If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

We have heard from the community that this bill will do harm and that there has not been enough time for scrutiny. We need another inquiry, and the Greens today move to set up another inquiry. This will give the community more time, provide more evidence and build more pressure to defeat this bill, to scrap it.

I want to say thank you to everyone who shared with the inquiry just that has just concluded their experience of navigating the NDIS, their concern and their outrage at this bill. I want to thank you all for your effort, your energy, your emotional labour. You were so staunch, so courageous. You should not have had to disclose the things that you shared with us. You shouldn't have had to spend your own money and time trying to persuade parliamentarians of your basic rights to the basic supports you need to live. You met the moment. You put the work in. You forced members of parliament across this place, from both parties, to listen to the realities of what this legislation would do to disabled people.

The campaign, the pressure we are building together, is working. This bill is losing momentum, losing support. It remains friendless. The only advocates it has in this place are the government that created it and that are trying to use it to greedily rob disabled people and our families of the funds that we need so that they can meet their budgetary targets. And why? Because they don't have the guts to tax the gas exporters, to tax the big corporations, to make the billionaires pay their fair share. Because of their gutlessness, we as disabled people pay the price. Well, no more—not while the Greens are in this place.

We have secured an additional eight-week inquiry into this legislation—eight weeks of scrutiny, advocacy and evidence. It's an opportunity to build the campaign to have this bill chucked in the bin. I know that already so many have given so much to this effort, and it is being asked of you at a time when you are already pushed to almost the brink of endurance. There are more hearings now to come, and every experience shared is incredibly powerful. If you can, get involved, give evidence, organise protest and agitate.

To all politicians listening to this debate, let me say this: when this sitting of parliament finishes and you return to your electorates, take back the stories and evidence that have been given to you by disabled people, our families and organisations. Go back to your parties, go back to your powerbrokers and tell them about the harms this legislation will do. Tell them about the impacts that disabled people have shared with you. Tell them about what it will mean for us to no longer be able to get into our communities, socialise, get out of bed in the morning, keep our jobs and keep supporting our kids to go to school. Tell them about what it will mean for us to live with a perpetual sword swinging above our heads, wielded by a government which, at any time, might seek to balance their books by further cutting our social and community participation supports. Go back and tell them that message and return to this parliament with open ears to actually address the needs of disabled people and our families and to fix the NDIS— (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

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

I move:

That a motion relating to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the NDIS Bill may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

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

I move:

That—

(1) the Community Affairs Legislation Committee table an interim report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 on 23 June 2026; and

(2) the committee table a final report on 14 August 2026.

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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for this sitting period.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for this sitting period to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the closure motion as put by Minister Wong be agreed to.

The question is that the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.

I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and return of business for the sitting period may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

I move:

That—

(1) On Tuesday, 23 June 2026, divisions may not take place after 5.30 pm.

(2) On Wednesday, 24 June 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 be called on at

10.10 am;

(c) the routine of business following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75 be consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 (second reading speeches only); and

(d) the Senate adjourn without debate at the conclusion of second reading speeches, at 10.30 pm, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.

(3) On Thursday, 25 June 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the question on the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 be put at 10.10 am, and the consideration of the bills have precedence over all other business at the following times:

(i) from 10.10 am till 11.15 am, and

(ii) from the conclusion of formal motions or 12.15 pm, whichever is earlier, till 1.30 pm;

(c) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at

1.30 pm:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, and

(ii) Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2025-2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2025-2026;

(d) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm and after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills; and

(e) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

(4) On Monday, 29 June 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 10 am till adjournment;

(b) subject to paragraph (f), the routine of business from 10 am till 1.30 pm and following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75 be government business only;

(c) the following bills be considered during government business for no more than 60 minutes each:

(i) Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026

(iii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform)

Bill 2026

(iv) Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026

(d) following the conclusion of the total time allotted under paragraph (c) for the consideration of the bills listed in that paragraph, the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put:

(i) Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026

(iii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform)

Bill 2026

(iv) Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026

(v) Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026

(vi) Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026

(vii) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills; and

(f) if the consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (d) concludes before 8 pm, the Senate return to its routine of business, otherwise the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

(5) Paragraphs 3(b) and (c) and 4(d) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

by leave—Australia, guess what you've just witnessed? It's the dirtiest of dirty deals between the Albanese government and the Australian Greens to kill off aspiration in Australia. Gone are the days of the great Australian dream. It didn't matter who you were or where you came from. If you did the right thing, if you worked hard and if you saved your money—guess what?—you could actually get ahead in Australia. But the deal that has just gone through—shame on the government for dealing with the Australian Greens, because we all know the Australian Greens have never seen a tax they didn't like and then doubled it. And that is what we have just seen.

The government has just done a dirty deal to set up, in an expedited fashion, the passage of some of the most regressive tax reforms that this country has ever seen. To all those young people out there who've thought, 'I'd save hard, I'd open an account and I'd put my money away so that I could get a deposit on my home,' guess what? The deal has just been done for Mr Albanese to step in and take up to 47 per cent of it. So to every young person out there, I give you this commitment on behalf of a future coalition government: on day one of a future coalition government, we will bring in the legislation to get rid of these toxic taxes. Why? Because we believe in you. We believe that your hard work should mean that you can put money away to save a deposit to buy a home. If you're a business in this country, the Albanese government has the audacity to say to you, 'Stay small and these changes won't have much of an effect on you.' What an insult to every man and woman in this country, to every young person who's ever had a dream to open their own business, to be an entrepreneur and to say, 'I'm going to work hard. I'm going to build this business up. I'm going to employ people. I'm going to pay my taxes. And one day when I sell that business that I've built up through blood, sweat and tears, maybe I'll have a bit of money left over to see me into the next phase of my life.' Well, not under the dirty deal that's just gone through, because, Australia, what you have just witnessed is Mr Albanese saying, 'I am the Prime Minister that is officially going to end aspiration in this country.'

Colleagues, the bad news is we can't use the word 'lie' or 'liar' in the Australian Senate, so I would invite the Australian people to, if they've been told 50 times before the election, to the point where the Prime Minister snapped at journalists. How dare they ask him: 'If you are elected, will you change negative gearing?' 'No.' 'If you are elected, will you change capital gains tax treatment?' 'No.' And then guess what? He's changed his mind. And the bad news for Mr Albanese is this: every time you stand up now, the Australian people see a man who, whenever you open your mouth—you could say 'the sky is blue'—I'd say, 'colleagues, go out and check it because it does not matter what he says, it does not matter what comes out of his mouth—be careful Australia; he'll just change his position.' Australia, you'll be sitting there saying: 'But hey, hold on, 50 times before the election I was told by Mr Albanese that if I voted for him, he wouldn't touch negative gearing. I'd have the same advantage that he had in building up his property portfolio—$4.3 million home he's bought, plus all of the others—because he could utilise the negative gearing.' But Mr Albanese in good socialist fashion is going to deny other Australians the right to build up a property portfolio so they too can buy a $4.3 million home. That is gone.

As for capital gains tax, God help any Australian under the Albanese Labor government who actually wants to be aspirational , because Mr Albanese has made sure that, with the vote that has today gone through the Australian Senate, as of the end of this week, any hope of aspiration—you growing your business and being a success without the government stepping in and taking up to 47 per cent—is now gone. Shame on Labor, shame on the Greens. Day one of a Taylor of government, these taxes are being axed.

Well, here we go again, with a litany of broken promises, a blatant tax grab worth $77 billion, a two-day inquiry stacked with Labor's friends and sycophants to rubber stamp it. Assurances were made more than 50 times that negative gearing and capital gains would not be touched. What an embarrassing backflip, carving out a few token concessions worth less than half a billion dollars and an out-of-touch lying Labor government intent on remaking Australia in its broken Marxist image.

Senator Hanson, I will remind you of your language in this place. It's one thing to run particular language outside of this chamber, but I'll ask you to mind your language in here, please.

It's not a personal reflection. It's not a personal reflection on anyone.

Please continue, Senator Hanson.

That's the real story of this appalling budget. The Prime Minister has claimed his budget is a response to a rise in populism in Australia. At the economic summit hosted by Sky News and theAustralian this month, he said:

… if people think the economy isn't working for them and they're working their guts out and they're not getting opportunity, I tell you what, they will turn to more simplistic grievance based politics … Because it is real, the frustration that people have out there.

One Nation is not simplistic grievance politics. We have continually put forward policies that the Australian people relate to—policies that will improve the lives of Australians, take them out of poverty and give prosperity back to the people.

The Prime Minister obviously can't read the room. He doesn't know what's happening out there. He's never been in the real world, and neither have a lot of the ministers. When have they ever run a business, had a real job in the real world or understood what it's like? All they've done is get their money from the taxpayer. They've never really had to do it tough. Labor is blind to what Australians are really frustrated about, because Labor does not listen and Labor does not care. Australians have had enough of being lied to. Unfortunately for the government, it's in Labor's DNA.

Australians are constantly told renewables are cheaper. Yesterday in South Australia, with temperatures plummeting and no wind blowing—listen to this—it would have cost $5 to just boil a kettle. Because there was no wind, on a price balance here, they had to cap the cost of electricity, and, at the cap, it would have cost $5 to boil your kettle. That's the future, Australia. That's what we're heading for under these renewables, which this hopeless government keeps pushing on you, all supported by the Greens, this mob over here, this bunch of hypocrites. It is supported by them as well. Australians are constantly told renewables are cheaper, but they're not without the taxpayer government handouts. That's what actually gives you some relief, but don't expect it all the time. They can't; they're running out of money. They haven't got the money anymore to keep giving you these handouts and buying your vote. It puts you in the safe place, but you're not really safe. Anyway, renewables are obviously not cheaper.

It is not only about boiling the kettle. I was visiting a cotton farm near Goondiwindi, and do you know what they said? 'Oh, we get constantly asked to turn off the power. If we turn off the power so that no-one else goes into blackout—households—so they can deliver power, we get paid $150,000.' So this is what's happening. They're actually paying the subsidies for people to stop using the power so the renewables work. Otherwise, they'd all go down in a heap. So you can imagine what's going to happen in this country. We've seen this before. We've had blackouts in the country. Prepare for it. Buy more blankets, will you, please? Out there, you're going to need them and the coats and everything. You're going to need it, especially in wintertime now.

Household electricity costs have risen more than 200 per cent since large-scale renewables were first mandated. Around 337,000 Australian households can no longer afford their energy bills. Let me repeat that: around 337,000 Australian households can no longer afford their energy bills, let alone the businesses. They're shutting up shop. Let me remind you: 50,000 small businesses insolvent. Why? Because they can't afford their power bills. Industries and manufacturing are shutting down. Why? Because of the power bills. They're going overseas.

On top of that—oh, who's that aluminium smelter? Tomago—that's right—in New South Wales. Guess what: they gave them $1 billion to pay for their power, but the Australian people—forget about that. Forget about every other small business. They're terrified of losing Tomago from New South Wales, so they say, 'Let's give them a billion dollars in funding.' Oh, this is great! This is good economics of running this country! I just absolutely love it!

Then you've got Labor's obsession with net zero, which is evidently a major cause of Australia's cost-of-living crisis. But there's nothing in this budget which shows Labor cares about this impact. Australians are waking up to the scam. It is a scam. They don't believe this lie anymore. All they want is affordable and reliable electricity like we had before the major parties started spending uncounted billions of taxpayer dollars covering regional Australia in renewables. All they want is a fair go and a chance to get ahead, to own a home and to invest in their future prosperity just like their parents and grandparents could. Many Australians no longer believe they have this sort of future. This budget confirms Labor has every intention of taking this future away from them.

This budget intentionally kills aspiration. It seeks only to entrench mediocrity. It's classic Marxism. It doesn't make everyone equally rich; it makes everyone equally poor, except of course the ruling class. Having benefited immensely from negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, Labor ministers are now pulling up the ladder behind them. They're alright. As we've heard, the Prime Minister's got his housing investments. I think it's a conflict of interest. I really do. He knew what was coming. He knew the laws were going to be changed. So he sold his investment properties and secured himself his house at $4.3 million. That's alright. And now they've brought in the negative gearing to stop other Australians with aspiration from owning their own homes. That's wonderful. That's fantastic, Prime Minister.

As I said, my Fire the Liar campaign is spot on. Australians aren't stupid, and slowly they're waking up. It's taken them some time. I wish they'd wake up a lot faster over this scam, the renewables, because they're really paying for it. But they know what's going on. They're starting to realise. They see the direct connection between government policy and their declining living standards. It's not grievance which is driving support away from the major parties and it's not social media algorithms, no matter how much the Marxist Greens wish that were the case. They want that to be the case, but it's not. It's the simple recognition by everyday Australians that they've been lied to all these years. This is changing Australia's political landscape. The political establishment is still using the map for the old landscape, and it's getting lost in the wilderness. One Nation makes no apology for successfully navigating this new landscape. We make no apology for listening to Australians and telling them the truth.

Businesses are collapsing at record rates. Around 50,000 businesses have become insolvent since Labor took office. Productivity is at its lowest in almost 60 years, especially in the bloated Public Service. Guess how much the Public Service has gone up under this government? It's gone up by 50,000. It's gone up from approximately 176,000 to 216,000 during this government. Who's paying for that? The taxpayers. My God, why do you need that many public servants? Oh, that's right—you've put in more regulations and restrictions over the people to control them. So you need all these people to now control the people more. Wonderful move, Labor! It's an absolutely fantastic move. You're really helping the Australian people out there.

Business confidence and domestic investment have fallen to lows not seen since Paul Keating's recession of the 1990s. Our inflation is the highest in the developed world, thanks mostly to out-of-control government spending. Australian families have endured 15 interest rate hikes, pushing more than a million households into mortgage stress. GDP per capita has fallen in 10 of the last 15 quarters. Budget deficits will balloon by another $100 billion over the forward estimates. Interest bearing debt will climb another $300 billion to about $1.3 trillion. So much for intergenerational equity. This budget only creates intergenerational poverty.

The bill we're debating has only been firmly rejected by the majority of Australians. The recent carve-out of concessions is an acknowledgement the policy itself is fundamentally flawed. It should be completely scrapped. Capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing provide the housing so desperately needed by millions of Australians after state governments decimated public housing stock around the nation. They give many Australians the means to remain independent of the need for government handouts. One Nation will never support the changes to capital gains and negative gearing in this bill. One Nation will keep the capital gains discount where it is. We will support negative gearing for up to two investment properties—incentivise people, give them that ability. This captures around 94 per cent of the approximate two million property investors in Australia who own only one or two properties. They're not the greedy property tycoons Labor pretends they are. They're just hardworking Australians who have sacrificed and saved to invest in an independent future. There's no credible reason to tax these people out of investing altogether, but that's what Labor wants.

This budget bill will drive more Australians into the working class poor. Labor hates independence. Labor loves dependence. Labor hates innovation and entrepreneurship. Labor loves to kill off with high taxation, record high energy costs and overregulation. This mob is made up of idiots who have never run a business or had a job not funded by taxpayer or corrupt union bosses. Labor believes it can tax and spend its way out of trouble, never mind the impact of inflation and interest rates. One Nation puts forward a different way, putting the lie to Labor's assertion we have no solutions. We need to cut government's out-of-control spending, which will reduce inflation, alleviate the pressure on the RBA not to increase interest rates. One Nation has identified at least $90 billion in spending cuts. At least a third of it comes from scrapping net zero. We suspect there's a lot more to be saved, because Labor carefully hides a lot of its net zero spending from the Australian people forced to pay for it. We know that a great deal more renewables infrastructure is in the pipeline—infrastructure that will cost taxpayers at least $1.4-plus trillion, another white elephant blow out like the Snowy 2.0. One Nation will scrap both, putting an end to government spending on this net zero obsession will reduce inflation and the cost of living. It will reduce the need for more taxpayer funded handouts dressed up as cost-of-living relief. It's not rocket science or brain surgery. It's basically common sense.

The Greens' deal with the Labor is absolutely disgusting. They are the biggest property holders. They've got theirs. They're passing this because they're grandfathered. They're looked after. They've got their properties. How many properties each are they? I think the most of any one party of everyone else, and yet they're quite happy to see this go through. You think you're looking after future generations. What a joke. (Time expired)

This bill is presented as tax reform, but it is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is a package of higher taxes built on broken promises, bad economics and a fundamental misunderstanding of how investment creates prosperity. Under this bill, the government has proposed to abolish the longstanding 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for many investors and replace it with an inflation indexation model that could see capital gains taxed at rates up to 47 per cent. It also proposes to restrict negative gearing on rental property to newly built homes. These are not modest adjustments. They are fundamental changes to Australia's investment framework.

Before the election, the Prime Minister repeatedly promised Australians there would be no new taxes. Instead, Australians have been handed higher taxes on investment, higher taxes on housing, higher taxes on enterprise and higher taxes on aspiration. This is a government that cannot manage spending, cannot manage inflation and cannot manage the budget, so it's coming after the savings and investments of ordinary Australians. Rather than growing the economy, Labor has chosen to tax it. Rather than encourage investment, it has chosen to discourage it. That is why this is such bad legislation.

The government claims these changes are about housing affordability and intergenerational fairness, but the housing market is already delivering its verdict. Across Australia's capital cities, auction clearance rates have collapsed below 50 per cent for the first time in six years. More homes are now failing to sell than selling. Buyers are retreating, vendors are losing confidence and investors are sitting on the sidelines. Housing markets run on confidence. Labor's changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing will inject even more uncertainty into an already fragile market. The government's own budget papers acknowledge these changes will result in fewer homes being built. Treasury expects lower house prices than otherwise would occur, while economists warn investor demand could fall sharply and market turnover by as much as 20 per cent. This is not a housing strategy; it is a confidence strategy in reverse. The tragedy is that Labor has completely misdiagnosed the problem. Australia does not have an investor problem; Australia has a housing supply problem. Taxing investors will not build a single extra home. It will simply mean fewer rental properties, less investment and greater pressure on renters already struggling through a cost-of-living crisis.

But the damage does not stop with housing. The evidence before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee made it abundantly clear these changes will reach well beyond the housing market. They will discourage productive investment across the Australian economy, they will weaken small business, they will undermine entrepreneurship, and, for my home state of Western Australia, they threaten one of Australia's greatest economic success stories, the resources sector. Western Australia has been the engine room of the Australian economy for decades. Iron ore, gold, LNG, lithium, rare earths and critical minerals have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in exports, sustained regional communities and funded public services across Australia. Last year alone, Australia's resources sector generated around $383 billion in export earnings. None of that happened by accident. Every operating mine began as an exploration project. Every major discovery began with someone prepared to take a risk. Before there is a mine, there is a geologist, a drill rig, an exploration company with no income or certainty of success, and investors prepared to provide patient capital over many, many years. That is the investment pipeline this legislation now puts at risk. During the Senate inquiry, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies made one fact abundantly clear: around one in every 1,000 exploration projects becomes an operating mine. Think about that: one in 1,000. That tells us two things: first, that mineral exploration is one of the highest risk investments in the economy; and, second, that investors require an incentive to commit long-term capital.

That is precisely why the capital gains tax discount matters. It recognises risk and it rewards patience. It encourages Australians to back projects that may take 15 years to deliver a return or may never succeed at all. Labor's proposed changes weaken that incentive. Less investment means fewer exploration programs, fewer discoveries, fewer future mines and, ultimately, fewer exports, fewer jobs and lower government revenue. That is not productivity; that is economic self-harm.

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of this legislation is the government's inconsistency. Last week, Labor announced a carve-out for eligible technology startups. The government accepted that early-stage, high-risk businesses relying on patient capital deserve special treatment, but it refused to extend that same recognition to junior mineral explorers. Why? Can the government explain? Mineral explorers are the original startups. They are pre-revenue. They rely entirely on patient investment. They create enormous national wealth when successful. The similarities are obvious. The inconsistency is impossible for the government to defend. If innovation deserves support, surely discovering Australia's next generation of critical minerals deserves it as well.

The contradiction becomes even greater when the government's own rhetoric is considered. Labor talks constantly about critical minerals. It talks about future industries. It talks about the energy transition. But none of those ambitions happen without exploration. There can be no new lithium mine, no new rare-earth project and no new copper discovery or critical minerals industry without someone funding exploration today. You cannot be championing critical minerals while taxing the very investment needed to find them. Western Australia has more at stake than anywhere else. Nearly three-quarters of Australia's mineral exploration occurs in Western Australia. Regional contractors, drilling companies, local suppliers, country towns and future mines are all part of the pipeline this legislation now puts at risk.

This legislation follows another damaging decision made by the government. Only 18 months ago, Labor abolished the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive. Independent analysis showed that every dollar of tax credits generated about $2 of private investment, $6 of exploration expenditure, billions of dollars in future mineral production and hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax revenue. Labor removed that successful incentive. Now it proposes another measure that the industry says will further discourage investment. It is little wonder that confidence is deteriorating. AMEC told the Senate committee that 75 per cent of retail investors regard the capital gains tax discount as either very important or extremely important when deciding whether or not to invest, and about half of them indicated they would reconsider future investment if the discount disappeared. Those warnings should concern every senator in this chamber. The damage will not appear overnight. Exploration decisions made today determine whether Australia has producing mines 15 years from now. If you get this wrong today, the consequences will be felt for decades. There will be lower exports, fewer regional jobs, weaker economic growth and less government revenue. Those outcomes are entirely avoidable.

Even the Western Australian Labor government appears to recognise this. Premier Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti came to Canberra yesterday, all the way from Perth, to warn the Prime Minister and the Treasurer not to undermine the investment that drives WA's resources sector. The Premier made an important point: exploration companies do not generate income in their early years. They depend on Australians being prepared to invest in high-risk projects while knowing that success may be many years away or may never come at all. This bill weakens that incentive while granting concessions to other high-risk industries and leaves junior mineral explorers way behind. When the WA Labor premier and treasurer are asking the federal Labor government to rethink its own tax policy, the Prime Minister should listen. This legislation taxes risk, it taxes investment, it taxes productivity, it taxes aspiration and it taxes one of Australia's most successful export industries. Whether it is young Australians investing to build a house deposit, a small-business owner building a company or an investor backing the next mineral discovery in Western Australia, Labor's instinct is always the same: tax risk instead of rewarding it.

The same legislation that is weakening confidence in Australia's housing market is now also weakening confidence in Australia's future resources industry. In both cases, Labor is discouraging the investment Australia needs most. That is why the legislation is fundamentally flawed. It will not make Australia more prosperous; it will make Australia less competitive. By contrast, the coalition believes Australians who take risks, build businesses, create jobs and invest in Australia should be encouraged, not punished. The government still has time to correct its mistake. It should listen to the evidence. It should listen to the resources industry. It should listen to Western Australians. It should provide junior mineral explorers with the same carve-out it has already granted to other high-risk, early stage industries. If it refuses to do so, it will tax away the investment needed to discover Australia's next generation of mines and make west Australians poorer for it. That would be a profound economic error.

Acting Deputy President, I foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment regarding mineral exploration matters.

This was a moment that Australian politics could have stepped up and seized. This was a once-in-a-generation political opportunity to absolutely do something meaningful to address the housing crisis that is wracking this nation, and Labor has met this moment in classic Labor form—abject failure to engage in reforms that the housing crisis is demanding.

Labor's lack of ambition and their lack of political courage mean that the housing crisis in this country is going to go for longer than it should do, and it is going to cause more social harm than it needed to. Labor's lack of ambition and their abject failure to seize the moment mean that the housing crisis in Australia is now Labor's housing crisis. They've been in government for four years. They've had every opportunity on multiple occasions to pull the levers that demand pulling to fix this housing crisis and they have abjectly failed to do so. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill, is a continuation of Labor's failure to do the things that we need to do collectively to fix the housing crisis in this country.

Having said that, taken as a package with the Greens amendments, which will be supported through this Senate, this package constitutes a small step in the right direction. That is why the Greens are going to support it. The capital gains tax discount currently is the most unfair and egregious tax break on the tax books in this country. Sixty per cent of the benefit of the capital gains tax discount goes into the bank accounts of the wealthiest one per cent of people in this country. The one per cent get 60 per cent of the benefit. If you're poor, you get nothing out of the CGT discount, because you are too poor to buy the assets that would allow you to benefit from selling them at a profit later.

But it's not just completely inequitable in terms of favouring the one per cent of the wealthiest and the highest income earners in this country; it is also responsible for driving a chasm between generations in Australia. Seventy-five per cent of the benefit of the capital gains tax discount went to people over 50, and only four per cent of the benefit went to people under 35. You heard Senator Hanson from One Nation up in this chamber earlier defending this unfair tax break and trying to claim that she is doing so on behalf of young people. We call bullshit on that claim. It is—

Senator McKim!

I withdraw that. We call that claim untrue, because what is unfair to younger Australians is the fact that people under 35 only get four per cent of the benefit of the most generous tax break on the books and older people and wealthier people, who've had multiple opportunities to buy up investment properties or to buy up other assets, get so much of the benefit. That is what is unfair. What is unfair to young people is that an entire generation is being priced out of the housing market in this country. This will not resolve that, but it will take a baby step in the right direction.

Let's be very clear. The current capital gains tax arrangements were opposed by the Australian Greens when they were introduced in 1999, and we have been campaigning against those arrangements ever since. We have been campaigning for a generation against the overly generous capital gains tax discount arrangements. Finally we are getting a small step in the right direction. A lot of that is because we used this parliament, where Labor has a stonking majority in the House, where Labor plus the Greens equals the numbers in the Senate and where the Liberals and the coalition are a rabble, to prosecute yet again the case to repeal the capital gains tax discount.

We used the committee inquiry that we established with a Greens chair to bring in a whole bunch of people and organisations and voices to call time on this unfair tax break. The BCA, the Business Council of Australia, and the CommBank CEO started lining up with ACOSS and housing organisations, paving the way for change through our inquiry. We made clear to the government that we stand ready to take advantage of this once-in-a-political-generation opportunity to fix the housing crisis and actually give young people a fair crack at the great Australian dream of owning their own homes.

What happened? Labor squibbed the opportunity. They abjectly failed to step up and show the courage and ambition that are necessary to resolve the housing crisis. They've done that by prioritising tax breaks for wealthy property investors over renters and young people trying to buy their first home. They left $33 billion of tax breaks on the table. People with two or more investment properties own a collective 1.7 million dwellings between them, and, at its most extreme, people with seven or more investment properties own 94,000 homes and claimed $1.9 billion in tax deductions. Labor chose that group of people, that tiny group of superwealthy people, over the seven million renters in Australia.

To put Labor's abject failure of courage and ambition into context—Treasury expects about 75,000 new first home buyers over the next decade or so. If Labor had stepped up and taken the kind of action we need to see, we could have had hundreds of thousands of homes available for renters and prospective first home buyers in the next few years alone. That would have been meaningful. That would have been an appropriate response to a housing crisis which is ripping our social fabric apart. But Labor failed to do that because they failed to show the ambition that was necessary.

This is now Labor's housing crisis. Young people and people who are watching the great Australian dream of owning their own home disappear off in the distance need to understand quite clearly the message that Labor is sending: Labor is not going to fix this housing crisis. Labor now owns the housing crisis, and the only party that is prepared to do the things necessary to fix the housing crisis in this country is the Australian Greens.

Young Australians are watching property investors keep all the tax breaks for as long as they like. For as long as they want to hold on to their properties, they'll keep the negative gearing benefits, and they'll keep the capital gains tax discount of 50 per cent up until 1 July next year. Young Australians are just going to have to cop it and wait. If they're saving up for a property, they'll have to wait patiently for investors to get bored of their tax breaks or to have their financial circumstances change and to sell up.

Treasury told the Greens led Senate inquiry into the capital gains tax discount that the average time that an investment property is held is nine years, so we're going to have to wait on average nearly a decade for these changes to wash through in any significant form. That's a decade-long wait for a bit of fairness in the housing market. It didn't have to be this way. The grandparenting or locking in of these tax perks could have been constrained to one investment property, not extended to people with five or 15 or 50 or 100 investment properties.

The words of former Treasury secretary Ken Henry to the Greens' capital gains tax inquiry when he was asked about grandfathering bear repeating: 'I hate it,' he said. To quote Saul Eslake's testimony, it 'privileges people, in essence, on the basis of when they were born or when they took particular decisions.'

Order! Thank you, Senator McKim. It now being 1.30, we'll go to two-minute statements.

Hardworking South Australians will wear the cost of Labor's so-called tax reform bill—a Golden Grove small-business owner, a renter in Plympton wanting to save for a deposit, a FIFO mining worker, a young couple in Mount Barker saving for their future. These are just some of the people worse off under Labor's tax changes, which will pass after a grubby, dirty deal done with the Australian Greens.

Let me explain why. Labor calls this a budget of intergenerational fairness, but the truth is that's a slogan. Budget papers report 35,000 fewer homes will be built, while our state remains one of the most unaffordable places in the world. This government's answer to a budget black hole it has dug itself is to tax Australians and overshoot its own migration targets, year after year after year. The legislation inquiry was told more rental households will pay more, and that means the 200,000 rental households in our state. Developers say new homes will not follow. No small-business sector has been spared. This legislation hands the government a 47 per cent stake in business profit built after years of personal risk and sacrifice. I know that risk and sacrifice; I've run a business. How many people in here have? Not too many.

The coalition will repeal these toxic taxes. We'll deliver our tax-back guarantee, cap migration against homes actually built and make the $50,000 instant asset write-off permanent for small businesses—much better than the $20,000. South Australians who back themselves deserve a government that backs them too. This legislation fails that test, just as it will fail Australians.

A century ago, Australian science was at an inflection point. Australia was, as then Prime Minister Stanley Melbourne Bruce said, a land of 'splendid opportunities and difficult problems'. Today, we still face both. The world of the 2020s is more volatile and more uncertain than it was in recent decades. We've weathered a global pandemic, floods and fire, and, just this week, we are witnessing the arrival of the H5N1 strain of bird flu. Public science is the bedrock of grappling with some of these great national challenges.

One hundred years on, as the CSIRO marks its centenary this week, Australian scientific and industrial excellence is more important than ever. From the invention of plastic banknotes to fast, wireless connectivity, the CSIRO has been central to Australia's spirit of innovation. The talent and creativity of our scientists will be crucial to meeting today's uncertainties. That's why the Albanese government has committed an additional $387.4 million to support research and development through the CSIRO in addition to the around $1 billion that is spent every year by the Australian government to secure the bedrock of our applied science and industrial research. Additional funding for the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is boosting our agricultural resilience and is so critical now, as the nation confronts the spectre of the H5N1 bird virus. Together, this is how we build a more resilient Australia—by backing our scientists and working together to solve our great national challenges.

Today I'm going to read into Hansard a few comments that I've read this week about the cost of living. Quote:

I've cut down to 1 meal a day, but unfortunately the money I save by doing this will probably be eaten up by my next rent increase.

Quote:

I've told my friends and family that I'm on ozempic, but really I can't afford my usual groceries.

Quote:

The Australian economy got me doing maths in the supermarket aisle like a final exam I did not study for and still failing.

Quote:

I've just been living off cheap stuff. I only buy long life milk cause I can make that stretch longer than already cold milk.

This is the reality for people across the country right now. The system is broken. People know it, and they're living it every single day. The politicians in this place just don't seem to get it. Every struggle to afford groceries while supermarket profits continue to soar, every worry about putting food on the table and every rent increase happens while the Labor, Liberal and One Nation parties have dinner with the same billionaires and CEOs driving up those prices.

I want people to know that they are right to be angry. I am. It should not be like this, and it doesn't need to be like this. The government has the power to ban price gouging, to make essential services public again, to fix the cost of living and to make the big corporations and billionaires who created this problem pay to fix it. They have the power, but they won't use it, because they're completely captured by their donors and lobbyists. No-one should be skipping meals to pay their rent. The fact that there are people in this country experiencing life like this means the Labor government has failed. (Time expired)

The strongest criticisms of Labor's budget are now coming from Labor people themselves. In an extraordinary development, the Labor Premier of Western Australia and the Labor Treasurer of Western Australia had to travel yesterday from Perth all the way to Canberra to make WA's case against the budget and the dangerous budget measures that will hurt the very industry that supports Western Australia's development and prosperity and, indeed, Australia's development and prosperity.

Premier Cook was right when he said that mineral exploration is by its very nature an exercise in creating capital gains. Western Australians know that they are prepared to take high-risk exploration chances in order to grow the resources industry in Western Australia, to the benefit of Western Australians and other Australians. But that is something that Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese fails to understand.

Why is it that federal Labor representatives have been so silent? Why is it that the federal resources minister, Madeleine King, Labor's Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman, the Minister for Small Business, Anne Aly, and the five Labor senators in this Senate chamber—Senators Ghosh, Sterle, Whiteaker, Cox and Lines—have been silent in standing up for WA and making the case for a better WA deal from Labor? Without investment, projects stall. Without projects, discoveries do not occur. Without discoveries, future mines are never built. WA Labor says that it stands for Western Australia, but, when it really matters, WA Labor just backs down. (Time expired)

Acting Deputy President Sterle, as a proud Western Australian like you, I recently had the pleasure of attending a housing roundtable in WA hosted by our federal Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil from the other place, and WA Minister John Carey. Housing is not a single problem. It's about supply, affordability, homelessness, disability access, rental stress, legal support, family safety, planning and finance, and it's about whether people can actually live with dignity in the communities that they belong to.

This roundtable had people working together on different parts of the housing challenges sitting in the same room: community organisations, service providers, local government, builders, lenders and government representatives. I sat at a table and facilitated a conversation with the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, St Vincent de Paul WA, Uniting WA, Ability WA, Rocky Bay, 55 Central, Circle Green Community legal centre and RoeROC. These organisations see the housing crisis from the front line, and they work with First Nations people, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, renters who are under pressure and families who are doing everything right but still unable to find a secure place to call home. We talked about what really matters: building more homes, levelling the playing field and making housing fairer.

The Albanese Labor government has already put $47 billion into the Homes for Australia plan, and that includes our 1.2 million new homes across the country and, in fact, thousands in Western Australia. We are also making it easier to buy a first home with our five per cent deposit scheme, a fairer tax system and new homes built for first home buyers. It's forums like this that are making sure investments turn into actual homes, tenancies and support on the ground. I want to thank those ministers for bringing people together and making sure that organisations are there for everyday Western Australians.

Until last week, Australia was the only continent on earth free of H5 bird flu, but that's changed, and it's likely to get much worse. Multiple birds have now tested positive for H5 bird flu. Since 2021, this strain of bird flu has killed millions of birds and thousands of marine mammals around the world. On Australia's own Heard Island, it has killed more than 13,000 elephant seal pups and hundreds of king penguins. Now, it has reached the mainland, and experts are clear eyed about what that means—a high likelihood of huge mortality amongst native birds and commercial poultry.

The Threatened Species Commissioner has warned that, once this virus establishes itself in wildlife, there is very little we can do to stop it. More than 560 bird species and 100 mammals have been struck overseas. Here the animals in the firing line include the orange-bellied parrot, which is critically endangered, and the Australian sea lion, with just 12,000 left on the planet. The Invasive Species Council has called this a genuine wildlife emergency. They're asking the government to invest $200 million over two years to tackle invasive species, restore habitat and reduce the pressures already pushing these species to the brink, and I back that call. It's too late to stop this virus arriving, but we can give our most vulnerable wildlife the best chance of surviving it.

I urge the government to act before it's too late. This is an opportunity for the Albanese Labor government to get on the front foot and to work with states and territories to actually safeguard our incredible biodiversity and to safeguard poultry farmers across this country.

At the end of May, I was able to visit the Sydney Jewish Museum, and I thought to myself, when I entered the building in which John Monash laid the foundation stone about 100 years ago—it is a great institution to have, and there are many hundreds of thousands of Sydney and New South Wales schoolchildren who have been through the Sydney Jewish Museum. But I thought to myself how far we've come but how bad it is that these issues of antisemitism still require so much support and effort and consideration. At the moment, the museum is undertaking a significant renovation, and, when it reopens next year, it will have a complete display of contemporary antisemitism, which encompasses the tragedy that happened only a couple of kays down the road at Bondi on 14 December last year, and so I wanted to acknowledge the great work that has gone over many generations in building up this institution. The Sydney Jewish community is one of many communities that has given more than it has ever received in our wonderful country, but it is a matter of huge regret that we must now teach the dangers of antisemitism in a historical but also in a contemporary context. The museum, of course, has always done a good job of representing the Holocaust, but now it must also speak of the extraordinary events that have happened in our own time and in our own city, such as at Bondi last year.

Every moment matters, or, as it was so eloquently stated by Emma Vulin, state Labor member for Pakenham in south-east Melbourne, time matters, compassion matters, dignity matters, and people deserve to have their voices heard, particularly when they are vulnerable. Last Sunday was Global MND Awareness Day. Motor neurone disease is a progressive and ultimately fatal neurological disease that damages nerve cells controlling movement. As the disease progresses, people gradually lose the ability to walk, talk, swallow and breathe.

I want to pay tribute to standout Victorians who have done so much to advocate and raise funds for the benefit of others. Neale Daniher, who passed so very recently from the disease, was 2025 Australian of the Year. As the Prime Minister said, the difference he made can be measured in the national awareness, the tens of millions of dollars that he and FightMND have raised to research a cure, and the ubiquitous FightMND beanies you see all around Victoria.

Then there's the fierce, determined and courageous Emma Vulin, my friend, who was diagnosed with the disease. Last week, in her valedictory speech, she addressed the Victorian parliament with extraordinary pride, grace and passion for her community. Her growing and diverse community has benefited immeasurably from her strong and unrelenting advocacy on their behalf, and her passionate and wise campaigning to improve voluntary assisted dying laws in Victoria is a legacy that many will be forever grateful for.

Thank you to Emma, Neil, FightMND, MND Australia, all the other advocacy bodies and the thousands of campaigners who are working every single day towards investment into research and to ensure Australians living with MND receive the dignity, care and support that they deserve.

In a world where nature and climate systems are being destroyed at record rates, environmental and climate activists are being persecuted and killed. We've recently seen turtle conservationist Mona Khalil killed by Israeli war crimes in southern Lebanon. In Cambodia, five young environmental defenders from Mother Nature Cambodia are currently serving long prison sentences for peacefully protecting the environment.

Since July 2024, Phuon Keoraksmey, Ly Chandaravuth, Long Kunthea, Thun Ratha and Yim Leanghy have been imprisoned for documenting environmental destruction, opposing illegal pollution and sand mining, and defending vital ecosystems. Their brave activism focused on exposing sewage discharges into the Tonle Sap River, destructive landfilling projects and environmental pollution that harms local communities. All five were convicted under charges of plotting against the government, with Yim Leanghy also convicted of insulting the king, despite prosecutors failing to present credible evidence that they committed those crimes. They're serving sentences ranging from six to eight years and face harsh conditions that severely restrict family contact.

Mother Nature Cambodia has been internationally recognised for its work, and the continued imprisonment of these brave environmental defenders represents a serious violation of human rights and civic freedoms in Cambodia. They should be freed immediately. The Australian government must call on the Cambodian government to immediately and unconditionally release the Cambodian five and overturn all of their convictions.

Let's talk about immigration. It seems some people are hung up about it in this country. Let's talk about the first migrants here arriving by boat, bringing disease and blankets laced with poison—Cook's legacy. Let's talk about how these migrants didn't conform to the laws of this land; in fact, they attempted to erase the oldest continuing culture on the planet. They didn't speak our languages. They didn't care for country and water. They caused mass extinction. They didn't assimilate. They brought weapons and violence and started massacres across this continent. They dispossessed, dominated and genocided. They stole babies. They displaced and imprisoned our people. They do so to this very day.

When we talk about this country being swamped by migrants, don't forget that the migrants are all of you. Migrants and their descendants make up 97 per cent of the population of so-called Australia today. This land was already inhabited by us, the First Peoples of these lands. We have never been anywhere else. We welcome those seeking refuge here, those seeking to live in peace and with respect for our country, law and people. Those we do not welcome are the colonisers and the racists. We are the real sovereign people of this country. We have language, we have culture and we have laws which protect and maintain these lands for all future generations, including yours.

It is World Public Service Day. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has chosen a career in public service. Public servants devote their time and their energy to serving our communities, delivering essential services and making an overall positive impact. I've spent most of my working life being a proud public servant and fighting for their rights as a CPSU delegate and organiser, despite the best attempts of those opposite to shamefully politicise, undermine and cut the Public Service.

The Public Service is particularly important for regional and rural communities like my home town of Devonport, Tasmania, in the electorate of Braddon. The public servant's deep understanding of local communities is why they're so important. Not only do they provide a voice for their local communities but they also ensure equitable access to essential services to safeguard community welfare and inform the operational backbone of government departments, whether state, federal or local. The private sector simply cannot replicate the unique connection public servants have with local communities. The Public Service also provides evidence based, apolitical, frank and fearless advice to governments, upholding democratic integrity.

I'd also like to highlight the crucial role that the Community and Public Sector Union has played in making the Public Service one of the fairest, effective and stable workplaces. The CPSU has helped secure some of the best employment conditions and fought hard to ensure the Public Service's workforce reflects that of our great achievements in this country. Unlike those opposite, who wasted billions of dollars on labour hire and outsourcing of public services in their final year, we have strengthened public services because we value them. We value the commitment to the work that they do every single day, and we value the advice that they give us. So, on World Public Service Day, I say thank you to public services and to public servants for everything that you do.

Well, 2026 has been a remarkable year in Australian politics. For the first time in our history, a party outside the political establishment has been setting the agenda in this country. You only had to watch yesterday's series of two-minute statements—you're all upset with me and One Nation's rise in the polls. This is due to your taking Australians for granted. Labor has even invoked One Nation in its latest effort to raise money for the party. We decided to respond with our own campaign, raising funds to help us get rid of this toxic, dishonest Labor government. Our original goal was a million dollars by the end of the financial year. In the first 12 hours, we had already flown past this goal. The irony was no doubt lost on the Prime Minister, who, when asked about it, said:

Did she, though? Did she, though? Did she? What evidence is there?

Dishonesty appears to be in Labor's DNA. Their automatic response is to think everyone is the same. We've supplied the evidence that our fundraiser is genuine. Labor hasn't. In the meantime, Labor has refused to tell Australians how much their own anti One Nation fundraiser has raised $20,000.

I want to thank Australians for backing up our campaign to fire the Prime Minister. To date, more than 76,000 individual Australians have donated almost $4.8 million in less than two weeks. Thank you, Australia! We've already been making good use of these generous donations. We will be targeting Labor and Green seats. The toxic, un-Australian worthless bunch of bench warmers need to go. Our campaign has hit the streets of our cities and the airwaves at one of our biggest sport events: game 2 of the State of Origin series. Labor can look forward to more of the same, as more Australians jump on board the campaign. Thank you once again to the Australian people for your generous donations in a time of crisis that's happening in Australia.

Many of us out west are thrilled to see the meteoric rise of the Freo Dockers. Week after week, our team is doing us proud on the field. But many supporters are asking a simple question: why shouldn't our club have a sponsor that we can actually be proud of? Woodside's logo is everywhere. It's on our players. It's on the pitch. It's on our very fan T-shirts. But many Freo fans have had enough. That's why I am proud to support the Woodside, Get Off My Chest campaign.

Woodside has spent years trying to buy our community's trust through sponsorships and advertising, trying to buy goodwill to polish its dirty, polluting image. This isn't about taking away from the club or about reducing money for the club. In fact, Freo members contribute more than twice as much to the Dockers as all corporate sponsors combined.

Really, Freo fans deserve better than a sponsor accused of greenwashing. They deserve better than a company driving new fossil fuel projects, threatening ecosystems like Scott Reef and damaging important cultural heritage. And let's be clear: gas corporations like Woodside should be paying their fair share of tax. They're driving up Australians' energy bills while reaping enormous profits. So to Freo members, join the Woodside, Get Off My Chest campaign. And to the Fremantle Football Club: listen to your supporters. It's time to give Woodside the old heave-ho.

Thank you, Senator Steele-John. You don't speak for all West Aussies there, mate; I'm a cat.

Labor makes a promise. Labor breaks a promise. When Labor came to power, Australians were told their power bills would be cut by $275 a year—not maybe, not eventually—by 2025. Wasn't that last year? Well, Territorians surely heard it. Territorians believed it, and Labor repeated it again and again. The member for Solomon promoted it. The member for Lingiari promoted it. But last week, during estimates hearings in the Northern Territory, the CLP member for Drysdale, Clinton Howe, asked a very simple question: 'have Territory household power bills fallen by $275 a year?' The answer from Jacana Energy was fairly simple—no, they have not dropped, not according to politicians but according to the Territory's own electricity retailer. Then came another question: has Jacana Energy received any correspondence from the federal government about delivering that promise? The answer: no. Any correspondence from the member for Solomon? No, not one letter, not one request, not one follow up. The only follow up the member for Lingiari managed was to delete references to the $275 rebate off her social media. Meanwhile, the average Territory household bill sits at around $2,300 a year. Territorians are doing it tough. More families are seeking hardship assistance. More customers are falling behind on bills, and yet the promises remain unfilled. If you promised Territorians lower power bills, you should be prepared to explain why it never actually happened. The promise was $275 off. There was nothing.

Well, Senator Hanson likes to pretend that she's not part of the political establishment whereas, in truth, Senator Hanson has been in parliament for almost my entire life. You don't get much more part of the political establishment than that. Senator Hanson also likes to pretend that she stands up for workers. But let's talk about her record on workers. Just last week in the Press Club, she said 'You can't sack people these days. They're on their phones, they don't work and they're actually lazy.' She's consistently criticised increases to the minimum wage; opposed same job, same pay; voted against rights for casual workers; voted against criminalising wage theft; voted against better pay and conditions for gig workers; voted against banning pay secrecy clauses; voted against closing the gender pay gap; and argued that it should be easier for bosses to sack people. And while we're on Senator Hanson's voting record, she's also voted against reducing HECS debts, against cheaper child care and against more funding for public schools. If there's one thing that is clear to all of us, it is that Senator Hanson has been a politician for a very long time and her record speaks for itself. Her record is clear. Senator Hanson does not stand up for Australian workers. She does not stand up for ordinary Australians who work day in and day out to make our country a better place.

Thank you. We'll now move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The government's consultation paper on arrangements for innovative startups proposes one set of capital gains tax rules for small businesses and another set of rules for so-called innovative businesses. Can the minister explain the difference between a small business and an innovative business?

I thank Senator Patterson for the question, and I'm grateful for him referencing the paper itself because I was surprised yesterday that so many questions were asked when clearly senators from the other side had not looked at the consultation paper which was put out. I want to make the first point which is that, in relation to small businesses, we have also announced amendments which would ensure that some 98 per cent of active small businesses will gain access to concessional CGT treatment. And what is remarkable?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, my point is because—I know you don't want to know this, but, if you care about small business, which is what the question appears to be about, one wonders why those opposite are going to vote against this. Why are you going to vote against provisions which enable—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson, do you have a point of order?

It is on direct relevance. How the coalition may or may not vote on an upcoming piece of legislation is not relevant to my question. What's the difference between a small business and an innovative business?

The minister is being relevant, but I have to warn the opposition particularly that I'm finding it very hard to hear the minister's answers because there's so much interjecting. Minister Wong, please continue.

As you would, I hope, know, page 6 goes through some of the business activity requirements which are the features of what might be included as an innovative small business, but this is a matter that is being consulted—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Oh, they don't like consultation. They don't like consultation. Isn't it interesting? This is the party of small business. They don't want consultation with the startups.

An opposition senator interjecting—

What? Are you going to point your finger? Why don't you point your finger at me? Actually, Senator, why don't you just go join Pauline Hanson's party? That's where you actually want to be, mate. We all watch you backing her in.

Minister Wong.

Sorry.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Henderson, you were out of order, and I don't want to see that again. Minister Wong, please direct your comments through the Chair. Please continue.

As I said, page six of the discussion paper discusses some of the features of an innovative business. But of course— (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Perhaps we'll work it out after the legislation has passed. The consultation paper refers to concepts such as innovation, commercialisation, scalability and growth potential. Who will determine whether a business satisfies those tests, and what objective criteria will be applied?

My recollection of the discussion paper is that some of these terms are actually drawn from existing legislation and existing policies.

So explain it then.

On the day that we have achieved agreement for passage to the Senate of these ambitious reforms which are about delivering for Australians, the opposition is complaining about consultation with small business. Work that out. Work out that political strategy. On the day that we have achieved agreement of passage through this chamber of taxation legislation that is good for Australia, is good for Australian workers and good for Australian business, you are complaining about consultation with the small business sector.

Senator Patterson, second supplementary?

If the government cannot tell businesses who will make those decisions or how those decisions will be made, how are businesses and investors supposed to make decisions with any certainty, and why doesn't the government just scrap these toxic taxes instead?

Now we see the whole point of the question, which was to re-ask yesterday's question so Senator Paterson could deliver that grab in the last minute. I look forward to his social media clip on this, but it will not hide the fact that they—two things. First, you are a policy-free zone, and, second, you went to the last election with higher taxes.

Senator Hume—higher taxes. Senator 'Higher Taxes' Hume is now the deputy leader of the Liberal Party—

Minister Wong, please—

You lie.

She has to withdraw that. You can't handle the truth.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong! Order! The last time I read the standing orders, I was in charge here. You will withdraw, Senator Hume, when I require you to. Senator Hume, withdraw.

I withdraw.

Thank you. Minister Wong, please continue.

The opposition did go to the last election with higher taxes, and now they're complaining about a tax reform agenda which is ambitious and which will deliver real change for Australians.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Today, the Prime Minister has announced the Albanese Labor government is another step closer to delivering its tax reforms that will help working Australians and make it easier for first home buyers to own their own home. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress the government is making in delivering these very important reforms?

Thank you to Senator Polley for her question and for her ongoing advocacy for workers, businesses and first home buyers in the great state of Tasmania. The Albanese Labor government is another step closer to delivering our ambitious tax reforms that have three goals: first, to level the playing field and better align the tax treatment for income earned through working and income earned in other ways; second, to help more Australians recognise the dream of homeownership and be able to get into the property market; and, third, to improve productivity by encouraging investment and innovation.

Labor's tax package is pro-aspiration, pro-worker and pro-investment. Our reforms will build a better, simpler, fairer tax system, cut taxes for—Senator Hume, this is for you—more than 13 million workers, support 75,000 more homeowners to get into the market and deliver $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and startups. And we are reducing compliance costs by $540 million a year.

We, on this side, understand the pressures Australians are under. That is why we know we have to make change. We are making real change that delivers for our economy and for working people. The question now is whether the three right-wing parties—the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation—will again try to block these reforms. I figure they probably will because we know what they have done before, which is consistently team up to block real change for Australians. We know they only offer anger. They do not offer any answers.

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government's tax reforms will also support small business and startups. Can the minister please outline what they will mean for Australia's small businesses. How many will benefit from the government's capital gains tax concessions, and how does this support back the businesses that employ Australians in every community across our nation?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I remind those on my left that any senator has the right to have her question heard in silence.

Then you would have trouble, wouldn't you, because—

Minister Wong, I've called you.

Thank you to Senator Polley. Senator Polley speaks about every community across the nation. I use this opportunity to welcome three mayors from South Australia to the Senate chamber. The Albanese Labor government's reforms will mean 2.7 million active small businesses—98 per cent of all active businesses—will be eligible for capital gains tax concessions. This is what they're going to vote against. We are also consulting on the new innovative business capital gains tax, which would mean a 50 per cent discount for early-stage investors, founders and employees in innovative startups. We back workers, and we are backing small business. Unlike you. You're going to vote against these changes. Our reforms are about tax relief and tax reform to make our economy work for more Australians, for more businesses and for future generations.

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

() (): Ninety-eight per cent of small businesses—that's amazing. As the minister has outlined, the Albanese Labor government's reforms will make it easier for Australians to buy their first home, cut taxes to over 13 million working Australians and better align the tax treatment of labour and asset incomes. Can the minister outline if there are any risks to the government's plan to deliver real change for Australians, including another round of tax cuts and helping 75,000 additional Australians own their own home? (Time expired)

I notice, in that question, the coalition shouted over Senator Polley when she was outlining the benefits of these tax changes, because they don't want to acknowledge that our tax reforms will benefit workers, first home buyers and the Australian economy.

Senator Hume, stop the running interjections.

Of course, the biggest risk to these reforms is those across the chamber. It is the Liberals, it is the Nationals, and it is their great mate One Nation. It's like they're in a race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-aspirational and who can be more anti-worker. The Liberals and the Nationals, with Mr Taylor as shadow treasurer and, of course, Senator Hume as shadow finance minister, went to the last election promising they would unwind taxes for working people. Senator 'Higher Taxes' Hume, no matter how much you point your finger and shout at me, you can't get away from it, and they rewarded you by elevating— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, can you name a single country with a higher tax rate of real capital gains than Australia?

I note the question, and I thank the shadow finance minister for that question. I also note the fact that those over there on that side of the chamber are opposed to our tax—

It's a very narrow question.

Senator Cash, I do have two minutes to answer your question, but I want to say that this question has the backdrop of those over there that are voting for the status quo, that want to see no change and that want to see the continued distortion in the housing market that works against young people continue. Let's be clear about that. Those over there are for the status quo. They want to see no change. They don't want to see 75,000 first home buyers getting to established properties. They don't want to see—

Senator Cash, a point of order?

Direct relevance. It is a very narrowly drafted question that requires an answer—a single country. Name one.

Before I direct the minister back to the question, I will also remind opposition members not to interject, because, as you are aware, the minister is quite entitled to take your interjections as well.

I think we discussed it at estimates. A like for like on taxation arrangements—a genuine like for like—in this area of tax law is difficult, because they are all quite different.

Opposition senators interjecting—

If you let me answer, I would remind those in the chamber that the changes we are making are to better align the tax paid on certain assets with the tax paid on income, just to be clear about that. It's on real gains because working people pay tax on their real income. Those are the changes that we are proposing. Again, I accept that you don't agree with that and that you think there should be significantly beneficial arrangements that don't apply to working people, but, if we talk about that, on reasonable assumptions, with a 5.1—

Senator Chandler, a point of order?

I have given the minister plenty of time, and she has gone nowhere near the question, which was to name a single country with a higher tax rate on real capital gains.

You do not need to repeat the question. The minister is going to your question.

Order, Senator Hume! I think it would be very inappropriate for me to name a frontbencher, but you are coming very close today because you have constantly interjected despite me asking you to come to order personally. I remind you. I think it would be highly inappropriate to name you, but I will name you if you do not be quiet.

For example, on a reasonable assumption of a 5.1 per cent rate of return for an S&P/ASX 200, the tax rate is around 21.4 per cent. That is lower than the UK at 24. It's lower than Germany at 26 to 28. It's lower than France at 34 to 35. (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

Minister, can you confirm that Labor's new capital gains taxes can tax real gains at up to 47 per cent, making them the highest capital gains taxes in the world at more than double the international average?

If I can just finish, because I was rudely interrupted by the clock before, it's lower than France at 34 to 35. It's lower than Ireland at 33. It's lower than the Netherlands at 36, and it's lower than Denmark at 42. It's not a country, but it's also lower than California, which is the tech capital of the world.

The point we are making here is these reforms are about tax in Australia. It's what's in our national interest. It's about decisions that make it fairer for working people, better align the tax system, make it more productive and support innovation and our investments in small business, $3.8 billion in investments in small business, which I note none of you have raised—all of that is part of the package, Senator Cash. You've said you're going to oppose all of that. Then all of that investment that's going into small business and that's making the tax scheme fairer is at risk under your policies.

Senator Chandler, second supplementary?

Minister, do you acknowledge that the Albanese Labor government is not only the highest taxing Australian government on average ever but one of the highest taxing in the world?

Frankly, for those opposite, who went to the last election raising income tax on millions of Australians and who would have had bigger deficits, more debt and higher taxes on working Australians, to come in here and ask that question when this chamber is on the cusp of passing reforms that will work in the interests of millions and millions and millions of Australians, whether it be those who benefit from our tax reductions or our income tax cuts, which come on 1 July—there's another one next year. There's the instant deduction for $1,000 off when you put your tax return in, and there's the working Australians tax offset. There are 13.3 million Australians who will benefit from all of this reform, and that is what Australians know. They know that the Albanese Labor government will look after them and make sure their income taxes are lower.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Minister, Australians are watching energy prices rise as the fallout of Donald Trump and Israel's war on Iran ripples through global gas markets. At the same time, multinational gas exporters are profiting from our resources that they pay little tax on. The Senate inquiry into the taxation of Australia's gas resources, which included Labor members, found that the case for a gas export tax should be revisited once the conflict in Iran is resolved. Just last week, your own press release welcomed this supposed peace deal, saying:

We are pleased the agreement between the US and Iran includes steps towards reopening the Strait of Hormuz …

Minister, will your Labor government now finally have the courage to take on the gas corporations and implement a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports?

Thank you to the senator for her question. What I would say to her is, first, I think we all want the agreement for the ending of the conflict in the Middle East to hold, but I think we are also aware that this is a challenging process. Even if the agreement continues to hold, it will take some time for global supply and global markets to return to where they were and, in fact, they may not return to precisely the same shape and dimensions that they were prior to the conflict. I understand what you're advocating, but the premise of your question is that we're back to normal now. We aren't. It has been the largest shock to energy markets ever, even more than the 1970s, so it will take some time to recover from that.

In relation to the substantive issue, which is your proposition, we do agree that gas companies should pay their fair share of tax, and we also believe that Australians should have a fair share of the benefit of gas. I think you might have asked me questions before where I've explained why we believe the priority at the moment is the gas reservation scheme, which has benefits for our economy, for workers and businesses and for households. It is the priority at the moment, and that is what the government is focused on delivering.

Senator Hodgins-May, first supplementary?

Minister, you've had millions—literally millions—of Australians calling for a gas export tax, yet, from what I can gather, you only seem to be taking advice from a handful of gas executives and Donald Trump. Why won't you ensure that there is a fair public return on Australia's publicly owned natural resources? Your reservation policy will not raise a cent of revenue. Please answer that question for me, for my colleagues and for the millions of Australians demanding more.

Senator, I do find this tendency, where we disagree with you, for the Greens political party to suggest that it's on some other grounds than a genuine assessment of what we believe is best for the Australian people. Our judgement is based on what is best for the Australian people, what is best for our economy, what is best for households and what is best for businesses. I think casting aspersions on intention and motivation really is not a reasonable thing to do. We just don't agree with you.

Well, you can laugh, Senator Shoebridge. You sneer regularly, but it is really unfair to suggest anything other than that we have a different view. We have a different assessment about what is good for workers, we have a different assessment about what is good for businesses and we have a different assessment about what is good for the economy. As Senator Ayres has gone through in detail many times, we believe the priority at the moment should be a domestic gas reservation scheme. (Time expired)

Senator Hodgins-May, second supplementary?

Minister, isn't it the truth that Labor simply adopts whatever arguments the gas industry puts forward at the time—shortages when a new gas project needs approval and oversupply when its weak reservation policy needs defending—all to avoid taxing gas exports and making multinational corporations pay what they owe?

The domestic gas reservation scheme is a very substantial reform. I have to be honest: it has not been universally supported by the gas sector. You've seen that various conservative parties—I think including One Nation, but I could be wrong, but certainly parts of the coalition—have not been supportive of it. It is a very substantial change to Australia's economic position—as I said, not universally supported by every company in the gas sector. So, again, the premise of your question is wrong. We make judgements about what we believe is the best thing for Australian workers, for Australian businesses and for Australian households, and our judgement is that those interests are best served by the creation of a domestic reservation system for Australian gas so that we can get a fair share of that gas here in Australia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government's tax reform package makes the system fairer while backing housing supply and small business. As flagged in the budget, the government has since undertaken consultation on the package. Can the minister outline what came out of the consultation and how further initiatives give small businesses greater certainty?

I thank Senator Cox very much for that question and for the work that she's done in supporting this important tax reform package for our country. We are reforming the tax system for workers, for businesses and for future generations. We're delivering a new round of tax cuts, including more tax cuts for every taxpayer from next week, we're helping more Australians realise the dream of homeownership and we're also supporting investment and innovation.

We were up-front on budget night that we were consulting on certain details of our reforms, including for small and startup businesses with a low cost base. Last week, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced the details of those post-budget consultations. The government's additional amendments are all about providing more clarity, confidence and support for small business and more incentives for innovation. They go to a number of areas, including raising the threshold for small businesses for concessions on CGT from $2 million to $10 million in relation to the 50 per cent tax discount. Also, our consultation is now open on the new innovative-business CGT concession. We're making it clear that discretionary testamentary trusts will be exempt from new tax rules for trusts. We'll remove the ministerial discretion relating to new residential dwellings in the definition.

These details mean that the Albanese government is now delivering over $3.8 billion in new measures that lower taxes for businesses and startups, on top of the fourth and fifth rounds of tax cuts for workers and a fairer housing market for first home buyers. Consistent with all big tax reform, as we've always intended, we will legislate our reforms in multiple tranches, and there is more consultation to come, including on the arrangement for startups and implementation of the trust reforms.

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

Young people are key beneficiaries of the government's budget policies. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government's tax reforms are levelling the playing field and giving younger people a fairer chance at owning their own home?

I thank Senator Cox for that supplementary question. This budget had young people at its heart, helping 75,000 homeowners get into the market and delivering tax cuts to help young workers get ahead. Treasury analysis finds that around 90 per cent of Australians would have been better off by the age of 30 had these tax reforms been in place from 2000, before factoring in housing affordability. We know that most young people get most of their income from work. Eighty-four per cent of young people earn 90 per cent or more of their taxable income from working, only around four per cent of tax filers under the age of 35 have a capital gain each year and just four per cent of the benefit of the CGT discount goes to those aged under 35. Compared to that, 32 per cent of the discount goes to those aged 65 and older. That's why it's important that we are rebalancing the tax system to lower the taxes on workers and make housing more affordable for young people.

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

With consultation complete and the details settled, this fair and responsible package is now ready to pass the parliament. Can the minister outline why it's so important these reforms are legislated without delay and encourage all senators to support the passage of this through this place?

I thank Senator Cox for the supplementary question. With the agreement that we have reached with the Greens today—we thank them for the work that they have done with us since the budget was announced—the government will be able to deliver those first tranches of tax reform, as we outlined on budget night. We have agreed to support an amendment that will be moved by the Greens to ban future limited recourse borrowing arrangements for residential property by superannuation funds. Other super funds are generally prohibited from borrowing money to invest, with the exception of LRBAs that are used by SMSFs. Multiple issues and concerns have been raised around these arrangements, with multiple reviews undertaken, including many of the reviews that reported under the former government, who chose to do nothing about it. The three right-wing parties voted against these tax cuts in the House. Now they're planning to do the same in the Senate, which will mean voting against concessions— (Time expired)

I advise the chamber that Senator Lambie has passed her question to Senator Thorpe.

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Sadly, on the weekend we've had another death in custody of an Aboriginal man. A year ago, another Aboriginal man lost his life in that same prison. When he told police he was going to kill himself, the officer replied, 'Yeah, whatever.' Minister, on the 35th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, in April, you offered thoughts and prayers. But what actions have you actually taken to hold state and territory governments accountable for the state sanctioned murder of our people in jails?

I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. There are way too many deaths in custody, not just of Indigenous people but of all people. Unfortunately it continues in terms of the incarceration rates. I have certainly worked on this. I know that there has been a committee of the Senate, and I welcome that Senate inquiry currently underway into the justice reinvestment programs that we are rolling out across the country. At the Commonwealth level, we see that our part in all of this, knowing that the states and territories are the ones responsible for the jailing of any citizen, is to push out the justice reinvestment programs.

There are justice reinvestment programs—over 30—that are running out all across the country. We know that there are, in places like the Northern Territory, success in those. In places like Groote Eylandt, for example, where I know the inquiry has visited, we are having success. That success only comes when local people and First Nations people are at the table to ensure that there is support for First Nations people so that they don't go into jails. It's a long road; it's a very difficult one. And I do call on the states and territories to work harder in this space and to certainly work with us as we try to reduce the numbers of Aboriginal people in custody.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

We all know that Closing the Gap targets around incarceration will not be met by the 2031 deadline. Outcomes in many areas are getting worse. Shouldn't we overhaul or get rid of Closing the Gap now, rather than let this hopeless agreement continue for another five years while people keep dying?

Well, the answer to that is no, Senator Thorpe. We don't just give up. We don't just roll over and say no. We have 80 organisations. Over 800 members in those organisations are part of Closing the Gap. This is First Nations people at the grassroots level, Senator Thorpe. It is grassroots people who are fighting hard to close that gap. What I have to do is keep working with the state and territory ministers, not just First Nations ministers but also every single minister around the cabinet table, which includes here at the Commonwealth. That's every single minister, because every jurisdiction has signed up to this, Senator Thorpe. We don't roll up and roll away. We stand there and fight to improve the lives of First Nations people. Just because it's hard, just because it's difficult, it doesn't mean we give up.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

Why can't you do things like tie funding to actual progress and set minimum standards around cops and jails in this country—

Stop it; I'm speaking—given that state and territory governments will not protect our people's rights?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'll wait for order.

Don't you speak over me. Pull him up, Greens—pull him up!

Senator Thorpe! I will manage the chamber, and I've asked those people to come to order. Minister McCarthy.

Well, Senator Thorpe, I have. I've spoken in this house. I've spoken about the need to ensure that, through the federal funding agreements that the Commonwealth has with state and territory governments, there has to be accountability. I've done that with the Northern Territory, through the Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment. You've had a briefing on it. You've got the paperwork. You asked through an OPD here for all the information. You have it in front of you. Read it, Senator Thorpe.

My question is to the Minister for Science and Industry. Senator Ayres. Minister, on 26 October last year, the Attorney-General issued a statement categorically ruling out a text- and data-mining exception in Australian copyright Law. Minister Burke told a conference:

We have no plans, no intention, no appetite to be weakening those copyright laws based on this draft report.

On 6 August, you told the ABC that the government had 'no plans to make changes'. Minister, is it still the case that the government has no plans to allow AI companies to mine Australian creatives' data, either via some form of. carve-out and extension to the licensing system or by other means?

Thanks to Senator Pocock for that question. The position that was outlined by me, every time I've been asked, by the Attorney-General and by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Arts has been very clear on this question—firstly, that there will not be an undermining of copyright protections for Australian artists or Australian copyright holders. I'll come to that in a moment. It is also that it is in Australia's interest, not just in economic terms, not just in terms of productivity and growth—and that is certainly the case—but in our strategic interest as a middle-power economy in the world, for us to secure as much of the technology stack as possible, particularly those parts of the stack where Australia has competitive advantage and where we can exercise agency and control in the interests of Australia, because it is not this government's view that we should just be a cork bobbing on the ocean of other people's technology and a customer at the end of long technology supply chains. That is not in our interest. It sells out future generations. Some of the things that have been said in this debate by some of the participants have been reckless about that and have sold out future generations, their security and our national resilience. We will meet these objectives in a careful way in the Australian national interest.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, it has been put to me that the government is in fact considering competing proposals allowing some form of carve-out or an extension to the licensing system in exchange for a new creative arts fund and an additional multibillion-dollar investment in data centres, which you seem very keen on, with expedited approvals, and that the Prime Minister intends to announce this plan on or around 15 July. Is that, or any element of it, correct?

I always find a question that starts with the premise, 'It's been put to me'—you know, where?

Andrew Charlton. Andrew Charlton is going around doing dirty deals.

Senator Henderson, what you find with this government is that we are a cabinet government that works together, and he is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Ayres, please—

I'm entitled to respond to interjections from—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, order!

Order! Order!

Oh, that's disgraceful.

Senator Henderson, I've said, 'Order!' four times and you've continued to interject. Either come and be quiet or leave the chamber. Senator Pocock?

President, on a point of order on relevance, I'd really like an answer to my question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Henderson, resume your seat. Order! Senator Pocock, you would be aware that I did call the Senate to order and senators chose to ignore me. As you are aware, Minister Ayres is entitled to take interjections. I am doing my very best to stop those interjections. I appreciate you standing up and making that point, and perhaps those senators will listen to you more than they will listen to me and respect that this is your question and that you are entitled to an answer from the minister.

I will come back to that, but I will just say that what I won't cop is denigrating very capable assistant ministers with expertise and background in this area who are making a real contribution. Dr Charlton does, every day. We have a rule over here about dual ticket holders. We do. We don't put up with it. You can only be a member of one political party at a time.

Minister Ayres, I'm going to draw you back to Senator Pocock's question.

Senator Pocock, we are absolutely determined. We have set out our approach on these questions. (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, can you categorically rule out that the government is in any way contemplating any form of change that would act as a carve-out or licensing extension for AI companies and data centres from copyright laws and would expose Australian creatives?

I can certainly reiterate what we've said publicly, and that is that there will be no undermining of copyright protections. I won't do—I wasn't listening to triple j yesterday, Senator, but I was given a transcript. I had a glance over your reckless speculation about these issues. It is absolutely our intention to do what we can to make sure that people who produce content in Australia, who are currently getting ripped off all around the world—we are looking at that question. We are looking at the questions that go to our national interests, not just about economic opportunity and growth—they are important questions—but of having Australian sovereign capability in tech that makes a difference for future generations and for our national security.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, regarding the cost to taxpayers of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme. Minister, can you inform the Senate how much Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost to complete, including cost of construction; capital costs through to the end of the financing cycle, meaning interest on the debt; maintenance through the same period; the cost of transmission lines dedicated to this project, including maintenance; and, finally, the industrial wind and solar installations, including cyclical replacement, needed to generate the power? In short, if it's built and it's paid off, how much all up is this thing going to cost?

I'm happy to update the chamber with the information that I have available to me on Snowy 2.0. I think you'll remember that, when we came to government, we inherited a project that was having significant difficulties. If you remember, I think former prime minister Turnbull announced this project and said it would cost $2 billion. It had not had a business case done. There had been no scoping done. There had been no surveys done of the geological environment that the project was going to be built in, and so there was a significant reset probably in the first couple of years of our government, and that increased the project total cost to in the order of $12 billion. Currently, the Snowy board is undertaking a cost reassessment for the total project cost. We have not received that work yet. It is due to the government towards the end of July. I would say that Snowy 2.0 is more than half built. It is an important project for the nation in terms of the security and stability of our energy grid. It is an important project, but, as to any further reassessment of the costs, the information that I have are the ones where we took that initial reset to properly scope the project, get it back on track and work with the organisation to deliver the project when it was raised to $12 billion.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

The Australian National Audit Office audit released this month found significant shortcomings, including no reliable system to track future costs, no base line for project completion and no quality data with which to work these things out. In short, we don't know how long it's going to take and how much it's going to cost. Just like the uniparty's net zero, there's no plan. Minister, will you cancel this project?

No, the government will not do that. As I said, it is an important project. I think I saw a figure that said it was 72 per cent complete, but I will correct that if I am wrong. I can't find that number in front of me, but I was reading some documents about Snowy Hydro on the weekend. In relation to the ANAO report—I should say this because you didn't—it did say that the management of the project has been partially effective and there were, I think, five or so recommendations which outlined deficiencies in some project governance arrangements. Snowy 2.0 has accepted, I think, the vast majority of those recommendations. It is an important project for the stability and security of our energy system. It's an important project to get done, but it has been a troubled project from the beginning, including when it was so poorly implemented initially by those opposite.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Labor appears to be upset about Senator Whitten signing a contract to sell his shares in September 2023, almost two years before his Senate nomination. Minister, at what point do you accept that a clean coal power station provides cheaper power, much more of it, than this fantasy project costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion, before it's paid off? When will you give up this fantasy?

Again, Senator Roberts, this project is important for the security and stability of the energy grid. In relation to coal-fired power stations, there have been none built in this country for decades, and, indeed, under the former government, I think there was $3 million allocated to Collinsville to explore that. I don't know what happened to that and where that project ended, but we heard nothing from it. The market is not building new coal-fired power stations. They're not. If they were able to deliver the energy that you say they would be able to do in a way that you want them to do, the market would be investing in them. They're not. The market is investing in renewables because it delivers cheaper and more reliable energy. We've seen that, indeed, in some announcements that Minister Bowen has made in recent times about the wholesale price of electricity coming down because of the amount of renewables in the system.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Global energy markets and supply chains have been significantly disrupted by the conflict in the Middle East. In response, the Albanese Labor government has been focused on ensuring Australia's fuel security. Minister, what actions has the government taken to shield Australians from the worst impacts of the conflict?

Thank you, Senator Dolega. I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge the young worker union members from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association of Australia who've come to talk to us about their experience working in retail all over Australia.

From the outset of the war in the Middle East, this government has worked hard to shield Australians from its worst impacts. Although the conflict is on the other side of the world, the impacts have been felt here in terms of prices and supply. However, since 28 February, we have seen in Australia an increase in the amount of fuel that is available to Australians before the conflict.

On Saturday, Minister Bowen outlined that Australia has 44 days worth of petrol, which is eight days more than when the conflict began; 39 days worth of diesel, seven days more than 28 February; and 32 days worth of jet fuel, three days more than 28 February. In the last week we have reached the highest level of fuel held in Australia since the minimum stockholding obligation came into force in 2023. Fifty-one ships are on the way to Australia, and 3.9 billion litres of fuel is contracted to be delivered here over the next four weeks.

They're very quiet over there. When the war started, what these characters were on about was sowing division and trying to create fear in the community. But can anybody imagine that Mr Taylor or Mr Canavan or any of these people could have ever picked up the phone and delivered a litre of fuel, let alone shiploads of fuel, or delivered a litre of diesel, let alone shiploads of diesel for Australian farmers and Australian industries?

Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for waking them up. Earlier this year, the Albanese Labor government passed laws to ensure that Australia was able to secure additional supplies of fuel and fertiliser. Minister, how has the government used these laws to secure the fuel and fertiliser Australia needs for this uncertain time?

Thanks, Senator Dolega. On Saturday, the Prime Minister announced that Export Finance Australia has secured, jointly with the private sector, an additional 50 million litres of diesel. That shipment is now headed for Port Botany. Yesterday, a shipment of urea docked in Brisbane. And I want to thank the Indonesian government, on behalf of the farmers of Australia and the government of Australia, for their efforts in assisting us to secure that supply. Through Export Finance Australia, we've now secured a total of 800 million litres of diesel, 155 million litres of jet fuel and 340,000 tonnes of fertiliser, using every lever at our disposal in the national interest to deliver real change for Australia and good outcomes for Australian industry.

Senator Dolega, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is securing Australia's energy security because it's vital for our national resilience. How does this year's budget further strengthen fuel security?

We're focused on, of course, the immediate challenges, but we're also focused on delivering real change for Australia in the national interest and in the interests of our future energy resilience. That's why there was a $14.8 billion package for fuel security and cost-of-living relief in the budget, with a central commitment of $3.2 billion for a strategic fuel reserve owned by the government for Australians. It's been welcomed by GrainGrowers, the National Farmers' Federation and the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association. I'll tell you who hasn't welcomed it: Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor, like Mr Morrison without the charm or the charisma, in the do-nothing brigade, did more to damage Australia's energy security when he was the energy minister than any other living person, and now he wants to say no to the sensible measures that this government's undertaking in the national economic interest. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last year, the Prime Minister stated:

The only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election.

How many times does this Prime Minister think he can get away with breaking his promises to the Australian people, doing dirty deals with the Australian Greens and slugging Australians with higher taxes?

We are making changes to the tax system that are about making sure that young people get a fair crack at a first home and because we want more houses built in this country. We have been upfront about this being a change in our policy—we have said that. But, you see, the problem, Senator Colbeck, is you have no answer to housing affordability. You have no answer to young people entering the market. You have no answer for first home owners. You have no answer to the question of how we get more Australians the ability to fulfil that aspect of the Australian dream that matters so much, which is the ability to own their own home. We are clear about why we are doing this. The status quo—we do not believe it's acceptable, so we are acting. We are delivering change that will work for Australians.

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

At the last election, the Prime Minister stated changes to negative gearing were 'off the table'. But, today, the Prime Minister has done a dirty deal with the Australian Greens to ram these changes through the parliament. How many times does the Prime Minister think he can get away with saying one thing to Australians at an election and then doing another thing when it suits him?

This government's focus and this prime minister's focus is on doing what is needed to make change that benefits Australians. We are focused on how we can benefit Australians at a time when we know many Australians are doing it tough. There are many areas where we know policy change is needed, and that is why we are acting. We are acting when it comes to wages. We are acting when it comes to energy prices. We are acting when it comes to tax. I remind you, Senator, that you are setting up to again vote for higher taxes for working people. I remind you of that—that you are again setting up to vote for higher taxes for working people. So, unlike those opposite, who want higher taxes for working people and want to lock more Australians out of the housing market, we on this side want to deliver real change, and we will.

Minister, at the last election, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. 'I rule out'—50 times. But, today, he's done a dirty deal with the Australian Greens to break his promise to Australians. How many times does this prime minister break his word, which he told the Australian people was his bond?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The interjections have started; I haven't even called the minister. You are to listen in silence; otherwise, I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister Wong.

We have been clear that, unless we act now, we have a generation at risk of missing out. You might be content to defend that, to defend the status quo, and you might be content to defend a broken system that is not working for Australians, but we are not. We are here to change things for the better, and we will.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Helping Australians get the health care they need when they need it is one of the Albanese Labor government's top priorities. We know how much of a difference a stronger Medicare makes to the lives of everyday Australians. How has the government delivered on its commitment to provide Australians with affordable and accessible urgent care?

Tell us about the algorithm.

Once again, I haven't even called the minister and the interjections have started. I'm serious; if you can't be quiet, leave the chamber. Minister McAllister.

The Albanese government has fully delivered on our election commitment to open an additional 50 Medicare urgent care clinics, and that means every single one of the 137 Medicare urgent care clinics we promised when we came to government are now open across the nation. For your home state, Senator Ananda-Rajah, that means 29 clinics providing bulk-billed urgent care for Victorians when they need it most. What does it mean in practice? Well, that just means mums and dads taking their kids to a clinic after a bad injury at Saturday sport without sitting for hours in the emergency department. It means a tradie with a deep cut can get treated the same day, close to home. It means an older Australian with a bad flare-up can get urgent treatment quickly without waiting days for a GP appointment. About four out of five Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of an urgent care clinic, and we have seen 3.1 million visits to Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia since the first one opened in June 2023.

We have heard that about 45 per cent of patients going to an urgent care clinic would have otherwise sought treatment at an emergency department or called an ambulance, so make no mistake: these clinics are filling a gap. They're filling a gap in our health system; they're giving our hospitals, our doctors and our nurses the support that they need; and they work for one important reason, which is that the only thing that people need to access these clinics is their Medicare card, not their credit card, and thanks to this Labor government these urgent care clinics are here to stay. This is what Labor governments do. We focus on the interests of the Australian people, not on fighting with the other parties who compete for the same political territory—the Libs, the Nats and One Nation fighting amongst themselves. We deliver for working Australians. (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary?

I, like my colleagues, understand that when it comes to getting quality health care all you should need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. How is the Albanese Labor government's record investment in Medicare helping more Australians see a doctor for free?

Thanks to our Labor government's historic investment in Medicare, the number of bulk-billing practices in this country gets bigger every week. We know that, in the first quarter of this year, the bulk-billing rate had risen to 81.9 per cent. That is a 4.6 percentage point increase on the same period from last year. Bulk-billing rates are up in every state and territory. What does that mean? It means that the numbers do not lie. Our historic $8½ billion investment in bulk-billing has delivered a historic result. It means more and more people are able to go and see a doctor with just their Medicare card—not a credit card but their Medicare card. Again, our sole focus is on delivering for the Australian people. Meanwhile, the three right-wing parties are focused on themselves and their own base interests. They are focused on division; we're focused on delivery.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on strengthening Medicare so it can deliver health care to everyone that needs it. Why are these investments to Medicare needed, and why has the government chosen this approach?

We had no choice but to make these investments. The future of Medicare depended on it because the coalition had a clear plan to demolish Medicare by neglect. Under the coalition, bulk-billing was in freefall. The rate for children and concession cardholders was just 75.6 per cent because the coalition's six-year freeze ripped billions of dollars out of Medicare. The AMA estimated that the coalition would've taken $8.3 billion out of Medicare by 2027-28. So, while we are working to expand access to universal health care, those opposite haven't learned the lessons. They have not learned a single thing. The Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation have never valued universal health care. They voted against cheaper medicines, they all represent a huge threat to Medicare and, in their chaotic competition for supremacy, the last thing they have in mind is the Australian people.

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

I'd like to clarify an answer that I gave in response to Senator Thorpe's question in question time today, for the benefit of the chamber. I referred to an inquiry into justice reinvestment. I'd like to clarify that I was referring to the inquiry into Australia's youth justice and incarceration system.

I move:

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

Ladies and gentlemen, it wasn't once. It wasn't twice. It was more than 50 times that our prime minister lied straight to the Australian people about changes to capital gains and negative gearing. Last year, the Prime Minister stated:

The only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the election.

'My word is my bond,' he said. At the last election, the Prime Minister stated changes to negative gearing were 'off the table', but, today, as we have all heard, the Prime Minister has gone and done a dirty deal with the Australian Greens to get these tax changes on the table. At the last election, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. 'I rule out,' he said. But, today, he has done a dirty deal to get these changes on the table.

He broke his promise to the Australian people, and I was reminded today by an Australian constituent of a quote from Jean-Baptiste Colbert in the 17th century, the finance minister to King Louis XIV. He said, 'The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible number of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.' Let me tell you, Labor, there is not just hissing out there across Australia; there is absolute outrage. Had you done the consultations with the Australian people, with business owners, with startups, with innovators and with investors, you would have known that this is a destructive tax bill and one that the Australian people would never have voted for.

We have seen that there's not just been a dirty deal done with the Greens, but there are backflips and carve-outs, and one of those carve-outs was for innovative startups. There's one set of capital gains tax rules for small businesses and another set of rules for so-called innovative businesses. For two days, we've asked this government what that actually means. What is the difference between a small business and an innovative small business? No idea. They can't tell us. There is no detail backing up this carve-out. They just don't know. We asked: who will determine whether a business satisfies those tests, and what objective criteria will be applied? I think these are very sensible questions to be asking. There were no details and no answers. They don't know. All we got was a rear-view answer. They talked about the coalition's time in government, which was two terms ago.

What the Australian people want are hope and vision. They want certainty and confidence, and this tax bill gives them absolutely none of that. They will be absolutely stymieing high-risk, high-growth businesses, and we will be fighting this every single step of the way.

Senator Collins, I would just remind you—and it wasn't raised by anyone in the chamber, but it was raised with me. You used a certain word in relation to an individual, in which case that is a breach of 193(3). I ask you to withdraw.

I withdraw.

There is no greater illustration that the Liberal Party of Australia is not fit to govern than the attack on the budget here today. This is one of those things that illustrates the lack of capacity on that side, and I'm going to deal with three points. The first is you have no credibility on taxes. The second is you ignore the details in the budget, and you ignore them in order to mislead. The third is that the values that this budget embodies on this side of the house are the values of Australia. They are the values of the Australian people.

Come on, Varun! This is one of the most tragic betrayals. What's an innovative business? You know the law applies certainty. We demand tax reform, not tax—

Senator Henderson, you can interject all you want on me; the facts speak for themselves. Let's go to those facts, and let's go to the circumstances, because the one thing that's been a theme on that side is that the government shouldn't have changed its position on a number of topics and taxation issues. But, when the facts change, when the circumstances change, when working Australians are desperate for changes and some assistance to their cost of living, when working Australians are desperate to get into housing, then we change our policies because that is the right thing to do. That's what we're explaining and we're taking to the Australian people. There's no better illustration of the values that differ on this side of the house to that side than the fact that my colleague was quoting from the finance minister to King Louis XIV of France, the Sun King himself, yet we are engaged in a piece of tax reform that helps working people. We're engaged in tax reforms that will help get people into housing.

In terms of working people, what have we done? We've delivered a Working Australians Tax Offset to reduce the tax that working people in this country pay by 250 bucks a year. Since 2023 and 2024, that brings the total reduction in the average tax that working people pay in this country down by $2,816 a year, on average. That's significant, that's money in people's pockets, that's a lower tax burden and that contrasts to those opposite, who took to the last election a tax increase.

The second point I want to make is around housing. Let's deal with negative gearing and these tax changes to CGT in relation to housing, because it's important to understand where the values lie and on whose side of the debate each of the parties in here lie. In spite of their nocturnal flirtation with One Nation, when you go back to it, the coalition are for the top end of town. That's why they oppose these capital gains changes. This is from the Australian Financial Review:

About a third of all capital gains were realised by the people who earned incomes in the highest 1 per cent during their working lives, while more than half of all gains went to the top 10 per cent.

So, if you want to know whose side they're on, it's the top one per cent and it's the top 10 per cent; it's not working Australians. It's not young Australians trying to get into a house.

In terms of negative gearing changes, which they oppose, again from the AFR, in the same article, 'For almost one-in-three negatively geared investment properties sold in 2022-23, investors ultimately paid less tax than they would have if they had never bought the property at all. However, they still made a profit on the property.' That's effectively a government subsidy in the tax system through negative gearing. We're fine for people to invest. We're fine for people to make money, but they shouldn't be able to put it through a loophole, and they shouldn't be able to do it in circumstances where we have a housing crisis and where investors are taking stock off the market and keeping young Australians out of their first homes.

What it comes down to in the end, what this budget comes down to and where this debate lies is values. Where you will find the Australian Labor Party, where you will find the Albanese government, is on the side of working Australians and on the side of young Australians.

We heard this afternoon about the government's consultation paper on CGT reform regarding arrangements for innovative startups. We heard the government's going to look to concepts like innovation and commercialisation, scalability and growth—all great words, all very interesting. Of course, one way of dealing with taxation in this country would be to simplify it and reduce it. But, anyway, we'll go we'll go down this path for a minute, just to humour ourselves. What we didn't hear, of course, from the government in question time today is how they're going to determine whether a business is sufficiently innovative and who's going to be the beneficiary of this in general terms.

You would think, if you were releasing a tax policy, you'd have a little more detail over it. But no, we've got a consultation paper. Which companies are going to be involved? I mean, are we going to get these for their friends in the pharmaceutical business, pharmaceutical companies? We don't know, because the Labor government is proposing effectively to let Canberra bureaucrats make those decisions. This side of the chamber would say, 'What's wrong with that?' Well, does anyone remember COVID? Does anyone remember what happens when we let the bureaucracy run rampant and wild in relation to making decisions about these sorts of matters?

One thing I will say off the topic, though, is that pharma are innovative. We've got to give them that. They are always finding innovative ways to sell us their products. This week we heard all about the two birds—did you hear about this? They found two birds in WA. They got them. They were two birds. One of them had the sniffles, and the other one appears to have been listless at home drinking chicken soup. These birds are almost like the bell ringing on the pharmaceutical company's guilt trip, saying: 'We're entering the winter season. We're about to lean on you to get your flu shot, and now we've found two birds with the sniffles.' Two birds are going to going to make you—you've got to hand it to them; that's innovative. I'd give them a tax break every day of the week, because these companies have made some of the best public relations steps you've ever seen. Protect yourself. Protect grandma. Protect the vulnerable. Now we've got avian influenza doing the heavy lifting.

It's the same pattern, year after year: a new variant; a new scare. When Australians are at home wondering whether they should book their annual flu jab or just sit in front of the TV with chicken soup, they are getting this innovative spin from pharmaceutical companies. I'm not saying that the birds are in on it, but if they start claiming superannuation I think we've got a problem! If history has taught us anything, though, it's that fear is a real sales tool and winter is the favourite season. That's innovation for you.

Back to the issue of taxation—we now are at a point where this system has become so complicated and so difficult to navigate that it's like the AFL draft. You simply cannot negotiate it without people that are heavily invested in it. This is an endemic problem that, I would say, this government have ably contributed to over the last period. You almost can't navigate your life as an average Australian citizen without employing a team of experts to help you. If you're a tradie out there now, this tax system has become so complicated that you need to spend thousands of dollars a year just to stay compliant—we're not talking about getting a particular edge or whatever—just to simply stay within the confines of the law.

This government, rather than simplifying matters by, say, reducing the tax burden, is actually making it more complicated. We don't know who's in and who's out. We don't know. There are a range of things that we simply do not understand, and that's because it's been done on the fly without a proper plan and with, I would say, a particular backlash from industry. Now they're trying to pick favourites. It's worse than that—they're going to let the Canberra bubble pick favourites. That's not the way you run a country.

When I came into this place 4½ years ago, I said that I wanted to do politics differently. I think I've proven in the last couple of years that I'm definitely doing politics differently.

By joining the Labor Party!

And by leaving Jacqui Lambie, becoming an Independent and exploring all the colours of politics. It's one of those things, though. Eventually you find a safe home and a place where you agree, you collaborate and you cooperate holistically. I believe that's what politics should be all about.

That's what Jacqui thought!

Yes, well—'That's what Jacqui thought.' It's one of those things where I want to do good for the people of Tasmania and I've found a place where I think that will happen. The changes we're doing for the tax reform are going to show workers, businesses and future generations that reform is required to improve the quality of life that we have within Australia. We're going to deliver a new round of tax cuts, including more tax cuts for every taxpayer, from next week. We're helping more Australians realise the dream of homeownership and supporting investment and innovation. That's one of the things that I wanted to come into this place and make a difference with: showing people in Tasmania that there is hope, there is opportunity and there are choices they can make to ensure that they have a better future. Some of the things I've done in this place are to ensure that housing in Tasmania is better and that Tasmanians have better opportunities open to them when it comes to health and education.

Reducing the tax burden for over 13 million workers is an important thing. We want people to have money in their pockets so that they can build a home, have a life, raise children and have a family. We want to ensure that the housing market increases and doesn't decrease like it has over the past few years. We want to ensure that businesses and startups are here in Australia, because it's important that we have industry, business and money within our homes and our country and in Tasmania in particular. One of my focuses is that we should have money, industry and business so that we can maintain families in my home state.

We shouldn't have to worry so much about what is going away from our homes and what is going away from our state. It makes me sad, when we look at change, that it's seen as a bad thing or that learning and educating yourself—about what differences there can be and how they can improve things—are seen as a bad thing. Learning from change, different datasets and different people is not backflipping. I've learnt many things from the people across the floor and also from the crossbench and the Greens. They have helped me become a better politician and understand where I stand within my community. I will work hard for the next two years to ensure that the people of Tasmania have industry, business, money and opportunity to build families, homes and industry within my home state.

As I said the other week, I do not apologise for backflipping and changing my colours. I'm proud to be a senator for Tasmania. I'm proud to be a Labor senator for Tasmania. And do you know what? Come on down and join the party. It's a great place to be. And do you know what? You've all encouraged me to be a bigger, better version of myself, and this is the bigger, better version. It's loud, it's proud, it's Tasmanian and it's also a Labor senator.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order.

I say, through the chair, I'm a proud Tasmanian and a proud Labor senator. Have I said that before? I might say it again. But thank you for listening.

Order.

Look, do you know what? I disagree with you too, Sarah. And I disagree with Ross and Penny, but do you know what?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

It creates a better Tasmanian senator, and I will be holistic and agreeable.

Honourable senators interjecting—

A point of order, Deputy President.

I'm sure Senator Tyrrell was enjoying it, but there were too many interjections going on.

A point of order?

Senator Wong.

Thank you. I asked for the call. I have a point of order. The senator from your party interjected numerous times. I asked you informally to call her to order. You did not. I would ask you to stop allowing her to interject, Deputy President. Thank you.

Senator Wong, I absolutely called Senator Henderson and Senator Cadell to order on numerous occasions. Senator Henderson.

On the point of order, I trust that Minister Wong takes her own lessons and also applies those in relation to her interjections. Thank you.

Senator Henderson, it is not required. Let's move on.

It was an interesting question time we had today, where we heard the catchphrase, over and over again, 'Couldn't maintain the status quo'—the status quo being people with their money in their pocket. We've had to change that. The government wants your money in their pocket. That's the change here. We hear about the WATO and what a great thing that is. Bring it forward and we'll vote for it. Let's do it now; bring on the WATO. Two hundred and fifty dollars in people's pockets—what a great idea. But what those opposite are not saying is that, while they're giving you $5 in your hand upfront, they're reaching around and picking your pocket for the rest of the money behind you. They are taking a net gain in tax out of what they are doing here, so much so that the highest ever percentage of tax by a government, on average over four years, is what they are doing.

But we don't want to talk about that. The Minister for Finance had two minutes to answer a question—she herself pointed out that she had two minutes to get to an answer—about countries that have higher marginal tax rates than Australia now. She rattled off England at 24 per cent, United States at 24 per cent and Germany at 26 per cent. This is the finance minister, and I am confident that our finance minister knows that all of those percentages are lower than the 47 per cent that you get to pay in Australia. That's how maths works: 24, 24 and 26 are all lower than the 47 per cent of your money that you get to pay to the government now. So take your $5.

There's nothing this government likes more than your money, except maybe the Greens, and they are protecting the deal that was done with the Greens in this. The Greens would love to reach around and grab every cent you've got, because it's not about fairness or anything; it's about socialism. They talk about 'these three parties of the right'. Let's talk about the two parties of socialism that take away the very things they talk about: aspiration and productivity. How is it aspirational for young people who invest in ETFs or crypto or stocks to now get taxed 100 per cent more on their savings to buy a house? How do they get taxed 100 per cent more and afford the deposit for their house? How is that going to help anybody get into a house? How do you justify 100 per cent higher taxes than people paid before for a deposit and then say that gets young people into houses? It doesn't. Even their own Treasury documents—that massive right-wing conspiracy organisation, the Treasury of Australia—say 35,000 fewer houses will be built under this taxation plan. That is in their own document; I believe it is on page 158.

So here we have it. We're taxing young people more on the way they save to get a deposit, we're building 35,000 fewer homes and we have the highest capital gains tax in the world. And this is the plan. This is why we have to change the status quo as they go through these things. This government should not use big words they don't understand, like 'productivity' and 'aspiration'. They should stick to the words they do know. like 'taxation', because that is where they are and where they specialise. And Australians deserve more.

When we look at all these changes, let's not forget that this is from the same treasurer and the same prime minister who said they wouldn't look at taxing superannuation. But they wanted to do unrealised gains in superannuation—until they realised even the Greens wouldn't agree with them on that one. That was a step too far even for the socialists in the room. But now they've come back. They can do a deal with capital gains tax, and they've got it. They are taxing you because they don't want people to get ahead. Society is only controllable when everyone races to the bottom and no-one has anything. That is what we have with this, and that is why it's wrong. This deal is being rushed through because they want no more debate and no more investigation into it—pass it and put up with it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to a gas export tax.

The minister says Labor wants what is best for the Australian people. Apparently, what's best for Australians is giving away $17 billion a year in revenue while multinational gas corporations make billions exporting Australian gas! It's a remarkable coincidence that what Labor says is best for Australians is always—always—what is best for those multinational gas corporations. What a coincidence! We're told that these corporations are paying a fair share, but who decides what a fair share is? Under Labor, these corporations are marking their own homework.

Then we got a lecture about global instability, conflict in the Middle East and uncertainty in energy markets. The minister even suggested that things may never return to normal. Is that the most recent excuse? Is that the new reason that Australians can never expect a fair return on their gas resources? If we're waiting for the gas industry to tell us the conditions are right, the answer will always be the same: not today, not tomorrow, not ever. We're told Labor's gas reservation policy is the answer, but that policy will not raise a single cent of revenue—not one extra dollar for housing, for energy costs, for cost-of-living relief or to fund the transition to clean, secure energy. The truth is there will always be another excuse, another delay and another reason to kick this can down the road.

After four years in government, Labor has made it incredibly clear who they are working for in this place. They are in here working for the gas industry, working for their donors. They are not working for the Australian people, and they have got to go.

Order! Senator Shoebridge, you have three minutes.

Well, that got Senator Wong agitated, didn't it? That was a bit of truth-telling from my colleague Senator Hodgins-May about the fact that we know who writes Labor's gas policy. Woodside and Santos write Labor's gas policy! They probably come together in a nice little room then deliver it to the Labor Party and say, 'This is in Australia's national interests because the member for Woodside—sorry, the resources minister—agrees with it.' That's what they'd say. And isn't it just a surprise where every single Labor federal resource minister ends up when they leave politics? Where do they go and get a job? They go to the resources industry and the gas industry. Time and time again, when there's a debate about whether or not a 25 per cent gas export levy should be put on, what we find is that Labor members, particularly those from WA—which is a petrostate run by WA Labor; let's be frank about it—come in here one after the other and just read onto the record the talking points from Woodside. It happens time and time again.

Now we get this linguistic gymnastics from Senator Wong. Senator Wong is asked about the position that the Labor members put in the gas export inquiry. In that position, the Labor members agreed to a finding that when things settle down, when there's some kind of next stage in the war in the Middle East, then Labor will consider a 25 per cent gas export tax. Of course, on 15 June, Senator Wong came out and welcomed Donald Trump's apparent peace deal in the Middle East. The Greens have always said: 'Why on earth did Labor support the war in the first place? Are they embarrassed by that position? Were they surprised when supporting Donald Trump and Netanyahu's war of aggression went off the rails?' Apparently Labor were surprised when that went off the rails. Maybe they should learn more.

But what we find is this: on 15 June, Senator Wong comes out, welcomes this peace agreement and is talking about the positivities, and then when she's asked, 'Well, OK, now will you put a tax on gas exports?' we get a different set of talking points. You see, it's one conversation to keep Donald Trump happy, and then it's another conversation here to keep the gas lobby happy. And who gets cut out each and every time? The Australian public and the national interest. You see, if you've got a government that, on the one hand, is trying to please Donald Trump and, on the other hand, is trying to please the gas lobby and the gas exporters, who gets cut out every time? The Australian public. It's about time they got a say in this place. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Innovation (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice I asked today relating to artificial intelligence.

Minister Ayres accused me of reckless speculation but, rather curiously, couldn't just rule out the speculation and gave us three answers. It's hard to say exactly what we learnt from those three answers, but he could have simply ruled it out.

The minister also thinks that 'selling out our future' is simply asking that we have guardrails in place for AI and simply asking that we have policies in place where the Australian people benefit from data centre investment—policies that actually recognise the difference between Australian owned sovereign data centres, where our data stays here in Australia, and investment from big multinational hyperscalers who want to come here and use our resources—our land, our water and our electricity—to train AI models the endpoint of which, it seems, is simply to replace human labour at scale. The government doesn't want to hear about that. When you ask Minister Ayres about job losses, he asks you: 'What are you talking about? Where did you get 600,000-person figure?' Jobs and Skills Australia. You'd expect the minister to be across that. I don't see how it is selling out our future to actually ask these questions. I think they're very reasonable questions to ask, and Australians expect the government to have a plan. We're selling out Australian artists, we're selling out Australian authors and we're selling out journalists—any creative who relies on copyright—if the government is going to do a deal with data centres and AI companies to undermine copyright in this country. It must not happen.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Snowy 2.0.

I take note of Minister Gallagher's response—it wasn't an answer—to my question regarding the urgent need to close down Snowy Hydro 2.0 before it sends us broke. Robert Gottliebsen, not a man to be taken lightly, has projected the cost of this project at over $1 trillion after allowing for capital costs, maintenance, transmission line construction and maintenance costs, industrial solar and wind installations necessary to provide the power, and regular renewal of these renewables—because they only last 15 years—from now until the project is finished and paid for, likely in 2060. Then add in the annual subsidies, because Snowy 2.0 will always run at a loss and you'll be paying for it. How much will the power have to be priced at to get our money back? They don't know. They're making this up as they go along. What a metaphor for the whole so-called net zero transition, a transition to poverty! One Nation will close this project down, remediate the environmental damage and replace the generation of power with beautiful, clean coal-fired power, lowering the cost of living for all Australians and helping us balance the budget.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senators Dowling and Marielle Smith from 22 June to 2 July 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senators McGrath and Sharma from 22 June to 2 July 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

On behalf of Senator Ruston and others, I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care Act 2024, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and 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 table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

AGED CARE AMENDMENT (RESTORING HUMAN OVERRIDE FOR AGED CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENTS) BILL 2026

I rise to introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026.

This is not a complicated Bill. It does not ask for anything radical. It asks for something simple: that when a qualified professional sits with an older Australian, assesses their needs and forms a clinical judgment, that judgment must count.

It must not be overruled by a computer. It must not be quietly set aside to meet a Budget target.

No algorithm has ever grown old. No algorithm has ever cared for an ageing parent. No algorithm has ever sat at the bedside of someone they love. And yet, under this Government, an algorithm now has the final say over the care of older Australians—and no human being is allowed to overrule it.

That is what this Bill fixes. It restores human override of the Integrated Assessment Tool—the IAT—for aged care needs and classification assessments.

And the fact that we need a law to put a human being back in charge of a human decision tells you everything you need to know about the direction of this Government's aged care reforms.

President, the IAT was introduced under the new Aged Care Act 2024, which commenced on 1 November 2025. It was sold as a tool for consistency and fairness—the promise that an older Australian would receive the same outcome no matter where they live or who assesses them.

That was the promise. The reality has been very different.

In the entire year before the algorithm, 170 people asked for their assessment to be reviewed. In just five months after it, 834 did. That is not a glitch. That is a system buckling under its own flaws.

The nation's peak body for geriatric medicine, the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine, has called the tool a clinical safety risk. They have pointed to the very things it fails to see—frailty, cognitive decline, sensory impairment, malnutrition and continence needs. The very things that decide whether an older person is safe in their own home.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has launched a formal investigation.

And there has been report after report of older Australians assessed at levels that bear no relationship to their actual needs—including a man living with motor neurone disease whose funding was cut even as his condition was clearly getting worse.

Think about that. A man with motor neurone disease—a cruel, progressive, terminal illness—was told by a computer that he needed less help, not more. And no human assessor was permitted to step in and say: that is wrong.

President, this did not happen by accident. The removal of human override was not an oversight. It was a deliberate design choice—a decision to put a standardised, algorithm-driven outcome ahead of the professional judgment of a trained assessor.

So when an assessor looks at an older Australian and says 'this person needs more care', and the computer says no—under this Government, the computer wins. That is not a care system. That is a call centre with the humanity stripped out.

And it does not sit in isolation. It sits at the centre of a Support at Home rollout defined by delay, confusion and backflips—a Government that had to be shamed into reversing its own decision to strip back showering and continence support, among the most basic things a person needs to keep their dignity.

When the tool at the centre of the system under-assesses need, everything downstream fails with it. At point after point, older Australians are ending up with less than they need.

This is not reform that strengthens care. It is reform that quietly takes it away—one algorithm decision at a time.

And the warnings have been impossible to miss. Families have raised the alarm. Clinicians have raised the alarm. Advocates have raised the alarm. More than 100 members and senators across this Parliament have called for action. And still the system grinds on, flaws and all.

One story in particular has put a human face to this. A woman took part in the early trials of the IAT in good faith, believing she was helping to make the system better. What she was never told was that the one safeguard she was counting on—a qualified human being able to step in when the tool got it wrong—was being removed altogether.

She trusted the system. The system took away her safeguard and never told her. And now she is too afraid to go anywhere near it. That is what happens when a Government trades trust for an algorithm.

At its heart, this is about transparency and accountability. Older Australians have a right to know how decisions about their care are made. They have a right to know those decisions reflect their real needs. And they have a right to expect that when something goes wrong, it is fixed—not explained away.

Instead, we have had delay, partial answers and shifting explanations. The basic questions still hang in the air: why was human override removed, what evidence justified it, and when will it be fixed?

This Bill answers that last question today.

It amends the Aged Care Act 2024 so that the professional judgment of an approved needs assessor cannot be displaced by the IAT or any other automated tool. It makes the tool what it should always have been—a support for the decision, not the decision itself. It restores the authority of qualified assessors to determine outcomes based on their clinical expertise. And it writes that protection into the primary legislation, so that no government can quietly take the human out of the loop again without the scrutiny of this place.

No algorithm has ever grown old. So no algorithm should have the last word on growing old. This Bill puts the decision back where it belongs—with a human being.

This Bill is about balance. It is about technology that supports care instead of constraining it. It is about a simple truth: no algorithm can capture the full complexity of a human life, and human judgment must remain at the centre of decisions about human care.

Older Australians deserve a system that sees them, hears them and treats them as people—not as data points to be processed. Put the human back in charge. Put the care back into aged care.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 1 July 2026, the ministerial submissions relating to Snowy Hydro Limited with the parliamentary document record numbers MS26-000059 and MS26-000275 respectively.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 1 July 2026, the latest briefings and reports provided to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water by Snowy Hydro Limited.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 July 2026, any briefings, documents, files, notes, correspondence, emails or advice exchanged between the office of the Minister for Industry and Innovation and the office of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that concern Australia's carbon leakage review, during March 2025, July 2025, January 2026 and February 2026.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 1 July 2026, any briefings, documents, files, notes, correspondence, emails or advice provided by the Clean Energy Regulator to the minister or the minister's office that concern the operation of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program in the months of July and August 2025 and February 2026, respectively.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 30 June 2026, the Government's response, in draft and/or final form, to the report of the Interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council titled Barriers to institutional investment, finance and innovation in housing, released on 8 September 2023.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 518 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 30 June 2026, any advice provided by the Department of the Treasury to the Treasurer or the office of the Treasurer, in preparation for the 2026-27 Federal Budget in relation to the impact of the Government's proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing on different industries and cohorts.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 517 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 25 June 2026, all modelling undertaken by the Department of the Treasury in preparation for the 2026-27 Federal Budget, and any correspondence relating to that modelling between the department and the Treasurer or the office of the Treasurer, in relation to the following:

(a) the impact on charitable giving of the Government's proposed changes to the tax arrangements for discretionary trusts; and

(b) the impact on the mining exploration sector of the Government's proposed changes to the capital gains tax discount for small business.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 512 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2026:

Existing vulnerabilities in the Reserve Bank Information and Transfer System Low Value Clearing and Low Value Settlement Services systems, with particular reference to:

(a) the Reserve Bank of Australia's report, 27 January 2026 payments settlements outage: RITS Low Value Clearing and Settlement Services and property batch disruption;

(b) the impact of disruption on consumer and industry confidence in property settlement services; and

(c) any other related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate 1, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Senator Colbeck has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 12 on 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 Australians are being forced to pay the price for Labor's spending problem through a toxic tax agenda that punishes hard work, investment and ambition, while empowering Canberra bureaucrats to decide which businesses and Australians deserve relief and which do not.

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 Albanese Labor Government to explain why Australians are being forced to pay the price for Labor's spending problem through a toxic tax agenda that punishes hard work, investment and ambition, while empowering Canberra bureaucrats to decide which businesses and Australians deserve relief and which do not.

It's with some disappointment that I feel the need to move this urgency motion today. It's sad that we're in this particular position. This toxic agenda of this government is driven through broken promises, through the breaking of the government's word and by the politics of envy. The really tragic part of this toxic tax agenda is that, despite all of the things the government says this is supposed to do and despite all of the things they want it to do, it's not doing any of them. They talk about wanting to make it easier for people to buy a house. This toxic tax proposal actually makes it harder for a young person to save for a house by taxing, at a higher rate, the mechanisms that young Australians are using to save their first home deposit.

So, when the government goes out and tells young Australians that they are trying to help them get into the housing market, it's actually the other way around. The higher taxes that this government is seeking to charge Australian people with their dirty deal with the Greens are actually making it harder for young people to save. It's not making housing any more affordable, which the government promised that they would do in 2022. At that election, they promised more affordable housing. That hasn't happened—another broken promise—but it will put up rents. The government's own budget papers say that. They also say that these measures will mean that 35,000 fewer houses will be built, so there will be less stock in the market for young Australians to compete against others for, and that's on top of the fact that under this government we are building 30,000 fewer houses per year than we were building under the previous government.

There are 170,000 houses being built a year; 200,000 houses a year were being built previously. That's because of the toxic policies of this government. They'll get up and they'll tell you this is all meant to be about intergenerational fairness. It is not, in particular, when this government went to the last election saying there would be no changes to capital gains tax. That was their promise. They promised, 50 times, that there would be no changes to capital gains tax, and of course now they say, 'We've changed our mind.' So what does the government's word mean? Add that to the fact that they said that there would be no changes to other taxes. They broke that promise too, so how does anyone believe anything this government says, including in this debate?

They'll get up and tell you: 'Everything's fine. We're about intergenerational fairness. We're about doing this for young Australians.' But you can't believe a word this government says, because, as they've proven so many times—a $275 reduction in our power bills by 2025. They said that 97 times at the 2022 election, and it never came to pass—only increasing power prices. Lower cost of living—they've driven inflation the other way. Lower housing prices—we know how that's going. Then they promised there would be no changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing, but they've brought this toxic policy in through a dirty deal with the Greens. The effect of this process is that Nick McKim is effectively writing tax policy for the Australian government these days. That's what's happening now. Nick McKim from the Greens, which is the party that wants to drive the economy down, is writing tax policy for this Labor government. They should be ashamed. They should apologise to the Australian people.

I rise to oppose this urgency motion. While I respect my learned colleague Senator Colbeck, this motion comes straight out of central casting for the Liberal Party. It defends vested interests over working people. We all remember it was the Liberal Party who went to the last election with a toxic tax agenda. The Liberals proposed higher taxes. The Liberals wanted to repeal our tax cuts for workers. Every Australian worker would have been financially worse off under a Prime Minister Peter Dutton. Thank God that didn't happen. So we will not be lectured to about taxes by the party that ran for government proposing to increase them—a party who deliberately set policies to cause wages to stagnate for a decade. Under Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison, life got harder year on year for ordinary Australians—a decade of stagnant wages, a decade of falling productivity, a decade of bulk-billing rates in absolute freefall. That is the Liberal Party record.

Now let's talk about Labor's. Our budget backs Australians who earn their living through work. This is unashamedly a budget for working people. It cuts taxes for more than 14 million Australians, with a permanent reduction in the lowest marginal rate from 16c down to 15c and then to 14c. That is money in the pocket of every worker every year, ongoing, not a one-off sugar hit. That is permanent relief for working people.

We're also rebuilding the healthcare system that the Liberals deliberately ran into the ground. We promised urgent care clinics across the country at the last election, and we've opened 137 of them right across Australia. I'm proud to say there are 26 clinics in Queensland alone, in Brisbane, Buderim, Cairns, Capalaba, Carindale, Gladstone, Deception Bay, Greenslopes, Mackay and, most recently, Caloundra, where we opened a clinic last week following the Prime Minister's visit to the Sunshine Coast. Since then, the Caloundra Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has seen over 110 patients in the first few days of opening—no appointment, no out-of-pocket costs, just your Medicare card. We know that urgent care clinics are driving competition in the marketplace, coupled with our bulk-billing incentives, and bulk billing is going back up under Labor after those opposite tried to end it. From November 2025 to January this year, more than 18 per cent of GP visits were bulk-billed, the biggest quarterly increase since the pandemic. In communities like Longman on the north side of Brisbane, around Caboolture, bulk-billing rates have jumped 30 per cent. That is real cost-of-living relief for real families.

Senator Colbeck's motion talks about who this government's budget empowers, and I will tell him proudly that this budget empowers working people. We've delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, who are predominantly women—workers who were chronically underpaid and undervalued under that side of politics. A typical educator is now earning more than $150 more a week under Labor. From July next month, paid parental leave rises to 26 weeks—six months of government funded leave for families welcoming a new child, up from 18 weeks when we first came to government in 2022. The Liberals didn't support it. One Nation didn't support it. It was Labor.

In the last week, Australians got a front-row seat to see what a Liberal-One Nation government would look like and deliver for working families, and that is a slap in the face to the 1.4 million children in early education and child care and their families who rely on child care. Those opposite don't support the childcare subsidy. They'd rather see families pay more for childcare every single day. The three-day guarantee? They didn't support it; they voted against it. A pay rise for early educators? One Nation mocked it last week. What is on offer from those opposite under a Liberal-One Nation government? Questioning women who take time off to be with their new child. You cannot champion family values in this country and undervalue the work of working women in our society. You can't say you support workers while undermining working women in this country. Australians are being sold a pup from those opposite. One Nation say they stand up for working people, but all they do is take their marching orders from wealthy billionaires.

This government does have a toxic tax agenda, but that toxicity is less about who this government chooses to tax and more about who this government refuses to tax. This government had a choice to make about who it valued—disabled Australians or multinational gas corporations. Their answer could not be more clear, because that is the choice sitting behind these cuts.

Disabled Australians and their families have told the parliament what the proposed changes to the NDIS would mean for their lives, for their independence and for their dignity. They have asked to be heard, they have demanded to be heard, and they have demanded that this government listen, and yet, instead of just staring down a handful of gas exporters in this country and demanding they contribute more, Labor is forcing disabled Australians to carry the burden of its budget choices—just a handful of companies who should be bringing in more than $17 billion per year in revenue that could be used to strengthen not cut essential supports like the NDIS and to make it easier not harder for everyday Australians. Instead, that money is being siphoned offshore. Maybe not all of it's going offshore, because tens of thousands of it are going back into the campaign coffers of the corporate parties in this place: Labor, Liberal and One Nation. Of course, a few million need to be put aside to fund the PR campaigns against reforms like a tax on gas. Billions remain untaxed instead of going out to help everyday Australians who need it.

This is not about whether they are difficult decisions to make, because governments are forced to make decisions every day. We appreciate that. The question is: who gets protected, and who is sacrificed? Why is there always a reason not to tax the super profits of multinational companies but never one to strengthen the supports that people rely on every single day? The Greens have fought to give the disability community more time, more scrutiny and more protections, but the message from that community has been clear: these cuts cannot proceed. They must not proceed. This is Labor capitulating to the right, to the Liberals, the Nationals and Gina Rinehart's One Nation, who are constantly inventing new ways to punch down on Australians who need support.

For months, we have heard the same rhetoric about cracking down on rorts and getting spending under control, but, when the inquiry heard from the people who will actually be impacted by these changes, we heard that these cuts aren't targeting waste; they're targeting people. Instead of listening to those Australians, Labor has chosen to echo the talking points of those who have spent years undermining public support for the NDIS and looking for opportunities to shrink it. The government cannot claim that there is no alternative while billions of dollars in gas profits leave Australian shores untaxed every single day.

Disabled Australians are not a budget repair measure. If this government has the courage to ask people who are already struggling to do more, then it should have the courage to ask multinational corporations or to demand multinational corporations making billions from Australia's resources to pay what they owe, because political courage is not balancing the budget off the backs of disabled people. Political courage is not letting lobbyists write the rules in this joint. Political courage is not taking the path of least resistance and hoping nobody notices. Real political courage is taking on the vested interests. It is making gas corporations pay what they owe Australians. It's staring down the gambling lobby and banning gambling advertising on our screens. It's being prepared to stand up to industries with money, access and influence when the public interest demands it and when the Australian people demand it.

Instead, this government take the easier path, the path that sees them beating down on disabled Australians. It's asking more from people who already have less while refusing to demand more from corporations making billions of dollars of profit off our Australian resources. Disabled Australians should not be paying the price for that failure of political courage from the government, and they should not be treated as collateral damage because Labor is too afraid and too timid and too gutless to stare down those corporations and to actually take them on.

I think a lot of people in this building have been a bit shell shocked about the changing dynamics in our political system. They may be confronting for some; they may threaten individual or even political interests. But I think it shows that the system is probably buggered. When you look at the fundamentals of the country, people know it's buggered. In fact, the sentiment after the budget was so bad that—it didn't really surprise me that $77 billion in new taxes would be considered bad. But it's important to separate people understanding their own economic interests and people thinking about the country. People know the country is heading in the wrong direction. They know that the trajectory is bad. They know that, every time politicians stand up and announce new funding, it's not funding; it's borrowed money. They know about the trillion dollars of debt. They know that they're heavily taxed. They know that; they can feel that. Even though we're not in a technical recession, for many people it feels like what a recession would feel like. And it's a long time since we had a prolonged technical recession.

But I think that's the dynamic—that people are angry and frustrated with the system. I think that they are right to be because, in the main, there hasn't been enough contestability and there hasn't been enough competition around some of these fundamental issues to do with the basic things—just getting the basics right: How are we going to fund this nation's government? How much debt are we willing to take on? How are we willing to tax our people, then how are we willing to spend that money?

I guess the main thrust of a lot of these tax reviews over the past 15 or 20 years—and I think the Henry review would have been the main one—was that we accept we are a heavily taxed nation when it comes to the comparisons between peoples and between companies. We're heavy on the direct taxation, and there are other areas where we're not so heavy. So the general vibe has been, 'Well, maybe we should recut that and recalibrate that, and maybe we should find a way to reduce the burden on individuals and companies—particularly on individuals—and then find a way to rebalance that.' Maybe that happens through some sort of a grand deal with the federation, or maybe it doesn't.

I've come to the view that it is a waste of time to sit here and whinge about the states. It's like complaining about the Swiss Alps. You're better off spending your time here trying to focus on the things that we do actually control. There are a lot of things that are under federal control. Whether you're in government, on the crossbench or in opposition, there are things that you can apply pressure to in the federal domain. So I don't think that anyone would have believed that, after all the literature and all the studies, we would end up with nothing really much to alleviate the 'pay as you go' system but a great, huge capital gains tax of a minimum of 30 per cent, with nothing to rebalance. You end up with a system of very high 'pay as you go' income tax and a system of perhaps the highest capital gains tax anywhere that we can find. It's no wonder people are going bananas. They're saying, 'Hang on, how is that right?'

I guess this is really the point: these tax policies have been a shambles. Dr Chalmers would have been sacked if he were working somewhere else. He's had two tax policies in four years. He had a tax policy on unrealised gains; that's collapsed. Now he's had this CGT/housing thing—he calls it that—which has, partially, also collapsed. But the Australian people are going to get stuck with this because of this deal that's been done between the government and the Greens, and we're going to get stuck with this 30 per cent CGT. It's going to be an ugly time for many people, particularly people that don't have a lot of money—they'll be hit with a minimum of 30 per cent.

But, of course, the people who won't pay are the government's best friends at the super funds. The government will hit out at the SMSF people, but they won't touch the APRA regulated super funds, because they are the people that pay for their campaigns and support them. These are the people that they're personally close to, and, when they leave this place, they'll go and be on a board of one of these funds. So, of course, they didn't want to crimp any of their beneficial tax treatment. Ultimately, it's about the government's vested interest. I think the tax system is only going to get worse now, not better, sadly.

The coalition have come into the chamber claiming to defend hard work, investment and ambition while preparing to vote against tax cuts for more than 13 million working Australians and against reforms that will help 75,000 Australians buy their first home. That is not a defence of aspiration; that is a defence of the status quo. Apparently, aspiration is sacred when it belongs to a property investor buying a fifth house but it becomes dangerous when it belongs to a nurse, a teacher or a young family trying to buy their first.

This so-called matter of urgency is not an economic argument; it's a political stunt from a coalition that still cannot accept that Australians have rejected its priorities. The three right-wing parties—the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation—now have three different logos, one tired script and not a serious economic idea between them. They offer anger but no answers. They offer slogans but no solutions. And every time they're asked what they would actually do, the cupboard is bare.

Labor is delivering a new $250 tax cut for every working Australian. We are delivering a $1,000 instant tax deduction so workers can claim common expenses without keeping a shoebox full of receipts. For an Australian on the average income, our tax changes will mean $2,800 back in their pocket from 2027-28. The coalition calls that toxic. Most Australians call it help with the bills. The coalition loves talking about hard work, yet they keep voting against letting workers keep more of what they earn.

We are also making the housing system fairer. Existing investments are protected, but, from 1 July 2027, negative gearing for future residential investments will be directed to new homes. That means tax concessions will help build supply instead of helping investors outbid first homebuyers for homes that already exist. That's a sensible reform. It supports construction, adds new homes and gives first homebuyers a fairer chance. But the coalition believes the tax system should continue to favour the person buying their next investment property over young Australians trying to buy a place to live. They call that ambition; Australians call it being locked out.

The motion also repeats the scare campaign that Labor is attacking small business. The facts say the opposite. The government listened and acted. Small businesses with turnovers below $10 million will have access to generous capital gains tax concessions. That covers 2.7 million small businesses, or 98 per cent of all active businesses. We are delivering $3.8 billion in new business tax relief, including a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off, loss carry-back arrangements, and support for startups and investments. So much for the claim that Labor is punishing business.

Now, Senator Colbeck wants Australians to believe Labor has a spending problem. This government is strengthening Medicare, making medicines cheaper, delivering 137 Medicare urgent care clinics, extending paid parental leave to six months and cutting taxes for working people. Those are not wasteful choices; they are the services Australians work hard and pay taxes to support. The real issue before the Senate is simple: will those opposite vote to give working Australians a tax cut, will they vote to help more Australians buy a home, will they back a fairer tax system that supports new housing and protects small business or will they join the same old Liberal, National and One Nation chorus of no?

Oh, I'm going to have to divert from what I was thinking of saying! Senator Brown, it's not Senator Colbeck that thinks the Albanese Labor government has a spending problem; it's actually a fact. The RBA governor has said directly that this government is spending too much. It is a fact. There is a sense of delusion on the other side of the chamber as to what is actually happening in the real world on the streets of Australia. But what happened in here today is a really bad moment for our country because today Australia has entered its quasi-socialist era based on the deal between the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. What I find extraordinary is that you enter this deal—in suggesting that you're protecting disabled Australians, you cut a deal with them today on negative gearing and CGT without the knowledge that you're going to get anything from them. You've traded away the rights of disabled Australians for a tax bill that is actually going to harm young Australians and harm other people. There are actually no outcomes for what you have done. It's quite extraordinary.

Today in your speeches, you talked about Australians being punched down. Guess who was punched down today—a young person saving for a home via shares. They were punched down today. A small-business owner was punched down today by your deal. Someone with an SMSF who wanted to buy residential property was punched down today by your deal. Guess what. If you're a young person saving through shares, if you're a small business owner or if you're someone that's got your own self-managed super fund because you've decided you don't want industry super to have it, you're a bad guy according to the Albanese Labor government and the Australian Greens. You are bad and you must be taxed. However, if you're the CFMEU you get a free ride. If you're a CFMEU participant in corrupt and criminal conduct, you get a free ride, because the Greens will never support an inquiry into their friends from the CFMEU who rorted Victorian taxpayers of $15 billion. We'll pretend that's not happening. We won't talk about the Victorian taxpayer being punched down or what impacts that's had on Australian construction or on Australian small businesses in the construction sector. 'We won't talk about them being punched down. We'll look the other way and pretend it's not happening because that's our mates that are doing that.'

You're also protecting Labor's sacred cows of industry super, the CFMEU and global institutional investors. Guess what. While a mum and dad investor or a young person who's investing in shares to own their own home or somebody that's starting up a small business can't get tax concessions, industry super can and so can a global institutional investor who can come here and build dwellings for Australians to rent forever. They can get a tax concession, but Australians can't do that. It is insane. It is absolute madness. You facilitated that today. You allowed that to happen. You've said Australians can't have the concessions while you are handing out that cash to institutions. You should be ashamed of yourselves, absolutely ashamed. I actually can't believe it. Senator Hodgins-May called it a 'toxic tax agenda'. They were her words. Who facilitated that? How did their toxic tax agenda get a free pass from the Australian Greens? That's how.

Senator Hodgins-May talked about political courage. Where was the political courage to say: 'No, fix the terrible NDIS legislation. Make the amendments. Do it now. Show us what you're going to do. Let the proof be in the pudding'? No, we don't know what's going to happen with that. Disabled Australians don't know, but we do know what's going to happen with the taxes. That's a done deal. It's extraordinary.

Senator Hodgins-May also said we should be prepared to stand up to industries with power and people with influence and money and call them out. How about the CFMEU—influence, power, money, corruption and criminal conduct? Maybe it's time to call them out and say enough is enough. Australians are saying there's enough of that. How about that for a change?

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

():  The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McKim, 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 Government to cease all public subsidies to the native forest logging industry, and to use all available Commonwealth powers to end native forest logging in Australia.

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 Government to cease all public subsidies to the native forest logging industry, and to use all available Commonwealth powers to end native forest logging in Australia.

What we now know is what we've suspected for some time, and that is that Labor and the Liberals are colluding to ensure that Tasmania's precious, beautiful native forest estate is being destroyed and plundered using public subsidies and that some of the logs from that plunder are being shipped across Bass Strait using public subsidies and then being milled in Victorian timber mills using public subsidies. Every step of the way, this mendicant industry is destroying nature, emitting massive amounts of carbon and bleeding the Tasmanian, Victorian and Australian taxpayers. Like leeches on the public purse, this environmentally destructive, socially destructive, climate-destroying industry is bleeding the public purse because it cannot stand on its own two feet to survive. Four Corners last night laid this whole sorry, sordid saga bare, and it is the Tasmanian taxpayers, the Victorian taxpayers and ultimately the Australian taxpayers who are being ripped off every step of the way by this mendicant industry, which would collapse in an instant if the public subsidies were withdrawn from it.

Not only did Four Corners lay this whole sorry, sordid saga bare and make it obvious to the Australian people last night; we were faced with the Tasmanian logging minister—forest minister—Mr Felix Ellis, blatantly lying about what was going on. He confirmed that whole logs were not being exported across Bass Strait from Tasmania's public forests, when, in fact, they are. One of the people who has the contract on behalf of Neville Smith was interviewed on Four Corners and confirmed that Neville Smith was shipping whole logs across Bass Strait, so the Tasmanian forest minister, Felix Ellis, was caught out blatantly lying on Four Corners last night.

Make no mistake: native forest logging destroys nature, and it emits massive amounts of carbon while leeching off taxpayers. The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme was not designed to be exploited in such a way, and the Commonwealth should immediately close the loophole that is allowing whole logs to be exported across Bass Strait while being subsidised by the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. They should also prevent diesel fuel credits from being used by the companies that are transporting those logs, I might add.

If state governments, particularly in Tasmania and New South Wales, won't act to stop native forest logging, the Commonwealth government should use all of the many powers that are available to it to shut down native forest logging in Australia. Our native forests are too precious. They are too sacred. They are too beautiful. They are home to too many complex, amazing creatures and fabulous complex ecosystems to keep sacrificing to prop up a mendicant industry that is a destroyer of nature, that contributes so massively to climate breakdown and that bleeds the taxpayer dry at every opportunity. The time to end native forest logging is right now.

If only life were so black and white as they would have you believe over in the Greens. If only everything were so absolute and so easy. We see the interesting conversations here. We heard the previous speaker talk of complex creatures that are wonderfully magnificent in these forests. But these same creatures, things like the wonderful koala—which we love so much in Australia—become nothing but tree rats when they're on a wind tower location. They need to be eradicated—knocked over the head and got rid of—if they sit where a wind tower should go. The inconsistency here is amazing when we go forward.

We see a fine example of ignoring what happens when you stop logging. I give you the Pilliga example in New South Wales. We lost timber jobs, we lost regional jobs—I see that—and it was all to save a native koala habitat. They estimated there were 18,000 koalas in the Pilliga across New South Wales. I hear you ask: what happened after we shut that down? Let me tell you. Unmanaged, a bushfire went through and destroyed everything because we didn't maintain the fire trails; we didn't have logging trails; we didn't have anything. We now have a functionally extinct koala habitat in the Pilliga. They're functionally extinct. We didn't protect them. We didn't protect the animals. We didn't protect the area. In fact, invasive species of trees have taken over because of these fires. The Pilliga is now nothing like it used to be when it was being managed.

They talk about the massive carbon output of having these things. They don't talk about the carbon sequestration that forests have when they're growing. They take carbon in at a much faster rate when they are growing than they do when they are there. In fact, recent studies have come to show that forests in states of decline can emit more carbon as rotting timbers come out than they soaked up during their life. It is best practice to take timber and let it grow and absorb carbon in the world.

When we see what the alternative is if we don't take Australian hardwoods—there's a joke that goes around in the timber industry. Why does Merbau flow red when it gets rained on when you're building an industry? Because it is the blood of orangutans when they come from Borneo, Indonesia and other sources when they go there. Because if we don't take Australian hardwoods, we take them from Indonesia; we take them from Papua; we take them from Brazil; we take them from other sources—

Russia!

Russia. Let's talk about Russia. What a great interjection! We'll talk about that. We have seen timber being dumped, outside of sanctions, in Australia, by not following process. We are seeing Chinese timbers, LVLs, processed timbers, Russian birch and other things coming here via systems. We are promoting Russian breaches of trade sanctions by stopping Australian hardwoods from being produced. This is the reality of the world and the timber industry. The only thing we are stopping if we stop the Australian timber industry is Australian jobs.

Native animals will still be killed, just not in Australia. We heard that native animals in Australia get damaged by this. We have this great thing called the Great Koala National Park that is being proposed in New South Wales. Timber were happy to work in reserved areas and said: 'Yes, we'll make a koala park slightly bigger than it is now. We'll give you 70,000 hectares more.' But, no, they want more. They want 170,000 hectares. So we've virtually stopped what we call logging on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. But the studies show this: the koalas in the managed forest, where logging activities were being undertaken, were healthier and more numerous than those in the national parks. The national park koalas were malnourished and unhealthy compared to those in the managed area.

We don't want to tell that story, and the truth was said by the previous speaker. They want to ban all native logging full stop. There's not a reason for it. We can cut down trees where we want to build wind towers. We can kill native animals where we want to build solar farms. We can do all of this. We can cause the rest of the world to lose their forests and their animals. We just can't do that in Australia. There are people in this parliament—they are consistent; I get that—who want to see the shutting down of all extractive industries, everything that brings money to Australia, because their agenda is ruining the economy, not protecting the environment. That is the main reason we stand here today, and we see it consistently time after time after time.

You see these ACCUs and carbon credits. Why should money be put aside for forests to just do their thing and grow with no additionality? We are locking up the Great Koala National Park and the areas around the north coast for no reason. The forests are there. They are being managed. We have a healthy koala population. We're living through it. In Tasmania—I'm not going to speak with authority, Senator McKim, on Tasmania. I'll give that to them and the other Tasmanians here. But let's get down to it. The end of all native logging in Australia is the wrong policy. It doesn't take into account the carbon leakage, it doesn't take into account the death of animals right across the world and it doesn't support regional jobs. Just ask the people of Baradine, who have nothing to show for it—no koalas and no timber.

I rise to echo the words of my colleague Senator Cadell, who's the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products and someone who proudly stands up for jobs in our regions. What we have before us in the Senate today is yet another motion that is antiworker, antiregions and antimanufacturing. It's no surprise that it's sponsored by the Australian Greens, who continue to misunderstand the importance of forestry and its industry here in Australia.

Australia is a global leader when it comes to sustainable forest management, something that we have been proud of for decades. Whether it's in plantation or native forestry, our forestry industry harvests timber with a level of environmental care that is unmatched anywhere else in the world. Beyond that, the research and development undertaken by our industry plays a major part in global efforts to improve forest management and to mitigate climate change.

The environmental commitment is most clearly reflected in the Australian Forest Products Association's recent announcement that our forestry industry can achieve net zero emissions by 2029. That's right—this industry so irrationally demonised by the Australian Greens can reach net zero in two decades, ahead of the general economy, if we get the policy settings right. The Building a low-carbon future for Australia report by Forest and Wood Products Australia also shows that this path is real and it can serve our ambition to achieve net zero. Australian forests, both native and plantation, are carbon vacuums. They store around 14 billion tonnes of carbon and they remove 15.8 million tonnes of carbon annually, which is the equivalent of taking 3.4 million cars off our roads each year. Expanding new plantation sites will only increase this capacity. I am just surprised and gobsmacked that the Australian Greens actually are against that.

There's also great potential to boost decarbonisation in this country by encouraging timber use in construction across all sectors: in residential, commercial and industrial. We should back our timber industry not demonise it. Homes that are built predominantly from timber have a 46 per cent lower carbon emission profile than conventional dwellings that are made with steel and concrete. That is the fact. But this commendable vision cannot be achieved without a reliable supply of sustainable Australian timber.

Despite what the Greens might claim, this includes timber both from native forests and from plantations. Of course, plantation timber is critical. That is why the Albanese government is proudly investing in plantation. It is making record investments, expanding our plantation estates right across Australia. But plantations alone cannot meet our current domestic demand on producing the full range of timber that is required by modern construction and forest products industries and a modern economy. If we shut down the Australian native forestry sector, we do not reduce the amount of timber that is used here in Australia. Instead, what we are simply doing is pushing the problem elsewhere, and, as Senator Cadell mentioned, we are effectively replacing Australia's world-class industry with timber that is imported from overseas jurisdictions that have significantly weaker environmental and worker protections than what we have here.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing one of the worst examples of this risk with revelations that there are imports of Russian timber via third countries into Australia, supporting Putin's war efforts against Ukraine. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Ukrainian ambassador for bringing this particular issue to my attention and for his constant advocacy for the people of Ukraine. Timber of Russian origin is being rerouted through other countries to get onto our construction sites and avoid sanctions that we have put in place. This is a serious matter, and it is unacceptable, and I would have thought Senator McKim would be backing that and backing the people and those industries. We don't want this dirty timber in our economy; we want to back local jobs and our regions and support the manufacturing of this great country.

We are hearing a radical ideology that would try and convince people that we exist outside of nature and that we can somehow destroy the very thing that we rely on and not hurt ourselves. In the middle of the last century, Aldo Leopold, the great forester, conservationist and author, said:

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

These are words that we need to heed more than ever in this country—a country that still does not make decisions like we plan to be here for a long time and that is still willing to turn ancient native forests into woodchips, paper pulp and box liners, a high-volume, low-value product. It is a shame on all of us in this place that we are willing not only to allow that to happen but to subsidise an industry so that that can continue.

Native forest logging belongs in our past. It is no longer profitable. It employs a very small number of people, who can be transitioned to plantations, where there is a great future. There is a demand for timber. Timber for housing and all these other things that both sides of politics tell us we need comes from plantations. The vast, vast majority of native forests go into woodchips. We've got to stop doing this as a country. We are destroying our natural heritage. We are destroying the life that sustains us. Even if you don't care about nature, it's in our self-interest to make these changes. Taxpayers have bankrolled losses and bailouts—more than $1.3 billion in accumulated losses in Tasmania, handouts exceeding $1.5 billion in Victoria and about $1 billion in New South Wales. What a tragic use of taxpayer funds.

Yes, we need a transition; it should have happened a long time ago. With that sort of money, every worker and every community could be looked after. We could get people into plantations and invest in the types of economies of the future—in tourism, in land management, in carbon. Instead, we have this short-sighted clutching to the past and a culture war coming from both sides of politics. We've got to do better.

The central claim of Senator McKim's motion just simply doesn't stack up. To begin with, the Australian government does not subsidise native forestry operations. The day-to-day management of forestry operations is the responsibility of state and territory governments throughout the country.

That said, the government remains firmly committed to a sustainable forestry industry, one that delivers positive economic, social and environmental outcomes that include employment and income for regional communities as well as a sustainable source of wood products to support the housing and construction sector. Australia needs timber to build the homes that Australians need. Demand for wood products in the construction sector is growing, and our domestic forestry industry—native and plantation combined—is central to meeting that demand. With that in mind, ending native forestry does not make housing more affordable or more available. Instead, it makes Australia more dependent on imported timber at a time when global supply chains are already under significant pressure.

Our support for the sector is clear. It's shown through the new $300 million Forestry Growth Fund, alongside our existing $300 million investment that is already expanding plantations, strengthening the workforce and upgrading manufacturing capability. Importantly, this new fund will see the government invest with industry to build a larger, more sustainable forestry industry—one that delivers more secure jobs and higher value outputs. It will secure retooling, training and upskilling for workers across the country.

Ending native forest forestry means more imports, not less logging. There is a key point here that the Greens consistently refuse to engage with: Australia is a net importer of wood products. Plantations alone cannot meet domestic demand. Therefore, native forests remain an important source of wood products that complement our plantation industry. If we shut down Australia's native forestry sector, we do not reduce the amount of timber that Australians use. What we do is instead replace domestically produced, sustainably managed timber with imports sourced from overseas jurisdictions that may have significantly weaker environmental, labour and governance standards than our own. This is particularly concerning given that Australia's native forestry operates under some of the most rigorous regulatory frameworks in the world. Senators who genuinely care about forests should think carefully about what they are actually advocating for.

It's also important to put the facts on the record. Australia has 133.6 million hectares of forest, covering 17 per cent of the country's land area. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ranks Australia second globally for increases in forest area. In addition, production native forests are currently a net carbon sink, sequestering around 30.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2022-23. This government takes its environmental obligations seriously, and the data reflects that commitment.

Beyond timber production, native forestry also plays a vital role in forest management. Forestry workers bring critical expertise, experience and equipment into fire management efforts. This includes hazard reduction burns, frontline firefighting capacity and post-fire recovery work like road clearing. These are highly skilled workforces embedded in regional communities throughout Australia, carrying out work that protects lives and property.

Turning to investment, this government is committing almost $600 million to the sector, and it includes the new $300 million Forestry Growth Fund to implement the industry led Timber Fibre Strategy; $83.83 million to modernise wood processing; $100 million for research and innovation through Australian Forest and Wood Innovations; $73 million to expand plantation estates across all states and the Northern Territory; and $10 million for workforce training. Behind these figures are real jobs and real economic contributions in regional communities. In fact, the native hardwood harvest was $274 million in 2023-24. The Albanese government will continue to support a sustainable forestry industry that delivers for workers, communities and the environment.

What Four Corners exposed last night was absolutely shameful. I want to give a special shout-out to Basil O'Halloran, an ex-Greens MP, who was featured in that last night, along with Patrick Johnson, who's also a Greens member, and a number of other people that have spent so many years tracking the movement of these whole logs and saw logs from our beautiful native forests onto the ferry Spirit of Tasmania and across to Victoria under the cover of secrecy and, apparently, to the complete ignorance of the Tasmanian government.

While I'm here, I also want to thank all the forest protesters who, over many years, have done everything they can to try and stop this insane destruction of some of the most carbon-rich, biodiverse forests on the planet. Senator McKim joined the Greens not long after he was arrested in a forest protest at Farmhouse Creek, and I came to the Senate on the back of a long protest to stop one of the world's biggest pulp mills in Tasmania, which would have consumed four million tonnes of our old-growth forest every year for 30 years. It would have literally destroyed the spirit of Tasmania. So we come armed with a lot of knowledge and information on this debate. I think I can speak for Senator McKim, and I know you're going to hear it from Senator Shoebridge and my other colleagues who have campaigned for many years against forestry destruction. I acknowledge the work of Christine Milne, Janet Rice, Bob Brown and many other Greens that have stood up in this place for many, many years and have tried to stop this.

We are in disbelief that this is still happening in 2026, and it couldn't happen without taxpayer subsidies. We found out that $1½ billion went in to transition the Victorian industry away from native forest logging, and now we find out that the Victorian government is buying and paying for logs to come over from Tasmania to be milled—not to mention that the taxpayer is funding the freight charges for these logs on the Spirit of Tasmania, which displaces tourists, who, by the way, come to Tasmania to see our forests, the wilderness and the natural beauty. That is what is the spirit of Tasmania. That is what is rare about Tasmania and needs to be defended.

It's really frustrating to hear from senators who come in here and clearly know nothing about the facts. They say, for example, that the federal government doesn't fund or subsidise forestry. Senator McKim just reminded me that, in the last budget, they put $300 million of taxpayer funds into subsidising native forest logging around this country, and another $28 million in the most recent budget.

Do you know what? When I was campaigning against this giant factory in my valley that would have literally burnt these forests night and day to make paper or toilet paper for Chinese markets from some of the oldest, biggest trees on the planet, back then they said, 'Well, if we don't do it, someone else will.' That's exactly what we heard here today. It's what we heard from the forest industry today. It's the drug dealers' defence: 'Don't buy drugs from the person down the street. Mine are purer than theirs.' It's the same old argument.

We, in this day and age, can use plantation for our timber needs, and the Greens wholeheartedly support the development of the plantation industry, as we have done for many years. Leave our precious old forests alone. We don't have many of them left. The tree that was featured in Four Corners last night would have been around in the age of Napoleon, living and breathing the clean air of the Southern Ocean, and it's gone because some idiot has gone and knocked it down and burnt it. This has got to stop. People are horrified when they come to Tasmania and see this destruction, and I invite all senators to come for a walk in the forest with their Greens colleagues and see the beauty for themselves.

Last night's Four Corners was genuinely shocking. It was shocking to see the way in which public money that was set aside to end native forest logging was actually being used to subsidise it and to continue it in some of the most destructive logging you could imagine. We know that it's happening across the country, wherever native logging is still running, and it's largely in the beautiful forests of Tasmania and the beautiful forests of my home state of New South Wales—two of the most magical parts of the planet. These are extraordinarily biodiverse forests, part of the great southern forest that used to cover the whole southern part of this landmass. The burning, the napalming, the chainsawing, the hacking, the gouging and the death can only happen with public subsidies—and large-scale public subsidies.

What is really obscene is that, out of the $1.5 billion that was put aside for the Victorian government to stop native forest logging—because, for decades, forest protectors have been going out into those beautiful forests in Victoria, looking up at these majestic, incredible, impossibly beautiful sentinels that have stood there for centuries and said: 'Protect these. Don't log these, don't chop these, don't mill these, don't chip these.' Finally, there was a decision made to stop logging Victoria's state forests and to finally transition them across to protection. And what happened to the money put aside by Victorian Labor? It then found its way into subsidising the same destruction of those same forest giants, those same sentinels of nature, only this time in the Tasmanian public forest.

You couldn't believe this was happening unless you saw how utterly crooked the forestry industry is in Tasmania, how it's protected by a protection racket in the state parliament—by both the Liberals and the Labor Party—and how the same protection racket continues to run in the New South Wales parliament and, it turns out, is still providing that flow of money out of the Victorian parliament. What should be happening with that money is it should be set aside to protect the forests, to plant the plantations and to actually end native forest logging.

In New South Wales forests, the southern forests, there is an extraordinary plan to create a new great southern national park, to link more than 55 current state forests to hundreds of thousands of national parks and create an extraordinary protection area in the southern parts of New South Wales. I want to thank the National Parks Association, the forest protectors and all those campaigners who have been spending years, decades, fighting for that. And why are they fighting for it? They're fighting to protect places like the Glenbog State Forest. Those locals and those campaigners who have been fighting to stop the logging in Glenbog State Forest—beautiful high forests where logging activities bury wombats alive—are still fighting to protect that.

I'd invite anyone to come along to the North Brooman State Forest to stand under 'Big Spotty', one of the tallest hardwood trees on the planet, and to look up at this extraordinary piece of nature. It's only able to be protected because it's in a deep forest with layers and layers of protection.

Come into these forests. Look at these magical parts of our world. Look at them with eyes that actually see nature for what it is. Join with the Greens and join with forest protectors to stop the subsidising and to protect these magical parts of nature.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition signed by 43,216 Australians asking for the minister to expand the Commonwealth Prac Payment scheme to medical and allied health students to ensure we can end placement poverty for our future healthcare workers.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present seven reports from legislation committees in respect of the 2026-27 budget estimates together with the accompanying documents.

I present additional information received by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present reports 6 and 7 of 2026. I present the third report of the 2026 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and, last one, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 together with accompanying documents.

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed at item 13 on today's Order of Business, and I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows

Australian Government response to the Economics Legislation Committee report:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 202 5

Dear President

I write to advise that the Australian Government has provided its response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report titled "Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025".

The Government's response was delivered during debate in the Senate on 11 March 2026. For completeness and ease of reference, I have attached an extract of the relevant Hansard proceedings.

Please arrange for this letter and the attached material to be tabled in the Senate.

Yours sincerely

Dr Daniel Mulino

The table extract read as follows—

I'd like to thank all the senators who have contributed to this debate. I note the Senate economics committee report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, including the dissenting report and additional comments, but the government does not support the recommendations outlined.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during employee onboarding. This amendment provides greater flexibility for employers or their agents to request an employee's existing stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. That way, if a stapled fund exists, the employer can provide those details to the employee during onboarding.

This amendment supports the government's commitment to empowering employees to make informed choices, by making it easier to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job—if they choose to do so. It will also give employers more timely and accurate superannuation details, supporting their readiness for the government's payday super reforms.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding. Exceptions will be available for showing employees their stapled fund, the employer's default fund and certain MySuper products which are subject to regulation. This amendment reinforces the government's commitment to supporting Australians to make an informed choice about their superannuation, while providing strong consumer protections.

Schedule 3 of the bill implements key budget measures to provide tax exemptions for the Rugby World Cup 2027 and 2029 events, which Australia is proud to host. These exemptions are a standard feature of international hosting arrangements and are critical to fulfilling our commitments to World Rugby. The exemptions are consistent with previous exemptions granted for events such as the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC T20 World Cup. This measure is a practical and necessary step to ensure the success of these events and to uphold Australia's reputation as a trusted and capable host of major international competitions.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force of law to the tax treaty between Australia and Portugal. This treaty is the first of its kind between Australia and Portugal and is in Australia's national interest. It will provide closer bilateral linkages with Portugal, particularly in the areas of commercial trade, investment and innovation. It will provide Australian individuals and businesses with increased opportunities to access capital and technology from Portugal by reducing tax on cross-border income and providing greater tax certainty. It will also facilitate labour mobility to strengthen our cultural ties with Portugal. Finally, the treaty builds on Australia's existing tax integrity measures, designed to combat international tax evasion and avoidance, ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Schedule 5 of the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the following organisations as deductible gift recipients: Coaxial Foundation, Community Foundations Australia, Equality Australia, Foundation Broken Hill, Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment, the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Social Enterprise Australia, St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, Sydney Chevra Kadisha, the Great Synagogue Foundation and Project Parenthood Ltd. The schedule also removes the following specifically listed entities: the Bradman Memorial Fund, Clontarf Foundation, NSCA Foundation, Sydney Talmudical College Association Refugees Overseas Aid Fund, the Australian Future Leaders Foundation, the Ranfurly Library Service, the Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation and WA National Parks and Reserves Association.

Schedule 6 of the bill will increase support available to all eligible wine producers under the existing wine equalisation tax producer rebate scheme from a cap of $350,000 per financial year to $400,000 from 1 July 2026. These changes deliver on the government's commitment to supporting the Australian wine industry as well as regional tourism investment and job creation. I commend the bill to the Senate, and I thank senators for their contribution.

_____

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade report:

Inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade

JUNE 2026

Response to the recommendations

The Government notes recommendations 1 to 16. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled in December 2020, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Australian Government response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report:

Wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas

June 2026

Executive Summary

The Australian Government appreciates the work of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee ('the Committee'). The Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to its inquiry 'Wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas' and to outline the practical steps already taken or under consideration in response to its recommendations.

The whole-of-government response has been coordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in consultation with the following Commonwealth agencies:

DFAT also consulted other stakeholders, including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and former detainees, in preparing its response.

The Government notes that while the term 'arbitrary detention' is clearly defined in international law, the term 'wrongful detention' is not. This response uses the term 'wrongful detention' when referring to a broad range of case circumstances.

The Government recognises the significant personal impact of wrongful detention overseas—both on those detained and on their families. We are committed to using the Committee's recommendations to strengthen the compassionate delivery of consular services and improve how we manage cases of wrongful detention. This approach is not static and will continue to evolve through ongoing engagement with former detainees and other stakeholders.

Under the existing framework, the Government:

This approach has helped secure the release of several high-profile Australian detainees in recent years, as well as others less publicly known.

The Government strongly supports international efforts to deter arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage, including through endorsement of the Canadian-led Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. DFAT leads Australian advocacy against the practice of arbitrary detention in multilateral forums, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, and will continue to prioritise effective international responses.

The Government acknowledges the contributions of all individuals and organisations who provided submissions and/or testimony to the inquiry, particularly those with firsthand experience of wrongful detention.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

3.128 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should adopt a clear, publicly available definition of wrongful detention and implement a framework which ensures cases of Australians being wrongfully detained overseas are identified, categorised and reported as being cases of wrongful detention.

3.129 The definition adopted by the Australian Government should allow for the identification and classification of a wrongful detention case as a case of hostage diplomacy (arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage).

3.130 The definition should also be in alignment with definitions used by key partners, to allow for multilateral action when a citizen from Australia or our partners is wrongfully detained.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

The Government will publish a framework used to assess cases of 'wrongful detention', including for diplomatic leverage. Categorisation of cases under this framework will reflect a policy assessment and be informed by a number of considerations, including the approaches of key partners, international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations.

Cases reported and assessed as 'wrongful detention' would be referred to DFAT's complex case team for specialised strategy development and advocacy.

The Government will not routinely publicly identify individuals whose cases are assessed as wrongful detention. The best interests of the consular client, including their treatment in detention and prospects for resolution of their case, will remain a primary consideration in any public advocacy.

Recommendation 2

3.131 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should legislate to ensure that agencies have powers, tools and accountabilities to respond to and deter wrongful detention of Australians, including providing greater transparency and reporting on cases of wrongful detention.

Response:

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

Government agencies already have the necessary powers, tools and accountabilities to the Australian Parliament and people to respond to and deter the wrongful detention of Australians.

As noted in the response to Recommendation 1, greater transparency or public reporting may have adverse impacts on the case outcomes of wrongfully detained individuals.

Recommendation 3

3.132 The committee recommends that the Australian Government's framework acknowledge the unfortunate reality that some foreign regimes engage in the practice of hostage diplomacy because it has proven to be a successful tactic for securing prisoner swaps or obtaining leverage over the national government. Acknowledgement of this reality is a critical part of designing a framework which reduces the risk of the Australian Government being leveraged in this way, therefore reducing the risk of Australians being wrongfully detained for this purpose.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Recommendation 4

3.133 The committee recommends that the Australian Government collect data on the wrongful detention of Australian citizens, which should be regularly reported to the National Security Committee of Cabinet and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and publicly disclosed in a deidentified manner.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

DFAT regularly briefs the Minister for Foreign Affairs on overseas detention cases, including those that may constitute wrongful detention, requiring enhanced or urgent diplomatic action.

The Australian Government does not disclose the considerations of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

DFAT will develop a new protocol within the Consular Information System (CIS) to flag cases assessed as complex, including due to an assessment of wrongful detention under the new framework (recommendation 1). This capability will improve data collection and internal reporting and may support earlier identification of trends relating to complex cases and more consistent monitoring. It will also provide a stronger evidence base for decision-making and for targeting consular and diplomatic responses. This data will be regularly reported to the Foreign Minister's Office.

The Government considers that publicly disclosing data related to Australians detained overseas, including those who may be considered 'wrongfully detained', may in many cases be contrary to the interests of the clients, including their prospects for release and welfare.

The small number of Australians involved means that deidentification is unlikely to be possible.

Recommendation 5

3.134 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should take steps to increase public awareness in the Australian community about the practice of foreign governments wrongfully detaining citizens for a variety of reasons, including establishing leverage over that citizen's national government.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

The travel advice for Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, China, the DPRK, Iran, Mali, Myanmar, Russia, Syria and Venezuela all contain clear warnings regarding the risk of arbitrary detention. The travel advice for Belarus, Macau and Hong Kong highlight the risks around the arbitrary or harsh enforcement of local laws.

Smartraveller publishes two employment-specific advisories that highlight the risk of arbitrary arrest or detention for journalists and academics. Smartraveller also publishes an advisory that notes the risk of arbitrary detention for travellers to locations listed as 'Do not travel'.

The Government continues to invest in advertising, public relations and digital communication activities to raise awareness of Smartraveller.gov.au, the risks of overseas travel and how to stay safe. This activity is supported by targeted outreach to the community and travel and tourism industry stakeholders by Ministers and senior officials.

DFAT will continue to highlight the risks of arbitrary detention for Australians travelling abroad.

Recommendation 6

3.135 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should increase the visibility of warnings to Australian travellers intending to visit countries where regimes are known to engage in wrongful detention.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

All Smartraveller destination advisory pages with arbitrary detention warnings contain an alert at the top of the advice in the prominent 'Latest Advice' header.

DFAT will continue to use Smartraveller to increase public awareness of countries that engage in the practice of arbitrary detention and highlight risks to specific communities and professions. Smartraveller advice is prominently promoted including through advertising, public relations, media engagement, digital communications (including social media) and partnerships. In 2025-26 to date (at 5 May 2026), the Smartraveller website has been viewed more than 26 million times, has more than 620,000 email subscribers and over 460,000 people follow Smartraveller on social media.

Recommendation 7

4.123 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should establish an inter-agency, specialist team led by a Special Envoy for Wrongfully Detained Australians to lead the management of all cases of wrongful or arbitrary detention of Australians.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

The Whole-of-Government response to complex cases is overseen by a Deputy Secretary-level inter-agency Complex Case Committee (CCC), established in 2023. The CCC is supported by dedicated teams which draw on knowledge, skills and expertise across government to develop strategies for case resolution.

Since 2023, DFAT has strengthened the framework underpinning the CCC, including in response to this Inquiry and recent case management lessons. This includes clearer terms of reference, a broader remit to address a wider range of complex cases, and strengthened referral processes. Together, these changes provide a more systematic basis for considering bespoke options, including the appointment of special envoys and other options to pursue justice and accountability. The Government considers that appointing special envoys on a case-by-case basis, rather than a standing appointment, provides the flexibility required across a diverse and evolving case load.

DFAT will continue to appoint special envoys with specific knowledge and connections that may enable positive outcomes for clients on a case-by-case basis. An assessment of the best interests of the client will determine whether any appointment is made public. In other cases, interventions using senior government and diplomatic channels may be assessed more effective than the appointment of a special envoy for that case.

The Government assesses these arrangements remain appropriate for the nature and volume of the Australian caseload and provide a range of options to secure positive outcomes.

Recommendation 8

4.124 The committee recommends that the newly created Office of the Special Envoy should be resourced with the expertise (and ability to call on external expertise as required) to improve the Australian Government's ability to provide:

Specialised and dedicated case management of each case of wrongful detention, including dedicated family liaison contacts.

Increased support for the families of Australians wrongfully detained during the period of detention.

Coordination with victims, families and their legal representatives in regard to legal assistance.

A greater level of ongoing support for victims of wrongful detention post-release, including medical support and counselling, and assistance navigating legal and administrative issues created by a wrongful conviction.

Ensure there is a proper process for reintegrating and debriefing an Australian released from wrongful detention and providing ongoing advice as required.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges the difficult, and often prolonged, circumstances faced by Australians detained overseas and their families, and that reintegrating to life in Australia can be challenging. In all cases, DFAT seeks to be compassionate and flexible in its delivery of consular services.

The Government recognises the importance of the functions of the proposed dedicated Office of a Special Envoy outlined in the recommendation and notes that a number of these functions are captured through either existing or planned consular and whole-of-government arrangements.

The Government is committed to supporting Australians and their families in cases of wrongful detention, with a focus on resolving the case and ensuring the detainee's welfare. Families are assigned a dedicated case manager as a single point of contact throughout the detention and following release. DFAT will continue to consider ways it can maintain continuity in engagement with Australians and their families. Legal assistance may be available in exceptional circumstances through schemes administered by the Attorney-General's Department.

DFAT has strengthened support in recent years, including relationships with non-government sector domestic providers of mental health support. DFAT now prepares tailored reception and repatriation plans for returning detainees whose circumstances warrant additional assistance including access to medical, dental and psychological support. Vulnerable clients are connected directly with Services Australia and other domestic service providers best placed to provide ongoing care.

In 2026 DFAT is building on the External Advisory Group (EAG), originally formed due to feedback from former detainees, to enhance relationships with domestic stakeholders involved in supporting the needs of complex consular cases returning to Australia. DFAT will convene the EAG to refine support pathways for post-release debriefing and reintegration, including improved coordination with domestic federal agencies, states, territories and other service providers. This will complement more regular, ad hoc engagement with domestic agencies on specific cases. Further consideration will be given to how external expertise can better inform case handling.

Recommendation 9

4.125 The committee recommends that Australians who have been deemed to be wrongfully detained overseas should be supported by the government with a clear acknowledgement that the person's detention was a wrongful detention, for example, by providing a government issued explanatory letter.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges that for many former detainees the challenge of reintegrating back into life in Australia or travelling abroad may be aggravated by a conviction, or unexplained periods on their record. Some former detainees have also had charges against them reinstated after their release leading to further difficulties with international travel.

DFAT has on a number of occasions liaised with foreign governments to proactively help manage these issues for former detainees, including by providing explanatory letters tailored to the specific circumstances of the individual concerned. DFAT has also supported former detainees through engagement with domestic government and private entities on return to Australia to help smooth the reintegration process.

The Government considers the detainee's needs are best addressed through case-by-case assessment of their requirements. Where appropriate and as requested, an explanatory letter and/or other assistance can and has been provided, along the lines described above.

DFAT will work with relevant government agencies to incorporate into return and reception processes a dedicated briefing on federal government assistance that can be provided to support reintegration.

Recommendation 10

4.126 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore options for exempting consular cases from relevant privacy legislation, in order that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is able to legally disclose information to a detainee's family in a prompt manner, even in circumstances when a detainee is unable to physically sign a privacy waiver form.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), including the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) contained in Schedule 1 to that Act, regulates how APP entities (which includes most Commonwealth government departments and agencies, including DFAT) collect, store, use and disclose personal information.

Where practicable, DFAT prefers to obtain consent from a consular client prior to disclosure of their personal information to family members, as this provides the client with autonomy over how their personal information is handled.

However, even if it is not possible to obtain consent from an individual, the Privacy Act provides for circumstances in which DFAT may disclose personal information to a detainee's family, and in such cases DFAT makes every effort to do so. If consular access is subsequently established, DFAT takes early steps to notify the client of any disclosures of their personal information and seeks their consent for any future disclosures of personal information to family members.

Recommendation 11

4.127 The committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade employ specially trained case workers and family liaison officers to engage with detainees and their families. These personnel should be trained in trauma-informed practice and communication and not be subject to diplomatic rotation.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges the high levels of uncertainty and stress encountered by the families of Australians detained overseas. DFAT continues to refine and improve its support to families based on their feedback.

DFAT assigns dedicated case managers to be the primary point of contact for families. These case managers complete a range of training, including on trauma informed practices and communications. DFAT also refers detainees and their families to specialist service providers and support organisations with experience in protracted detention.

DFAT is working with specialist service providers to review and expand the trauma informed training offered to case managers, as well as to senior managers.

DFAT seeks to ensure continuity of case managers to the extent possible. For operational reasons, however, and particularly given the high psychosocial pressures of these roles, it is not feasible for case managers to be excluded from leave, diplomatic rotation or redeployment. DFAT is also in the process of strengthening its internal processes—including to capture and embed lessons learned and to integrate communications considerations—to ensure that when it does become necessary to rotate case managers, good handover arrangements, including strong record keeping, provide as much continuity as possible for the detainee and their family.

Recommendation 12

5.95 The committee recommends that the Australian Government recognise the deterrence of wrongful detention of Australians as a top priority of Australian foreign policy. The government should utilise all the tools available to it to increase this deterrence.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation, consistent with the response to recommendation 3 above.

Recommendation 13

5.96 The committee recommends that the relevant agencies of Australia's counter-foreign interference framework acknowledge hostage diplomacy as a serious and egregious form of foreign interference and work closely with the Special Envoy on Wrongfully Detained Australians to counter this foreign interference threat.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

There is already a significant intersection of those agencies working on counter-foreign interference frameworks, and those agencies are routinely consulted in relation to complex consular matters. DFAT will convene a dedicated session with relevant agencies which will focus on wrongful detention and hostage taking as a vector for foreign interference.

The response to individual instances of hostage diplomacy will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare of the client a primary consideration. Where foreign interference concerns may arise, relevant agencies will be consulted and, where appropriate, DFAT will meet with the relevant Special Envoy regularly, including to discuss foreign interference issues.

Recommendation 14

5.97 The committee recommends that where regimes are known to engage in wrongful detention for diplomatic leverage or to secure prisoner exchanges, such as Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Australian Government should make clear to those regimes that they should expect severe diplomatic consequences and sanctions in response to this behaviour.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government stands resolutely against the use of wrongful detention or arbitrary detention to exercise diplomatic leverage. We support international and multilateral efforts to address this and will continue to work with international partners to end its use as a coercive tool.

The Government has publicly condemned the Islamic Republic of Iran's use of arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage at a Ministerial level:

Senior officials have regularly raised, through Iran's Embassy in Australia and through Australia's Embassy in Iran (before the current suspension of its operations), concerns about Iran's arbitrary detention of foreign nationals—in the context of discussions on our Do Not Travel advice for Australian citizens; and regarding individual cases where our citizens have been affected.

The Government has had limited bilateral engagement with Russia since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Government only engages with Russia to deliver on Australia's national interests, including the safety of Australian citizens.

Australian ministers and officials have consistently raised concerns, both publicly and privately, about politically motivated detention by Russia. The Government has also imposed sanctions in response to politically motivated detention by Russia of its own nationals, including opposition figures Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Kara-Murza.

Sanctions are just one of a suite of possible measures the Government considers alongside all strategic and tactical levers in responding to cases of arbitrary detention. Consistent with longstanding practice, the Government does not speculate publicly on potential sanctions measures.

Recommendation 15

5.98 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should sanction senior officials responsible for the wrongful detention of Australians, including judges responsible for allowing or authorising wrongful detention and imprisonment.

Response:

The Government partially accepts this recommendation.

When an Australian citizen has been detained overseas, including cases amounting to wrongful detention, the Government's primary concern is the welfare of that individual.

As noted in the response to Recommendation 14, sanctions are just one of a suite of possible measures the Government considers, alongside all strategic and tactical levers.

In 2023, the Government expanded its autonomous sanctions regime against Iran to allow the designation of individuals and entities under new categories, reflecting concerns about serious human rights abuses and other unacceptable practices.

Any decision to impose autonomous sanctions requires careful consideration of whether doing so is in the best interests of the client's welfare, including whether imposing sanctions would improve the prospects of release. Consistent with long-standing practice, the Government does not speculate publicly about potential sanctions measures.

Recommendation 16

5.99 The committee recommends that where a foreign regime is currently wrongfully or arbitrarily detaining an Australian, the Australian Government should exercise restraint in its public engagements with representatives of that regime.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

When an Australian citizen may have been arbitrarily or wrongfully detained, the Government's primary concern is the welfare of that individual. An assessment of what is in the best interests of the client will determine how DFAT manages all aspects of their case. In some instances, it may be to the advantage of the detained individual's case if the Government continues to engage publicly with representatives of the detaining state.

Recommendation 17

5.100 The committee recommends that the current Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade travel advice that Australian travellers to the People's Republic of China, Afghanistan, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mali, Myanmar and Russia are at increased risk of arbitrary detention should be reflected in Australia's bilateral approach to engagement with those countries.

Response:

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Australia's bilateral engagement with the countries listed above takes into account our consular equities and travel advice.

Recommendation 18

5.101 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should increase transparency and utilise public attribution wherever possible as a deterrent to regimes which seek to wrongfully detain Australians.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Describing an Australian as wrongfully detained in public communications, or even in bilateral advocacy, may carry risks for the client and in some circumstances may undermine work towards a resolution.

When an Australian citizen has been detained overseas, including cases that may amount to wrongful detention, the Government's primary concern is the welfare of that individual.

DFAT's assessment of the best interests of the client determines how it manages their case.

Working with like-minded partners to advance multilateral and group advocacy on the broader practice of wrongful detention, rather than on individual cases, helps to reduce risks to clients while still achieving the goal of increasing attribution and deterrence. This approach strengthens international norms, amplifies Australia's influence through collective action, and ensures that advocacy efforts do not compromise the welfare of those directly affected.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report:

Bank closures in regional Australia: Protecting the future of regional banking

June 2026

Introduction

The Albanese Government recognises that access to essential banking services is vital for regional communities and is working to ensure Australians have access to fit for purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term.

The Australian Government thanks the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for its work on bank closures in regional Australia and welcomes its report.

The Government is grateful to the 609 individuals and organisations who made submissions and provided evidence over 13 public hearings, particularly those who shared their personal experiences with the Committee.

In the period since the inquiry commenced in February 2023, the Government has taken action to support access to banking services in regional Australia. This includes:

In addition, the Australian Banking Association has updated the Banking Code of Practice and Bank Branch Closure Protocol, which came into force on 1 July 2023 and 28 February 2025, respectively.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government adopt a policy recognising access to financial services as an essential service. To this end, it should commit to guaranteeing reasonable access to cash and financial services for all Australians.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government recognises that access to cash and bank banking services are critical to regional Australia. As more Australians move to online banking, the Government is taking action to make sure regional communities are not left behind.

On 11 February 2025, the Treasurer announced that the Government had secured a package of commitments from the banks to ensure banking services remain available in regional Australia. The commitments include a major bank moratorium on regional branch closures until July 2027 as well as new and updated Bank@Post agreements with Australia Post. Westpac has subsequently announced an extension of its moratorium to 2030.

The Government is continuing to work with regulators, industry and communities to ensure our regions have access to fit-for purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term.

In the 2023 Strategic Plan for Australia's Payment System, the Government committed to support Australians access to cash for as long as they wish to use it. From 1 January 2026, new rules mandated by the Government require fuel and grocery retailers to accept cash in certain circumstances, with appropriate exemptions for small businesses. In addition to fuel and groceries, Australians can pay their bills in cash at their local Australia Post outlet through Post Billpay.

In April 2026, the Government released draft legislation for a cash distribution regulatory framework to support the sustainability of the sector and access to cash for Australians. The draft legislation includes powers to ensure cash distribution services are provided on fair terms, minimum service level standards for regional customers, and that regulators have appropriate powers to support continuity of critical services. The draft legislation follows recommendations from the Council of Financial Regulators.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commission an expert panel to investigate the feasibility of establishing a publicly owned bank. In investigating this, the panel should examine options including but not limited to a stand-alone public bank or one associated with, and using the branch network of Australia Post.

Australian Government response

The Government does not support this recommendation.

The Government believes a well-regulated and competitive market for banking services is the best way to achieve the goal of promoting access to value-for-money financial services that meet the needs of businesses and consumers.

The establishment of a publicly owned bank would carry significant costs and risks for government and, ultimately, taxpayers.

Bank@Post services already support the provision of banking services for over 75 banks in more than 3,300 locations, including more than 1,800 locations in regional and remote Australia.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently develop a mandatory Banking Code of Conduct or Customer Service Code (Code), incorporating a robust branch closure process, to be administered by a regulator with expertise in consumer protection. The new Code would require financial institutions to:

The committee recommends that the regulator would assess compliance with the Code before any closure is agreed to.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Banking Association's Branch Closure Support Protocol and Banking Code of Practice were both updated during the Committee's inquiry. The updated protocol came into effect on 1 July 2023 and the updated Code came into effect on 28 February 2025.

The Government has secured commitments from the major banks for a moratorium on regional branch closures until July 2027. Westpac has since extended its branch closure moratorium till July 2030.

Recommendation 4

In enforcing the mandatory Banking Code outlined in Recommendation 3, the committee recommends that the regulator be authorised to approve or defer any closure request. In deferring a closure, the regulator would be authorised to direct a bank to take certain reasonable actions, including to order further consultation or provide additional information to the regulator. The regulator should be provided with a range of penalties should a bank fail to comply with an order to defer closure, or with any other undertaking.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

See the Government response to recommendation 3.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commission the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to explore the barriers to customers switching banks, with a view to allowing those that open and/or maintain branches in regional, rural and remote towns to attract more business.

Australian Government response

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The ACCC delivered inquiries into the Home Loan Pricing and Retail Deposit Markets in 2020 and 2023 respectively. The Government's response to these inquiries was announced on 15 June 2024. BETA has conducted research to understand barriers to Australians getting a better deal on their banking products and ways to help. Its report was released on 20 November 2025.

On 8 July 2024, the Government asked the CFR, in consultation with the ACCC to conduct a review of competition in the small and medium-sized banking sectors. The CFR Review into Small and Medium Sized Banks' examination also included an assessment of current bank switching activity, including the barriers to, and the benefits of, switching banks and noted that there are a range of reasons why consumers may not switch, including regulatory, structural and behavioural. The Government responded to the review in August 2025 welcoming nine actions from regulators, agreeing in-principle to eight recommendations and seeking feedback on a ninth recommendation.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends the Australian Government establish the Regional Community Banking Branch Program (RCBBP). The objective of the RCBBP would be to help underwrite the establishment of 'community bank' branches providing in-person banking services in regional, rural and remote Australia. Local communities would be required to raise their own capital as well, but the government contributions could help lower the required amounts. Consideration could also be given to using this fund to help enhance financial services available at Australia Post.

To support the RCBBP, the committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a supplement to the Major Banks Levy to be levied on the major banks. Funds raised by the supplement must be hypothecated to provide funding to the RCBBP.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

On 11 February 2025, the Treasurer announced that the Government had secured a package of commitments from the banks to ensure banking services remain available in regional Australia. The commitments include a major bank moratorium on regional branch closures until July 2027 as well as new and updated Bank@Post agreements with Australia Post. Westpac has subsequently announced an extension of its moratorium to 2030.

The Government is continuing to work with regulators, industry and communities to ensure our regions have access to fit-for purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works closely with the banks and Australia Post, to require all major banks to have agreements with Bank@Post and to harmonise the terms of Bank@Post agreements to improve fairness and sustainability. Specifically, agreements should include increased deposit limits to support small businesses, provisions to facilitate identification verification, and to handle issues around temporary account closures or multiple signatory requirements.

Major banks that do not put in place agreements with Bank@Post to deliver financial services should pay an increased supplementary levy as described in Recommendation 6.

Australian Government response

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Government has secured new and updated agreements between all four major banks, Macquarie Bank and Australia Post for Bank@Post since the publication of this report. The ANZ and Macquarie Bank agreements are both new agreements.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the ACCC consider measures to protect access to personal and business banking services in regional, rural and remote locations. This may include, but not be limited to, proposing an authorisation to circumvent anti-competitive laws such that banks can cooperate for the purposes of reducing the impacts of bank branch closures on regional communities.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

On 8 July 2024, the Government asked the CFR, in consultation with the ACCC, to conduct a Review into Small and Medium Sized Banks. The Final Report of the Review, released on 6 August 2025, included an examination of lowering barriers to collaboration.

As part of the Final Report, the ACCC committed to communicating its openness to consider proposals involving collaboration between small banks including authorisations to support access to cash. The ACCC also made specific commitments to engage early in the development of proposals and provide clear guidance on options and processes, where relevant.

My apologies, I left a couple off. On behalf of Senator Liddle, I present additional information received by the Economics References Committee on its inquiry into funding and resourcing for the CSIRO, and, on behalf of Senator Kovacic, I present additional information received by the Education and Employment References Committee on its inquiry into the quality and safety of Australia's early childhood education and care system.

I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, The transition of the Commonwealth Home Support Program to the Support at Home Program, together with accompanying documents, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a report that came out of the committee's previous aged-care service delivery report that was tabled in October 2025, and, as a result of that inquiry, the committee recommended that two further inquiries be put on foot, one of which was this inquiry, which looked at two things. First was the preparedness of the government to transition the Commonwealth Home Support Program into the Support at Home program, which is slated to happen no earlier than 1 July 2027. We also were tasked with looking at whether the provisions for home modifications in the end-of-life pathway under the Support at Home program were sufficient.

I begin by thanking older people, their carers, their families, advocates and providers who gave evidence to this inquiry. There are a number of aged-care inquiries on foot, and we know that the sector is experiencing change fatigue, and we know that older people and their families and carers are really struggling under the weight of a system that is not meeting their needs. The continued need to advocate for change is something that takes a lot of emotional labour. I want to thank everybody across the sector, both providers and, more importantly, older people and their families, for taking the time to continue to show up to our inquiries and to continue to provide submissions so that the government has the evidence that it needs to take into account what should be happening in this sector to really serve the needs of older people and the people who care for them.

This inquiry is happening in the context of an aged-care sector that is in crisis. The transition to the Support at Home program has left many people languishing on waiting lists, whether that be a waiting list for an assessment or a waiting list to actually receive care. It's also seeing older people struggling under the weight of a co-payment system in Support at Home that is forcing many older people to have to make decisions about the level of care that they can access.

It's in that context that the committee looked at the government's proposal to transition over 800,000 older Australians who are currently receiving care under the Commonwealth Home Support Program into the Support at Home program no earlier than 1 July 2027. There were some really consistent themes in the evidence that we received. Across the board—whether providers, advocates, older people, or their carers or advocacy networks—nobody who came before the inquiry said that the government should be transitioning CHSP into Support at Home on 1 July 2027. In fact, the evidence before the committee was that if that was to occur, the outcome would likely be catastrophic. It's important to note that, while this inquiry was on foot, the Auditor-General conducted an audit into the Commonwealth Home Support Program and that audit report basically said that the government fails to undertake appropriate modelling, monitoring and reporting in relation to the Commonwealth Home Support Program.

We heard from the Inspector-General of Aged Care, who said that they had not seen any modelling or cost-benefit analysis that demonstrated the government has done the work required to transition people from Commonwealth Home Support Program into Support at Home. We also heard very clearly that CHSP is providing aged care, particularly in remote and regional areas, particularly for First Nations people who have trouble accessing any other forms of care. The block-funded nature of CHSP really allows care to be provided in thin markets and it gives providers flexibility to provide the sorts of services that people need at the entry level of aged care. We heard that transitioning community support into the Support at Home individualised package model would be catastrophic. It would be virtually impossible for many providers to provide the services that older people need to stay mobile and active in their communities if block funding is lost.

We also heard from service providers that they have a high level of anxiety regarding this proposed transition because they've been given no information from the government about what it would entail. I think that was a theme throughout this whole inquiry—that everyone is in the dark on what it even is that the government is proposing in relation to this transition, in terms of the work that providers will have to do. There is no information out there in terms of cost-benefit analysis. In fact, the department told us that they hadn't recently done any cost-benefit analysis and that that was potentially going to happen. So there's a lot of work that has to be done before the government could even contemplate a transition of this kind.

It's worth highlighting that the government really needs to learn from previous programs. They need to learn from the NDIS. It took three to four years to stand up the NDIS, and there are only around 400,000 people now on that program. There are over 800,000 people on CHSP. It is inconceivable that in 12 months time they could be successfully transitioned into Support at Home.

The committee made a number of recommendations that I want to briefly allude to. I know that there will be many providers, older people and advocates out there in the community who have been waiting for this report to be handed down. I hope that they support the recommendations that the committee has made because it is based on their evidence. The first thing that the committee has said is that the government absolutely needs to implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General. The government has accepted those recommendations, but the committee is saying that they need to be implemented immediately, and any decisions in relation to CHSP should not be conditional on the implementation of those recommendations.

The committee has also recommended that the government must commission an independent cost-benefit analysis that examines the value of CHSP against the cost of delivering aged care through things like Support at Home and residential aged care. Importantly, the results of that cost-benefit analysis need to be made public. Throughout this entire inquiry, getting information out of the Department of Health and Ageing has been like getting blood out of a stone, and people are really still none the wiser as to what it is that the government plans to do, or the modelling on which it's based, so it is really important that that cost-benefit analysis is made public.

We've also recommended that there needs to be genuine consultation and co-design in relation to any changes to CHSP, noting that it is a program that is highly valued by the people who use it but it has been underfunded and neglected for quite some time. The committee has also recommended that there needs to be an extension of funding for CHSP for three years beyond 1 July 2027. Providers need to have certainty, workers in the industry need to have certainty and, most importantly, people who access CHSP need a level of certainty into the future. The government needs to retain separate block funding to make sure that people get the care that they need. We need automatic funding in thin markets to make sure that people get access to services that they need.

In relation to the lifetime cap on home modifications and the end-of-life pathway, the committee heard clear evidence that the $15,000 lifetime cap on home modifications is simply going to push more people into having to access higher levels of support earlier, so the committee has recommended that that lifetime cap be abolished and that we have a new funding framework that's more responsive to people's needs. Finally, the committee has recommended that the time restrictions and funding restrictions placed on the end-of-life pathway also be abolished. We need a flexible, clinically guided, needs based model that provides funding for end-of-life care for older Australians wishing to receive care in their home. Finally, the key finding in this report, a consensus report—there are no dissenting comments to this report—is that the government should not be transitioning CHSP into Support at Home. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I foreshadow, on behalf of Senator Liddle, the second reading amendment in her name on behalf of the coalition.

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, and, in a complete act of bad faith and disregard for all Australians, he's turned around and broken every single one of those commitments. Think about that. He said this 50 times to the media and to the Australian people. He said his word is his bond, and he has broken that more than 50 times, equally.

These new taxes are designed to manage the decline of the Australian economy. None of these tax hikes will grow the Australian economy, at a time when we desperately need it. Australia has always been a very lucky country. When I look back just 20 years ago, Australia had zero debt. When I was younger and looking to purchase my first home, the country that I lived in did not have any debt. For my daughter, who today is looking to purchase her first home, the country that she lives in has over $1 trillion worth of debt. You would think that any responsible government would look to reduce spending at a time like this. But, no, this Labor government isn't going to cut spending. Instead, what it's going to do is increase the tax on every single hardworking Australian.

I think it's important to note the government has zero dollars of its own. The only money that government has is the money that it collects from hardworking Australians. Every single dollar that the government spends is a dollar that it has taken from an Australian who has had to earn it, and that inequity is so clear in this budget.

Labor can't manage to live within its own means. Instead of cutting spending, like you would have to do in a household budget or you would have to do in your own business, Labor is going to tax the Australian people even more. We have a death tax, a tax on family savings, a tax on renters. We've got a tax on first home buyers when young Australians are just trying to get ahead. For young people, the dream of owning a home in Australia is getting further and further out of reach. We have a tax on small businesses. We've got a tax on startups and entrepreneurs, and let's remember that businesses and startups are the engine room of the Australian economy.

This is a budget of broken promises, a budget that is going to break the back of Australians and break the Australian dream. It is an assault on aspiration. It is pulling up the ladder of opportunity from all young Australians before they have even had a chance to climb that ladder. This is a budget that is going to make sure that no young Australian is ever going to want to go out and start their own business. No young Australian is ever going to aspire to take a risk, to back themselves and start something great. As we've seen on social media, their new not-so-silent partner is Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, and his Labor government. They are looking to take that hard earned sweat capital from small businesses before they have even made any gains.

This budget is not just a bad faith budget that does nothing to improve intergenerational inequality; it is going to make the problem even worse. All of the rules that existed for people my age and above are now out the window. Everything we were able to use to create wealth and opportunity here in Australia has been pulled out from under the next generation of young Australians looking to forge their way in the world. This budget is unravelling faster than anything I think we've seen before. Every week is symbolising another broken promise from this Labor government. There are secret taxes and tax hikes littered everywhere in this budget.

Let's be honest, we've got inflation running out of control here in Australia. Inflation means that real wages don't grow. We've seen productivity grind to a standstill, and this budget is going to do absolutely nothing to improve the state of our economy here in Australia. That breaks my heart because I love Australia. I love that this has always been a place where you could pursue your dreams and where opportunities abound. If you worked hard and you saved, you could get ahead. But what this government is proving is that none of those rules apply anymore. This government cannot live within its means, and Australia is now hurtling towards $1.25 trillion in debt, so this Labor government needs to tax hardworking Australians even more.

I think about that and I think about some of the global shocks that have come Australia's way over recent decades. We haven't had significant debt here in Australia, so we have weathered the storm of global shocks very, very well. What I fear is that this budget is not setting us up to weather the next global shock. What this means is, when there is another crisis, Australia will have no money, just an incredible national debt, and that will put us at risk. That is going to make it very difficult here in Australia. It is going to make it very difficult for us to attract international investment. It's going to make it very difficult for us to keep Australian businesses here in Australia. Honestly, why would you keep your capital in Australia if the government is just going to take your hard earned money?

The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, but we do support schedules 3 and 4. We are going to fight these taxes tooth and nail, and, if they become law under this Labor government—and we've seen today that Labor are going to do dodgy deals with the Greens—then a coalition government will repeal them. We have a vision for Australians. We want to unlock the potential of all Australians. We want to see Australians flourish and thrive here. We want to see investment. We want to see young Australians going out there and starting their own business. We want to see them keep the earnings from that business and that sweat capital that they pour into it. We want to see young Australians owning their own homes. We want to see them able to build their wealth here. I'm not sure when it happened, but when did working hard and creating wealth for yourself become such a bad thing? When did we become a country that wanted to look at wealth redistribution rather than allowing people to work hard and keep more of what they are earning?

Our plan is the complete opposite to Labor's. We want to see lower taxes, lower inflation and an economy that is designed to back self-starters of the nation. We don't want to kneecap them. We want to see them pulling Australia forward. If businesses are willing to do the work and individuals work and they take all of the capital risk, then they should be able to get ahead, but that's not how Labor sees this budget, and that is certainly not the economic environment that Labor is creating. I look at housing and I look at the broken promises from this Labor government—higher taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. The government's own budget papers say there will be 35,000 fewer homes built as a consequence of the new taxes that they are introducing. We've got a housing crisis here in Australia, and, rather than putting in things that will allow the economy to build more homes and allow private enterprise to thrive, what we're going to actually see is the direct opposite. These proposed tax changes by Labor will actually mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built. Those are 35,000 young Australian families that are going to miss the opportunity to get into their first home.

If you tax something—and this is a pretty fundamental principle—you will end up with less of it. That is basic economics. The more that we are going to tax housing and the more that we are going to tax housing investment, the less housing investment we will get and the fewer houses we will get. This Labor government is quite happy that young Australians here are going to pay the price for that decision. Their budget is built on a narrative around intergenerational fairness, but it's going to strip away any kind of fairness for young Australians here. It is going to pit young against old. Any settings for our economy should allow all Australians to be able to thrive. We shouldn't be punishing older Australians for saving and investing in their super, we shouldn't be moving the goalposts, and we shouldn't be changing the rules after they've done everything they were told to do. They're being punished instead of rewarded for doing the right thing. That is not how a government should operate.

Now Labor's taxes will act like a wrecking ball. We have seen auction clearance rates and volumes down substantially in the housing market. We are going to see fewer and fewer Australians achieving their dream of owning a home. Let's not forget those who are still struggling to save a deposit to even get into that housing market. As inflation has been running out of control, inflation has been outstripping what young Australians and families have been able to save. We see the age of first home buyers continually going up, because you need to work longer and you need to work harder to be able to save for that house deposit.

We've got to also think about what these reforms will mean for renters in Australia, and they will mean higher rents. This is a government who is going to capitalise and cash in on all of this. Let's remember, as they're pulling all of this tax out of the economy from hardworking Australians, ultimately, it's the government that will benefit from this. What are they going to spend your money on? I certainly know that any individual is going to spend a dollar far more responsibly than any government ever will. We've got layers of bureaucracy. We've got layers of red tape, and this government is going to make it harder and harder for first home buyers and for renters. That's not even to go into small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy.

There is going to now be a 47 per cent stake claim in any small business. That's a pretty awful silent partner to have when government is going to come in and take nearly 50 per cent of everything. You as a small business have put in the sweat capital. You've taken the risk. You've done the hard work, and government is going to come in and take nearly 50 per cent of it. That's not fair, and that certainly doesn't allow for any kind of aspirational achievement for these businesses. We know that, if businesses can keep more of what they're earning, they're going to reinvest, they're going to employ people and they are going to help keep Australia moving. But, under this government, we will see exactly the opposite. This is an absolute assault on small businesses right across the country, and it is devastating to see businesses that are struggling already with the cost of living, with their electricity prices and with everything else that they are facing. Now, they have a budget that is out to take 50 per cent of everything that they have. That's not fair. It's certainly not going to encourage self-starters to come along, and, certainly, we're hearing that there are a lot of businesses who are looking to move their operations offshore, where they can keep more of what they earn and reinvest in their own aspirations and invest their capital back into their business.

What we see here is an absolutely disastrous budget. It's not good for young people. It's not good for old people. It's not good for businesses. It's not good for anyone except for the unions and except for Labor. That is not in the national interest, and Labor should be ashamed of their budget.

I just wish to thank Senator Barbara Pocock for allowing me to jump ahead in the order due to other duties that I have to take on in the not-too-distant future. I did want to speak on this bill, because it is such a retrograde step for our taxation system. Since the budget was handed down, I have met with, visited with, gone to after hours events with and spoken with chambers of commerce and small businesses in Western Australia. Apart from the uncertainty that this Labor budget has generated, the one thing that I have heard universally from every single one of those businesses is that they have had to go and talk to their financial advisers and their accountants about what these changes mean for them. Think about the deadweight loss that is applying to the Australian economy. Then, just in the last few days, another dirty deal was done with the Greens, changing the rules from the budget once more, attacking self-managed super funds, often controlled by small-business people for whom it was the best way to invest for their future. They've changed the rules again. Now, every single one of those small businesses, plus a whole new raft of people involved in self-managed super funds, are going to have to go and seek advice from their professional service providers, from their accountants, from their fund managers or from their auditors. This is a deadweight loss on the economy that will, over time, thanks to this Labor government, add up to billions of dollars, because this is a Labor government that just cannot get enough of your taxation. It wants more and more and more. It is drunk on spending your money, and it is coming after even more of it.

We have already far too many definitions of 'small business' in this country. The ATO, the tax office—just one agency—has multiple small-business definitions. The Fair Work Act has a different definition for a small business. ASIC and the ACCC have a different definition again. The ABS has a different definition of a small business. There's different definition in the Privacy Act. There's a different definition for the Australian Financial Complaints Agency. Now this government is going to slice and dice small business once more in terms of taxation to say that there are innovative small businesses over here who deserve one tax treatment and non-innovative small businesses over there that deserve a different tax treatment. Every small business in Australia, every business, is going to have to work out whether they fall into one category or another.

I've heard those opposite—and I'm not talking about those up at the far end of the chamber; I'm talking about those in government, the Labor Party—talking about how mining is just digging it up and shipping it out. Mining in my home state of Western Australia is not just digging it up and shipping it out. It is a highly technical, highly innovative business, ranging from the smallest of businesses in Australia to the largest. These are businesses that contribute enormously to the Australian economy. These are businesses that, in my opinion, are the foundation of the Australian economy. These are the businesses from which wealth flows. But this government's budget is putting a cap on our desire to aspire to wealth generation. They're attempting to force everything to their mindset, to their union dominated mindset, of how people should live, generate wealth and get ahead in life. This is not what Australians want. This is what the union movement wants. They want big businesses they can control, not small businesses that are flexible, dynamic, innovative and hard for the unions to sink their teeth into.

These two bills that we are discussing are yet another two bills that are being added to the shameless list of guillotined bills that have been pushed through this place under the Labor government and 99 per cent of the time with the support of the Greens. The Liberal Party has supported a couple of important defence and national security measures going through under a guillotine. But 99 per cent of the more than 100 bills that have been guillotined by this government have been supported by the Greens. I may have lost count, but I think we're up to around 146 bills under this Labor government that have been guillotined through the Senate.

In the hours motion moved today, they're adding not just these two bills but another 11. Another 11 bills will be added to this seemingly never-ending list of bills that are just rushed through this place without proper scrutiny. Then we end up finding out a few days, weeks, months later that the bills didn't actually do what the government thought or they're acting in a way that the government didn't understand. They hate scrutiny and, with their alliance partners the Greens, they push these bills through this place without proper scrutiny, without adequate attention to the drafting of the provisions they are putting in place and without allowing this parliament, this Senate chamber, to do its job, which is to scrutinise legislation both through the committee system and in this chamber, to adequately debate it and to have extensive committee stages where the minister is forced to appear in this place and actually answer questions of any senator.

That is the rigour we want from our democracy. That is the rigour we want from our parliament. We don't want a deal that we don't even know the content of. It was done behind closed doors between Labor and the Greens to rush this bill and another 10 bills through this parliament in the next four or five days, and we don't know what the deal is. The Australian people certainly don't know what the deal is. That is just not acceptable to democracy. That is not an acceptable way to treat this parliament. That is not an acceptable way to treat the Senate. The Senate is the house of review. This is where the hard work gets done. Treating the chamber in such a cavalier fashion and allowing the Greens tail to wag the Labor dog is just not an acceptable approach to passing legislation in this place, particularly when the lives and aspirations of so many Australian businesses and so many Australian individuals and families are at stake.

The Labor Party have no clue what the impact of their changes is going to be on the Australian economy. They have no clue. Their own budget papers reveal that there are going to be 35,000 fewer homes constructed under Labor's own policy formulation. What are the Greens changes, which were forced on the Labor Party in this dirty deal that we don't know the content of, going to do to that number? Are 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 fewer houses going to be built? By eliminating non-recourse loans in self-managed super funds, you are effectively taking a house builder, a funder of house builds, out of the market.

Isn't it interesting that they're willing to attack self-managed super funds in this way but there's not a word about industry super funds.

There's not a word, Senator McKim, about industry super funds, who are in the market competing to buy houses against Australian families and competing to buy houses against Australian young people. There's not a word about those institutional industry super funds, who are in exactly the same markets competing to buy those houses that young Australians want. But you'll knock the self-managed super funds out of that market. You'll knock out those people who are trying to provide for their own future, as they were encouraged to do. Effectively, you're also locking out any future self-managed super funds, so young people who would like to look after their own future retirement needs and who wish to be self-managed are now eliminated from having this avenue to secure their own future wellbeing.

This is a disgrace. The nature of the deal is a disgrace. It was done behind closed doors. We really don't know the content of it. We don't know what's been agreed. We have no idea what the implications will be, except that it will be a hammer blow to aspiration in this country. It will be a hammer blow to those young people who are seeking to generate their own capital gains and their own returns, to see their own wealth improve and to secure a positive future for themselves and their families. This is not the Australia we want. This is not the parliament we want. This is not the way we want to see the Senate chamber treated. It is an absolute disgrace.

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. These bills are a very small step in the right direction. They could have been so much better, but they are a step heading the right way. Today, the Greens have secured changes to these bills to make it harder for wealthy property investors to outbid renters. While the Greens confirm we will support these tax changes to pass the Senate this fortnight, the fight does not stop there. There's so much more that this Labor government must do to fix this housing crisis that is only growing more urgent by the day.

For over 26 years, the Australian Greens have been pushing hard to get rid of the extraordinary property investor tax perks that have priced so many people—so many people—out of owning their own home. When the bill to implement the CGT discount changes was debated in this Senate in 1999, former Greens leader Bob Brown made it clear that this change would turbocharge economic and housing inequality in Australia. He said these changes would give advantages to the rich and take from the poor. Well, he was spot on. He was right. The CGT discount, all these years later, is the most egregious and unfair tax break on the books. The Treasury calculated that 54 per cent of the lost revenue from CGT discount in 2022-23—that's $12.7 billion—went to the richest one per cent of taxpayers. It is a reverse Robin Hood tax: it takes from the bottom end and gives to the very, very wealthy.

The Greens' persistent and long-term advocacy—which culminated in the recent Senate select committee into the operation of the capital gains discount, led by my colleague Senator McKim—has been a significant factor in this legislation being introduced into this parliament. The CGT discount is responsible for driving a chasm between generations in Australia. Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called this intergenerational injustice built into our tax system an intentional 'act of bastardry'. He's so right. People under 35 get only four per cent of the benefit, and they have to stand up at auctions with those getting the benefit alongside them, outbidding them, year after year. What is unfair to young people is entire generations being priced out of housing.

The Greens have managed to win some important amendments to these bills. We've won an amendment to close self-managed superannuation funds' exemptions from the prohibition on being able to borrow to fund investments. This is a recommendation that's been consistently made by financial stability reviews. It's long overdue. We've also won an amendment to remove the Treasurer's ability to add any additional classes of assets that become eligible for the 50 per cent tax discount, and to rein in his power to prescribe any type of property investment that can be eligible for deducting losses against salary and wage income. This prevents a minister undoing these changes at the stroke of a pen by extending the discount to other assets. These powers were unworkable and unprecedented, and they needed to be reined in. These are important changes and I want to commend my colleague Senator McKim for winning them. They're important, they're significant, and they were hardfought. This was a once-in-a-generation moment to help Australians.

Unfortunately, Labor has missed a critical opportunity here. Labor's decision to lock in $33 billion in tax handouts for those with two or more investment properties means that 1.7 million properties will remain in the hands of wealthy property investors, not first home buyers, and they'll leave renters to continue fighting the housing crisis for longer. The Parliamentary Budget Office analysis, based on ATO data in 2023-24, reveals people with two or more investment properties claimed an eye-watering $33 billion in tax handouts that year. That is what Labor is baking in. That is what we would have had available to us to spend on public housing to address the housing crisis. That includes 11,000 landlords with seven or more houses who claimed $1.9 billion from 98,100 investment properties—incredible. It's intergenerational highway robbery.

After four years in government and multiple failures to act, Australia's housing crisis is now Labor's housing crisis. It is now on Labor that we continue in a crisis that has become worse through their policy failures. The housing crisis confronting Australia today is not an accident; it's the predictable result of decades of bad government. It's the result of governments treating housing primarily as an investment asset rather than a human need. It's the result of tax concessions that have overwhelmingly benefited those with the greatest capacity to accumulate wealth, and boy has it rewarded them. It's the result of a sustained failure by governments across this country to invest in public and social housing, which so many Australians are so desperately waiting on lists for decades to get into.

The evidence of the housing crisis is overwhelming. According to the Labor government's own housing affordability council, Australia is currently experiencing record low affordability on rents, record low home purchase affordability and record high rental stress. We've got vacancy rates that are at historic lows. Homeownership rates among younger Australians have fallen year after year. Rents have surged. Public housing waiting lists have grown. This is all while the current Labor government has overseen the lowest average rate of public housing construction of any postwar federal government. Shame! Shame on a government that should see housing as a central plank of a decent life. Homelessness has increased, and the Treasurer himself has acknowledged that house prices in Australia have risen by an incredible 400 per cent since 1999, when these tax breaks were first introduced. This is more than twice as fast as average incomes. Rents have done the same. They have increased at two and a half times the rate of wage increase.

The Senate Select Committee on Intergenerational Housing Inequity, which I'm chairing at present, has heard a great deal of very devastating evidence from around our country and from all sectors of the community about the housing crisis and how it is affecting people in country towns, in our regional centres, in our cities and in our suburbs. Last week we heard evidence from one witness, Elise, who has been on the public housing waiting list in South Australia for more than two decades. Her latest rent increase means she is now paying 60 per cent of her income on rent. How does the government expect people to live like this? Last week we also heard from an incredible 13-year-old, Sebastian, whose dream of owning a home one day feels impossible if house prices continue to rise like they are. He's collected 22,000 signatures from his peers and others—about the crisis his generation faces. He spoke of the despair and hopelessness amongst his peers.

In the City of Onkaparinga, South Australia, which is our largest local government area, house prices have increased by 80 per cent in the last five years. We've got homelessness in our outer suburbs in Adelaide, South Australia, like we have never seen before, and that's just the people we can see. We know there are many women, many of whom have children, who are in cars and on couches and are invisible to us in this crisis.

The Greens were very disappointed on budget night by the lack of ambition in Labor's budget. There was nothing in their budget for the 31 per cent of Australians who are renters. There was nothing in that budget for people experiencing homelessness, which is increasing so quickly in so many parts of our country. These bills are a small step in the right direction, but Labor's low ambition means that inequality and the housing crisis will be worse for longer than it needs to be. This government could've done so much more. It could've collected $33 billion in tax and put it into public housing, which would've made such a difference, to play catch-up on the failure to invest in the recent years of the Labor government and in the decades leading up to it.

This enduring housing crisis is now squarely on Labor. Labor has fuelled demand with its five per cent deposit scheme and has pushed housing prices up, and it's an uncapped scheme available to all. It has done the wrong thing and made the crisis worse in so many parts of its policy, and most importantly it has failed to address the scale of the crisis which is so obvious across our country. The HAFF has built just over a thousand homes. It is an absolutely inadequate response to the crisis for our young people and so many people who are living in housing insecurity. This moment requires so much more from Labor. Unfortunately, their ambition is pathetic. It is not adequate, it is so unlike the response our country needs, and it is a betrayal of those who are living on our streets, in cars and insecurely. We Greens will not stop fighting for renters—the one-third of our country who rent—we will not stop fighting for young people or for first home buyers, and we will not stop fighting for all Australians to be able to put a roof over their head.

It's a central pillar of a human rights regime for a decent life for Australians—access to free education, to health care and to a roof over your head. We know what we need to do, and we can do it. We've done it before, and we have the budget available to us if we tax people right, if we tax gas and if we end absurd spending on AUKUS. We have the resources, as a wealthy country, to put a roof over everyone's head, so we urgently need to remove investor incentives, to build more public housing directly, to cap rents and adequately fund homelessness services.

The Greens have consistently argued that reforming tax concessions must be linked to a significant increase in public investment in housing. Just as governments invest in roads, in hospitals, in schools, in public transport and in infrastructure, governments must invest directly in housing. That means public housing, that means community housing, and it means genuinely affordable housing. It means rejecting the failed idea that private markets and a private housing market can solve this crisis. It has made it worse, and tax reform is necessary. It needs to be meaningful. It needs to be ambitious.

Tax reform on its own is far from enough. Even those who support changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements acknowledge the broader structural solutions are essential. Australia still needs a massive program of social public housing construction, and we need stronger protections for renters. We need greater investment in homelessness services, and we need to continue examining the tax settings that contribute to the widening housing inequality in our country. We believe housing is a human right, we believe public housing is essential infrastructure, we believe tax policy should reduce inequality rather than deepen it, and we believe that every Australian deserves the security and the dignity that comes with owning their own home.

I rise to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I tell you what, I'm pretty surprised to see the Greens up and ready with such formed speeches after only just striking such a dirty deal with the government to get this bill through. It's very telling to hear that their perspective of the government's budget that was passed just last month was that it was not ambitious enough. What that says to me is that they wanted more tax on the Australian people. They got that today in this dirty deal that was done. It's not one but 12 bills. I've just counted. This set of bills—this budget—is a tax on Australian dreams. It's a tax on aspiration, it's a tax on confidence, it's a tax on vision, and it's a tax on the blood, sweat and tears that Australian people put into their businesses, their investments and their trying to get ahead grow this economy for the rest of Australia.

No-one voted for these new taxes. This wasn't taken to the election, even though the Prime Minister promised at least 50 times before the last election that he would not introduce them. 'My word is my bond,' he said. 'I rule out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax.' This budget is in bad faith for the Australian people. The Prime Minister has broken his contract that he took to the election. These new taxes are designed to manage the decline of the Australian economy. They will not grow it. And we now have a death tax, a tax on family savings, and a tax on renters, first home buyers and any young Australians who are just trying to get ahead, even though this was supposed to improve intergenerational inequality. Well, we all know—and the Australian people know—that it's only going to make it worse.

I spent last week on the Central Coast, where there are 29,000 small-to-medium businesses. There's about a $20 billion economy there on the Central Coast. It's thriving. But I spent all day talking to businesses, and they are concerned—they are deeply troubled—by this budget that's been handed down by the government, about what it's going to do to what they've built over the years. A very familiar story that we heard from these businesses is that these people started from nothing, that they started the business out of their family home, out of their garage, out of their spare bedroom, and they built it up to have one, two, five, 10 or 50 employees, passing it down through generations. Now all of a sudden they've got another shareholder. Well, they didn't vote for that.

We've heard about the backflips and the carve outs that the Australian Prime Minister has done over the past couple of days. There's one for 'innovative small businesses', and they can't even tell us what an 'innovative small business' is, because they don't understand small business. They don't understand what they're doing. They don't understand the details of their own policy. Quite frankly, the small business operators here have been telling me it's too late, that they're looking overseas already. They're looking to Dubai, Hong Kong, the United States, Singapore, New Zealand and Canada—anywhere but Australia. What a disaster that is.

We will have the highest taxing government in Australian history. I'll just take it back again to what the Greens said before, that the budget that was handed down was not ambitious enough; there's not enough tax in it for the Australian people. We've got a big-spending government. It's got some very big bills. It's got an interest bill that is $80,000 a minute. Somebody's got to pay for that, and it's the Australian people. And the taxes that they will raise from this budget—we've got $50 billion of higher taxes, $273 billion in taxes that Australians didn't vote for over the next nine years, and most of that money will be going towards paying off $80,000 a minute. It won't be going to defence spending; we know that for sure.

The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, and we support schedules 3 and 4. But if the coalition wins government we will be repealing these bad taxes. Our plan is for lower taxes, lower inflation and an economy that backs entrepreneurs, backs small business, backs self-starters and backs people who are willing to take risk, because we believe that if you risk then you should be rewarded.

Schedule 1 introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime. We will be opposing that. Schedule two introduces changes to the negative gearing regime. We will be opposing that. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset, and schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 standard deduction for work related expenses.

We heard before about the housing from the Greens and the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund. There's $10 billion that's gone into that HAFF housing project. We heard that about 1,000 homes that have been built. But no-one can tell me whether any of those homes have gone to the vulnerable women and children that they've been promised to. Four thousand homes under the HAFF were supposed to go to vulnerable women and children, and nobody in the government is tracking it. Nobody seems to care. It's a disaster of a policy.

This budget puts new taxes on homes. My colleague Senator Bragg is always asking the good questions: Why, if you want more of housing, would you put a tax on it? How does that get more supply? Well, the simple answer is that it doesn't. He's very wise, Senator Bragg. The government's own budget papers say that 35,000 fewer homes will be built as a consequence of their new taxes. The government's own budget papers say that—35,000 fewer homes. Yet we have 90,000 more people than planned arriving in the next two years. How do we expect to house these people? What is the government going to do about that? We have an overshoot of 90,000 people. That means higher demand, lower supply and higher prices.

We've also got changes to negative gearing which will bring down investment, which will raise rental prices. Independent experts have suggested that rents could rise by up to $160 a week in Sydney. That's up $160 a week because, when you drive investment out of the rental market—it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out—prices are going to go up and supply will go down. When you've got real wages declining and you've got higher tax and you've got Australians taking home less, it's a recipe for a perfect storm. We heard the Greens today talking about the cost of living and how people are turning up at the supermarkets and having to make some very extreme choices about the things that they can and can't buy, yet their dirty deal is only going to make it worse. It's a shame.

We in the coalition back small business. We back vision. We back hope. We back consistency and clarity for the economy. We back Australians who believe in themselves, Australians who back themselves, Australians that aspire to have a roof over their heads. But, as a result of these changes, in the past month, when speaking to real estate agents, they're saying that the auction clearance—nobody's even doing auctions anymore. There's no point. Nobody's turning up. There's no confidence in the housing market. They're looking at the housing market like it's back in the global financial crisis already, and these bills have not even been passed. They're absolutely ripping the rug out from under Australians and the housing market. It's a shame.

What we need is more supply. What we need is more infrastructure. What we need is more builders in the country bringing on that supply. Of course the labour unions have a stronghold over who comes into this country. I'll tell you: dog walkers are not going to build us more houses. So here we are with a budget that doesn't bring intergenerational equality or fairness. It's intergenerational fraud, and there is absolute outrage from the Australian people.

I had a roundtable with some startup companies just last week in Sydney. They are despairing. They have built these companies from nothing. They put everything into it, waking up at two or three o'clock in the morning for years on end. Families were throwing everything into it. I know all about it. My dad built his business from scratch. My husband and I had a business when I was raising my kids. My brother built a business. I know what it is to throw everything into these things and to then have the government come back and say that they want half of it. Well, that's just not fair and that's just not on, so the coalition will never back that. The coalition will repeal these bad taxes because the government have done none of the work, they've taken none of the risk and they want nearly half of it.

Small-business owners are the self-starters of our nation. They sacrifice holidays. They work weekends. They do everything to put themselves in a position to get ahead, and here we have the government's answer to that. The government's answer to the fact that they've run out of money is to come after yours. The Treasurer is doubling the tax rate on small businesses when they go to sell, and he's raised the threshold to $10 million for a small business. He's raise the threshold for small business. The effect that that's going to have is it will be a tax on ambition. Small business will want to stop growing once they reach that threshold. That's never going to be a good idea. We want to grow this economy. The government needs to step back and give the businesses the freedom they need to excel. The rules of the economy are rigged against self-starters. They've got the compliance burden of industrial relations law, tax law. I've seen the size of the tax law book—the summary growing and growing and growing. We've got regulatory laws. (Time expired)

There's a little thing called a democratic mandate, which is supposed to be a system where people put forward their ideas before an election and people can either vote for or against those ideas. In the UK, they call it a 'manifesto' and here we would call it a 'platform'. Now here in this country, the Prime Minister said that there would be no changes to these tax arrangements, and he was at great pains on occasion to say there would be no changes to the CGT or to the negative gearing arrangements if he was to be re-elected. Now, of course he has broken that promise and he will now have to wear that broken promise like a crown of thorns. This is not really a productive use of my time this evening in the Senate, because everyone knows that these commitments were made and they were breached. But it is important to note we are all custodians of a system where the Australian people are allowed to decide who they want to run the show and what policies they should be pursuing. Now, that is something that the Prime Minister will have to consider over the coming years, and, no doubt, his colleagues will also closely consider these matters. I suspect we won't need to prosecute them too much more.

This other old theory is a difference of opinion on tax policy. Now, in the Liberal Party, in the coalition, we have a view that the government has no money of its own. If the government wants to get money, it needs to raise the money from the citizenry and from the businesses in order to spend it on public good. We've always had a view that it's a reasonable proposition that taxes should be raised as efficiently as possible and public services should be provided as efficiently as possible.

But I go back to this point around the theory. On this side, we're firm in our belief that taxation is effectively legalised theft. We're taking something from the citizens, and we are going to spend it on something for the greater good. On the other side, you hear things like 'tax handouts'. We heard before from the Greens that there are handouts when people are paying less tax. This shows you the mentality of the other side of this chamber. They believe that the tax money belongs to the government. We believe that the tax money belongs to the people. That is a clear difference of opinion across the board.

A core value.

A core value—thank you, Senator Scarr.

The other great theory is: what is a reform? I would have thought that a reform of the tax system would be something that moves the whole show forward, moves the nation forward, with perhaps a more efficient way of doing things, a better way of doing things or maybe a way that will attract more stuff, and we get more stuff as a result.

Increased productivity.

Exactly right. In this case, it is clear that the other side thinks that a tax reform is when you just raise more money. If you look at the budget, you'll find that $77 billion of new taxes will be raised. That's tax raised. Taxing is not reform, unless you constitute a significant regeneration of the scheme, as we saw when Howard did the GST, when we had the capital gains tax changes in the eighties or when we had the business tax reforms. Those are reforms. Raising taxes isn't reform.

I think this shows how bad the debate has been in this country for decades that this guy thinks he can hold out this policy as reform and get away with it. I've said before that I very much regret that we haven't had more contests and more debate on tax reform. The fact that Allegra Spender has done the only tax policy in years, and it was a terrible plan, shows how badly this country is going, because no-one else can even be bothered getting out of bed and doing a tax plan. The fact that some of these policies that Ms Spender has been peddling have been cherrypicked also shows the danger of big thinking, but I do want to encourage all colleagues to always put forward ideas, particularly if they are genuinely reforms.

But what we've ended up with is the highest pay-as-you-go system and the highest capital gains system, so nothing's actually been improved. All we've got is the downside. Nothing's better, and the 77 billion bucks just disappears into Canberra's coffers to be redistributed somewhere else—God knows where. I guarantee you one thing, Deputy President: that $77 billion is not going to help the budget bottom line, because we're still stuck with $1 trillion of debt and deficits as far as the eye can see.

In terms of the theoretical part of this contribution, I make the point that, yes, the democratic mandate has been breached and, yes, the principle that the Labor Party believe in, that taxes belong to the government, has been ticked off. The fact that they're holding out these tax hikes as reforms brings home the trifecta. You've got the democratic mandate breached, you've got confirmation that they believe that all the people's money belongs to the government, and you've got the big lie that this is some sort of fantastic reform where all the unicorns come and live.

You've got to think to yourself, 'Well, why would a rational person and a clever political machine come up with this idea?' I've thought about this a lot. You can say what you like about the Labor Party. They're terrible at governing. They're the champions of maladministration, as evidenced by the budget papers. But they're very good at politics and spin. You've got to give it to them. They sit down there, and they think about how they can spin, spin, spin and then occupy the treasury bench forever and ever and never actually do anything. It reminds me of some state governments in the past, actually.

But the point is that this is just another gimmick. So far, we've had three gimmicks in their housing policies. They have the Housing Australia Future Fund, which has been going for 2½ years, which has got 10 billion bucks and built a handful of houses. Then we had the five per cent deposits which can go to anyone, and it pushed up prices and made things harder not better for young people, and now we've got this big lie that apparently fiddling around with the taxes is going to solve the housing crisis. No-one honestly believes that the housing crisis is going to be fixed as a result of high taxes and also a 30 per cent tax on everything else. No-one believes that. But, when you hear the housing minister carry on with this garbage that she carries on with that, apparently, John Howard and Peter Costello are responsible for the housing crisis because of a tweak to the tax code 25 years ago, it insults the intelligence of the electorate.

One of the things that I would advise the government about is people have more information now than they've ever had. People have access to a lot of information, and people know that that's not right, because people can also work out there's two sides to a market. There's supply, and there's demand, and what's happened over the last few years is supply has collapsed and demand has increased. Even just this last four years of the Labor Party's term in office, we've had two million people increase in population, and we've only had about 600,000 houses built. Clearly, there's a mismatch there which has added to the problem. At the end of the day, the supply piece is where it's at in housing, and people know this. I think the days of politicians going around bribing the electorate with give outs and handouts and whatever else you want to call it—bribes and grants and other things and 'here's some free money for you—are coming to an end, and that's good, because all these demand-side measures in the main have been damaging. If you go and talk to a builder, they'll tell you that those grants are subsumed by builders and developers into the price, and so prices have gone up while supply has gone down. People know that this tax gimmick is another housing gimmick and that it won't solve the problem, and we won't see the housing system fixed until we supply about a quarter of a million houses a year. That's the reality.

What actually is the bottom line here in terms of this housing issue, given this is ostensibly about housing? I think it is going to be about making home building more economic. Building costs are too high. Productivity is negative in the building sector, and we have not had any real attempt to grapple with the things that the Commonwealth government does control, like this National Construction Code which actually could be cut down to a very small document, and you could actually be allowed to build a cheap house in Australia, if that were your wish. The fact that we gold plate all these houses and that we have the difficulty with getting the labour and that we have the CFMEU and all the other different productivity issues has made a perfect storm where it's very hard to make a buck out of home building. So people look at it and say, 'Actually, I'm not going to do that.' The underlying issues—the Labor Party have stuffed the housing system. They have stuffed it up because they haven't been prepared to address any of these labour or productivity issues. They haven't been prepared to look at the nexus between migration and housing, and all their all their housing supply policies have been a disaster. They're going to miss all their housing targets, and their government fund has been an absolute sinkhole of government funds. Having failed on all those fronts, they thought, 'We'll have this new tax thing and maybe that will help,' but that is only going to make a bad situation worse, because who could believe that the government would have a deliberate design feature to reduce housing supply by 35,000?

They say, with all their gimmickry and spin and rubbish, that 'oh no, that's not really a real number, because we're going to offset it with 6,000 in an infrastructure fund', but the number is there in the budget. It's a number—35,000 fewer houses because of higher taxes. That's there. I think it's incredible, to think about this housing crisis, that any government would want to do anything to reduce housing supply. We should be trying to get any building we can. We should be trying to build on top of other buildings. We should be trying to add buildings to existing titles. We should be trying to allow people to build cheap houses and mini houses and motor houses and mobile houses and whatever. That's what we should be trying to do. We shouldn't be trying to gold-plate everything, pay off the CFMEU or do anything else, no matter what the government's motives are.

The reality is that we have no idea, really, about the impact of these bills. We had a sham two-day inquiry where the government used its numbers to close down any real avenues of proper analysis. We had more time hearing from St Vincent de Paul than we did from actual people who'd done the fair-dinkum analysis—people like Chris Brycki, the Francis Brothers and whatever; people who have actually pored over this and looked at the portfolio analysis and the impacts on the economy. They were denied service—'We don't want to hear from you. We just want to hear from a few of our mates.'

I'm sure we heard from the ACTU—I didn't make that decision about the hearings—and I'm sure that, when they came, they didn't declare their financial interests in a super fund which stands to significantly benefit from the arbitrage in this legislation. The super funds will only pay 10 per cent if they invest in something, but the poor old punter will pay 30 per cent, or the foreign investor will pay 15 per cent but the punter will pay 10 per cent. And today we see more arbitrage. They're going to kick the SMSFs in the pants, but they're going to protect all their old mates—Wayne Swan and the 40 thieves and everyone else at CBUS and AustralianSuper and all their mates.

The government at least is consistent on this front. They are a government for vested interests. They only get out of bed every day to help out their mates. It just so happens this tax policy has been perfectly crafted to support all their friends in their great endeavours to invest in everything with a tax advantage that no person in this country can avail themselves of. If a person invests in a basket of shares, under this disgraceful legislation they do not benefit to the same rate as a big super fund, in terms of the tax rate but also in terms of the way that losses are treated.

The regulatory impact analysis was done on the basis of the recommendations of Senator McKim's committee report. There wasn't even a RIS into this bill, which has changed about five times. It changed yesterday and it has changed again today. Even if you wanted to do a RIS, you wouldn't know what you were actually looking at. So we have no idea of the long-term damage this will do to the economy. We do know that a 30 per cent CGT is punitive and bad for our economy. It makes us one of the most highly taxed economies on the planet. But, at the end of the day, the idea that more taxes on housing are going to be good is insane, and I flag that we will move amendments in relation to some of these superannuation matters so as to ensure that all super funds have the same tax benefit, rather than just picking out a few to get a kick in the pants from these government vested-interest people.

Can I just confirm that you are foreshadowing a second reading amendment, Senator Bragg?

Yes, that's true.

Thank you very much.

It's an absolute privilege and an honour to follow my dear colleague and friend Senator Bragg, who, I think, in that speech, which traversed many areas, wandered across the Australian policy landscape like an explorer. He made a number of fundamental salient points, which I think we should all reflect upon in the course of this debate. I'd also like to thank Senator Bragg for the contribution he's making to policy development within the coalition. I think he's doing an outstanding job.

As Senator Bragg said, we have to start this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 with the fundamental fact that this budget represents a broken promise. The Labor government went to the people at the last election and promised on no less than 50 occasions that they were not going to change the rate of capital gains tax, they weren't going to impact negative gearing arrangements and they weren't going to engage in the very conduct and make the very changes which they're seeking to implement through this bill. That's the starting point—that the Australian people were misled. They were told one thing by the Labor government before the election, and now we're seeing the Labor government do a complete backflip and do the opposite. That hurts all political parties in our system because it undermines the integrity of our democratic system.

When a party goes to the people at an election on the basis of a particular platform and a particular policy suite, the Australian people have a right to expect that, whichever party it is, that party will be true to its word. That didn't happen at the last election, and that will be an albatross around the necks of Prime Minister Albanese and this Labor government as we move towards the next federal election.

In terms of the policy issues itself, on quite a few occasions in this place, I've quoted from a monumental work called Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, who's a wonderful economist. He deals with this issue of capital gains tax. It is basic economics. In relation to capital gains tax, page 448 of Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics says:

…when the federal tax rate on capital gains—

this is in the context of the United States—

was lowered in the United States from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997, it was assumed that revenues from the capital gains tax would fall below the $54 billion collected under the … rates in 1996 and the $209 billion that had been projected to be collected over the next four years, before the tax rate was cut. Instead, tax revenues … rose after the capital gains tax rate was cut and $372 billion were collected in capital gains taxes over the next four years, nearly twice what was projected …

Sowell goes on to say that people adjusted their behaviour to a more favourable outlook for investments by increasing their investments so that the new 20 per cent tax rate on the returns from these increased investments amounted to more total revenue than that produced by the old 28 per cent tax rate on a total amount of investment that was not as large. What do we learn from that? We learn that there's a difference between tax rates and the revenue collected under taxes, and in the United States when the capital gains tax was decreased there was actually more revenue raised under the decreased capital gains tax rates.

In the converse, investors, founders and entrepreneurs don't just sit still when you increase taxes. Capital moves. It moves across borders. It moves to jurisdictions which have lower tax. That is the reality of the world we live in. The federal Labor government will find with these tax changes—I've got no doubt about this—the founders of future unicorns such as Seek Ltd and Canva will move offshore. They will move offshore to more investment friendly jurisdictions. Why would you commence a startup journey in Australia when you can go to Singapore and pay zero per cent capital gains tax? Why? People have options. Investors have options. Capital is mobile. Workers are less mobile, so the people who will suffer from this are the workers themselves because their opportunities to move offshore are more limited than those who own capital. That's what we're going to find. People are simply going to move offshore. They're not going to stay here and pay those elevated amounts of capital gains. That's the reality.

I want to now talk about an industry which I'm passionate about, and that's the mining industry. For 12 years before I came into this place, I worked as general counsel of a mid-tier copper and gold company. But that mid-tier copper and gold company, which built two mines in a little country called Laos, lifted thousands of people out of poverty and did it to the highest standards of health and safety, environmental compliance and social licence. That company started as an exploration company in Australia. It listed on the ASX. There were thousands of retail shareholders who invested in that small exploration company and gave it the capital to engage in exploration in Australia and offshore. They did that on the basis that, one day, if that executive team were to be successful and make a discovery that would lead to a mine, to commercialisation, even if they had to bring in further investment—those retail shareholders and other owners of capital invested in that exploration company on the basis that one day they would make a capital gain. That's why they invested in that exploration company. And that's the story across the whole of Australia.

The opening statement the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies gave to the Senate economics legislation committee underlines the importance of the tax regime to the future of mining exploration in this country. I want to quote from this opening statement:

Today, mineral exploration and mining make a critical contribution to Australia's economy, directly employing over 314,000 people.

Mineral exploration is Australia's original startup.

Mineral exploration is Australia's original startup.

It drives discoveries that lead to new mines, jobs and economic growth. Its success relies on two critical components: men and women investing their own money and time to develop a mineral exploration company and project which is backed by mum-and-dad retail investors taking a punt on their success.

That is foundational to an exploration mining company. It goes on:

Around one in 1,000 exploration projects becomes an operating mine …

Around one in 1,000 exploration projects becomes an operating mine, so all of those mum-and-dad retail shareholders and investors—investing their money into buying shares, contributing to capital raisings undertaken by exploration companies—are making a risk based assessment and they're placing their faith that perhaps that exploration project is going to be one of those one in 1,000. It's on that basis, on the basis of that capital risk, that the mining industry, and the oil and gas industries, in Australia have been driven.

As AMEC says in its statement to the committee:

… yet Australia's small ASX listed mineral exploration companies are responsible for around 75 per cent of Australia's economic discoveries.

Just reflect on that: only one in 1,000 exploration projects are successful, but they constitute 75 per cent of Australia's economic discoveries, which lead to mines and greater wealth generation and employment. What the Labor government is doing, through its new capital gains tax regime, is placing a huge disincentive, a huge barrier in the way of those exploration companies efforts to raise capital in this country.

Those companies will look offshore. I've served as a senior executive in a mining company. I know the discussions that occur around the boardroom table. Those companies don't have to be listed on the ASX. Those mining exploration companies can move offshore to Singapore, become listed in Singapore, where there is zero per cent capital gains tax. Or they could be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, where the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount still applies. The Labor government is driving that investment offshore, and it will drive the wealth generation with it. The wealth generation will be driven offshore as well, and others will benefit from that.

One of the great things about the Australian market is we've developed this culture of mum-and-dad retail investors investing in junior exploration companies. Notwithstanding that success rate of one in 1,000, Australians have still been prepared to invest and support those exploration efforts. It's truly one of the great things about our capital markets. It's one of our comparative advantages. And yet this capital gains tax increase will cruel the pitch for capital raisings undertaken by exploration companies.

I want to continue to quote from the statement made by AMEC, who are at the front line of raising capital. They say:

In setting up and investing in these companies, the incentive is purely in the hopeful prospect of capital growth.

And that's why, like the Tech and BioTech sector, these CGT changes would hit mineral exploration where it hurts most.

…   …   …

And if Mum and Dad retail investors desert mineral exploration, there will be no investment to replace it. Mineral explorers will be starved of capital, and Australia's mineral exploration effort will decrease rapidly.

That means less mineral discoveries, less mines, less jobs and less government revenue.

This is a massive own goal committed by the Labor government in relation to our mining industry.

Then we've got the dirty deal that was done with the Greens, which has just been announced. It's a dirty deal done dirt cheap, in the words of the great AC/DC. What do AMEC say in relation to this dirty deal done dirt cheap, which the mining industry was excluded from? They say:

The International Energy Agency says the world needs around 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines and 17 new cobalt mines to meet carbon emissions goals by 2030.

Excluding an industry that finds the mines of the future from carve-outs will hurt future discoveries and reduce productivity for Australia's most important economic driver.

This is a kick in the guts for the entire mineral exploration industry and those who invest in it.

These are the words of the mining and exploration industry, invested in by mum-and-dad retail investors, with a one-in-1,000 chance that one of those exploration projects leads to an economic discovery and produces the next mine. Still those mum-and-dad retail investors are prepared to invest in the industry. But, with the increase of this capital gains tax under the Labor government, will they in the future? This is what the mining industry is saying in relation to these changes:

This is a kick in the guts for the entire mineral exploration industry and those who invest in it.

When I came into this place, one of my objectives was to advocate for policies that would make it easier, not harder, for people to set up businesses in this country to create wealth and generate opportunity for all Australians. That was one of my goals when I came into this place. I'd seen the power of people investing in the company which I was employed by and how that investment in an exploration company had led to mining projects in one of the poorest countries in the world and lifted thousands of people out of poverty. This Labor government budget will make that sort of investment less attractive and less likely to occur for the benefit of Australia's people.

It's interesting, when we get up, to look at the spin, the labelling and the messaging of the government. They call this tax reform. It is a tax grab. The number has been mentioned before. There will be $77 billion in new taxes. Never has reform been dressed so painfully for the Australian people. Never has there been a tax that hits people where they are. Remember back to, I think, 1991. There was a Danny DeVito movie called Other People's Money. He ran a company conducting takeovers. It was a company called OPM Holdings, and it stood for 'other people's money'. That's where it came from. That is what this government is addicted to—getting other people's money, getting their hands on it and spending it on re-engineering Australia. Nothing says that like this.

But it goes further than that. Senator Scarr touched on the promises, the words that could be relied on, that said that this wouldn't happen. There were so many people getting up in our two-minute statements today talking about how evil it is that another political party is rising and making gains in the polling system here. That is exactly what happens when this place and the people in this place don't keep their word. It is what happens when you aren't consistent with what you say. But people want to get up and pretend it's not on them. People want to get up and pretend it's on the public or that person or Gina Rinehart or someone else that the public are turning away from the Labor Party and the coalition.

It is not. It is when you break your word, when you break your bond and when you do things that breach the trust of Australians that people look for new answers. There is no good in getting up here and whingeing about it and the reasons behind it after you have done that. We need to look at restoring faith, restoring trust and restoring a solid stewardship to the Australian economy. We saw it threatened with a proposed tax on unrealised capital gains before. It was walked back by this government only after an outcry. They're trying to tax money you actually haven't made yet. They've realised that might be a step too far and have settled on this. This is the answer.

If you follow the government's own logic that this is to create a better access for housing then you might understand if they stopped at taxing capital gains on housing, but they didn't. They went further. They decided to tax shares, something that young people might use to save for their house deposit. They're taxing the capital gains of small businesses. They're taxing crypto. They're taxing ETFs. They're taxing everything that you get a capital gain on and saying it all relates to housing. That doesn't make sense, that doesn't hold true, and, once again, the pub test isn't marked by this bill. That's a real concern because, had it stopped at housing, had it stopped there, they may have had an argument. It may have been consistent. It may have been true, but it isn't and it hurts everyone. It hurts people saving for a deposit.

I ran some simulations the other day. If you grab $1,000 a month in savings and you put it in your bank account versus you grab $1,000 a year and put it in your shares, or you put it in crypto over five years, six years to save your deposit, there is a $20,000 benefit in investing that money. That will now be halved by a doubling of the tax on your capital gain. That's right. You're getting a 50 per cent discount now. You won't get that, so it's double what you would pay, and that's just unacceptable.

Let's look at the reason this discount was brought in before. It was to differentiate between speculation and investment. An investment is the allocation of funds to profitable and good areas of the economy. Speculation is 'I'm having a punt. I put a declaration out the other day. I bought a couple of crypto bitcoins. See how that goes'—very badly at the moment, may I say. That is speculation. I deserve to pay tax on my income, as the government says, because that is not efficient use of money for the economy. That is speculation for a personal gain. Like we heard Senator Scarr say, investment into companies, into small businesses and into Australian entities is good for Australia and that is the reason this discount existed—to see money put in places that grow jobs, that grow Australia, that grow the economy, that make Australia a better place to live.

Anecdotally, I have friends with some serious businesses—they wouldn't qualify as small businesses—who are already moving capital away from Australia. That hurts. But we know the answer. Every time we saw the economy shrinking, the government would bring in more people and exacerbate the housing problem. We are now facing a per capita recession and we just bring in more people so we make the housing problem worse. We've already seen on page 158 of the budget documents that 35,000 fewer homes will be built under this policy. So if we're building fewer homes, as Senator Bragg said so eloquently earlier, supply is the real problem. We see plenty of land held up by plenty of red tape, lack of infrastructure, lack of water, lack of these things. I know both parties of government took significant policies on infrastructure to unlock that last time, but it's not seeing the light of day. We're not seeing those things turn into real homes.

We heard about the $10 billion housing HAFF fund. We always hear about that, but it's not building the houses we need. We hear about the apprentices we need to get the jobs done and build things. Every time we talk about apprentices, we hear 'fee-free TAFE'. But the reality is fewer than 20 per cent of people who enter courses under that complete them. So if we haven't got the people we need to build the places we need, if we've got the red tape, if we haven't got the infrastructure, we aren't going to fix the supply problem.

I will ask a question in the committee stage because it's a concern to me. When you go through the EM, it says that existing small businesses will have exemptions raised from $2 million annual turnover to $10 million, but keep those words 'existing small businesses'. If we talk about generational equity, what about the businesses of tomorrow, of the young people, of the ideas that happen the day after? What happens if there's someone at home, 20-something years old, and tomorrow they come up with the next Canva, the next Atlassian, or the next Kick or Stake? They want to start out. They want to get there, but are they covered by this?

Are they going to New Zealand? The land of the long white cloud might be the land of the long Australian business coming up as we go, when their capital moves to places where they can better reflect that risk-to-reward ratio. This fundamentally changes that. This fundamentally changes the balance between investing in something to try and get ahead, potentially losing it and the reward of actually seeing it through. The changes that were announced, the backflip that was unbelievably good—it would make Nadia Comaneci jealous of the flexibility of the Treasurer. It was an amazing flip to say, 'There's nothing wrong. We're consulting,' and then come out when we clearly know no consultation of any note took place.

What happens to the businesses tomorrow? What happens to the young people that aren't going to settle for the lowest common denominator, who want aspiration—this word we hear so much but is understood so little on the other side? Aspiration is the goal to be your best and have dreams. We should be helping young people reach them. We should be helping everyone reach them. But now we're saying we will put a handbrake of 100 per cent more tax on your success. One hundred per cent more tax than you would pay last year, you'll pay on your success. That is wrong.

We sit here and wonder why the country is as it is, why there are doldrums, why money is leaving overseas, why young people are getting angry and going to people they haven't voted for before. Look at our own actions. Look inside ourselves. Look as a government. Look as a parliament and say, 'What are we doing wrong?' I come back to that message. It is about staying true. It is about building hope in a time when our world looks so horrible, when there are wars all over the place, when allies can't be trusted, when rule of might is overcoming rule of laws. We want to give hope to people, and this change takes that away. This change diminishes the fundamental principle of trying to have a better life.

Let me tell you about the big end of town. They're not going to have a worry, because they're going to put things in a company and pay 30 per cent anyway. Things in companies, things in structures—all this sort of thing. They have access to the best solicitors and to the best tax accountants. They have the best advice to get. This won't affect the big end of town as much as it does mum-and-dads. That's why it hurts so much—because they are the people we should be supporting. When we talk about taxing this the way we tax wages, which has become a catchcry, we forget about the risk. We forget about the importance of creating jobs. We forget about creating the houses that people who can't afford it get for housing. When we see the balance of immigration coming in—not many people land in Australia and can afford to go out and buy a house straightaway. Can they get the finance? Have they got the deposit? These people rent straightaway, and they need stock. They need these rental properties going, and this will take that away. So we'll see rent rises. We'll see savings diminish. We'll see the inability to create wealth in other ways. This is all because this government likes to spend.

Let's talk about that spend. Another thing I don't understand—another issue we're talking about—is the NDIS bill. We see all sorts of numbers where we're going to cut 20 per cent of people off the NDIS. We're going to crack down on who gets what out of those left in there. Never have I seen a crackdown where 20 per cent of people come off a program and we crack down on those that are left. It still costs more than it did the previous year. It's an amazing stat how you go forward under those economics. It's not maths as I knew it.

We see the defences here where, even today in question time, the finance minister got up and was asked specifically—she was given two minutes. She noted it herself in her answer. 'I have two minutes to get to the answer'. She didn't want to answer it straightaway. When we pressed for a country, for her to name one country that has capital gains tax higher than Australia now—I remember the answer. 'I'll get to your answer. Give me two minutes.' In two minutes, she managed to get to it finally, when the answer was handed to her: 'United Kingdom, 24 per cent; America 30 per cent'—all these thing, she labelled about three—'France, 26 per cent.' Those were the numbers that came out of her mouth, every single one of them was under the 47 per cent that we can charge on capital gains. Now, I don't know what the people of the world like, but I would prefer a finance minister who understands that 47 per cent is higher than 26 per cent or 30 per cent. It doesn't take a lot to know that. I'm not the world's sharpest tool, but even I learned that from my maths class. So you can't go comparing that. We now have one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world for earners and probably the highest capital gains tax in the world, and we still talk about this world of aspiration and hope.

We need to be better than this. We should be taxing less. We should be playing fewer games where we take people's money off them and only give it back if they do the things we want. If this were a relationship, it'd be financially abusive. Imagine you're in a relationship with someone and they are taking all your money and only giving it back if you do the things they want. That would be a financially abusive relationship, and we would be calling someone. There would be an intervention to stop that from happening. But here it's celebrated: 'Aren't we great for doing it? This is the way forward, and it is a reform.' That's not the case. Tax less.

It's like my relationship with my children.

Order!

It was funny. Tax less, give them their chance and let them be all they can be. If that's not working, create the housing.

I wish! What we want to do is show that there is a way forward, and this doesn't do that. Taking people's money off them does not do that.

We are sitting there patting ourselves on the back for doing this. I don't blame the Greens. As I said, it's in the Greens' DNA to get as much of other people's money as they can. They love it. They want to shut down all the industry that creates the money but take that money as they destroy it. I look forward to living in caves if they ever get into government. It'll be a fantastic time—subsistence living back again, and no carbon output. I don't know what the campfire would put out as a carbon output, but I wonder how I'll offset that. That'll be an interesting one, because that'll be my heating. I don't have a problem with that. I'm surprised that the Greens did it so cheaply. There seems to be very little in this for them. They've managed to get some trusts there, but what a small deal! Let's face it: no-one wants to get between the Greens and getting access to money. Labor had to know it would be the price to meet with these guys—give the Greens a chance to increase taxes. They were going to take it, but I would have thought they would at least hold out for something a bit decent in that. They've got the bill done; they've got it through. Here we go.

In summary, just in governance—forget the methodology—none of their arguments hold up. It doesn't hold up when the Treasury documents say it will result in less housing. It doesn't hold up under any investment period as generational equity. We have diminished all of the democracy in Australia by doing this. Australians deserve better, and we will vote against this.

I've been thinking about all the speeches that I've heard tonight and throughout the day on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I think it was you, Senator Scarr—I wasn't here, but I've just had that vibe that it may have been you. The thing that's coming to my mind about all of this is that, when you frame it, we have a housing crisis. We don't have enough supply. We also have a rental crisis. We don't have enough houses for people to rent. Young people can't afford houses, so young people are using different mechanisms to save some money in order to fast-track their ability to have a nest egg big enough. They're investing in shares and ETFs. They're innovating in small business. So they're trying different things. They're having a go. They're having a crack. They're trying to make their lives better. They're aspiring. Senator Cadell spoke about aspiration. This is what people want: to create wealth and build a better life.

So what has this government done as the solution to this? They've decided to tax shares, they've decided to tax ETFs, they've decided to tax small businesses and they've taken away from young Australians, in the name of intergenerational equity, the same mechanisms for wealth creation that prior generations had: 'So that you can have a better chance, we're not going to let you use the mechanisms that we used in order to create wealth.' How do you actually expect anybody to believe that?

The thing that has struck me from the afternoon into the evening as I've been in the chamber, whether as temporary chair or in the shadow ministerial spot, is the Greens talking about the fact that this is a toxic group of taxes. You facilitated it. You let them do it. And, as Senator Cadell said, you actually got nothing for it. You just gave it to them. You've just let them have it, and you've let young Australians pay the price for it. You've taken away their opportunities to invest, and you've taxed them. The thing is you want some of their money when they make a profit, but you don't want to let them offset some of the losses if they don't make some money.

Socialise the profits; privatise the losses.

Indeed.

As I said earlier, we have entered the Albanese Labor government's quasi-socialist era with the support of the Greens. That's what it is: 'If you've got something good, we want some of it; if it's a problem, we don't want to know about it. Your losses are your problem. Of any profit you make, we want a bunch—but only if you're an individual, only if you're a mum-and-dad investor, only if you're a young person. If you're an industry super fund, we'll continue to subsidise you. If you are an international global institution who wants to come here and create build-to-rent properties, we'll give you subsidies as well because you're a good guy, you international global institution. We want to give you tax concessions; we just don't want to give young Australians tax concessions. We don't want to give mum-and-dad investors tax concessions, because they're the bad guys.' That's what I've come to understand from what has transpired here today.

Let's be clear. We oppose Labor's capital gains tax changes, and we oppose Labor's changes to negative gearing. We oppose them because they are fundamentally wrong and because they do not solve the problems at hand. The thing that this government seems to want to hide from as well is the fact that they lied to the Australian people. They went to an election and said that they would not do this. The Prime Minister, Prime Minister Albanese, told Australians before the last election, 'There will be no changes,' and what has he done? He has done exactly what he said he wouldn't do. And we ask why people are losing trust in institutions. We ask why people are losing trust in democracy. It is because they don't get truth from government. Instead of getting answers as to what is really going on, they get smugness and arrogance, as though we aren't entitled to the real answers as to why things have occurred. Australians aren't stupid; they can see what is going on.

We have clear evidence from the RBA that this government has overspent. But do you know what? We don't even need the RBA to tell us that. We can see it. We have had 15 interest rate rises under this government, and we have had three interest rate reductions. They like to talk about the rate cuts that they've seen, but they never want to talk about the 15 interest rate rises. That's around $30,000 a year to the average Australian mortgage holder. Have a think about what you can buy with $30,000. Have a think also about what cuts Australians have had to make in their own lives in order to come up with that $30,000. What aren't they buying for their children? What aren't they buying or saving for their own future? They're really important questions.

Senator Collins made a comment earlier in her speech about difficult decisions people are making in supermarkets. I've had my own pharmacist tell me that she has people coming in asking, 'Does it work if, so I can stretch my packet out, I take half of my tablet in the morning and half in the evening?' These are real conversations that real Australians are having, and those opposite pretend there's nothing to see here, that people are not in trouble and that people are not struggling.

Instead of solving those problems, we are just taxing people more—not 'we', you. You are taxing people more. That's not transparency. That's not honesty. This has been a deception of the highest order. I don't understand how this government can sit there and pretend that this is about intergenerational equity when we know that it's not and when we know that the only ones getting concessions are at the big end of town: the industry super funds and the global institutional investors.

Let's have a think about renters for a moment. I've talked about young Australians who are trying to buy a home. Have a think about the fact that they've got to rent before they buy their first home. There are Australians who are struggling and are going to be renting for a lot longer because they can't get ahead because of the cost-of-living crisis that this government has created. This government's own budget papers admit that these tax changes will increase rents. They are taking from young Australians at every single stage of their journey—not just at the point of purchase but at every single point where they're trying to make their way through life, at every point where they're trying to create a better future for themselves.

Research from independent economists suggests that rents could rise by up to $160 a week in Sydney and around $130 a week in Melbourne. Have a think about that $130 to $160 a week. That's a lot of money. That's another bunch of groceries that someone's not going to buy. That may be some medical treatment that somebody's not going to get for themselves. In most cases, it will be women who defer their own medical treatment to ensure that their children get appropriate medical treatment.

Electricity bill.

Electricity bill. It'll be, perhaps, some dental treatment that somebody doesn't go and get, or they delay the treatment for their children to go to the dentist. It might be an appliance at home that doesn't get upgraded, or it could well be heaters that don't get turned on in winter.

School excursions.

School excursions. School uniforms.

Sport.

Sport—thank you, Senator Scarr—and kids going to school without breakfast. That is becoming an increasing problem in our country. Think about that when you talk about $130 to $160 a week. That's not a small amount of money. Then, what are we doing? We're driving mum-and-dad investors out of the private rental market. What is that going to do? That's going to mean that we are going to have fewer investment properties, and, when we have fewer investment properties—fewer rental properties—we have higher rents. The rents go up. It's not rocket science.

Basic economics.

It's basic economics. I don't have that great book that you have, Senator Scarr. I wish that I did, but I don't, and I often admire it and think that I should get myself a copy.

We'll get you a copy.

Thank you very much—but this is the whole point. This is basic stuff. We know it and Australians know it, but the government doesn't care. With the assistance of the Greens, they will push these bills through. They'll push this legislation through, and Australians will pay the price for it. The hard reality is that life is tough enough as it is today. It is going to get even harder for so many people. I don't say that to scaremonger. I don't say that to gloat. I say that as a sad reality, a consequence of the decisions of this government and the Greens. Young Australians are caught in a brutal squeeze. Rents are going up, there's a higher capital gains tax on their savings, in whatever form they've chosen to have savings, and the government just keeps hitting them, over and over and over again.

That's without even considering Labor's active inflation agenda. Inflationary impacts have been created by the Albanese Labor government. Real wages are declining. Productivity has tanked. Renters are paying more in rent. People with a mortgage are paying more in their repayments. Everyone is paying more in tax and taking home less in real terms. This is the Albanese Labor government's record, and it is a shameful one. This is the highest taxing government in Australia's history, with the highest rate of capital gains tax amongst our contemporaries. I've said it a number of times in this chamber, but I'm going to say it again. Communist China has a CGT flat rate of 20 per cent. The Albanese Labor government, with the assistance of the Greens and our new quasisocialist government, has a rate of 30 per cent. Think about that.

Indeed, Senator Cadell. The Commonwealth Bank's own chief economist has said these changes will raise revenue but will not build more homes—the very thing the government keeps trying to tell us that these changes will affect. It is clear that it will not occur. Even the government's own budget papers say that there will be fewer homes. What are we trying to sell here? Why don't you actually just tell us what your actual agenda is? It's clearly not to provide more housing for Australians to buy. I'll repeat it again. It's my view that this government wants Australians to be in a perpetual state of renting and to live in homes owned by the super funds and built by the CFMEU. That's what this government wants, because, otherwise, it would not create a vicious cycle such as this one where young Australians simply cannot get ahead.

The narrative of this budget is intergenerational equity. The reality is an intergenerational betrayal. Young Australians trying to get ahead by renting while saving are hit first by higher rents and then by higher taxes on the moneys that they are trying to save to build their nest egg. This government needs to explain why it is doing this and why it will not tell the truth to the Australian public.

You'll be disappointed to learn that it's almost adjournment, so my speech is going to be cut into two parts. Maybe it's like a little part 1 of a miniseries, what I'm going to call 'the anatomy of a broken promise'.

I wanna binge!

We're going to binge it in the morning when I continue with this speech. I tell you this: what this government is doing is disappointing, because it's demonstration of a broken promise. We heard the Prime Minister say, no less than 50 times during the election, that there will be no changes when it comes to capital gains or when it comes to negative gearing. Yet this government has broken the promise to the Australian people, because these changes that have been brought in with the support of the Australian Greens are a fulfilment of a fantasy and a dream that this government and that the Prime Minister has had his entire adult life—ever since he was at university as a student unionist, he's been passionate about bringing in these sort of changes. It is disappointing because Australians who have their heart set on building a great future for themselves and, indeed, for their families are now having their aspirations cut short and broken.

In the minute that I've got left, I want to say to the Australian people I'm so sorry that this is what you're having to endure, and I know that you are disappointed in this government, as we are. It doesn't matter how you voted at the last election. I know many people—clearly a lot—did vote for Labor because you won, but you voted on a deception that this government put before you. It is disappointing to see. I know that at the next election, this government is going to pay a price for that. We know there's this great disruption going on in this country right now politically, but it is being led, and has been aided, very much by this broken promise that you've given. Australians are sick and tired of being misled by this government. They are sick and tired of being misled by this awful government that we're dealing with. So, in part 2, which I'll get to in the morning, I'll unpack why this is such a disappointment for the Australian people.

Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. I look forward to listening to the next instalment, the next episode.

I rise tonight to recognise Global Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Day, which was marked on Sunday 21 June. Motor neurone disease, MND, is one of the hardest diseases a person and their family can face. It damages the nerve cells that control movement. Over time, people lose the ability to walk, speak, swallow and breathe. There is no cure, and the average life expectancy after diagnosis is only about two to three years.

About 2,700 Australians are currently living with MND. For every person diagnosed, there are family members, friends and carers whose lives also change—often very quickly. This year, MND Australia marked global MND day with its Sprinkle Hope campaign. The campaign features the blue cornflower, which is recognised around the world as a symbol of hope for people affected by MND. It is a fitting symbol for people living with MND and for the families and carers who stand beside them. The message of the campaign is simple: sprinkle hope for a cure and sprinkle kindness for today.

This week, members and senators received a cupcake and a small bag of edible blue cornflower petals from MND Australia. I encourage everyone in this parliament to sprinkle the petals, enjoy the cupcake and take a moment to think about the people and families affected by MND. Hope means supporting research, finding better treatments and continuing the search for a cure. Kindness means giving people living with MND the help, care and understanding they need right now. That might mean checking in on somebody, cooking them a meal or helping with transport, giving a carer a break or simply taking the time to listen. These small acts can make a real difference to a family going through a difficult time.

This was also the first global MND day since the passing of Neale Daniher. Neale was diagnosed with MND in 2013, when the average life expectancy was just 27 months. He lived with the disease for 13 years and used that time to change the way Australians understood MND. Through FightMND and the Big Freeze, he helped raise tens of millions of dollars for research and brought Australians together in the search for a cure. He faced what he called the beast with courage, humour and determination. But Neale's greatest achievement was not only the funds he raised and the attention he brought to the disease but also the hope he gave to people living with MND and their families.

Neale showed that one person, with the support of a strong community, can make a real difference. His legacy will continue through FightMND, the Big Freeze and the work of researchers, health workers, families and supporters across Australia. Neale's work also reminds us that raising awareness is only the first step. People living with MND need care that can change as quickly as the disease does. Families need clear information, practical help and services that are there when they need them. Carers also take on a huge responsibility. They're often partners, children or close friends that are providing daily care while also dealing with fear, sadness and uncertainty.

I'm proud to serve as a co-chair, with Alex Hawke MP, of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease. The friendship group brings members and senators together from across the parliament to hear directly from people living with MND, their families, their researchers, health workers and advocates. It also keeps MND on the agenda in this place. We must keep listening to people living with MND and their families, we must keep supporting researchers and health workers, and we must keep backing organisations like MND Australia and FightMND which work every day to improve care and bring us closer to a cure.

There is still much we do not know about MND, but we know that no person or family should have to face it alone. Tonight, I thank MND Australia and the entire MND community for their work. I also acknowledge every person living with MND, every family member, every carer and every friend who continues to show great strength.

Thank you, Senator Brown, for your advocacy.

Australians deserve the answer to a simple question: why is the government using our money to help foreign investment funds buy up the homes that they will never be able to own themselves? That's what's actually happening. The investors this policy is built to attract are foreign pension funds, funds whose job it is to pay comfortable retirements to people who are on the other side of the world. They put their money into Australian build-to-rent because it earns them a steady, generous return, and that return comes from one place: the rent paid every month by Australian families who have given up the hope of ever owning their own home. Think about what we are really building here: a retiree in another country, living on an income paid for by the rent cheque of an Australian.

We don't have to guess at the intent. The government says the purpose of this measure is to attract more foreign investment into Australia and for cheaper rentals. But here's how it actually works: when one of those foreign funds makes a profit renting to Australians and sends that profit overseas, it normally pays tax on the way out, but the Albanese Labor government has cut that tax in half. The fund keeps twice as much of what it makes from Australian renters. Remember what we were promised this budget was about—equity and fairness. The Treasurer stood in the other chamber and called the housing system unfair and unacceptable. What did Labor's version of fairness actually turn out to mean? It meant a higher tax bill for the mum-and-dad investor, with one investment property locked in with the help of the Australian Greens.

If the government won't listen to everyday Australians, perhaps it will listen to the rest of the world. Overnight, the United States Senate passed the most significant housing affordability law that country has seen in a generation by 85 votes to five. It was written and carried by Republicans and Democrats together—two parties that agree on almost nothing. One of the few things that they could agree on was the need to stop large, institutional investors from crowding families out of the housing market. The lesson the world's biggest economy has drawn from both sides of politics is that if you put guardrails around institutional money in housing, it causes harm.

This government is doing the exact opposite: it is paying that money to come in. They are giving subsidies to those investors, in a sense, and the damage is already showing up. In New South Wales, a build-to-rent apartment tower is charged council rates as though it were one single dwelling—one bill for the entire building, even though hundreds of families reside inside it. The City of Ryde modelled the financial impacts on a build-to-rent block of 695 apartments. Rated as is, the whole building—the foreign pension fund—pays around $92,000 a year. If you divide that across 695 homes, it roughly equates to $130 an apartment that this overseas pension fund pays, yet Australians who own their own unit up the road pay a minimum of $695. Isn't that interesting? The corporate landlord contributes about a fifth of what an Australian family pays for the same roads, the same paths and the same libraries, and the $500,000 that goes missing each year on this one building is made up for by Australians paying their rates. That doesn't sound right, does it? That is what careless government looks like. This government rolled out a tax break to lure these funds into building, and never once asked what the model would do to the communities left to live with it. It wrote the check and handed somebody else the bill, and we know exactly who that someone is. Labor has chosen to tax the family with one flat and reward the fund with a thousand. You should be ashamed. That's not fairness, and the government needs to explain why they have settled for that.

Our democracy is under immense stress. We are at risk of importing the worst of American politics—less trust, less truth and more division. If we want to understand how we got there, we need to follow the money. Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person, is a huge fan of Donald Trump. She celebrated with him at Mar-a-Lago on election night. She looks at the politics of fear and division and climate denial and thinks, 'Yes, that'll do here in Australia.' So what does she do? She bankrolls Pauline Hanson. She buys her a private plane to fly from fundraiser to fundraiser. Let's be clear. This is Gina Rinehart's One Nation.

Whether you call it PHON or you call it GRON, this movement did not appear out of thin air. It's feeding off a very real crisis in this country. Australians are doing an incredibly tough. Wages haven't kept up with prices. Rents keep rising. Families are being squeezed at the supermarket and at the bowser and at the banks. Many people have lost faith in the establishment parties. I get it. The Greens get it. For too long, governments have allowed inequality to grow while corporate profits soar. People are angry. They're frustrated. They're demanding change. They have every right to be frustrated. But Pauline Hanson and GRON are not the answer.

At the National Press Club, she unveiled a vision straight from Donald Trump's playbook: scrap net zero, abandoned climate action, privatise the ABC, shut down the SBS, withdraw from international institutions and walk away from multiculturalism. This is not a plan to lower rents, to raise wages or to make life more affordable. It's politics of fear and division dressed up as a solution, and it serves a purpose. If we are busy blaming migrants and vulnerable communities, we won't ask who's really benefiting. If you want to know who took all the money, look at who's got all the money. It's not migrant families trying to get by. It is the billionaires, and until we take on that concentrated wealth and corporate power, working people will continue to fall behind while billionaires and the politicians they bankroll keep calling the shots.

The same corporate power is on display in the fight over Browse. The Browse to North West Shelf project must not join the growing list of coal and gas projects approved under this Labor government, a legacy of climate failure that generations will pay for. Woodside wants Australians to believe that Browse is about energy security, but it is not. It is not about energy security. This project will not lower power bills. It will not make life more affordable. Browse is about one thing: increasing Woodside's profits. In fact, Woodside has made it clear that this project only works if Australians hand their gas to Woodside for free. That is why the gas industry is spending millions of dollars fighting against a gas export tax. They know exactly where the wealth from our gas is going, and it's not flowing back to the Australian people.

Woodside plans to drill dozens of gas wells alongside Scott Reef, one of Australia's most pristine and ecologically significant marine environments home to endangered blue pygmy whales and vulnerable green sea turtles. Traditional owners are fighting to protect this sacred sea country because they understand what's at stake, and all of this happening when Australians continue to endure floods and bushfires, extreme weather events that are becoming more frequent and more destructive. Yet Labor continues approving new fossil fuel projects. You cannot be serious if you claim to protect the climate and to tackle climate change while expanding the very industries causing it and driving it.

The benefits of Browse will not flow to traditional owners, to taxpayers, to local communities or to future generations. The winners are clear—not Australians, not Scott Reef, just Woodside shareholders. But this fight is not over. Australians can have their say. They can tell the government that our reefs are worth more than Woodside's profits. Let's send these gas corporations a clear message: our reefs are not for sale, our oceans are not for sale, and our future is not for sale. Tax gas exports now.

Tonight I rise to congratulate Mr Rob Gillam of Dongara in WA's midwest on being appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in this year's King's Birthday honours list. This recognition is richly deserved and reflects a lifetime of service to Western Australia's agricultural and pastoral communities.

Rob Gillam is one of those remarkable regional Western Australians whose contribution has left a lasting mark on our state and nation. From his early years farming at Irwin and, later, pastoralism at Gabyon station near Yalgoo, he developed a deep understanding of rural Western Australia and dedicated his life to serving the industries and communities that sustain it. His service has spanned local government, the Geraldton port authority, the Agricultural Protection Board, the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund and leadership of the Pastoralists & Graziers Association of Western Australia.

During some of the toughest periods faced by Australian agriculture, Rob Gillam stepped forward. As a director of Wool International, he was at the centre of the wool stockpile crisis, travelling the country facing hostile meetings and helping guide an industry through immense hardship. As chairman of the Pastoralists & Graziers Association, he was also a tireless advocate during Labor's devastating live cattle export ban, fighting for producers whose livelihoods were threatened by a decision that sent shockwaves throughout regional Australia. What stands out most is not the positions Rob Gillam held but the way he carried them out. He was known for answering the phone at any hour, listening to struggling farmers and offering practical advice, support and encouragement.

Western Australia has long relied on people like Rob Gillam—quiet achievers who strengthen their communities through service, leadership and integrity. I congratulate Rob Gillam, his wife, Ros, and their family on this well-earned honour and thank him for his outstanding contribution to agriculture, to regional Western Australia and, indeed, to our whole nation.

Australia has long debated the future of our submarine capability. The decision that we've reached is that nuclear powered submarines are the answer. Since reaching that decision, very little has actually changed, but, in recent months, some voices have been demanding that we rethink the entire project over details that they find dissatisfying.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. Australia is an island trading nation with the third-largest maritime domain in the world. Almost all of our trade travels by sea. Our fuel, food, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods and many other essentials arrive through maritime supply chains. The very foundations of our economy and our capacity to defend ourselves depend on secure access to the sea. That is not an understatement. It's an existential vulnerability, and any politician or commentator who dismisses the protection of Australia's maritime trade as insignificant or, far worse, as ridiculous is not just unserious about national security; they are negligent.

Let us also be clear about the capability that we are acquiring. Only six countries in the world operate nuclear powered submarines: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and India. By acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, Australia is recognising that the security of our nation deserves and demands capability equal to the most powerful nations of the world. Developing such a critical but exclusive capability was always going to demand patience, determination and commitment. Neither Australia nor our partners in the US and the United Kingdom have wavered on this commitment.

While we build the industrial base, workforce and infrastructure required to construct and sustain our own nuclear-powered submarines, we will acquire three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States. These submarines are far more than a mere bridge between our Collins class and our AUKUS class. They are among the most capable submarines operating anywhere in the world. The Australian Submarine Agency has confirmed that each boat we receive will have more than 20 years of operational life to serve in the defence of our country. Their delivery will be marked in history as the day Australia takes its place as one of the premier maritime powers not just of the Pacific but of the world.

But it is worth reflecting on why our Navy will be operating these submarines before our own come into service. The coalition, while in government, first delayed and then abandoned the Japanese submarine option before signing the French contract for a conventional submarine that was much slower, less capable. Ultimately, it was cancelled at enormous cost to Australia's international reputation. After years of indecision, false starts and wasted money, this government's plan is forging ahead despite the mess that those opposite created. Then there are those whose foreign policy beliefs were shaped in a more benign era. Distinguished voices now animated by nostalgia are based in tragic and dramatic claims about the very purpose of AUKUS on the strategic needs of the past. With respect to these voices, the world has changed. Our region has changed and, as we speak, military modernisation across the Indo-Pacific continues at pace. Australia must respond to the world as it exists today and not as it existed in the past. Some of these voices have decided to form a so-called independent public inquiry into AUKUS. Although its contributors are certainly not lacking in experience, it is difficult to say what they expect to achieve.

After nearly five years since AUKUS was announced, now is the time for concrete action. Vague questions and concerns are not constructive. Unfortunately, the Australian Greens are at it again. Their position deserves to be called out for what it is. It is not principled opposition. It is not strategic caution. It is ideological hostility towards the United States, hostility that is so deep it overrides any serious consideration of Australia's national security. When the Greens dismiss defending Australia's sea lanes as ridiculous and then respond to expert rebuttal by mocking a former Royal Australian Navy officer, someone who spent decades at sea actually doing the job of protecting Australia's maritime trade, rather than engage in an argument, they simply showed their hand—no substance, no alternative, simply contempt for the expertise and for the serious work of keeping Australians safe. They now also emerge when there is work to criticise. But they have been silent for all the hard work of the planning and deciding of what yet has to be done. They decry the acquisition of the Virginia class, not because of reasoned capability concerns but because of their unrestrained anti-American ideology. The irony is profound.

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, has rightly argued, walking away from AUKUS would make Australia more reliant on the United States, not less. By working with our partners through AUKUS, Australia will ultimately develop a domestic nuclear-powered submarine industry that is truly sovereign. If we choose the other path, the path that others like the Greens are proposing, and build our foreign policy on the dislike of America or who is in the chair of the president of the day, we will find ourselves less capable and fundamentally less sovereign. Jennifer Parker, the naval officer that I referenced and who the Greens chose to mock, said it best and with considerably more grace than she was provided, I might add. She said, 'Serious people can disagree on how best to protect Australian supply chains, but what they cannot do is pretend that the problem does not exist.'

The case for the Virginia class submarines has not changed. Former defence secretary Dennis Richardson put it bluntly at a Morgan Stanley summit in Sydney recently, describing the current debate as 'one of the greatest beat ups that I have ever seen in my life'. His assessment was simple: regardless of whether they have already seen service or are new, the three Virginias will give Australia greatly improved submarine capability compared to our current fleet. This is more than holding out for the future. It is a watershed moment itself. By acquiring three in-service Virginias as opposed to one new and two previously operated, Australia faces significant savings. Rather than operating two new hull classes, just using one will reduce complexity and streamline training and maintenance. This is not a downgrade. It is sound planning. These submarines will serve Australia well into the 2050s, and they will eventually retire, having served alongside the AUKUS class.

Our strategic environment has changed materially in the 21st century, and Australia must respond to the world as it is. We face a period of growing strategic competition that demands careful statecraft. Nuclear powered submarines are the only platforms that can provide Australia with the ability to deter threats to our maritime supply chains, on which our way of life depend. They alone have the speed, the endurance and the stealth necessary to effectively provide this deterrence. They are the bolt cutters that will ensure that we are never wrapped in chains.

Debate in this place is healthy. Scrutiny is essential, but scrutiny must be anchored in facts, and opposition must come with alternatives. This is a moment for strategic clarity. We are an island nation that is surrounded by three oceans in an era of intensifying competition. We need that deterrence, and we need sovereign submarine capability, and we need the industrial capability to build and sustain it here at home. This government, the Albanese government, is delivering that sovereign capability, and, before it arrives, our Virginia class submarines will ensure that we continue to maintain exceptional operational capability. This is the right plan for the security of our nation.

I'm going to talk tonight about a recent finding from the Privacy Commissioner that American Express Australia broke a person's privacy under the Privacy Act. The company failed to take reasonable steps to stop its own staff from rummaging through the private data and information of their customers when those staff had no right or reason to access. Amex were ordered to apologise, to fix their systems and to pay compensation, but at the centre of this case is a real person. The privacy watchdog calls them BAM to protect their identity. Behind that label is someone who trusted a company with their private information and then trusted the Privacy Commissioner and was then let down.

The harm came from inside Amex, where a staff member who had a previous relationship with BAM was able to repeatedly access his records, and the company had no data tracking to record the access or any active measures to prevent it. The commissioner was clear about why this matters. When staff go digging into customers' files for the wrong reasons, the consequences for that person can be serious. We're talking about fraud and potential blackmail if the information exposes a person's private details, as well as the risk of domestic and family violence where a person's safety can depend upon their information staying private. Amex has been ordered to compensate BAM for what they lost and what they went through, to apologise to them in writing and to finally put in place the data protections that should have been in place from the outset.

BAM should have never had to fight for that. Let's be clear, this fight took years with serious delay inside the OAIC. Having finally won and been handed a determination in his favour, BAM was then hit with a legal threat and a gag from the Privacy Commissioner. He was told he could not share the full determination with anyone and would be limited to sharing details published by the Privacy Commissioner in a sanitised summary of the case put on the OAIC website. The public summary published by the Privacy Commissioner softens, recasts and omits critical findings in the full determination, and, in every instance, those softening, those recasts and those omissions are in Amex's favour.

I'll now read out a few examples of those discrepancies. Firstly, the public summary removes much critical context regarding the allegations of domestic violence committed by the employee involved, the one who improperly accessed the data. The final determination states that 'the complainant provided information to the respondent alleging he was the victim of assault and coercive control perpetrated against him by the employee', while the public summary merely notes:

… the complainant raised certain allegations against the employee directly.

This fails to address Amex's knowledge of the complainant's vulnerability.

Second, the public summary removes any reference to the fact that the employee involved may still have access to BAM's personal information. By contrast, the final determination reads:

The respondent has not provided evidence as to whether all of the complainant's personal information has … been purged … the employee may still retain the ability to access it.

The public summary also edits out the fact that, following Amex's internal investigation after they received BAM's first complaint, the employee retained access to BAM's account and accessed it again. The final determination reads:

The respondent is aware of the employee accessing the complainant's account after the complainant's complaint … it is concerning that the employee continued to have access to the relevant systems that was not restricted or suspended … the respondent was already on notice regarding the complainant's vulnerability.

That's in the final determination but not allowed to be shared. By contrast, the sanitised public summary merely reads:

… AMEX … took steps to investigate, including reviewing the employee's access logs …

That little summary, the public summary, also fails to include the finding from the final determination that no access logs are kept for 70 per cent of Amex's systems.

Finally, the public summary does little to inform the public of the scale of the number of people affected by Amex's actions. As the final determination outlines, Amex has close to 90 million cards in force worldwide, with 1,500 staff in Australia and more than 70,000 globally, all with this kind of untracked access and each of whom has access to card members' data without restrictions and without anything preventing unauthorised access. There are major deficiencies in logging, meaning Amex is unable to even detect when unauthorised access occurs. Amex's actions and breaches of privacy law have a significant effect on more than one million Australians who are or have been Amex's customers. The public should be made aware of these risks. It should be the commissioner who makes them aware, not a complainant who is then threatened with legal proceedings if he tells the truth.

I'd like to finish with some words from BAM himself, but not before I thank him for trusting my team with supporting him in this matter for years. It should not have been so hard, taken so long or ended in this way. The system should have taken his very reasonable and clear complaint and acted on it promptly and transparently. It is a deep, deep disappointment that this multilevel failure has happened.

These are the words from BAM:

The Privacy Commissioner found in my favour after a drawn-out three-and-a-half-year investigation, finding that AMEX had breached my privacy. I won, but my battle continues. The Commissioner has threatened me with court injunctions if I communicate any part of the determination to anyone, preventing the public from knowing the truth about AMEX's security flaws. The past four years have been traumatic and taxing, and I ask how it is possibly in the public interest to gag and silence complainants, who speak out and protect their privacy against large corporations? How is it in the public interest to protect AMEX instead of the Australian public, including AMEX's millions of customers?

Well, I ask those questions too, BAM.

On 3 August, the world will commemorate Roja Resh, or the Black Day, when, in 2014, ISIS attacked Sinjar in Iraq and started the genocide of the Yazidi people. Thousands of Yazidis were massacred and thousands more women and children kidnapped and sold into slavery in some of the most unspeakable conditions. It was one of the darkest chapters in modern history. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced by the violence—forced from their homes, their land and their history.

The defeat of ISIS did not mean the trauma simply disappeared. To this day, I hear from the Yazidi community about the fear they still feel from what occurred in 2014, and I want to read some words from a Yazidi family that has resettled here in Australia, building their own life, who speak about this fear. They are as follows:

The genocide created fear throughout the wider Yazidi community, including among Yazidis living in northern Syria. As reports of the massacres spread, many Syrian Yazidis feared that ISIS would target them next. Families fled their homes, sought protection from local security forces or relocated to safer areas. The events in Iraq demonstrated how quickly an entire community could be targeted because of its religious beliefs, leaving many Yazidis in Syria feeling vulnerable and uncertain.

More than a decade later, the Yazidi community is still recovering from the effects of the genocide.

…   …   …

Many Yazidis in Syria continue to live with fear and uncertainty today.

Political changes, ongoing conflict, and the emergence of a new Syrian government have led some Yazidis to question whether they will remain safe in the future. Although authorities have stated that religious and ethnic minorities will be protected, many Yazidis remain cautious because of their history of persecution and reports of discrimination and abuses against minority communities in parts of Syria. The trauma of the 2014 genocide continues to influence how many Yazidis view their security and future.

The genocide had a profound impact on Yazidi culture and society. Entire villages were destroyed, families were separated, and many survivors continue to experience long-term psychological trauma. Despite these challenges, the Yazidi community has proven remarkable resilience. International aid organisations, governments, and community groups have supported reconstruction projects, education programs, and efforts to locate missing persons.

Today, the Yazidi people continue to rebuild their communities while preserving their cultural and religious traditions. While significant progress has been made since 2014, many challenges remain. Recovery is ongoing, and many Yazidis continue to seek justice, security, and recognition for the suffering their community endured. Their experience serves as an important reminder of the consequences of genocide and the importance of protecting vulnerable communities around the world.

I'd like to make one thing very clear. Standing here in this parliament, I say loud and clear to every Yazidi who has settled in Australia, whether in Wagga Wagga, Toowoomba or wherever: you are cared for, and your protection and your safety are important to all of us. The deep cultural ties you had and still hold with the land you were forced from are real, but you are home here too, and we welcome you to heal and rebuild among and with us.

I would like to associate myself with those remarks in relation to our wonderful Yazidi community. Australia successfully settled its one millionth refugee last year, and amongst that million are our wonderful Yazidi community. They're making a wonderful contribution to our beautiful country across the whole of Australia.

One of the avenues through which their stories are told is SBS. I rise as a proud co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of SBS. SBS is an absolute national treasure. There have been some divisive prophets of doom wandering the Australian political landscape who have been saying negative things about that national treasure, SBS, and I say to those people: 'Watch SBS. Actually watch it. Turn it on'. There's no better time to watch SBS than now with the wonderful World Cup going on. I want to congratulate everyone at SBS who's involved in the wonderful coverage that they're broadcasting of the World Cup.

For that monumental victory Australia achieved over Turkiye, that two-nil victory, an average of 3.035 million viewers—3.035 million Australians—were watching SBS. That's an amazing figure watching one of our national broadcasters. The total reach in relation to that match was 4,783,000 Australians. Nearly five million Australians were watching SBS, were watching Australia's wonderful Socceroos beat Turkiye. Yet there are those prophets of doom—dismal, pessimistic, bleak voices—wandering our political landscape who call for its abolition. It's absolutely disgraceful. Forty-one per cent of viewers who were watching the football on SBS were watching through SBS On Demand, and I was one of them! So congratulations on that method of making sure that all Australians can watch the world game on SBS.

We should also remember that SBS, our national treasure broadcasts in 60 different languages. It reaches all parts of the Australian community and brings Australians together, just as our Socceroos bring Australians together. Be it through TV, digital or audio, SBS reaches Australians whatever their backgrounds. The Reuters Digital news report also indicates that SBS is one of our most trusted sources of news. Not only is it broadcasting the world game. Not only is it telling the stories of all Australians. It is also providing one of our most trusted news networks. Don't abolish it. Don't abolish it—watch it! Watch SBS. Turn it on, like the nearly five million Australians who turned it on to watch Australia's victory over Turkiye.

Once again, Ipswich misses out on its fair share of infrastructure spending. I'm the only senator for Queensland with an office based in the greater Ipswich region, and, once again, Ipswich missed out in the last Labor budget. Ipswich is located in the south-west corridor, one of the fastest-growing parts of Queensland, and yet there was nothing in the budget for Ipswich. There was nothing in terms of extra road spending, rail, bridges—the infrastructure that Ipswich needs. In fact, infrastructure spending was taken away from the greater Ipswich region with the abolition of the Inland Rail project. No longer will that monumental nation-building project go through the greater Ipswich region. Ipswich will miss out again. Ipswich's fair share of infrastructure funding is going south to Victoria for the Suburban Rail Loop, an uncosted infrastructure project. No-one knows how much the Suburban Rail Loop in Victoria is ultimately going to cost, but Ipswich's fair share of infrastructure funding is being sent by the Labor government to Victoria. It's an absolute disgrace.

I was delighted to attend a citizenship ceremony in the wonderful town of Mareeba in Far North Queensland. I want to thank Mareeba Shire Council for hosting this wonderful citizenship event, where we greeted and welcomed 16 new Australians. Thank you to Mayor Angela Toppin AM for the invitation and Deputy Mayor Lenore Wyatt for presiding. It was also a pleasure to meet councillors Amy Braes and Mladen Bosnic alongside David Kempton MP, the wonderful member for Cook. Our newest Australians who became Australian citizens in Mareeba came from New Zealand, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Brazil, Switzerland and Vietnam, each strengthening our wonderful national community and bringing something unique to the Australian story. Mareeba is a proud multicultural community. The more than 70 languages spoken and over 75 different ethnicities represented in the Mareeba community all contribute in their own way to the Australian story. Thank you very much to Mareeba Shire Council; I look forward to visiting again soon. Congratulations to those 16 new Australians.

I was delighted to be asked to open the 119th annual Lowood Show. In fact, Acting Deputy President Grogan, if you want to make your way to Queensland next year, I'd be very happy to host you at the 120th Lowood Show. It was a great event. Our agricultural shows are wonderful events, wherever they're held across Australia, and the Lowood Show is no exception to that. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Lowood Show Society President, Lynell Jendra, who's a wonderful host and puts her heart and soul into the Lowood Show. I also want to acknowledge that it was very moving as we conducted the opening ceremony that there was a minute's silence for her late husband, Errol, who also made a great contribution to the Lowood Show. Events like the Lowood Show bring community together, and one of the ways in which the Lowood Show does that is involving children from all of the local schools. It was so wonderful to see all the entries into the different arts and crafts prize categories by kids from the local schools. They were bringing the community together. It was wonderful to see.

I'd like to give a special shout-out to Mr Geoff Beattie. Geoff makes the best fruitcake in Queensland. It is unbelievable. I saw his fruitcake—I wasn't allowed to eat it, which is probably a good thing for me! It's an absolutely beautiful rich fruitcake. He wins prize after prize after prize for his fruitcake. I also had the great pleasure of talking to Geoff about the story of how he became such a wonderful chef, or cook, in relation to his fruitcake. You missed the 119th Lowood Show, but make sure you come along next year to the 120th Lowood Show.

Earlier this year, I was delighted to attend the Indian Council of Australia Queensland's traditional new year Gudi Padwa event. During that event, there were some wonderful contributions from some wonderful young Queenslanders, and I was particularly impressed by a beautiful performance that was given by Ramaa Apurv Kusookar. I want to put on the record of this place how impressed I was by her performance at this wonderful festival which was held in our Roma Street Parkland. It's hard to believe that Ramaa is as young as she is, given the poise and the excellence in which she made her presentation in front of a crowd at the Roma Street Parkland. So I really want to give my heartfelt recognition to Ramaa—well done; I'm incredibly impressed—and I also want to congratulate your wonderful parents, Apurv and Sarita Kusookar, for their contribution in raising a wonderful young Australian.

I rise to speak about a proud Northern Tasmanian manufacturer with deep roots in our community: ACL Bearing Company. For generations, ACL has been part of the industrial story of Northern Tasmania. Precision engine bearings have been manufactured in Launceston since 1949, building on wartime engineering work in the 1940s and growing into a business with a global reputation for quality, precision and performance. ACL's heritage in Launceston stretches back more than seven decades, and that long history matters because it tells us some important things: Tasmanians can manufacture products for global supply chains, Tasmanians can compete, Tasmanian manufacturing is still important to our state, and it has a future worth fighting for.

ACL is not just a factory; it's a major employer and community partner. The business currently employs 65 people and contributes an estimated $6 million to $7 million to the Northern Tasmanian economy each year. Those are not just figures on a page; they represent local families, local mortgages, local spending in our shops and cafes and support for small businesses across the region. ACL has earned its social licence through decades of investment in the community through the PCYC, Smith Family scholarships, support for Brooks High School, the Cancer Council morning tea, save the Tasmanian devil fund and Tasmanian national and international motorsports, in particular, in the supercar series with the Penrite-Grove racing entry. This is a company that has not simply operated in Northern Tasmania; it has been woven into the fabric of Northern Tasmania. ACL is family, yet ACL now faces serious pressures.

At present, thanks to the US, the company is paying 25 per cent tariffs. That means one-quarter of the profits are being lost to tariffs alone. To put that plainly, if ACL makes $4 million in profit, $1 million is paid in tariffs. For any manufacturer, that is a heavy burden. There is a threat of a further 12 per cent tariff being imposed on ACL imports into the United States, which is what their president has declared. It would be destructive to that company and to our community. Half of ACL's products go into the US market, and their major competitor is, of course, an American company. If that market becomes unviable overnight the consequences for this business, for its workers and for Northern Tasmania will be profound. At the same time, the business is also dealing with the rising costs of steel, copper and other critical inputs, which puts even more pressure on that competitiveness. This is a strong business, and we must keep it in Tasmania. It must continue to be supported in order for it to flourish so future generations have the opportunity to work there.

But this challenge must be understood in the broader context of what Northern Tasmania is facing. We have seen the announcement that Boag's Brewery will cease making beer in Northern Tasmania. We have seen concerns about Liberty Bell Bay as it fights to keep its doors open to protect 216 people's jobs and others who rely on that industry and to sustain the many small businesses around Northern Tasmania that depend on that company. We know what it means when major employers come under pressure. It's not abstract. It is felt in households, in local communities and across the wider economy. At a time like this, Tasmania must remain open for business and Tasmanian workers must know that we all are prepared to stand with them.

That is why supporting ACL matters. It's also why broader trade settings matter. A free trade agreement with the European Union should be welcomed. Equally, trade agreements with the United States should work to support Australian exporters, not leave them exposed. Australian manufacturing must be backed by all governments, and businesses like ACL should be able to access export grants and practical assistance so they can remain competitive in difficult global conditions. They're happy to compete with the world's best because that's the market that they are exporting to. But, when we talk about supporting local manufacturing, we're talking about more than economics. We're talking about people, capability, sovereignty, skills, pride and place. We're talking about the rights of regional communities to have secure jobs and strong industries.

ACL has a proud history of more than 75 years of manufacturing in Launceston, with origins reaching back, as I said, to wartime production and a workforce of 66 when they opened in Mowbray. Most of us have had family or friends working there over those 75 years. The history deserves recognition, but, more importantly, it deserves a future. If we want Northern Tasmania to thrive, if we want our young people to see opportunities there and if we want our regional economies to remain resilient, then we must support companies like ACL and the Tasmanian workers who rely on them. I commend Chris Brooks and Mark Shadbolt for leading ACL every single day and the workers that make this business the special business and the family that it is. Tasmania has always been capable of making world-class products. We should never stop backing those who still do.

I want to highlight some of the other things that are affecting not just the Tasmanian community but all Australians. Australia is a strong country. We are a modern, generous and confident nation built by people from every background, every faith and every part of the globe. I've spoken many times about how our strengths have always come from the simple idea that we are better when we look after one another, when we reward hard work and when we face the future together. I speak often in this place about what I believe and what I stand for because that's what democracy is all about. We don't always have to agree in this chamber, but our democracy is worth fighting for and defending.

I have to say that the views that have been expressed in this place and elsewhere in recent times, like One Nation's politics, are so disgraceful. One Nation doesn't stand for anything. They're not a party of solutions. We had a contribution earlier this evening from Senator Scarr about the SBS. Australia is made up of people from around the globe. SBS is an important part of our culture, and it should be supported. I commend the senator for his contribution and associate myself with his contribution.

One Nation is a party of division and misinformation. They don't bring anything to Australia other than to challenge Australians and have them stand up against each other in division. They do nothing in terms of fighting for the rights of Australian workers. They talk about how they're friends of the worker, but what they say when they're outside this place and what they do and the votes that they cast in this place matter. Australians are not silly.

I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that has delivered so much for Australia and for the Australian people. We've delivered tax cuts to 13 million Australians. We've provided cheaper child care and supported early childhood educators. We back in higher wages for Australians. We want safer workplaces. We don't want bosses to be able to sack people as One Nation are advocating for. We believe in superannuation. We believe in parental leave. We believe that women who leave the workforce to care and have their children should be supported. They should be able to have access to child care. They should have the best. We believe that Australians deserve to have cheaper medicines. They need to have access to acute care when they need it in our hospitals, but they also need to be able to access, which we've provided, the urgent care clinics around the country. They are being supported and delivering the health care that Australians deserve and need.

We should not be pitting one Australian against the other. We should not be saying that people that have come from other nations do not have the same rights as we all have, because there are very few of us that are really the first people of this place. We're fortunate, in this chamber after so many years, to have so many First Nations people. I'm proud to stand with those people, and I will fight every day for our democracy.

Speaking of fighting every day for our democracy, I wanted to talk about the subject that I spoke about in my two-minute statement earlier this week about the unprecedented, extraordinary rise in the vote of One Nation and what might be behind it. I wanted to start with highlighting a study and a publication by ABC News Verify. They did an investigation into foreign influence on Australian politics, and they looked at various shady websites run out of Vietnam, and there was a later study on some websites being run out of Sri Lanka. They chose a one-week period to do this investigation.

Over that one week, they uncovered 400 posts from these two websites in Vietnam that were pretty much untraceable. They were highly sophisticated, deepfake AI videos on Australian politics. More than half of them featured Senator Pauline Hanson. They were complete fakes of Senator Hanson in hospital giving money to sick kids and so on and so forth—soft stuff through to anti-immigration and anticlimate stuff. About a third of them, on top of that, were about the Prime Minister and, once again, were putting the One Nation party in a very positive light. That was one week—400 posts in one week from two websites that we can't trace. When ABC News Verify went to a number of experts in this area, they said they could guarantee it was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the kind of content that's being generated. It's not just in Australia, by the way; this is a massive global challenge for all of us. But they said this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the political influence campaign that's coming from offshore, interfering in Australian politics and undermining our democracy.

It gets a little bit more complicated when you look at the motive or the potential motive behind this kind of disinformation campaign or political influence campaign—however you want to classify it. Is it monetising the algorithm? Are they using Australian politics to try and generate revenue? Possibly. Is it a nefarious, malicious, foreign-actor campaign or a foreign government? Possibly. That's not been ruled out. Once again, ABC News Verify in the article spoke to security experts who said it couldn't be ruled out. Is it a directly funded influence campaign on behalf of One Nation or other interests to influence our politics? Once again, no-one knows. Just to add a little bit of extra complication, it could have been all three or certainly a combination of the above.

I was with my colleagues, and we were wrapping up the Senate select committee into climate misinformation and disinformation when this was released. At the end of the Greens additional comments, we recommended an independent investigation of this as a potential foreign influence campaign on Australian democracy. As was featured in an excellent article by Alex Fein, 'It's time to call it what it is: Foreign Interference', to which I would refer senators who are interested in this—that was this week. It kind of beggars belief that millions of dollars are going into creating this kind of content. RMIT did a follow-up article, after the ABC News Verify report came out, and said that this stuff is effective. Wherever it's coming from, it is influencing outcomes here in Australia.

I'm going to deal with some interesting psychology and facts around this in a second, but we recommended an investigation because this is just the tip of the iceberg, with AI coming online as strongly as it is now. It can produce this kind of content now at an industrial scale, easily, and the services are available for those who want to buy them. There's been a lot of conversation around this lately. You can buy these kinds of services. You can buy bot armies now, and you have been able to for a while, to influence all the comments on the political page of a senator or any Australian. This is big business, and it can be purchased almost like real estate. We know the apparatus is there and how it works. Our committee, for example, uncovered significant coordinated campaigns to undermine climate action globally. We know that climate action is also linked to campaigns around anti-immigration, anti-trans—a whole bunch of kind of right-wing stuff.

I want to recommend to senators, if they want to read a really good book, Angertainment by Ed Coper. It is absolutely brilliant. I've only just finished reading it. He explains in really, really simple detail why these campaigns are so effective at influencing politics, how people vote and people's preferences. It pretty much goes like this, in really simple form—I'm only reading part of this, where he talks about how it functions. But he basically says that we're all products of our information environment in this day and age. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our information environment. There are no surprises there.

He's basically saying that the information environment is being polluted for malicious and nefarious reasons. To use his words, it's being hacked, or hijacked, by vested interests, especially political interests. He talks about engagement; it's all about engagement. He says that's the new form of capital in our attention economy. He says engagement hackers, those who can hack the algorithm—and they do; this is what these groups do—are the new gatekeepers of our attention. He says those who win the battle for our attention on social media ultimately win our opinions, and he backs this up with a lot of evidence, especially about young people who spend a lot of time scrolling on their phones.

He talks about the whole MAGA movement, and he talks about how politics is now entertainment. He says that, basically, the political right around the country, around the world, has won what he calls a pop-culture battle. He says social media rewards counternarratives and rewards disinformation. It rewards outrage, conflict and anger. In this environment—this is where it gets really chilling—he says new surveys are showing that, in 2025, for example, social media passed mainstream media as the key source of people's news, and that includes online news. Four out of 10 people now avoid mainstream media news. Personalities, celebrities and influencers are now trusted more than media outlets. In the US, the recent Pew poll showed that more than 40 per cent of Americans under 30 get their news from social media platforms and 42 per cent trust podcasts more than mainstream media news outlets. Of course, AI, once again, is going to elevate this kind of thing at scale.

What could go wrong? Well, Ed Coper surmises that the algorithm right now is making us more right-wing in our politics. Steve Bannon, when the Epstein files were leaked—there was an exchange there with Clive Palmer, which I must say Clive Palmer has denied. I don't believe him, but he's denied it. Bannon has basically said, 'If you give me a chunk of money, we'll run an influence campaign that'll completely bust open the two-party system in Australia.' He's openly spoken about flooding the room with a word I'm not allowed to use in here—BS. It confuses people and kind of turns the system upside down. People don't know whether they're coming or going, and, of course, while flooding the room, there are lots of distractions. It's been a highly effective strategy globally.

The circumstantial evidence for the rise in One Nation's vote around a massive foreign and local disinformation campaign is compelling. I urge the Australian media to dig a little bit deeper when they assume this is an organic campaign. This political party has gone from a vote of around six per cent in the polls to over 30 per cent—that is, a rise of 400 to 500 per cent, depending on which poll you go on. I'm not disputing those polls. This is unprecedented in Australian political history, and it's happened in nine months. This is a political party that is established, has had the same goals—I wouldn't even say they've had policies—and the same agenda for 30 years.

Australians have been moving away from the major parties now for over a decade, especially in the last five years. We know that they're disgruntled with politics but what's happened defies normal explanation. Clearly, people are looking at One Nation as an option, but we're not asking ourselves why. If someone has paid for a massive disinformation campaign or an influence campaign that's promoting One Nation, they're not shying away from the massive campaign infrastructure they've got around them now in Australia. They're flaunting their relationship with Australia's richest woman and other billionaires. Australians need to know about this because there are things we can do. We need to be really worried about where this goes next. This is just the tip of the iceberg for us, and it's only going to get a whole lot worse if we don't know how to identify these campaigns and put in place roadblocks and guardrails to help Australians understand they're being conned.

Senate adjourned at 20:36