being able to leave their house and their not being able to leave their house. These cuts will be the difference between a disabled person being able to have a shower and their not being able to have a shower. These cuts will be the difference between a disabled person being able to improve their verbal communication skills and their remaining non-verbal, unable to communicate verbally. These cuts will be the difference between a disabled person being able to remain in a mainstream classroom to learn and be educated and their not being able to remain in a mainstream classroom. These are disgraceful and diabolical cuts that Labor is proposing, and they are cuts that Labor is choosing to make.

Labor's rhetoric about having no choice but to reduce costs to the NDIS system is absolute rubbish. It is a diabolical spin on a diabolical proposal. There are always choices in politics. Every day, governments make choices. Budgets are all about choices. Labor has the choice to walk away from this diabolical proposal, and the Liberals have a choice to stand with the Greens and prevent these cuts from happening. Make no mistake—if the Liberals are genuine about wanting support for disabled people to continue at reasonable levels, they have an opportunity here to vote with the Greens in this Senate and stop Labor's NDIS cuts.

But, before we get to that, the real choice here is for the government. The government could simply acknowledge the stories that were told in the Senate inquiry hearings over the last few weeks—the horrendous stories about what people will face if these cuts go through, about the harm that will be caused to disabled people and about the death that will be caused to some disabled people. Those stories surely are enough now for Labor to admit the error of its ways and to withdraw this bill from the parliament. No-one who listened to that evidence that was given so bravely and courageously by so many disabled people could possibly argue that this bill should be supported by the parliament. From witness after witness, day after day, we heard heart-rending stories of how much so many disabled people rely on the NDIS to lead dignified lives and how much they rely on the NDIS for the supports they so desperately need. Those stories were heart-rending. Those stories were told from the heart and from the gut by people who came in because they wanted to be heard and demanded that they be heard by this parliament.

The Greens are here to fight these cuts with every fibre of our being. We will do everything we can to ensure that these cuts do not go through this parliament. These cuts should not receive support from this Senate. Even if the government, Labor, won't see the error of its ways and do what it should, which is withdraw this legislation, the numbers are still there if the opposition joins with the Greens to vote this friendless piece of legislation down. These kinds of cuts have no place in a compassionate, contemporary society like Australia's. I have no doubt that the email inboxes, the phone messaging apps and the letterboxes of every single senator are being flooded, as mine are, by people with disabilities and by people who care for people with disabilities who want to make sure that these cuts do not progress.

I want to relate one story—just one out of the countless stories that have been told to me. It's from someone I know well, a friend of mine and a constituent of mine in Tasmania who has a child with Down syndrome. As he points out, he's a very proud father of a son with Down syndrome. He goes at length into the consequences for him and his son if the level of supports for his son are withdrawn. He also makes the point that, while it is great for people with disabilities—in particular, people with Down syndrome—to have support for social experiences, what is often lost in this debate is how the lives of everyone else are enriched by an interaction with someone with a disability like Down syndrome. As my friend says, it breaks moulds, it enlarges thinking, and it encourages special insights. His son has recently started work at a grocery, and his son who is non-verbal has brought the best out of the other staff at that grocery. He is bringing out their better selves as they find ways to interact with him and then subsequently improve their interactions with each other.

This is not just a debate about how we can support disabled people. It is a debate about what disabled people bring to us—the gifts they give to us and the opportunities they bring to us to learn about ourselves, to improve ourselves as people and to improve ourselves as a society. Those are the opportunities that Labor wants us to spurn, and those are the opportunities that either Labor can ensure we continue to have by withdrawing this legislation or the Liberals can ensure we continue to have by joining with the Greens to oppose this legislation.

Let's be very clear about budget choices. In this budget, Labor chose not to impose a minimum 25 per cent export tax on gas. Labor chose not to make the super wealthy pay a wealth tax in this country. Labor chose not to put in place genuine reform of our tax system, from negative gearing through to capital gains tax, to not only do something significant to fix the housing crisis but also to make sure the super wealthy property speculators pay their fair share of tax. Labor chose to proceed with the AUKUS nuclear submarine proposal, which, over the lifetime of that program, is now heading up towards $400 billion, and I predict will end up even more than $400 billion. They chose to do and to not do those things, and, at the same time, they chose to punch down on disabled people and make a massive budget saving—the single biggest saving of a single program in this budget and in the history of the Australian Commonwealth—by slashing funding to the NDIS.

This is not just about inquiries. It's not just about reports. This is actually about people—people who need and deserve support so that they can have a dignified life and their families can have some much-needed relief for the supports that all families with disabled people give and continue to give to their family members who are disabled. So this is a very stark choice. This is a moment in time for the major parties in this parliament—the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals—and it is a moment in time where people need to stop and think about the impact of the decisions that they make in this place on the so many millions of Australians who rely either directly or indirectly on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. When folks do take a moment to think about the implications and to think about the impacts of the decision that this parliament will shortly have to make in regard to the NDIS legislation and Labor's proposed NDIS cuts, when people genuinely think about those impacts and those implications, any decent, compassionate, reasonable thinking human is going to come down on the side of protecting the NDIS from these cuts. There are savings to be made elsewhere. There is so much revenue that Labor has chosen to leave on the table through its budget choices that this choice to protect disabled people from Labor's NDIS cuts should be abundantly clear. This legislation should not and must not pass this parliament, and the Greens will do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

I ask that the question be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately?

Alright. I will put those questions separately.

Thank you very much. My understanding is that I can now speak on that motion; I would like to do so to explain what we are doing here today. I have sought that the question be divided so that the question relating to these bills proceeding without formalities can be put separately. While it is a common occurrence in this chamber for bills to proceed without formalities, and indeed the motion that is currently before the chair is rarely debated, it's worth understanding why we are seeking for this to occur. Usually, putting a question without formalities allows for expedited proceedings which provide for a simple, rational and flexible means of considering bills. But nothing about these bills, or the government's approach, has been simple, rational or flexible. I want to be very clear about what is actually before the Senate today. The bills that will be brought on shortly were rushed through a process and followed by a Senate inquiry that, frankly, I can only describe as a stitch-up.

This is a bill that will bundle higher taxes on housing, savings, small business, start-ups and family wealth, and this government has the audacity to call that tax reform. The Australian people and Australian businesses are angry and disappointed with Labor's toxic taxes. The government, like I said, is calling this tax reform, but it's not. They are very major changes to the tax system and they come with very real consequences, because when you strip it all back and when you take away the branding and the label 'tax reform No. 1' you are left with a set of measures that will increase taxes, make the system more complicated and introduce new risks into the economy. So, as I say, nothing about these bills or the government's approach to these bills has been simple or rational or flexible, and that is why we do not think that these bills should proceed without formalities in the usual way. That is why I have asked for this question to be divided here this afternoon.

Let's just step through these bills and exactly why and how the approach that has been taken to them by the government in ramming them through this chamber has been so, frankly, unorthodox. This package is a tax increase. It will increase the tax burden on Australians, and that means something very simple: it means that the government is taking more of Australians' money and Australians will be keeping less. These bills don't fix the underlying problems in the tax system. We already rely too heavily on income tax in this country and, if you were serious about reform, you would look at how to reduce pressure on income tax. But that is not what is happening here. Instead, we are leaving the overall structure of our income tax system largely as it is and layering new taxes and rules on top of it, so, at the end of the day, it is in effect the same system. It's just applying a heavier tax burden on Australians.

The third thing I wanted to touch on is that these bills make the tax system more complicated, not less, because what the Albanese government has introduced here is not straightforward. There has been significant media reporting since the budget has been handed down—indeed, we heard significant evidence to the Senate inquiry over the last few weeks—that would indicate just how complicated these changes are. I will just quickly summarise. We will have a new indexation system for capital gains. We will have a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains. We will have different treatment depending on when gains are made. There are grandfathering rules. There are a whole range of details that are still to come through legislative instruments. With the legislation that we will be debating here today, once the debate for these bills proceeds properly, so much of the detail that sits behind those bills is yet to be made clear to the Australian people. Even the evidence to the economics committee inquiry made clear that taxpayers are going to be dealing with two systems running side by side during this transition. It's not simplifying the tax system; it's making it harder.

Fourth, we need to talk about the impact that these bills will have on investment, because that is what really matters. Australia needs more investment right now. We need people willing to take risks, willing to start new businesses or willing to grow their businesses and invest in new opportunities. But what I and other senators who participated in the Senate inquiry heard time and time again is that these bills will create real trade-offs and add more risks for businesses at a time when they are just seeking certainty in the investment environment. Even witnesses who supported elements of the reforms that these bills propose acknowledged those risks. There are consequences here, and they go directly to how people make decisions about investing in this country. I want to get, in a moment, to the process that these bills have gone through in the Senate inquiry, but it was abundantly clear from evidence at the Senate committee hearings that we had last week that there are still no clear answers for Australians and for Australian businesses on the broader impacts of these bills.

So let's talk about that process, because, as I say, it's very fresh in my mind. Last week, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee held two committee hearings into these bills, and to describe those hearings as a sham would be putting it generously. It was a rushed inquiry that did not give enough time for people to make a submission. It didn't even give the government's own Treasury department enough time to read all of the submissions. Officials admitted to the committee through the inquiry process that they did not have enough time to read all of the submissions and address any of the issues that those submissions highlighted, because the inquiry process was just too short. During the inquiry, we also heard peak bodies confirming that they weren't consulted prior to the drafting of the bill.

But we did learn about some very concerning aspects from this inquiry. Treasury, when questioned, could not separate the revenues raised from the CGT changes and the revenues raised from the negative gearing changes. They confirmed, like I said, that they hadn't read all the submissions, and they couldn't say how many of the submissions they had read. They couldn't say when a paper for consultation would be delivered. They couldn't say when they did modelling on the impacts of the policy nor what timeframes they had taken to do that modelling prior to making key budget decisions. They could not guarantee that they would even get through all the submissions and any drafting errors that might have been identified—and some of the submissions did identify drafting errors—by the time the legislation passes, which will happen at some point, I assume, in the next couple of sitting weeks.

I know the government likes to call this tax reform, but these last-minute carve-outs that we've heard about over the weekend from the Prime Minister and from the Treasurer suggest that this is less about reform and more about policy on the fly. Again, when I talk about the simple, rational and flexible way that the chamber should usually be able to consider legislation—the approach that the government has taken to getting these bills passed has been far from simple, it has been far from rational and it has been far from flexible.

We got news from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, just a couple of days ago, that they're still tinkering around the edges as a result of, perhaps, conversations that they've been having or testimony from the Senate inquiry, although I struggle to see how that really could have been formative, in terms of the government's view, given the government's own department admitted that they hadn't read all of the submissions, nor had they done any real analysis of the issues that had been identified by those submissions. That is not what you would call a careful and considered approach to reform. The Senate inquiry, frankly, was a sham and a stitch-up, and this whole process has been incredibly disrespectful not only to the senators and the people who participated in this inquiry but, more importantly, to Australian people and Australian businesses.

Let's wind back the clock about 13 months and remember that this is a government that promised, time and time again during the election campaign last year, that there would be no changes to capital gains tax and that there would be no changes to negative gearing. They broke that promise on budget night last month, and now they have rushed through legislation in this place and they don't even know the full consequences of the legislation. They can't even tell the Australian people how much revenue these tax changes will bring in for the government, disaggregated between the capital gains changes and the negative gearing changes. That troubles me.

I don't like getting grumpy with government officials during Senate estimates or committee hearings, but I was furious sitting there in Sydney last Tuesday. I asked a bunch of Treasury officials who were on the phone—they didn't come along in person, for whatever reason—a very simple question. I said, 'Tell me how much the CGT changes are going to cost and how much revenue they're going to bring in, and tell me how much revenue the negative gearing changes are going to bring in.' They could not provide me with an answer. They could give me the collective number—that's great—but when so much attention through the inquiry process has been placed on the confusion around the capital gains tax changes and the impact they are going to have on investment by businesses in this country, I think it is only fair that Australians and Australian businesses expect their government to come to the table, literally, and be able to answer simple questions about what the impact of these changes is going to be on the budget's bottom line. If you can't articulate that, frankly, I'm confused as to how this chamber is even in a position to consider this legislation.

Like I said, serious concerns were raised across the board about the consultation process the government went through—this was, again, during the Senate inquiry—about the detail and about the gaps in the legislation. We are being asked in this chamber today to consider significant tax changes with key definitions still to come, with important details to be set later on down the track and with changes being proposed by this government in the days leading up to the debate in this chamber. That is not how this place should appropriately consider legislation. That is not how this place should consider significant changes to our tax system. I think it does a real disservice to this chamber, to the other place and to the whole institution if we are being asked to debate legislation when we don't know fully what the details are going to look like and if there are going to be other things that will be worked out later on down the track. This government has appeared at a Senate inquiry and has not been able to answer very basic questions.

It is a regular occurrence in this chamber that bills proceed without formalities. Ninety-nine per cent of the time, I'm sure it's what happens. In moving this motion here today—I do not do this lightly, but the reality is that allowing bills to proceed without formalities is something that allows for expedited proceedings to provide for a simple, rational and flexible means of considering bills. Most of the time that's appropriate, but where it is inappropriate is where the government is putting a bill before the chamber that is not simple nor rational, and where the government has not been flexible in the approach that they have taken in bringing these bills through.

This is not a simple tax reform. This is a tax grab that has been dressed up as fairness. It's a broken election commitment. I'm sure many colleagues will be talking about all of these things when the second reading debate does eventually progress. But the government has taken us all for a ride and has not been clear about what their changes are, how this legislation gives effect to their changes or, indeed, where further legislation will be required to give further effect to their changes.

I asked that the question that the bills proceed without formality be put separately because I don't think it is appropriate for the bills to be given a free waiver without formalities when the manner in which they has been brought to this place has completely undermined the integrity of what we all do here as a chamber of inquiry.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question before the chair now is that the bills may proceed without formalities.

The question now before the chair is that the bills be taken together and now be read a first time.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

I will put the question that the bills be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (TAX REFORM NO. 1) BILL 2026

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Today we are proud to introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026.

Speaker, this is a Bill for workers, first home buyers and future generations.

It is the first step in the most ambitious tax reform package for a quarter of a century.

It will help ensure aspiration and opportunity are the birthright of every Australian, not just some.

This Bill delivers on three objectives.

It cuts taxes for every Australian worker—again, and again.

It makes it easier for people to buy their first home.

And it better aligns the tax treatment of labour income and asset income.

The Bill has four core elements:

Speaker, this Bill delivers even more tax relief for workers.

The Working Australians Tax Offset will provide a permanent tax offset of up to $250 every year for over 13 million Australians, from the 2027-28 financial year.

This is responsible tax relief, targeted to working people.

It means more money in the pockets of our nurses and teachers, tradies and truckies and other Australians who earn salaries and wages.

It represents the most meaningful, permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it more than a decade ago.

The Bill also delivers on our commitment to introduce a $1,000 instant tax deduction from the 2026-27 year.

Not only will this make tax time simpler for millions of workers, it will put cash back into their pockets as well.

Around 6.2 million people will benefit, with the average worker receiving an extra $205 at tax time.

More than a quarter of those who will benefit are under 30, and more than half are women.

People claiming more than $1,000 in work-related deductions still can, and anyone claiming other non-work-related deductions will be able to do so on top of the instant deduction.

This includes charitable donations, superannuation contributions, union and professional association membership fees, and income protection, sickness and accident insurance premiums.

The Working Australians Tax Offset is set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill, and the $1,000 instant tax deduction is set out in Schedule 4.

This is more relief from a Government which cuts income taxes whenever it responsibly can.

We are now cutting income tax five times, in three different ways.

We have already delivered tax cuts to every single Australian taxpayer, by bringing rates down and pushing thresholds up.

Another tax cut will commence on 1 July in just over a month's time, and again on 1 July next year.

Together with the new tax relief in this Bill, the average Australian worker will receive a combined benefit of up to $2,816 in 2028.

Our tax cuts have been opposed before and should not be opposed again.

Speaker, we are cutting taxes for workers and making it easier to buy a first home.

For too long, too many Australians have been locked out of the housing market.

We have an ambitious housing agenda and supply is still our primary focus.

But it has become increasingly clear that it cannot be our only focus.

After more than two decades of a distorted tax system, property prices have far outstripped wage growth.

Following policy mistakes made a quarter of a century ago, home ownership has been pushed further and further out of reach, especially for young Australians.

We hear a lot about helping people get on the property ladder, but there's no point having a ladder if the first few rungs are missing.

For too long, governments have turned a blind eye to a broken status quo.

A status quo that is unfair for people and unproductive for our economy.

We are not just acknowledging this, we are acting to fix it.

This Bill limits negative gearing on properties purchased after Budget night to new builds, and returns the capital gains tax to its original intent.

Our reforms will mean 75,000 more homeowners entering the housing market over the next decade, reversing a decade of decline in home ownership rates.

Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and related legislation to replace the 50 per cent CGT discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with cost base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027.

Under the changes, investors will index the cost base of their assets in line with inflation, so they only pay tax on their above-inflation profit.

The changes will apply prospectively, with the 50 per cent CGT discount applying to gains accruing up until 1 July 2027, while indexation will apply to gains accruing thereafter.

Not everyone will pay more tax under these changes, some will pay less. It will depend on a range of factors, like rates of return, inflation and the holding period.

Someone who invested in the Australian share market and received the average return would have done the about same or possibly better under indexation over the past 10 or 20 years.

This is all about removing the distortions in the system that have warped our housing market and coincided with decades of low productivity growth.

Returning to indexation across all asset classes ensures investments are treated in a neutral way, and we don't create a new distortion.

Encouraging investment to follow economic returns, not tax advantages, will support productivity over time.

In addition to indexation, a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent will apply to real capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027.

The minimum tax reduces the incentive to defer realising capital gains until marginal tax rates are low, and better aligns the tax rate on gains with the tax rates paid by most workers.

Recipients of certain government payments, such as the Age Pension and JobSeeker, will be exempted from the minimum tax.

These changes will apply to all CGT assets, including pre-1985 CGT assets, held by individuals, partnerships and trusts for at least 12 months.

In line with our goal of supporting new housing supply, investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent CGT discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell the property.

The existing CGT discount of up to 60 per cent applying to qualifying affordable housing will be fully retained to preserve incentives to invest in those assets.

And importantly, the four existing small business CGT concessions will remain in place, allowing eligible small businesses to reduce or completely remove tax on any gains when they sell.

Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds and key Government housing priorities.

From the 2027-28 income year, losses related to existing residential investment properties purchased after 7:30pm AEST, 12 May 2026 will only be deductible against other income from residential properties, including capital gains.

Excess losses can be carried forward to offset residential property income in future years, so investors can continue to claim a deduction in the future for costs such as maintenance.

These changes will only apply to residential property held by individuals, partnerships, companies and most trusts.

Commercial property and other asset classes, such as shares, will remain subject to existing arrangements.

Widely held trusts and superannuation funds (including SMSFs) will be excluded.

Investors can continue to use negative gearing on new builds, ensuring the benefits of negative gearing are directed to investments that support growth in Australia's housing stock.

Negative gearing will continue to support those residential properties which genuinely add to supply, such as dwellings constructed on vacant land, or where existing properties are demolished and replaced with a greater number of dwellings.

Properties held at announcement will be allowed to be negatively geared in future years until sold. This ensures that taxpayers who made investment decisions under the existing rules will not be affected by the changes.

Investors that support Government housing priorities will be exempt from the changes. This will include build-to-rent developments and dwellings provided as social or affordable housing.

Speaker, we are presenting these elements in one Bill not just because they are related, but because one part helps fund the other.

This is the first tranche of legislation to implement the very significant tax reform package announced in the Budget. There will be further legislation on specific implementation details and other parts of our tax reform package.

Legislating significant reforms in tranches is a standard approach, consistent with how other governments have undertaken tax reform, and it is appropriate to ensure the core policy features that apply broadly to most taxpayers are in place first.

This provides certainty to taxpayers and the market, while enabling further consideration and consultation on subsequent tranches of legislation dealing with more complex or specific policy issues.

As outlined in the Budget, the Government is consulting with stakeholders on the treatment of capital gains of small and start-up businesses where indexation is applied to a low or zero cost base.

Further consideration will also be given to a range of specific details such as interactions with attribution managed investment trusts (AMITs), tax consolidation, residency changes, along with any other relevant issues.

Where appropriate, these details will be finalised in subsequent legislation following consultation.

Speaker, we know that these changes are contentious.

We have seen dishonest scare campaigns and deliberate distortions of the truth.

But the facts matter and I want them to be clear.

Firstly, we are not introducing a tax on inheritances or inherited assets.

Secondly, people will still have their capital gains tax reduced under the new system, with the reduction now accurately reflecting inflation.

Thirdly, the vast majority of small businesses and farms in this country will remain eligible for generous CGT concessions.

This means the overwhelming majority of small businesses can pay reduced or no capital gains tax when they sell.

These are the facts.

It's also a fact that this Bill presents a choice.

A choice between cutting income taxes for Australian workers, or keeping them higher.

Standing with first home buyers, or locking more Australians out of the market.

Taking intergenerational responsibilities seriously, or defending a broken system that fails future generations.

Mr Speaker, we are proud to stand with workers and first home buyers.

We are proud to make the tax system fairer for the next generation.

This is about making a difference, not just marking time.

It's about taking the hard road of reform not the path of least resistance.

It's about making the right decisions, even when they are politically contentious.

It's about making difficult decisions, and dealing with issues neglected for too long, even when it would be easier to do nothing at all.

Most of all, Speaker, it's all about cutting taxes for workers, making it easier to buy a first home, and better aligning the tax treatment of labour and asset income.

That's why I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

_____

INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (TAX REFORM NO. 1) BILL 2026

I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Speaker, for all of the reasons I have just outlined, I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

I rise to speak on both the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. For the sake of this speech, I will refer to those two bills as the tax reform bills. In this bundle of bills, schedule 1 introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime; schedule 2 introduces changes to the negative gearing regime; schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset or the WATO, schedule 4 introduces the $1,000 standard deduction for work-related expenses. I recognise that I have already made a contribution in the debate on these bills here this afternoon. It was so nice that I think I'll do it twice. In simple words, just to reiterate, let's be very clear: these bills are not a simple reform package. This is not a simplification exercise. It is not a reduction in the tax burden. In fact, it is a tax increase, and, for that reason, the coalition cannot support these bills in their current form.

The coalition opposes schedule 1 and schedule 2 in relation to both the capital gains tax and negative gearing regime changes. We support schedule 3 in relation to the WATO and schedule 4 in relation to the $1,000 standard deduction because the coalition always supports lower taxes. We are calling on the government to immediately pass laws to end bracket creep and to implement a tax-back guarantee by indexing the personal income tax brackets to inflation, starting with the first two tax brackets in 2028-29 and the remaining tax brackets from 2031-32. We also note that this policy would deliver lower income taxes permanently to all Australians and would ensure that income taxes cannot rise without the passage of new laws.

But sadly, the 'tax reform bills' that this government has brought on here today do nothing to actually deliver lower income taxes in perpetuity to Australians. Let me explain why. First, I'd like to deal with the most basic point in relation to these bills. This package raises more revenue. It has been confirmed through a Senate inquiry process that schedule 1 and schedule 2 will deliver a net tax increase, and that means something very simple. It means that the government is collecting more money and that Australians have less money in their back pockets. I think we need to be very honest about this. Let's not pretend that these tax bills are just tinkering around the edges or just tidying up existing arrangements that are in place. These bills mean higher taxes, and the only reason that the government are doing this is because they have a spending problem that they can't get under control.

The second point I want to make is that these bills don't fix the underlying problems in our tax system. We already rely heavily on income tax in this country. That has been acknowledged for many years, including in evidence to the committee inquiry that we heard last week. If you were a government that was serious about tax reform, you would look at how to reduce pressure on income tax and how to make the system more balanced for Australians. But that is not what the government are doing here. What they are doing instead is leaving the overall structure largely as it is and layering new taxes and rules on top of that, frankly, like I say, in a desperate cash grab from hardworking Australians because they can't get their government spending problem under control.

The third point I want to make is important. These bills will make the tax system more complicated. They will not make it less complicated, and I think that's something that people outside of this place genuinely care about. What the Labor government is introducing here is not straightforward. We heard extensive evidence before the Senate committee inquiry to that extent. We have a new indexation system for capital gains. We have a 30 per cent minimum tax rate. We have different treatment depending on when gains are made. We have grandfathering rules. We have a whole range of details that are still to come through legislative instruments. Indeed, we had changes to this legislation foreshadowed by the government only in the last few days. The Senate committee inquiry made clear that taxpayers are going to be dealing with two systems running side-by-side during the transition. Now, what does that mean in real life for Australians out there? It means spending more time trying to figure out exactly what these changes mean—goodness me, I wish that this chamber had more time to figure out exactly what these changes mean—it means more reliance on accountants, it means more room for mistakes and it means more costs.

We asked Treasury during the committee inquiry whether they had assessed the compliance cost of the changes in these tax bills, and they said it was about $80 million. But, when we asked the experts—the accountants, the financial advisers and the financial planners—how much they thought Australian businesses and individuals would be lumped with as a result of these tax changes, the experts at the committee, the people actually at the coalface figuring out how these changes are going to impact their clients, estimated the cost to be almost 10 times that. It puzzles me that the government has brought forward a piece of legislation where there is such a huge disparity between what they say the impact on Australians and the compliance cost are going to be and what the industry that will have the job of implementing these changes is actually saying. That's not simplifying the system; that's making it harder. If we're spending $800 million trying to figure out exactly what these changes mean for small businesses and for individuals with investments, that's not simplification.

Fourthly, I want to talk about the impact that these changes will have on investment, because that is what really matters. In the weeks following the budget, the shadow treasurer, Tim Wilson, and I spent a lot of time speaking with small businesses, working alongside them and trying to figure out exactly what these changes mean. As I said, through the committee inquiry process and indeed through Senate estimates, it's all a bit as clear as mud at the moment. What small businesses are saying right now is that they want to be able to take risks, to start businesses, to grow their existing businesses and to be in a position to invest in new opportunities. To be able to do all of that, they're just asking for some fairness and some certainty around what the rules are. You cannot say that Australian businesses have had certainty around the environment that they are operating in when this government went to an election just over 12 months ago promising no changes to capital gains tax and here we are 12 months down the track debating those exact changes in this chamber.

What we have heard through the inquiry is that this bill creates real trade-offs for businesses. It introduces higher effective taxation on capital in some cases, less symmetry between gains and losses, and new uncertainty about how the rules are going to apply. Even the witnesses who supported part of these reforms acknowledged these risks. This isn't a simple story. There are consequences here to these changes that the government has introduced. Some we understand and some I strongly suspect we don't, because the government hasn't afforded us the requisite time nor made officials available who can answer the requisite questions to understand exactly what those impacts are for people who want to invest in our country.

I've alluded to the fifth point I want to make. It is that the process does matter. The process around this legislation has been atrocious. We had a very short Senate committee inquiry. We had two hearings and hundreds of submissions, not all of which Treasury officials, as they admitted during the hearings, have been able to read. They couldn't even tell us how many they had looked at. It wasn't definitively, 'We've been able to read 100 submissions,' or, 'We've read 200 submissions.' They couldn't tell us how many submissions the department had looked at.

We know from the evidence that we heard from witnesses in the Senate inquiry that concerns have been raised across the board about the consultation that the government did or, frankly, didn't go through, about the detail in the legislation and about gaps and drafting errors in the legislation. Yet here we are in this place with one sitting week left to the financial year ending, and we are being asked to pass significant changes when there is still so much uncertainty around exactly what this suite of tax changes will look like. Like I said, over the weekend the government flagged, I assume, amendments to the scheme already that will come before this place. That's before you even consider the fact that there will be further legislation to enable these changes that we will have to consider later down the track.

Policy on the run is policy underdone, and I think we have seen that here. We heard, in the lead-up to the budget, that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were talking about these changes that would be coming in the budget, and then it got to 12 May. The budget was handed down, and we were all sitting there, in budget lock-up, trying to figure out exactly what these changes meant. Now, we have legislation that is apparently to give effect to these changes, but we have government officials that can't answer basic questions around the changes, around the impact they will have and around the revenue they will bring in for the government. We have experts and business stakeholders within the community raising serious concerns about this legislation. It has just been so completely rushed, and I think that that is incredibly unfair on Australians and on our economy, and I think it is unfair on people in this chamber to expect us to consider this legislation fulsomely when we haven't been given the opportunity to do so.

This is a real missed opportunity for the government. As I said in my initial comments, there was more that could have been done here. If the government were truly genuine about reforming taxation in this country, particularly reforming income taxation in this country, there are some things that they could have done better. They could have brought forward a reform that simplifies the taxation system, that strengthens the economy and that actually leaves people better off, but this package simply does not meet that standard, for the reasons that I have outlined. It is complicated. It is costly. We don't know the full extent of it, and, frankly, it's not going to leave Australians better off. By the government's own admission, 35,000 fewer houses will be built under these tax reforms. That is written in their own budget papers. I said the Treasurer and the Prime Minister spent all this time before the budget foreshadowing what was going to be in it and foreshadowing that it was going to reset intergenerational inequity and that it was going to make it easier for young Australians to buy a house, but their own budget papers prove that 35,000 fewer houses will be built.

What could the government have done? I will be moving a second reading amendment to this legislation which will call on the government to immediately pass laws to end bracket creep and implement a tax-back guarantee by indexing personal income tax brackets to inflation, starting with the first two brackets in 2028-29 and for the remaining tax brackets from 2031-32. I note that this policy, which is a coalition policy, will deliver lower income taxes permanently to all Australians and ensure that income taxes cannot rise without the passage of new laws. This is a genuine reform and a clear alternative to what this government has proposed here today, and, for the clarity of the chamber, I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate:

(a) calls on the Government to immediately pass laws to end bracket creep and implement a Tax Back Guarantee, by indexing the personal income tax brackets to inflation starting with the first two tax brackets in 2028-29, and the remaining tax brackets from 2031-32; and

(b) notes this will deliver lower income taxes, permanently, to all Australians and ensure that income taxes cannot rise without the passage of new laws".

This amendment will give effect to this change.

As I've said, these tax reform bills are barely tax reform. To suggest that these changes alone are going to fix housing affordability in this country is frankly false, and it is not one that is supported by the evidence that is in the budget or that has been provided to the Senate committee. This is not a simplification exercise. This is not a reduction in the overall tax burden. It is a tax increase. For these reasons, as I have said, the opposition simply cannot support schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill, and we will not be supporting the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill. Australians expect better than this. They expect reform that makes the system simpler not harder, that grows the economy, that doesn't add uncertainty and that leaves them better off not worse off. This bill does none of these things.

In summary, what this bill does deliver is a new round of tax cuts, helping homeownership and supporting investment and innovation through the most significant tax reform in a quarter of a century. More broadly, let me be clear on what we're really talking about here today. What we're talking about is the kind of country that we want to be. Tax, capital gains and negative gearing might sound technical, but what we are really talking about is housing and whether people have a fair shot at owning their own home. A home is not simply an asset on the balance sheet; a home is security and stability. It's the place where children do their homework around the kitchen table. It is where families build a future. It is where communities are formed and lifelong friendships made. It is where people put down roots.

For previous generations of Australians, owning a home was not an impossible dream; it was an achievable milestone. People worked hard, saved and expected that one day they would be able to buy a place of their own. Labor believes that access to secure and affordable housing must always be one of our nation's fundamental goals. A safe and secure place to live and call home is not a big ask. How have we gotten to a place in Australia where housing has shifted from being a place to call home to being a vehicle for wealth accumulation?

Well, 26 years ago, the Howard government introduced the capital gains tax 50 per cent discount, which, when combined with negative gearing, turned the housing market from a place to buy a home to live in to a market for speculators to use to build wealth. Those settings fundamentally changed the incentives within our housing market. They shaped incentives which increasingly favoured investment in existing housing over homeownership itself for a quarter of a century. The result is that today we face a housing system that too often rewards speculation over aspiration.

I want to thank everyone who submitted and gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into this legislation, which I chaired last week. I completely disagree with and reject any assertion that the process was a sham. I think that those opposite are seeking to characterise the process in that way simply because they do not support the reforms contained within the recommendations.

What did we hear in the inquiry last week? We heard that, in the 26 years before the introduction of a capital gains tax discount, dwelling prices grew broadly in line with household incomes, and, in the 26 years since, average dwelling prices have increased at more than twice the rate of household incomes. The value of residential land and dwellings increased by more than 700 per cent between June 1999 and June 2025, while inflation increased by around 100 per cent. Over that same period, wages have simply not kept pace, meaning the cost of homeownership has become increasingly out of reach for working Australians.

The inquiry heard evidence that homeownership rates have steadily declined since 2001 across almost every age group. Most strikingly, Australians aged between 25 and 34 now have homeownership rates comparable to those experienced in the 1940s and 50s. The ACTU put it like this:

… young people have lost nearly a century of progress and are now well below a 50 per cent home ownership rate.

Let's think about what that means. It means an entire generation finding it harder than their parents and grandparents did to achieve something that was once regarded as a normal part of Australian life. It means an entire generation worse off than the one that came before them. When that happens, we should ask ourselves: is the system working as intended or is the system producing outcomes that demand reform? The evidence was overwhelming. The current arrangements are no longer working. Instead, by contributing to housing affordability pressures, they are exacerbating wealth inequality and intergenerational disadvantage. They are concentrating wealth amongst those who already own assets and making it harder for young Australians to get a foothold in the housing market.

Eighty-two per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount accrue to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Think of the inverse of that: 12 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount go to the other 90 per cent. When negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts are combined, the highest 10 per cent of income earners receive tax benefits measured in billions of dollars each year. These concessions aren't helping the next generation get a leg up; they are overwhelmingly concentrated amongst those who already hold substantial assets and wealth, and it's costing you, the taxpayer.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that more than $38 billion in revenue has been foregone through capital gains tax concessions since 2010. Evidence before the inquiry estimated the annual revenue cost of existing concessions at more than $21 billion. That raises a fundamental question about fairness. Graeme Samuel said at our inquiry last week:

Frankly, as a PAYG taxpayer, I'm sick to death of feather bedding those vested interests that have proved to be powerful under previous governments …

What exactly are we rewarding under the current capital gains tax arrangements? Workers cannot defer their wages until it's more convenient for tax-planning purposes. Working Australians pay tax every fortnight. They cannot choose the timing, they cannot choose the structure, they cannot choose the vehicle—but those with significant assets can. That is not a tax system that treats work and wealth equally; it's a system that says workers don't take risks when they go out every day, slogging it out, but gambling on an investment is a risk worthy of a safety net and a generous tax break. That is why reform is necessary. A nurse should not face a higher effective tax rate than someone whose income is primarily derived from appreciating assets. A teacher or a garbage collector should not be carrying a greater share of the nation's tax burden than someone benefiting from highly concessional treatment of capital gains.

A fair tax system cannot continue to favour wealth over work, and it cannot continue to ask younger Australians to shoulder a growing share of the burden while locking them out of the opportunities enjoyed by previous generations. I've heard the claims that these reforms disadvantage young Australians, but the evidence that we heard last week shows that they simply don't stack up. Personally, I'd be sceptical about who is offering up this argument and why.

Most Australians earn their income from work, not capital gains. Only around four per cent report a capital gain in any one year, while 84 per cent derive the vast majority of their income from labour. They are not the main beneficiaries of the current system, but they are bearing its costs. Our reforms have three clear objectives: first, to create a fairer balance between the taxation of income earned through work and income earned through capital gains; second, to help more Australians achieve homeownership; and, third, to improve productivity by directing investment towards more productive uses across the economy.

Turning to some of the detail of the legislation now, schedules 1 and 2 implement the government's reforms to capital gains tax and negative gearing. The current 50 per cent CGT discount will be replaced with a system of cost-base indexation. This ensures that inflation is recognised while making sure real capital gains are appropriately taxed. Alongside this, a 30 per cent minimum tax on net capital gains strengthens the integrity of the system and ensures that those gains make a fair contribution to revenue.

Negative gearing will be better targeted. It will be limited to newly constructed homes, with losses from existing properties purchased after 12 May 2026 no longer deductible against wages and salaries. Instead, those losses can be carried forward and offset against future investment income.

Importantly, the legislation maintains existing CGT concessions for small businesses. It also supports investment through a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off for eligible small businesses and introduces a two-year loss carry-back for companies with turnover under a billion dollars.

In direct response to the deep engagement held with stakeholders across the sector, the government is also moving targeted amendments to provide certainty to investors, more support for small businesses and more incentives for innovation. These amendments include expanding the eligibility of the 50 per cent active asset reduction to more businesses by increasing the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million, protecting incentives for charitable giving to maintain tax incentives in relation to charitable giving, clarifying eligibility for exemptions by providing the list of income support payments that qualify for an exemption from the minimum tax on capital gains and embedding the calculation method for the working Australians tax offset in the legislation.

The government has released a consultation paper on the design of the 50 per cent CGT discount for early-stage investors, including founders and employee share scheme participants of innovative startup businesses. The innovative CGT concession will provide individuals, partnerships and trusts holding eligible shares a choice between a 50 per cent discount and indexation in the minimum tax for gains accrued from 1 July 2027.

The government will also amend ministerial discretion in relation to a couple of aspects of the bill, with legislation to be introduced later this year following consultation. Those aspects are around the definition of new builds that are eligible to choose a 50 per cent discount on gains accrued from 1 July 2027 and eligible access to negative gearing for properties purchased after 12 May 2026, consistent with the details outlined in the budget and the definition of types of housing investment exempt from the limits on negative gearing, including affordable housing. These amendments will provide further clarity and confidence to investors and more support for small businesses. Finally, schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset, a $250 non-refundable offset from 2027-28, expected to benefit around 13.3 million workers, including 6.3 million women. Schedule 4 provides a simpler approach to deductions, with a new $1,000 instant deduction for work related expenses from 2026-27.

We have a lot to be proud of as members of the Albanese Labor government, but this legislation is really one of those reforms I am so very proud to be speaking strongly in support of. This is what Labor does. This legislation is at the heart of what Labor stands for. This is ambitious reform, and ambition to achieve fairness is not something to be shied away from. Labor has never been a party that believes that the status quo should be preserved simply because reform is difficult. The values that drive our party remain today and fuel our courage to achieve reform.

We believe that working people should receive a fair return for their efforts. We believe the opportunity should not depend on the wealth of your parents. We believe that every generation deserves the chance to build a secure and prosperous future, and we believe that government has a responsibility to confront problems not to simply manage them. These reforms are ambitious, and they are principled. They ensure the tax system is serving Australia's long-term interests. They ask whether concessions worth billions of dollars are delivering public benefit, and they recognise that a fair economy requires both a strong safety net and a tax system that supports opportunity rather than entrenches disadvantage. The test of a successful society is not on whether those who already have wealth can continue to accumulate it; the test is whether the next generation has the same opportunities and better than the ones before it.

Today, too many young Australians are being denied those opportunities, and these reforms are an important step towards changing that. They are about restoring fairness for workers, they are about rewarding work, they are about making housing more accessible, and they are about ensuring that Australia's tax system serves the interests of the many not just the fortunate few. I urge everybody to support the legislation.

We'll move to two-minute statements.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of government is to uphold people's rights, but what happens when the rights of two groups come into conflict? That was a question that I put to the Australian Human Rights Commission during Senate estimates last month, following the recent Federal Court decision in the Giggle for Girls versus Roxanne Tickle appeal.

Biological males who identify as women are entitled under the current legal framework to access spaces and protections traditionally reserved for women. When I asked the commissioners how competing rights should be balanced when the rights of biological women and those of men who identify as women come into conflict, I did not receive a clear answer. Women have fought long and hard for sex based protections. Those protections exist to preserve safety, fairness, dignity and privacy in sport, prisons, toilets and change rooms. Yet, when women raise concern about those protections being eroded, they are too often dismissed, ignored or labelled as bigoted or transphobic.

During questioning, Dr Cody suggested that a biological male who identifies as a woman could face discrimination on the basis of a potential pregnancy. Many Australians find that impossible to reconcile with biological reality. Women should not have to apologise for seeking protections based on biological reality, nor should their concerns be treated as any less worthy than someone else's identity claims. This is a question of common sense. When institutions are unable or unwilling to balance competing rights using clear and practical definitions, parliament has a responsibility to act. That is why the coalition will support changes to restore definitions of men and women based on biological reality to the Sex Discrimination Act.

I am proud to be a working parent, and I know many of my colleagues in this place and many, many working parents across the country feel the same way. It's a juggle and it's tough, but it is worth it. I can feel confident coming across the country to this place in weeks like this, or heading off to work in the great state of Western Australia, knowing that my son is somewhere safe, learning and growing and being educated by experienced and trained early education workers—early childhood educators. It's one of the best things about our country that we have a choice as working parents and—let's face it—as working mothers to do that. It's been long and hard-fought.

But what we saw last week from Senator Hanson is that Senator Hanson and One Nation don't believe that working parents should have that choice. They don't believe that working mothers should have that choice. Senator Hanson thinks that paid parental leave shouldn't be something that women are entitled to and shouldn't be something that businesses provide to their workers. She certainly wants to see superannuation stripped off paid parental leave and apparently believes that hardworking early childhood educators shouldn't be qualified to do the really important work that they do. Make no mistake: this position by Senator Hanson and One Nation will take our country backwards. It will take the progress that we have made on women's economic equality, on workplace equality and on gender equality more broadly backwards.

While One Nation and Senator Hanson want to tear it down, thank goodness they're not in charge. From 1 July, paid parental leave will be extended to a full six months so that parents can have more time at home, and we are rolling out three days of guaranteed cheaper child care for families.

I love Australia, but Senator Pauline Hanson hates Australia. She hates our free press. She hates our public broadcasters. She hates the very idea that ordinary Australians deserve access to truth, culture and a fair go, because, when you strip away the slogans and the stunts, what is she actually arguing for? She wants Australians to pay to access ABC iview, to put a price tag on public information. She wants to put ABC Kids behind a paywall. She wants to shut down SBS altogether—the very broadcaster that reflects modern, multicultural Australia back to itself, the one that brings us global stories, diverse voices and, yes, even those ultimate exciting moments of the World Cup shared across living rooms across the country. That is not patriotism. That is cultural vandalism. Pauline Hanson and One Nation are not patriots; they are cultural vandals. Senator Hanson doesn't believe in a free press. She undermines the institutions that hold power to account. She wants a media landscape that is narrower, weaker and easier to bully. Let's be clear: when you go after a free press, you go after democracy itself.

But it doesn't stop there. This is part of a broader pattern. Pauline Hanson and One Nation's attack is on workers' rights, an attack on women's rights, an attack on multicultural Australia and an attack on Indigenous Australia, the most ancient culture of all—the very foundations that have built our country and that bring us together. I, for one, believe in a free press. I believe in public broadcasting. I believe that everybody deserves a fair go. Pauline Hanson and One Nation are vandals.

I rise today to sound the alarm on another threat to Australian food security. The Albanese government is progressing a process aimed at opening the door to fresh banana imports from the Philippines. Australians should know that the department of agriculture's own officials visited banana farms in the Philippines and observed diseases which would devastate the banana industry here, including Moko, black Sigatoka, banana freckle and Panama disease Tropical Race 4.

While Australian growers are working every day to feed Australian families, Labor is examining more ways to weaken the protections that have made Australian bananas the envy of the world. This doesn't happen in isolation. It's part of a broader pattern from a government that refuses to prioritise what's good for Australia; a government that continually puts ideology ahead of food production. We've seen attacks on farmers through the proposed EPBC Act changes. We've seen commercial fishing communities hammered by net-fishing bans. We've seen productive water ripped from regional communities through the Murray-Darling buybacks. We've seen oppositions to dams and water infrastructure that would strengthen agricultural production. Now we have the threat of imports hanging over one of Australia's most important horticultural industries.

What concerns me even more is that, while Labor talks endlessly about resilience and sustainability, government funding for agricultural, veterinary and food science research has fallen by more than $100 million over the past four years. At the same time, environmental science funding has increased by around $400 million. That tells you everything that you need to know about Labor's priorities: less investment in growing food, less investment in protecting food and less investment in farmers who feed this nation. Australian farmers are not the problem. They are our greatest national asset.

One Nation's dangerous rise should cause great concern to every Australian who believes in a secure workplace, fair wages and a decent standard of living. Behind the slogans and grievances of One Nation is an agenda that would take Australians backwards. One Nation has shown hostility to the very important measures that are helping Australians, particularly when it comes to working families: stronger workplace rights, paid parental leave, superannuation, affordable child care and wage growth. One Nation opposes it all. If One Nation gets their way, bosses will be able to fire workers at will with no recourse for working Australians. At a time when families are already under pressure, One Nation's approach would weaken workplace protections, drive wages down and leave workers with less take home pay and less job security.

The Albanese Labor government has delivered tax cuts for all Australians, energy bill relief, cheaper child care and urgent care clinics. It has invested in Medicare, expanded paid parental leave—and paid superannuation on that parental leave—and boosted superannuation. But One Nation, no matter what they tell people back in their electorates and through the media, we know they oppose the tax cuts for every Australian. They oppose the energy bill relief. They oppose cheaper child care. They have opposed urgent care clinics. Their leader said just last week that women who aren't at work shouldn't get paid. So much for paid maternity leave!

We believe in building this country through superannuation. We are actually the friends of the Australian workers, unlike the—

(Time expired)

It takes some serious gall to come out and celebrate the latest immigration figures as a win; the third-highest immigration figures in Australia's history—during a housing crisis fuelled by Labor's previous two record immigration years. That is another 306,000 people that need homes that we don't have, who will need our doctors and hospitals that are stretched to breaking point and who will pile into a job market this Labor government is killing with its disastrous budget. This is the population of Geelong added in a year, or one-and-a-half of Hobart's—and the Labor Party is trying to tell you that this is some sort of victory? This is managed decline. This is a party that is willing to sell out Australians and their standard of living to hold on to power. They're willing to sell us out for votes. This is not rhetoric; this is fact.

The Institute of Public Affairs has analysed the per capita economic growth of the last five Labor and coalition governments. This is the only government, going back to 1975, to preside over a per capita decline in the Australian economy. It is the only government that has seen the Australian people go backwards. The middle class is shrinking and the working class is ballooning because people are being pushed down. People who used to have enough for their house, their family and their bills, with something left over for a rainy day, are now struggling to make ends meet. People are turning to food banks and homeless shelters in huge numbers. Police, nurses, teachers, those who once lived comfortably, are now on the brink with a Labor government that has the gall to tell them it is on their side. This government keeps spending, keeps taxing and keeps immigration at record levels. The Australian people deserve a real change, and One Nation is ready to deliver it.

Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Family Studies released a report on the adverse childhood experiences of men and their long-term mental health impacts. It found that 33.6 per cent of Australian men experienced physical abuse as children, 37.9 per cent experienced emotional abuse and 25 per cent lived with someone who struggled with mental illness. These are not just statistics; they are childhoods. If we want to understand family violence, we cannot ignore the childhood experiences of so many that often sit in the background.

While these experiences do not determine a person's future, they can profoundly shape it. Family violence is rarely an isolated event. Trauma, fear and unhealthy coping mechanisms can pass quietly from one generation to the next, shaping lives behind closed doors. Prevention means more than responding after harm has occurred. It means helping people address trauma early, strengthening mental health support and ensuring men have the tools to cope, to communicate and to seek help before problems escalate.

But there is hope. University of New South Wales research published last month found that many people who experienced childhood trauma still showed resilience, maintaining moderate to high wellbeing as adults. As Professor Gatt observed, childhood adversity can be traumatic, but it doesn't have to determine a person's whole life. That is why prevention matters. Family violence prevention begins long before violence occurs. It begins with helping people heal, building resilience and developing healthy relationships. Every child deserves to inherit safety instead of fear, and every generation has a responsibility to leave the next one better than they found it.

In my first speech to this place, I said:

Diversity and difference are the magic that make our local communities into the places we love and Melbourne into one of the most vibrant cities in the world. The politics of fear and division help no-one and hurt us all. We must stand up for what's right, because hope will always triumph over hate.

I stand by those words today and every day just as strongly as I did then because multiculturalism has enriched Australia and it continues to do so. We are a country built on migration. Our diversity is not accidental, and it is not a recent development. It is a defining characteristic of modern Australia and one of our greatest strengths.

I'm a proud Victorian senator. The proportion of overseas-born Victorians who come from non-main English-speaking countries is 78 per cent, the highest in Australia and something that I celebrate. You see that strength every day in our schools, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods. You see it in the small businesses that bring life to our communities, the fantastic food and the workers who care for us when we are sick, teach our children and help build our country. In fact, half of Australia's health workforce was born overseas. These are the people who chose Australia, and what a privilege it is for us that they've chosen to come here and care for our loved ones and for us when we are sick.

The promise of Australian multiculturalism is simple. It is the promise of a fair go—that everyone gets a fair crack at life no matter their background or how long they have been here. There are those who want to turn back the clock to an Australia that is no longer who we are. We must not be afraid ever to call that out, because multiculturalism is about diversity, not division. It's about interaction, not isolation. It's something that I will stand up for every single day, and, in the face of hatred and division, we should always choose hope, respect and inclusion because they are the values that have built the Australia that we know today.

The rise of One Nation from 6½ per cent of the national vote at the federal election last year to polling over 30 per cent in nine months is a political anomaly the likes of which we have never seen in this country before. It's an established political party that's campaigned on the same issues for nearly three decades—at a time when Australians have been moving away from major parties for the last decade—suddenly jumping from nearly 400 or 500 per cent in the space of nine months. Yet, the commentariat in this country are treating it like it's business as usual—that somehow they've tapped into how people are feeling about politics. It's a protest vote. It's a vote against the major parties.

Well, they're ignoring the elephant in the room. One Nation have risen because they have a massive machine behind them. They're making no secret of the fact that they're tied in with Australia's richest woman, Gina Rinehart, and no doubt have significant funds behind them. We're not talking about the massive international misinformation and disinformation machine. We know foreign websites have been pumping out up to 400 fake posts a week using deepfake AI promoting One Nation. The Senate select committee that I chaired called for an independent investigation into this, but it's getting worse.

I ask senators to read the book Angertainment by Ed Coper. That, I think, is one of the best explainers as to why we live in an age that desperately needs new solutions; otherwise, we risk our very democracy disappearing before our eyes. Seriously, to use some pub vernacular, this country needs to wake the fuck up to what is going on in the sphere of social media—

Senator Whish-Wilson, could you please withdraw the use of that term.

I'll withdraw that use of pub vernacular, Acting Deputy President. But my point is very serious: if we don't do something about this cancer, it will kill our democracy in the years ahead. The outrage and the anger that One Nation are appealing to are the algorithm and social media.

Culture is the shared values, traditions, beliefs, customs and way of life that bind a people together. It's the invisible thread that connects generations and gives a nation its identity, its character and its purpose. Australia's culture did not emerge by accident. It was built by generations of hardworking Aussies who cleared the land, built business, established institutions, raised families and defended the nation. The worldview that shaped those Australians is Christian. Christianity provided the moral foundation upon which Australia was built. Our understanding of right and wrong, human dignity, equality before the law, personal responsibility, charity, forgiveness and justice all flow from the inheritance of Christianity.

Australia is a multiracial nation, and that's not a weakness; it's one of our strengths. We come from every corner of the world and every ethnic background imaginable, but, while we might be multiracial, we must remain a monocultural nation. We must be united by a common culture, a common set of values and a common national identity. A nation cannot remain strong if it becomes a collection of separate tribes, each with different loyalties, values and visions for the future. Diversity of ancestry can be a strength. Diversity of fundamental values, however, is a recipe for division and a recipe for problems. Our task is not merely to protect our borders; it is to protect the culture that sits within those borders, because, if we lose our culture, we will lose the foundation of our unity and our cohesion, and ultimately we will lose our nation.

Australia's housing crisis won't be solved with a three-word slogan or a social media culture war. Australians can't live in a press release or a political cartoon, no matter how jazzy the jingles might be. They can't house their family in a National Press Club address. They need a home with a foundation, a frame and a roof over it. Australians need leadership on this issue. They need political parties focused on building homes and getting more Australians into a home of their own. But, while this government is focused on cranes and construction, those opposite are focused on culture wars. Australians need builders, not blockers. If your answer to every housing proposal is no, you are not a serious party of government; you are a protest party.

Let's look at what is getting delivered out there in the real world, not in cartoon land. In Margate, construction is well underway on 60 homes delivered by Bric Housing. In Redcliffe, I met with Lyndal and Margot, who are some of the older residents who have moved into the 82-dwelling complex in the heart of the Redcliffe CBD. In the seat of Longman, I visited new homes that were being delivered by Coast2Bay Housing for women and families fleeing domestic violence. In Chermside, I visited BHC's development of 92 homes for essential workers, seniors and people living with a disability. On the Sunshine Coast, I visited a construction site that, thanks to BlueCHP, had 63 new homes under construction. These are not numbers on a page; they are people that this chamber cannot play politics with. They are real Queenslanders, with real stories, that are looking for real solutions. This government will continue to build more homes and open more doors to housing affordability. While we build more homes and get more Australians into a home of their own, the only thing those opposite want to do is build outrage.

This bad Labor budget is an assault on the Australian dream of being able to work hard and being rewarded for that work, as well as the dream of providing for your family and having your children live better lives than you could. Australians were told that Labor would not touch capital gains tax, negative gearing, trust, super or stage 3 cuts. Labor broke those promises. If you could not trust Labor on tax a month ago, you cannot trust them now. The so-called small-business carve-out is an absolute con. Nine out of 10 small businesses will get nothing. Labor's toxic taxes still leave them worse off.

Labor and the Greens are doing a deal on this budget, and the dirty deal between the Labor Party and the Greens will see Australians go backwards. It will see more small businesses close and more young Australians look overseas for opportunities that were once possible here. Those opportunities of enterprise have been killed by this prime minister. He lies down with the Greens to tax Australians more and locks all Australians out of the prosperous future guaranteed by coalition governments. The Prime Minister wouldn't take this to the Australian people. He knew that Australians would outright reject his partisan politics of punishment on aspiration.

If the Prime Minister were a bird, he would be a lyrebird. He mimics Marx and whistles a different tune before the election to what he hawks now. Labor's toxic taxes don't need a tweak, a carve-out or another Canberra fix. They need the axe, because you don't fix a bad tax by making it more complicated; you scrap it. The Liberal-National coalition backs small business. We back you all the way. We understand small business and we will axe this terrible tax.

A recent Knight Frank report ranked Australia second globally for data centre investment, yet our government is yet to put in place effective regulatory and tax settings to protect Australians from the risks and from demands on water and energy and to capture the benefits from tax to local content requirements and computing power. While France and the UK now have digital services taxes in place that deliver roughly $1 billion to $1½ billion a year to their respective budgets, the Australian government seems content to let the global hyperscalers set up here but take their profits offshore.

We looked ready to repeat exactly the same mistakes we made with gas: big multinationals are coming here and telling us how much they're investing and how great it's going to be for the future of our country, but at the end of the day we're paying international prices for our gas, we're constantly being told that we have a shortage of gas here in Australia despite being one of the biggest gas exporters in the world and we aren't getting a fair return. We cannot allow this same mistake to be made when it comes to data centres. There's no plan, there's no coordination, and there's precious little transparency for this burgeoning new industry.

As of the 31 March 2026, Australia had 162 operational data centres and 90 proposed data centres, but it seems like there's no information about where they're going to be, what sort of energy they'll use or where they'll get their water. How can we have adequate oversight when this is the case? What is the government doing to ensure that local Australian businesses will have access to compute? What are they doing to ensure that these big multinationals, who are experts in profit shifting, will actually pay tax here in Australia, where they are benefiting from the use of our resources? We cannot make the same mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems like the Albanese Labor government is heading in that direction.

On Friday of this week, I'll be returning to the Hunter Valley where we'll be celebrating life and mourning the loss of Warrant Officer Brett Wild, retired. Brett was a personal friend of mine. He began his military path with Citizens Military Forces before joining the 1st/19th Royal New South Wales Regiment, subsequently transferred to the 21st Construction Regiment and qualified as an army engineer within the Australian Military Forces.

In 1999, Brett went in and rolled into the continuous full-time service under the auspices of the Army Personnel Agency, and then over the next nine years he went to Special Operations Command, 8th Combat Engineer Regiment, 5th Combat Engineer Regiment and then the Special Forces Training Centre at Singleton, where he eventually settled down. In 2008, following service related injuries, Wild accepted a discharge and settled in the Hunter Valley full time where he kept an interest by purchasing some armoured vehicles himself, which he drove around his farm—it's always good to have friends with tanks—and he also set up the Hunter Pet Motel, where he looked after pets and animals and, quite interestingly, set up a concierge service at Newcastle Airport where you could drop your pet off and it would be limousined up to his place to stay while you went on holidays.

He was also a driving force behind the Branxton-Greta memorial, which honoured the service of Hunter people and connected both the Branxton and Greta war memorials with a cycleway between them. He designed the project to represent the 10,288 service members that came from the Hunter in World War I and subsequent conflicts. In the launch of the initiative, he bought $1.95 million from the Cessnock Council from the RSL subbranches and the business chamber. We will miss him. We will miss his service. I will miss a friend, and I join with the Singleton subbranch to celebrate the service of a good man. Vale Brett Wild.

I want to rise in this chamber to acknowledge and encourage the Socceroos in their must-win game of the World Cup on Friday. For those of you who are new to football here in Australia, yes, the Socceroos are the boy Matildas, and they are an excellent team who are doing a great job in the World Cup. They were written off for their first game, but they did an amazing job, and we know that they are preparing for a must-win game on Friday. Every single Australian will be behind them. Every single Australian will be supporting them from over here.

The Socceroos are the very best of Australia. They represent modern multicultural Australia. They come from all over the world, born in places like Sydney, Newcastle, Scotland and even Tanzania. From refugees to sons of Socceroos, we are so proud of this team and what they represent to our country, and we know that, when they go out wearing the green and gold jersey, they represent Australia with pride. We are incredibly proud of their performance, and we know that they will do a great job on Friday night.

We know how important it is for Australians to be able to watch the World Cup live and free on SBS, and we know how important it is for governments to support the SBS and to ensure that Australians can continue to watch the World Cup live and free on SBS. On Friday, we will continue to show our support for this incredible team, a team that shows us exactly what modern multicultural Australia means, and the support that is shown from all around this country is because that is what Australians want to see represented back to them. Go the Socceroos. We know you've got this. Let's go, Socceroos.

Virgin Australia is holding $93 million of customers' money in the form of COVID-era travel credits, and they are refusing to refund those travel credits to their customers. Recently, they announced that they were going to extend for customers to use those credits by May next year, but they need to do it by 30 June. It's time for Virgin to do the right thing and allow those customers to get a refund for their travel credits or extend them indefinitely. Do the right thing, Virgin.

We'll move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister recently announced that small businesses will receive favourable capital gains tax treatment if they are classified as innovative. Can the minister advise what a cafe would need to do to qualify as innovative? Would a cafe that introduces a new type of coffee on its menu or creates a new breakfast item, or adds a QR code to its menu be classified as innovative and receive favourable tax treatment?

I thank Senator Hume for her question. As you know, on budget night, the Treasurer announced a process of consultation on a number of aspects of these very ambitious and substantial tax reforms. They are ambitious and they are substantial because we know the status quo is not working for Australians or for the Australian economy. Consistent with what the Treasurer announced on budget night, the government has worked through a series of consultations, not only with small business—and that has resulted in some changes—but also in relation to the startup sector, where the government has made clear through the release of a consultation paper entitled 'Capital gains tax reforms arrangements for innovative startups' that we are open to a discussion.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume on a point of order?

I rise on a point of order on relevance. I asked about a cafe and what it would need to do to be considered innovative.

Thank you, Senator Hume. I've been listening very carefully and the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue.

In relation to small business, the deputy leader of the opposition would be aware that the government has maintained the four existing tax concessions for small business and has, in fact, in relation to one of those tax concessions, raised the threshold so that more small businesses will be eligible for this concession, and this was after substantial consultation with the small-business sector. So I would suggest to the deputy leader I realise that those opposite are so worried about One Nation that they are not actually focused on policy that's good for the country. But what we have put in place is a set of reforms which are necessary for the benefit of the economy, of business and of working people.

Senator Hume, on a first supplementary?

Clearly, there's no answer for the cafe. What about other businesses? Under the Prime Minister's new policy of classifying small businesses as innovative to receive favourable capital gains tax treatment, what, for instance, would a hairdresser need to do to be classified as innovative? Is there a way for an innovative hairdresser to claim the capital gains tax discount?

There is a serious issue about ensuring that startups and biotech thrive in this country. We said that we would consult in recognition of the unique characteristics of these highly innovative businesses. For the discussion paper to which I alluded, I think submissions are open, from memory, until about 10 or 11 July. Submissions can be made in respect of that.

In relation to small business, I refer to my earlier answer, where, as a result of consultation with the small-business sector, the government has lifted the threshold on one of the key tax concessions for small businesses so that more small businesses will be eligible for concessions.

Senator Hume, a second supplementary?

Can the minister then explain who will make the determination as to whether a small business is considered sufficiently innovative, what guidance will be provided to businesses and investors on this, and whether businesses will be able to challenge a decision that they are not sufficiently innovative—like this cafe, like this hairdresser—to qualify for that capital gains tax discount.

The point I would make, and I'd again make it, but I think the deputy leader is deliberately not recognising what is—

She's deliberately asking questions on behalf of small business.

No, I think she's deliberately not interested in my response. We are delivering about $3.8 billion in new business tax relief measures. This includes the $20,000 instant asset write-off, making that permanent; a permanent two-year loss carry-back for companies with turnover up to $1 billion—

and increasing the turnover for the existing 50 per cent active asset reduction CGT concession from $2 million to $10 million—in other words, enabling more small businesses to gain that concession. There is a separate process around innovative businesses. You are deliberately bringing them together in order to try and make mischief and we all understand that.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Last month, the Treasurer handed down the Albanese Labor government's fifth budget, which supports Australians through the global oil shock while delivering a fairer housing market, a more productive economy and a better tax system. Can the minister outline how this responsible, reforming budget is supporting Australians under pressure and setting the country up for the future?

I thank Senator Grogan for that question. This is a responsible budget that is focused on relief, resilience and reform. The conflict in the Middle East is weighing heavily on our economy and compounding cost-of-living pressures facing Australians, so we're delivering more cost-of-living help and building a more productive economy, a fairer housing market and a stronger and more sustainable budget. We're reforming the tax system for workers, businesses and future generations, and our tax reforms have three goals: to level the playing field and better align the tax treatment of income from work with income earned in other ways; to help more Australians recognise the dream of homeownership and get a foothold in the property market; and to improve productivity by encouraging innovation and investments.

Our reforms will build a better, fairer and simpler tax system by reducing the tax burden for over 13 million workers, supporting 75,000 more first home owners into the housing market, delivering over $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for small businesses and startups, and reducing compliance costs by $540 million a year. This tax package is pro aspiration, pro worker and pro investment. It builds on our reforms to date, including three rounds of tax cuts, making super fairer and more sustainable and making multinationals pay a fair share of tax.

On 1 July this year, over 14 million Australians will get another tax cut of up to $268. Our combined tax cuts mean a worker on average wages will pay up to $2,800 less tax than what we inherited. The Liberals and the Nationals tried to increase income taxes at the last election, and now they're defending the status quo, which punishes workers and locks too many people— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

Thank you to the minister. That's very informative. Last week, following consultation, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced further details of the government's tax reform package, extending the small business capital gains tax discount to 2.7 million small businesses and backing innovative startups. Can the minister outline how these changes give small businesses greater clarity and confidence, while still making the tax system fairer?

I thank Senator Grogan for that supplementary. As Senator Grogan outlined, the Prime Minister and Treasurer did announce further implementation details for the government's tax reform package. We had flagged, in the budget papers and on budget night, that there would be further work done to consult with the startup sector about how these changes could most appropriately apply to them. We said we would do that. We said we would consult with small business. We said we would consult with startups. We have done that.

We have increased the threshold from $2 million to $10 million for the 50 per cent tax discount for small businesses. It means that all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of all active businesses will be eligible for generous CGT concessions. Consultation is now open on the Innovative Business CGT Concession. There are more discussions to be done. That consultation paper is out for the next three weeks.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

This budget is designed to support Australians facing cost-of-living pressures while continuing responsible budget repair. How do the measures in the budget support Australian households, and how does this build on other cost-of-living measures that the Albanese Labor government has already delivered?

I thank Senator Grogan for that question. The Albanese government has been focusing on the cost of living since we came to government, whether it be in energy bill relief, whether it be in Medicare urgent care clinics, whether it be in cheaper medicines, whether it be in our investments in bulk-billing—all of those. And, of course, the tax cuts—those opposite hate hearing about tax cuts because they remember that they went to the last election promising to hike everyone's tax. That was a stroke of genius from those over there who went and thought about it and thought: 'You know what? We're going to go and fight an election by taking tax rises to the people and seeing what they say.' They oppose the tax cuts that we are making and that we are providing on 1 July this year. Working Australians will get a further tax cut. There's the instant deduction and there's the working Australians tax offset to come into place as well.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Will the government's innovative-business carve-out apply at the time a business is founded, when shares are issued, when an investment is made, when an employee share scheme is granted or only years later when a capital gain is realised?

As the senator would know—

I don't; that's why I'm asking you.

Well—

Where's Anne? That's what I'd like to know.

Where is Senator Ruston, by the way? For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I said this in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—an opposition who, of course, went to the election with higher taxes. I explained that there were two tranches of changes. The first is in relation to small business. We have lifted turnover to $10 million so that 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of all active businesses will be eligible for generous capital gains tax concessions. In relation to the innovative-startup measures—and as I also explained to the deputy leader—the Treasurer, through the Treasury, is engaging in consultation. A consultation paper was released on 18 June. It goes through various arrangements for innovative startups, and the government will obviously have those consultations in good faith and bring forward those amendments as and when necessary.

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

If eligibility is assessed years after an investment is made, how are founders, employers and investors supposed to price in risk today?

I certainly would be advising Australian business to price in the risk of a coalition-One Nation government because we all understand what that would mean for business, working people and the Australian economy. That is a risk they should price in. They should work with the Labor Party to ensure that that is never delivered—that they never deliver a government—because we know what that side would be like if we saw Senator Cash and Senator Hanson working together in this chamber to take away so many of the things that Australians need.

What I would say to you, Senator, again—and as I explained in my primary answer to your deputy leader—is that the government is consulting on arrangements for innovative startups. That consultation will proceed in relation to small business. The government has announced a higher threshold, so 98 per cent of all active businesses will now be eligible for more generous CGT concessions.

Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Colbeck, withdraw the comment you made during Senator Wong's contribution. I caution all senators about using that word in here.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Colbeck. Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Given the minister's inability to answer either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate's questions or my questions—isn't this exactly the uncertainty that startups are warning about? The government announces a toxic tax, fails to define the carve-out and leaves founders and investors to guess whether they'll be punished years down the track.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that, if you want an example of chaos and uncertainty, it is the federal coalition.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Australia currently has 178 billionaires, who make $29 million a day. Corporate profits have grown at almost double the rate of wages over the past decade. Yet, on budget night, this government offered working people $4.81 a week that they won't see until 2028, nothing for renters and not one extra dollar for anyone on JobSeeker, youth allowance or the age pension. Minister, do you accept that support for One Nation is rising because Labor has no serious plan to fix the cost of living?

No, and what I would say to you, Senator, is two things. First, if you are so keen on tax reform, we look forward to you passing the tax changes that people in your party, as well as people in the community, have been calling for. I look forward to that and to you supporting that.

The second point I would make is that, as a Labor government, we have delivered measures to address cost-of-living pressures: to roll out more urgent care clinics, to enable energy price relief, to provide more protections for workers, and to provide higher wages for working people, whether it's in the childcare sector, in the aged-care sector or people on the minimum wage. We will always do all that we are able to address cost-of-living challenges.

There is obviously more to do, and this government is determined to continue to deliver the change that is required in the face of increased cost of living and higher pressures for so many Australian workers. But one thing I am very clear about is that the way to confront what we see across the chamber is to seek to bring people together and to remind working people that those opposite are more interested in working together against the interests of workers, against the interests of public services and against the interests of more universal health care. That is what those opposite are more interested in doing. I invite the Greens to take an approach different to the approach they so often take, which is to believe that their job is to attack this side of politics rather than recognising what is happening on that side of politics, the conservative side of politics, and what is at stake. We on this side understand that, and we are up for this argument.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

When governments don't work for people, anger at the system rises. Last week, Senator Hanson stood at the National Press Club and offered nothing more than ugly anger, Islamophobia, racism and transphobia. Minister, do you accept that your government's capitulation to corporations and the wealthiest one per cent has led to disaffected voters turning to anger?

With respect, Senator, I have watched some of your party—not all of you, but some of your party—engage in ensuring that anger rises. I've watched some of your party engaging in rhetoric which is divisive. I've watched some of your party engaging in the politics of anger and division. I have actually said—and I think that some of your party have been very angry with me—that it was the same tactic as One Nation or Peter Dutton used. So, if you want to talk about not using anger and fuelling anger and division to try and progress your political fortunes, I hope the Greens might consider their own position and how they operate.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Here we are, on cue. This is my point. You say, 'We want to try and bring people together and we are open to a civil discussion about differences, but we do not believe'— (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

One Nation opposes wage rises for workers. They oppose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. They oppose paid parental leave. They look after corporate superprofits and not people. As the government, you could make the system fairer. You could tax gas exports, cancel AUKUS and spend the money to make people's lives easier. Minister, when will you tax billionaires and big corporations to fund cost-of-living relief?

Senator Waters, I would make the point that the things that you talk about One Nation opposing are all reforms that a Labor government has delivered—just to make sure that we are actually having an open and honest discussion. We are the ones who brought forward the closing loopholes bill, which was voted against by One Nation twice. We are the ones who put forward the secure jobs, better pay bill. We are the ones who put forward the protection of penalty and overtime rates. We are the ones who are delivering cost-of-living relief, including new and permanent income tax cuts—including those that are in the budget, which we look forward to your support for.

There is always more to do, and we will keep delivering it. And what I would welcome, Senator Waters, is you and your party working to bring people together, because that is the best answer to the coalition of the right that we observe opposite.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Earlier this month, the Fair Work Commission handed down the 2026 annual wage review decision recommending a real wage increase for award and minimum wage workers. Minister, how will this decision provide cost-of-living relief for almost 2.7 million Australian workers across this country?

I thank Senator Sheldon, who, along with every senator in the Labor team, always stands up for the rights of working Australians. Senator Sheldon is right: earlier this month, the Fair Work Commission handed down the 2026 annual wage review decision. That increased modern award wages by 4.75 per cent and increased the national minimum wage by six per cent from 1 July this year. Importantly for the workers of Australia, this is another real wage increase under the Albanese government, and that will help workers and their families with their cost-of-living pressures.

Inflation is predicted to be five per cent! It's not a real increase.

Already we see Senator Canavan arguing against an increase to the minimum wage. This decision means that for the first time the national minimum wage will rise above $1,000 per week.

So angry, aren't you, about increases to the minimum wage.

Minister Watt, direct your comments through the chair.

It means the minimum wage is now $12,079 higher per year compared to when the Albanese government was elected. This is the economically sustainable real wage increase that our government called for in our submission to the Fair Work Commission, and it's the fifth consecutive time we've called for an increase to the minimum wage. In making the decision, the Fair Work Commission expert panel considered a number of factors, including the performance of the national economy, which has been impacted by uncertainty around the conflict in the Middle East, and the relative living standards and needs of minimum and award wage earners. Modern award employees predominantly work part-time hours and are in female dominated industries, and a majority are casuals.

Of course, it shouldn't come as a surprise to senators on this side of the chamber that Labor welcomes this decision and the cost-of-living help it will provide to working Australians. This is the pay rise that millions of Australian workers need and deserve. This is much-needed cost-of-living help for the cleaners, carers, and hospitality and retail workers on the minimum wage, and award reliant workers, many of whom work fewer hours and have fewer financial buffers to fall back on. Under Labor wages are higher and income taxes are lower, and we're helping first home buyers into their— (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has consistently advocated for and endorsed wage rises for workers in a number of industries. Last week, the government announced a $3.6 billion extension to the pay rise for early childhood educators. Why is this extension important and how broad is the support for this announcement?

Thanks again, Senator Sheldon. The pay rise for early childhood educators is absolutely vital because it provides them with a $255 a week pay rise.

What was that, Senator Cash?

I said, 'To deal with inflation.'

You're worried about low-paid workers getting a pay rise?

Minister Watt.

You don't want low-paid workers to get a pay rise?

Minister Watt!

I know someone else like that: Senator Hanson. The Liberal Party and One Nation are on a unity ticket to keep wages low. We are locking in that pay rise for early childhood educators, and we're funding it with a $3.6 billion investment. This pay rise is helping them pay their bills. It's helping them save and, importantly, it's helping them stay in jobs that they love. This is great news for educators and great news for parents as well.

But one person who didn't back it, of course, was Senator Hanson from the One Nation party. When asked what she thought of the government's increased funding for child care, she said that was 'ridiculous'. And when asked if the pay rises for early childhood educators are unnecessary, Senator Hanson replied, 'Didn't they get a pay rise not so long ago?'

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for outlining the 'uniparty's' opposition to wage rises. Ensuring the wages of low- and middle-income earners can continue to rise is a key part of our plan to help workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. What are some of the other ways the government is supporting workers, and how does that contrast with the other views in the community?

Well, not only have we, in Labor, supported workers by advocating for a wage rise, but we've also criminalised wage theft and, of course, provided tax cuts to every Australian worker. In contrast, One Nation is joined at the hip with the Liberals in wanting to wind back Australia's workplace laws, cut workers' wages and abolish paid parental leave. One Nation even seemed to think that all Australian workers are lazy; they want to make it easier to sack workers. So much for standing up for battlers!

Now, I feel I've heard some of that before. Of course, that's come from the Liberal Party as well. In fact, shadow treasurer Tim Wilson gave an interview on the ABC, on Thursday afternoon, backing in Senator Hanson's position. When asked if he thought there needed to be an 'IR overhaul'—Senator Hanson's words—Mr Wilson replied: 'I agree with that, but I agreed with it before she said it. I said it first.' Now the Liberals are claiming to have written One Nation policy. One Nation talk a big game, but they always cut the rights of workers. And right alongside them when they do it is the Liberal Party of Australia. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Australia has had its first confirmed cases of H5N1 bird flu, a disease that has devastated wildlife populations overseas and will not be able to be eradicated once it takes hold in Australia. It puts endangered species—such as the black swan, the black cockatoo and the sea lion—at even greater risk of extinction. Will the government back calls from experts and conservation groups for a $200 million two-year boost to wildlife resilience, coastal habitat protection and an invasive species control program?

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. Thanks also for flagging your intention to ask this question when we crossed paths in the corridors earlier today. Just before I came to the chamber for question time, I did some further media updates with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Julie Collins, who's doing a fantastic job leading, on behalf of the federal government, our response to the now two confirmed cases of the highly dangerous strain of H5 in Australia. People would have seen, late last week, we had the first case of that strain confirmed. Just today, we've had confirmation of the second case of H5N1.

Of course, this is a very serious matter, and we are treating it seriously. But we do need to remember that, at this point in time, we only have two confirmed cases. That's a good thing, and, of course, we want to see it stay that way. But we recognise that this poses a serious threat to wildlife in Australia and, potentially, to the agriculture sector as well. And it's because of the scale of that threat that the Albanese government has invested $113 million already in preparedness efforts to ensure that we are as well prepared as possible for an outbreak of H5N1 coming to our shores.

To some extent, it was always inevitable that this strain would reach Australian shores. We are the only continent in the world that has not yet had this strain on our shores, and it is spread primarily by migratory birds. So it's quite remarkable, in fact, that we have not had this strain hit Australian shores so far. But we are well prepared. From my department's point of view, we have already undertaken a susceptibility analysis to properly understand the species that are at most risk of being infected, and that work has informed where our funding has gone—for captive breeding programs, for planning by state governments and for a range of other preparedness work.

Senator Hanson-Young may want to take political shots at this, but I note the response from the Invasive Species Council saying that never before in history has an— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

The government, of course, has warned about the impact of this virus on Australia's agriculture. But what modelling has the government done on the impact that this is going to have on Australia's native species and our wildlife? How many of our endangered species will be pushed to the brink of extinction if this virus takes hold?

I take offence at the suggestion that this government, or I personally, would push a species to extinction, which is the way Senator Hanson-Young phrased that question. But we understand that the Greens will always take a political opportunity when it arises.

As I was saying, my department—well before this event occurred—had undertaken a susceptibility analysis to identify the species at greatest risk from this virus. That is why we have then invested $113 million, including $11 million in this year's federal budget, to ensure that we're prepared. Now, as I was saying when my time ran out, while Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens party might want to take a political opportunity here, let's look at what the Invasive Species Council has had to say about this—a group that's actively involved in this effort. I quote them as saying:

Never before in history has an environmental biosecurity issue been offered this level of funding for preparedness.

So, while the Greens might want to grandstand and take political potshots, environmental groups like the Invasive Species Council recognise the effort that's been undertaken and have worked with us constructively in that regard. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

One in six Australian bird species already is threatened with extinction. Australia has the highest rate of mammal extinction in the world because of habitat loss, climate change and other human impacts. When will you implement a moratorium on the clearing of critical habitat, given the bird flu issue and the fact that we're going to see our animals pushed to the brink of extinction?

Senator Hanson-Young asks me what the government is doing around the clearing of habitat, and Senator Hanson-Young must not remember that, only about six months ago, the Greens political party supported legislation that the government passed for environmental law reform. One of the key aspects of that legislation was to ensure that habitat is protected for threatened species and others.

Senator Hanson-Young?

Thank you, President. Bring the minister back to the question. Maybe I needed to be more specific. What are you doing to stop the clearing of Alcoa?

Senator Hanson-Young, I have warned you before about using points of order to make political statements. You are out of order. The minister is responding to your question, and I invite the minister to continue.

As I was saying, it wasn't that long ago that the Greens party, including Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Waters and everyone else sitting around them, supported legislation that this government passed through this Senate—the most far-reaching environmental law reform that Australia has seen for 25 years and that delivers a balanced package of stronger protections for our environment and also faster and simpler assessment and approval processes that will deliver the habitat protection that our threatened species deserve. In the meantime, we're not going to be doing political grandstanding—

like certain people who are yelling out over there; we're going to get on with the job of making sure we keep our species safe. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week, the Western Australian premier warned that the government's proposed capital gains tax changes would discourage exploration and investment in our mining industry, which is essential for developing major projects. Does the government agree with the Western Australian premier that its decision will deter investment, reduce exploration activity and undermine the discovery of future critical minerals deposits vital to Western Australia and, indeed, Australia's economic prosperity?

Thank you, I am familiar with the Premier's position, and in fact, as I walked here to question time, I think he was doing a press conference in the courtyard there. Obviously the Prime Minister engages with Premier Cook and the government of Western Australia regularly and has engaged, including going to WA on many occasions. I understand the proposition that is being put.

I would make this point: the innovative business CGT concession that is flagged and scoped in the consultation paper that I was discussing with Senator Hume and Senator Cash is subject to innovation criteria. The government is supporting exploration and mining in other ways, including through billions of dollars invested across special investment vehicles in Australian resources firms and project. Of course, you mentioned critical minerals. There is also an investment of $5 billion in the Critical Minerals Facility to grow critical minerals mines and processing, and there is the critical minerals production tax incentive, which is a 10 per cent tax offset.

Senator McDonald, on a point of order?

My issue is with relevance—specifically, does the government agree with the Western Australian premier?

The minister is being relevant.

I went directly to the issue you were raising. I was trying to do you the courtesy, Senator, of responding directly, and I'll do it again. The concession is broadly available. It's not limited to a particular sector, but it is subject to innovation criteria. You asked about tax concessions for the sector, and I was outlining the ways in which taxpayers and this government have supported, particularly, critical minerals and, more broadly, resources firms and projects.

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Labor's own budget papers show mining investment growth is heading for zero by 2027-28. Isn't the truth that, after scrapping support for junior explorers, increasing uncertainty and driving away investment, the Albanese government has turned its back on the very industry that pays Australia's bills?

No. I don't accept that at all. I appreciate it's a political point you're making. It is the case that WA is a powerhouse of the Australian economy. We know how important the resources sector is for this country. As I said, the critical minerals production tax incentive, which I think you voted against, Senator, will turbocharge critical minerals investment in Western Australia. We also had, for example, a $3.4 billion commitment to the Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program, which is a generational investment in precompetitive geoscience. As I said, we have billions of dollars in production credits for critical minerals and our critical minerals tax incentive. So there are a range of tax incentives which reflect the importance of the resources sector and, in particular, critical minerals.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies told a Senate inquiry last week that the government's Critical Minerals Strategy says that the world needs 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines and 17 new cobalt mines. It seems counterintuitive to make exploring for these minerals fundamentally harder in Australia, but that's what the proposed CGT reforms do. Does the government's legislation align with the government's Critical Minerals Strategy?

Senator, if you are such a supporter of critical minerals, why is it that you voted against the tax incentive? I'm trying to be courteous to you, Senator, but it really does smack of hypocrisy for you to have a go at the government on tax changes when you voted against a tax incentive for the very sector you purport to be supporting. Let's be really clear: the National Party and the Liberal Party voted against the production tax incentive for critical minerals. We all understand that and we all understand what they're doing now.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Ayres. Minister, last financial year your Labor government issued more than 350,000 new permanent resident visas and citizenships. This is the equivalent of adding nearly one and a half times the entire population of Hobart in just one year. Minister, how many new permanent visas and citizenships are you adding to Australia's population this financial year, which ends in just eight days?

I'd be delighted to answer the question, Senator Hanson, but I am not the responsible minister. I have no doubt Minister Watt is going to enjoy taking your question when he's ready to go.

Senator Hanson, I understand Minister Ayres is not the responsible minister, but I'll give you another opportunity. Would you like to redirect that question to Minister Watt?

I'd love to. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt.

Thank you, Senator Hanson. One inconvenient fact for the One Nation party is that this government has nearly halved net overseas migration since it spiked after the COVID epidemic. Most people in this country recognise that, during the COVID epidemic, essentially, migration into Australia ended. People couldn't come here. Most people recognise that after the epidemic migration skyrocketed because people were trying to get back into the country, including many Australians who were seeking to come back into our country. Also, of course, we inherited, when coming to office, a completely broken migration system that was left behind by Mr Peter Dutton. Do you remember Mr Peter Dutton, or have you erased any memory of him? So there was a broken migration system combined with a massive increase in migration post COVID. Ever since then, we have been working hard to fix the rorts and the other faults in the migration system, including around international student numbers.

What that has meant is that we have reduced net overseas migration by 45 per cent since it spiked—so nearly halved—and we're on track to reduce it even further. We recognise, as a government and as a party, that the migration numbers that we were seeing post COVID were unsustainable. They were too high and they needed to be brought down. What we also recognised was that, to house Australians—which is what the One Nation party often links with migration—we needed to build more homes. That's why, as a government, we have invested tens of billions of dollars into building more social and affordable homes for the battlers that Senator Hanson pretends she cares about. How did One Nation vote every time we tried to increase funding for housing? They voted no, along with the Liberal Party and the National Party. So don't come in here and lecture us about supporting houses for Australians, because you always vote against them. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

Minister, Australia has been suffering under mass migration. Your government says you are cutting immigration, yet you've flooded the country with over two million arrivals since coming to government. The damage has been done. Your 45 per cent cut is too little, too late. Why are you using mass migration to paper over your abysmal economic management and disregarding the call from millions of Australians to stop it due to their standard of living being destroyed? Why are you waiting till 2027-28 to reduce it by up to 225,000? That is still too many. (Time expired)

Thanks again, Senator Hanson. As I said, this government has worked extremely hard over the last two or three years in particular to significantly reduce migration levels to much more sustainable levels. At the same time, we—unlike One Nation, unlike the Liberal Party, unlike the National Party—have supported increased investment in housing for the battlers that you pretend to care about. They're the battlers who need homes, and they're the battlers who you've voted against getting new homes funded by the government.

We make no apologies for the fact that we had to reduce migration numbers. They were unsustainably high post the COVID epidemic and post the rorts in the system that were left behind by the former coalition government. The changes that we have made are bringing migration back to a much more sustainable level than it has been at. The question for people like Senator Hanson is how they intend to obtain the hospital workers, the aged-care workers and the workers in various other industries that come from migrant backgrounds— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Minister, analysis of migration data shows that just 20 per cent of your 301,000 net overseas migrants in 2025 were skilled. That's before dealing with the fact that your skilled list includes occupations such as dog handler, hairdresser, gardener, golfer and migration agent. Minister, why is your government flooding Australia with 80 per cent of unskilled migration?

Well, some things don't change, do they? Senator Hanson, I know that it has always been your political agenda to try to divide Australians, to divide Indigenous Australians from other Australians and to divide other Australians from migrant Australians. This government will not engage in that kind of extreme division and chaotic argument that the One Nation party has been putting forward for the best part of 30 years. We saw from the National Press Club last week that One Nation's recipe for Australia is more division, more chaos and more cuts, and that is not something that this Labor government will stand for. This government is about bringing Australians together, not about dividing them from each other. We'll leave it to Senator Hanson, along with her friends in the Liberal Party and the National Party—because they are all the same, with a couple of rare exceptions—to continue with that division. That is not the Australian way. (Time expired)

I advise the chamber that Senator Babet has passed his question to Senator Roberts.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and relates to productivity. The measure of productivity I'm using is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: GDP per hours worked. Under your government, the index measure of productivity has fallen from 100 per cent to 99.6 per cent. Net overseas migration in the year to December 2025 was 301,000 people. What change will these 301,000 new permanent arrivals make to our productivity—GDP per hours worked—across the forward estimates?

I welcome the question on productivity because this budget had productivity right at the centre of the decision-making that we took. As Senator Roberts would know from attending estimates, as he does and has as a representative of his party—he knows, from all the advice that Treasury has provided, that productivity growth in the decade to 2020 was the slowest in 60 years. Get your heads around that as everyone points the finger: the slowest in 60 years was in the decade to 2020. We recognised, when we came to government—

Senator Roberts?

On a point of order, I asked about productivity falling under your government.

I believe the minister is answering your question, but I will continue to listen carefully, and, if she isn't, I'll direct her to your question.

I was explaining the evidence that Treasury has provided, through various committee proceedings that I've been at and that Senator Roberts has been at, that the productivity challenge that Australia has right now is similar to many advanced economies and that we had seen slowing productivity growth in the decade to 2020. We revised back the productivity growth assumptions in our budget on the advice of Treasury. Those had been hiding behind the myth of their numbers in their budget. We adjusted it based on advice from Treasury, and this budget has a range of measures that go right to the heart of driving productivity improvements, which, I would think, all of us in this chamber could agree is a good thing. Whether it be some of the regulatory reform work that I'm doing; removing some of the barriers to trade, which Senator Farrell's at the heart of; building a single national market; accelerating approvals with the work that Minister Watt's leading in the environment and the work that Minister O'Neil is doing in housing; the work with the states and territories looking at how we use data and AI—all of these big challenges that economies like Australia are grappling with, we are dealing with in this budget. I'm not sure—the clock ran out.

Sorry, Minister. Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

OEC data shows productivity improvement only occurs if the migrants have a higher skill level than Australia has as a whole—in other words, quality, not quantity—otherwise, productivity falls. Minister, does the low rate of skilled migration—less than 20 per cent of your 301,000 migrants—mean that productivity in Australia across the forward estimates will continue to fall?

I know that One Nation and those parties on the right would like to blame every challenge to this country on migrants. We don't. On this side, we don't take that view. The productivity challenge is real. It's real in our economy. It's real in many, many economies around the world. The measures needed to improve productivity involve governments tackling serious challenges that have been ignored for too long, like—and I know you disagree with this, Senator Roberts—the transition to net zero. I know you don't like it, but energy is a big part of seizing the—

Senator Roberts?

I don't want to know about the globe. This is a point of order on relevance.

Senator Roberts, why are you on your feet?

A point of order on relevance.

Thank you. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully.

Migrants have made a very significant investment into our economy and have brought additional benefits. We value them and the contribution they make. We're dealing with the migration challenges. The net overseas migration has come down 45 per cent, and we've got a range of productivity measures in place. (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

International data shows that, the more short-term migrants a country has, the less the productivity growth. Under your government, Australia has 2.59 million short-term visa holders—excluding tourists, of course. Minister, have you modelled the effect on gross domestic product per capita productivity from having so many short-term visa holders in your visa mix?

Treasury does a range of modelling and a range of analysis that feeds into our budget papers. Obviously, the numbers through net overseas migration inform other numbers that run throughout the budget papers. Again, we value the work and contribution of migrants and what they bring to this country.

The productivity challenge is a substantial one. Senator Roberts, I would think that, on the issues that we've focused on in this budget, you would agree with many of them and you would agree that these are areas that governments and parliaments should be focusing on to drive productivity, because we know that, when we're improving productivity, we're improving the life of every single citizen, and we are focused on that.

Senator Roberts?

A point of order on relevance again, President. I asked about per capita GDP productivity from so many short-term visa holders. That's all I asked about.

Thank you, and the minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts.

My question is to the minister representing—

Who? Geelong? No, we didn't win on the weekend, unfortunately, but thanks for pointing that out.

Order! It's your time you're wasting.

Well, there could be more. You never know.

Senator Bragg, I'm not giving you extra time, so ask your question.

Well, he started it. My question is to the—

No, don't respond.

Sorry? I think there's just been a reset.

Yes.

Can I start now? I was just being polite. I'm just trying to be polite.

With due respect, Senator Bragg, you are anything but polite at the moment. Please start your question.

My apologies, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Given the latest backflips by this government on tax policy, can you please update the Senate on whether there still will be 35,000 fewer homes as a result of these tax hikes on housing, and will rents still go up as outlined in your budget papers?

As I have said many times to Senator Bragg, he knows that the budget papers indicated that, when you take into account all that the government is doing, there will be an increased number of homes over the decade. I would make the point to you that we on this side of the chamber believe that government has a role in contributing to ensuring more houses are built in this country. Under your government, I think there were only some 300-odd houses that were built with the support of government for social and affordable housing over a decade.

Senator Bragg?

My point of order is on relevance. Will there still be 35,000 fewer homes and higher rents as a result of this budget?

Thank you. Senator Bragg. The minister is being relevant, and I'll continue to listen carefully.

I actually responded to that in the first answer. As I explained, as a whole we will see an increase in the supply of housing over the next decade if you look at all of the budget measures. What we will see, importantly, in terms of composition is an extra 75,000 first home buyers. So this is a budget which, despite Senator Bragg's best effort, is a pro-supply budget. This is the budget which ensures that negative gearing will still be available for new builds, and new builds will have a choice of CPI indexation or 50 per cent discount for capital gains. What I would say to you, Senator Bragg, is that we know housing affordability is a problem that is decades in the making, and we are throwing everything at it. We are throwing everything at it, and we are building on what we have done over the last four years. We are levelling the playing field for first homebuyers, we are building more infrastructure, we are cutting red tape, and we are approving more homes. That is what we are doing. All you are doing is criticising, and you are part of a party that delivered nothing when it comes to housing support.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Very good, very good. The Prime Minister said on 18 June:

The definition of new builds and housing investment exemptions will be moved into primary legislation in a future tranche of tax reform legislation.

Does this mean that your new taxes bill before the Senate will define what a new build is?

Well, Senator, I think you spent quite a few hours this morning ensuring we didn't get to the tax bills, but the budget papers—

The NDIS is important.

Well, we know what your position on the NDIS is, but fair enough. We've now started the tax legislation. We've been clear about what it—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue.

I understand that we have said we intend to remove ministerial discretion in relation to these definitions to provide as much certainty as possible. I understand that there has been advice that legislation will be introduced later this year following consultation. However, if you look at the budget papers, Senator Bragg, as I was indicating to you, the core elements of what constitutes a new build for the purposes of the tax changes were set out in the budget papers.

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

Are you surprised home building has collapsed by 30,000 houses a year under your government given this shambles of a tax policy?

Over 660,000 homes have been built since we were elected. In fact, new home build starts are up now. They are 26 per cent higher than a year ago. Approvals are up three years in a row and there are more first homebuyers under Labor than there were under the Liberal Party. I would make the point—I know you believe your job is to constantly talk down the market, talk down what is happening to housing. We recognise there is a problem with housing supply in this country. We recognise something has to be done about it, and we know that the answers are not simple, which is why we are throwing everything at it. Whether it comes to additional funding or changes to planning and changes to tax laws, it is all about ensuring we get more housing supply in this country and more people into the housing market.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. Minister, families in my home state of Tasmania know how important our childcare system is. It helps children grow, learn and be ready for school, and it helps families work, study and build their own futures. Can the minister update the Senate on why this sector is so important and how the Albanese Labor government is supporting families through our investment in early learning?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for your first question as a Labor Senator for Tasmania. It is good to have the opportunity to clear this up, because it seems that there's been a little bit of confusion lately about the importance of early childhood education. Last week, the One Nation leader was asked what she would do to improve the childcare system. She said, and I quote, 'Child care is completely out of control. Who's utilising those services? Do they require those services?' Well, let me help One Nation out. The answer is that one million modern Australian families rely on the early education and care system every week. That is, who is utilising these services—one million Australian families and 1.4 million Australian children. And, yes, Senator Hanson, those children and those families do need those services. Australian families need the childcare system to make their busy lives work and to help give their children a great start in life. On this side of the chamber, we back those families. We're backing them by investing in our nation's essential early childhood educators with our historic pay rise, we're backing them with our three-day guarantee and we're backing families by building more centres in the places where they are needed too. This is the practical support that one million modern Australian families need. So, while One Nation are scratching their heads over what modern families actually look like, and while One Nation scratches around for a guide to modern family life today, Labor is getting on with the job of backing Australian families with the practical support that they need.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Look, it's clear our early educators do an amazing job and deserve every cent of their 15 per cent pay rise. It will help them pay the bills and ensure they can afford to stay in the jobs they love. But we know that families are also dealing with the cost-of-living crunch right now. How will Labor's policies help lower the cost of early learning for Australian families?

We are building an early childhood education and care system that is high quality. We are building a system that more families can afford, and we're building services where families need them most. We know families face cost-of-living challenges right now, and that is why the funding for our historic pay rise is tied to fee capping, putting downward pressure on fees and downward pressure on costs for families. That is on top of our cheaper childcare reforms, which save the average family 3½ thousand dollars this year, and our three-day guarantee, which guarantees three days Child Care Subsidy for every family that needs it, saving families up to $1,500 a year. We are delivering a quality early learning system that more families can afford in the places that need it the most. This is real cost-of-living relief, and it is what families deserve.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Early educators do one of the most important jobs in the whole country. They give the next generation of Australians a great start in life and help them get ready for school. Minister, why is a trained, qualified and respected early learning workforce so important?

On this side of the chamber, we know that our nation's early childhood educators are not babysitters. We know that our nation's educators, over 95 per cent of them women, are highly skilled. They are dedicated, they are essential and, yes, they are qualified too. One Nation thinks educators don't need to be qualified at all. But qualified educators understand how children's brains develop. They understand early literacy and numeracy. They promote social and emotional wellbeing. They do that in the first five years of a child's life, when over 95 per cent of brain development occurs. Their work matters. We back these early childhood educators. We see them, we value them and we are proud to back them in with our historic 15 per cent pay rise, because we know that qualified early educators are the foundation of the quality sector that families deserve.

Minister Wong?

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Well, I listened with interest to the answers to the questions from coalition senators. I think the one thing that the government failed to address in all of the questions was that was that this is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. This government wants us to believe that taxing shares, taxing small businesses and taxing ETFs is somehow going to make housing more affordable. What is a little bit more egregious than that in itself is that they want to take away tax concessions from young Australians who are using those other avenues to build wealth so they can enter the housing market. They're taking those avenues away even though, historically, generations before them have been able to use those levers. This government is calling that intergenerational equity. It is a total falsity. It is a total lie. Nobody believes it.

They couldn't answer questions around which small businesses would be eligible for the proposed carve-outs. They don't know. They have no answers for that. This is the problem with this government: they go ahead, they do things, they don't think about it—poorly executed, poorly drafted legislation—and then it needs to be cleaned up later. Nobody knows who's going to be eligible and who is not. What will an innovative small business be? We had questions around a cafe and a hairdresser effectively scoffed by the government. They're legitimate questions; they're real questions. Who determines what innovation is? Is it a departmental official? Do they determine it? Is it subjective? Is it what they think is innovative, or is it something that somebody else will determine? They're reasonable questions.

What it does create is uncertainty. When there is uncertainty, people won't invest. When there is uncertainty, people move somewhere else where there is no uncertainty. Based on this legislation, we will have some of the highest CGT in the world. Communist China has a flat rate of 20 per cent CGT. Australians who want to innovate and create new businesses, to have a shot at making something special are probably going to go: 'We might go to New Zealand instead. That's easier.'

Singapore—zero per cent.

'We might go to Singapore instead. That's easier—zero per cent.' Why wouldn't they do that when there are risks and uncertainty here. When Senator Hume asked that question, Senator Wong came back and said, 'There's chaos and uncertainty across the other side.' Respectfully, the Albanese Labor government is in government. It's up to them to solve these issues, and it's up to them to present to this chamber legislation that will actually work for Australians. This won't. This legislation will damage this country.

The CGT and the negative gearing, as put forward by this government, are totally damaging. In the same way, they have failed to address Australia's housing shortages. The fact is that they won't acknowledge that their own changes in the budget will actually see 30,000 to 35,000 fewer homes constructed. How do you address that? How do you answer that question without acknowledging and understanding that the problem you're meant to be solving is being made worse. That is clearly stated in your own budget papers. Something needs to change.

On this side we are big supporters of small business and innovation. This budget was all about backing small business to invest and to grow. I want to talk a little bit, again, about the changes to the small business concession so that we can provide clarity and certainty for small businesses and others. As Senator Kovacic just said, they need certainty. Well, let's be really clear: the government is extending the eligibility of the 50 per cent active asset reduction to more businesses by increasing the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million. This brings the eligibility for this concession into line with the turnover threshold for the instant asset write-off. This will mean that all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of active businesses will be eligible for a 50 per cent CGT discount on active business assets, and that's on top of the discount for inflation, where eligible, once these reforms are in place.

The government, as has been mentioned, has also released the consultation paper on the design of a 50 per cent CGT discount for early stage investors, including founders and employee share scheme participants of innovative startup businesses. Final details will be implemented in a later tranche of tax reform legislation. Importantly, this will be released following consultation.

These measures, of course, build on the existing significant measures to support small business risk taking and investment in the budget, including the two-year loss carry-back, loss refundability for startups, expanded venture capital incentives and making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent. The additional support for small business has an indicative cost of $300 million over the forward estimates and brings the total new tax measures to support businesses in the tax reform package to over $3.8 billion. This $3.8 billion also includes making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent for small businesses; a two-year loss carry-back for companies with a turnover of up to $1 billion; supporting cash flows through disruption; and incentivising sensible risk taking. Remember that, without this measure, the asset threshold would have reverted to $1,000 in just a week or so, on 1 July this year. There will be loss refundability to help startups to grow in their first two years, and we are also expanding the tax incentives for venture capital to help unlock more investment in young and expanding businesses.

Of course, running through all of these things to provide business certainty is one thing, but I think the actual perspective about what small-business owners and startup innovators think about this is best heard in their own words. Last week we heard from Mr David Turner, a small-business owner and a startup founder who advises Australian startups and small businesses as a lawyer. In the inquiry last week, evidence that he submitted said:

… I commend measures such as the proposed loss refundability scheme, the loss carry-back scheme, the R&D tax incentive, and the permanent instant asset write-off, each of which offer cash flow support to start-ups and small businesses … tax system features such as up-front supports for new ventures may be more effective incentives than relief that materialises when a business is sold.

Very quickly, I note that, on this question about whether Australian innovation will go overseas, Mr Turner also said:

… for many founders, there are natural constraints to their ability to pick up their lives and move to another jurisdiction—not only personal and family ones but also professional ones. They may be in a position to commence a business in Australia because of their professional network, because of their knowledge of the market or because of their connections to customers.

(Time expired)

It's a bit of a misnomer to refer to this part of today's proceedings as taking note of answers, because I think the only thing that we got was non-answers to the questions asked by the coalition today. In circumstances where the budget is now in a complete shambles, the government are doing backflips to try and resolve the problems that they have themselves created by not properly designing the reforms that they wanted to bring in in the first place, which is not the first time we've seen Labor do this. Now they're trying to scramble to get things back in order and to try and recover some ground from what has been a terribly received budget and, quite frankly, a complete shambles of a budget.

I'm going to do something that's very unusual for someone from the coalition, and that's to quote the ABC, which said in an article last Friday:

Business has labelled Labor's budget tax overhaul a "freak show", saying its proposed changes are like an American celebrity who has had too much plastic surgery.

If the ABC is saying this about Labor's budget, what is the reality? We've seen this before. The article continues:

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Andrew McKellar told the ABC's Insiders Podcast the changes were starting to get ugly.

…   …   …

Australian Industry Group CEO Innes Willox said the changes to Labor's cornerstone tax policy added complexity, uncertainty and retrospectivity into the tax system that would harm business.

We all know—and Labor knows this too—that, if you tax something more, you don't get more of it. I sat in this chamber during the last period when Labor were in government, when they started hiking up the taxation on tobacco. Now how's that going? That's a complete shambles. There's another thing that the Labor Party has lost control of completely. There was Kevin Rudd's war on alcopops, where they ratcheted up the tax on alcopops with the express intention of having less of them. And here we are—increasing tax and saying that we're going to get more housing when the budget papers say we're going to get less. That's on top of the fact that the Labor Party, despite the fact that they say that they're building more houses, are building 30,000 houses less per year—170,000 houses a year are being built in this country under Labor. Under the coalition, it was 200,000 houses per year. How can they stand there with a straight face and say we're getting more houses when the reality is we are getting less? That is how dishonest this government is.

This is a government that went to the election that said it would not make changes to capital gains tax—

Fifty times.

Thank you, Senator Scarr. Fifty times they said they would not make changes to capital gains tax. They said they would not make changes to other taxes, and then they did that in the budget. This is a dishonest government. You cannot trust a single thing this government say, whether it's defending the changes that they're making now or anything else they say, because we know that, when they want your vote, they'll say what they think you want to hear, and then, when they get back into government, as they've done on two occasions now, they do the exact opposite. This is a dishonest government, and they deserve the ignominy that's being thrust upon them by the Australian people.(Time expired)

I too rise to take note of answers to questions asked by the coalition. I am extremely proud of the budget that this government has delivered and of the changes and the theme of delivering fairness for working Australians, for young people and for those who would strive to own a home. Our changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing for houses will and are already creating a fair go for people to get into a house. We've already seen great stories in the weekend newspapers, including Domain, where young people and couples are getting a home without competing with investors. We're already seeing a great effect that people are getting a chance to be able to live the Australian dream.

You see, for a quarter of a decade, housing has been treated as a vehicle for building wealth—houses for building wealth. To me, housing is a right. Having somewhere to live and a safe place to come home to is a fundamental right, and young people are realising it's the Liberals and the Nationals and John Howard that they have to thank for this. They really did a trick on us, and we're feeling it generations later. Those governments' decisions, not just in housing, have caused fundamental issues which this government is looking to fix. We're also restoring fairness to the way that income on investments is treated. How is it fair that the labour of working Australians, whether it be cleaners, teachers, tradies, public servants or nurses—why should their labour be taxed higher than income that is earned on investments? Our changes are going to restore fairness to the way that income is taxed.

Our budget also delivers on some of the other commitments that we've taken to the election, such as delivering on tax cuts—the tax cuts that are due to come in on 1 July. That is the next round that we've delivered. Since coming to power, the average working taxpayer is up to $2,800 better off and paying less tax than when we came into government. We're also including, in the tax system, when people go to do their tax returns at the end of the year, a $250 working Australians tax offset, and we're delivering the standard deduction of $1,000 for taxpayers, which will make a difference to people and make it easier for them to complete their tax return.

When it comes to small business, recently Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced some changes to our policy, following a period of consultation with stakeholders. So we will be changing the threshold of a small business from $2 million up to $10 million. That means 2.7 million active small businesses—98 per cent of active businesses—will be eligible for concessional treatment. This is on top of the four existing CGT concessions, which means eligible small-business owners will pay reduced or no capital gains tax when it comes time to sell. I'm incredibly proud of this budget, I'm incredibly proud of the work of this caucus and I say: let's get it done.

Labor's budget is a tax on ambition, a tax on aspiration and a tax on success. That's the reality. It's gone down like a lead balloon in the Australian community across all demographics, from young people to retirees, and the Labor government is now in damage control. They're trying to pare back various elements of the increase in capital gains tax, trying to play favourites, and they're just digging a deeper hole. That's the reality. Labor's budget has gone down like a lead balloon in the Australian community.

Senator Hume, in her question to the government, raised the legitimate point that the government say they're going to give carve-outs for startups who use innovation—who are innovative. What business isn't innovative? What business today isn't using innovation to survive and prosper? As Senator Hume said, from the local cafe—and I want to give a shout-out to my friend Nick, who just sold his cafe in my local area, where he had to struggle every single day to be innovative so that his business prospered, providing employment to people and providing an excellent service—to your local hairdresser, they're innovative. My friend Khalid, my barber, who just got made an Australian citizen last week, is a wonderful man who, with his family, came to this country and built a business. He now employs eight people and owns the premises in which he conducts the business. He has to be innovative every single day. But Labor's now setting up this false construct that some businesses are innovative and some aren't, picking and choosing between different Australian businesses. It's not right.

As Senator Cash said, it's a question of timing. You might be innovative when you start the business, but what about when you sell it 20 years later? I want to read to you a quote from a founder of SEEK, a company that was set up in 1997. Five or half a dozen people set up that company. It's now the go-to platform for people looking for jobs. It may have been innovative in 1997, but what about in 2026, when it's got a market capitalisation north of $4 billion and 3,000 employees, including across Asia? Are they innovative now? They were certainly innovative then. This is what Mr Paul Bassat—not a politician but one of the founders of SEEK Limited, one of Australia's most successful startup companies—says in relation to the Labor government's changes to capital gains tax:

… the government is committing a big own goal that will have a significant impact on a critical sector of the economy.

He said:

I am in a range of different WhatsApp groups with Australian founders, and the overall mood is one of great disappointment and frustration

There is great disappointment and frustration amongst the people who are actually setting up these new businesses and creating wealth, prosperity and employment. That's what they think. Mr Bassat goes on:

We don't want own goals either in the World Cup or in our economy, and the government is committing a big own goal that will have a significant impact on a critical sector of the economy.

This is a founder of SEEK, now a very successful multibillion-dollar company. We don't want the next founders to go to Singapore or Canada to set up their companies; we want them to stay in Australia and create wealth and prosperity for the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

I rise to take note of the answer to my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister about the cost of living, the rise of the far right and taxing the one per cent. Politics should work for people but right now it doesn't. Ninety-six per cent of Australian rentals aren't affordable for essential workers. Just last week I was listening to a story about a couple on the Sunshine Coast, a nurse and an electrician, who've had so much trouble finding a rental that they've started their own community organisation to help other young people find housing. We need to be better than this. We need to demand better than this or we'll end up like the US, where inequality is rife, where services are underfunded or non-existent and where billionaires run politics. We're not there yet but we're on the same path. The one per cent are accumulating wealth and buying political power here in Australia too. In the face of this clear and rising inequality, Labor simply refused to take the bold action that would actually fix the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and the climate crisis. This unwillingness to act is how Labor has created the conditions for One Nation to rise.

Senator Hanson wants an Australia that is angry and divided. She wants us scared of our neighbours and blaming each other for the cost-of-living problems that the major parties caused and that her billionaire backers benefit from. That's not the Australia that I want, and I don't believe that it's one that many people want either. But One Nation will not change the system any more than the Labor or Liberal parties will. They all do the bidding of the same billionaires and big corporations who donate to their political parties.

The major parties are in decline, and we have an opportunity for real change, so what I would say to those people looking for a change, looking for a fair go in Australia, is that you can start by changing your vote. You can vote for a party that puts people ahead of profits, and that's the Greens. The Greens don't accept that tinkering around the edges is the best that we can hope for, and neither should the Australian people. Better is possible if we're willing to fight for it. Change isn't something that we can just wait for to land in our laps; it's something that we have to make together. It starts with reminding ourselves that, while the system is stacked in favour of the one per cent now, people are not powerless. The billionaires and the big corporations out-lobby and out-donate, buying out politicians like just another asset in their portfolio. Just ask Gina Rinehart. They fund fake grassroots campaigns to make it look like their support is bigger than it is. They set up industry groups to use their megaphone to argue that their interests should come first.

By ourselves, it feels like there's little that we can do, but, luckily, we're not by ourselves; we have each other. That solidarity is how we challenge the divisive politics of the one per cent. It's how we build a movement that welcomes everyone and a community that is safe for everyone. The one per cent want us to blame one another so that we don't come together and realise that it's the big corporations and the billionaires making life harder for everyone, just to boost their own profits. But around the world we're seeing people-powered progressive movements for change that are growing and winning. The many are powerful. We can have that here too.

It feels like people are so used to the system not working for them that they've given up hope that it ever can. They don't have hope that change can happen. They've been told too many times that their basic asks are too much, that a system that works for them is unrealistic. Well, I don't accept the powers that be telling Australians that we can't have nice things or that the system can't be changed, or that a nurse or an electrician have to start their own community organisation to find affordable housing. It's time to take our power back. It's time to take on the one per cent.

Question agreed to.

I asked a question today of Labor about immigration to the country and the minister said, 'Oh, we're doing a great job. We're actually reducing the immigration by 45 per cent.' Well, you're the ones that actually caused the problem in the first place. You had the highest immigration coming to this country between 2022 and 2023—739,000 people. Take out those that will leave the country—500,000. Then you're saying: 'Oh, we're doing the right thing by you. We're dropping it by 45 per cent.' Well, isn't it funny what a spin that is! It's like the dodgy discount supermarkets when they double the price and then claim that they've discounted it.

What you've done is cause the problems in this country by mass migration. You've allowed the people into Australia. For the people out there watching this or listening: it would equate over the period of time to 1,375 people a day coming into this country—at the high point, even 1,800 a day coming into the country—created by Labor mass migration. They can't control their spending or their GDP; therefore, they're allowing mass migration to come in to boost up the GDP productivity. It's caused the problem of fewer homes for people to be able to move into for shelter. We've got over 130,000 people that are homeless in this country—living in tents, caravans and cars, couch surfing—because of the Labor Party. You caused the problem in this country because you can't control your spending. You have to bring in more people in the country to prop it up.

So what we have is, after departures like I said, 1.4 million people that you've brought into the country. As I said, you've got about 250,000 people in Hobart. So we're talking about 1.4 million. We're talking about cities—Hobart how many times over? That's the number of people you've brought into the country. And there are already three million temporary visa holders in the country right now—over three million. You've just destroyed this nation with the number of people that you've allowed in, and you've taken absolutely no notice of it for the past more than three years you've been in government. Now you're going to face an election in about 1½ years time. Now you're saying: 'Oh, look how good we are. We've pulled it back 45 per cent.' You've still got it at 301,000. You've said you're going to reduce it to 225,000 by 2027-28. It is not going to solve the problem that we have now.

People have been screaming out for a reduction in immigration. You turned a blind eye to it. You're not interested. You've actually—because you know damn well. You're relying on that. You've destroyed industries and small business. Under your government, you've lost 50,000 small businesses; they've gone insolvent. Over 1,400 industries and manufacturers are gone under your government. So you know damn well there's no investment in Australia. We are economically so unstable that you have to bring in migration to prop this up. With everything that you've touched, you've destroyed this nation.

I hear other people saying that I'm divisive. I want to pull this country together. I want people to be with success—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work in our nation. We need to increase our industries' manufacturing and give our small businesses the helping hand they need. Stop cutting the guts out of them with the regulation rules that you've applied to them. It takes years to get anything to happen in Australia. Cut that all back so we get compliance and they can go ahead and do what they need to do in a matter of months not years.

Your mass migration has been absolutely farcical. Bringing in those people in from Gaza is another thing. They weren't vetted—24 hours to vet them. Then you actually had the ISIS brides. That's again another lie to the Australian people that you knew nothing about. They found 150 documents over there to say that you didn't know what was going on. All we get out of this government—I've started the Fire the Liar campaign. That's what I've said: 'Fire the liar.' This current government needs to go. You cannot be straight with the Australian people. You lie about everything that you do with housing, investment, industries, manufacturing, climate change, even the wind turbines, solar panels and everything. You are destroying this nation.

Question agreed to.

I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 1 for today.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 421 standing in the name of Senator Cash.

I move:

That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows:

(a) Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, on Wednesday, 24 June 2026; and

(b) Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025, on Thursday, 25 June 2026.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Liddle for 24 and 25 June 2026, for personal reasons;

(b) Senator McKenzie from 22 to 25 June 2026, on account of parliamentary business; and

(c) Senator Ruston for 22 and 23 June 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the extensions are authorised. There is no objection.

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Personal Staffing of Parliamentarians, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the adequacy, transparency and fairness of the current arrangements governing the allocation of personal staff, resources and entitlements to senators and members of the Parliament of Australia;

(b) the appropriateness of any arrangements to allocate personal staff, resources or entitlements to senators or members, or to parties or groups represented in the Parliament, in connection with the consideration or passage of legislation, including but not limited to recent public reporting concerning negotiations between parties in relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025;

(c) whether the offering, discussion or alteration of personal staffing arrangements with parliamentary votes or legislative negotiations could constitute conduct warranting referral to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges;

(d) the implications for parliamentary integrity, public confidence in and the proper functioning of the Parliament where personal staffing allocations, resources or entitlements may be perceived as providing a personal or political benefit linked to parliamentary decision making;

(e) options for establishing more transparent, independent or rules based mechanisms for determining personal staffing allocations, resources and entitlements for senators and members, including arrangements that ensure equitable treatment of government, opposition, minor party and independent parliamentarian; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 7 September 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Obviously it's always better for the chamber if amendments are circulated in advance, but I will ask if leave is granted.

Leave granted.

I move the amended motion:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Personal Staffing of Parliamentarians, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the adequacy, transparency and fairness of the current arrangements governing the allocation of personal staff, electorate staff salaries, resources and entitlements to senators and members of the Parliament of Australia;

(b) the appropriateness of any arrangements to allocate personal staff, resources or entitlements to senators or members, or to parties or groups represented in the Parliament, in connection with the consideration or passage of legislation, including but not limited to recent public reporting concerning negotiations between parties in relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025;

(c) whether the offering, discussion or alteration of personal staffing arrangements with parliamentary votes or legislative negotiations could constitute conduct warranting referral to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges;

(d) the implications for parliamentary integrity, public confidence in and the proper functioning of the Parliament where personal staffing allocations, resources or entitlements may be perceived as providing a personal or political benefit linked to parliamentary decision making;

(e) options for establishing more transparent, independent or rules based mechanisms for determining personal staffing allocations, electorate staff salaries, resources and entitlements for senators and members, including arrangements that ensure equitable treatment of government, opposition, minor party and independent parliamentarian; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 7 September 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and

(d) Senator David Pocock.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That Senator David Pocock chair the committee, and the committee elect as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

I ask that the questions on (3)(d) and (6) be put separately.

Is that of the amendments? I haven't got the paperwork in front of me.

Of the amendments.

Have you got the amendments?

I do not believe I have the amendments, so it's a little bit challenging.

Senator McKim, please, let's not just yell across the chamber. I will start by putting the amendments. I'll put everything except (3)(d) and (6) to start with. Are those amendments supported?

Question negatived.

I will now put the amendments 3(d) and 6.

Question negatived.

I will now put the motion unamended. The question is the motion be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Australian Government to place a moratorium on meetings with representatives of the gas industry and their lobbyists for the duration of the public debate on the taxation of gas exports, revoke sponsored parliamentary passes held by such representatives, and immediately disclose all meetings held between Government Ministers and representatives of the gas industry or their lobbyists over the previous 12 months."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Australian Government to place a moratorium on meetings with representatives of the gas industry and their lobbyists for the duration of the public debate on the taxation of gas exports, revoke sponsored parliamentary passes held by such representatives, and immediately disclose all meetings held between Government Ministers and representatives of the gas industry or their lobbyists over the previous 12 months.

The corporate parties have given the gas lobby free run in this building for far too long, and the Greens are saying time is up. Australians have a simple message for the Albanese government: stop the great Australian gas rip-off and make corporations pay what they owe. During our Greens led gas tax inquiry, we heard it over and over again from Shell, INPEX, AEP, Woodside—different logos, same script: 'The PRRT is working. Now isn't the time for more taxes. Don't change the system.' Of course it's working for them. It is delivering exactly what it was designed to deliver: billions in profits for multinational gas corporations and next to nothing for the Australian people whose resources they are selling. Now, we have the receipts.

New analysis from InfluenceMap confirmed what we all suspected—every gas company and industry association that appeared before the inquiry opposed reform using the same talking points, the same scare campaigns and the same script: 'We can't tax gas properly because of energy security. We can't tax gas properly because of our trading partners. We can't tax gas properly because the sky might fall in.' The gas lobby came to parliament prepared with a script, and the government and Albanese repeated it word for word. Every time Australians demand reform, the gas lobby leans in and Labor rolls over.

What's perhaps most extraordinary is the access that these companies enjoy. While ordinary Australians struggle to get a meeting with their local rep, gas executives walk the halls of parliament like they own the place. Believe me, they do think they own this place. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation revealed almost 200 text messages between Woodside and senior government officials while conditions on the North West Shelf Project extension were being negotiated. One Woodside representative asked, 'Any chance we can see the final conditions as put to the minister?' Imagine the entitlement. It's not 'do the conditions protect the environment?', not 'do they protect cultural heritage?', just 'do they work for Woodside?' and 'do they protect our profit margins?'. Then, after months of negotiations, came the message from the government—'Thanks. We got there.' Those three words that tell Australians everything they need to know.

At budget estimates, I repeatedly asked about meetings between ministers and gas industry representatives during the gas tax debate. Nobody could tell me. Nobody could disclose to me whom met whom. Nobody could even tell Australians whether gas companies attended Labor's $5,500 a head budget night fundraiser.

All of this matters because another major decision is looming. Right now, Woodside lobbyists are roaming the halls of parliament trying to win support for the Browse Gas Project, a project we do not need for domestic supply, a project that only stacks up if those gas corporations keep getting Australia's gas for cheap. The Prime Minister dismisses the calls for a gas tax as a slogan. It is not a slogan, mate. It is a groundswell. Australians can see the billions of dollars of profit flowing offshore. They can see the corporations get rich, and they can see how little comes back when they're struggling with the cost of living.

That's why we need to ban gas lobbyists from this place. If you want to break the cosy relationship between Labor and the gas industry, we need to lock these bastards out. We need to ban the secret meetings. We need to revoke their sponsored parliamentary passes.

Senator Hodgins-May—

I withdraw. Buggers. Revoke their sponsored parliamentary passes. Publish the ministerial diaries. Let Australians see who's really calling the shots in this place.

Today, Labor and the other corporate parties have a choice. Do they stand with the Australians demanding a fair share and a fair return for publicly owned resources, or do they keep taking orders from mates in the gas lobby? If Labor won't tell Australians who's influencing them, maybe they should save everyone the trouble and wear the logos of their gas industry sponsors around Parliament House. The Fremantle Dockers wear Woodside's logos, so why doesn't Labor? Honestly, wear the logos. Tell the Australian people who you're working for because it's sure as hell not us. People are outraged. We demand a ban on gas lobbyists in this place and their dirty influence because Australians deserve a tax on our gas exports and they deserve to reap the benefits of our resources and the sale of those.

I'm amazed that now the Greens greatest idea is stopping democracy, stopping letting people engage with the political process. I mean, what's next? Are we going to ban nurses and unions from engaging in political discussion? You cannot block a sector in the middle of a significant discussion about public policy. It is clear that years of intervention by the Labor government has created problems in the Australian gas market, but the solution from the Greens to stop engagement is, I think, extraordinary. What they now propose is that the market's problems should be left to bureaucrats, not to the people who are actually elected to make decisions. That is our very role in this place, to be listening but most importantly accountable to Australians. Every sector should have the ability to come to parliament to raise concerns about policy and about impact, with their local member or with their senator. But it is not up to any political party, particularly the Greens political party, to block one sector due to ideological reasons.

The interventions that Labor has made over the last few years have made our gas market more complex, more confusing and less secure. Instead, we're going to see the collapse of domestic gas producers, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales, in the places where we absolutely need this gas. But, instead, we have investors worried, we have the stock market for those companies very, very damaged, and we now have the spot market trading at $6 and less. That means that the result of Labor's policy will actually be to invest more power into LNG exporters and to cruel and cripple domestic players who are the ones who are most capable of solving this problem, particularly those in offshore Victorian waters who have the infrastructure that's necessary to supply. Labor has systematically undermined our gas market through repeated interventions, anti-gas rhetoric from senior cabinet ministers and its general disregard for the billions of dollars of capital needed for gas companies to make investment decisions in Australia. So, while Labor are claiming that they are pursuing cost-of-living relief, the reality is that taxpayers will be forced to come in and bail out investment in the gas industry after the payout of these policies comes to fruition.

Last week, I went to Norway because I wanted to see for myself what the impact of those tax policies is on the Norwegian gas market. People there were completely horrified to hear of the proposals of the Albanese Labor government for a domestic gas reservation or the Greens political party proposals for gas tax increases in the middle of an investment cycle. They were appalled and surprised that they were being held up as the example. We are seeing concerns from local businesses about the sugar hit that this gas reservation will provide to the domestic gas market and then the wasteland that we will see in Australia for gas in the places where we need it.

Of course, we need to be clear that this is an agenda being run by anti-gas and anti-fossil-fuel activists and lobbyists. Whilst the Greens would like to see the gas sector have their passes pulled, how about they pull the passes from their mates in the Australia Institute, Punter's Politics, IEFA and other people who shamelessly have an agenda to stop fossil fuel investments and new gas, coal and oil projects? How about they be honest with Australians about what they're really seeking to do, which is to keep us poor and to keep us in the dark? I think this is a shocking urgency motion, and I do not support it.

Well, the Greens used to be far more interesting than this. They used to be a party that put forward genuine policy ideas for debate. Instead they just rely on online commentators and follow whatever Senator David Pocock is up to determine their priorities in the Senate. I understand it's all about a nice social media grab. It's all about a bit of profile building for Senator Hodgins-May, who likes to travel around the country and make pretty social media videos about how we should tax gas companies more.

As to getting up and saying that gas companies don't pay tax in this country, it sounds like a good line. It's a popular line, clearly. But what they forget to mention is the work that our government has done to make sure that gas companies pay their fair share of tax. In our first term of government, Labor made changes to the petroleum resource rent tax to ensure offshore gas companies pay more tax and pay it sooner. It increased the number of companies paying the PRRT, and in this budget it revised revenue from the PRRT up $1.6 billion. The government announced just in the last few months that we are introducing a gas reservation scheme modelled on the scheme that exists, and has existed for some time, in my home state of Western Australia, which is all about making sure that more Australian gas stays here in the country and provides reliable and secure energy for Australians who need it as we transition away from coal fired power.

The truth is this: in 2023-24, oil and gas companies paid almost $12 billion in tax. Seeing that some in this place like to use the beer excise as a measuring stick these days, I note that $2.6 billion was raised off the beer excise. Let me tell you those numbers again, because some in this place like to pick and choose the numbers they use. Oil and gas companies paid almost $12 billion in total tax in the 2023-24 financial year. The beer excise raised $2.6 billion. So, no, Aussies aren't paying more tax on beer. This is a government that is committed to making sure that oil and gas companies pay their fair share, and I know that voters, particularly in my home state of Western Australia—and in your home state, Deputy President—see through this kind of rubbish that they hear from some members of this chamber. They can see through the social media grabs. They can see through the one-liners, because they know how important the oil, gas and broader resources industries are to workers in my home state, to families in my home state and right across this country, and our government is committed to doing that.

I also wanted to talk about a new Parliament House access policy that has been announced in the last week or so by the presiding officers. I think Senator McDonald made a really good point that we shouldn't pick and choose who shouldn't be entitled to a pass, but what the presiding officers have done instead is made a commonsense change to the pass policy to make sure that there is more transparency in who has access to this building. I think it is important not only that we are clear about who has access to this building but that we don't make those decisions based on our own political ideologies.

The other work that our government has done on transparency in politics includes establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission, strengthening the ministerial code of conduct, strengthening protection for whistleblowers, increasing funding to the Australian National Audit Office, restoring transparency to AAT appointments, establishing the Administrative Review Tribunal, reinstating standalone privacy and freedom-of-information commissioners, implementing the recommendations of the Bell inquiry into former prime minister Morrison's multiple ministries, establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission and working to tackle the influence of big money in politics with reforms to our electoral system to lift transparency. Those are reforms that, I think, the Greens political party voted against, so if the Greens were serious about stopping the influence of big money in politics they would've voted for our electoral reforms, but what we're seeing here is that they are not committed to that work.

This motion addresses a very serious issue: the influence of the gas lobby over this place. It's clear we have a huge issue with vested interests and their stranglehold on the major parties when it comes to gas. We are not getting a fair return for our gas. It's got to the point where, even when the ACTU suggests a 25 per cent gas export tax, Labor politicians rubbish that idea and agree with those in the coalition about how much tax the gas industry pays. But, first, I want to mention a huge win that the crossbench and the community had last week: the Prime Minister and presiding officers finally said that there will be real transparency over who walks these corridors. For years this has been the call: more transparency over who is in this place, who gave them that access and who they are here to represent. This is an important step forward, and I welcome it from the government. Clearly, pressure does work.

This motion seeks to go further: an outright ban on conversations between the gas industry and government. I understand the intent of this, but I think governments should actually be talking to the industries that they regulate. I think what we need is transparency. We need ministerial diaries rather than some outright ban on certain industries. Lobbying is a good thing. You need to hear from those who are affected by legislation, but we just need transparency. That is what I have been pushing for the last four years and will continue to push. I don't think a blanket ban is the way to go, so I call on the government to listen to the vast majority of Australians and give us a 25 per cent gas export tax now to solve this problem of a potential shortfall and make Aussie gas cheaper for Australians.

There are few more dangerous ideas in a democracy than banning people and ideas you don't like. The Greens political party's vendetta against the oil and gas industry is relentless and irrational, and it's in full swing here again today. This motion tries to single out and ban representatives of the gas industry and prevent them from engaging with elected representatives. It's undemocratic, it would hurt the Australian economy and it would set back the achievement of net zero. But none of that matters to the Greens because it's about grandstanding, it's about stunts, it's about props; it's not about achieving good policy.

I also can't speak to this motion without addressing what is at its core, which is an attempt to ban people whose ideas one political party doesn't like. That is the creeping hallmark of the totalitarian left—not democratic engagement but proscription, naming names and preventing people from putting arguments in this parliament. The idea that, in a democracy, we would bar a group of stakeholders involved in the production of a crucial resource, a key pillar of our economy, from interacting with decision-makers is quite simply absurd.

Good government doesn't operate in an echo chamber. It does not seek only to hear voices that it agrees with. Meeting peak bodies, industry bodies, regulators, workers, customers and members of the community is an incredibly important part of our role in this place. It's an incredibly important part of developing good policy. Trying to exclude one group from that is absurd. It's more than absurd; it's dangerous.

But let's have a think about this industry that the Greens so badly want to demonise, because the oil and gas industries—the gas industry, particularly, is an important part of Australia's future. It is a vital element, as a firming fuel in the energy transition and our path to net zero. It's vital as an industrial feedstock, particularly in the state of Western Australia, and as a fuel for industrial and mining processes that are hard to abate. It has energy density that, in different areas, can't be matched. Over five million households are currently connected to gas networks, as are thousands of small businesses, particularly in the food and hospitality industry.

And it's an important export. I'll say it again: our gas industry is an important export industry. It increases the standards of living of all Australians; it supports well-paid, secure jobs in Australia, and in Western Australia particularly; it supports the energy needs of our regional partners; and it underpins aspects of Australia's energy security. By remaining a reliable LNG supplier and a responsible climate actor, Australia can develop new regional partnerships in emerging energy industries and clean energy exports as well. It is vital for our energy transition and as we move to net zero that we have gas available here and gas available to our regional partners to achieve that transition. Why is that relevant to the motion? It is relevant because making good gas policy requires us to listen to a wide range of people, including—surprise, surprise—the people affected by that policy.

You would think that the Greens political party would be interested in advancing the transition to net zero and the clean energy system, which, under the model we're moving forward at the moment, requires and relies on gas. It's a firming fuel for intermittent renewable sources of energy. But, just as the Greens voted with the coalition against meaningful action on climate change in 2009, when they voted down an emissions trading scheme, and just like they come in here week in, week out and run these stunts with no view to the Australian interest and no view to good public policymaking in this place, they've got another absurd motion in here today. And it's got that extra kick, that extra barb—to ban people they don't agree with from the building. It's intellectually pathetic, and it's democratically dangerous. It's the kind of charlatanism that has come to characterise the Greens political party, the mountebanks of the environment movement.

If you're actually serious about net zero and the transition, then you have to be serious about gas not only in Australia but in the region. If you're serious about how this industry works in Australia, you have to listen to the people in the industry—and not only those people. We should listen to a wide range of stakeholders. We should listen to environmental groups. We should listen to people in the community. But we should also listen to people in the industry when we're designing these sorts of policies. That's why, again, this motion, this attempt to proscribe people from access to the Australian parliament, is not only stupid; it's dangerous.

Fossil fuel money flows through this country's cooked political donation system like gas through a pipeline. Labor, the Liberal Party and One Nation dance to the tune of the same corporations and the same billionaires. When the cheques aren't enough, there is always the revolving door. We know Labor ministers walk out of cabinet and straight into gas industry boardrooms. They approve the projects in government and then collect the salary in industry. That is the business model. That's why there is open access to the fossil fuel lobby. Ban these dirty donations, and lock the gates of parliaments to these climate wreckers. That's what needs to happen.

The Labor government approves gas project after gas project while families can't afford to put food on the table and gas companies rake in obscene and record profits. The Greens are fighting to tax gas exports properly to fund health care, housing, aged care and education. An overwhelming majority of Australians want a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. There are billions of dollars sitting right here to be unlocked, but the government rejects it because the gas industry said no. And what they say goes for this Labor government.

While the revolving door spins, the planet burns. Every approval comes with more climate breakdown, more fires, more droughts, more floods, more extreme weather events. It's no wonder people are walking away in disgust from the two old big parties. The people of this country do not need governments at the beck and call of the gas industry, their executives and their lobbyists. They deserve for power and wealth to be put back in the hands of the many, not hoarded by a few.

'Don't listen to the experts. Don't listen to industry. Mandate that politicians ignore key stakeholders.' What a great idea! This is peak socialist rhetoric from the Greens. There is a name for a system of government that makes decisions without consultation—a dictatorship. But the Greens have no issue with dictating to the people. They are as authoritarian as they come. One Nation will be a government of freedom. We will listen to all involved and find the best way forward for the country.

One Nation hears the Australian people. They want a better return on their natural resources. That is why we developed our oil and gas policy with two objectives in mind: more oil and gas for production in Australia and a better return for all Australians. We want Australians to have real ownership of their oil and gas assets, providing energy security, lower prices and more jobs for the Australian people. We don't want to kill the industry like Senator Pocock and the Greens. Their climate change billionaire donors demand they kill oil and gas.

One Nation wants an oil and gas industry that is strong for generations to come—an industry that can help power Australia into the future. We did consult with industry on our gas plan and we will continue to consult. We don't apologise for that. In fact, let me share some feedback that we got. We briefed a wide range of industry participants—the big end of town, small Australian producers, offshore, onshore. You name it. The No. 1 thing we heard was, 'We can't believe we're genuinely being consulted.'

This government is flying blind to making up policy on the fly. Labor and the Greens don't see it as an issue. They want to mandate ignoring the experts. One Nation will listen to Australians and industry. We will listen to whoever we need to to ensure we have the best plan for Australia's future.

One of my favourite Australian authors, Gregory David Roberts, who wrote the book Shantaram, said in his book:

The only force more ruthless and cynical than the business of big politics—

and we're all in the business of big politics—

is the politics of big business.

When the two get in bed together, they're an unstoppable force. That's exactly what we are witnessing here today. A textbook word for it might be cronyism; it might be institutional corruption, state capture. When the people demand that their resources provide a fair return to them as the owners of that resource and the government ignores them because they won't take on big, powerful, greedy multinational corporations, then that is corruption. That is corruption, and we should call it out for what it is.

We need to clean up politics and we need to hold these companies to account. That's what the Australian people put us here to do. It's not as if we don't need the money. We do. We desperately need money. We're cutting billions of dollars from the NDIS—targeting some of the most vulnerable people in our community—because apparently we don't have enough money. All it would take is a decision by a government to turn around to these corporations that have been getting away with it for too long and say, 'You are going to pay your fair share of tax for the minerals and the resources that you mine from this country.' Let's not forget that this gas, a dirty fossil fuel, is pushing us further towards the brink of climate collapse, and who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for the adaptation and the mitigation that we need to make sure that future generations in this country and on this planet inherit the joint in better shape, better condition, than we did when we came into this parliament?

Gas companies are making off like robber barons right now, and Labor and One Nation are helping them get away with it. The hundreds of billions of dollars of publicly owned gas exported from Australia delivers next to nothing to Australians in return. Multinational gas corporations are pumping gas out of Australia, selling it around the world while giving nothing back to the public. It's a rort. It is no wonder it is being called the 'great Australian gas rip off'. The public can see these multinationals raking in super profits from our gas, while Donald Trump's war in the Middle East is driving up energy prices. They know they're paying more. They know they'll keep paying more, so it's even more obscene that Labor in this year's budget gave the gas lobby another free ride and refused to put in a 25 per cent export gas tax. That was a $17 billion gift to Santos and Woodside, a great return for their multimillion-dollar donations to Labor, One Nation and the coalition.

When the majority of Australians want at least a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, why is the Albanese government refusing to tax them? When people every day are spending more on housing, on energy, on food, on just living, why are Labor and One Nation running cover for the gas corporations? I was struggling to think of a reason and then I remembered the million dollars Labor received from the fossil fuel industry in the run up to the last election. And I remembered that every retired federal resource minister in the past two decades has left parliament and walked into a high-paying job in the resources industry. So when I see these swanky fundraisers from Labor, when I see the chummy pictures of Albanese and fossil fuel CEOs, when I see retired Labor ministers gaining special access and when I see the protection racket that Labor runs for the industry, I see a betrayal of the public. The Greens see that. Parliament is meant to be for the public. The gas industry has paid to own Labor and One Nation, but has not bought the public, not paid the people, and, until it does, shut the door. (Time expired)

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Bragg under standing order 75, which is also shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why it misled Australians before the election by promising not to increase taxes, only to now pursue higher taxes on superannuation, savings, investments and small businesses, proving that Labor's answer to every problem is more tax, more government and less reward for hard work, enterprise and aspiration.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerk will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why it misled Australians before the election by promising not to increase taxes, only to now pursue higher taxes on superannuation, savings, investments and small businesses, proving that Labor's answer to every problem is more tax, more government and less reward for hard work, enterprise and aspiration.

The reason this motion is being moved is that this has been an absolute dog's breakfast of a tax policy that we've seen over the last month, and I think people are over this. People are—

Sorry, Senator Bragg, I don't believe your mike's on.

That may be a tragedy for some.

I think that's better now. Would you mind starting again.

I'll wait for the clock to reset—very good. The whole point of this motion is about really making the point that people have had enough of politics as usual, and I think people have had enough of the incompetence as usual as presented by this government.

This treasurer, Dr Chalmers, as he styles himself, has had two tax policies in four years and both have collapsed. His first policy was to tax unrealised gains, and that collapsed last year. His second policy has been to put in place a 30 per cent tax on everything, ostensibly to improve housing affordability. Now, people are not stupid. They can see through this and they can see that putting a tax on everything else in the economy is not going to help housing. People are aware of the Treasury's own admission in the budget papers that the government will supply 35,000 fewer houses. People are not stupid, and people object to being treated as if they are idiots or children. The way that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have sought to address the Australian people over this past month or so has been objectionable at best. People are intelligent. We are living through an age where people have more access to information than they've ever had in human history. So people understand that these taxes are stupid. They understand that more tax is not good for Australia. People know this budget is bad for them and is bad for Australia because it increases the tax burden on working people. It increases the risk that we won't have the houses that we need. This 30 per cent CGT is going to be a jobs killer, an investment killer and a nation killer because it will sink our competitive position relative to other jurisdictions, which will be able to attract capital in an age where, of course, labour and capital are mobile.

The deliberate design feature of 35,000 fewer houses is bizarre, but at least it is consistent with a government that has built 30,000 fewer houses each year—just by an $80 billion investment. Who could believe that a government could increase investment to the tune of $80 billion and get fewer things as a result? When we hear these ridiculous motherhood statements from this shocking government about their investment in housing—what matters is the result. Just because you spend more money doesn't mean you get more stuff. When you lose it in corruption and productivity losses, it's gone. And when you fail to address the core problems of the red tape disaster, the CFMEU running the show, the inflated labour costs, the corruption and the crooks, then you end up with fewer things. So more money doesn't mean more stuff. I don't know what he did his PhD in, but it certainly wasn't in anything practical or anything to do with economics or housing.

Then we have this issue of the arbitrage, where the good doc has found a way to help out his bros, the unions. He's got Wayne Swan and the 40 thieves with their hands in the till. They only pay 10 per cent CGT, but everyone else pays 30 per cent. So if you're Cbus super fund and you go and buy some shares, you only pay 10 per cent capital gains. But if you're a poor old punter living somewhere in Australia and you buy the same shares, you'll pay 30 per cent. This is the system that Labor has put in place to protect its mates. It's got a secret good deal for its mates in the super funds and a similar good deal for foreign fund managers who can invest in housing and pay 15 per cent withholding tax when everyone else will pay 30. So these, at the end of the day—the arbitrage, the 30 per cent capital gains tax and, of course, the higher rents—are the consequences that the Australian people will have to live with because this government doesn't like Australian enterprise. It doesn't like the idea that people should be able to get ahead and invest.

Of course, at its fundamental point, it must be recognised that people have already paid tax on this money. We're living in a country with one of the highest pay-as-you-go systems in the world, probably the highest in the English-speaking world. And now you've got the highest capital gains tax system. So you've got more taxes than you can poke a stick at, and you've got a so-called reform, $77 billion in new taxes, which is not a reform. More tax is not reform. There are more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese because they're helping out their mates while they smash the battlers.

I find Senator Bragg's contribution on this issue somewhat curious. He has what is really an obsession with industry super funds—Cbus in particular—when they're working on delivering decent and fair retirement outcomes for all Australians, and I think it is getting in the way of Senator Bragg being able to have a look at what's really in front of us in terms of these tax reforms.

While Senator Bragg has been feeling quite eager to comment on some of those matters and these reforms here in the Senate chamber, he certainly didn't take up the full opportunity to do so during the important inquiry last week, having not attended at least half of it. Senator Bragg was notably absent for much of the detailed scrutiny undertaken by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during the inquiry and the meetings in the lead-up. It's always easier to complain at the fringes than actually engage with the evidence, but, unsurprisingly, the evidence does really matter.

The first thing the evidence tells us is that Senator Bragg's motion rests on a false premise, because here's the thing: what is before the Senate is not a new tax. What the government is proposing is a reform to the capital gains tax discount, and that distinction matters. For 26 years, Australia has provided a 50 per cent discount on capital gains for assets held for more than 12 months. That concession has become increasingly expensive, increasingly poorly targeted and increasingly difficult to justify. As I mentioned just earlier today, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that more than $38 billion in revenue has been forgone through capital gains tax concessions since 2010. Evidence before the inquiry last week estimated the annual revenue cost of existing concessions has been more than $21 billion. Governments must act and respond to impacts on the Australian people, not stand still and wring our hands because it might be too hard to undertake important reform, because Australians deserve better. We are talking about whether taxpayers should continue to subsidise one of the most generous discounts in the tax system, regardless of whether that concession is delivering public benefit.

The evidence before the inquiry was overwhelming. Who is really benefiting? Evidence presented to the committee showed that 82 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount flow to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Three-quarters flow to the top five per cent. Nearly 60 per cent flow to the top one per cent. That is not a concession primarily helping ordinary working Australians; it is a concession overwhelmingly benefiting those who already hold substantial assets, and it comes at a substantial cost. Billions of dollars in revenue are forgone every year through these arrangements. The alternative being put by Senator Bragg is to preserve billions of dollars in tax concessions flowing overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Australians while opposing tax relief for 13 million working Australians. Labor makes no apology for supporting working people over tax concessions for the already wealthy.

At a time when younger Australians are finding it harder than ever to purchase a home, when wealth inequality is growing and when income from work is often taxed more heavily than income derived from appreciating assets, it is entirely reasonable for governments to ask whether these settings remain fit for purpose. That is exactly what these reforms do. They retain recognition of inflation through indexation, they retain important small-business concessions and they retain incentives for genuine product investment. But they also recognise a simple principle: that a fair tax system should not provide the largest benefits to those who need them least.

Senator Bragg claims Australians are being misled. What is misleading is how Senator Bragg and the rest of those opposite arguing against these reforms have characterised them. Cherrypicking aspects of the reform and manipulating the data just spreads concern and anxiety, which is just incorrect. What is before the Senate is an ambitious reform agenda, and Labor makes no apology for that. We are proud to be putting forward reforms that take on structural inequities in the system—reforms that ask whether longstanding concessions are still delivering in the national interest. It should not mean preserving tax concessions that overwhelmingly benefit those who are already at the top of the income and wealth distribution. These reforms are about fairness, they are about integrity, and they are about ensuring that the Australian tax system delivers for working Australians.

Australia desperately needs genuinely progressive tax reform. I say to the Australian people: if you are working harder and harder and falling further and further behind, if you're struggling to pay the rent, if you're struggling to pay the mortgage, if you're struggling to get in to the housing market, if you're struggling to see a doctor, if you're struggling to pay your kids' school fees, and you are wondering where all the money's gone, check the bank balances of the billionaires. Check the bank balances of the one per cent because that is where your money is going. While you work harder and harder and pay decent amounts of tax on your income, the wealthiest one per cent of Australians are effectively paying no tax at all as their bank balances go through the roof.

Let's be really clear about something: you cannot work your way to $1 billion, let alone $2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion or $20 billion. You can't work your way to that kind of money. The only way you can make that kind of money is if you've got a massive amount of capital to start with and you invest that capital—you buy things, you buy property portfolios, you buy shares and you put your money in tax advantaged trusts. Your wealth goes up, and the government doesn't make you pay your fair share of tax on your wealth. Unlike if you go to work as a cleaner, if you go to work in hospitality, if you go to work as a nurse or if you go to work as a carpenter—you are paying your fair share of tax.

Why shouldn't the billionaires pay their fair share of tax? Why shouldn't the one per cent pay their fair share of tax? Why shouldn't the big, price-gouging, polluting corporations pay their fair share of tax? The question actually is: why don't they pay their fair share of tax? I'll tell you why: it's because they've captured the political class in this country from the Liberal Party and the National Party to the Labor Party and now to One Nation. Every single one of you is in the pockets of the one per cent and the big, polluting, price-gouging corporations and is in cahoots with each other to make sure the super wealthy don't pay their fair share of tax and to make sure the big corporations don't pay their fair share of tax. The result is an economy where wealth flows upwards into the pockets of the few while the many work harder and harder and fall further and further behind. Shame on the lot of you!

Those contributions from the Greens and from the government have actually made my blood boil. How about being in the pocket of the CFMEU, with their corrupt and criminal conduct, which time after time after time you refuse to support an inquiry into because your pockets are full of their money? How about that?

Can I tell you right now that I could not believe what the government was saying in relation to this. They said, 'We make no apology about the tax concessions for the already wealthy.' Can I give you a newsflash? You're letting the allegedly already wealthy keep the tax concessions, but young Australians that have never had the opportunity to negative gear and that have never had the opportunity for a capital gains tax concession can never have one. You've taken it away from them. If they've been saving their money in shares or building a small business, you're taking those concessions away from them. You're saying: 'No, it was good enough for us to create our wealth, but it's not for you. To make it fairer for you, we're not going to let you do what we did to create wealth.' I'm sick of hearing it.

Australians aren't stupid, as Senator Bragg said. They actually know what is going on here, and the Albanese government has to explain why they misled Australians before the last election. The Prime Minister, in his own words, said, 'Fifty times, I've said no changes to negative gearing and CGT.' Guess what he does after the election in this year's budget. He changes both those things. He had an interview with Andrew Clennell where he said, 'Our position changed, and no-one else has had the ticker to make these changes.' Guess what? This prime minister didn't have the ticker to take the changes to an election, because he knew that he couldn't sell them, he knew that they were fundamentally unfair and he knew that they would not change the ability of young people who currently do not own a house to actually have a house.

The other interesting thing is, if we wind back to last year, they introduced their five per cent deposit guarantee and encouraged young people to use that to actually enter the market with the support of the government. Now guess who is at the greatest risk of negative equity based on this current policy from the Albanese Labor government? It's those very people who took up the five per cent deposit guarantee. The lack of understanding of the impacts of this policy is extraordinary. They point to a two-day inquiry and call it evidence and say that evidence matters. If evidence does actually matter, I say to the government: why was your inquiry two days? What a sham. These are some of the biggest tax changes this country has seen, and less than 48 hours is what you allot to it. You're not interested in consultation. You're not interested in the evidence. You're interested in ensuring that the vested interests of this government are advanced. That is it.

Australians were told that these taxes were not coming. They were told that they were not on the table. The Prime Minister said over and over and over that they were not on the table. His deception is of the highest order. This government is taking our country in the wrong direction. This is the highest taxing government in our history, with higher taxes, more complexity, less certainty and fewer opportunities for Australians to get ahead. That is the legacy of this government. In Hong Kong, Singapore and the UAE, CGT is zero per cent. In the US it's between zero and 20 per cent. In the UK it's between 10 and 24 per cent. And in Communist China it's 20 per cent. Under the Albanese Labor government in Australia, it is 30 per cent. Have a think about that for a minute. That's for individual Australians.

The Australian mum and dad and the Australian worker, who those opposite always talk about, are treated as the enemy while foreign backed build-to-rent capital can receive concessional treatment. We can have expensive concessions for them, just not expensive concessions for the actual Australians who are paying the tax. Why does that count? Why does that matter? Even the super funds are getting concessions. But everyday Australians? No. If you want to build wealth, you're a bad capitalist. We want you to sit in your wage cage, pay your tax, sit down and be good, and speak when you're spoken to.

I'd like to thank Senator Bragg for this motion and for the opportunity to discuss the important relationship between taxation and housing. Here we are, two senators—one from New South Wales and one from Victoria, the two largest states in this nation—in a State of Origin on housing. Housing affordability is the battleground, and in the stands are young people—there they are, all the way up there—some of whom will be locked out of housing, but not on our watch; older people of limited means; and then everyone in between who does not have that default option of the bank of mum and dad.

But, before we kick off, the outcome has already been settled. I turn to a publication by the Fairfax papers that came out on the weekend, on 19 June. It declares that Melbourne is poised to become the biggest, most liveable city. It says, 'Just ask the growing wave of Sydneysiders moving to Melbourne.' A former Sydneysider, now homeowner in Melbourne, in the suburb of Clifton Hill—it's got beautiful terraces, leafy streets and lots of parkland and it's near trams and amenities—said: 'I rented the whole time I lived in Sydney. The idea of buying a house in Sydney seemed completely unattainable. There's no way we'd be able to own a house like this in a comparable suburb in Sydney.'

According to Domain, there is a $700,000 price difference between houses in Sydney and houses in Melbourne. The median price of a house in Sydney as of March was $1.79 million. In Brisbane it was $1.21 million and in Melbourne it was $1.08 million. Across all types of dwellings, whether they be units or houses, Melbourne is nearly 40 per cent cheaper than Sydney, according to CommBank. Why? Because Melbourne is actually better at building homes than just about any other state in this country.

According to the State of the housing system report that was released in April of this year, Victoria built the most homes out of all the states in the period from 2019 to 2024, at 306,000—this compares to 251,000 in New South Wales—and Victoria is on track to meet its target goal according to the housing accord. This is clear evidence that increasing supply actually improves housing affordability. It decreases—it puts downward pressure on—prices. We are certainly backing this in with a $47 billion housing package, which is designed to deliver an additional 100,000 homes for first home buyers, to ring fence these from everyone else; $2 billion for enabling infrastructure like payments, powerlines and pipes, of which $500 million will go towards regional Australia; and, of course, we are intending through the Housing Australia Future Fund to build 55,000 social and affordable homes. But we know that this is not enough. It is not enough.

In 1999, a home cost about four times your median income. It's now around eight times. If you were in Sydney, however, it would cost 10 times your median income, and in Melbourne it's seven times. That is clearly unattainable for most working people. The average age of a first home buyer in 1999 was late 20s. It is now 34 to 36. One in five first home buyer loans by Westpac are given to people over the age of 40. In other words, people are ageing into first home ownership. That has knock-on effects on everything else, including relationships, having children, settling down and so on.

We are not standing back to admire this problem any longer. We are acting. The changes to capital gains and negative gearing are having an immediate effect. They haven't been legislated yet, but they are already cooling the property market. They are giving this $12 trillion housing market a bit of a haircut. It turns out that most people do support it. Polling by Resolve out today shows that 54 per cent of Australians support this, and 60 per cent of 18-to-34-year-olds support it. Support is seen right across all income brackets: high income, medium income and low income. The support is there because people intuitively understand that we need to give first home buyers a foot in the door, and we need to enable them to compete against property investors. This is why we're doing it.

Those opposite can berate us, but they, along with the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, all voted against every single one of our measures to increase housing supply and to make homes more affordable.

The Albanese Labor government's latest budget has gone down like a lead balloon. It's a $77 billion tax grab. It's a litany of broken promises. It's going to kill investment, innovation and aspiration. It's going to hurt farmers. It's going to destroy small businesses already doing it tough. It's going to drive rents higher as investors pull out of housing. It's going to drive mortgages higher. Despite Labor's promise to reduce immigration, this budget projects an increase. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis created by Labor's obsession with net zero and renewables, it's going to drive inflation higher.

The budget doesn't create intergenerational equity; it creates intergenerational poverty. They got to the top; now Labor is pulling up the ladder on younger generations of Australians. This budget attacks hardworking Australians who have sacrificed to save and invest. Labor doesn't want Australians to be able to pull themselves up or invest their hard earned savings so they can be independent. Labor wants Australians to become more dependent on handouts and government services.

This is the most dishonest, secretive, unaccountable government in Australian history, and increasing numbers of Australian voters know it. They're not buying the lies any more. They're mad as hell about this budget. With this budget they see a government, and a political system, which no longer listens to them and no longer cares. One Nation will reverse the capital gains tax and restrict negative gearing to two houses. We will not disadvantage businesses. They will not be faced with any capital gains tax changes. They invested their hard earned tax money, mortgaged their assets and worked long, hard hours with no help. One Nation will not allow an out-of-control government who cannot stop spending— (Time expired)

This budget has fallen very flat with the Australian people. As Senator Bragg said, they smell this a mile away. They know when they're being sold a lie, and that's exactly what Labor is trying to do here. Before the election, Labor promised that there would be no changes to CGT in Australia, and it promised this dozens of times. Australians were promised that they would see relief if they elected a Labor government. Instead what they've got is a Labor government that is now the highest-taxing government in Australian history. Rather than control spending and live within its means, as it demands the Australian people to do, Labor continues to spend more and grab more tax.

Let's remember, everyone out there, that government has no money of its own. The only money it has is the dollar that hardworking, everyday Australians earn, which the government takes. While families are struggling with mortgage repayments, rent, grocery bills, insurance premiums and energy costs, this Labor government is continuing to hurtle towards its net zero and renewables fantasy, and Australians are still asking where that relief is in their electricity bill. Well, it is not coming under this Labor government. Labor's policies are increasing costs and reducing confidence in Australia. The CGT is taking away young people's ability to buy a home. At my eldest daughter's age, I was able to save a deposit and buy my first home. I fear that she is never going to be able to do that, because under this Labor government the settings are not there in the economy.

We've then got this Labor government looking at vehicle emissions standards, which is pushing up the cost of everyday household vehicles and farming vehicles. This is going to hit regional Australians and families the hardest. Millions of Australians made financial decisions based on the rules that government put in place. Australians have been encouraged for decades to save for their retirement and plan for their future. Millions of Australians are now finding themselves retrospectively caught up in Labor changing the goalposts and the rules. If governments are able to change the rules at any point in time, where is the incentive for Australians to work hard and save for their futures?

This is not the time to be questioning whether Australia is a good place to invest, but we have to remember that it is the small businesses and the hardworking Australians—it is those families who drive our economy. While they struggle with all sorts of headwinds, this Labor government has delivered them a budget that is like a kick in the guts, when they are already struggling to pay their electricity bills, struggling with higher insurance costs and struggling to be able to afford the personnel that they need. This is an insult to all hardworking Australians.

This budget will see the end of aspiration in our country. Instead of Labor's instinct to try and control its spending, they are going to come after Australians' hard earned dollars. Families can't continually spend more than what they earn. If the family budget doesn't balance, then you spend less. Businesses also cannot continually spend more than they earn, and governments should be held to the same standard. But under this Labor government we continue to see higher spending, higher debt and higher taxes. This is when Australia is already facing significant economic challenges. We have weak productivity growth, housing affordability is non-existent for young people, there are high energy prices, and there is global uncertainty. We should be encouraging enterprise, rewarding hard work, attracting investment and growing the economy, and, above all else, we should be honest with the Australian people. If taxes are going to increase, Australians should be told before an election not after it. Ultimately, this motion is about trust, and Australians deserve a government that keeps its promises. Australia cannot afford another Labor government.

The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Bragg be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of the Aged Care Amendment (Motor Neurone Disease Priority) Rules 2026. These rules provide a faster pathway for people with motor neurone disease to access aged care, and that is welcome. However, our aged-care system is far from appropriate for people who are suffering from motor neurone disease, especially in its current form. Most people who get a diagnosis of motor neurone disease die within an average of two years, and whilst a faster pathway to access care is helpful, it actually costs around $300,000 a year to provide adequate care for someone living with MND. If you are over 65 and you are forced into relying on My Aged Care to support those needs, the most help you can get is $78,000 under a supported home package, and that is woefully inadequate for people whose needs are very high.

We've seen, around the country, people coming together to support people like Neale Daniher in the fight against MND, and people like him have done an amazing job at raising the profile of this disease, but I don't think people realise how much stress there is and how hard it is for somebody who gets that diagnosis when they're over 65. The co-payments that have been brought in under supported home mean that even that highest level of package is now purchasing 30 per cent less. When we go from a need that's around $300,000 a year to $78,000 and you then cut the purchasing power of that by even more, that is putting families in really difficult positions. It has massive impacts on other people in the family. I will use my family as an example. My mother got an MND diagnosis over the age of 65. She was still working. My father, who was much older than her, carried the burden of her care. She never got care under My Aged Care because she was one of those 5,000 people a year who die before they get care.

In Queensland, if you are over 65 and your My Aged Care package falls woefully short, which it does, then you are reliant on MND Queensland. MND Queensland is the only motor neurone disease support organisation in the country that gets no recurrent state government funding despite MND Queensland advocating to both the Labor and the coalition governments, and still they remain without recurrent funding. We have an organisation that is out there fundraising their backsides off to fill the gap that is left because, if you're over 65 and you get that diagnosis, My Aged Care is not going to be there for you, and, if it is, which I hope it will under the 30 day pathway, it will fall way, way, way short.

My mum was lucky. We had the capacity to buy the hospital bed that she needed. We had the capacity to buy the electric wheelchair that she needed. We had the capacity to pay OTs and other multidisciplinary teams to come and work with her, and every time we did, my thoughts went to, 'What do those people who do not have the capacity to do that do?' We need to do better. These people are diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease where their body fails them. They can't speak, they can't eat and they can't walk. They are wholly reliant on someone else for their care. We cannot leave them at the mercy of an aged-care system that falls far too short. So I implore the government, for all of those people out there who are over 65 and get this devasting diagnosis, to please do better. The 30 days are welcome, but, like I said, it is going to fall far, far short, and they need more. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I table a report about the gas industry's engagement with the Senate select committee titled Energy crisis narratives in Australia's tax inquiry: Australian and LNG interests deployed crisis narratives to oppose Australia's gas tax.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the housing foreign investment ban; Treasury roundtables; the integrated assessment tool and Support at Home classification system; fuel and oil shipments; Inland Rail; and tax reforms and Treasury modelling relating to housing.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement on No. 482 on Inland Rail.

I think that the response from the minister today is nothing short of disrespectful and, frankly, outrageous because it is not for the minister to decide, a minister, particularly from the other place, who obviously doesn't understand the importance of an order of production of documents from the Senate, and so to respond saying that 'that this OPD is no longer relevant'—what an extraordinary response. It is not up to ministers to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. When the senator makes an order for the production of documents, it is relevant. This document is incredibly important because the minister announced the cancellation of the Inland Rail north of Parkes on 6 May 2026 and repeatedly relied on the ACIL Allen report as justification for that decision.

If the government was prepared to use the report to justify cancelling a nation-building project, why was the report not released at the same time as the announcement? Instead, it was dropped on the morning of Senate estimates on Monday 25 May 2026 with no opportunity for senators to properly examine that report, to read it prior to Senate estimates and to develop detailed questions around that document. This is denying the Senate its due process. Senate estimates is one of the most important and powerful processes that we have for the parliament. It allows us to investigate the expenditure of Australian taxpayers' hard earned dollars. It is not a joke, yet the way this has been managed by the minister, I think, is nothing short of laughable.

The Senate, the regional communities and affected stakeholders were entitled to see the evidence underpinning the government's decision before being asked to accept it. The government cannot claim transparency while withholding the very document it relied on to justify cancelling half of the Inland Rail project. Dropping it with no notice during the Senate estimates process did exactly what it was designed to do—provide confusion and draw a veil over the decisions and very poor decision-making process. The Senate estimates process is designed to hold the government accountable, not to provide a mechanism for government to dump critical documents at the last minute, seeking purely to avoid scrutiny. This should be something that, as a Senate, we are united in our outrage about—this cavalier treatment by a minister of the Crown. Who made the decision to drop the report at such a late time? Was the timing designed to minimise scrutiny of the government's decision and reduce the opportunity for proper informed questioning? Regional Australians, and all Australians, deserve better than this kind of high-handed approach from ministers who truly disregard this process.

The letter from the minister just announcing that it is no longer relevant for this OPD is extraordinary. The order which was agreed to by the majority in this chamber states in its opening words that 'there be laid on the table by the minister representing the minister'. The fact that this was a document that was dropped in the early hours of the Senate estimates process and is now a public document does not remove the obligation of the minister to meet that requirement. It does not remove that obligation. I am perplexed as to how the ministers and the representatives of that minister in this place did not make that clear. The minister could have requested for the Senate to discharge the order in light of the document now being available. It is a sign of disrespect that this minister chose not to.

Given that the minister finds it so difficult to do her job to provide the information that is required of her through the Senate process, I seek leave to table the ACIL Allen document here in the Senate chamber—to make the minister comply with the very basic obligations that she has. I seek leave to table it now.

Leave granted.

I now draw the attention of the Senate to the ACIL Allen document that was apparently used to justify, to verify, the rushed decision of the government to cancel a project that has been at the heart of so many communities seeking to connect the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project—a project that has been many years in the making and that has seen communities commit funds, land and future projects based on the Inland Rail decision of government. I think that to see it pulled using this report, with no examination, is shocking, frankly. I won't labour the point any further, but I think the minister should hang her head in shame. I think this is another example of a government that seeks to avoid scrutiny at every opportunity, and this is just one more example of a minister who drops a report without providing that scrutiny through the Senate estimates process and then refuses to provide even the lightest touch of courtesy in responding to a Senate OPD. Poorly done, Minister—very poorly done.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2025-2026

Today, the Government introduces the 2025-26 Supplementary Additional Estimates Appropriation Bills. These Bills are:

Appropriation Bill 5 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $2.7 billion. This would ensure there are sufficient appropriations to cover estimate variations related to existing programs, for example, changes in demand driven programs. These Bills also pay for the 2025-26 financial year impact of decisions made since the 2025-26 MYEFO, including those in the 2026-27 Budget.

Key items in this Bill include:

The Department of Defence receiving over $1.8 billion in funding brought forward to address updated expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing receiving approximately $643 million, including over $598 million for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statements.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2025-2026

This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $1.1 billion for the 2025-26 financial year. These appropriations will support the following key items.

The Department of Defence will receive $900 million brought forward to meet revised expenditure requirements under the 2024 National Defence Strategy and the Defence Integrated Investment Program.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive over $204 million for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to continue to deliver the Inland Rail project.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statements.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2026-2027

This Bill, Appropriation Bill 1, along with Appropriation Bill 2 and Parliamentary Departments Appropriation Bill 1, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for 2026-27.

Appropriation Bill 1 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $178.7 billion. This Bill provides appropriations for the ordinary annual services of government for the 2026-27 financial year.

Funding provided through this Bill will support the following significant items.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing will receive close to $59.4 billion to implement various programs to improve the wellbeing and social and economic participation of people with disability, while also addressing the current and future health needs of all Australians.

The National Disability Insurance Agency has been allocated over $40 billion to provide reasonable and necessary supports for National Disability Insurance Scheme participants. Funding also includes over $6.7 billion for aged care services to provide support for older Australians with everyday living and other needs; approximately $2.0 billion for the health workforce; over $1.7 billion for mental health and suicide prevention and almost $1.6 billion for primary health care quality and coordination, including for increasing Bulk Billing and the delivery of Medicare Urgent Care Clinics.

The Department of Defence will receive $44.2 billion to implement the 2026 National Defence Strategy and 2026 Integrated Investment Program to enhance Defence capability, preparedness and resilience. This includes funding for the nuclear-powered submarines, support for military operations and other Australian Defence Force activities.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive over $8.5 billion to advance Australia's international strategic and security interests, provide development assistance overseas and consular assistance to Australians abroad.

The Department of Home Affairs will receive close to $6.5 billion to implement various programs to ensure Australia's security, prosperity and unity. The funding will also enable the Department to maintain the integrity of the migration system, sustain visa processing capability, provide settlement services to refugees and migrants, and protect the Australian border.

Services Australia will receive approximately $5.8 billion to ensure the delivery of government payments to Australians, extend its emergency response capability, enhance safety and security for staff and customers, sustain the myGov platform and support other government agencies to deliver Government priorities.

The Bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $2.4 billion to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The AFM provision comprises:

Strong transparency and accountability safeguards will apply to the AFM allocations. This includes publication of a ministerial media release for each allocation and consultation with the Shadow Minister for Finance for any proposed AFM allocation over $1 billion.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2026-2027

This Bill, Appropriation Bill 2, along with Appropriation Bill 1 and Parliamentary Departments Appropriation Bill 1, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for 2026-27.

Appropriation Bill 2 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $33.7 billion. This Bill provides appropriations for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government for the 2026-27 financial year.

I now outline the most significant items provided for in this Bill.

The Department of Defence will receive $15.3 billion to support the implementation of the 2026 National defence strategy and the 2026 Integrated Investment Program, including through investments in military capability.

The Department of Finance will receive approximately $6.4 billion, including funding for Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd and Snowy Hydro Ltd.

The Department of the Treasury will receive over $4.2 billion to provide funding for loans to support social and affordable housing, including concessional loans for housing projects under the Housing Australia Future Fund and loans for the Australian Housing Bond Aggregator.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts will receive $3.6 billion to continue to deliver projects and programs. This includes funding for the Australian Rail Track Corporation for the Inland Rail project; WSA Co for the Western Sydney International Airport; National Intermodal Corporation for the development of intermodal projects; NBN Co for national broadband network upgrades; and funding for the Roads to Recovery program.

The Bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister (AFM) provision of $3.6 billion to provide the Government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The AFM provision comprises:

Strong transparency and accountability safeguards will apply to the AFM allocations. This includes publication of a ministerial media release for each allocation and consultation with the Shadow Minister for Finance for any proposed AFM allocation over $1 billion.

This Bill also sets debit limits for payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act that will apply in 2026-27 and they are:

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements. I commend this Bill to the chamber.

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2026-2027

Parliamentary Departments Appropriation Bill 1 provides appropriations for decisions taken by Government in the 2026-27 Budget for the operations of Parliamentary Departments. Together with Appropriation Bills 1 and 2, this Bill forms part of the Government's Budget Appropriation Bills.

This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $345.4 million. Funding provided through this Bill will support the following significant items of Parliamentary Departments.

The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive close to $274 million to support the work of the Australian Parliament, through services to parliamentarians and as custodians of Parliament House.

The Bill also includes an Advance to the responsible Presiding Officer of $1.9 million.

Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Portfolio Budget Statements.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026. I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (LONG SERVICE LEAVE) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2026

The Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 will deliver fairness and certainty for workers in the black coal mining industry and their employers.

This legislation is designed to ensure eligible workers have a clear pathway to access their hard-earned long service leave entitlements quickly and in full.

This will benefit workers across black coal mining regions, including the Hunter Valley and the New South Wales North Coast, the Illawarra, Central Queensland, and Mackay and the Whitsundays.

For decades, portable Long service Leave has been a vital entitlement for employees in the industry, allowing them to accrue leave as they move between sites and employers. However, disputes about who is covered by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Scheme have meant that many eligible employees are missing out on their lawful entitlements. This issue has particularly impacted employees in mechanical and supply services.

The two recent decisions by the Full Federal Court of Australia on these matters have clarified the Scheme's coverage. Many employees in the black coal mining industry can now access their entitlements under the Scheme and in some cases, employers may have liabilities dating back to 201o, potentially involving debts of millions of dollars in unpaid Levy for long service leave.

The government is taking decisive action through this bill to resolve these legacy issues. The bill provides a practical, time-limited pathway for employers to settle historical levy debts. This pathway will enable employers to pay their levy in a financially sustainable way and connect employees with their entitlements. To ensure fairness, employers that have already begun paying their debts in good faith will also be able to opt into this pathway.

The bill allows employers to set up payment arrangements for outstanding levy debts, to be paid in instalments over 6 years. Once an employer has paid 80% of the amount owed, the remaining 20% will be waived. This represents a balanced approach intended to incentivise employer participation, protecting the viability of the Scheme and supporting employers with significant levy liabilities. Greater employer uptake ultimately benefits their employees who will gain access to their entitlements sooner. Importantly, the 20% debt waiver has no impact on worker entitlements—eligible workers will receive the full entitlements they're owed.

Employers will need to specify the employees and periods covered under their payment arrangements. This upholds a principle that payments should be directly linked to individual workers' entitlements.

The Bill builds in flexibility and support to ensure eligible employees will not miss out on their lawful long service leave entitlement. In response to stakeholder feedback, timeframes will be able to be adjusted so employers can conduct thorough checks and identify all eligible employees. Coal LSL will also engage with employers throughout the process to provide support with establishing their payment arrangements.

The historical nature of these issues will mean that employer records may be incomplete. To prevent this from impacting workers, the bill adopts a fair and workable approach to establishing arrangements and calculating employee entitlements. This includes allowing certain simplified calculations, as well as allowing reasonable assumptions to be made. Such an approach will ensure incomplete records do not stand in the way of connecting employees with their historical entitlements.

Some employers, operating in good faith, have already paid long service leave entitlements directly to employees. To ensure that employers don't pay twice, the bill provides that employers can offset eligible payments against their debt, in certain circumstances.

Alongside supporting the payment of historical debts, the bill also strengthens the Scheme's compliance mechanisms by updating penalty arrangements. The bill links the 'additional levy' rate to the Reserve Bank of Australia's cash rate plus 2%, which ensures the 'additional levy' functions as an effective deterrent to late payments into the Scheme by employers.

This bill represents a fair outcome for employers and employees.

For employees, this bill provides certainty and recognition after many had been previously excluded from the Scheme. Employees who may have previously missed out will have their service recognised and be connected with their lawful entitlements.

For employers, it provides a clear and fair process to resolve debts that, in some cases, go back 15 years. The 20% debt waiver and the ability to pay in instalments will assist employers in paying their debts.

In that spirit, these reforms have been developed in consultation with industry representatives, unions and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation. Broadly, stakeholders have expressed support for the changes as necessary and proportionate to maintain confidence in the Scheme.

The Bill was the subject of a Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry. The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed, finding it to be practical and balanced.

The Government carefully considered the feedback received through that inquiry and responded to stakeholder submissions by refining certain aspects of the Bill. This included broadening the concept of reasonable assumptions, expanding offsets to also include certain long service leave payments made during employment, and allowing individual employers to request a delayed opt in date where there are reasonable grounds to do so.

I would like to thank stakeholders for their constructive engagement with this issue over a number of years.

This bill is a fair and responsible response to complex legacy issues. It reflects the Government's commitment to supporting employers to pay their debts and connecting employees with their lawful entitlements.

SECRECY PROVISIONS AMENDMENT (REPEALING OFFENCES) BILL 2026

I move that this Bill be read a second time.

Secrecy provisions play a vital role in protecting the integrity and security of Commonwealth information. They safeguard sensitive national security and law enforcement material, protect personal and commercial information that is entrusted to government, and ensure that government can operate effectively in the public interest. These protections are fundamental to maintaining public trust in our institutions.

But secrecy must always be justified.

Transparency is central to the open and accountable government necessary to support public confidence and informed democratic debate. When secrecy provisions are too complex or too broad, they risk jeopardising legitimate information-sharing and undermining the very trust they are meant to protect.

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill will ensure that our secrecy laws protect what truly requires protection, while avoiding unnecessary barriers to public transparency.

Multiple reviews have found that Australia's secrecy framework has evolved into a complex patchwork of provisions—while some are essential, others are outdated and broader than necessary.

This Bill makes comprehensive reforms to our secrecy framework in response to these findings.

Key among these is the repeal or removal of criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions across the statute book, where it is no longer necessary. This represents a reduction of more than a third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions attracting criminal sanction.

Amendments in the Bill will also implement other outstanding recommendations of the 2023 Review of Secrecy Provisions, conducted by my Department, as well as the majority of recommendations agreed or agreed in principle by the Government in its response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's Review of secrecy offences at Part

5.6 of the Criminal Code. These amendments will ensure that secrecy provisions are appropriately confined, proportionate and consistent with the rule of law.

The Bill also builds upon the reforms to secrecy laws introduced in the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Act 2026.

These are significant and meaningful improvements to Australia's secrecy laws.

The Government has undertaken extensive work, since the Secrecy Reviews were released, to ensure secrecy provisions are justifiable and proportionate.

The 2023 Review of Secrecy Provisions identified 168 provisions that no longer required criminal liability. But we have invested further time to get these reforms right. This has required extensive consultation across government, with more than thirteen departments and agencies providing their input. This has been a complex but a necessary task, as a number of these secrecy provisions are found across the statute book and in often unassuming places. I would like to thank all the departments and agencies for their contribution to this critical work.

Because of this work, the Bill will remove criminal liability from almost double the number of provisions identified by the 2023 Review.

Removing criminal liability from these provisions would be achieved through a combination of repeals and amendments to specific legislation, as well as the repeal of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code.

The repeal of section 122.4, which criminalises breaches of non-disclosure duties across the statute book, will ensure that the vast majority of non-disclosure duties are instead subject to more proportionate civil and administrative sanctions.

This would ensure criminal liability only applies where strictly necessary to protect sensitive information.

The Bill will also introduce a new targeted secrecy offence in the Criminal Code.

Where a new secrecy offence is introduced, it is critical that it addresses unauthorised disclosures that have a genuine need for criminal consequence.

The Government considered whether it was necessary for a broader general secrecy offence that criminalised disclosures prejudicial to the working of government, as recommended by the 2023 Secrecy Review. But we have heard the views of stakeholders, who told us that such a broad offence was not warranted. And we agree.

Instead, the Bill seeks to address specific gaps in the secrecy framework that were identified when a former consulting firm partner allegedly shared confidential Commonwealth information. This type of conduct is clearly unacceptable. People who are entrusted with sensitive government information should be met with criminal sanction if they intentionally and improperly use that information for their own benefit or to the detriment of the Commonwealth or others.

The Bill will address this type of conduct by introducing a targeted secrecy offence. This offence would apply where a Commonwealth officer or other person connected to the Commonwealth improperly communicates or uses Commonwealth information to obtain benefit or cause a detriment.

An important part of these amendments is the protection of press freedoms which is integral to the functioning of an effective democracy.

The Bill will also legislate a new requirement that the Attorney-General consent to the prosecution of a journalist for any secrecy offence.

This will operate as an additional safeguard for press freedom, requiring proper scrutiny of a prosecution before it proceeds and complementing the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution's requirement that the prosecution be in the public interest.

The Government undertook significant analysis of secrecy offences to consider whether a public interest journalism defence could be applied to additional offences, beyond those in the Criminal Code. The majority of Commonwealth secrecy offences are targeted at Government employees or those working with Government, and therefore the conduct of journalists is not captured. A defence is not necessary in these circumstances.

For those offences that could apply to journalists, there was a clear necessity for protecting the information subject to each relevant offence. This information includes national security and law enforcement information, highly sensitive commercial and personal information or information that is already subject to tailored mechanisms for disclosures in the public interest.

Rather, the Bill is focused on reducing the number and complexity of secrecy provisions and ensuring that the secrecy offences in the Criminal Code are appropriately calibrated to balance confidentiality and transparency.

Finally, the Bill would make amendments to implement recommendations agreed or agreed in principle in the Government response to the INSLM Secrecy Review. These amendments would ensure the secrecy offences in the Criminal Code are proportionate and consistent with rule of law principles.

Significant amendments will be made to the secrecy offences that apply to non-officials, including journalists. These amendments ensure that non-officials are subject to a higher threshold for criminal culpability than Commonwealth officials. They include increasing thresholds to trigger criminal liability and nearly halving the penalty of imprisonment to ensure these offences are proportionate.

Offences applying to Commonwealth officials will also be amended. These amendments will establish a single material threshold of harm for disclosures that cause harm to Australia's interests and clarify key definitions. They will also ensure that an official is only subject to an aggravated offence where their conduct could cause a higher level of harm or their personal circumstances increase their culpability.

The Bill delivers on the Government's commitment to comprehensive and considered secrecy reform.

Good government means safeguarding what must remain confidential while enabling the public to scrutinise and hold institutions to account. The task before us is not to choose between secrecy and transparency, but to balance them wisely.

The Bill delivers this balance.

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

SECRECY PROVISIONS AMENDMENT (SUNSETTING PROVISION) BILL 2026

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill extends the sunset date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code until 29 December 2026.

Section 122.4 makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer, or a person engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity, to communicate information in breach of a duty arising elsewhere under the law of the Commonwealth.

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill will make a range of amendments to the secrecy framework that would support the repeal of section 122.4. However, until Parliament has considered these reforms, it is important that section 122.4 continues to apply to the communication of sensitive, confidential information by officials, in breach of their statutory duties.

The limited extension provided by this Bill will ensure the Parliament has sufficient time to consider the broader reforms to the Commonwealth secrecy framework proposed by the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill, before section 122.4 sunsets.

The Bill reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring Australia's secrecy laws are clear and fit-for-purpose, while providing Parliament time to comprehensively consider important secrecy reforms.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT (ENHANCING CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2025

The Albanese Government is committed to keeping Australians connected, no matter where they live—from the Pilbara to Palm Island, from Broome to Bendigo.

We believe in a simple principle: no one held back, no one left behind.

To do that, we must crack down on the mistreatment of telecommunications customers.

We know in 2025, connectivity is not a nice-to-have. It's a necessity. It is how people get to work.

It is how kids keep up with their learning.

It is how people can work from home.

It is how older Australians stay in touch with loved ones. And in an emergency—it's how Australians stay safe.

That's why the Albanese Government is continuing to invest in services and infrastructure.

We are investing $1.1 billion in the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia which ensures remote, rural and regional Australians benefit from advances in connectivity—with a pipeline of over 500 projects now funded.

And this will be complemented by the agreement signed between NBN and Amazon to deliver city broadband speeds to the bush through low earth orbit satellites.

We are determined for Australia to be the most connected continent—for telecommunications to be an opportunity equaliser—rather than meander with a Coalition-Copper approach that creates metro haves and rural have nots.

We are determined for Australians to be protected rather than exploited through telecommunications.

That's why earlier this year the Assistant Minister for Social Services and I visited Juno, a respite centre for women experiencing violence to announce mandatory telecommunications industry standard.

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Industry Standard makes lasting change for many victim-survivors who until now were forced to engage their abusers to call family, friends and even triple zero.

This reform means victim-survivors will never be asked to engage with the alleged perpetrator to resolve their telecommunications issues.

Telecommunications are critical to our everyday lives, so it's vital providers meet community expectations in delivering services—or be held to account by the industry regulator—the Australian Communications and Media Authority—or ACMA—if they do not.

That is what this Bill is about.

We want to see telecommunications companies do better.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court ruled that Telstra made false or misleading representations relating to the upload speed of residential broadband internet services to nearly 9,000 of its Belong customers in 2020, off the back of court action by the ACCC.

In June, Optus Mobile acknowledged it engaged in unconscionable conduct when selling telecommunications goods and services to hundreds of consumers, including those experiencing disadvantage and hardship, after court action brought by the ACCC.

At the time, the ACCC Deputy Chair said

"The conduct, which included selling inappropriate, unwanted or unaffordable mobiles and phone plans to people who are vulnerable or experiencing disadvantage is simply unacceptable"

These are just a couple of recent examples, but they are illustrative of the need to drive higher standards in this industry.

Which is why we are bringing this Bill before Parliament—to strengthen the safeguards that protect consumers.

It ensures providers meet community expectations—this is acting in good faith, providing relievable service and supporting customers.

But if that doesn't happen, then Australians need an industry regulator they can rely on that has the power to hold telecommunications companies accountable.

Stronger penalties

This Bill will deliver significantly stronger penalties for misconduct.

Right now, under the current system, the maximum fine for breaching industry codes and standards is $250,000.

This Bill changes that.

It raises the maximum penalty by 40 times: up to $10 million.

It was $250,000, it will be $10 million.

And in serious cases, allows penalties to be calculated as three times the benefit obtained from the breach, or 30 per cent of the company's turnover.

This brings telecommunications in line with other sectors like banking, energy and consumer law.

The Bill also expands and clarifies the Minister for Communications' authority to increase infringement notice penalties that ACMA can issue for breaches of industry codes, industry standards and service provider determinations.

These stronger penalties mean no company will be able to treat fines as a cost of doing business.

Because there continues to be real-world examples of real-world harm.

Like the use of high-pressure sales tactics, misleading representations of service performance or inclusions, unfair billing practices and contract terms or targeting vulnerable customers creating further financial hardship.

Through this bill the Albanese Government sends a signal. Companies that engage in practices that put PROFITS before PEOPLE, will be held to account financially.

It helps our mission for no one to be held back and no one to be left behind.

Faster enforcement

This bill will also deliver faster enforcement of industry codes.

Until now, ACMA has been unable to take direct enforcement action against breaches of industry codes, no matter how serious, without issuing a direction to comply first and then ACMA can only act if the non-compliance continues.

This delays ACMA in taking action and can leave Australians exposed.

This Bill cuts through that. We are removing the two-step process, making industry codes directly enforceable.

Greater visibility

This bill also enables greater visibility of the carrier service market and carrier service providers operating in it.

A carriage service provider is any provider who uses telecommunications carrier facilities—for example transmission infrastructure, cabling or wireless networks—to supply telecommunications services like mobile phone or internet services to the public.

The Bill establishes a Carriage Service Provider registration scheme. This reform gives ACMA visibility of who is operating in the market and the ability to prevent or remove providers who pose an unacceptable risk to consumers or cause consumer harm.

It means everyone is playing by the same rules and those who do the right thing are not undermined by dodgy operators.

Supporting fairness and trust

Together, these reforms create a modern compliance framework that is fit for purpose.

They support fairness by making sure consumers are protected.

They build trust by ensuring ACMA has the tools its needs to take quick action. They strengthen the industry by setting clear, consistent standards.

Listening to stakeholders

These reforms have been developed in consultation with industry, regulators and consumer advocates.

I would like to thank the Australian Telecommunications Alliance, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman for their ongoing engagement and support of these reforms, including their feedback following the previous introduction of the Bill earlier in the year.

The feedback from these stakeholders has meant we have improved the bill providing clarity on consumer safeguards and processes for all parties.

Conclusion

This beautiful country we call home is intangibly unique.

Australia is the world's largest island, the sixth biggest country on earth.

Yet this vast nation holds just three and a half people per square kilometre, one of the world's lowest population densities.

This combination ensures connection is an evergreen challenge.

This bill helps meet that challenge, helps keep Australians connected by cracking down on telecommunications providers who mistreat customers.

It will deliver the community the services they need and deserve through a system that is fair and accountable.

So no one is held back and no one is left behind. I commend the Bill to the House.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (DELIVERING AN EFFICIENT AND TRUSTED TAX SYSTEM) BILL 2026

This Bill amends Treasury legislation to support philanthropic giving and strengthen the integrity of tax administration systems.

Schedule 1 to the Bill removes the requirement that that a donation to a deductible gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim an income tax deduction. Removing this threshold updates the tax treatment of gifts to reflect modern fundraising practices and supports philanthropic giving.

Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to require trustees of closely held trusts to report in the trust's income tax return the quoted tax file numbers of beneficiaries when they have an entitlement, from 1 July 2026.

These changes are part of modernising tax administration systems to reduce compliance costs for trustees, beneficiaries and their agents. They streamline how trustees report tax file numbers, removing reporting on a separate form.

The amendments will strengthen the integrity of the system, helping to ensure the right amount of tax is being paid by trustees and beneficiaries on trust income.

Schedule 3 to the Bill makes minor and technical amendments to legislation within the Treasury portfolio. These amendments reflect the Government's ongoing commitment to the care and maintenance of Treasury laws.

The amendments ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current, fit for purpose and continues to work for relevant stakeholders and the broader public.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified in relation to amendments in Schedule 3 of the Bill in accordance with clauses 506 and 507 of the Corporations Agreement 2002.

Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997to exclude activities related to gambling and tobacco from Research and Development Tax Incentive eligibility.

This will ensure the community is not subsidising this kind of research and development, which can exacerbate serious health risks, addiction and associated harms.

The exclusions will apply broadly, capturing research and development related to all types of gambling and any tobacco, from 1 July 2025.

The Government recognises the importance of minimising the harms from gambling and tobacco. That's why a carve-out applies for research and development activities that are conducted for the sole purpose of harm minimisation, such as stopping addiction. The carve-out is designed to ensure that only truly harm minimising research and development related to gambling and tobacco remains eligible to receive support.

Schedule 5 to this Bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge-Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, and seniors and pensioners by 2.9 per cent.

These changes ensure low-income households continue to be exempt from paying the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate from 1 July 2025, if their incomes have increased in line with (or less than) recent movements in the consumer price index.

Schedule 6 to this Bill includes changes to better target payment of the Pension Supplement for recipients who travel or live overseas.

The Pension Supplement is an additional amount paid to pensioners and some other income support recipients to assist with certain living costs in Australia. Currently, the Pension Supplement is paid at the full rate while temporarily overseas for six weeks before dropping to the basic amount. For pensioners who move overseas to live, the Pension Supplement drops to the basic amount as soon as they leave Australia.

The Government is doubling the amount of time a pensioner can travel temporarily overseas before their Pension Supplement is affected. For recipients travelling overseas temporarily, the full rate of Pension Supplement will now be paid for 12 weeks instead of the current six weeks. This recognises that these pensioners still have ongoing financial commitments in Australia.

Once a pensioner has been temporarily overseas for more than 12 weeks, the Pension Supplement will cease altogether, instead of reducing to the basic amount.

People who live overseas will also no longer receive the basic amount of Pension Supplement.

The basic amount of Pension Supplement was originally designed to compensate for GST costs. Pensioners who are outside of Australia long-term or who live permanently overseas, are no longer incurring Australian GST-related costs in the same way as someone in Australia. It is not appropriate for Australian taxpayers to continue to fund indefinite assistance for these costs.

However, these pensioners will still receive ongoing support through their base pension. This measure will not change how their base pension is calculated, and the base pension will continue to increase twice a year through indexation.

This measure better targets the Pension Supplement to where it is needed most. It provides increased support for recipients who travel temporarily overseas for short periods but still have ongoing costs in Australia, and ceases that support for those who are absent from Australia long-term or permanently and no longer have those costs.

Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES) BILL 2026

This Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and implements the. Government's commitment to protect consumers from unfair trading practices, subscription traps and drip pricing.

Australians know exactly what this Bill is about because they have lived it. Trying to decide on an online purchase, they suddenly find themselves pressured with a countdown timer or a warning that there are 'only two left in stock', despite the fact the retailer has plenty available. They subscribe to a gym and manage the payment online, but when they try to unsubscribe, they are told they have to make a phone call. They spot a bargain online, but when they get to the checkout, they discover a compulsory 'service fee' added to their basket. That is not vigorous competition. It is friction by design.

The way Australians buy and subscribe has changed profoundly. Today, people make decisions about goods and services in many different ways: by strolling the aisles of their local store, by searching online for the best price, by browsing digital catalogues and comparison tools, or by entering subscription :,arrangements that renew automatically. Some transactions take place entirely in person, while others occur entirely online, but the experience of choosing and managing services now spans a wide range of channels.

These changes have given Australians more choice and convenience, but they have also created conditions in which certain business practices can quietly pressure, confuse or trap consumers. Australians are hardworking and fair minded. We expect businesses to compete vigorously and to innovate. But we also expect that competition to occur on fair terms. We do not expect to be steered into decisions they did not intend, or worn down by design features that make the right decision harder than it should be.

The evidence suggests these are not isolated irritants. More than half of reported consumer problems now arise from online purchases. One in ten people say that an online provider has manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in the transaction. In a digital economy, design is not neutral. Buttons, prompts, defaults, timers and cancellation pathways can all shape behaviour. These are signs of a marketplace in which confusion, pressure, and obstruction can become a business model.

Over the past four years, through detailed consultation with consumers, businesses, experts, regulators, and our state and territory counterparts, a clear message emerged. There are practices that do not meet the threshold for misleading or deceptive conduct, and that may also fall short of the high bar for unconscionable conduct, but which nonetheless distort decision making, cause real harm, and impose an economic cost. These gaps in the Australian Consumer Law allow manipulative or unreasonably distortive tactics to slip through, even where the impact on consumers is significant.

This Bill closes those gaps. It modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect the realities of how Australians now buy, compare, and subscribe. It ensures that consumers are protected not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice.

Speaker, this Bill does three things.

A General Prohibition on Unfair Trading Practices

First, the Bill introduces something Australians might reasonably have assumed already existed: a simple rule that businesses should not engage in unfair trading practices.

It sets a straightforward principle: businesses must not manipulate, consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make, or are likely to make, decisions, in circumstances that cause, or are likely to cause, detriment.

This is a principles-based test. It captures conduct that does not neatly fall within the existing prohibitions on misleading conduct or unconscionability, but which nonetheless exploits behavioural biases, overwhelms consumers with complexity, or structures choices in a way that leads people towards decisions they would not otherwise make.

To provide practical guidance, the Bill includes a non-exhaustive, indicative list of examples of practices that may contravene the new· prohibition. These include:

These examples help businesses understand where the line is drawn without restricting ordinary, legitimate commercial behaviour. This prohibition is not about stopping businesses from promoting their products. It is not about stopping advertising. It is about dealing with conduct that crosses the line from persuasion into manipulation, conduct that harms consumers and undermines fair competition.

Stopping Drip Pricing

Second, the Bill deals with a practice that almost every Australian has encountered. A consumer sees a price that seems reasonable. But as they progress through the transaction, new fees begin to appear, a booking fee here, a service charge there, all revealed at the very end of the process.

In one example, a concert ticket promoted for $109.90 rose to $117.45 once a compulsory $7.55 service fee was added at the last stage of the process. By then, the consumer has already invested time and attention, and may feel locked into completing the purchase.

That is drip pricing. Australians have had enough of it.

This Bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time they display the base price. There should be no last-minute surprises, no artificially low headline prices that rise only after the consumer has invested time and attention, and no reliance on the consumer's reluctance to abandon the purchase after coming so far.

The Bill does not prohibit transaction fees. It prohibits hiding them. It ensures that the businesses doing the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors who conceal the true cost until the final step.

That matters for competition as well as fairness. We know from behavioural economics that people anchor on the first price they see, and once they have invested effort in reaching the final stage of a transaction, they are less inclined to walk away. A business that discloses its full price upfront should not be made to look more expensive than a rival that waits until the final screen to reveal unavoidable charges.

Ending Subscription Traps

Third, this Bill addresses subscription traps, a growing frustration in modem consumer life. Subscriptions are now a regular part of household budgeting. They provide access to news, fitness, entertainment, software and many other services. But too often, subscription arrangements are designed around the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel free trials, will not notice renewals, or will struggle to find the cancellation pathway.

Research from the Consumer Policy Research Centre shows the scale of this issue. Three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. Nearly half have spent more time than intended trying to exit a service. One in three have felt pressured to stay. One in ten Australians has given up trying to cancel and kept paying for a service they no longer wanted. Some people have been so frustrated by unwanted subscriptions that they have chosen to cancel a credit card just to get rid of the recurring subscriptions. The estimated the consumer detriment from spending on unwanted subscriptions by Australian consumers is $971 million per year. This is a hidden drain on household budgets.

This Bill addresses these proble111s directly.

Businesses must clearly disclose that a consumer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews, and how it can be ended. This information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand.

The Bill also establishes a framework for reminder notices, ensuring that consumers receive timely, sensible prompts when a trial period is ending or a renewal is approaching.

In addition, cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find. And it must require only the steps that are reasonably necessary.

A contract that can be entered in seconds should not take half an afternoon to escape. Many reputable businesses already operate in this simple, fair and transparent manner. This Bill ensures that all businesses meet that standard.

Broader Competition and Consumer Agenda

This Bill forms part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the economy.

The Government has legislated the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that large mergers are properly assessed before proceeding and that anti-competitive acquisitions do not escape scrutiny.

We have increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than 30 million dollars, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing tactics, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer facing markets.

We have outlawed unfair contract terms, and for the first time gave the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities Investment Commission the power to seek penalties against companies that breached these laws.

We are strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Australians will be able to see clearly when a product has gotten smaller, but the price has stayed the same or gone up.

Under the former government, the supermarket Food and Grocery Code was merely voluntary, without penalties for wrongdoing.

Labor's Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze suppliers.

Penalties matter. That is why the Government has increased the first limb of the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act—from $10 million to $50 million in 2022, and last month up to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that breaches of consumer law cannot be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business. They ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness.

Across the labour market, reforms to non-compete clauses and other restrictive practices will help improve job mobility and productivity. The right to repair is being extended to agricultural machinery, ensuring that farmers have genuine choice in how they service their equipment.

Through a revitalised National Competition Policy, supported by the $900 million National Productivity Fund, the Government is working with states and territories to remove commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers that make it difficult for new entrants.to compete. We are progressing reforms to create a single national market for goods, streamline standards, improve heavy vehicle productivity, and improve occupational licensing so that workers can move more freely across jurisdictions. We are also supporting health and care professionals to work to their full scope of practice.

Together, these reforms strengthen competition and dynamism, boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace.

Other Unfair Trading Practices

This Bill focuses on consumer protections. But unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers.

The Explanatory Memorandum notes the Government will consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. That work is underway.

We will release a public consultation on the expansion of these reforms shortly, and will have legislation in Parliament later this year.

Working closely with the Assistant Treasurer and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, we will consider whether any alignment of protections within the financial services sector is necessary. Any expansion will be considered carefully, respecting the distinct frameworks providing consumer protections for financial products and advice.

In presenting this Bill, we reaffirm a basic principle: markets work best when they're fair. When consumers are respected rather than worn down. When design helps people make informed choices rather than steering them into unwanted ones. When transparency is rewarded and hidden fees are not.

The reforms in this Bill, banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing, and cleaning up subscriptions, will give Australians back time, clarity and agency. It will strengthen trust and boost competition. And they will 1nake the Australian marketplace a place where good businesses thrive by doing the right thing.

They will also help restore confidence that online markets can work on straightforward terms: where prices are what they seem, where leaving a service is as simple as joining it, and where firms who act fairly are not punished. For example, nine in ten Australians say that they would likely purchase from the same organisation if cancelling its subscription was quick and simple.

Speaker, I want to acknowledge the vital contribution of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, including Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe, whose enforcement work and market studies have provided important insights into the effects of unfair trading practices.

Australia's consumer movement has also been instrumental in consistently bringing consumer experience to the forefront, including Erin Turner and her team at the Consumer Policy Research Centre, Stephanie Tonkin and her team at the Consumer Action Law Centre, former CHOICE CEO Ashley de Silva and his team, Jeannie Paterson and her team at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, community legal centres, financial counsellors and many others.

I also acknowledge the strong; support and partnership of my State and Territory Consumer Affairs Minister colleagues and their Officials Anoulack Chanthivong, Nick Staikos, Deb Frecklington, Guy Barnett, Tara Cheyne, Tony Buti, Marie-Clare Boothby and former South

Australian Minister, Andrea Michaels. Reform of this scale is only possible when all governments share a commitment to fairness and transparency.

I thank the experts in Office of Parliamentary Counsel and in the Department of Treasury including Nicole Ryan, Phoebe Butcher, Stacie Lawson, Tessa Cramond, Matthew Osinski, Ira Goyal, Reese O'Sullivan, Megan Peterson, Taylor Fouracre and Angelina Kosev, and my advisers Tori Barker and Meg Thomas, for their work on this Bill. Their hard work has helped forge a fairer society and a more dynamic economy.

Speaker, this Bill is principled, proportionate and timely. It responds to real harms, identified through genuine consultation, backed by evidence, and aligned with Australians' sense of fairness.

It ensures the Australian Consumer Law remains robust and capable of protecting people in a rapidly changing economy.

The reforms will not only protect consumers but also support productivity by promoting dynamic and competitive markets. They will help ensure businesses are not incentivised to adopt unfair tactics, and will increase consumers' confidence to engage in markets, particularly when transacting online.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE AMENDMENT (RCDVS IMPLEMENTATION AND RELATED MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2026

I am pleased to present the Defence Force Discipline (Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill.

This Bill represents one of the most significant reforms to Australia's military discipline framework in decades, delivering on key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

The Albanese Government accepted the overwhelming majority of the Royal Commission's 122 recommendations: agreeing or agreeing-in-principle to 104 recommendations.

We've been working at pace to implement these—by the end of 2025, 32 recommendations, over a quarter, were implemented.

The Royal Commission dedicated a whole volume to sexual violence, unacceptable behaviour and military justice.

The legislation before us today takes a significant step towards implementing recommendations in that space.

The Bill also responds directly to concerns about fairness, transparency, mental health treatment, timeliness and complexity within the Defence Force Discipline Act (the DFDA).

The reforms contained in the Bill are comprehensive and, collectively, modernise the system so that it protects people, strengthens discipline, and aligns with contemporary Australian community expectations.

This Bill represents one of many reform packages aimed at implementing measures that respond to the Royal Commission's recommendations.

In particular, the Bill directly implements recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63, and gives effect to recommendation 34—these relate to strengthening workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations, the sentencing and recording of convictions for perpetrators of military sexual violence and court martial governance.

The Royal Commission also noted that involvement in _the military justice system, whether as a victim or an accused, can itself be a risk factor for suicide.

It highlighted the pressing need for improved workplace protections, modern sentencing practices, reporting and recording of serious offences in a manner consistent with civilian jurisdictions, and for a modern approach to the management of mental impairment in disciplinary proceedings.

This Bill does all of this.

The Bill contains six Schedules.

Schedule 1 has five Parts that directly implement Royal Commission recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63.

Schedule 1 provides a power to suspend a Defence Force member where a Defence member is under investigation for a civil or overseas offence. Currently, a member under Defence Force Discipline Act investigation may be suspended, but a member under civilian investigation for potentially more serious conduct may continue to work until charged.

This Bill fixes that gap by allowing suspension once any formal investigation commences; the suspension ceases when the investigation ends unless a charge is laid, preserving procedural fairness. This implements Royal Commission recommendation 18 to enhance safeguards to ensure that victims are not required to work alongside perpetrators while investigations are underway.

Schedule 1 also strengthens sentencing procedures by recognising that rank disparity is an aggravating feature of offending, regardless of whether the victim is of higher or lower rank. This change reinforces the requirement for service tribunals to consider the impact on victims where the service offence involves conduct that constitutes a serious violent or sexual offence, and a service impact statement must be sought to allow the service tribunal to consider the effect on discipline, cohesion and command. These reforms implement Royal Commission recommendation 20 and give effect to aspects of recommendation 34 by bringing sentencing practices closer to contemporary civilian standards.

Schedule 1 also improves transparency by requiring that superior tribunal convictions be disclosed to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ensuring that serious service offences that are analogues to civilian criminal offences are recorded on criminal records. A limited non-disclosure order mechanism protects individuals in exceptional cases where disclosure would be unjust or harmful. This supports the broader implementation of Royal Commission recommendation 23 by ensuring that relevant sexual and violence-related service convictions are captured in national police records in a manner consistent with civilian jurisdictions.

Schedule 1 also removes stigmatising language from the Defence Force Discipline Act, replacing the outdated and pejorative term "malingering" with a neutral description that better reflects modern understanding of injury and illness, consistent with Royal Commission recommendation 63.

Finally, Schedule 1 seeks to clearly distinguish between violent and non-violent forms of ill-treatment within certain service offences, to further support Royal Commission recommendation 23(b).

Schedule 2 of the Bill seeks to modernise and streamline superior tribunal procedures to align with contemporary civilian criminal practice while retaining the flexibility and efficiency required for military operations.

It gives effect to the Royal Commission's recommendation 34, which required the priority review of provisions related to court martial panels not being required to give reasons for punishments imposed by introducing the requirement for any conviction and sentencing decision by superior tribunals or reviews to be accompanied by reasons.

The legally complex task of sentencing would become the responsibility of a judge advocate rather than a lay panel, aligning superior tribunal practices with civilian criminal justice practices. Changes to streamline the procedures of the superior tribunal system, integrated with the other measures in this Bill, support the adoption of modern best practices related to sentencing. A power to adopt such matters through regulation allow the system to keep pace with justice reforms in civilian jurisdictions. These measures aim to increase fairness by ensuring that complex, sensitive or serious matters proceed in the most appropriate forum, with the most appropriate procedures and practices applying.

Schedule 3 is one of the most transformative parts of the Bill. It contains two Parts that overhaul how the Defence Force Discipline Act deals with accused persons suffering from mental impairment.

Part 1 introduces new powers permitting a tribunal to adjourn proceedings where continuing would be detrimental to the accused or contrary to the interests of discipline. It also allows, in limited circumstances, the dismissal of a charge where the accused suffers from a mental impairment and prosecution would not meaningfully serve the maintenance of discipline.

These changes reform the rigid and outdated "unsoundness of mind" framework and acknowledge the urgent concerns identified by the Royal Commission regarding trauma and mental health in the Defence context.

Part 2 establishes a Defence Mental Health Tribunal framework. When a person is unfit to plead or is acquitted because of mental impairment, the tribunal may order treatment, care or detention, as appropriate. Orders must be reviewed at least every six months and cannot exceed three years (or ten years for serious violent or sexual offences). They only take effect once confirmed by a reviewing authority, ensuring strong oversight. This modernises military practice in line with civilian mental-health jurisprudence and provides a clinically informed alternative to the outdated custodial provisions currently in the Defence Force Discipline Act.

Schedule 4 replaces the existing mid-tier discipline system with a new system of summary contraventions, to allow for more streamlined and efficient military discipline outcomes. Summary contraventions deal with contested minor misconduct, and misconduct too serious for an infringement notice but not warranting prosecution as a service offence. They are administrative, not criminal, and use the civil standard of proof. A central pillar of this framework is to allow Defence to manage misconduct in a proportionate, efficient way while reducing unnecessary escalation into the service offence system. The effect of streamlining this mid-tier discipline system will be to reduce the time that individuals spend exposed to the military justice system, thereby reducing potential mental harm and enhancing the disciplinary effect of the system.

Schedule 5 contains sixteen Parts, each delivering a discrete fairness, efficiency or modernisation measure that seeks to strengthen the Defence Force Discipline Act framework.

Broadly, these include modernising drug-offence thresholds to align with other Commonwealth legislation, clarifying delegation powers, updating rules of evidence, harmonising judicial-officer termination grounds, improving review processes, modernising the powers of investigating officers, enabling removal orders for intimate images, enabling evidence to be provided via video, victim impact statements and providing for the extinguishment of historical homosexual service conviction records that would not be offences today. Each measure enhances system coherence and brings the Defence Force Discipline Act in line with contemporary Australian law and practice.

The extinguishment of historical homosexual service convictions is an important measure and a step in righting an historical wrong.

This is a long time coming, nearly 34 years ago, in November 1992 Prime Minister Paul Keating declared homosexual men and women would no longer be banned from serving in the Australian Defence Force.

These changes will allow Defence personnel who were convicted of offences purely on the basis of consensual homosexual activity to apply to have this conviction extinguished.

The effect of this extinguishment will be to also prevent disclosure of that conviction or information related to it by other people.

Families of Defence members, including of deceased veterans can also apply under this scheme on behalf of their loved ones.

These changes are a restorative legal change to help lessen the detriment associated and stigma imposed by former homophobic attitudes and practices reflected in such convictions.

We have always been proud of those who serve our nation.

With these changes to enable expungement of convictions now no longer regarded as a crime, those that had to previously hide can have their pride in service accurately reflected in their service record as well.

Schedule 5 also allows the Minister for Defence to issue guidelines to the Director of Military Prosecutions. This approach aligns with section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, which provides a similar power for the Attorney-General to issue directions and guidelines to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Bill also implements a number of other reform recommendations, including introducing stronger protections over disclosure of sensitive materials during disciplinary investigation. This implements a 2016 Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Report recommendation. As well as adopting 19 of the 28 recommendations for reform to the discipline system made in the JAG's 2024 Annual Report; and measures introduced address recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report 148 related to Reforming Justice Response to Sexual Violence, to allow for providing video evidence-in-chief for sexual offence prosecutions. Ultimately, the reforms in this Bill strengthen trust in the military justice system, reduce harm, improve transparency, modernise mental-health responses, and ensure that the Defence Force Discipline Act reflects the standards expected in today's Australia.

This Bill represents a careful, comprehensive and essential response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

It supports the wellbeing of Defence personnel, strengthens the integrity of the discipline system, and upholds community expectations of fairness and accountability.

I commend the Bill.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 25 June and 1 July 2026 respectively.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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—

This Bill delivers urgent and practical reforms to strengthen Australia's business registers. These registers are critical national infrastructure that underpins trust, transparency and confidence across the economy.

Australia's business registers sit behind millions of ordinary decisions. Before a supplier extends credit, before a bank lends to a small business, before a landlord signs a commercial lease, or before a customer checks who is behind a company name, these registers help answer a basic question: who am I dealing with?

The registers hold essential information about companies and their directors. They record whether a company exists, where it is registered, who its officeholders are, and how its corporate identity can be traced. That information gives businesses, consumers, journalists and regulators a reliable starting point for due diligence. It helps a contractor decide whether to take on a job, a creditor work out where to send a notice, and a regulator connect the dots when a director shifts from one corporate entity to another.

These records are trusted because they are established under statute and administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), an independent regulator. They provide the basic corporate map that allows markets to function, regulators to act, and the tax system to operate with confidence.

However, the systems that support these registers rely on ageing legacy technology that has been underfunded for many years. In 2023, following an independent review, our Government took the decision to cease the former Coalition government's Modernising Business Registers program, which experienced a fivefold cost increase and did not deliver its intended outcomes.

In its place, the Government endorsed a targeted approach to stabilise and uplift the registers—focused on delivering practical improvements, strengthening integrity, and updating services in a measured and achievable way. Since the cancellation of the former Modernising Business Registers program in August 2023, the Government has committed substantial funding to this work, including funding to support the next stage of delivery.

This program is being delivered by ASIC and is known as RegistryConnect. The program is tracking on time and on budget, and is already delivering tangible improvements for users, including new and streamlined digital services.

The next milestones include improved company search services, new online company registration services, and the linking of the Director Identification Number, or Director ID, regime to the ASIC Companies Register.

These reforms will make ASIC's registers easier to use, harder to misuse, and more useful for anyone trying to work out who stands behind a company.

To keep this program on track, urgent legislative change is required by 30 June 2026.

If this Bill is not passed by that date, multiple legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program will automatically commence on 1 July 2026, even though the underlying program ceased in 2023. Those provisions would transfer responsibility for administering the relevant business registers away from ASIC and into the Registrar framework established for the former Modernising Business Registers program. The Registrar is currently the Commissioner of Taxation, with registry functions supported through Australian Business Registry Services within the Australian Taxation Office. This transfer of responsibility away from ASIC would significantly disrupt registry operations, destabilise the uplift program, and delay key reforms, resulting in increased costs and uncertainty for businesses and the community.

This Bill prevents that disruption. It ensures responsibility remains with ASIC and provides the powers needed to administer and update the registers effectively.

The Bill contains three schedules.

Schedule 1 strengthens Director ID requirements to support linking Director IDs to the Companies Register.

Schedule 2 provides ASIC with targeted new registry powers to effectively administer the business registers.

Schedule 3 stabilises the registers by repealing legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program that would otherwise automatically commence on 1 July 2026.

The Director ID regime has applied since 2021 and is administered by Australian Business Registry Services, part of the Australian Taxation Office. Since its introduction, 3 million directors have obtained a Director ID.

A Director ID is a unique identifier that stays with a director over time. It helps distinguish between people with similar names, trace directors across companies, and make it harder for someone to disappear behind a chain of corporate entities. The regime was designed to support action against misconduct, including illegal phoenix activity. But Director IDs are currently separate from the ASIC Companies Register, limiting the transparency and integrity benefits of the regime.

Schedule 1 strengthens the regime by enabling Director ID information to be linked to, used within, and published on the ASIC Companies Register.

Companies will be required to provide Director IDs to ASIC through existing registration and reporting processes, including at company registration, through annual reviews, and when director details change. This does not create a new standalone reporting regime, but integrates Director ID information into processes that companies already follow.

Linking Director IDs will make it significantly easier for the public, businesses, regulators and journalists to verify identities and trace relationships across corporate entities. This will reduce the risk of fraud and identity misuse, help tackle illegal phoenix activity, and support a fairer marketplace.

Schedule 1 also includes targeted integrity and compliance measures. These include mechanisms to maintain data accuracy, proportionate enforcement tools for ASIC, and director notification and consent measures at the point of linking. These safeguards help ensure individuals are aware of their directorships and provide an avenue for those who may be unaware of, or coerced into, an appointment to take appropriate action.

The core requirement for companies to lodge Director ID information with ASIC is intended to commence from 1 July 2027. This timing allows ASIC to prepare its systems and gives companies and directors sufficient time to understand and meet their obligations, supported by transitional arrangements aligned with ordinary reporting cycles.

Schedule 2 provides ASIC with a targeted set of new registry powers needed to effectively administer Australia's business registers.

The existing legislative framework was developed for an earlier era. It limits ASIC's ability to run a modern digital registry, respond to privacy and security risks, and provide efficient services to users.

Schedule 2 enables ASIC to interact with users through expanded electronic communications, reducing reliance on paper-based processes and supporting more efficient regulatory engagement.

The Bill also strengthens privacy and security settings by allowing ASIC to better manage access to registry information, including the ability to redact or restrict sensitive information where privacy or safety risks outweigh the benefits of disclosure.

Schedule 2 also strengthens integrity and enforcement. It expands ASIC's ability to correct inaccurate information on the registers, disclose information in the public interest subject to safeguards, and deregister companies in limited and serious circumstances where false or misleading information has been provided. These are practical powers for a digital registry system: fixing errors, protecting people at risk of harm, responding to fraud, and stopping company records from being misused in scams.

Most of these powers commence shortly after Royal Assent, enabling ASIC to support the next phases of the uplift program. Some elements commence from 1 July 2027 to align with when system changes can be developed and implemented.

Schedule 3 is a technical but critical component of the Bill.

It repeals legacy provisions from the former Modernising Business Registers program that are scheduled to automatically commence on 1 July 2026. If left in place, those provisions would transfer responsibility for the registers away from ASIC, despite the program having ceased.

Allowing those provisions to commence would disrupt registry operations, delay reforms such as Director ID linking, increase costs, and undermine the stability of the current uplift program.

Schedule 3 must be enacted before 1 July 2026 to prevent those automatic commencements and provide certainty for registry operations.

Treasury consulted publicly on an exposure draft of the Bill from 12 December 2025 to 10 February 2026, following targeted consultation in 2024 on the Director ID linking model. That earlier consultation helped answer practical questions, including the process companies would use to update director details.

Stakeholders strongly supported the program and proposed design during consultation. Following consultation, only minor technical changes have been made to refine the operation of the bill based on analysis and feedback. These changes do not affect stakeholder rights or obligations.

Stakeholders recognised the importance of reliable registry information for market confidence and effective regulation. They also highlighted the need to balance transparency with privacy. That feedback helped shape the Bill.

The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill and has approved the measures as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

This Bill is about continuity and confidence. It keeps responsibility for Australia's business registers with ASIC. It prevents outdated provisions from disrupting registry operations. It supports the linking of Director IDs to company records. And it gives ASIC the practical powers needed to run a modern, secure and reliable registry system.

In doing so, the Bill will help businesses trade with greater confidence, assist regulators to detect misconduct, provide appropriate transparency and make it easier for Australians to know who they are dealing with in the corporate marketplace.

Full details are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

I, and also at the request of Senator Shoebridge, move:

That the Migration Amendment (Temporary Graduate Visa Application Charge) Regulations 2026, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2026L00163].

The Migration Amendment (Temporary Graduate Visa Application Charge) Regulations 2026 have doubled visa application fees from $2,300 to $4,600, the third increase in a year. This must be rejected. The motion is to disallow this disgraceful regulation. Not a week goes by without attacks on international students and migrants, whether it is the racist, billionaire funded One Nation or it's the Liberals trying to compete with the far right or, indeed, it's the Labor Party and their ongoing dog whistling on international students and migrants. Without this visa, international students cannot put their degree and skills to work for the community here in Australia. This massive fee hike sends a clear message that international students are not welcome here. There are too many international students who have told me that.

No wonder Australia's already tarnished reputation as a destination for higher education is eroding even further. And, really, for what? So you can beat your chests about cracking down on international students and migrants? This afternoon, Senator Wong stood there and wanted the Greens to work with them. Well, I can tell you this: the Greens will never work with the Labor Party or the Liberals or One Nation when you punch down on migrants and international students. That is never going to happen.

Graduates already face enormous degree fees and are suffering under the cost-of-living crisis like everyone else in this country. They are skipping meals because they can't afford to eat, and the Albanese government think now is the opportune time to twist the knife and bleed them some more, because that's what they are doing. It is no coincidence that just as student visa rejections reached a 21-year high in February this year, the Albanese government decided to immediately double these visa fees. They want to exploit international students even more while also punching down on them at the same time.

Ariya Masud, National Union of Students international officer, has rightly said that this sends a clear message to international students about their standing in Australian society. They are regarded as ATMs to funnel a multibillion-dollar industry instead of human beings being forced into abandoning the lives and careers that they have built here. They have built lives and careers here over years and years, but Labor did not even bother with the pretence of any consultation with students or international students.

Before this latest doubling of visa fees, it was already the most expensive post-study work visa in the world. We were already there. Australia's temporary graduate visa application fee is now 10 times more expensive than Canada's, three times more expensive than New Zealand's and more than twice as expensive as the UK. If your visa gets rejected, what happens then? Too bad—there is going to be no refund. This is an incredibly unfair process that abuses the precarious position that these international students are in. What this visa fee's doubling does is force students to cough up thousands upon thousands more dollars that they were not really expecting; otherwise, they must abandon their lives, their careers that they have built here. Labor is making life harder and harder for them and their families, and is treating international students with such disrespect and callousness. Because that's what it is—disrespect and callousness. It is appalling, shameful and disgraceful.

The government does this knowing full well that international students can't vote them out. They think there are no consequences for their dog whistling. But can I tell you there are consequences. The more you indulge the fantasies of the far-right extremists in this place, the more you make it a reality, then the more you harm international students, migrants and people of colour living in this country. Labor and the coalition are bleeding votes to One Nation because for years you yourselves have blamed and demonised migrants for everything under the sun, and you have treated international students as cash cows. So no wonder you are back with another One-Nation-flavoured attack on migrants. You created this environment and now you will be buried by it.

The way out of the cost-of-living crisis, the housing crisis, isn't by attacking international students. If you want to do something, stand up to the coal and gas corporations destroying our planet, stand up to the billionaires dodging taxes, stand up to the price-gouging supermarkets and stand up to the profiteering banks.

We know that Labor, the Liberals and One Nation will flock to that side of the chamber to vote down this disallowance because they are on a unity ticket on scapegoating and fleecing international students, who can't fight back.

I too support this motion moved in my name and in my colleague's name. There's a reason we're doing this. We are seeing Labor join with One Nation to punch down on migrants, to punch down on foreign students. As Senator Faruqi made clear, they think they can punch down on foreign students with particular brutality because they don't vote; therefore, they don't see them as entitled to any protections or decency. They're a free political target in Labor's mind.

Well, I've got to remind Labor that they're connected to communities. They're people with experiences and potential connections to this country that can be of enormous value for them, in their future lives and their careers, and for us, in terms of being thousands of cultural ambassadors who come here and spend years in Australia, meeting with Australians, engaging with our university sector, opening their minds up in courses of study and getting a sense of a possible future that we can give foreign students through our education institutions. They're meeting Australians as friends and getting a sense of Australians' values—values, hopefully, of tolerance, diversity and democracy—and what it's like living in a country with a strong belief in the rule of law. But they're also making friendships across the board and then, after completing their study, returning home with such fond memories, we would hope, of Australia—with friendships and a sense of connection to Australia that is of so much more value to Australia than one or two diplomats in an embassy or a high commission somewhere.

These are tens and tens of thousands of people, free cultural ambassadors, who will, hopefully, leave Australia having contributed economically to our higher education system, sometimes having done jobs that many Australians don't want to do, and having built those friendships and, hopefully, those connections. They will then go back and look back fondly on their time in Australia, having built a new career and maybe connected Australia with their home country economically, culturally or through friendships. What an extraordinary asset that is for Australia. What an extraordinary strength it is for any nation to be able to have that global connection with tens and tens of thousands of people who have spent years living there, building those connections.

But, instead of seeing it in that light, Labor literally just cuts and pastes what One Nation says. They call foreign students some kind of threat—some kind of economic threat. That's how Labor sees it. They literally cut and paste the One Nation playbook and then punch down on foreign students. It's extraordinary, watching it. I remember a time when our country viewed students coming here to learn not as a problem but as an asset, as a cultural benefit—and, true, as an economic benefit too, to our higher education systems and to our economy. I recall—if you look back at some of the debates about what Australia's place in the region should be and what Australia's place in the world should be—proud investment in things like the Colombo Plan to literally bring students, young people, from around our region into Australia to connect with us culturally and then to go back to be those decision-makers, those future politicians or those engineers and actually build that connection with Australia, a real people-to-people connection with Australia. This was an incredibly successful project which continues to benefit Australia—but not under the Albanese Labor government. Under the Albanese Labor government, they want to gouge foreign students. They want to punch down on them in the debate. They want to pick up One Nation's debating points. That's what Albanese Labor is doing. You can see the impact already in the numbers. No doubt Labor will celebrate this because this is their playbook—their One Nation playbook.

Last year, the number of Vietnamese students coming into Australia plunged by 40 per cent, and this year the number of students from Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka dropped by 67 per cent, 78 per cent and 87 per cent, respectively. We are currently in the process of burning off those thousands of future cultural ambassadors. In doing so, we are limiting and cutting off those ties with our region. That's what this instrument does. It massively ramps up prices and massively ramps up fees to make it even harder now. Those numbers will go further back. It's even harder under Labor for people, young people, to come here to study.

At some level, Labor knows this is wrong. Some part of their lizard brain knows that it's wrong because they've carved out Pacific nations. They must know on some level that our education system means we get not only some of the best minds in the world coming here but also thousands of new connections and thousands of new cultural ambassadors. So why are we, under Labor, cutting ourselves off from our neighbours? For years Labor has been happy to openly talk about international students as just cash cows to prop up the higher education sector. Now, having spent years economically exploiting them and wanting to ramp up that exploitation with this instrument, Labor sees them as great scapegoats so that they can try and outflank One Nation and talk about cuts—cuts here and cuts there. They think they can just punch down like they do so often.

What we do see, though, is that Labor is using this as an opportunity to gouge people, often people from our region and often families who have gathered together the funds to come and study in Australia. It's been an incredible economic burden to meet the costs of coming to Australia, and this government, the Albanese government, wants to gouge those families even further. The Albanese government is forcing people coming to Australia to contribute yet more fees. Get this: under the Albanese Labor government, visa fees in this country are going to vastly exceed the amount of income coming in under the PRRT from the export gas industry. In this financial year, in 2025-26, Labor budget to get just $1.6 billion from the gas industry under the PRRT and they're budgeting to get almost $4.7 billion from visa application charges.

If you want to get a sense of where Labor's One Nation priorities are going forward—they're on a unity ticket here with One Nation in giving gifts to the gas industry while punching down on foreign students—look at the projections in Labor's budget. Labor are projecting, under their budget, that the amount of tax revenue they're going to get from the export gas industry under the petroleum resources rent tax is going to collapse to just $1.2 billion by 2029-30, but they expect to be gouging visa fees at a rate of $7 billion. That's almost six times more revenue coming in from gouging foreign students and people seeking to come here on visas, almost six times more from families often struggling to meet those fees, than they're going to take from the export gas industry under the PRRT.

It's the One Nation-Labor unity ticket. Give a big gift to Gina Rinehart, give a big gift to the export gas industry and join with One Nation to punch down on foreign students. It's Labor and One Nation sharing those politics. Labor have been in this race to the bottom. Up to this parliament, it was a race to the bottom with the coalition. But now they've joined in a race to the bottom with One Nation. It's a race where everybody loses. When this happens, when foreign students are marginalised by this government, we see an environment in which they can be exploited by bad employers and by bad agents. What does Labor do? Does it go after the bad employers? Does it go after the bad agents? No. Labor punches down and goes after the students, time and time again.

Even just today, in question time, we saw, again, Labor completely accept One Nation's framing of immigration and completely accept the appalling assumptions in Senator Hanson's questions about mass migration. Labor's response was not to meet the ugly politics of that but to accept it and meekly say, 'We're cutting numbers.' It was shameful behaviour from Labor.

Labor has no capacity to defeat the divisive politics of One Nation because they've set the stage for it. They've spent the past four-and-a-bit years scapegoating migrants, introducing some of the cruellest migration laws and setting up corrupt deals with Nauru to actively force people—people often found to be refugees—off to a cruel detention regime in Nauru. That's what Labor's been doing, and they've got form. It's not just in this parliament. If you want to see the nastiest migration laws, the nastiest responses, they've always got a big Labor stamp on them. Mandatory detention, offshore detention and deporting kids—that's always been Labor. Labor has made it clear that they want to treat migrants differently from everyone else—as lesser than everyone else. How on earth can they be surprised when that politics empowers One Nation?

The Greens see migrants as people—our friends and our neighbours. We see them as whole people who deserve to have families, connections and a positive future. We see foreign students through a positive lens, as potential future cultural ambassadors, economic connections, family connections and person-to-person connections around this region. But Labor sees foreign students as a political opportunity to punch down and to join One Nation on. That's why we reject this legislation. That's why we reject this, and we look forward to, hopefully, somebody from Labor—maybe even somebody from the coalition—having the guts to break with One Nation's nasty, racist rhetoric and join with us in this.

The coalition will oppose this disallowance motion. The motion represents yet another example of the Australian Greens trying to wind back reasonable migration controls and remove price signals from a system that must be sustainable, workable and in the national interest.

The regulation increases the visa application charge for the temporary graduate visa subclass 485 from 1 March 2026. For most primary applicants, the charge increases from $2,300 to $4,600, with corresponding increases for secondary applicants. Applicants from specified countries and Timor-Leste remain exempt from the increase and continue to pay the previous prices.

Australia's migration system must be properly managed. That means visa settings should reflect the cost of administering the system, the value of the rights conferred and the broader set of pressures that the current migration program is exerting on housing, infrastructure, services and the labour market. The temporary graduate visa is not a student visa. It is a post-study work visa that provides unrestricted work rights and allows graduates to remain in Australia temporarily after completing their studies. Visa holders have unlimited work rights and may work in any field or occupation once they are granted the visa.

In essence, the Greens therefore want to remove a measure that helps to ensure that the program is priced and controlled more appropriately and effectively than it has been in the past. The changes being made through this regulation do not represent a ban. They do not establish a cap and they do not, in any way, abolish the existence of the temporary graduate visa. They introduce an increased visa application charge for a temporary visa that confers significant work rights in Australia. The regulation preserves lower charges for Pacific and Timor-Leste applicants, recognising those strategic and regional relationships that have existed for centuries.

The explanatory statement says the uplift does not apply to applicants whose primary applicant holds a valid passport from specified Pacific countries or Timor-Leste. In particular, this disallowance motion should be rejected because it would weaken the government's ability to manage temporary migration settings at basically the worst possible time to do so. Against the backdrop of an annual net overseas migration figure of more than 300,000 for 14 straight quarters, the Greens are, again, arguing for fewer controls in the migration system, lower charges and disregard for the pressures people are already living with in Australia.

A temporary graduate visa is a valuable visa. It provides an opportunity to live, study and work in Australia after completing an Australian qualification. It is reasonable that applicants make a fairer contribution to the cost and value of that visa. International students make an important contribution to Australia, but the temporary graduate visa is a separate post-study work visa. It provides substantial benefits, including unrestricted work rights. A higher charge does not remove access to the visa. It ensures the settings better reflect the value and cost of the program.

A credible international education sector depends on integrity and public confidence. Weakening migration settings does not help the sector in the long term. Sustainable settings are essential to maintaining community support for international education. This is not a punishment. It is a charge attached to a temporary visa that allows people to remain in Australia and work after study. The visa remains available, and exemptions remain in place for eligible Pacific and Timor-Leste applicants. More broadly, it is the Albanese government that has created a migration crisis, and there are many more things that we could all argue about, but this motion specifically is about placing a more appropriate charge on a valuable temporary visa.

In short, the coalition will not support the Greens' attempt to weaken Australia's migration settings. Temporary graduate visas provide significant work rights and must be priced reasonably and responsibly. At a time of pressure on housing, services and infrastructure, the Senate should reject this disallowance motion. The coalition believes migration must serve Australia's national interest. This means a system that is fair, orderly, sustainable and credible. The Greens' motion does not meet that test.

The question is that the disallowance motion in the names of Faruqi and Shoebridge be agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the provisions of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the related Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and to foreshadow the amendments that I will be moving. I'd like to start by thanking my crossbench colleagues, the witnesses who fronted the committee under a very tight timeline and the many peak bodies, advisers and residents across the ACT who have engaged with my office on these reforms.

Parts of this bill are very welcome and long overdue. Winding back overly generous property tax concessions is something that I have campaigned for across two elections now. The crossbench and housing advocates have argued for years that we need to treat housing more as a human right, as something that we want and need to be accessible and affordable in communities across this great country, not as an investment class, as an asset or as a wealth creation tool. On that, the government have my support and I welcome their move to do this. But supporting the goal is not the same as accepting a bill that is rushed, incomplete and, in important places, gets the detail wrong.

Here is the clearest proof of that. In the last few days before this committee had even reported, the government has backed down on two of the biggest problems with this bill. On Thursday, it introduced a new 50 per cent capital gains discount for innovative businesses, including founders and employee share scheme holders. Canberra is the startup capital of the country. We have more startups per capita than any other jurisdiction, and we cannot afford to be driving innovation offshore, particularly in a country that seems to favour multinational corporations when it comes to our government procurement system. I hear from so many startups who say: 'I don't want another grant. I just want to be able to sell to the government, and I don't understand why I need to sell to the UK government or the US government or the Canadians before the Australian government will buy my product or service.' That goes for Defence too. We see them rushing to the primes, offloading billions of dollars to primes when we have innovative Australian companies that, in many instances, are world leading and selling to other militaries across the world.

The government also announced it would scrap the minimum tax on testamentary trusts, and it conceded ground on the sweeping ministerial powers buried in this legislation. I welcome those changes. They are moves in the right direction, but think about what they tell us. The government is rewriting major parts of this bill on the run, days before the committee even reports after a two-day inquiry. These were not minor details. They went to the heart of how startups, employees and families would be taxed. If the process had been done properly, we would not be finding this out from a press conference 48 hours before the Senate report lands.

Take the inquiry timeframe. The Institute of Public Accountants told the committee that two days to deliberate was grossly inadequate, given how long these changes will last. The Business Council told the Senate the timeframe was inadequate on any reasonable measure, and, while I disagree with them on many of the things that they've said about parts of this bill, I agree with them on that. When the accountants and the business community both tell you to slow down and then the government itself has to scramble to fix the bill, that should tell us something as a Senate.

I welcome bold reform. Clearly, Australians have had enough with the status quo. It's not working for so many people across this country. But I urge that it be done right, with genuine consultation, exposure draft legislation and an adequate Senate Committee inquiry. My first amendment I'll be putting forward is a simple one. It splits the bill. It leaves the WATO, the changes to negative gearing, the instant asset write-off for small business and the standard deduction for work related expenses and sends the hardest part, the CGT changes, back to the Senate committee for proper scrutiny.

Our tax system should ask more of those with the most and ease the load on those doing it tough. That is exactly why the details here matter. A reform aimed at the wealthy, at those seeking to minimise their tax obligations, should not accidentally fall on the wrong people. That's the risk with how this has been designed. The people most exposed to these changes are not the property speculators this reform is meant to target. They are the early employees of a small startup who took shares instead of a proper wage, the founders who have poured years into a business that might still fail and the researchers trying to build something here in Australia rather than overseas.

On Friday, I was at the ANU talking with a incredible startup that's spinning out of the ANU with genuinely world leading tech, and they talked about the challenge of raising capital here in Australia. They were potentially looking to Europe to be able to develop their idea. We have to retain more of that talent here in Australia and grow those startups here in this country.

When their work eventually pays off, it can show up as a single large gain in one year and be taxed as though they were wealthy all along, when, most of that time, they were anything but. I welcome that the government has recognised this and moved to protect founders and employee shareholders. This is the right instinct, but the way it has been done leaves a real problem. The carve-out depends on a definition of innovative business that nobody can yet pin down. Companies will qualify based on whether they are genuinely innovative, judged on things like growth potential and scalability.

Here is the fair question: who decides, and how do they decide that? A rule this vague does not give people confidence; it gives them a guessing game. It advantages those who can afford expensive advice to argue their way inside the lines, and I don't think that is fair. The people this carve-out is meant to help should not be left wondering whether it covers them. There's a real problem of uncertainty here. We've heard consistently that uncertainty is already holding back the kind of investment that creates jobs and builds things here in Australia. A carve-out with an undefined boundary does not fix that. In some ways, it makes it worse, because people can't plan around a rule that hasn't been written. So good ventures stall, and the jobs that would have come with them do not arrive. I've heard significant concern from startups here in the ACT.

My amendments seek certainty, not just intent. I'll move to make sure that the protections for genuine employee equity and early-stage founders is clearly defined in the legislation and built on existing frameworks, like the early-stage innovation company rules. There were a number of startups through the inquiry process that urged the government to rather focus there and ensure that that framework is working and not leave it to a vague test and future instrument. I'll also move a series of further amendments drawn straight from the evidence provided to the Senate.

The government has said that it will pull back some of the broad ministerial powers in this bill. That is a good thing, but 'where no longer needed' is not good enough. The definition of a new residential dwelling and the core settings that decide who is taxed and how belong in primary legislation, where parliament can see them, can scrutinise them and then can vote on them. Every property peak has asked for this certainty, and my amendment puts it beyond doubt. I'll also move an amendment to protect grandfathered concessions that the government has announced where ownership passes through death or divorce so that families are not penalised by events outside of their control, if those are the rules that we're going by.

On testamentary trusts, I welcome the government's announcement that the minimum tax will be scrapped, but I note that this change is to come in separate legislation later in the year. It is a promise not yet law. My amendment would put the exemption beyond doubt now, in this legislation. Bringing in income averaging, again, built up over many years, as not being taxed as if it all landed in a single year, pushing someone into higher tax bracket than they ever really earned, is another amendment that I'll be moving. I'll be moving an amendment to put a low-income threshold so a young rentvestor, student or part-time worker does not end up paying a higher effective rate than someone far wealthier. A 30 per cent minimum tax makes no sense for someone whose actual income sits well below that. Pensioners are rightly protected under this bill. Low-income workers should also not be left behind.

On housing, I'm calling for the things that matter most to the Australians watching this debate, ensuring the benefits to the budget from these reforms are reinvested back into new social and affordable homes. ACOSS reminded us that this country already spends more on property investor tax breaks than on social housing, homelessness services and rent assistance combined. We have a chance to change that, and we should take that chance as a Senate.

Finally, on small business, it is an important move to make the instant asset write-off permanent. I think this should have been done well before now, but I certainly welcome it. I'll be moving to increase the thresholds for small businesses qualifying for the small business CGT exemption to all four types of exemption. The government has said that it will do this for one, which really doesn't make sense and I think adds complexity. As COSBOA rightly points out, these thresholds haven't moved in almost two decades. So this is the opportunity to actually update them for 2026 and into the future.

The amendments I put forward are not opposing reform; I support reform. They are about finishing the job properly, backing the people who build things with rules they can actually rely on, giving certainty to the people who invest and making sure the revenue we raise reaches the Australians who need a home. I urge the Senate to support these amendments and again thank the crossbench for pushing many of the things that have been in this bill, from changes to CGT and negative gearing on property to things like making the instant asset write-off permanent. I note we've actually had some votes on that in the past, and the major parties have not been willing to support them. So I think this is a really important step forward.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the related Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. Today's debate is just the next part of a long tale of disgrace and dishonesty that the Labor government has perpetrated on the Australian people. That this Senate should be reduced to a rubber stamp on a lie told to the Australian public by the Labor Party—that makes a mockery of our commitment to transparency as a place to protect Australians from government overreach. So shame on those senators who are complicit in this betrayal.

To every Greens voter who voted for a Greens senator believing the Greens would keep their commitment to honesty and integrity in politics: well, they lied to you. It's a disgrace, because the Senate has not been given adequate time to scrutinise what the government has described as being 'the most significant tax reform package in more than a quarter of a century'.

This parliament has been asked to consider legislation that will affect millions of Australians; kill investment; smash housing markets; wipe out small businesses, startups and family savings; and make Australians carry billions of dollars in additional tax. Yet Labor and the Greens have treated parliamentary scrutiny as an inconvenience rather than an obligation, rather than the job that we are all here to do. Despite the scale and significance of these reforms, Labor allowed only a matter of days for proper examination, and that scrutiny is fundamentally important because we know that Labor barely know what they're doing.

There have been more excuses about these changes than we've had days to hear from the public. First, these changes were supposed to be about intergenerational equity, but they dropped that when it was pointed out that their changes actually keep benefits for the last generation and shut the door to the next. Then it was about creating houses and making housing cheaper. But that lasted only hours because their own budget papers said that the changes would mean fewer houses and higher rents. Then they changed their minds again and said that the changes were about making sure that income from employment was taxed the same as income derived from an investment. They dropped that idea when it was pointed out that most investments are made using wages that have already been taxed. But the last one really took the cake—it really took the cake—when the Prime Minister said that, actually, this budget was all about 'combating populism in politics'. Oh, give me a break! I think that's when we knew that staffers inside the PMO and the Treasurer's office needed to come up with any excuse that couldn't be fact checked.

Let's be very clear. Labor's own bureaucrats don't know what it is that they're doing. First, the Treasury secretary got her figures wrong in a public defence of the changes, just got her figures wrong. Whoops! Then, during the excuse of a public inquiry, Treasury bureaucrats couldn't tell senators how much revenue would be raised from the capital gains tax changes and how much revenue would be raised from the negative gearing changes. They know, but they couldn't tell you. Officials confirmed that the measures had been costed separately, but Labor chose not to publish them separately. Why is that? If Labor can't explain the numbers behind their own tax increases, why should the Senate be expected to just wave them through?

Worse still, less than 24 hours before the committee was due to report, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced significant carve-outs and amendments to the legislation. Let that sink in. Labor announced substantial changes to its own tax package after the committee hearings had concluded, after witnesses had given evidence and with no opportunity for the Senate, for Treasury officials or for affected stakeholders to properly test those changes—extraordinary. The amendments were released after officials had avoided questioning on them and after the committee had finished taking evidence. Their own senators were sent out, blindly, to back in a package while their prime minister and their treasurer abandoned them to defend it.

For Labor, this has never been about anything other than the politics. It is a disgraceful saga that's masquerading as a tax policy. This is not transparency. This is not consultation. It demonstrates a remarkable contempt for the Senate and also for the Australian public. It reveals exactly what Labor thinks of Australians. It thinks that Australians are too stupid to notice that they're being robbed, and they are being robbed. If Labor genuinely believed that these reforms were sound it would have subjected them to proper consultation, proper modelling and proper scrutiny. Instead it's rushed them through parliament and is now asking senators to vote first and ask questions later.

The process is not the only problem here; the policy itself is so deeply flawed. At its heart, this debate is not simply about tax. It is about trust. It's about whether Australians can believe a single word that this prime minister says ever again. These bills represent one of the greatest breaches of faith with the Australian people that we've seen since Paul Keating's 'l-a-w law' broken promises in 1993. Before the election, the Prime Minister repeatedly promised Australians that Labor would not increase taxes on housing, would not increase taxes on investments and would not increase taxes on family savings. That's what Labor promised. Those promises were made over and over again. 'For the 50th time'—the Prime Minister said.

A government was elected on a platform of no new taxes, and now that same government is introducing billions of dollars of new taxes on housing, on investments, on entrepreneurship and on family savings. That is a tax on every Australian's aspiration, on every Australian's ambition and on every Australian's future, and Labor are inflicting it on you. No Australian voted for this, because they weren't given the chance. Let's be very clear: Australians have experienced the largest fall in living standards in decades, in a generation, under this Labor government. Labor's response to that has been to manage our economic decline by making struggling Australians pay for it. Labor can't manage money. They've never been able to manage money, and when Labor can't manage money they come after yours.

Labor's budget locks in $50 billion of higher taxes. I know that Labor think this is funny. They're actually laughing. Labor are laughing at the fraud that they have imposed on the Australian public. They are laughing at you because they have managed to pull the wool over your eyes. They lied to you before the election; they're lying to you now. The Prime Minister said that these changes are all about intergenerational equity, but that could not be further from the truth. Instead Labor is pulling the ladder up behind them and making it harder for young Australians to get ahead, first, through more than a trillion dollars of debt that they will spend decades paying off, and, second, through higher taxes on the very investments that people rely on to build wealth and to get ahead. Why is building wealth such a dirty word for Labor? It's the politics of envy writ large.

Young Australians are already facing higher housing costs, higher rents and lower living standards than the generations that came before them. Many have now accepted that the pathway to homeownership is no longer as straightforward as it once was. So they save, they invest, they buy shares and they put money into ETFs and other assets to build that deposit and to bring forward their own dream of building a home. But now, instead of backing that ambition, Labor are taxing it. Remarkably, the budget's own papers acknowledge that these tax changes will result in around 35,000 fewer homes. That's not more homes but fewer homes. Because of these tax changes, there will 35,000 fewer homes at a time when Australia needs more housing supply, not less housing supply, and at a time when Labor is already projected to miss its own housing targets by hundreds of thousands of homes.

You cannot solve a housing price crisis by reducing the supply of housing, but that's what Labor have intentionally done. When you tax something, you get less of it. It's basic economics. Less investment means fewer homes. Fewer homes mean higher rents. Higher rents mean young Australians will pay the price. Again, the government's own budget papers concede this point. Research from independent economists suggests that rents could rise by up to $160 a week in Sydney and by around $130 a week in Melbourne.

Young Australians are already struggling with cost-of-living-crisis pressures that Labor have inflicted upon them, and they will now face higher rents while simultaneously being told that somehow this is being done in the name of fairness. There's nothing fair about paying more rent because the government has driven investors out of the market, there's nothing fair about making it harder to save for a home and there's certainly nothing fair about reducing housing supply during a housing crisis. They're consciously, intentionally, reducing housing supply.

The government claims these measures will help first home buyers, but the evidence presented to the committee doesn't support that claim. What we know is that young Australians are increasingly investing in shares, ETFs and other assets to build that deposit. They're taking responsibility for their future, they're saving and they're investing, and now Labor wants a bigger slice of that action. A generation already paying record rents is now being asked to pay higher taxes on the investments that they rely on to save for that home. That is not intergenerational fairness; it is intergenerational fraud.

The same story applies to small businesses. Small businesses aren't a lobby group. They're not a business association. They're not a spreadsheet. They're families, they're livelihoods and they're years of sacrifice and risk and hard work and sleepless nights. Businesses have already warned that Australia ranks so poorly on tax competitiveness and that business investment is already at a 30-year low. Now they're saying that they're already delaying investment decisions because of the uncertainty that's been created by these changes.

What was Labor's response when the criticism became impossible to ignore? It was last-minute changes announced after the Senate inquiry had finished. But the so-called small-business carve-out is a con. Most small businesses will get nothing from it while still being caught up in Labor's broad tax grab. It simply created another layer of complexity and another layer of uncertainty. Even worse, Labor now wants Canberra bureaucrats to decide which businesses are sufficiently innovative to qualify for that special treatment. That's really making them a partner in your small business.

The coalition believes that Australians who work hard, save, invest and take risks should be rewarded, not punished. These bills reflect a fundamentally different philosophy, and the result is so predictable: less investment, less housing, less entrepreneurship and less opportunity. They increase complexity, they impose substantial compliance costs and they weaken confidence in Australia's tax system. It's been rushed, inadequately scrutinised and developed without the transparency expected of major tax reform.

The coalition supports genuine tax reform, lower taxes, simpler taxes, fairer taxes and measures that encourage Australians to work, to save, to invest and to build. That's why we support the working Australians tax offset. That's why we support the $1,000 standard deduction. But we cannot support the schedules that increase taxes, that reduce housing supply, that discourage investment and that break explicit promises made to the Australian people before the election. The coalition will continue to fight these toxic taxes. We will continue to stand up for renters, for first home buyers, for small businesses, for investors and for self-starters, and, for those reasons, the coalition opposes schedules one and two of these bills and urges the Senate to reject them.

Every senator who votes for these bills will be voting for higher taxes, not lower taxes. If you vote for these bills, you are voting for higher taxes. Be very clear on that. Fewer homes—you're voting for fewer homes. You're voting for higher rents, and you're voting for fewer opportunities for young Australians. Shame on you for doing that. You will be voting to make it harder for the next generation to do what previous generations took for granted—buy a home, build a business, save and build a better life. You're voting against that. The coalition will not be part of that. We will never be part of that. We will oppose these toxic taxes, and we will continue fighting for an Australia where hard work, saving, investment and risk-taking are rewarded and not punished because Australians did not vote for these taxes. They didn't get the chance to vote for these taxes because they were lied to. They were told that these taxes were not going to go ahead, and you have backflipped on that. You have backflipped on that.

Senator Hume, resume your seat. Minister?

I'd ask that Senator Hume withdraw that remark.

I withdraw. Labor has told a profound mistruth to the Australian public over and over and over again, and they can never be trusted ever again. Whatever they say before the next election, you can take it with a grain of salt. 'My word is my bond,' the Prime Minister said. My word is my bond. Well, his word is worthless. The coalition will have nothing to do with this, and neither should the Senate.

What a breathless performance we've just witnessed there. The exhaustion that must be felt by the end of it—

It's so, so rich to have a representative from a party that opposed every good intention of this government to bring a tax cut come in here and go on with that load of baloney. That is a total misrepresentation about what is really going on in the set of bills and the amendments that are before this parliament this evening, I find it really hard to hear a contribution like that and not want to laugh at how incorrect, how misconceived, how determined to mislead the Australian people that sort of a contribution is. It was full of alarm, full of fear, full of hyperbole and full of exaggerated drama.

Let's just cut to the chase and get some real facts on the table, because ordinary working Australians are over the outrage factory. They've had enough. They're exhausted by the constant whingeing and whining of the Liberal-National-One-Nation union out there about how terrible our country is. I believe in Australia. I believe in Australian workers. I believe in Australian small business. I believe in Australian big business. I believe in innovation. I believe in superannuation, which that party over there would never ever have allowed even to become a thing in this country. They will stand up here and they will pretend over and over and over again that they're actually good money managers, but we know the truth. They are absolutely not. Labor believes in all Australians and the contribution every single one of you makes to our nation. We want you to earn more and keep more of what you earn, and that's why we're bringing in tax cuts.

If we can go to that last contribution, there were like two lines that were truthful in what we heard, and that was that the Liberal-National Party will support—now, get the bit that they're supporting—the real bit that's really going to happen which is the working Australian tax offset. We're calling it the WATO. It's a new thing, up to $250 a year off for every single worker. It's a tax cut. You'd never know that if you were listening to that last hyperbolic rant of mistruths. If you're a working Australian, the legislation we're talking about is going to give you up to $250 a year off. That is for every worker. That's 13 million Australians who get the benefit of that. It's not just a few; it's 13 million. It's a pretty solid representation of those who are working.

Plus, for those who have reasonably simple financial affairs, the whole concept of keeping things, deductibility, having an accountant to do your tax return for you et cetera—there are many Australians who don't engage in that at all. They just show up at work, give a good day's effort, get a fair and decent wage under the conditions that Labor is making sure are there for them, and then pay their tax. They do that year in, year out without a big whinge, without a big demand for special consideration, without a big push that costs millions of dollars in the media to get special consideration. They don't have that luxury. They just show up, work and pay their fair share of taxes, and they're great Australian citizens. We're going to make it a lot easier for those ordinary working people to get $1,000 as an instant tax deduction, and that's a good thing.

I will note that, in that blast of negativity, Senator Hume actually did say in one of those sentences, 'We will support the $1,000 instant tax deduction.' You had to listen really carefully to hear it. The way she's tried to construct it, you'd think there was absolutely nothing in this for Australians—but there is. For 13 million Australians, there is a tax cut. That is what this legislation is going to deliver.

Like much of the legislation in this place, it's not always clear to ordinary people what we're doing. What we're talking about is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. It's a bill for workers. It's a bill for first home buyers. It's a bill for future generations. It's absolutely about helping Australians get ahead. It's absolutely, and unashamedly, about making the tax system fairer and better aligned with the reality of where tax from work should stand compared to tax from assets.

This tax package is also about ensuring that small businesses can continue to aspire and grow, that every worker is going to be supported and that investments are made for future generations. I'm very keen to acknowledge the great work of my colleague here in the Senate, Senator Darmanin, who chairs the economics committee so ably, and our colleague, Senator Charlotte Walker, also from this side, the youngest Senator in this place, who arrived in the Senate at just age 21. She's got some pretty good insights into what young people need and want. Like young people who are paying attention across the country, they're cheering on the Labor government helping them get into housing and helping them save for their future.

I met a whole lot of young working Australians today from the SDA union who were moving around the halls of this parliament. Those workers were here celebrating an achievement that this government made possible on the back of a fantastic campaign from the union and all its delegates for 'adult age, adult wage'. The changes that are coming in for those young people mean that they're going to be earning more money. They're taking on responsibilities; they're paying adult fees for everything else. Now they're going to get an adult wage. That's starting later in the year, and it's going to be coming in more and more over the next couple of years. Those young people are proud to stand here in the parliament to talk to Labor politicians, to acknowledge that their wages are going up and to say it's fantastic that they're going to get these tax cuts. I think it's really, really important to get those facts on the record in the midst of all this incredible fear and alarm.

One of the comments made by those opposite was that this is some sort of rushed process, but consultation has been happening before the budget and since the budget. It has continued right through the whole process, with this government continually consulting with different parts of the sector right across the country: workers, small business and large business. We make sure that those consultations go on. When we hear good ideas, we are responsive to those good ideas in the national interest, not just for self-interest. That's why the amendments that are going to be made come from that concern about making sure that we deliver legislation that is going to be enabling for the majority of Australians. We want to help more people earn more and keep more of what they earn.

Let's go through a couple of the amendments that the government is going to move because we are listening to the Australian people. We're listening to advocates who come to the government in good faith and who want to do their bit to help this country be better. We will extend the eligibility of the 50 per cent active asset reduction to more businesses by increasing the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million. That concession brings the eligibility in line with the turnover threshold for the instant asset write-off. It's very efficient, and it's something that's understood by small business. They spoke, they gave their advice, and the government has listened. This is a change that's a response to that. It's good to listen to other people who have expertise. It's good to make a change when there is something that's already good but you can do it better.

We have also taken on board the issue that was raised about tax deductibility for gifts and donations. We will ensure deductible gifts and donations reduce capital gains that are subject to the minimum tax, to maintain the tax incentives in relation to charitable giving. I know of, and I acknowledge, the contribution to fleshing that problem out in our public hearings. They were public hearings, with one held here in Canberra and one in Sydney. Senator Smith was a very good advocate for that sector. I acknowledge that contribution and, despite the fear, alarm and craziness of the contribution before mine, the reality is that the government listened. The government listened to advocates for the sector, and we've made that change.

The other thing that we heard when we were taking evidence under the leadership of our very good chair, Senator Darmanin, was some concern about a list of income support payments. People wanted to know exactly how it would affect them if they were on an income support payment, so, in response to that suggestion, even though it's always been our intention to make sure that people were protected, we'll provide a list of income support payments that qualify for an exemption from the minimum tax on capital gains. It seems a reasonable ask, and, of course, it's a sound amendment, which I support 100 per cent. It doesn't substantively change this bill in any negative way; it only improves it.

We're also going to deal with the issue of a calculation method for the working Australians tax offset and put that into legislation so people can see it, it's in there, it's legislated and it's clear. That's a response to information that we received while we were taking on the inquiry. We will also remove ministerial powers that are no longer needed to give effect to the government's policy intent.

These are all things that sensible governments have always done with legislation. That's why you go out, you get the information and you get the experts in. You have to discern between the chaff and the wheat. People were in there pumping the brakes really hard for their own personal gain. They were saying: 'Give me my money! Let me keep my money! I don't want to pay my fair share of tax! I've never had to pay a fair share of tax compared to the people working at Coles! Don't expect me to start paying now!' Vested interests like that were there. They were saying: 'Leave it exactly as it is. The way I earn my money from capital is much, much, much better, and so much more important, than the people who earn their money from their labour and their hard work!' That's not the kind of Australia that I grew up in. It's not the kind of Australia we think of ourselves as. This is a society where, if you work hard, you should be able to benefit in the same way as any other Australian, and you should also be expecting that you pay your fair share of tax. You don't get a special discount, because you didn't earn it in a job; you earned it through the money that you already have. That's not the Australian way. So this is simply a rebalancing of what has got completely out of kilter in the years since the changes were made to the capital gains tax.

One of the important things that we will be putting into this bill is an amendment to remove ministerial discretion in relation to a couple of aspects of the bill, with legislation that's going to be introduced later in the year. That will deal with a couple of things that people might have heard about, like what a new build is. What's the definition of a new build? That's going to be very important for young people.

I stand here as a part of the Boomer generation. Of course, like many people in my situation, I appreciate the fact that the government has decided to grandfather plans that my husband and I have made for our provision for our retirement, but to have people in the media deliberately misrepresent that the capital gains discount has been taken away is absolutely wrong. If you're a young person and you've seen your parents make wealth from investing in property, you can still invest in property—buy a new property, knock down an old one, put in duplexes, put that on the market. Keep growing your wealth that way. You'll be able to get a capital gains discount, and you'll be able to negatively gear. Remember there are still so many opportunities for you as young creative Australians to grow your wealth and also to earn more and keep more of what you earn. (Time expired)

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget was a victory of ideology over decency. The fundamental ideology of this Labor government is one which ignores wealth creation in favour of wealth redistribution and division, otherwise known as buying votes with other people's money. This is a deliberate strategy of division or, more accurately, a strategy of 'divide and conquer'. Implicit in this strategy is a simple maxim: 'It doesn't matter how much hate you get from those whose votes you don't need.' It's callous policy, cynical, dishonest and in the end self-defeating, as every communist government in history has found out the hard way. When you take people's stuff, they stop creating new stuff and the nation descends into poverty—time after time after time.

Despite the lesson of history, here we are with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which rakes in $1.38 billion in additional taxation in the first full year, 2027-28. This is a tax grab. This is before the $350 million backdown announced last week. How badly does this government need that money to take the electoral criticism they've received over a measure which is 0.2 per cent of budget revenue?

This bill takes from those who have created wealth to buy votes from those who have not yet created wealth—our young. And yet, according to the Productivity Commission and updated JBWere financial modelling, an estimated $3.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion in assets will pass from Baby Boomers to younger generations through to 2050. The speed of the transfer is increasing. Inheritances have more than doubled since 2002. Wealth passing between generations has risen from roughly $120 billion per year to an expected $500 billion per year in 2045. This government is trying to buy votes amongst young people with money they would have received anyway. That's the fatal flaw in this bill—the lie, the deceit. It's these trillions of dollars in inheritance that have become the grand prize of this communist Labor government's theft.

Labor wants to steal more of everyone's money, including from the young, and lock the young out of building assets for later in life. Lock you out! Labor's intergenerational equity and intergenerational wealth transfer lies will in fact really create intergenerational poverty—a veritable gold mine of money from taxing everyone for Labor and its bureaucrats to use to bankroll Labor's social engineering and to buy votes from their target demographics, which, for the record, are ABC journalists, university academics, immigrants from any country as long as it's not a Christian country and union bosses, although only the militant kind.

Not only will our young people receive less in the long run, they will receive less in the short term, owing to changes in the capital gains tax. Previously, any capital gain was discounted 50 per cent and then taxed as part of your normal income. This meant young people just starting out did not pay a lot of tax, especially those trading while at uni or TAFE. Not anymore. Now the full value of the profit will be taxed and at a minimum rate of 30 per cent, not your marginal rate. Even worse, more value trades and assets like trading cards or parts of a bitcoin over $500 are now treated the same for compliance purposes as large stocks portfolios. Do you have a $500 Pokemon card? Congratulations! Here's the compliance you'll need to meet, including valuations and notifications for a Pokemon card, you evil capitalist you. Off to the re-education camp you go. There will be none of this 'trying to get ahead' under this Labor government. The deceit of this government to pretend this bill is about intergenerational wealth when the real impact will be to make it harder for young people to get ahead—that's why the budget has been called the worst in living memory. Not only were the key measures toxic, the justification for taking those measures was a lie. It doesn't add wealth and opportunity for young people. It takes it away. Everyone except rusted-on Labor diehards saw straight through it. Our young have seen through it, and baby boomers are furious. They didn't work their whole lives to create wealth just so the government could come along and take a massive chunk to fund social engineering.

One Nation's response to these measures is simple: don't do it. Let Australians create their own wealth and use that wealth to benefit their children. For many Australians, the bank of mum and dad is in play to help young people get their own home. Assistance from parents has risen from 15 per cent of new mortgages in the 1980s to 40 per cent of new mortgages today. I know when I mention family that a lot of our constituents will be thinking, 'I don't have a family, since my parents got divorced and my parents lost their house in the divorce. What do you have to pass on?' I acknowledge those who are in that position. Your feelings and concerns are real. One Nation understands that, which is why our low-start mortgage will allow your personal superannuation account to provide a large share of your home deposit. This will allow you to get into your own home once you have a job, a work history and proven capacity to repay.

When it comes to the broader policy environment, including taxation and regulation, the response to Senator Hanson's amazing speech at the GetUp! press club in Canberra last week carries a warning. Our opponents will spin One Nation's policies and words so far, so tightly that Pauline Hanson could knit a sweater with them. Our policies do take a moment of serious thought to grasp. On one hand, One Nation policy does contain measures which need to be funded through some level of taxation. We will support and defend Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, aged pensions and the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those who are actually disabled, along with unemployment benefits for those looking for work and sickness benefits for those who legitimately can't work, amongst other measures. These are what make Australia a civilised society.

On the other hand, our campaign for smaller government is based on an overarching principle of allowing Australians to keep more of their own money and providing an economic environment that encourages people to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour. This is not an absolutist argument. It's one of degree—a balance between a government of decency and a government of waste. The Chalmers-Albanese government has crossed over the line out of decency into waste and hypocrisy and deceit, and, as a result, One Nation ranks are swelling. Labor obviously feel that entrepreneurs are not their demographic. You show that repeatedly. Interestingly, a large number of small-business people coming into One Nation are saying the same thing about the Liberals. ALP arrogance has been on display in the development of these proposals. No open consultation occurred and no white papers. The measures were drawn up behind closed doors and then dumped on the public, vomited onto the public. The committee stage for this bill was a farce engineered to manipulate a favourable report—deceit yet again.

This Labor government has made a mockery of the committee system across legislation, referrals and Senate estimates to the point where a review is needed to find a way to stop this abuse from ever happening again. The government has been forced to remove some of the worst elements of their tax grab. Great—now remove the rest!

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 includes a provision to limit negative gearing to new properties only. Negative gearing allows someone on a wage or salary to buy a second property, or more, and claim the net cost of that property against their tax. Any net profit is considered taxable income—it's taxed. Many Australians have used this method to get ahead. It's most common in retirement, with couples purchasing their retirement home near retirement and then renting it out to help pay it off until they're ready to move in. Then they rent out their family home to fund their retirement.

It's true that this is a concession which tends to be used at higher-income levels. Here are the facts. The top 20 per cent of wage and salary earners own 40 per cent of investment properties and claim 60 per cent of the tax deductions. Before this bill, there was no limit to the number of homes that a person could negatively gear other than the ability of their income to cover the cost.

One Nation believes—our policy has shown this before today and shows this right now—that a large property portfolio is not something that should be set against a salary. It's a business, and the person should have a corporate structure which is appropriate for that business. One Nation will limit negative gearing to two properties. This is enough for Australians to invest in real estate and lift themselves up without misusing the tax system.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, though, cancels negative gearing on existing homes entirely, and it allows unlimited negative gearing on new builds. So that older couple I mentioned before, buying their retirement home and renting it out to help pay for it—they can't negatively gear. Yet a high-income earner can buy up a whole new block of flats and negatively gear that. Where's the justice? How is that fair? How does that advance intergenerational equity? It doesn't. It drives intergenerational poverty.

There are two other measures in this bill. One Nation will support the $5-a-week tax cut. Although $250 a year is nothing towards offsetting the rising cost of living, it's money better off in workers' pockets than in the government's pockets, where it'd be eaten up before it even gets into play in 2027. As a reminder, One Nation policy will put a lot more into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will index the tax thresholds to ensure nobody is forced into a higher tax bracket because they got a pay rise to make up for inflation. That's the stealth tax. I've tried twice to amend Treasury bills, once under the Liberals and once under Labor. Both times, both parties said they loved the idea—but not now.

One Nation will leave schedule 4 in the bill. That is the no-documentation-required $1,000 for tax deductible expenses. I'm concerned that people who are entitled to more than $1,000 will lazily tick that box to save time, although opposing what is a benefit for the many on the basis of what it could do for the few is the wrong decision.

One Nation is moving an amendment to remove schedule 1, capital gains tax, and schedule 2, negative gearing, from the bill. If that amendment fails, we will oppose this bill.

The Labor Party have taken to using a deceitful trick to make it look like One Nation opposed pay rises for workers, which is false. Instead, this is to add a measure to a bill which they know One Nation will not support. In this case, it's the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes hurting the young and the old. It's called a poison pill. It's not their idea; the parties of globalisation around the world are using it to frame conservative parties as hateful of workers when the reverse is true. Tricks destroy trust and kill truth. Prime Minister Albanese gives so much material himself to the Fire the Liar campaign across the nation. Poison pills allow their fake 'independent' websites like They Vote For You to lie and say One Nation voted against tax cuts, for instance, when, in fact, the Albanese government wrapped the tax cuts in legislation that could not be supported—it had to be opposed. Labor refuses to put the measures separately. Had they put the measures separately, we would have supported the tax cut, minuscule though it is.

Another Labor lie is its claim this bill is tax reform. It's not. Instead it increases tax complexity, which leads to increased fees for accountants, lawyers and valuers when preparing tax returns for which the people pay. Taxpayers pay even more when doing their return. This is not reform; it's a rip-off for which you, the people of Australia, pay—including the young. Anyone interested in honest political discussion should treat the OpenAustralia Foundation and their propaganda arm They Vote for You with utter contempt. Their subscribers apparently do, because their most recent report admits a $50,000 loss. It's not working—perhaps try impartiality and honesty next time—nor is it having any effect.

The growth of One Nation is proof the public are breaking what has been a lifelong allegiance to the tired old parties—yes, you two—and are instead embracing One Nation policies that will restore wealth and abundance for all Australians. Labor's dirty tricks and lies will not stop One Nation from voting in the best interests of everyday Australians. We want to make Australia a land of abundance and opportunity again for the old and the young.

I rise to speak on Labor's toxic taxes, which the coalition will fight tooth and nail. If the CGT changes, the negative gearing changes and the death tax hidden in the trust rules become law under Labor, a coalition government will repeal them. When the government taxes something, you get less of it. You get less housing, less saving, less investment and fewer small businesses. We will back aspiration and reward hard work by scrapping these taxes.

Last week, in the highly rushed and poorly executed Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into this toxic legislation, it was clear that the Albanese government's proposed capital gains tax changes would devastate Australia's mineral exploration sector, and those opposite will not do a thing about it. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies told the committee the changes would directly target the retail investors who provide the lifeblood of junior exploration companies. When the peak body that represents more than 550 mining and exploration companies warns that Labor's tax changes will starve junior explorers of capital, the government should be paying attention, but they're not.

Australia's mineral exploration industry is our pipeline for future mines, future jobs and future economic growth, as well as energy sovereignty. AMEC told the committee that about 75 per cent of Australia's economic mineral discoveries are made by small- and mid-tier explorers, yet most rely heavily on mum-and-dad investors willing to back high-risk projects. AMEC warned that if these investors walk away because of Labor's tax changes exploration activity will fall, discoveries will decline and mining projects may never be developed. We know that new mines don't develop overnight. They definitely won't appear overnight and provide jobs under Labor's safeguard mechanism carbon tax or the overreach of the EPBC legislation, and now they definitely won't be incentivised by these tax changes.

Discovery to production for a mine can take up to 16 years. If exploration investment dries up now, Australia will be paying the price for years to come. These are the future jobs of our children today. We know that self-starters are what built this great nation. The resources sector is what built this great country. But what's even more concerning to me is this CGT problem is compounded by Labor's decision to abolish the highly successful Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive in 2025. Labor has already removed one of the few Commonwealth programs supporting exploration and is now proposing tax changes on top of that, so there is now nothing that will further encourage that incredibly important investment.

The coalition introduced the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive in 2017 to encourage investment in greenfield mineral exploration by allowing exploration companies to pass tax credits on to Australian investors, and it was hugely successful. The program delivered $105 million between 2018 and 2021, with the coalition extending a further $100 million from 2022 to 2025.

Despite the program's strong industry support and proven success in attracting investment into exploration, the Albanese government allowed the program to expire in 2025. The program cut by Labor had unlocked more than $1.1 billion in capital and $400 million in exploration spending. That's a huge return, and it's a huge loss now that it's gone.

We've already announced that a coalition government would reinstate the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive program with a $100 million commitment, including $50 million dedicated specifically to oil and gas exploration. With what we have just experienced in the Middle East, it's clear we need to pump the gas and get our resources sector unlocked so that we're never reliant on geopolitics again.

Only the coalition back Australia's resources industry, because we understand it underpins national prosperity and our energy and manufacturing sector. At a time when Australia needs more critical minerals, more resource investment and greater sovereign capability, Labor is making it even harder to discover the mines of the future.

AMEC also told the inquiry last week:

The government's Critical Minerals Strategy … says the world needs '50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines and 17 new cobalt mines to meet carbon emissions goals' by 2050. It therefore seems counterintuitive to make exploring for these minerals fundamentally harder in Australia, but that is what the proposed CGT reforms do. The proposed reforms seem to undermine the government's own agenda.

Doesn't that say it all? This means there's no Commonwealth support to junior minerals explorers but a new tax and obstructive legislation.

That may explain why, in the recent budget papers, there is a forecast—in the government's own budget papers—of a zero per cent growth rate in the mining industry by 2027-28. The International Energy Agency report shows a 30 per cent reduction in mining investment in Australia at a time when that investment is increasing in Asia and in other countries that understand the importance of the critical minerals sector. That's disgraceful.

This is another decision sending the wrong signal to investors at a time when Australia should be strengthening its global competitiveness in resources and critical minerals. Labor talk endlessly about critical minerals and future industries, but, when it comes to backing the companies actually searching for these resources, they're missing in action. This is yet another example of Labor making Australia a harder place to invest. Mining investors say the tax payable on successful exploration investments would almost double, destroying the risk-reward balance that underpins junior exploration. Junior explorers already face enormous risks in trying to raise capital to search for the next generation of Australian mines. Without exploration, there are no new mines, no new regional jobs and no future pipeline of critical minerals and resource projects.

Labor wants to punish the mums and dads who back these projects. Labor simply does not understand that, if you stop exploration today, you destroy mining tomorrow. Our message to those targeted by this budget is simple: we are going to back you to be its future. You work, you risk and you should get ahead. No-one voted for these new taxes. The Prime Minister promised in his own words, more than 50 times before the last election, that he would not introduce them. In an act of complete bad faith and disregard for the Australian people, he turned around and broke every single one of those commitments.

The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, supports schedules 3 and 4 and calls on the government to immediately pass laws to end bracket creep and implement a tax back guarantee by indexing the personal income tax brackets to inflation, starting with the first two tax brackets in 2028-29 and the remaining tax brackets from 2031-32. The coalition notes that this will deliver lower income taxes permanently to all Australians and ensure that income tax cannot rise without the passage of new laws.

The Senate inquiry was a farce. It was performance controlled by the government to ensure only a few of the many submissions could be uploaded and scrutinised and only a few of the many interested organisations, companies and parties could appear to give evidence. The government restricted the number of days available to hear on this important issue. The government restricted the resources available to the Senate committee to allow it to properly do its job. The government reduced the technology available for the live streaming of proceedings, something that is core to our democracy. This government is wilfully and devastatingly changing Australia. It's making investment in the businesses that pay the bills in Australia impossible. Labor is making us poorer.

I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. As a Labor Senator for Tasmania, I judge reform by a simple test: does it make life fairer for working people in my home state? These bills do. They help people keep more of what they earn and give more Australians a fair chance to own a home. Leaving everything as it is would be the easiest political choice. But the current system is not working for too many Australians, especially younger Australians. Doing nothing would pass the problem on to the next generation.

The first major part of these bills is the new working Australians tax offset. From the 2027-28 income year, eligible workers will receive a permanent tax offset of up to $250. Nationally, 13.3 million workers are expected to benefit. In Tasmania, around 270,000 workers are expected to benefit. That includes nurses, teachers, aged-care workers and apprentices. The bill also delivers the $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses. From the 2026-27 income year, eligible workers can choose a standard deduction of up to $1,000 instead of claiming each expense separately. Workers with expenses above $1,000 can still claim their actual costs. Around 6.2 million Australians are expected to benefit, with an average tax saving of $205. The Australian Taxation Office estimates the change will reduce paperwork and compliance costs by $380 million each year. Around 140,000 Tasmanian workers are expected to benefit. For a worker managing rent, groceries, power bills and fuel, $205 matters.

These bills are also about housing. We need more homes, including social and affordable housing. But tax settings also shape where money is invested and who has the strongest hand when a home is sold. In Tasmania, I hear from young people who are working, saving and making sacrifices but still feel ownership is moving further away. It may be a young worker trying to buy in Glenorchy, a couple saving by renting in Hobart or a family trying to stay close to work and relatives in Kingston. They're asking for a fair chance.

Schedule 2 changes negative gearing for future residential property investments. For residential properties purchased after 7.30 on 12 May 2026, negative gearing will only be available for new builds from 1 July 2027. Existing investments are protected. People who own a residential investment property or who have entered into a contract before that time can continue to use the current arrangements. Investors can also continue to negatively gear new homes. That directs the tax benefit towards investment that adds to the housing supply, by respecting decisions people have already made. The government expects these reforms to help an additional 75,000 Australians buy a home over the next decade.

Schedule 1 reforms capital gains tax from 1 July 2027. The current flat 50 per cent discount will be replaced with a system that adjusts the purchase cost of an asset for inflation, alongside a 30 per cent minimum tax on net capital gains. In simple terms, tax will be paid on the real gain rather than the part caused by inflation. The changes only apply going forward. Gains built up before 1 July 2027 will remain under the existing discount. The family home remains exempt from capital gains tax. These bills do not create an inheritance tax.

The four existing small-business capital gains tax concessions will remain, and, following consultation that the government has undertaken, the government has announced it will increase the turnover threshold for the existing 50 per cent active asset reduction from $2 million to $10 million. This will make the concession available to all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of all active businesses. That is important in Tasmania, where small businesses are the heart of our towns and regional communities. The government is also consulting on new concessions for eligible innovative startups, to be included in later legislation.

People receiving payments, including aged pension and JobSeeker, will be exempt from the 30 per cent minimum tax in a year when they receive an eligible payment. Deductible gifts and donations will also reduce the capital gains subject to minimum tax. Investors who buy new builds will continue to be able to choose between the existing 50 per cent discount and the new arrangements. The discount for eligible affordable housing will remain.

These details are important, because we have seen a campaign of fear and misinformation from those who do not want the system to change. That includes the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. They say they care about first home buyers, but they oppose reforms that will help 75,000 more Australians buy a home. They offer anger, but they do not offer answers. We have heard claims about a death tax, a tax on the family home and the end of small business. None of that is true. The family home remains exempt. There is no inheritance tax. Existing investment properties are protected. Small-business concessions remain and are being expanded.

Parliament should not protect the status quo simply because reform is difficult. Fear campaigns are easy; reform is harder. Labor is prepared to do the hard work because leaving the system as it is would leave another generation locked out of homeownership. We are cutting taxes for workers, making tax time simpler, supporting new housing and improving the fairness of the tax system.

For Tasmania, this means support for hundreds of thousands of workers. We're backing young Tasmanians saving for their first home; protecting existing investments; and supporting small businesses, pensioners and affordable housing. Most of all, it means taking responsibility for the future. Every generation should have the chance to build a secure life, earn a fair wage and own a home with rules that do not only favour those who already have wealth.

These bills will not solve every housing or tax challenge, but they are an important step towards a fairer system that rewards work, supports new housing and gives the next generation a better chance. That is good for Tasmania, good for working Australians and good for the country. I commend the bills to the Senate.

I rise to oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and related bill. If anyone's looking for a reason for the rise of One Nation in the polls—a reason why everyday Australians went and donated almost $5 million to Pauline Hanson's Fire the Liar campaign—look no further than this bill and the chaotic process we have before us today.

What we're dealing with is legislation that has been rushed. The government admits they botched it, and we are still waiting to see what amendments are coming before the Senate as the government desperately tries to fix legislation they know is bad and broken.

I was listening to Senator Brown say that this isn't about death taxes. Well, if that's the case, why are you rushing to remove that part of the bill? Why have you flagged you'll be taking the death taxes out of the bill? It's because you know you got it wrong. What we are watching is damage control dressed up as a housing policy and damage control dressed up as backflips. Labor is now trying to explain why their capital gains tax changes go well beyond what they initially flagged with the public, well beyond housing. Labor's come back talking about exemptions and changes within weeks of supporting them in the lower house. Let's be clear. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer supported this bill that Labor is now admitting is broken and bad. It's a big broken tax grab. The fact that we are going to have to sit here and deal with a bunch of government amendments is an admission of guilt. It is an admission that the government did not understand the consequences of their own legislation as they rammed it through the lower house and as they presented it to the Senate. And it is an admission that One Nation was right to flag this from the start.

One Nation stands with mums and dads, tradies and small-business owners who, right now, are worried that the Labor Party is going to be reaching into their pockets, grabbing their hard-earned taxes and wasting their money. The outcry we have seen from the people is a public repudiation of the Labor government's bad budget. It is a public rejection of the politics of broken promises. You can sneer at One Nation voters, at Pauline Hanson and at the 70,000-plus Australians who chipped in $60 to One Nation's Fire the Liar campaign because they are sick and tired of broken promises from a desperate and chaotic Labor government. But it won't work, because Australians know that Labor is desperately rewriting and patching up a bill that is nothing more than a giant tax grab. They claimed that the bill was ready—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have already voted for it—but we know it is not ready to pass; we know it is broken.

Older Australians were given the opportunity in the past to work hard, to save, to buy homes, to invest, to take risks and to build security for their families. Now young people are watching as Labor turns around and tells the next generation that they can't access the same benefits. They can't have access to asset growth or property growth or long-term investments. What we're seeing is a bill that will replace a known system with a much more complicated one. For many Australians, the result will be simple. It will be that they have to pay much more tax. As I said, this is Labor reaching into the pockets of Australians who have worked hard, saved and invested so they could stand on their own two feet. Now a person who's saved, invested and taken risks is facing more taxes because Labor has decided that private wealth creation is a problem that they need to manage in Canberra with a bill that punishes aspiration and will make Australia poorer.

This bill hits the very pathway many young Australians are now using, because homeownership has been driven out of reach because of Labor's mass migration obsession. It targets elements that young people have used: shares, EFTs, startups, equity and long-term investing. The number of young Australians who are exposed to the consequences of these changes is growing sharply and it is much larger than Labor would like you to think. So what is the answer from this government? This is another reason why the 'Fire the liar' campaign was so successful, because you see that the Labor government says, 'This is actually a tax cut.' Well, it is not a tax cut. They're talking about an offset which will be chewed up by inflation while they do nothing to address the problem of bracket creep.

I can flag that One Nation has no problem with supporting the tax-cut element of this legislation. But it's so clear to the Australian people what you are trying to do. It is so clear to everyone that, for anyone who opposes this terrible tax grab, you are going to stand up and attack them. You've envisioned this fantasy that somehow this is an attack on tax cuts, but that's just not going to work this time because the people of Australia are awake to your record of broken promises and deception.

Labor says it's giving every dollar back, which is exactly the problem. Labor is taking money out of private hands, sending it through Canberra, clipping the ticket, writing the rules and expecting Australians to be grateful when they hand some of it back. You're raising taxes, handing a little back, but the balance doesn't add up and you're telling Australians to be thankful. Frankly, it is insulting. One Nation believes Australians should keep more of what they earned in the first place. That's what we believe will help a teacher who can't afford a home near the school where she teaches. That is what will help a nurse who is doing extra shifts and getting smashed by the rents that are rising, the grocery prices that are soaring and the power bills that are growing under Labor. That's what will help police officers who are working nights and weekends while wondering how his children will ever be able to afford to buy a home.

One Nation is for working Australians. We're for the tradies, truckies cleaners, carers, retail workers, nurses, teachers, police officers and small-business employees doing everything right yet falling further and further behind under this Labor government. And we are for the more and more Australians have been forced into a category of working poor. As Senator Hanson said at her National Press Club address, there are many, many thousands of Australians with a job who cannot support a household. They are trying to pay their rent, feed their kids, keep the lights on and they can't. As we see, too many of them are ending up at the Salvos, at food banks and at charities asking for help in a country that should be rewarding work and not punishing it. This Labor government has failed them under this government. The promise was that life would be cheaper, but that promise, like so many others, has evaporated.

This government promised that power bills would come down. Well, Australians are still waiting —$275 cheaper from when you promised it. It never came. Again, this is why the Fire the Liar campaign has cut through—because people are awake to the broken promises. You promised to stand up for workers, yet you're making it harder for workers to build capital, buy assets, invest for retirements. You're making it harder for them to stand on their own two feet. The battlers, small-business owners and entrepreneurial young Australians trying to build wealth outside of the family home will be worse off. That is what accountants, lawyers, experts have warned of about this bill. It will make the country worse off. This is the government who promised that life would be cheaper and easier, and all they have delivered is higher interest rates and pain as Australian families are drowning in repayments and bills they cannot afford.

This Labor government claimed to care about housing while running population growth far ahead of housing supply. They consistently make projections of immigration and yet blow straight past them time and time again. You are now asking this parliament to believe that this bill that we're about to pass—it beggars belief that here we are again. It's so clear what will occur. We are facing another guillotine. There's no doubt you'll shut down debate. You'll rush this through again. Whatever amendments you're making will come at the last minute. It is truly disgraceful, and Australians are not as gullible as you seem to think they are. You truly have stuffed this up. This is one of the worst budgets of all time.

One Nation believes Australians should be able to build something. We believe that things can be better. The process that we are watching here—the failed process alone—should shame this government. Truly, some of the—if we're talking about who's going to benefit from this bill, it's going to be accountants. It's going to be managers of finance. The people who are really licking their lips at this are the people who are going to be paid to help Australians try to understand what's going on. The absurd scenarios that we are looking at as a result of this budget beggar belief. To look at and read that you've now got people who are desperately rushing out to try and get Pokémon cards costed because this Labor government did not think through the consequences of this budget is such an absurdity.

The chaos and uncertainty you have caused with this cannot be overstated, and we will not support it. We will not vote for this bill, which is going to be riddled with rushed amendments and hidden behind deceptive language. One Nation instead supports Australians keeping more of what they earn. We believe in protecting genuine small-business owners, founders, investors from being caught up in these rules. We believe that real housing policy deals with supply approvals and comes off the back of sustainable migration—an end to Labor's mass migration. We should not be punishing aspiration and attacking the pathways everyday Australians can use to build independence and wealth.

One Nation will oppose this legislation because Australians deserve better than a big tax grab and a failed budget from a government that cannot manage this economy, cannot keep its promises. Every time they feel they're caught short, they're reaching into the taxpayers' pockets and taking their money because they have run out of ideas of their own. Driving up inflation, driving up the pain that families are feeling—this truly is a disgrace. One Nation will not be supporting this legislation.

Mark my words, this legislation will be remembered for what it absolutely failed to do. It failed to create the opportunities Australians need to get ahead—opportunity for the small-business owner, opportunity for the apprentice, opportunity for parents trying to build a better future for their children. Governments should ultimately be judged by the opportunities they create not for themselves but for the people they serve—the opportunity to start a business, the opportunity to learn a trade, the opportunity to buy a home, the opportunity to raise a family and the opportunity for the next generation to do better than the last. That is the test this legislation should be measured against, and, by that test, it simply fails.

We're now five budgets deep into the Albanese government. Australians are asking a very simple question: are we better off? Australians are working harder and getting less in return. Homeownership feels further out of reach. The cost of living continues to bite. Yet, instead of addressing those challenges, Labor has decided the answer is more tax. These changes are being presented as reform, but reform should make it easier for Australians to get ahead. It shouldn't make it harder. For generations, there was an understanding in this country: if you worked hard, if you saved your money, if you invested wisely, if you started a business, if you took responsibility for your family, you could get ahead. That was the Australian promise—not a guarantee of success but a guarantee that effort mattered, a guarantee that responsibility would be rewarded. Today, more and more Australians feel that promise slipping away. They are not asking for guarantees. They are asking for a fair chance, a fair go. Australians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are taking responsibility and wondering whether the government is doing its part to.

As shadow minister for small business, I spend a great deal of time listening to business owners—the people who open the doors before sunrise, the people who invest their savings and their future into building something, the people who employ Australians and keep local communities alive. What I hear repeatedly is the same concern. For small businesses already facing rising costs, higher energy prices and workforce shortages, Labor's approach creates one more obstacle. It makes business owners think twice before investing, before expanding, before taking on an apprentice, before creating opportunity. Small businesses create opportunity with every dollar they invest. Every apprentice starts with a business owner willing to take a chance on somebody's future. Sadly, though, many businesses tell me they are simply keeping their head above water, and the consequences are already visible. More than 45,000 businesses have entered insolvency since Labor came to office. It's an utter shame. Construction businesses continue to record the highest number of failures. These are the very businesses Australia needs to build more homes. At a time when Australians are struggling through a housing crisis of Labor's doing, the businesses we need most are under the greatest pressure, and the pressure does not stop there.

Next month Australians will pay another 32c a litre at the fuel bowser under the Albanese government, and fuel is not just another cost. Fuel moves our freight. Fuel grows our crops. Fuel powers our machinery. Fuel gets Australians to work. Fuel keeps businesses operating and goods moving across this country. When fuel costs rise, everything costs more. You cannot build a stronger economy by making everything that powers it more expensive. Small businesses feel it. Farmers feel it. Families are feeling it, and Australians will pay more as a result. Now Australians are being asked to trust Labor again when it says these tax changes will somehow improve the economy. But economic success is measured by whether Australians can get ahead, whether they can build a business, whether they can own a home and whether they can build a future for their family.

Uncertainty does not only affect investment. It affects training. Governments talk about skills, housing and productivity, but none of those things appear by magic. Somebody has to train the next generation. Somebody has to teach young Australians skills they will carry for life. Builders, mechanics, manufacturers and contractors do that every single day. Every apprenticeship begins with an employer willing to invest in somebody else's future. Yet at the very moment Australia needs more skilled workers, Labor has cut $266 million from apprenticeship incentives. At the same time, it found another $35 million for skills advice and bureaucracy. It's a familiar story. Australians are entitled to ask a very simple question. Does this government value apprentices or bureaucracy more? You cannot build homes, strengthen industry or improve productivity without skilled workers, and you cannot create skilled workers without employers willing to train them.

Every apprenticeship represents independence, a career, a future. When governments make it harder for businesses to train apprentices, they are not simply reducing workforce numbers. They are reducing opportunity. That contradiction sits at the heart of this very legislation because, at its core, this debate is not really about tax. It is about whether Australia rewards responsibility or punishes it, whether we encourage aspiration or make it harder, whether we create opportunity or put it further out of reach. I acknowledge my own Northern Territory within this debate. In the Territory, investment is not an abstract concept. It is how businesses start, it is how communities grow, it is how jobs are created and it is how families build their future.

In the Northern Territory, those investors are not faceless corporations. They are almost always your mums and dads. They are police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, public servants, tradespeople, small-business owners, the people who coach the local footy team and the people who volunteer in their communities and back the place that they call home. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking not to be punished for doing the right thing. In Australia, we should reward aspiration, not penalise it. They are Australians who have worked hard, saved hard and invested so that they can look after themselves in retirement and help the next generation to get ahead.

In the Territory, where 99 per cent of businesses are small businesses, when small businesses succeed, our communities succeed, when small businesses thrive, our communities thrive and, when small businesses take on apprentices, opportunity is created. That should be encouraged, not discouraged. These are people willing to work hard, take risks, build things, fix things, make things and take responsibility. The small-business owner, the apprentice, the parents saving for their children's future, the Territorian backing their community—these are the people who create opportunity, and that is the standard this legislation should be judged against.

Every apprentice creates opportunity, every business creates opportunity, every home built creates opportunity and every investment in a local community creates opportunity. Australia does not need more barriers to those opportunities. It needs more Australians willing to invest, hire, train and take risks. Prosperity is not created by government. It is created by Australians who build, hire, invest and take responsibility. This legislation will be remembered for what it will fail to do. It will fail to create more opportunity for Australians to do exactly that. That is what Australians and small-business owners have been telling us and trying to tell this government, and that is why the coalition opposes it.

I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I want to start with a pretty simple observation. For years, Australians have been told that housing affordability is too hard, too complicated, too politically sensitive and too difficult to tackle. Every government acknowledged that there was a problem, every politician gave speeches about it and every expert wrote reports about it. Yet, for young Australians, the dream of homeownership kept drifting further away. House prices climbed, deposits grew larger, rents increased and more and more people found themselves wondering whether they would ever be able to buy a home of their own.

This government has decided that simply talking about the problem is no longer enough. We are prepared to act, because housing is not just another economic issue. It is one of the defining issues facing this generation of Australians. It affects whether people can move out of home, whether they can start a family, whether they can build financial security and whether they can put down roots in the communities they love. If we're serious about making housing more affordable, we have to be willing to have serious conversations about the policies that shape our housing market. That is exactly what this legislation does.

There has been a lot of chirping about this bill—a lot of outrage, scare campaigns and social media posts claiming this is the end of civilisation as we know it. But, when you strip away all the noise, this package does three very simple things: it cuts taxes for workers, it makes tax time easier and it helps more Australians buy their first home. That is what this legislation is about. This is a tax package that is pro-worker, pro-aspiration and pro-investment. It delivers tax investment for more than 13 million Australian workers.

It introduces the working Australians tax offset, providing a permanent annual tax offset of up to $250 for working Australians. This isn't a temporary measure or a one-off payment but a permanent tax cut. It introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction so Australians can claim up to $1,000 in work related deductions without having to spend hours collecting receipts and navigating complicated paperwork. Let's be real: nobody enjoys tax time. Nobody wakes up excited about searching through old emails trying to find receipts from eight months ago. Nobody wants to spend their weekend trying to remember whether they bought something in September or October.

Australians want a tax system that works for them—a tax system that is simpler, easier and fairer. These reforms will reduce compliance costs by around $540 million every year. That's less paperwork, less frustration, less time dealing with bureaucracy and more time focusing on work, family and everyday life. Combined with the tax cuts already announced by this government, the average working Australian will be up to $2,800 better off each year by 2028. This is real cost-of-living relief. At a time when Australians are doing it tough, what some people have called 'small' measures really matter.

But this legislation is also about something bigger. It's about intergenerational fairness. It's about recognising that young Australians deserve the same opportunities previous generations enjoyed. If you're in your 20s or your 30s today, the housing market looks very different to the one your parents entered. Young Australians have done everything they've been told to do. They've worked hard, studied and built careers. They've saved up as much as they can. Many have moved back home with their parents to save for a deposit. Many have delayed major life decisions because housing costs have become so overwhelming. Yet, every weekend, when they turn up to inspections and auctions, they're competing not only with other first home buyers but often with investors who already own property. This doesn't feel fair, and this government isn't afraid to say that.

The reality is that housing policy cannot only work for the people who already own assets. It must also work for people trying to build a future. That's why these reforms are so important. Treasury estimates these changes will help around 75,000 Australians achieve homeownership. That's 75,000 people who will have a better chance of buying their first home and 75,000 people who will have a better chance of building security for themselves and their families. This is a significant outcome, and it's one that should be welcomed by everyone in this chamber.

But what have we seen from the opposition? The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have lined up to oppose these reforms. They are blocking tax cuts for working Australians, they are blocking measures to make tax time easier and they are blocking reforms that will help more young Australians buy a home. They offer outrage and they offer scare campaigns but they don't offer solutions.

Let's talk specifically about negative gearing. If you listened to some of the commentary surrounding this debate, you would think that this government was abolishing negative gearing altogether. We aren't. Australians will still be able to negatively gear residential property. The difference is that, from 1 July 2027, those arrangements will be focused on new housing supply. If people want to use negative gearing, they can still do it by investing in new homes—homes that increase supply, homes that help address Australia's housing shortage, homes that contribute to the construction of the housing stock our country desperately needs. That seems like common sense to me.

Importantly, existing investments are completely protected. If somebody already owns an investment property, nothing changes. Their arrangements remain exactly the same. This reform is targeted, sensible and measured. Despite all of the noise, the overwhelming majority of Australians will never be affected. Only around one per cent of tax filers begin negatively gearing a property in any given year—one per cent. Yet, somehow, we are expected to believe that modest reforms affecting a small proportion of taxpayers represent some kind of national emergency. The facts simply do not support that argument.

The same applies to our capital gains tax reforms. The current system provides a flat 50 per cent discount regardless of inflation. This government is replacing that arrangement with a fairer approach that focuses on real actual gains not inflationary gains. Once again, there has been a lot of misinformation about these changes. Treasury estimates that, under these reforms, the average tax rate on gross capital gains will increase from 19.3 per cent to 21.4 per cent over the medium term—not 47 per cent and not the figures being thrown around in memes but a modest increase that creates a fairer system.

Who benefits most from capital gains? Treasury's analysis shows that more than half of all capital gains are realised by the highest lifetime income earners. Meanwhile, ordinary Australians pay tax on every cheque they earn. Workers cannot negotiate a 50 per cent discount on their wages. Teachers cannot claim a 50 per cent discount on their salary. Nurses cannot claim a 50 per cent discount on their income. Tradespeople cannot claim a 50 per cent discount on their pay packet. So it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the tax system should better balance the interests of workers and investors. That is what these reforms seek to achieve. They reduce distortions that have encouraged investments in established housing. They encourage investment in new housing supply. They help fund tax relief for more than 13 million Australian workers, which is a fair trade-off.

This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: who are we building Australia's future for? Are we building it for those who already have the most assets, or are we building it for the next generation of Australians who are trying to get ahead? This government has made its choice. We are backing workers. We are backing aspiration. We are backing homeownership, and we are backing young Australians, because every generation deserves the opportunity to own a home, every generation deserves the opportunity to build wealth through their own hard work, and every generation deserves a government willing to take difficult decisions in the national interest. This legislation delivers tax relief for workers. It makes tax time simpler. It supports homeownership, and it helps create a fairer Australia. For those reasons, I proudly support this bill and commend it to the Senate.

I've got to reply to this because it's just absolutely ridiculous that this is for the young ones. It's not. It's ripping the guts out of the young ones. Just to make the comment, this capital gains tax can only be, or negative gearing, on new homes. What you're doing is forcing young ones to move away from areas that they've actually grown up in—away from their parents, away from that support. If you wanted to negatively gear a house that you may want to move into in the future, it might be way out somewhere, away from family. You're not giving them a choice or an opportunity to buy a house where they want to buy the house. That is not helping the young ones at all, so this is just ridiculous—to actually tax businesses at 30 per cent. Then, from next year, they're going to have to get valuations done on their property—more cost to everyone. And then it's got to be indexed. This is more compliance and red tape that you're putting onto everyone again. You reckon you're helping everyone. You're not helping anyone at all with this tax.

This budget that you've handed down is going to destroy aspiration. It's going to destroy it for the young ones who actually invest in shares or whatever they may want to do, and to buy their own homes.

Debate interrupted.

I rise and stand alongside retail workers, pharmacy workers and warehouse workers across our country, who deserve a pay rise and deserve to have a safe working environment. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, better known as the SDA, continue to highlight the urgent need for wage justice and stronger protection for the frontline workers who keep our communities running.

Today I heard firsthand why it's so important to improve the pay for our young people and why that is so important to them. The SDA ran a campaign for a number of years, 'Adult Age = Adult Wage'. They won this because they campaigned hard, and they won it because they were listening to their young members, as we as a government have. Today I heard firsthand from a number of these young people, and their view is that just because you're 20 doesn't mean you don't have the same responsibilities or do the same job as someone older than you, so, if you do the job, you should get the pay. When their employer pays this additional salary, then they know that they're going to be able to afford to pay their rent. They're going to have enough money to actually be able to save. For many of them, it can reduce the number of jobs that they have just to make ends meet, and perhaps it can give them a social life as well.

We heard from a young woman who works 80 hours a week just to make ends meet, and she believes that the increase in her salary will mean that she won't have to work 80 hours a week and that she'll be able to save some money—but she's also hoping to have a balance, with a social life—to buy herself a home in the future. Another young man explained what it meant to him. When he moved out of home, he hadn't realised—I think all of us when we left home hadn't really appreciated what our parents had done for us—how expensive it is to live independently. This extra money won with this long campaign will enable him to meet his commitments but also to save some money. We heard from another young lady, who spoke about having multiple jobs and said that she had over many years saved some money, with a lot of sacrifice, and would be able to buy her very first home.

A lot of this has been brought about because of the campaign that the union ran but also because of the actions that have been taken by this Labor government to support our workers, to ensure that they keep more of the money that they earn and to ensure that young people have the opportunity to save, pay their commitments and get an education without working 80 hours a week. We had a young man from Tasmania, on his first time to Canberra, who spoke about being the main breadwinner in his household and how that money has enabled him to be able to contribute more to his family. We on this side say that people need to have fair wages for the work that they do—and they need to have a safe environment—unlike those opposite, who at every opportunity will vote against these measures.

These young people also spoke about the importance of superannuation. They are now campaigning to ensure that those under 18—15, 16 or 17, whatever their age—shouldn't have to work 30 hours a week minimum to attract superannuation. If it was an extra $7 an hour for getting the same wage as adults when you're doing the same job, this entitlement would equate to $7 extra an hour. It would also mean, when they retire, an $85,000 difference. That is significant. These young people see this.

These are the stories that we've heard. These are the stories that are told to unions. But these are the same stories that One Nation and the Liberals will not hear and that they do not support. At every opportunity, although they say that they're friends of the workers, they vote against tax cuts, against the cost-of-living measures and against equality in pay. We saw just last week that One Nation are saying very proudly that, if women aren't at work because they're on maternity leave, they should not be paid. That is woeful, after decades of women campaigning for this. (Time expired)

One hundred and thirty-seven is quite an interesting number. It's a prime number—the 33rd prime number, to be exact—and it's a number that's been the subject of much intrigue over many, many decades. In physics, a number approximately equal to one over 137 is known as the fine structure constant, which dictates the strength of the electromagnetic force. The physicist Richard Feynman famously called this one of the greatest mysteries of physics. Now, I'm not going to talk too much about physics in this place tonight, because I was much more of an arts and social sciences kind of student, but I think it's an important reminder that 137 is a very special number.

But the reason why it's particularly special is that 137 is the number of Medicare urgent care clinics that Labor promised to deliver and that have now opened around the country. That's 137 clinics from Perth right across to Canberra, up to the north and right across our wonderful country that you can walk into to get the health care you need with nothing but your Medicare card. If I were allowed to have props in here, I would, of course, hold up my Medicare card, but I can't do that in this place. So all you need is your Medicare card to walk into one of our 137 Medicare urgent care clinics and access health care.

These clinics are so important to Australians, and I was particularly reminded of this when, a couple of months ago, I took my son there for one of the many ear infections, flus or eye infections that kids get at child care these days. I could see the variety of things that were being treated by the wonderful doctors and nurses at my local Medicare urgent care clinic in Beeliar. One lovely man told me that he had been bitten by a wombat at the wildlife park where he worked in Perth and so had headed to the urgent care clinic on his way home to get it checked out. I thought that was possibly one of the more interesting things that they see at those clinics. I spoke to a woman who had recently had surgery and was worried about an infection and so had called into the clinic to get it checked out. It really is a wonderful place. People don't have to worry about ringing up, making an appointment with their GP and, in many cases, paying to see their GP.

Why do these clinics matter so much? People feel that stress of thinking, 'I've got a medical issue; it's urgent, but it's not an emergency.' They don't want to head to an ER and spend potentially a long period of time waiting. They don't want to add extra stress to local hospitals. So we know that, particularly for families with young children, these are really important services. One in four visits to Medicare urgent care clinics, in fact, are for patients under the age of 15. I know that there are many parents today holding sticky toddlers in the waiting rooms of those Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country, as I have done many, many times.

A particularly interesting fact that I learnt today is that there are more Medicare urgent care clinics in Australia than there are MECCA stores. MECCA is one of the biggest and most successful retailers around the country and very popular, I think, with my generation of women, but we've opened more free Medicare urgent care clinics than there are MECCA stores. It makes me so proud of the work that our government is doing. It's another Labor legacy, just like Medicare. It's a logical next step in that legacy, and it's something that, as a Labor senator, I am extremely proud of.

Labor built Medicare, and we will always protect it. We will always protect these 137 Medicare urgent-care clinics by making them a permanent part of our healthcare system so that people of all generations, for generations to come, can rely on the care that they need. This is, of course, on top of our record investment in bulk-billing so more people can see the GP for free; our plan for cheaper medicines; our record investment in women's health, endo and pelvic pain clinics right across the country; and cheaper contraceptive pills.

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker.

Earlier this month I had the good fortune of being invited by Adireddy Yara, one of the founders of the Adelaide Telangana Association, to join them in their celebration of their state formation day. Telangana is the most recently created state within India, which occurred on 2 June 2014, so it's not only a celebration of them gaining franchise but also to acknowledge the hard work everyone in that community and in that state did to achieve self-determination within the Indian federation. Importantly, that evening, there was the launch of Dr Prem Dwivedi's autobiography. He started with humble beginnings in India and scaled the heights of academic achievement in South Australia. It was a great privilege to meet him. His book is titled TheUnlikely Indian Migrant: From a Village Boy to a Scientist in Australia: Against All Odds.

What struck me when I was reading the book was his description of the creation of the Sanatan Cultural Organisation of South Australia, which came out of the Indian community assisting each other during COVID. He writes a beautiful paragraph, which I'd like to share with you, that says: 'SCOSA became a reminder that the culture and faith are not relics preserved only in memory but living forces that continue to shape identity, foster belonging and build bridges across communities. Through its celebrations, SCOSA showed how traditions carried from distinct homelands could enrich the social fabric of Australia while helping migrants feel connected, valued and at home. In many ways, SCOSA's mission extended beyond cultural preservation. It became a quiet yet powerful example of multicultural integration, where diversity was not merely tolerated but embraced as a shared strength that united people and connected them to the wider society wherever they lived'.

Can I leave senators with that wonderful paragraph as a timely reminder to us all in the current debates that what really makes Australia great is all its people, no matter how they found themselves coming to these shores.

Senate adjourned at 20:12