If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I'm pleased to be in continuation on this very important private senator's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025. This is a bill that will make life fundamentally fairer for women, and I want to again congratulate Senator Hume on bringing this forward.

I spoke on this bill the day after the budget was handed down. In stark contrast to the stand that we took, Australians were hit with the news of this horrific budget that was handed down by this government, a budget of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for all Australians, and things have just got worse. The deception and the lies have just got worse, because now we have seen in this place a dirty, rotten deal between the Albanese Labor government and the Greens, which is selling out all Australians, including Australian women. This latest deal is to compromise those who have invested in self-managed super by preventing people from borrowing for the purposes of acquiring residential real estate. These are mum-and-dad investors. They're not the big foreign investors who've got the big tax concessions and can come into this country and get 10 or 15 per cent. These are mum-and dad-investors, and many of them are women—women who've planned for their future, who've done the hard yards and who often have far less in their superannuation balances because they've taken time out of work to care for children and raise a family. Now we see another dirty, rotten deal which compromises anyone who thought that super was safe.

I have to say that, watching social media videos last night, I saw ordinary Australians and the rage that is in our community, because this is a government which said: 'We are not going to touch negative gearing, we're not going to touch capital gains tax, we're not going to interfere with your super and we're going to give you continuity in the laws that apply to your investments and your savings,' and the government, in a dirty, rotten, stinking deal, has done just the opposite. Labor lied before the election, they betrayed Australians on budget night and they have now done a dangerous—

Sorry, Senator Henderson. Senator Watt, on a point of order?

Senator Henderson just used a word that we know is not used in the chamber, beginning with l, and I ask her to withdraw.

I'm sorry; I was distracted, which I should never be up here. But, Senator Henderson, for the benefit of the chamber, I would ask you to withdraw.

I withdraw. I want to quote from my speech, when I spoke on this bill last time and when I said:

I cannot even believe that any Australian now has any confidence in anything that this—

l, dot, dot, dot—

government says.

I wasn't, in fact, pulled up when I made that comment. So let me just say the Australian people won't cop the deception. They won't cop the fact that women are being sold out by this government every single day. And we see it again in the dirty, rotten deal that was handed down last night.

The coalition will axe Labor's toxic taxes. Axing them means lower taxes: lower taxes on small business, lower taxes on housing, lower taxes on investment and lower taxes on Australians who work hard, save hard and want to get ahead. There is a better way—not betrayal, not deception, not the sleazy sneakiness that we've seen from this government. There is a better way for a fairer, freer and better Australia, and that includes our tax-back guarantee, which we've committed to—automatic tax cuts every year to address the bracket creep rort. For a typical worker on $70,000, that means $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2, then $750, going to $1,000 in year 4. We will cap migration to the number of homes Australia actually builds. We are determined to fight these toxic taxes every step of the way.

When it comes to the superannuation savings of Australian women, again I want to say how important this bill is to continue the good work of the coalition in making and improving retirement outcomes, particularly for women, and making superannuation fairer and more flexible. Women need a much bigger hand of help than men because they have, on average, lower superannuation balances. The idea that spouses have the option to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them is a very fair and very exciting proposal for our country and for every Australian family. It sits in stark contrast to the shocking deal that was made in this place just yesterday, which will be pushed through the parliament, meaning anyone who's decided to invest in their own self-managed superannuation fund has now been sold up the river by the Albanese government.

Senator O'Sullivan?

Mr Deputy President, I'd like to seek your clarification—maybe you can come back to the chamber or have the President do it—in relation to the use of the word 'lie'. My understanding is that there hasn't been a ruling in this chamber against the use of just that word. Of course, under longstanding provisions, one shouldn't be accusing an individual, a member, a senator or anyone of any office of being a liar. But simply referring to a lie is not against the standing orders.

As I said at the time, I was momentarily distracted and did not hear exactly what Senator Henderson said. I asked her to withdraw, on the request of the minister. Senator Henderson withdrew, as she should have. I will move it on from there. I will, however, refer the matter to the President, who happens to be in the chamber at this time, and get a definitive ruling on the use of language. But my belief is that what just occurred is as the Senate should operate. Senator O'Neill, are you seeking the call?

I am, thank you very much. This is the time of the week where we get to hear what the deep, dark thoughts of those opposite are, and they put them forward in these private senators' bills. It's probably a pretty good place for Australians who might be confused by all the fear and alarm that registers on the social media to actually get an idea about what the Liberal and National parties really think and who they're really standing up for.

In this case, all the rants that we've heard, the proposals, all the work that went into putting this together by Senator Hume would serve, possibly, at best, around 103,000 people. That's 103,000 very special people that really matter to the Liberal and National parties, but what about the rest of us? What about the tens of millions of Australians who will benefit from Labor's policies? These are decent, working Australians who certainly will not benefit from this ideologically driven, narrow and unuseful contribution to the public place that's been put forward by Senator Hume. It's, supposedly, supported by her colleague who just made a contribution before me and in the eight minutes that she had—I think she spent about six minutes in total speaking. All of it was that profoundly intense, negative, breathless, hate filled, divisive, disasterspeak that has so characterised the Liberal and National parties as they seek to echo the fear and alarm that are being driven by other parties in this place.

Let's get to the reality of what this proposal—this private senator's bill from Senator Hume, who is a significant finance leader and economic thinker in the Liberal Party—is, and let's look at what she wants to do. The proposal in this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill, would primarily support high-wealth couples. It's not a bad thing if you've been successful and you're a high-wealth individual. Good on you. Australia is full of migrant families like mine that came here to create a great life, to do what they could and to work hard in the jobs that they have. If they have entrepreneurial capacity, they can go out, build a business, employ other great Australians, build the dream and become wealthy. But I've never, in the communities that I've been part of, been with people who once they make money and become a high-wealth individual want to push down on other Australians.

The Australians that the Labor Party represent are the Australians that I think we are—people who don't mind receiving a fair day's wage, paying a fair day's wage and getting the benefits of all Australians' tax earnings, tax spend, that go into the things that matter to them. These are things like being able to get their kids into a great school, like being able to go to the doctors when they need to and like being able to show up at an urgent care clinic and get the health care they need when they need it for their family, instead of having to traipse up to Maitland Hospital and sit there for seven hours before their child can be seen. Australians want these things for their families, and they don't mind paying a fair amount of tax. They definitely don't like what's proposed in this bill by Senator Hume, because this bill, designed for 130,000 high-wealth individuals, is a structure to help them undertake greater tax planning and avoidance to reduce their tax burden.

Having made a whole lot of money, this is about making sure that they never have to share that. They're driving along the same road where I live at Erina. These high-wealth individuals are driving along the same road as the single mother who's going up to work at Coles. It's not okay for somebody who's working at Coles or in a mine in the Hunter or the Pilbara or for anybody who's doing a normal job and paying their fair tax. They're driving on the same roads that are invested in by the Australian people collectively. Australians absolutely still believe in fairness. This proposal from Senator Hume is not about fairness. It's an advantage-building bill for those who already have the most.

The current rules that govern contributions to super are very generous. Working aged Australians are able to contribute up to $30,000 in concessional contributions and $120,000 in non-concessional contributions to their superannuation, and they can do that each year. The TBC is actually currently at $2 million. Now, most Australians, not this special 103,000 that Senator Hume is trying to do a special deal for with this bill, don't go anywhere near those limits. People would be absolutely delighted to be able to put $30,000 into their super. That reflects a wage like everybody who's sitting here, Senator Hume, myself, all the senators here—we're going to hit that cap every year because our superannuation on our wages is now hitting that cap. But we don't struggle—we have decent wages—like people who are out there really doing it tough. As one of these people who isn't struggling, I do not believe that anything that Senator Hume is offering is advantageous to ordinary Australians. Remember, the Liberal Party have revealed who they are. They're here for 103,000 high wealth individuals.

This proposal from Senator Hume would not benefit single people, and it certainly wouldn't benefit single older women, who are the most disadvantaged and the most at risk of poverty in retirement. What Senator Hume is proposing, what the Liberal-National Party are proposing, in this super special bill that they put out to show their credentials is that they want to give couples the scope to roll over their existing superannuation savings from the high balance member of a couple to the low balance member to optimise the tax treatment. That's code for high wealth individuals pay less tax. Let's create a bill. This is the goal, taking up the time of the Senate. This is the big thing they've invested their energy into, bringing in this private senator's bill. The Liberal-National Party vision for Australia's is to make rich people pay less.

At the same time, we've seen debate in the chamber this week where they've screamed black and blue and fought tooth and nail against a tax cut for 13.3 million Australians. I don't know—helping 103,000 people who are already wealthy pay less tax or creating a tax framework that's fair and helps 13.3 million Australians. That's the Labor way. Compare and contrast, guys. The Liberal-National Party haven't got anything for you if you're an ordinary, hard-working, decent Australian. Unless you're a high wealth individual, they're not interested in you.

It reminds me of some shows that I watched when I was a kid, shows coming in particularly from the BBC, British shows like Upstairs, Downstairs, old shows about old money and new money and the battles between those. How ridiculous is it that those who have wealth, those who are advantaged, 103,000 people, should be the focus of this legislation instead of 13.3 million Australians. Now, the bill before me—

Class warfare at its best.

Where's this class warfare thing coming from? That's not like you.

I will take that interjection. I know there's been a lot of shouting from the other side over there, but I will take the—Yes, how dare they? Exactly. But I will take the—

Have you read the bill?

Have I read the bill? Yes. I've had a look at the EM too, and, sadly, it's time I won't get back. But the reality is, yes, I have had a look. I've had a good look. This is what's wrong with the bill that is being proposed by your people. There's a problem with this bill that goes to something that I'm particularly interested at the moment, and that is when bad legislation that doesn't look forward enough and that doesn't go to looking at the consequences of its design causes a big problem, a moral hazard.

One of the things that's a problem with this bill is that it would potentially construct the gaming of preservation rules and social security payment eligibility. Now, setting up a fraudulent structure that allows the Australian people to be ripped off is absolutely not an outcome that ordinary hard-working Australians or anyone who's running a successful small business, or a large business for that matter, would think is good.

We've seen that before. When John Howard brought in the rules that changed the number of partnerships from 20, to allow places like PwC and KPMG to have up to a thousand partners, Senator Conroy, my former colleague in this place, rose to his feet and said that it was creating a moral hazard. Boy, was he right, because now we see in the full light of day how, when you don't think carefully about fraudsters, legislation gets created that allows fraud. Decent, hardworking, taxpaying Australians at all levels of the income spectrum pay a price for careless legislation, and this is certainly that.

I wish I had more time, because I can't get through everything that is actually going on to support women. The mischaracterisation of this bill as a support for women is just another joke from a party that has barely a woman in the House. I won't say that about the Senate; I respect the election of the women who are here in the Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with them in the national interest on committees, and I will always acknowledge and respect their roles. But there's barely a woman amongst them on the far side. There are no women inside speaking up loudly. Women can't get through a preselection process in the Liberal-National party. That's why they are where they are.

By comparison, we have women everywhere in our party, women everywhere in the Senate and women everywhere on the Labor benches in the other chamber. Because of that, and because of our longstanding commitment to equity and to women, we are taking practical action. So since 1 July last year, parents of newborn and adopted children have been eligible for superannuation to be paid on their government funded paid parental leave. These payments commence next week, from 1 July 2026. We did that. It's real, and it's going to help millions of Australians. It's not to help 103,000 high-wealth individuals avoid tax. We said that we were going to pay super on Commonwealth government funded paid parental leave to benefit around 180,000 Australian families every year. Ninety-five per cent of Commonwealth parental leave pay flows through to women. That's real stuff—real money in real Australians' pockets helping them to get ahead—not tax benefits for the very, very wealthy.

The Super Members Council estimates that super on paid parental leave will narrow the gender super gap by about a quarter. Super Member Council CEO Misha Schubert said:

We're not talking baby steps here—this is a huge stride forward to tackle women's retirement inequity.

So that's where we've started, to help women on leave get the superannuation on that pay so that it goes into their account. With compound interest, that makes a big difference. That's what superannuation does and that's why we are making sure it's fit for purpose, making sure that it supports women to grow their wealth and to grow their opportunity to live a fantastic and dignified retirement in this wonderful country of ours.

Paying super on paid parental leave is going to provide a boost to the retirement savings for those receiving Commonwealth parental leave pay, and it will particularly—significantly—help low-paid and vulnerable workers. So if you're not one of the 103,000, if you're a low-paid or vulnerable worker, if you're an authentic, decent Aussie who believes in fairness, this bill is not your kind of bill. This bill has got 'Liberal-National party' written all over it. It's only about the few people in the country that they want to make more wealthy at your expense.

We support this concept in One Nation because One Nation supports families, but I'll get on to that more in a little while. When I saw the title of this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I thought: 'This one is going in the bin. It's more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals.' But the bill title is false; it's misleading. Why? Is it because the Liberal Party needs to appease the Liberal moderates? Is it to attract the Greens vote? Is it because the Liberal-Nationals have become woke, continue to be woke? Oh, by the way, Liberal and Labor are exchanging barbs about females and looking after females. There's only one party with a female leader, and that's One Nation.

Oh, that's right; you're correct—the Greens.

What about Senator Wong? Women are invisible to you.

Senator O'Neill, you should not be interjecting—on your feet particularly.

I'm not sure why the Liberals would feel the need to give this bill a woke name when the contents of the bill are nothing of the sort. This bill allows a spouse to transfer some of their super to their spouse's superannuation account, to even them out. That makes sense. Small super accounts grow more slowly than larger accounts, so lifting up your partner's account is a sensible exercise in financial management. The bill is well worded. The calculation on how much of a person's balance can be transferred is clearly expressed and fair.

In an era where women are earning more university degrees than men, 58 per cent to 42 per cent female to male, it's inevitable that female earnings will outstrip male earnings in some households. This bill works both ways. It builds on our superannuation income-splitting policy of lowering the tax rates for a family with at least one dependent child and one partner not working so he or she can look after the child, splitting the income and reducing the tax to give more after-tax income, to encourage families. We introduced that concept. We also introduced tax bracket indexation to get rid of the stealth tax on income tax.

Families need support. That's a key plank to One Nation policy. There are eight keys to human progress. They include: (1) freedom, which is being destroyed in this country under the uni party; (2) rule of law, which is being destroyed by making feelings part of law and ignoring the truth and contradicting the truth; (3) constitutional continuation for the stability of governance; (4) secure property rights; (5) strong families—strong families are essential for human progress. Families are one of the building blocks, one of the two key structures. The other is the nation state rather than a globalist approach. No. 6 is fair, efficient taxation to pay for government but to minimise that taxation, to minimise the size of government; (7) is to have cheap, affordable energy; and (8) is to have honest money. All of these things are being destroyed by the Labor and Liberal uni party.

One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor's tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill.

I'm incredibly proud to stand in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Gap) Bill 2025 introduced by Senator Hume. It is an important piece of the superannuation plan. It is an important part of rectifying the structural failure of Labor's superannuation plan.

Labor likes to talk about how they created the superannuation device. Of course, what it's really designed to do is to support unions and super fund managers. They never really designed it to support those most in need. Over the years, it's taken the coalition to make structural amendments to superannuation to make it more fair. In the nine years that the coalition was in government, we made superannuation fairer, more efficient and more transparent. We did simple elements like capping fees on low balances. We banned fees on rollovers and investment switches. The coalition made expensive insurance premiums opt-in rather than opt-out for young people.

This is an important one. I remember when super first started and super payments were paid to employees. We, the coalition, abolished the $450 rule. This was the deliberate design feature of super that Labor embedded in its establishment in 1992 so that low-income earners, particularly women, weren't able to accumulate super when they earned less than that amount. It was the coalition that allowed non-PAYG income to be used for contributions below the concessional limit to attract tax deduction so that the self-employed could take advantage of super in the same way that wage earners do. It was the coalition that introduced catch-up contributions so that anyone who has not used their full concessional contribution cap could roll up five years of unused concessions, helping women who have taken time out of the workforce. It was the coalition that introduced the bring-forward rule so that three future years worth of non-concessional contributions can be made in any one year. Finally, it was the coalition that introduced the downsizer contribution that allows couples selling their family home to put the proceeds into super— up to $300,000 per person or $600,000 per couple—without breaching any caps.

I've listened to some of the contributions from the Labor members and, frankly, I'm shocked and appalled at their lack of understanding of how the super system works. Those of us who have taken time out of work to have children truly understand the impact that has on long-term super accumulations. Senator O'Neill talked about the superannuation caps that she is receiving, or reaching, as a well-paid senator, but she seems to have forgotten the millions of Australian women, and Australians right across the country, who are not in such a fortunate position. It is those people who leave work to care for their children or take part-time work who are the most disadvantaged by the super system. This is what the coalition seeks to address.

This legislation seeks to allow partners to transfer balances between the two of them. This is not, as Senator O'Neill would like to describe it, made up for some richies. This is for well-paid miners. What about those LNG workers who have just received an up to $550,000 salary package thanks to the INPEX wage increases that have just gone through? They might like to transfer superannuation balances to their partners. It is extraordinary to me that Labor seems to be able to make every single debate some sort of class warfare. But, in this country, we have well-paid wages and salaries going to mining workers, into so many other households, who are then choosing to allow their wives or partners take time off to raise their children. All that this legislation seeks to do is to make the superannuation system fairer and to ensure that women are not disadvantaged by being primary carers in their family.

I've got a quote from the Prime Minister on 12 September 2024. He said:

No mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is. That is the principle behind paid parental leave and that is the principle behind adding superannuation to it.

This will help narrow the gender gap in retirement savings. We know that, at the moment, that gender gap is around about 25 per cent. We also know that that has an impact on the rising rates of homelessness we've seen in older women. The sector that has seen the biggest growth in homelessness in this country over the most recent period, the last decade, is older women.

This sentiment is noble and fine, but it doesn't assist those women who've already had their children. This is a policy designed to assist younger women who have not yet had children or are now having children. What this legislation seeks to do is to rectify the situation for women who have already taken time out of work to be the primary carer for their children in their household. This is a good and fair and right thing to do. I don't understand why Labor would seek to penalise women who have already had children.

Senator Roberts made a fair point. This also, of course, doesn't just apply to women. This applies to men who've been the primary caregiver in their household. This allows superannuation balances to be more fairly shared in families. This should be a good thing. This is a very reasonable, Australian thing. Senator Gallagher on 2 July 2024 said:

One-third of our gender pay gap can be attributed to the time women spend caring for families and interruptions in full-time employment. As these lower earnings accumulate over their lifetime, they're exacerbating the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. Recent ATO data puts that gender super gap between 22 per cent and 32 per cent. We on this side of the chamber don't believe that women should be penalised with financial insecurity in retirement just because they take on these important caring roles.

Surely this is a signal from the Labor Party that this is legislation they would indeed support. This is, at the heart of it, addressing this inequity. Women or men who have already taken time out of the workforce to care for children or to care for ageing parents, who work part time or not at all, should be able to balance their super with their partner.

I'm perplexed to see Labor senators stand up and speak against this. I truly am. The idea that it would somehow become some sort of class warfare discussion, I think, is a real sadness and failure, particularly for every female Labor senator who comes into this place to speak against the legislation. What it says to me is that only some women are worthy of support and only some families are worthy of support. Those families who have massive super differences, either due to higher salaries for the primary income earner or due to the primary family carer choosing to take time off or work part time, are not worthy of support. Labor, of course, is consistent in its inconsistency, and this week's dirty deal with the Greens to pass toxic taxes and to introduce devastating changes to our small-business sector, to the trust sector and to others is another example of that.

I could provide quote after quote from Senator Gallagher. Here's a great one from the Treasurer. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said:

When it comes to those first months of your child's life, you can't put a price on being there.

And you shouldn't pay a price for being there.

But apparently that doesn't apply to the carer's super balance.

The Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, went on to say:

Our retirement income system is the envy of the world, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. It has its imperfections, and one of its imperfections is the gender gap when it comes to superannuation. To put it bluntly, parents—and especially mums—take much too big a hit when they take time off to have kids. The combination of the gender pay gap and the super gap means that women retire with about 25 per cent less super than men. Of course, we can't fix it overnight …

Here's an example, Labor, of being able to fix it this night, today. All you have to do is reach your hands across the aisle and vote for this very sensible, fair legislation that allows for Australian women and Australian caregivers to be treated fairly in their family. Family caregivers should not have to face superannuation insecurity, financial insecurity later in life, because we've failed to allow for a very fair and reasonable rebalancing of super balances, as this legislation applies.

It was Amanda Rishworth who, on 12 September 2024, said:

Women deserve to retire with the same financial security as men.

This is the very point that this legislation will address. It allows for better paid primary income earners to transfer a portion of their superannuation to the primary caregiver. No, to those Labor people who seek to again make this about class warfare—I can give you an example. If person A has $300,000 in their super fund and their partner has $150,000, the most that could be rolled over would be $75,000, because that would make the two funds even, bringing both accounts to $225,000 if the full amount were rolled over.

This is what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to provide equity and parity for families who share raising a family and who share adjusting their wages and their salary incomes, particularly for this important stage of life of raising children or maybe at some point caring for their older parents. There is nothing more reasonable than to see this happen, and, as a woman who took time out of my career to raise children, who then worked part time to raise my children and who took a massive income hit and have the superannuation balance to show for it—why on earth would we not say that raising children and caring for elderly parents are right and proper things to do for families to be able to choose to do? This legislation allows for that inequity of super balances to be sorted out.

I really hope that those senators in Labor who refuse the talking points from the leadership about class warfare, who think about what is fair not for women who are coming through the system who will now receive super on paid parental leave but for women who have gone before them—thousands of who, right now, across Australia, have financial insecurity in retirement because we did not make this change earlier—listen carefully to this debate. I really hope that they might be able to see through the ridiculous political warfare and make a change for Australian women, who deserve better on this.

Labor like to say that they invented superannuation, but it has taken a coalition government to make superannuation work for members instead of just unions and super funds. The 'tackling the gender super gap' bill is the next step in ensuring super is more flexible and fairer, particularly for women and particularly for primary carers, making sure your hard earned savings in super are working for you and your family not for Labor and Labor's mates.

I rise to speak on Senator Hume's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, and I must say, whenever somebody turns up in this place and claims they've found a new way to make the superannuation system fairer, my first question is always the same: fairer for who? Because that's what this debate comes down to: who benefits, who misses out and whose problems are we actually trying to solve? If you're a couple with a few million dollars sitting in superannuation this bill could be pretty useful, and if you're looking for another way to optimise your retirement finances, move money around, maximise tax concessions and make a generally good situation even better then, yes, this proposal probably sounds pretty attractive. But, if you're a woman working part time while raising children, if you're an aged-care worker or a retail worker, if you're a single pensioner or if you're one of the many older women who are heading towards retirement and wondering whether you've got enough to get by, this bill doesn't do much for you. That's why I struggle to see this as some sort of great gender equity reform.

The biggest problem facing women in retirement isn't that they can't shuffle enough money between their spouse's super account and their own. The biggest problem is that women spend a lifetime earning less. They take time out of the workforce to raise children. They're more likely to be carers. They're more likely to work part time. They're more likely to work in lower paid industries. This all adds up and is why women still retire with significantly less super than men. It's not because they don't have enough accountants or tax-planning opportunities; it's because the system has historically failed to recognise the value of the work that they do. So, when I hear this bill being described as 'helping women', I think we've got to be honest with Australians about what it actually does. There are only about 100,000 Australians with more than $2 million in their superannuation. Most people listening to this would hear that number and think, 'That couldn't be me,' and they would be right. Most Aussies aren't worrying about how to manage a $2 million super balance. Most Australians are worrying about paying their mortgage, paying their rent, paying their groceries or whether they'll ever even own a home at all, and here we are discussing a proposal that would overwhelmingly benefit people who are already doing pretty well.

Meanwhile, the people who are genuinely vulnerable in retirement aren't wealthy couples. They're often single women, women who have been widowed, women who have experienced family violence or women who have spent years caring for children, parents, grandparents or loved ones and have paid a financial price for doing so. This bill doesn't help those women. What helps those women is fixing the reasons the gap exists in the first place, and that's exactly what this government has been doing. For years, women were effectively punished for having children. You'd have a baby and step away from work for a period of time, your wages would stop and your super would stop too. That gap compounds over decades. One year becomes two years; two years becomes 20 years, and suddenly you're approaching retirement and wondering where all the money went. That's why I'm incredibly proud that this government has introduced superannuation on paid parental leave. It's one of those reforms that sounds simple when you say it out loud. In fact, when I explain it to people, the most common response is usually, 'But wasn't that already happening?' No, it wasn't.

For years, women had been doing one of the most important jobs imaginable—raising the next generation of Australians—and we treated that as if it had no impact whatsoever on their retirement savings. That made no sense at all, so we fixed it. From this year, parents receiving Commonwealth paid parental leave will also receive superannuation contributions. About 180,000 families will benefit every year. Ninety-five per cent of parental leave payments go to women. That is a real reform aimed directly at reducing the gender super gap, not a tax-planning exercise, a loophole or an accounting arrangement—a real reform that improves retirement outcomes for ordinary Australians. This is just one example.

This government is also strengthening the low-income super tax offset. I know no Australian in history has ever walked into a pub and said, 'Can we spend this evening talking about the LISTO reform?' It's not really a catchy topic, but it's deeply important to many working Australians. It means more support for lower income workers who are trying to build retirement savings. Around 1.3 million Australians will benefit from those changes, and 750,000 of them will be women. Again, these reforms are aimed at people who really need them, not people with a multimillion-dollar super balance.

Then there's payday super. This is another one of those reforms that sound boring until you think about who they really benefit. Women are overrepresented in casual work, part-time work and insecure work. They're more likely to miss out when employers don't pay super properly. Payday super means workers receive the super they've earned when they've earned it. These are simple and long-overdue changes that will help close gaps that have existed for decades.

The difference between this government's approach and Senator Hume's bill is actually pretty simple. This government is focused on helping people build retirement savings throughout their careers. This bill, on the other hand, is about helping a small group of already wealthy people rearrange retirement savings that they already have to lower the taxes they owe. These are pretty different things in my book.

While we're talking about women's economic security, let's remember some of the other things that the Albanese Labor government has already done. We've expanded paid parental leave to six months, we've delivered wage increases in female dominated industries, we've introduced gender pay gap reporting, we've invested in child care, we've expanded support for single parents, we've strengthened workplace relations and we've seen the national gender pay gap fall to record lows, because closing the gender pay gap isn't about one silver bullet; it's about recognising that women's economic circumstances throughout their careers can be vastly different from men's.

We on this side of the aisle recognise that caring has value, we understand that work traditionally done by women deserves to be valued properly, and we want to make sure women aren't financially punished for having children or taking on caring responsibilities. That's the lens through which I look at this bill, and, when I look at it, I don't see how this stacks up. I don't see how allowing wealthy couples to move money between super accounts is the answer to women's retirement inequality. I don't see how it helps single women. I don't see how it helps low-income workers. I don't see how it helps young Australians build their financial security in the first place. What we do see is another proposal that would create additional tax advantages for people who already have substantial wealth, and I think Australians are entitled to ask whether that should be at the top of our to-do list.

When I think about fairness, I don't think about who has the sharpest accountants; I think about women working part time to raise kids, I think about aged-care workers, I think about retail workers, I think about the single mums and I think about the women approaching retirement who've spent decades caring for others every day. Those are the Australians that deserve our attention and deserve a stronger retirement system, and those are the Australians that this government is focused on supporting. For those reasons, I won't be supporting this bill.

The question is that the second reading motion moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the routine of business—namely, the Albanese government's toxic taxes on housing, savings, investment, small business and younger Australians as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, 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 motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of legislation—namely, the Albanese Labor government's toxic taxes on housing, savings, investment, small business and younger Australians.

When you actually read the motion, it is a very simple one. All it says to the government is 'tonight, yes, we are sitting until 10.30 Prime Minister.' We agree we should sit until 10.30 pm. However, what is missing from the government's guillotine and their dirty deal with the Australian Greens is the ability of the Australian Senate—and for those who are here today, the role of the Australian Senate is, on your behalf, to actually interrogate the government; in other words, to ask the government questions about the legislation that it is ramming through the Australian Senate tomorrow morning—to go into committee. What does that mean? It means, at the end of second readers, the Senate goes into committee and we are able to interrogate the government in relation to the tax changes that the government are very happy to tell the Australian people are possibly some of the most substantial changes to taxation legislation that will be going through the Australian Senate.

What is worse for the people listening in to this debate is not only are we unable currently to ask one question of the government in relation to their proposed changes, but the government have today dumped on the Senate around 30 amendments. In other words, the government are so not sure about their own legislation—with the dirty deal that they've done with the Australian Greens to put through their toxic tax changes—they have now had to dream up 30 different amendments to the legislation. And the bad news is we have no ability to ask the government any questions in relation to 'Well, hey, hold on, what in God's name are these amendments going to do to the legislation?' Because remember this: prior to the election, Mr Albanese told the Australian people on no less than 50 occasions that he would be making no changes to negative gearing and no changes to CGT.

The dirty deals being done with the Australian Greens—who have never seen a tax they don't like, and would like to double it—mean we have no ability on behalf of the Australian people, as senators elected to represent the Australian people, to ask any questions about these changes. This is a government that like to stand up and say they're so sure about this legislation, that it is the right thing to do for our country, but not when presented in the next few minutes with the opportunity to allow the Australian Senate to do its job and to question the government about the impact of their changes. Remember, this bill is going through tomorrow. The dirty deal has been done with the Australian Greens. They will push through higher taxes, whilst, at the same time, not actually taking up our offer to deal with the NDIS bill to make it more sustainable.

These are the questions that I have for the government: If you are so confident in your taxation changes—getting rid of negative gearing and getting rid of the capital gains discount—why will you not allow the Senate to ask you questions? Why are you reluctant? In fact, you're not reluctant, you're full-on avoiding any form of scrutiny in relation to your taxation bills. What exactly are you afraid of?

I'm going to answer my own question. I'll tell you what they're afraid of. They are afraid that we will find out just how bad these bills are going to be. They are afraid that we will interrogate the 50—I was about to say 'lie'. President, I apologise. I stopped myself from saying 'lie'. We will interrogate the 50 times that this prime minister said to the Australian people he would not make these changes. What are the questions that you don't want answered? Well, I'll tell you what one of those questions is: the impact on the Australian people. What are the consequences you don't want examined? What are the flaws you don't want exposed?

Again, we are sitting until 10.30 tonight, but we have no ability to ask this government questions. They rammed this through a committee. Two days was all we were given, and, sadly, the committee stage brought up more questions that need to be answered. Amendment after amendment after amendment has been dumped on the Senate. All we are asking the government today is for an opportunity to ask you questions in a committee stage.

The government will not be supporting this suspension motion by Senator Cash. The government has negotiated, and been prepared to negotiate, across the chamber on passage of our legislation. We have reached agreement with the Australian Greens on how to do that. As part of that negotiation and agreement, we ensured there was enough time for every senator that wanted to speak on these tax bills to speak on these tax bills. That is what we have provided for in this motion. It's not our problem if there's a number of senators that don't want to speak on the bill. You haven't—

What about asking questions about this? We want to ask you questions.

Senator Cash, can I say Senator Paterson, Senator Ruston, Senator McLachlan, Senator Askew, Senator Antic, Senator Liddle—none of those senators have chosen to speak on this bill.

Order, Senator Cash! You were heard in silence.

We have provided, because we knew that there would be a lot of interest in this bill, the opportunity for every senator to participate. The motion allows for that.

In relation to Senator Cash's criticisms about our committee stage, there is a committee stage. The committee stage is tomorrow. You can ask as many questions as you like, and I commit that my answers will be short and to the point so that you're able to ask as many questions as you would like, as you have been afforded through estimates, through the committee process, through question time and through every other forum. You have been asking questions. I sat at estimates. We had a lot of questions there. I know Senator Darmanin chaired the Economics Legislation Committee. There were two days for people to ask questions. All of that is standard process for the passage of legislation through this chamber.

This is the first engagement the government probably has had about seeking cooperation or collaboration on the tax bills with the opposition. You didn't engage at all. The only engagement that was had on this bill was how to delay it for six months alongside a delay to the NDIS for six months.

Forgive us if we feel that some of this may be a little bit disingenuous. Senator Cash, you don't like the bill. You don't want it to pass. I think you've made your mind up about the answers to the questions, but you've chosen not to engage on it other than to seek to delay this bill for six months. We have reached agreement with the majority of this Senate for these bills to pass. It's important that these bills pass. You have all the time in the world, if you choose, to speak on these bills.

All the time in the world?

We've provided that time tonight. If your senators choose not to speak and don't want to participate in that, that is an individual decision for them. We will work through the speakers list. There are a number of second reading amendments to go through before we get to the committee stage, but we have negotiated an orderly way for this bill to proceed through the Senate, which gives senators the respect they deserve.

It being 10.10 am, pursuant to order, we will move to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026.

In part 2, in continuation from last night, let me be crystal clear—this government has indeed misled the Australian people. The biggest misleader of all was the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said, on no fewer than 50 occasions, that he would not touch capital gains or negative gearing. The Prime Minister couldn't take these policies to an election because he knows that they are an absolute stinker. What this government is doing—with their partners at the other end of the chamber, the Greens—is undermining the aspirations of Australian people. This is an absolute stinker. This is the worst budget that this country has seen in over 30 years, and the Australian people know it.

The Australian people know what's going on here. They know that it's got nothing to do with generational equity, as we keep hearing. It's got everything, though, to do with a blatant tax grab. That's all they're doing, because even their own modelling shows that it's not going to build a single extra house. In fact, there are going to be 30,000 fewer homes built as a result of these changes because investment has been dragged out of the market. We're seeing it already. We're seeing clearance rates more than halve across the country. It's down now to the period during the height of COVID. So this isn't about generational equity; this is a blatant tax grab. It's about generating another way for this big-spending Labor government to take more revenue from working Australians to fund their spending addiction. When the government runs out of money, what do they do? They come right after yours.

The Australian people have seen these policies before. Remember, back in 2019, when Bill Shorten tried to introduce them? That was something that he, to his credit, actually had the courage to take to the election, and guess what? The Australian people rejected it. Having learnt that lesson, the Prime Minister saw that, if he took these changes that they're now bringing into the election, people would reject it as they did in 2019. He didn't have the courage to do it, so he hid it from the Australian people. He said: 'We're not going to do this. No changes.' Fifty times, he said it: 'No changes.'

The electorate knew that those policies stank back then, and they know right now that these policies stink. The Treasurer claims to be the fount of all knowledge when it comes to his political hero, Paul Keating. He learnt nothing from what the repercussions were for Mr Keating with his infamous 'l-a-w law' broken promise on tax cuts in 1993. Like that episode, this terrible Labor government has breached the fundamental trust of the Australian electorate.

In the lead-up to the recent budget, the Prime Minister said, 'There's nothing to see here.' He was asked by a journalist, 'Can you rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax settings?' The Prime Minister then responded: 'Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.' The Prime Minister even acknowledged how many times he had said that he was not going to touch these things. Asked again on 17 April, he said: 'I rule it out. I rule it out. I have responded to that lots of times.' These words have not aged well.

This very debate is evidence of the Labor government's contempt for the Australian people. As has been said time and time again, no-one voted for these laws and no-one voted for these new taxes. This government is attacking the aspirations of Australians. This is a government that aspires to have Australia become a place where investing for the future is a bad thing. This is a government that is driving the nation to be one where aspiration simply becomes a fantasy, where the hard worker is punished and where the everyday Australian feels that it is impossible to get ahead. That's how Australians are feeling already.

But now with this, I lament, it is getting so hard, particularly for young Australians. Maybe they can't quite afford to buy their own home just yet. Of course we know that that's the reality for almost everyone. So what do they do? They want to invest in some shares to help build their equity and build their wealth. But now that is being taken away from them too because they're going to get taxed at a minimum of 30 per cent. What if you're earning less than $40,000 or $50,000 a year? You're going to be taxed at 30 per cent. The first tax rate of 30 per cent doesn't kick in until $45,000. It's just insane what you're doing here.

According to the October 2024 survey by HSBC, gen Z are quite financially active and willing to take on more risk when investing. Given this generation is facing challenges accessing the housing market, they are taking it upon themselves to build wealth through methods more accessible to them and allocating more of their income to do so. Gen Z are increasingly using pooled investment securities like exchange traded funds, or ETFs. According to Vanguard, nearly one in five gen Z Australians reported holding ETFs, and 18 per cent of gen Z said they hold cryptocurrencies. Overall, 45 per cent of gen Z, millennials and gen X reported holding at least one investment product. One 20-year-old, who the Australian newspaper interviewed about Labor's proposed changes, said it will only make it harder to save for a deposit, the very thing that they are saying these tax changes are all about. This is actually undermining that aspiration and that goal of so many young Australians.

I've got two of them in my home, my son and my daughter. They're 18 and 20 years of age. There are their friends and the people they're at uni with. My son's a tradie. He's doing an apprenticeship. There are his mates that he's connected with working on the job sites and on the tools. How are they going to get ahead under this policy and under what this government's doing? It does not make any sense. This is just a blatant tax grab. That's all that this is. It's so that you can continue to fund your addiction to spending rather than take the difficult steps and decisions to actually constrain your government's spending. Removing the capital gains tax discount on investments like shares and ETFs is actually going to disincentivise people from investing and increase the difficulty for younger Australians to get ahead. That's what's happening.

For many young people, renting a home is not just expensive; it's consuming an unsustainable share of their income. Do you remember that old 30 per cent rule on housing? It's now heading well above that. In some cases, even just renting a home is out of reach. The median weekly rent for homes across Australia's capital cities is $724 per week. Meanwhile, the median personal income for Australians aged 24 and under is roughly $455 a week. That's $23,840 per year. This means that the average young renter would need to hand over every dollar they earn, and then some, just to cover the cost of rent, even without accounting for utilities, transport, groceries—all the things that you need to. The modelling for the property industry by economic firms found that combining a CGT discount cut with negative gearing restrictions would push rent prices up by 2.4 per cent in 2029-30. A 2.4 per cent increase on today's median rent will inevitably put more pressure on young people who already lack the financial buffer to get ahead and to shoulder it—again, disadvantaging the young people that this government is claiming to be helping.

I'll turn to specific issues in my home state of Western Australia. Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 represents a significant threat to minerals exploration and the long-term future of Australia's mining industry. This is a front-of-mind issue for me as a senator for Western Australia. My state is the home of mining exploration. The impact disproportionately falls on junior exploration companies, which dominate early-stage mining activities. They account for approximately 70 to 75 per cent of Australia's geological discoveries. Reduced exploration will mean fewer discoveries; fewer discoveries will mean fewer mines; and fewer mines will mean less government revenue, fewer royalty payments, and reduced economic activity across our nation. And make no mistake, this will have an impact on jobs directly and indirectly.

According to the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, 84.5 per cent of retail investors view the current CGT discount as essential or very important, and over 85 per cent of surveyed investors anticipate reducing or exiting investments in junior explorers because of these changes. What this government is doing is undermining investment in this country—investment that is critical to Western Australia and critical to Australia's economic prosperity. We don't actually make too many things in this country anymore, but there’s one thing that we do exceptionally well, better than anywhere else in the world—and I'm proud to say this as a Western Australian—and that's how to extract minerals and sell them across the world because they are very, very valuable. This tax bill that we're dealing with right here undermines that ability for Australia to continue to bat way above its average and make prosperity for the entire nation.

I rise to strongly support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. This chamber comes one step closer to delivering a tax system that gives a fair go for working Australians, which is something that those opposite simply cannot stand. Nobody in this country right now is saying, 'Yes, we've got the housing settings in Australia right.' Nobody in this country right now is arguing that giving tax breaks to wealthy investors while young people and working families are locked out of their homeownership dreams is fair. Fortunately, there is one party that is willing to stand up and do something about it—and that is the Australian Labor Party. It's not easy, but it's the right thing to do. And if those opposite stuck to their own values, their party might not be in such disarray. This is the single most significant tax reform this country has seen in nearly a quarter of a century. It tips the scales back in favour of working people. And those opposite have the gall to come in here and oppose it. They come in here backing the vested interests of powerful people over the powerless. So let's talk about what this tax bill does, and let's talk about why they oppose it and why One Nation wants to kill it.

This bill cuts taxes for working Australians. We have already legislated a reduction in the lowest marginal tax rate, from 16c in the dollar down to 15c and then down to 14c. That is real money every year in the pocket of every working Australian. This bill delivers more today: a new tax offset for working Australians, a permanent annual tax offset for every eligible worker in Australia. Why would you vote against that? This is a $1,000 instant tax deduction—no receipts, no paperwork, no issue. Around 6.2 million Australians will benefit. Why would you vote against that? More than a quarter of the people who will benefit from that are under 30, and more than half of them are women. Add it all up. A worker on average earnings will be up to $2,816 a year better off from 2027-28 compared to where we started. This is a Labor government delivering for working people who earn their money through a wage, not a property dividend. This is not a one-off sugar hit; it is established permanently and structurally for future generations. I would like to remind the Liberals and One Nation that they're the people that you are supposed to be standing up for—working Australians. We are meant to be acting in the interests of Australia's future and the working people who are building this nation. They need someone on their side, and that's exactly what Labor is doing while those opposite are acting with shameless self-interest—the same self-interest that got Australia into this mess, driving rents up and putting homeownership out of reach, perhaps for good.

Now let's talk about housing, because this is where the story of intergenerational housing inequity really starts, and it's a story the Liberals don't like to tell. In 1999, the Howard Liberal government introduced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount. It was a single policy decision that changed everything. That worked out very well for people who already owned assets. It worked out very well for people building their property portfolios. It worked out very well for people with access to capital. But, for younger Australians trying to buy their first home, it has been an economic disaster. We have watched investors compete against first home buyers weekend after weekend in our suburbs. We have watched homeownership move further and further out of reach. Now this government has the courage to act, not because it's politically easy but because it's right.

Since John Howard introduced the CGT discount, house prices have risen more than 400 per cent. In the same period, wages have risen less than half that. For 25 years, we've watched house prices run away from wages thanks to the Liberal Party. Homeownership amongst Australians aged 25 to 34 has fallen by seven percentage points. In some parts of Queensland, my home state, homeownership is as low as 20 per cent. For the first time since World War II, a majority of Australians in their early 30s do not own a home and may never own a home. Let that sink in. That is the Liberal Party's legacy, locking young people out of the housing market and throwing away the key. That is 25 years of broken, rigged systems that our side finally has the courage to fix. As Treasurer Jim Chalmers put it when he introduced this legislation, this is about making aspiration and opportunity the birthright of every Australian, not just some.

So what are we doing about it? We are replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with an inflation adjusted indexation so that only real gains are taxed, not paper gains—not inflation but real gains. We are limiting negative gearing on residential property to new builds from 2027-28. This will channel investment where it is needed—into new housing supply, not into bidding up the price of existing homes that a first home buyer is also trying to purchase at a weekend auction. Over 80 per cent of new investor lending currently goes to existing homes. We are changing that. These changes will help around 75,000 more Australians achieve their dream of homeownership. That's 75,000 families and 75,000 sets of keys to a front door of a home of their own.

For those who own an investment property purchased before budget night, nothing changes. So the scaremongering needs to end. We are not going after people who played by the rules that existed. We are changing the rules for tomorrow's future because Australians deserve the same fair go that previous generations in this nation had.

Let's talk about the people of this chamber who are voting against it. The Liberal Party and One Nation are lining up day after day to block these reforms, and Australians deserve to know why. If you understand who benefits from keeping the current system exactly where it is, you get an idea of where they're going on this issue. You only need to have a look at the register of interests—it's publicly available online—and you will find senators and members owning multiple investment properties and benefitting from these tax arrangements. They have personally accumulated wealth—

I'm not surprised you're arcing up about it, Senator Henderson, because you are absolutely part of the problem. People who have personally accumulated wealth through these very tax settings are the ones who are coming in here defending them while working Australians and young Australians cannot get into a house of their own.

It's not just me arcing up; it's the Australian people.

You come into this place, Senator Henderson, defending the rights of vested interests over the working people of Australia.

You're destroying younger Australians.

You are part of the problem, and it is that cynical betrayal of the Australian dream that has got the Liberal Party into the mess that they find themselves in. It's no wonder that, when I went through Hansard, I found a curious thing. A lot of your senior leadership team has been found missing on this bill. Why is that? It's because they're smart enough to know that they shouldn't be voting against the interests and speaking against the interests of working Australians.

As a Queenslander, I know exactly what's going on in our housing market at the moment. A young couple in Caboolture trying to save a deposit for a home just want a fair go. They don't own multiple investment properties like that lot over there. A nurse in Mackay who's renting with her young family after a recent divorce doesn't benefit from a CGT discount. A tradie in Toowoomba working overtime, hoping to one day own his own home, has nothing to gain from the status quo. In fact, he's hurt by the status quo that Senator Henderson and all her mates on the other side are trying to argue in favour of, because it benefits them, not the people outside of this building that we're trying to stand up for.

It sickens me that people would come into this place and put their own personal financial interests above those of working people—nurses, tradies, teachers—out there from where I come from who are struggling to get into the housing market. Working people need someone to stand up for them, and it will be this Labor government. It certainly won't be that rabble over there. So don't come in here voting for secret vested interests and putting the interests of working people to the side. We will stand up and we will call it out every single day of the week.

Let's be honest about the interests that those opposite and One Nation are standing up for. Those are the interests of Australia's billionaires propping up the Liberal Party and propping up One Nation. Is it any wonder why they come into this place and argue against the interests of working Australians? What do those billionaires get in return for their money? They get a Liberal Party and a One Nation coming in here voting against a pay rise for childcare workers. They get a Liberal Party who is willing to keep house prices up, up, up. They get politicians standing up at the dispatch box defending a tax system that rewards capital over work. Labor will not allow this to happen to this country. We will not allow the interests of billionaires to veto the aspirations of working Australians. We will not be Americanised. It is really shameful that those opposite would trade their values away from those of the Australian people.

The good news in this bleak political landscape I see in front of me is that this budget also provides for a bright future for Australia. We are continuing to build our healthcare system that was absolutely trashed under the Liberal-National government. They tried to drive bulk-billing rates into the floor. Under this government, we've opened 137 new Medicare urgent care clinics right around Australia. There are 26 in my home state of Queensland alone in places like Brisbane, Buderim, Cairns, Capalaba, Carindale, Gladstone, Mackay and Greenslopes—the list goes on. Most recently, the very last one of our 137 urgent care clinics was opened in Caloundra, and I was very pleased to welcome Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to the Sunshine Coast to help us officially launch that new urgent care clinic, which saw over 110 patients in its first three days of operation—110 patients on the Sunshine Coast who didn't need to put their hand in their pocket. They didn't need to make an appointment. They could walk in and receive world-class care from a GP and a nurse in their own community, and that is exactly what Labor delivers for the working people of this country.

I'm also proud to say that bulk-billing rates in this country are going up. From November 2025 to January this year, more than 81 per cent of GP visits were bulk-billed—the biggest quarterly increase since the pandemic. In communities like mine, in the seat of Longman, on the north side of Brisbane and around places like Caboolture, bulk-billing rates have jumped by 30 per cent. We've also delivered a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators—workers, who are overwhelmingly women, who have been chronically undervalued and underpaid under the opposite side of politics. A typical educator in this nation is now earning $150 more a week because of Labor.

From 1 July next week, paid parental leave in this country 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. One Nation voted against it. The Liberal Party didn't support it. It was Labor that delivered 26 weeks of paid parental leave for working women and families in this nation. We also knew it was important to put superannuation on top of that paid parental leave to close the super gap, and guess what? That mob voted against that too.

The government wants us to believe that this is courage, that it is solving the housing crisis for generations of young people locked out by a tax system that treats housing as a commodity rather than a human right and that, after decades of cowardice, Labor has finally found a spine on negative gearing and capital gains tax, but don't believe it for a second. These are policies that have torched housing affordability for entire generations and allowed property investors to run taxpayer subsidised rings around everyday working people for decades. But, in typical Labor fashion, we see them fluff the policy and preserve the wealth of the rich to access unfair tax breaks in perpetuity.

We are backing this bill because it puts an end date on these scam tax breaks, but the grandfathering of entire property empires is shameful. Labor have told young people that these policies are the reason you can't afford a home, and then they bake in unlimited tax breaks for the wealthy. Everyone who has already got rich off this keeps every cent. Everyone else—the young person scraping for a deposit, the renter priced out—gets nothing. Is it any wonder young people are angry and frustrated as their struggles go on and their material conditions don't improve while every property baron who has already used these taxpayer advantages to build an empire of bricks and mortar gets to keep playing by the old rules forever? Think about who that protects. Investors in this country that own dozens of properties get these tax breaks while every nurse, every teacher and every check-out worker pays tax on every single dollar that they earn.

This was never a minor concession; it has been a wealth-hoarding machine. There are $33 billion a year in negative gearing handouts for people with two or more investment properties—this is money that could directly fund cost-of-living relief for renters and mortgage holders—and that includes 11,000 landlords with seven-plus houses who claimed $1.9 billion from 98,000 investment properties. The system is built for the wealthy and delivers for the wealthy. This is not real reform; it is the same old, same old dressed up as something more generous. I can picture the property barons right now—portfolios stacked, decades of hoarding locked in a safe, grinning like the cat that got the cream. They know exactly what unlimited grandfathering means. Their wealth is untouchable.

Labor had a once-in-a-generation chance to claw back hoarded wealth and hand power back to ordinary people, but they looked away and missed the opportunity. This is a government that will never touch its rich mates' wealth, even while admitting that wealth was built on a rigged system. For decades, the Greens have argued that unfair tax concessions are pushing homeownership further out of reach and driving inequality. While Labor and the coalition spent 25 years protecting this rort, we were the only ones fighting for a tax system built for people, not portfolios.

The Greens have secured an amendment that will prevent wealthy property investors from exploiting a loophole to use self-managed super funds to buy up tax advantaged investment properties and will remove ministerial discretion that would have allowed the minister to wind back these reforms. It is a small step in the right direction, but what really needs to happen is this. Scrap the capital gains tax discount, end negative gearing, tax billionaires and big corporations properly, tax the one per cent, and build public homes at the scale that is needed so everyone can have a roof over their head. That is real reform: wealth, power and ownership wrenched back from the ultrarich and billionaires and returned to the people.

But Labor's state governments are wrenching public homes from communities and the people who live there, demolishing them and handing them over to private developers. It is happening in my neighbourhood in Sydney. It is happening in Melbourne. It is happening across the country. Labor governments are demolishing public housing for the interests of private investors and private developers, and good on the communities who are resisting this and who want to protect public homes in their communities—some have lived there for generations in some cases. Good on them. They will keep fighting, and we will keep fighting with them.

Labor's lack of ambition to solve the housing crisis is staggering, but the same is true for climate, for higher and higher uni fees and for everything else. They are completely wasting their majority government by refusing to make big, bold changes. Instead they are tinkering around the edges. Well, enough of that. Labor is not going to fix any crisis. Let's not be fooled by their words, which are not followed up by the action that is actually needed. The Greens are not here to facilitate their failings; we are here to take them on and to win.

I first want to address an issue that was raised in previous contributions this morning: the very unfortunate reflection on some coalition senators who the government alleges are not interested in these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, because they're not listed to speak. I want to put on the record, very clearly, that Senator Liddle was granted leave yesterday because she is attending a funeral today. Senator Gallagher named Senator Liddle, casting an aspersion on her, because she's not listed to speak. That's a disgrace. Acting Deputy President Sterle, through you, I would ask the minister to return to the chamber to correct the record and apologise.

Senator Mulholland also made reflections on a number of coalition senators. She didn't name anyone. I expect more coalition senators will be speaking on these toxic bills. For someone as senior as Senator Gallagher to cast aspersions on Senator Liddle, knowing—or assuming that she knew—that the Senate granted Senator Liddle leave not to be here today because she's attending a very significant funeral, is absolutely beyond the pale. I am asking, through you, Acting Deputy President, Senator Gallagher to please return and apologise to Senator Liddle and correct her erroneous statements.

Mr Albanese and the Labor government can try to run, but they cannot hide from the Australian people. What we've just witnessed in this place is a dirty, rotten deal to sell out Australians. Labor deceived all Australians before the election, betrayed Australians on budget night and has now done a dangerous and dishonest deal with the Greens, which will mean toxic taxes on housing, savings, investment, small businesses and younger Australians. I want to have a look at some of some of these headlines. I won't hold them up, because that would be using a prop. Today the Herald Sun reads: 'CAVE-IN: Albo accused of'—the L word—'again after "dangerous deal" to fast-track controversial tax grab on Aussies. PM UNDER GREEN THUMB'.

The Australian says, 'LEFT-WING PARTY TO DEMAND MORE CONCESSIONS ON NDIS REFORM BILL'.

Senator Henderson, resume your seat. Do you have a point of order, Senator Grogan?

I do, Acting Deputy President. While Senator Henderson said she won't hold up the props, because they're props, she is holding up the props.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Grogan. Senator Henderson, I did hear that. I did see the hand come up, and I know it won't come up again.

Thanks, Acting Deputy President. I again quote from the front page of the Herald Sun: 'CAVE-IN: Albo accused of'—that L word, which I can't say—'again after "dangerous deal" to fast-track controversial tax grab on Aussies. PM UNDER GREEN THUMB'. Today's Australian says: 'LEFT-WING PARTY TO DEMAND MORE CONCESSIONS ON NDIS REFORM BILL. LABOR HIT ON SMSF HOUSING INVESTMENTS. Paying for Greens' 'kill' plot'.

Australians cannot trust a word this Prime Minister says. Before the election, he said there would be no changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing or superannuation. This was his bond. He said:

My word is my bond.

His word means nothing. We cannot trust anything more this Prime Minister says.

This is a gross deception to which Australians have been subjected, and this latest dirty deal to prohibit self-managed super funds from borrowing to purchase residential real estate is another kick in the guts for mum-and-dad investors who thought their super was safe under Labor. Here is my message: your super is not safe. Your savings are not safe. Your investments under this toxic government are not safe. Guess what's coming next? The family home. The Prime Minister says, 'No, we're not going to target the family home.' We can't trust him, because we know that when Labor runs out of money they come after yours.

Of course, this prohibition on borrowing through SMSFs has nothing to do with building more homes. This is all about appeasing the big boys in the industry super funds—and the unions, which have their tentacles wrapped through every part of these companies. That is a disgrace. After the shocking corruption we've seen in Victoria, where some $15 billion has been funnelled through Big Build projects in corruption and rorts, written and authorised by the CFMEU, we now see this dirty deal.

Australians are speaking with their feet. Nearly $8 billion has flowed out of industry super funds into self-managed super funds in the past year alone as more Australians choose to take control of their own retirement savings. So many Australians are saying, 'We cannot trust the industry funds to put our interests first.' Is it any wonder? Industry super funds control hundreds of billions of dollars in workers' retirement savings, yet they too often have operated with inadequate transparency, entrenched poor governance structures and board appointments driven by union affiliation, rather than merit. Australians are increasingly questioning whether their retirement savings are being managed solely in their best interests. This is not an attack on the big end of town. The big end of town don't have their own private, self-managed super funds. These are mum-and-dad investors. The big end of town are the big corporations and the big foreigners who get tax concessions. What a joke!

As for the Greens, they do this deal and then stand up, make all these excuses and say, 'Oh, no, it's really terrible.' They've done this dirty deal. The Greens have sold out the renters of Australia. The Greens have even sold out people with disability. The Greens will not stop.

What we know is that no-one voted for these new taxes. The Prime Minister didn't have the ticker—he didn't have the heart or the courage—to say to the Australian people, 'I want to change the tax system, and I'm going to take it to an election.' Labor knew exactly what they were going to do. I know, on that side, despite all the protestations that we are hearing, there is a lot of deep concern, even amongst Labor members and senators, about what this budget has done to so many Australians. It is a crime.

As for the Greens deal, of course they've done nothing to grandfather the negative gearing arrangements for those that are in existence, but they've punished young Australians. Young Australians have been denied the opportunity to negatively gear—except for a new build, an impossible dream for so many, which could take two, three or four years. The Greens, in doing this dirty deal, have particularly sold out young Australians—young Australians who wanted to invest in their future through the purchase of shares or property or through utilising their own self-managed super fund—and the renters of this country.

What has happened is extraordinary. We have got the death tax, a tax on family savings and a tax on renters, first home buyers and young Australians trying to get ahead. We now have a tax on small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs—on the engine room of the Australian economy. This is a disgusting, disgraceful budget of broken promises—a budget that breaks the Australian dream. It is an assault on aspiration, pulling the ladder of opportunity up from young Australians before they get their feet on the first rung. This is a bad-faith budget which does nothing to improve intergenerational inequality; it makes the problem worse. Labor's budget isn't one of intergenerational fairness; it's intergenerational fraud.

This budget is unravelling faster than anything we've seen in this place before. Every week, another broken promise surfaces. There was a death tax buried in the fine print along with dodgy inflation data and a secret $200 billion income tax hike. The Treasurer can't even keep track of his own deceptions. He doesn't even know how many young Australians have shares. He did that interview with that magnificent young podcaster who had to correct the Treasurer, and here he is scrambling with his papers because he didn't even understand that the changes to capital gains tax punish young Australians, including those seeking to buy shares or who have shares, more than anyone else. Mr Chalmers' economic model has one setting—to stoke inflation, tax inflation, spend inflation. Australians are living with these consequences at the supermarket, on their mortgage, in their pay packet.

I was also just flabbergasted to hear Senator Mulholland say, 'Well, we're here looking after the salary earners of Australia and Australian workers.' Australian salary earners are entitled to invest in their future, and the tenor of Senator Mulholland's entire contribution was: this doesn't matter to them; we need to look after their salary. Of course, that's not in debate but why should salary earners be denied the opportunity to invest in their future? Because these tax changes crucify anyone wanting to put a bit away for a rainy day, either for themselves into the future, for their retirement, for their kids or for their grandkids.

What a title we have from this Prime Minister—the highest-taxing government in Australian history. The Prime Minister has now confirmed $273 billion in taxes Australians did not vote for over the next nine years. It is time the truth be told. Debt is heading towards $1.25 trillion. The interest bill is $80,000 a minute. That's 12 credit cards being issued per Australian behind their backs. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes, and it's the next generation being handed the bill.

The coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2, and supports schedules 3 and 4 of these bills. We will fight these toxic taxes tooth and nail. If they become law under Labor, a coalition government will repeal them. Our plan is the opposite of Labor's—lower taxes, lower inflation and an economy designed to back the self-starters of the nation, not kneecap them. You work, you risk, you invest, you believe in this country and you have the certainty under the coalition. Hopefully, the next government will be a coalition government which will back Australians every step of the way.

I want to finish on the shocking impact that this budget is having on housing. The government's own budget papers say 35,000 fewer homes will be built as a direct consequence of these new taxes. That's not our number; that's the number in the budget papers. When you tax something, you get less of it. That's not ideology; that's economics 101. That's what's in the budget papers. The more you tax housing investment, the less housing investment you get, and the government has decided that's a price that young Australians in particular should pay. So there is all this rubbish from the government and the Greens about intergenerational fairness yet, if you strip away the rhetoric, look at the budget papers, you will see that there is lower supply, which, combined with the government's own migration overshoot of 90,000, means higher demand, lower supply and higher prices. That is not fairness. This is a housing disaster hiding behind a focus-group-tested phrase, and we can see it in action already. Auction clearance rates are going through the floor. Confidence is being sapped out of the housing market. But Labor could not care less because they're bringing in another 1.4 million people—the population of Adelaide—and, of course, we are all paying the price of these grossly irresponsible policies. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill is a massive shake-up. It is the biggest shake-up of our tax system in a generation, and it strikes at the heart of this toxic relationship between capital gains tax and negative gearing, an interaction that came about through the Howard government back in 1999. It led to a complete decoupling of salaries from house prices. It was meant to divert capital into the share market and into productive activity, and, instead, it turned housing from a human right into a speculative asset. Add 15 years of cheap credit, and the whole thing detonated.

In 1999, it cost around four times your median salary to buy a house. Fast forward to now, and we now have a situation where it costs around eight times. However, it's very much location specific. In places like Melbourne, it's about eight times your median salary. In Sydney, however, it's 10 times the median salary. These cities are now in the impossibly unaffordable category. That's a message. The average age of a first home buyer in 1999 was in their late 20s. It's now 34 to 36. Westpac reports, this year, that one in five people who are applying for first homeownership loans are actually 40 years and over. Just think about that—40 years and over and one in five. That tells you that people are actually ageing into housing. This has a multiplicity of knock-on effects. It has a detrimental effect on whether people have relationships, settle down and have children. Is it any wonder then that our fertility rate is in freefall? It currently stands at 1.7, which I'm told is actually not bad for Australia, but it should be 2.1 and above if we are to remain a vibrant community. Something has got to give.

We can continue to admire this problem, or we can do something about it. This Labor government is administering the bitter medicine that this country has needed for a very long time in order to save the patient—in order to restore hope to a generation of young people who have lost hope when it comes to housing. We've created a generation of people in this country who believe that they are going to be lifelong renters, and that's not good enough. We don't accept that status quo.

These changes will mean that negative gearing is now limited to new residences—new homes. We believe that these changes will result in 75,000 homes moving from property investors to owner-occupiers. And, yes, the modelling does suggest that there will be some reduction in new house builds of around 35000, but this is being more than offset by our $47 billion package which is designed to boost housing supply, cut red tape and skill up more tradies in construction. On the supply side, we have ring fenced 100,000 new builds just for first home buyers, and these deals are starting to be done with the state governments. The first one was in South Australia. We've also, in this budget, allocated $2 billion for enabling infrastructure. This means money for things like powerlines, pipes and pavements so that new builds can be fast-tracked.

We know that there is more to do, but this certainly builds on the already ambitious housing agenda that we brought in in our first term. As you know, the five per cent home deposit scheme has been incredibly successful. Over 250,000 people have entered the housing market as a result of this, 81,000 of them in regional communities. We've also introduced the Help to Buy scheme, which is really targeted for people on modest incomes, and we continue to restrict foreign investors from purchasing existing homes until mid-2029. All of these measures are designed to boost housing supply and enable people to get into homeownership with a smaller deposit.

Now, thanks to these taxation changes—changes to capital gains tax as well as negative gearing—we are ironing out the distortions that have turned housing into a speculative asset and seen this absolute boom or explosion in house prices and a legacy of unaffordability for the next generation. We are already seeing change, with a market adjustment occurring. This $12 trillion housing market is taking a bit of a haircut right now, but it turns out that the sky is not falling in. Twelve trillion—that's how much this housing market is.

These changes have actually been backed by the Australian people. A Resolve poll taken a couple of days ago showed that 54 per cent of people backed in these changes, and support for the cooling of property prices was actually seen across every single income bracket—low, medium and high income. Support was highest amongst 18- to 34-year-olds, and that's telling, because that is the very group these measures are designed to target, and they get it. So do their parents. So do their grandparents. There is a growing awareness in the community that the status quo is untenable. That is really at the heart of this budget.

The revenue raised by these measures and by ironing out this distortion will be diverted into other important programs. Let's not forget Medicare. Medicare is the reason I, as a former doctor, sit on this side of the house rather than that side of the house. With respect to Medicare, there are a whole lot of things going on. Among my favourites—it's like picking your favourite child—is making permanent Medicare urgent care clinics. All 137 that we promised have now been delivered, and these urgent care clinics have been visited by 3.1 million Australians. A third of them are children. They're open from early till late. They are often staffed by local GPs from the community, and all you need is your Medicare card. You do not need your credit card. They are fully bulk-billed.

We've also seen an investment in hospitals, with an additional $25 billion going into our hospital system. I spent my whole career, my whole life, working in public hospitals. These are really busy places. They are constantly under pressure, so that additional money will be welcome. It will be welcome, but it is not enough. The real action happens in the community, and that's why we are strengthening Medicare by boosting bulk-billing. The best way to reduce pressure on hospitals is to actually improve access to GPs and make it cheaper—in fact, make it free. That is what we're doing. With our record investment of $8½ billion in Medicare at the end of last year—this injection into Medicare—we have seen a huge uplift in bulk-billing, in the order of five to six percentage points across the country—in some places, like the Northern Territory, 13 percentage points. What that means is that we now have 3,800 general practices around the country that are bulk billing. That far exceeds our timelines and our expectations, so it is working.

That's not all we're doing. In this budget, we had an additional $3 billion towards aged care, where we are delivering more beds and more packages and we're making those personal care services—like showering, for example—free. We also have additional investment into dementia care, with the establishment of more specialist dementia care units. This is incredibly important. As our population ages, more people will develop dementia. But dementia is not a homogeneous condition. There is a great deal of variation within dementia. Yes, Alzheimer's is the most common, but there are other types. In most severe cases, elders with dementia who have behaviours of concern are the most challenging patients to manage. They are often rejected by aged-care facilities and, unfortunately, very often end up in hospitals, which are not suited to care for dementia patients. This additional investment will help families and relieve carer stress, particularly for women who bear the brunt of that stress.

In addition, we have established a new tax cut for all working Australians. It's called the working Australian tax offset. It means that around 14 million working Australians will receive an additional $250 in their pocket. That's on top of a $1,000 tax deduction, with no receipts needed. and five tax cuts in total, which means that the average worker is now $2,800 better off. Labor is the party of lower taxes.

This budget also has a large package of around $13 billion to go towards strengthening fuel security. Off the back of this oil crisis—this oil shock—we need to do more at home, so we will be extending our liquid fuel reserves to 50 days. This is on top of the additional $1.1 billion we're putting towards developing new low-carbon fuels—like biodiesel, for example—that come from the stuff our farmers grow, such as sorghum, canola, wheat, and even the waste products like tallow, biomass and so on. It's an innovative lens on our fuel security needs, and Australia is well placed to take advantage of that.

Finally, this budget also establishes the national resilience and science council. I'm particularly interested in this. Off the back of multiple crises like COVID, the fuel shock and the regional wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, I think all Australians realise that we are not immune or insulated from geopolitical shocks and shifts and that we have been far too vulnerable to what happens a million miles away from us. The establishment of this national resilience and science council will be there to inform government at the highest level, from the Prime Minister down, on what's coming our way and how we can better insulate and better protect ourselves. That means investing in the shock absorbers: housing, health care, the skills and smarts of our people.

There's a whole lot of work in this budget around strengthening our scientific and innovative capability, because the only way we can grow the pie in this country and the only way we can reach that future prosperity is by playing the long game. To play the long game, you must make the investments now and then hold steady over 10, 15 or 20 years so that we can build up those companies. We can take research and development from our world-leading, world-class institutions and universities and carry them through multiple valleys of death and then commercialise them and take them to market. That creates jobs. That creates exports. That creates the multiplier effect. And there are a number of measures in this budget that support that ecosystem.

I commend this bill to the House.

If you're wondering why the Fire the Liar campaign was such a hit, here it is: a dirty deal with the votes-for-sale Greens. This is something that the Prime Minister said 385 times he would not do. And to do what? To delay much-needed reform to the NDIS in order to ram through new taxes—new taxes that he told us 50 times would not happen. That's 435 porkies by his own count. More spending and higher taxes, brought to you by Labor and the Greens. It is the coalition of the socialists on that side of the chamber. Stalin would be proud. Keeping the money tap on for NDIS rorts and taxing anyone that has managed to start a business with their own sweat and blood to pay for it—the Australian people will not forgive these betrayals of trust. They will not sit back and let Labor and the Greens destroy the future of their children.

This country was built on the back of people that took risks. They took risks to start businesses, provide employment and reap the well-deserved rewards. But for the socialists on the other side of the chamber any success or benefit that accrues to the risk takers and entrepreneurs are ill-gotten gains. All of the workplace relations are aimed at making it impossible to run a business. I should know. I owned a business. I've dealt with the unions. I've had them come on to job sites and threaten to shut us down to strong arm us. Labor doesn't just allow this, they encourage it. Labor doesn't care about union workers. It is for the union bosses and the Labor coffers. But my brother and I dealt with all of this, worked hard and grew the business because there was a hope of reward at the end, a hope that I could provide for my wife and children, a hope that I could retire on my own terms after putting it all on the line every day.

But this bill dims that hope for the next generation. It pulls up the ladder. Kids will now have to contend with the fact that they give up to 47 per cent of their business to the government, a government that took no risk and put in no hours, no sleepless nights and no blood, sweat and tears. Every time you take away the incentives for people to take risks, we lose more money, more of our best and brightest and, with them, the jobs that they might have generated and the improvements to our way of life that they might have brought to this nation. It kills what built this nation in the first place.

Worse than all of this is the ridiculous rationale behind this tax grab—that they are doing this for the next generation, that it's about housing. I'm sure by now even Labor has seen the public outrage. Surely even the Canberra bubble can't ignore the fact that Australians have seen through this spin, that this is just a big fat tax grab. You want to fix generational housing inequality? Why don't you stop blowing out your own immigration targets every year? It's a novel idea, but how about not bringing in hundreds of thousands of people to compete with first home buyers. Maybe you wouldn't sell them five per cent deposit home loans right before you pull the rug out from under them, leaving them in a negative equity hell. The best lever to pull is the only lever that they won't pull. That is because it is not about helping the young. It is about bringing in more votes.

Even if we were to put all this aside, the new tax rules themselves are unworkable. Calculations of CGT cost bases were complex enough. Capital gains calculations were complex enough. Now we have a situation where Labor are asking people to go and value all of their CGT assets as at 1 July 2027, treat that as a notional sale, defer that until the actual sale and use the new cost base to calculate the new sale based on indexation. Then, once you've done all that, don't just add it to your taxable income like the good old days. It is now its very own category of income that gets its own special tax rate. I hope everyone at home was following that. That's the world that Labor thinks is fair. It's fair for them, of course, not you. They've sold their houses. Destroying the energy grid isn't cheap, you know.

Lastly, I'm speaking to a bill today that is as dense and complex as it is stupid. We have never had major backflips rushed through with just a single day to consider them. Of course, Labor doesn't need anyone to know what they're planning to do, only their coalition partner, their comrades, the Greens. As long as their good mates sitting next to them are happy, the rest of us can just suck it up. To the Labor MPs, I sure hope you've asked your base if they're happy with the Greens setting the agenda, but I doubt it. This will cost you dearly, as it should. More and more Australians have hit their limit with this farcical government. They want to fire the liar.

Now just something else—I was at the opening of the War Memorial last night. I sat through a 15-minute welcome to country, but the national anthem didn't get played and there was one Australian flag there hidden up in the rafters. I think it's an absolute tragic disgrace.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

I've just received advice from the clerks that, because this was done under a limitation of time, it's not possible to move the closure motion. The division is cancelled.

The government hasn't been able to manage the budget, and people now know that they can't manage this chamber. They've clearly stuffed up their hours motion, but they're refusing to see common sense and run this chamber in a sensible way. All we're seeking to do today is to make sure that there is sufficient debate on the most unpopular, unloved budget in living memory.

The government wants to try and move this on straightaway today and avoid a committee stage, which should be occurring. That's what we should be debating in this chamber because the Australian people weren't given this debate before the last election, 12 months ago. The Australian people went to the polls under the presumption, because the Prime Minister told them so, that there would not be increased taxes on capital gains, there would not be increased taxes on trusts and there would not be increased taxes on negative gearing. The Prime Minister, himself, said that he'd said that 50 times. Yet, less than 12 months later, the Prime Minister walked away from all of those promises, disenfranchising the Australian people. And now he seeks to gag the people's parliament by limiting debate on these measures today. The reason the Labor Party don't want to debate these measures is that they're embarrassed by them. They're embarrassed by their broken promises, by how these taxes have been received by the Australian people and by the deals they've had to do with the Greens political party that raise taxes even more.

Since becoming Leader of the Nationals, I've been around a lot of the country and I've spent a lot of time in southern New South Wales for the Farrer by-election. I've held four small-business roundtables over the past week—in Rockhampton, Lismore, Bundaberg and Townsville. The thing that has come back to me the most is that people are just desperate right now for a government that helps them deal with costs that are out of control. The cost of everything is going up and up for families and for small businesses, and they're struggling. They're struggling to hang on to their mortgages and hang on to their small businesses. They want a government that just helps with that. They want a government that hears their concerns about these issues and comes up with a plan for small businesses. They are starting to lose confidence in the economy; they're seeing demand fall.

Some of this is connected, of course, to the fuel crisis we see overseas. The uncertainty about the global environment is pulling people back. There's a desperate hunger for a government that has a plan to resolve these issues, to give people hope and optimism that the government will tackle these challenges and make things better.

People don't expect their governments to make things perfect, but they do expect them to try to make things better. Even people that aren't directly affected by trusts, negative gearing or the changes to superannuation—which I'll come to—will scratch their heads. They're confused that the government is focusing on all these issues and not on the cost of living, not on the shocking performance of our economy and not on lifting our worst productivity performance on record. Why is the government distracted by what seems to be a series of class war issues microwaved from a failed Bill Shorten campaign?

Everything we're seeing right now, including the super changes overnight, was rejected by the Australian people twice. It wasn't taken to last year's election; it wasn't taken to the election the Labor Party won in 2022. But, in 2016 and 2019, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party went to the election with a platform to change negative gearing rules, to tax trusts and to change the arrangements for self-managed super funds. They were rejected by the Australian people twice. They were rejected twice when they had that choice, and, now, because the government doesn't have a plan on the economy more broadly, they've reheated these failed policies and said, 'Let's go with that.' They've decided: 'We've got the numbers now. We've tricked the Australian people to vote for us.' They've got the numbers in the House, they've effectively got their numbers in the Senate with their partners, allies and coalition members in the Greens and they're going to force it, ram it, through the parliament with barely any inquiry and not much debate in the Senate. They'll do the same in the other chamber in the next 24 hours.

I don't think what we're debating here is matching the crisis our economy is in right now. When I hear government members speak in this chamber, I don't think they realise the precipice that we are on as a nation. We have never had a four-year period where our productivity growth has been negative until this government, until these last four years. The Labor Party have been in government now for four years, and over those four years productivity growth not only has been negative for the first time ever in our historical record but has gone backwards by five per cent. It has gone way down. It is off the charts—negative, down five per cent in just four years. As I said, it has never been negative before. This is important because the productivity growth rate determines how many things we make from the resources we've been blessed with. And, by God, we've been blessed with a lot of resources in this country. We should be a productive nation; we should be a rich nation. But if that's falling the consequence is that there's too much money in the country chasing too few goods, and when you have too much money chasing too few goods the price of those goods has to go up, the value of money goes down, and we get something called inflation.

So what have we had in this economy? We've now had another outbreak of inflation. Yes, this government inherited an environment where inflation was high, but they took a lot longer to get it down than other countries, that's for sure. The cost-of-living crisis in Australia was one of the worst post COVID out of anywhere in the world. It came back down, and then what happened as soon as the Reserve Bank lowered interest rates a little bit last year and let the economy run a bit to give people a bit of relief and some hope they might spend some more? Inflation broke out again. Late last year, inflation started ticking up. By the beginning of this year, before the Iran crisis, our inflation had gone over four per cent a year—it was the highest in the developed world. So let's just be very clear. The inflation rate in this country was higher than any other developed country in the world prior to the Iran conflict. That's because our economic productivity is not good enough.

So what has the Reserve Bank had to do? They've had to increase interest rates again. They've had to backtrack on their strategy because we have not got a government taking action on spending or economic growth; therefore, the only tool, the only lever, the Reserve Bank has to control inflation is to push interest rates up, which it's doing again. And now we have a situation where instead of trying to fix that fundamental economic issue of productivity, which is related to the high energy costs and massive red tape we've got—the government spending we have as well doesn't help. Instead of tackling those things which are hard—it's hard to tighten your belts. Every Australian family knows that right now. They've had to do that in the last few years since COVID, but this government hasn't had to do that. It's hard to do that. It's hard to cut red tape; it's hard to admit that you got it wrong on energy policy. Despite all your promises that bills will be cut by $275, they've skyrocketed, and they continue to go up.

This week has been terrible. There's a bit of a win drought; prices are through the roof again. You can't plan a business and you can't invest in manufacturing in this environment, so our productivity falls. And, instead of focusing on all those things, the government has continued with what it has been doing, which is the same economic strategy: 'Let's put in more taxes. That'll fix things.' Ironically, there's a part of that which may work to bring down inflation. If we put taxes up high enough, it'll kill economic growth, and we'll have a recession we didn't need to have. Yes, that will lower inflation. That will see house prices fall. We're seeing that right now. I don't want people's house prices to fall because we have an economic recession. I don't want to see our inflation rate fall because people are put out of a job. But that's where we're headed to. If this economy goes south in the next six months, it is on the head of this government. It is on their heads because it is they who have crashed confidence in our economy by unleashing a budget that was not taken to the Australian people—a series of taxes that people did not vote for and a government that has not been able to explain the basic elements of their proposal.

Last week they saw—I've never seen this in my political career—a budget five weeks old be ripped up and the government saying: 'Okay, we got it wrong on elements of the capital gains tax changes. We didn't realise. We forgot to factor in that there are these innovative businesses out there that will be massively disadvantaged.' The government seems completely ignorant of the fact we've had this tech boom. We've got things called tech startups now. When you put on this massive capital gains tax that they're doing—this will be the highest capital gains tax in the developed world. Indeed, the Prime Minister was asked in the other chamber this week to name another country with a higher capital gains tax rate than we would have under your policies. He couldn't name one. So we've got the highest in the world.

We're seeing in all the developments we've got—the technological developments, the AI and all this stuff—that there are a lot of growth opportunities. But anyone that goes for growth now gets absolutely smashed under these tax arrangements. So that chokes that off. Now the government is trying to jury-rig some kind of change last week and say: 'Oh, we've issued a consultation paper now and we're going to define what an innovative business is, and then you'll get the discount. Then these other small businesses will get a capital gains discount too if their turnover is under $10 million.' Why bother then? Why are we bothering with this?

I don't think the major problem for this country is a lack of complexity in the Income Tax Assessment Act. We've got a lot of problems, a lot of problems. But one of them is not a lack of complexity in our income tax laws. Now the government has made those laws more complex, and you effectively need an accountancy degree to understand just the changes the government announced last week. I read through them. It was ridiculously complex. You'll need to go to an accountant at the very least to work out exactly how you should structure your business just to deal with the changes, let alone the broader tax act we've got. How much extra cost? How much impact on productivity is that going to have on the Australian economy?

In the limited time I've got, I want to make two more points. I mentioned here that, instead of raising taxes, we should have an economic plan that seeks to restrain the size of government and pull that back a little bit. I want to put in context why I think that's important. In the last budget before COVID, this place spent $479 billion. In one financial year, $479 billion is a lot of money. That's what we spent in 2018-19, before COVID hit. In this budget that's just been handed down, the government expects to spend $829 billion. That is a $350 billion increase in annual spending. Every year, we are spending $350 billion more than we did before COVID. That's a big number. What does it mean? Well, there are about 10 million households in Australia. That means that, on a household basis, your government, since COVID, is spending $35,000 per household per year more. Every year, we're borrowing this money. We don't have it. So we're putting that on the credit card every year. Can you imagine if you ran your family budget and, over an eight-year period, blew it out by $35,000 a year and had to go and borrow and put on a credit card? I don't know about others, but my credit card is nowhere near that. You'd need to go and take a loan out again or mortgage your house to survive.

Why is the government getting away with this? What has happened? We've ended JobKeeper and ended all this. 'We had to help people out during COVID.' We ended all those schemes, and then the government used the excuse to go to another level and waste more of your money. Now they're coming to you and wanting more of that money from your super, from your property investments, from the small businesses and farmers in this country. They're saying, 'We need more money to waste here in this place.' How about, before we introduce new taxes, we cut our own spending first? How about we take care of our own house first before we go and raid other people's houses? We've got it the wrong way around right now. Because this government doesn't want to make the tough decisions to restrain spending to cut back on waste in this place, they are simply going to raid the piggybanks of other people all around our country. And worse, they didn't even ask those people about those changes first. A basic right of British peoples that our country inherited is that taxation should not be imposed on you without your consent. People fought wars for that, right? We're about to celebrate one of those wars next week on 4 July—250 years. They fought that to make sure they could have no taxation without representation. Well, now in this place if this gets rammed through today, we will have taxation on the Australian people, massive taxation, without any representation, without any consent from the Australian people. If the government had any guts, they would take these proposals back to the people. They ran them through this place without their consent. Have the ticker to go before the people and argue for why you think this is the best thing for the Australian economy, and only then should the Australian people face a higher tax bill. Only if they agree to it, should they. (Time expired)

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. Six weeks ago, the day after the budget was released and these tax changes were announced, I said, 'Tinkering around the edges of a broken housing system and spending billions for corporations and the one per cent, that will be the legacy of the Albanese Labor government.' Because tinkering is all they can manage and tinkering is this bill does.

When I first heard that the government was finally going to make some reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax discount, I had some hope because this has been needed for decades. These property investor tax perks have turbocharged Australia's housing market, and we now have one of the most expensive property markets in the world. The graphs are really clear. From the moment these tax breaks come in, house prices shoot up, way up. They diverge from wages incredibly. Now the Greens opposed these changes at the time when prime minister Howard introduced them in 1999 and we haven't stopped campaigning against these unfair tax perks for professional property investors ever since.

So I had hope and then I looked at the data, and the government are keeping the housing tax perks in place for anyone who already has them, and they're simply stopping anyone new from accessing them. Now, it's good that there's an end date on those tax perks, but to bake in inequality—what a missed opportunity to actually fix the housing crisis. All those people who've got 20, 50, 100 investment properties, nothing's changing for them. They keep almost every single benefit that they have now. That is tinkering.

The government should have abolished those unfair tax perks, maybe allowed just one property, but instead they've left $33 billion on the table, in the pockets of those wealthy property investors, who've got three or more investment properties. Labor's low ambition means that the deep inequality in our housing system will be worse for longer, and that this enduring housing crisis will now squarely be of Labor's design. Labor couldn't do a proper job of these tax changes because they refused to take on the one per cent. Housing won't be more affordable for first homebuyers. The housing crisis won't be fixed. Renters will still struggle to buy their first home. In fact, there's no relief in sight for renters because there was nothing in the budget for them. There were no rent caps, no rent freeze, no national tenancy standards, no support. In fact, I might add the only budget allocation for actually building homes was for military homes for overseas military personnel—wow! Ending rather than grandfathering those housing tax breaks would have helped renters get a home of their own. But Labor's telling first homebuyers to wait because wealthy property investors haven't made enough money off the housing crisis.

This budget is a missed opportunity to reduce inequality. The government says they need to raise revenue, but they could have saved $33 billion from not subsidising wealthy property investors with three or more investment properties who don't need the help. They could have saved $33 billion. They could have taxed the greedy gas corporations, who are exporting our gas and making billions off a resource that they get virtually for free because they wrote their own tax laws. That's $17 billion in revenue each year that the government is forgoing because they don't want to make the greedy gas corporations who are fleecing us all pay a minimum 25 per cent export tax. Spending almost $400 billion on submarines from Donald Trump, subs that we might not get ever anyway because the contract's written so poorly, that are all second hand now anyway and that just tie us closer to a dangerous warmonger which makes us all less safe—there are your budget savings.

But, instead, Labor wants to balance the budget by kicking 241,000 people off the NDIS. They are punching down on people with a disability, maybe because they thought they wouldn't fight back but also because they're too gutless to tax the one per cent properly and to tax the super profits of corporations. People working for a living, renters, first home buyers and people with a disability for that matter are under immense pressure, and they've got every right to expect a budget that helps them. But, instead, Labor has once again found room for the wealthy and the well-connected while doing little for everyone else. By choosing to protect existing wealthy property investors, Labor lacked the courage to actually fix the housing crisis.

Politicians and the media try to make out that solving the housing crisis is really difficult and complicated. It's not. It's not about supply or immigration. We are building more homes than population growth. When we paused immigration during COVID, prices didn't come down. Migration is not causing the housing crisis. The problem is treating housing as an investment class, as a vehicle for wealth creation, rather than a human right, and government after government from both of the big parties has allowed it. But who benefits? The ultra wealthy who can buy up these properties and the banks who make record profits off huge mortgages.

If we're serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need to look at the whole problem. We should be implementing rent caps and real rights for renters like longer leases and actual minimum standards so that people aren't living in fear of their next rent increase or forgoing asking for maintenance because they're worried their landlord will decide to end the lease. Those reforms for renters are something that could be done immediately. And if you're talking about supply, well, let's build public housing, good quality public homes, like governments used to. And let's talk about a public property developer that builds homes and sells them at cost, not for profit, not so that developers can land bank or use sunset clauses to make interest off your deposit and keep prices high but to provide homes for people who need them. Essential workers can't afford 96 per cent of Australia's rentals, so, the next time you see a comment from someone on social media suggesting that people just move further from the city, think about that last nurse who took care of you or about your kid's teacher. Shouldn't they be able to afford to live in the community that they work in?

This was an opportunity to show Australians that parliament can still improve people's lives. Instead, Labor wimped out. It chose corporate comfort over structural reform. This government is not concerned with inequality. It's concerned with appearances. It pays lip service. That's why people are fed up. They're fed up because Labor can do something about the problems we face, but they waste every single opportunity to do so. People are sick and tired of the tinkering. People are sick of the gas industry getting the gas they're selling for free and not paying their fair share. They're sick of rents going up and up while wages fall behind. They're sick of worrying about whether their kids will be able to afford to buy a house. These are the signs of an economic system that is broken.

People used to be able to get ahead. Wages kept up with the cost of living. Housing was affordable. Essential services were owned and run for the public, not for the profits of the one per cent. But, over the last decade, corporate profits have doubled. The wealth of Australian billionaires grew by over $29 million per day last year, and now the top one per cent hold more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent. If you're a teacher, a plumber or a nurse or you work in hospitality, you're paying a higher rate of tax on your wage than the big corporations and the ultrawealthy are paying on their extreme wealth. No wonder people are fed up.

The Greens are not going to give up fighting for the third of this country who rent, we're not going to stop fighting for first homebuyers to be able to afford a home and we won't stop calling out the racist dog whistling that pretends that the problems are because of migrants whilst protecting the profits of billionaire donors, because we don't accept that tinkering around the edges is the best that we can hope for, and neither should you.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. This legislation does not find favour with the Liberal Party—it may come as a surprise to you, Acting Deputy President!—for a variety of reasons. I appreciate the calls from the other side of the aisle to hear my wisdom on these bills.

My concern with the approach of the government is that it does not sufficiently appreciate reward for risk, and that ultimately drives any economy. We need to give those who take risk in our economy—those who risk everything, including their financial future---an appropriate reward. So the debate over this legislation is largely a rejection by the Liberal Party of a philosophy of redistribution. Rather, we take the view that we should reward aspiration appropriately to increase our productivity and, as a consequence, grow the pie and make all wealthy and share that wealth equally.

This was put more articulately than I am putting it today by Mr Geoff Wilson in a submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee:

If we make productive investment less attractive, we should not be surprised if we get less of it. The economic consequences of these changes are straightforward. When you tax the returns on risk-bearing capital more heavily, fewer people take risk. Fewer risks taken means fewer companies built, fewer jobs created and a smaller productive economy.

Capital is mobile. If Australia becomes a less attractive place to invest, capital will flow elsewhere. Australia needs more entrepreneurship and more innovation, not less.

I appreciate that the government has indicated that it's carving out for innovation, but for all Australians, no matter what their endeavours, if they take risk, our tax system should say, 'Yes, you can be well and truly rewarded.' I think that if this legislation passes then it will have an impact on our productivity. From my perspective, I want Australia to be one of the most innovative countries in the world and meet every Australian's aspirations. Those are the risk takers we should reward. We should not only reward them but celebrate them, and I'm not sure that this legislation, when it passes the Senate and the other place on its return there, will do so. I note the comments of my fellow senator Senator David Pocock in relation to the definition of 'innovation'. I don't necessarily wish to repeat that, but I think creating boundaries or definitions around innovation and what is in or out just makes the tax acts as a collective far more complicated.

I also draw on the comments of Senator Canavan about the complexity of this legislation. This growing complexity really is a retreat, and it has been a long retreat, under many governments, from the principle that our legislation should be read by the average person or the average Australian industry. We've abandoned that principle and, again, we lay on more and more complexity. If you're a small business, you need a coterie of advisers before even working on the idea that you've had to create wealth for you, your family and your community. We should reflect on that in this place that if you cannot simply understand the bill which is before you—I have an unfair advantage in some ways, having come from financial services and a long career in the law, and even I find it extremely complicated—do we really want Australians spending more and more money on advisers rather than investing in their own businesses?

I also note the comments of Andrew Irvine, the National Australia Bank's CEO, who makes a very good point about rejecting or pushing back on the distinction between taxing on wealth and on labour, and points out that we should be focusing on the distinction between taxing passive assets and risk assets. Passive assets do not necessarily produce the same return. We don't want all our collective wealth going into passive assets; we want them going into risk assets, particularly if we are going to address the challenge of climate change. I want our country to produce the solutions for the world for the future, not to adopt the technologies from other countries. I don't commend the bill to the chamber.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the associated Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I want to start with a very simple point, one that Tasmanians understand instinctively: no-one voted for these taxes. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised more than 50 times that he would not introduce new taxes of this kind, but what we have seen since budget night is a complete breach of trust; a government that said one thing to the Australian people and then did the exact opposite when it mattered most.

Tasmanians are practical people. We know budgets require choices, but we also know that when a promise is made it should be kept, and when it's broken there should be accountability. Instead, what we have is a set of policies designed not to grow the economy but to manage its decline. Labor can't manage money, so they've come after yours. Across this package we see a pattern: a tax on savings, a tax on investment, a tax on renters, a tax on small business and, yes, even a tax on what families hope to pass on to their children. It is a broad based assault on aspiration. For young Australians, whether they're in Hobart, Launceston, Devonport or Burnie, this budget sends a very clear message that the ladder of opportunity is being pulled up before they even have a chance to climb it. This government calls it intergenerational fairness, but let's be honest: there is nothing fair about making it harder for young people to buy a home, harder to save and harder to build something of their own. That is not fairness. That is intergenerational failure.

When we look at this bill specifically, we see four schedules. Schedule 1 changes the capital gains tax regime. Schedule 2 alters negative gearing. Schedules 3 and 4 introduce a working Australians tax offset and a standard deduction, which we support. But the coalition opposes schedules 1 and 2 because they strike at the heart of investment, confidence and housing supply. This doesn't exist in isolation. This is part of a broader arrangement, a deal between Labor and the Greens, a deal that is injecting even more uncertainty into an already fragile economic environment. Tasmanians watching this unfold would be forgiven for asking who is actually driving economic policy in this country, because what we see is a government that said before the election it would not bow to Greens' demands, particularly around superannuation and property, yet here we are with a government that Australians can no longer trust to stand by its word.

Let me turn to housing, because this is where the consequences become very real. In Tasmania, we already know what housing pressure looks like. We've seen tight rental markets, rising costs and families struggling to find a place to live. Now the government's own budget papers state that 35,000 fewer homes will be built because of these changes. That's not an opposition figure; that is their own number. The reason is simple. When you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax housing investment, you get less housing investment. Less investment means fewer homes. Fewer homes mean higher prices. At the same time, the government continues to increase demand, bringing in more people than we have homes for. It is basic supply and demand, and the government has both sides of the equation wrong.

For renters, the story is equally concerning. Before anyone buys their first home, they rent. That's the reality for young Tasmanians trying to get ahead. Yet the government's own analysis admits these changes will increase rents. Independent economists have warned of substantial increases in major cities, and, while the Tasmanian market is different, we are not immune. When supply tightens, pressure flows across the entire system. Renters are hit first, with higher rents, and then again later when they try to save for their first home. It is a double hit on the very people this government claims to support.

For first home buyers, the picture doesn't improve. Many young Australians today are doing everything right. They're working hard; they're saving; they're investing carefully, whether it's shares, ETFs or other assets, to build a deposit. The government has looked at that effort, that discipline and that ambition and said, 'We're going to tax it more.' That is not encouragement. That is not fairness. That is a disincentive to get ahead. At the same time, the government talks about helping first home buyers by increasing borrowing capacity. But more debt is not the same as more affordability. Higher borrowing simply pushes prices up and leaves young Australians with larger mortgages and repayments they carry for decades. That is not a solution. It is a band-aid that makes the underlying problem worse.

Let me turn to small business. In Tasmania, small business isn't just part of the economy; it is the backbone of our communities. These are the people who open the shop early and close it late, who sponsor the local footy club and who give young people their first jobs. And what does this government say to them? It says, 'After you've taken the risk, built the business, created something of value, we're going to want half.' The effective doubling of tax on sales for many small businesses sends a very dangerous signal—that the reward for success will be heavily diminished. This comes at a time when small businesses are already under pressure, with rising costs, workforce challenges and regulatory burdens. They don't have the resources of big corporations, no armies of lawyers or accountants, yet they bear the same weight of compliance, and, instead of relief, this budget adds to that burden.

For startups and innovators, the outlook is equally troubling. Australia and Tasmania need people willing to take risks, to build new industries and to embrace emerging sectors, including in technology and advanced manufacturing. But these tax settings risk driving that ambition elsewhere. Employee share schemes, which allow startups to attract talent, are being undermined. The signal to founders is clear: take your ideas, your energy and your investment and consider doing it somewhere else. A country that punishes risk will eventually run short of people willing to take it.

Then there is what has been described as a death tax. Tasmanians believe deeply in the idea that, if you work hard, save carefully and build something over a lifetime, you should be able to pass that on to your children and grandchildren. That is not about wealth. It is about legacy. It is about family. It is about giving the next generation a better start. When the government inserts itself into that process and claims a share, it crosses a line for many Australians. When that measure appears buried in the detail rather than clearly explained and openly debated, it raises serious questions about transparency and trust. The coalition takes a very different approach. We believe in an economy that backs people who work hard, take risks and try to get ahead. We will oppose these measures in schedules 1 and 2. If they are passed, we have been clear that they will be repealed by a coalition government, because when you tax investment, you get less investment; when you tax housing, you get fewer homes; and when you tax effort and ambition, you discourage both.

Our plan is straightforward—lower taxes, lower inflation and policies that support not punish the self-starters of this country. We will introduce a tax-back guarantee so Australians are not pushed into higher tax brackets simply because inflation has increased their nominal income. That means fairness, transparency and relief, particularly for working Australians doing it tough. We will restore balance to housing and migration, ensuring that population growth aligns with our capacity to build homes. We will invest in the infrastructure needed to unlock new supply, because the only sustainable way to bring housing costs down is to build more homes. For small business, we will make the instant asset write-off permanent, because when small business invests it grows, and when it grows so does the Australian economy. We will ensure that the tax system rewards effort, encourages innovation and supports those willing to back themselves.

Finally, we will ensure that Australians retain the right to pass on what they have built, without the government taking a share at the end. This debate comes down to a very simple question: what kind of economy and what kind of country do we want to be? Is it one where aspiration is encouraged or one where it is taxed, one where young people are supported to get ahead or one where they face barrier after barrier, one where small business is celebrated or one where it is treated as a revenue source? For Tasmanians and for Australians more broadly, the answer is clear. We want an economy where effort is rewarded, where opportunity is real and where the next generation can look to the future with confidence. This legislation in its current form does not deliver that, and that is why the coalition opposes the harmful elements within it and will continue to stand up for Australians who simply want a fair chance to get ahead.

I too rise to speak against Labor's toxic tax agenda and the dangerous deal that they have done with the Greens at the expense of the Australian people. Sadly, Australians were told one thing by the Prime Minister before the election, but, worse than that, they weren't told it only once but time and time again. In fact, over 50 times prior to the last election, the Australian people were looked in the eye by the Prime Minister when he was asked a very direct question, 'Will there be any changes to capital gains tax, if we give you our vote?' He said to them: 'Hand on heart, my word is my bond. No, there will not be.' He was asked the other question, 'If I give you my vote, will there be any changes to negative gearing?' Again, hand on heart, he looked them in the eye and he said, 'My word is my bond. No, there will not be.'

There's a word, sadly, we're not able to say in this place. It begins with an L and it ends in an R. Fill in the two vowels yourself. That is what the Prime Minister is. He has been proven to be time and time again a person who will look the Australian people in the eye and say, quite frankly, whatever he likes and whatever it takes to actually get into power. Then, as he has now said, he will just change his position. Well, shame on you, Prime Minister. Every day between now and the next election, the coalition are going to call out the fact that you told the Australian people one thing 50 times prior to the election, then, as soon as you could, you did a dirty deal with the Australian Greens and, as you've said, you just 'changed your position'.

Australians know they have been misled by this prime minister. This is a government that has now abandoned any form of pretence. This is a government who are now quite happy to say the Australian people: 'Yes, we told you one thing before the election. We said there'd be no changes to capital gains tax. We said there'd be no changes to negative gearing. Guess what? We never, ever meant it. But we sucked you in at the time. You believed us.' Sadly, now, across the board, Australians will pay the price.

What is going to be rushed through the Senate tomorrow under a guillotine, with little to no time for debate? They're not reforms. They're not productivity measures. They're certainly not economic-growth measures. They are taxes, and they are tax increases, designed to fund a government that, sadly, cannot manage its own money. The simple truth—and it has been said time and time again—is this: Labor cannot manage its own finances. The sad reality is that, when it runs out of money, it comes after yours.

Of course, this comes on top of the fact that Australians are already struggling. Families are struggling to pay mortgages. Renters are struggling to find homes, and those who can get into a home are now paying increasingly high rents. You now just need to go for a walk in the morning in local suburbs, and you will see men and women—working, with a dual income, doing the right thing—living in cars with their children. They are casualties of a Labor government that has given up any pretence of actually caring.

Small businesses—you walk down a street in your local community, and what do you see? You see empty window after empty window after empty window—'For lease', 'For lease', 'For lease'. When you inquire, 'What happened to the small business that used to be in there?' they look you in the eye, and they say: 'Cost of living—Labor's cost of living. They couldn't afford their energy bills so they had to close their doors.' And people had stopped going into the small business because they didn't have the money to actually make a purchase, so what happens to the small business? It closes its doors.

At the heart of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—and I think this is what has upset so many people—are young Australians who are doing the right thing by the government. They were actually saving for home deposits. They were buying shares. They were doing electronic fund transfers. They were putting that little bit away so that, one day, they could have what so many on the Labor side of politics have had and what so many Australians have had—the ability to buy a home, to negative gear it and to maybe one day sell that home so they could have a little bit of money to help fund their retirement. What has Mr Albanese said? He's said, 'Guess what? That's too good for you.' The way so many Australians funded their retirement—as I said, they were doing the right thing by the government. Sadly, that aspiration, that ladder, has now been pulled out from under them.

What's Labor's answer to all of that? More taxes—just like a good socialist government always does. Their answer is more taxes on the people who save, more taxes on the people who invest, more taxes on the people who employ Australians—the good old small businesses out there—and more taxes on the people who take risks. This is a country that was once built on the fact that it didn't matter who you were, where you came from or what your status was in life. If you embraced an opportunity and took a risk, you could be successful in life. Labor's answer to that now is: 'Well, we're going to take a bit of that. Thanks for taking the risk. Because we are no longer able to manage the economy, we're actually going to take a bit of what you've made.' These are more taxes on the very people that we want to see get ahead, such as the tradies, the nurses, the teachers—you name it.

The average Australian just wanted to be aspirational. Labor and the Australian Greens are putting a stake through the heart of aspiration. At a time when Australia should be encouraging investment, Labor has chosen a deliberate path and is punishing it. At a time when Australia should be encouraging aspiration, Labor is attacking it. At a time when Australia should be encouraging people to build wealth and create jobs, Labor is making it harder. That is why these bills are so dangerous. They don't simply affect today's investors; they affect tomorrow's investors.

Senator Cash, you will be in continuation. I shall now proceed to senators' statements.

I rise today to acknowledge the passing of Professor Peter Buckskin. On behalf of the government, I extend my condolences to his two children, Peter and Lorraine, his nephew Daniel, his great-nephew Haymish, the entire Buckskin family and all those who knew and loved him. Professor Buckskin was a proud Narungga man from Guuranda on South Australia's Yorke Peninsula. He was and will be remembered as one of Australia's most respected Aboriginal leaders in education. For more than four decades, Peter dedicated his life to advancing rights and educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Beginning his career as a teacher, Professor Buckskin would go on to hold senior executive roles in both state and Commonwealth governments, serve as a ministerial adviser and lead major reforms in Indigenous education. Early in his teaching career at Nulungu College in Broome, he travelled extensively across the Kimberley to engage with and learn directly from students, families and communities. Peter believed educators needed to understand where young people came from in order to truly support them. That belief remained central to his work throughout his life. He understood that educational reform was about developing real connections and a deep understanding of community.

Peter built a career that challenged systems that excluded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from decision-making. He spoke openly about the role education had played in assimilation and dispossession. He worked relentlessly to create systems where First Nations students, educators and communities could not only participate but lead. Peter served as dean of the University of South Australia's David Unaipon College of Indigenous Education and Research. He was the Chair of South Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Consultative Council, served as a co-chair of Reconciliation SA and led the SA Aboriginal Training and Employment Consultative Committee. In 2023, Professor Buckskin became the inaugural chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Corporation, the national peak body for Indigenous education. He also served as Chair of Tauondi Aboriginal Community College for more than 20 years, continuing his lifelong commitment to Aboriginal community controlled education.

Professor Buckskin's influence for First Nations people also extended to the global stage. In 2010, he was an inaugural board member of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples. He represented Australia in international forums, including UNESCO and the working group of experts to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, helping to shape policy frameworks that recognise and protect Indigenous rights worldwide. He was also an international representative of the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education and was instrumental in bringing the conference to Adelaide in September 2022, creating an opportunity for Indigenous educators and leaders from around the globe to come together and share knowledge and experiences.

His contributions were recognised through numerous honours, including the Public Service Medal for outstanding public service, the Frank G. Klassen Award for leadership in teacher education and national Deadly Awards for outstanding achievements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, among fellowships and doctorates from leading national and global institutions. These honours are small reflections of the enormous respect in which Professor Buckskin was held and which he earned throughout his lifetime of service. But Peter's greatest legacy lies in the generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, educators and leaders. He was a great mentor and someone I deeply respected. Countless lives have been and will be enriched through Peter's advocacy and unwavering commitment to cultural integrity and educational justice.

His life has had a profound impact on education, Indigenous affairs and Australia. Once again, I extend my deepest condolences to all the Buckskin family. Vale, Professor Peter Buckskin. Yo, bauji barra.

It's always a great thing to get out of our capital cities and into regional Australia. I was lucky enough last week to spend some time in the bush, in particular in a great little country town in Western Australia called Goomalling. Sadly, the reason I was there was not quite so cheerful. The Australia Post branch network is under enormous pressure, and I was in Goomalling meeting with Collette and John Gibson and also Sally Martin, who runs the AusPost branch in Toodyay. Collette and John talked about the pressure they were under as owners of an Australia Post branch network business in a small country town, and, sadly, they are not alone. We have heard from right over Western Australia's regions, and right over Australian regions, that the Australia Post branch network is under extraordinary pressure—pressure to survive, pressure to be financially viable and pressure to provide communities with basic services that people in the cities take for granted.

You've got to remember that, whilst Goomalling, luckily, does still have a bank branch, over 600 bank branches in rural and regional Australia have closed over the past decade or so. This means that there are many communities out there where the only access to banking services people have is through the Australia Post managed Bank@Post network, which runs through their branch network. Australia Post is legally obligated to maintain the branch network, and I think it is Australia Post's most valuable asset. It should not be seen by corporate-level Australia Post executives as a burden that they need to have that presence right across Australia. It should be seen as their competitive advantage, and they need to think creatively and work out ways in which that legally mandated branch network can be of value. But that is not just an obligation for Australia Post; it is an Australian government owned entity, and this is also a question for the government and a question for all of those in this chamber, and the other one, to put our minds to: how that branch network can be valued, encouraged and made financially viable—because, as I have said, this is not just about Goomalling. This is not just about Collette and John, whose story I heard last week. This is about Australia Post branches right across regional Australia and particularly in my home state of Western Australia.

I've heard from Bruce Rock, where Simon Campbell and his family have run the local post office for 20 years. I've heard from Mount Barker, where licensee Sandra Perry is an absolutely respected member of the local business community. I've heard from Amanda McKenna from Williams and Lehua Chiswell from Darkan—and I could go on and on. These are businesses vital to their local community. They provide a vital service, and it is up to Australia Post management and the government, and this place, to make sure that these businesses not only survive but thrive in the modern world.

I want to congratulate the APVMA on ignoring some of the chatter from the activist classes and some of the lawfare we have seen in other countries around the use of a vital agricultural chemical, paraquat. The APVMA has reauthorized the use of paraquat, and this is of great interest and a great relief to the farming community in my home state of Western Australia. Paraquat is an essential agricultural chemical. Chemicals, by their very nature, carry risks, and all farmers and all of those who use chemicals understand that and acknowledge that. However, the APVMA, through reregistering paraquat, has said those risks can be managed. Every farmer I know—and this has changed an extreme amount over my lifetime—takes the use of chemicals extraordinarily seriously. They do not want to use one litre of chemical that they do not have to use, and they do not want to use, in fact, one millilitre of chemical that they do not have to use. But modern farming systems do require the use of chemicals in order to be efficient and feed the world. The APVMA's ruling has thankfully taken this into account and made a sensible regulatory decision.

We've seen the stories of the CFMEU and their absolutely disgraceful behaviour in the media over the last few years, but these stories just keep going on and on and getting worse and worse. It is not just the criminality and not just the violence that they have inflicted upon communities, particularly as we have seen through the inquiry in Queensland and through the police investigations in Victoria. It is also this government doing the bidding of the union movement to empower the inefficiency of these unions. We see that now in the Snowy scheme. The ANAO revealed that during the 2023—and I've got to say this is a bit of a euphemism—project reset the core contractual structure shifted, which reallocated massive costs and risks directly from private contractors and onto the Australian government. At the same time, it is also saw the CFMEU benefit enormously from both the intersection of that project reset and the empowerment given to them, handed to them on a platter, by this government through the industrial relations changes that they have forced through.

But nowhere have we seen the criminality of the CFMEU more starkly revealed than in Victoria. Geoffrey Watson SC estimated the CFMEU's conduct in Victoria on the $100 billion Big Build infrastructure program, to be at least 15 per cent. That is $15 billion of taxpayers' money flowing through corruption to union officials, standover men and, we now know, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug dealers and organised crime. If you measured crime and corruption on a scale of zero to 10, Watson said:

New South Wales is about a two or a three, Queensland's about a five, and Victoria's about 1,000. It's insane.

This is a union that has been defended by members of the government for years and years.

Geoffrey Watson's report and the Commission of Inquiry in Queensland found the CFMEU's, 'campaign of violence was very likely planned and directed by the CFMEU leadership – principally by the secretary, Michael Ravbar, and an assistant secretary, Jade Ingham' against workers, women and children. Watson wrote:

I fear this investigation only scratched the surface of the violence in the Queensland CFMEU.

He said there was, 'obstinate refusal to co-operate from some critical witnesses' who he went on to say were, 'afflicted with widespread memory loss'. The Watson report documented conduct including bomb hoaxes, death threats, vile personal attacks and threats made against women and children. This should not be a part of the Australia we live in.

Now we see—thanks, again, to this Labor government's empowerment of the union movement through their changes to the law—unions infecting the workplaces of the north of Western Australia, which have delivered extraordinarily high wages and extraordinary productivity to this nation. (Time expired)

Senator Pauline Hanson likes to present herself as a patriot, but here is the truth of the matter: she is no patriot. The truth is, she seeks to destroy Australian values. The truth is, Senator Hanson is one of the most anti-Australian political figures this country has ever produced.

One Nation is built on a hatred of modern Australia, and it is built on a hatred of our diversity as a country. It is built on a hatred of our multicultural success story. It's built on a hatred of the concept, the very idea, that people from different backgrounds, and different kinds of people, can live together in peace and mutual respect. One Nation despises the generosity, the resilience and the decency that ordinary Australians show each other every day.

For 30 years now, Senator Hanson has been the ugly voice of white resentment in Australian politics, forever searching for a new group to blame for all the challenges in our society. Migrants, Asians, Muslims, First Nations people, refugees, international students and, most recently, transgender people have all taken their turn in Senator Hanson's firing line.

Tellingly, for most of One Nation's history, almost every Australian has rejected them outright. Until a few years ago, the best One Nation could hope for when running for office was getting their deposit back, meaning the candidate—usually Senator Hanson herself—could make a tidy profit. That was because Australians saw right through Senator Hanson and One Nation. That was before dark money from international far-right organisations started pouring into culture-war politics in Australia. That was before billionaires from this very country, like Gina Rinehart, started pouring rivers of gold into One Nation's coffers. Before then, Senator Hanson was nothing more than a political sideshow. She ran unsuccessfully whenever she could, while One Nation repeatedly collapsed under the weight of its own clown-car incompetence.

What changed? Today, One Nation is a willing tool of international far-right organisations and an international dark operation that seeks to divide Australians and undermine our very democracy and the institutions that serve our country. For all the AI slop we see from One Nation, featuring Australian flags and laugh-emoji patriotism, One Nation puts Israel first, the United States and Donald Trump second, Senator Hanson herself third and the rest of us dead last. They are the emerging face of fascism in this country, and the Greens are here to fight them.

One Nation is not a serious political party. It has candidates and office-bearers that are white-collar criminals, multi-level marketing operators, sex offenders and barely disguised Nazis. It is grifters and chancers all the way down from the very top, and, despite all this, so much of our media continue to act as Hansonism's handmaidens. The Liberal Party are predictably trying and failing to outflank her on the right. What a fool's errand that is to try and outflank fascists to their right. I'm telling the Liberal Party and Mr Taylor now if you try and outflank them to the right that will just encourage them to descend further into fascism.

The Labor Party still imagines that Hansonism can be defeated with a spreadsheet and a press release. But I say to the Labor Party, do you really think that people who boo welcome to country ceremonies and want to kidnap family court judges are going to listen to you when you say, 'Actually, the migration number is going down'? Let me be really clear about this. The answer to fascism and the answer to a politics of hatred is not managerialism. It is not assimilation. The answer to fascism is moral clarity and a willingness to resist and fight at every turn. That, colleagues, is where the Greens come in, because we will fight against these politics. We will proudly defend a diverse, multicultural Australia and we will never stop calling Hansonism what it is—a billionaire and dark, international-money funded politics of division that seeks to succeed by encouraging Australians to hate and fear each other.

Nowhere, colleagues, is the poverty of Hansonism more obvious than its obsession with transgender Australians. Sadly, it is an obsession shared by too many members of the Liberal and National parties. Of all the challenges facing our country, of all the challenges facing everyday Australians as they go about their lives, Hansonism has chosen to dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to policing where a tiny minority of people end up going to the toilet. That's what this is about. What a sad, pathetic way that is for these Hansonites to spend their lives. Beneath all the slogans and manufactured outrage of transphobia lies a simple fact. The anti-trans movement is a group of people utterly devoid of empathy and utterly devoid of compassion. The central claim of the anti-trans movement is so absurd that it collapses the moment you say it out loud. We are expected to believe that someone would turn their entire life upside down; expose themselves to hatred, ridicule and abuse; risk estrangement from their loved ones, and become the target of relentless political attacks just so they can walk into a particular toilet or win a high school sporting trophy. That is nonsense. It is deeply harmful, and it is based on hatred and lies.

Transphobia is a movement that spends an extraordinary amount of time obsessing about other people's genitals, other people's bodies and other people's private lives, while accusing everyone else of being obsessed. It is a movement that presents itself as defending freedom, while demanding the right to scrutinise, judge, control and police other people's identities, other people's bodies and other people's lives. Well, most Australians are better than this. They understand that kindness costs nothing. Most Australians understand that somebody else's gender identity is none of their damned business. That is what this debate reveals. It reveals nothing about transgender Australians, and it reveals everything about transphobes and transphobia.

Hansonism is a politics so devoid of solutions, so bereft of hope and so bereft of compassion that it has convinced itself that the source of Australia's problems is a tiny group of people simply trying to live their lives and be who they are.

It's very instructive that last week Senator Hanson used the phrase 'transgender insurgency' at the Press Club. But the relevance, I suggest, is lost on her. An insurgency is actually a group that fights back against tyranny and fights back against an invading force. Given One Nation's reliance on imported culture wars and foreign money, they should be seen as the tyranny. They should be seen as the invading force. If Senator Hanson wants an insurgency, the Greens are here to give her one—an insurgency to fight fascism, an insurgency to fight corporate power, an insurgency to fight billionaires, to defend trans people, to defend multiculturalism and to defend human rights. An insurgency that fights and resists the poison and filth spewed by One Nation, that's what the Greens are here for. (Time expired)

Well, we know that Australia is a country of people who work hard, not just for themselves but for their families. Australians work hard to build a better life for themselves, for their children, for their communities. This is the country that we know and we love. Aspiration has always been an important part of the Australian way. It has been the reason why so many people over generations have chosen to come to Australia to live. It's something that we celebrate in North Queensland—the different cultures and peoples who have come to this country but are united in a desire to be a part of a common culture, the Australian culture, where, when you work hard and you're fair, you are accepted and part of a greater Australian community.

But under this government we have never seen such an attack on the Australian way of life, the Australian standard of living, indeed everything about that common culture that Australians love and value. The dirty deal done this week with the Greens party is nothing short of a complete sell-out. The Prime Minister said 50 times that there would not be changes to negative gearing, there would not be changes to the capital gains tax, there would not be death duties and there would not be changes to testamentary trusts and yet that is exactly what was announced in this budget.

This is another of Labor's lies. This is not lower power prices. This is not securing a reliable, predictable economy. This is change to CGT, to the very robust, agile economic environment that we have not only to allow mum-and-dad investors to invest in startups, tech companies, but also to junior miners and explorers, to innovative farming businesses, to businesses of every type and location. All of Labor's budget announcements go to the heart of attacking those things. What have they had to do? Well, they've watched the backlash across Australia, as Australians say, 'No, we did not vote for this.' In fact, at the 2019 election, they rejected Bill Shorten's campaign on exactly these kinds of issues. So it has taken us until 2026 for Labor to sneak these announcements back in despite having no approval from the Australian people to do it. And what's it resulted in? Four years of a Labor government has resulted in out of control inflation. I mean, Labor would have you say that they inherited a higher cost of inflation than now. But to be clear, they are taking a point in time, a spike, following the lockdowns in Victoria and New South Wales, a very short point in time. In fact, on average, under the coalition, inflation in Australia was half of what it is now under Labor.

Now, inflation is a tricky thing. Most people don't really understand what inflation means for them but it means three things that we all care about passionately. Inflation means that prices for every single thing that you do are higher. The price of food on the shelf is higher. The price of clothes in the store is higher. The cost of rent is higher. It is the government's job to manage inflation, to not have out of control spending. But that is a hallmark of this Labor government. Indeed, the amount of money that this Labor government is spending is nearly double what it was under the coalition prior to COVID. This is extraordinary. It is that out-of-control spending that has created higher inflation in Australia than in comparable G7 countries.

The RBA's singular job is to keep inflation under control, so the government has given the RBA no choice but to increase interest rates. So Australians who are struggling with their mortgage and the price they pay to keep their home have some of the highest interest rates in the world. There have been 15 interest rate rises under Labor. The government's out-of-control spending means you pay more for every single thing that you buy and you pay higher mortgage rates. The third thing it leads to is higher taxes, which is, of course, what Labor has just delivered under this latest budget, because they're out of control spending means that, once they've spent all of their money, they're coming after yours.

We have seen massive increases in insurance of over 40 per cent; in gas, 40 per cent; in electricity, 37 per cent; in rent, 20 per cent; in education, 20 per cent; in food prices, 17 per cent; and, in health costs, 17 per cent. We have seen the biggest collapse in living standards in the developed world right here in Australia. If Australians think they're worse off, they are. But they're worse off because of this Albanese Labor government's policies and out-of-control spending and inability to cut that spending. What are we left with? We're left with higher interest rates, higher prices and now higher taxes. Labor lectures us about intergenerational inequality, but it is delivering higher government debt to future generations because of its inability to manage its own budget.

The message to young Australians is that, under Labor, aspiration and building something for your family are bad. That's what Labor is telling Australians. What Labor is telling Australians is that they should expect less from whatever their parents or their family may have left to them. A family home, death taxes, is well on this government's agenda. The government has taken none of the risks that young business people and old business people take and none of the risk that investors take to establish new mining ventures, new tech companies and new ag businesses. The government has taken none of that risk and yet wants to take 40 per cent of the reward.

Regional Australia is really copying it, though. Regional Australia has just seen a smashing of the sort of financing and support that we receive post-disaster. In fact, Queensland has led the way on moving to a betterment model, making sure that every flood is handled better than the last, that Australians, that Queenslanders, have better results. But, under this Labor government, they have slashed funding to support states following disasters. They have also slashed funding to Disaster Relief Australia. These are the 7½ thousand volunteers who turn up for months at a time to help Australians at their greatest time of need. Every day, Australians—farmers, tradies, small businesses—in regional Australia are worse off thanks to this Labor government.

The small-business carve-out that the government is talking about in the budget is another con. Nine out of 10 small businesses are worse off under Labor. Canberra is going to decide who's innovative. If that is not the greatest hypocrisy you have ever heard—to have bureaucrats and government departments deciding what innovation and tech is—I don't know what else could be. This is an attack on our productive industries, on mining and on resources. Confidence has been undermined, investment has been discouraged and projects have been delayed. We know that, under the coalition, we will restore Australians' living standards. We will protect Australians' way of life because the coalition backs Australians.

Labor is the party of working families. Just one week from today, on 1 July, life gets that little bit easier for families right across the country. In one week, the Albanese government expands paid parental leave to a full six months. That's 26 weeks. Families receiving the full entitlement will see almost $30,000 in government funded paid parental leave payments for their families. That is more than double what families received before Labor came into government in 2022. From 1 July, the rate of payment rises to $1,004.70 per week.

We've also delivered superannuation on paid parental leave. That means parents keep earning superannuation while they're on their parental leave. We've also increased income limits, so more working families qualify than ever before. It was a Labor government that introduced paid parental leave in this country, and it is a Labor government that will always defend it. In all, 460,000 families have benefited from paid parental leave since we expanded it under this government, and those working families should never forget it was the Liberal Party and One Nation who voted against expanding paid parental leave and paying super on it.

I stand here as a working mum and I know this stuff matters. Those first few months are precious. The nights are indeed long, but the days are short and they go by way too fast. Every parent deserves the opportunity to be there for their child without lying awake worrying about the bills they need to pay. This reform delivers exactly that—more time, more support and more peace of mind. This is real support for working families.

I'm so proud of the support that these changes will give Australian families. Parents will decide for themselves how to divide their leave between the primary and the secondary caregiver. Some families will want mum to stay at home for longer. Some will want dad or a partner to take on more of the caring. Many will want to share it more evenly than the generation before them could. No two families are the same. This reform trusts parents to do what works for them because they know their family the best. And it matters enormously to working women. For far too long, the load of caring fell on women alone, and it held them back at work and in their economic security. When both parents can share the caring, women no longer have to choose between their children, who they love, and the careers that they have built.

Supporting families doesn't stop there. Paid parental leave is just one piece of a much larger picture because supporting families does not end when the leave does. It continues every day when a parent walks their child through the door of an early learning centre. That is why we are expanding access to early childhood education and care, making it safer and lifting its quality. Just last week, the Albanese government locked in a historic pay rise for the people who care for our littlest Australians. We're investing a further $3.6 billion to lock in the 15 per cent pay rise for our early childhood educators. That means around $255 more per week for an educator and around $410 per week for early childhood teachers. It's tied to centres who limit their fees, so workers are paid fairly without the costs landing on families. Our three-day guarantee makes sure every child who needs it can access three days of subsidised early learning.

We are tying funding to quality and safety, so services must meet the national safety standard to keep it. Parents deserve to know that their child is safe. Since the pay rise began, there are around 20,000 more educators and vacancies have fallen by almost a third. If we pay our educators properly, we know that more people will want to take on this important work. That is exactly what the Albanese government is all about: backing our parents, backing our little Australians and making sure every family has what they need to flourish, including more time at home, more time in the budget and safer, more affordable early learning. That is the difference between this government and those that sit opposite.

Every support for working families that we have delivered has been opposed by the Liberals and One Nation. Last week, Senator Hanson accused working mums of being lazy and not showing up to work. She questioned the need for paid parental leave and told women exactly what she thinks of them. Well, I say this: the measure of a society is not how much hardship we preserve but how much hardship we remove. I don't think the parents of the 1.4 million children in child care lay awake wishing that child care were more expensive. They don't need lectures on how things used to be; they need policies that reflect how things are now.

On 10 March this year, TasFarmers wrote to me—and a number of other colleagues and government ministers for that matter—and expressed concerns with respect to the proposed sale of Rushy Lagoon in north-eastern Tasmania to a foreign investment company. Rushy Lagoon is a 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm. It's highly productive and exceptionally good at what it does, but the proposal that sits in front of the government right now is that this sale will be subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to convert this 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm to grow trees. This is an absurd proposition.

I forwarded this correspondence from TasFarmers to the Treasurer on 19 March. I know that the Treasurer received the correspondence directly from TasFarmers. A number of other ministers—the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is a Tasmanian—have received it as well. I further wrote to Dr Chalmers on 11 May and expressed my concerns about this sale being subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I don't necessarily have a problem with foreign investment. Foreign investment is an important thing for our economy and has had a very positive role over time. But the fact that this foreign investment is going to be subsidised in a market-distorting manner by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to convert a 22,000-hectare, irrigated—so there's been a lot of investment in infrastructure on this property—beef and dairy farm to grow trees is absurd. It is distorting the local market.

TasFarmers's letter to me and to others said that they are very concerned about the conversion and the impact on agriculture in the region. It's a large dairy-producing farm, so the impact on the viability of milk pick-up through the north-east has been raised. There are also questions being raised about the viability of beef processing in northern Tasmania, where there's a large beef-processing plant at Longford, and the loss of the stock that comes off this property into that is also a concern. But the distortion of the agricultural land market is the primary concern of both the local community and TasFarmers.

What really concerns me is that none of those letters have received any response from members of government. TasFarmers's and my letters have all been ignored by the government—zero response. There is no way known that this sale which will be subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is in our national interest. It's not in our interest. The government is developing a national food security plan to convert a 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm to grow trees. It does not make sense. Why should we be subsidising the sequestration of CO2 for foreign companies and foreign businesses in Australia, which would be subsidised by the Australian taxpayer, at the expense of growing food for Australians and for our export industries? Why would we be doing that?

Here's another nasty little curl to the whole situation. One of the executives on the board of the Foreign Investment Review Board that's considering this is also a board member of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Explain to me how we get a fair deal. How do we get an unbiased deal when you've got this cross-pollination between these two organisations? How is the conflict of interest being managed by this government? They refuse to answer any questions. They refuse to answer any of the questions and all of the concerns validly raised by TasFarmers and by members of the local community in the north-east. Everyone else is being silent. My letters and TasFarmers's letters are all being ignored by the government, and this sale is not in Australia's national interest and should not be supported by the government. (Time expired)

I rise today to speak about agritourism in Australia, and it's an important opportunity to tell a better story about our regions, our farmers, our food and our communities. Agritourism sounds like a policy word, but indeed it's an idea that is very, very human. It's about families stopping at the farm gate and buying fruit straight from the grower. It's about kids picking berries and learning that food doesn't begin its life wrapped in plastic. It's a cellar door, farmers' market, farm stay, station stay or a food trail through one of our beautiful regional towns. At its heart, agritourism is about connection. It connects visitors with the lands, consumers with producers, and city families with regional communities. It gives farmers and local businesses another way to share what they do with pride, and that matters, because our farmers do some pretty amazing and extraordinary work. They manage drought, floods, fires, changing markets, rising import costs and workforce pressures, but, too often, people who buy Australian produce never get to meet the people who are behind it.

Agritourism opens the gate. It allows people to see the work, the skill and the care behind Australian food and fibre. It is not about replacing farming; it's about strengthening farm businesses in tough seasons. Tourism Research Australia recently found that, in 2024, trips involving agritourism activities accounted for 18.5 million trips, nearly 100 million nights and $20.3 billion in spending across Australia. Three in four visited regional Australia, and this means that visitors are staying, eating, shopping and spending money in towns, and that makes a huge difference. I was reminded of this recently when I travelled with the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth for its rural and regional growth inquiry around Mount Gambier and the Coonawarra. We visited Patrick of Coonawarra, and what stood out was not only the quality of the wine but the way in which the cellar door became the front door to the region. Visitors came to taste the wine, but they also learned about the climate, the soil, the growers and a broader story about their community. In the Adelaide Hills, we visited Jurlique and Berenberg Farm. These are very different businesses, but they all show the same point, and that is that regional products carry a story of place. Whether it's food, wine, skincare, herbs, berries or preserves, people want to know where things come from. When businesses share that story directly with visitors, the benefits flow beyond one farm gate.

Western Australia, my hometown, has so much to offer. From the south-west to the Great Southern to the wheat belt, the Gascoyne, the Pilbara and the Kimberley, across our great state, agricultural and pastoral life, Aboriginal culture, food production and nature based tourism all have enormous potential. Margaret River shows this is exactly what that can look like. It's also known around the world for its wine, but its strength is the whole experience—the cellar doors, the breweries, the paddock-to-plate meals, the beaches, the forests, the galleries and the local producers working together. A visitor might come for one thing, but they stay because the region gives them so many more reasons to explore. That's one of the lessons of agritourism—that no single business can carry out the whole visitor experience alone. A farmer, a winery, a cafe, a First Nations cultural tourism operator, a accommodation provider and a regional event can all be part of the same story.

We should also recognise the importance of First Nations tourism. First Nations food experiences, cultural tours and on-country tourism help visitors to understand the deep history, the knowledge and the meaning of the land. This must be First Nations led. When done properly, it supports jobs, strengthens cultural pride and allows culture to be shared on First Nations' terms.

The Albanese Labor government has recognised these opportunities through practical support for regional producers, including the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants Program. In 2024, more than 200 wine and cider businesses shared in $10 million of funding, including 34 from Western Australia. The government has extended this program for another three years and with $300 million in new funding.

Agritourism is not about turning every farm into a tourist experience. Some farmers want to do that, and some don't. But, for those who do, we should make it easier to build safe, sustainable and authentic experiences, because when agritourism works everybody gains. Farmers diversify, visitors learn and regional towns get more foot traffic.

Last week, the South Australian parliament gave BHP the go-ahead for a $25 billion expansion of Olympic Dam, one of the world's largest copper mines, till 2086—another 60 years of destruction of country and heritage. BHP extracts about 70 million litres of water a day from the Great Artesian Basin. The depletion of water in the basin through BHP is threatening the sacred mound springs on Arabana country, which have sustained life in the desert for thousands of years. Elders remember the Bubbler spring throwing water high into the air. Today it barely lifts above the ground. For what? A copper mine.

For our people, water is not a resource. Arabana elder Sydney Strangways says:

Like blood in your body it keeps you alive, you need water in your country to keep it alive.

Water readings since 1985 show significant reductions of flow and springs drying up. If Borefield A is not shut down immediately, these spring complexes will be lost forever. Yet this expansion allows for extraction until 2036 anyway. This is like the destruction of Juukan Gorge, only painfully slower. You don't need dynamite to destroy a sacred place. You can do it one litre at a time until the water and the stories that go with it are gone.

This could have been prevented by a World Heritage listing of the Lake Eyre region, but in 1995 then premier Dean Brown advocated for the region not to be considered for listing as it might interfere with radioactive waste storage sites planned for the Woomera region. Kokatha people, the traditional owners of the land Roxby Downs sits on, say the original mining deal authorised the destruction of their land. The Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act was passed in 1982, before native title and national environmental and heritage protection laws. Even then, it was set up to override state laws that contradict it so that corporate interests could prevail over everything else. Forty-four years later, there is no excuse for bending 16 separate state acts to the terms of a private agreement, including the environment, water, planning, local government and pastoral land acts. This one operation gets a legal framework written purely for the largest mining company on earth.

BHP has the audacity to publicly commit to free, prior and informed consent with First Peoples, yet the traditional owners of the lands and waters affected were never even consulted. They were handed a finished bill and told the matter was closed. That is not consent. As Arabana people themselves say, hearing of a decision after it is made is not consultation, and consultation is not consent. Consent means the right to say no and to have that no respected.

The inquiry into the bill was no better, allowing just 10 days for submissions and tabling the report the day after submissions closed. There wasn't even time to read them. Of the concerns raised in submissions from Arabana people, Kokatha people and Dieri people from South Australia's own First Nations Voice and from lawyers, scientists and people who have spent their lives on these springs, none made it into the committee's report. When the minister was asked why, he said, 'they weren't relevant'. The concerns of the traditional owners of the country this bill decides the fate of for the next 60 years were not relevant. This shows us whose voice counts and who matters, and, of all weeks, they chose to do this during National Reconciliation Week. There will never be reconciliation until you listen to the true sovereign people of the land. That's us.

South Australia and BHP quietly wrote each other an indemnity against native title compensation. Traditional owners cannot take it to court. The South Australian minister said that the concerns about native title were not part of the indenture because native title is a federal matter. Now the ball is in your court, Labor. A state law cannot override federal law. The Native Title Act, EPBC Act and the ATSI Act are all federal. What are you going to do to protect this sacred country?

The coalition has a storied past of locking in inequality. Their contempt and disregard for the majority of hardworking Australians is nothing short of dishonest and downright disgraceful, to be honest, and I thought I'd take some time to go through some of their greatest hits.

This is a bit of a trigger warning for young people who may be following along at home. I'm going to talk about the Howard government. The Howard government entrenched a system that gradually eroded the dream of homeownership, turning the housing market into a vehicle for building wealth. They created the perfect storm that swept through and lashed the housing market. They also delivered tax cuts and superannuation concessions that overwhelmingly favoured the wealthiest Australians. Combined with negative gearing and the 50 per cent CGT discount, this heavily incentivised investors to flood the housing market. Now, to this day, the fallout from these failed policies is locking ordinary Australians out of homeownership. At the turn of the century, the average house cost about four times the yearly income. Today, that figure has surged to between nine and 14 times the average annual wage.

On the mining boom, instead of using the windfall to strengthen the broader economy and prepare for the future, the Howard government spent billions of dollars on income tax cuts for the wealthy. This was a deliberate distraction from the entrenchment of inequality. You can see this clearly in school funding. Between 1999 and 2005, federal funding for schools increased by $261 per student for public schools, while in private schools it was $1,584 per student.

While shareholders grew richer, Australians today are paying the price. Not only are millions of hard-working Australians doing it tough but we have an alarming concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a few billionaires. The evidence is clear: trickle-down economics doesn't work. It leads to inequality, it concentrates power and it weakens democracy. And again, for those young ones who may be following at home, respected Australian journalist and comedian Jordan Shanks from friendlyjordies has a piece that he did called John Howard REALLY Sucked. Look it up. It's a really good video to watch.

For nine years, the coalition in their last term delivered just 373 social and affordable homes. As if this circus wasn't grand enough, they didn't even have a housing minister for most of those nine years. Despite repeated warnings of rising housing unaffordability and homelessness, extortionate landlords and the need for tax reform, the coalition simply turned a blind eye. Just to rub salt into the wound, Prime Minister Morrison's genius solution for renters was for them to buy a house, which also highlights just how out of touch the coalition are with working Australians.

To further prove they're not on the side of hard-working Australian wage earners, they presided over a period of deliberate wage suppression. For nine years, Australia's wages stagnated by design. As then finance minister Mathias Cormann said, lower economic wage growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. In other words, workers wage stagnation was not a problem that needed solving. It was a feature of the system. That's why they've also previously formulated punitive policies such as WorkChoices and unfairly attacked trade unions. Why? Because they know that strong union membership means more democracy and unity in a workplace, meaning workers have a say in the way that things happen at work. Whether it's WorkChoices, whether it's wage suppression or a tax on Medicare, the pattern is always the same: when forced to choose between working Australians and powerful vested interests, the coalition unapologetically sides with the powerful interests, not with working Australians. But where are those powerful interests going? They are even abandoning the coalition and they're going to the orange mob over there. And it doesn't stop there.

The Morrison government's proposed stage 3 tax cuts would have delivered disproportionate gains to the top end of town. To illustrate this, it was estimated that six per cent of the benefit would go to one per cent of the top income earners, and 70 per cent of the benefit would go to the richest 25 per cent. Yet at this time, despite 80 per cent of income earners earning under $90,000, they would only have received 10 per cent of the benefit. Labor fixed that and restored fairness, and that's what we're doing with this budget.

Well, I really haven't got time to address the garbage and the lies that just came out of the socialist Labor government. But anyway, I've got more important things to say. You'd be forgiven for thinking I had slaughtered a sacred cow at the National Press Club last week. Monoculturalism is virtually all you've been able to talk about since that day. It's exactly what I intended. We must never be afraid to debate any issue. We must never be afraid to challenge long-held assumptions. I've been doing it for the past 30 years. I'm still here and I'm still doing it. I'm delighted this issue is being publicly examined and debated. It's a debate many Australians have been itching to have, so I make no apology for raising it. Australians are already making their opinion known. A poll of more than 11,000 people in the Daily Telegraph showed 66 per cent of people want Australia to be monocultural, with only 21 per cent wanting Australia to be multicultural. It seems some sacred cows are not so sacred after all.

I'm not the only public figure who has rejected multiculturalism. John Howard said he always had trouble with it. Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron said state multiculturalism had failed. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said attempts to build a multicultural society in her country had utterly failed. It looks like I was way ahead of the political curve when I spoke about these issues in 1996. More than 40 years ago, prominent Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey criticised multiculturalism for tending to emphasise the rights of ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority of Australians.

In the past week, the far-left have naturally taken my comments into the realm of utter fantasy. I was going to ban foreign food, and the Socceroos wouldn't have beaten Turkiye under my policy. What rubbish—predictable and pathetic. The Socceroos, in fact, represent my vision of a monocultural Australia—people from different backgrounds and cultures and nations all wearing green and gold, and representing one nation under one flag and succeeding under the same set of rules.

Australian monoculture is not exclusive; it is welcoming. It's an umbrella which covers all manner of difference. It's not a dirty word. Oh, now let me remember. Didn't we change our national anthem from 'young and free' to 'one and free'? That's right. Australia doesn't drag people kicking and screaming to its shores; people from other places choose to come here. Actually, they're lining up. They choose to be Australian. That was the case with the parents of Carlos Quaremba MLC, a member of One Nation's parliamentary team in South Australia. When he was a baby, they escaped military junta in Argentina and sought refuge in Australia. They chose to be Australian but they didn't discard their cultural traditions. Carlos, who is quintessentially—well, he's a bloody Aussie but he still loves his Argentinian barbecues and wouldn't give them up for anything. I love them too. Increasingly, however, there are people choosing to come to Australia with no intention of becoming Australian or accepting Australian values, customs, traditions and laws.

Remember what sparked the riots in Cronulla: Muslims attacking Australian women for wearing bikinis at the beach in a hot Australian summer. If we're going to accept you, you must accept us too. That's not too much to ask. It's the bare minimum we should be demanding. It's where we should be drawing the line on things incompatible with our culture, like sharia law, child marriages, roaming armed gangs, female circumcision, sex-selective abortion and the burqa. Burqas are about confining and controlling women, which is un-Australian. Under a One Nation government, they will be banned.

Accepting Australia means accepting our culture and the values, customs and traditions which define it: a fair go, tolerance, secular democracy, freedom of speech, religion and the rule of law. It means accepting our irreverence and larrikinism. Bring back Paul Hogan and Norman Gunston. These are the essential features of Australian monoculture, and there's nothing remotely exclusionary about them. These values are not even especially unique. They are accepted widely in the democratic world because they're values which are blind to race, gender or religion. But they're not accepted by many who are allowed to come here, and that's what must be addressed. Come here with your Greek salad, your Italian pasta, your Chinese stir fry, your Indian curry and your— (Time expired)

Great speech, Senator Hanson. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I agree with everything you said.

For my entire life, we have been promised smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom. Yet, year after year, election after election, the government—it doesn't matter which side of this chamber and it doesn't matter which government—has delivered the exact opposite of that: higher taxes, more debt, more regulation, more bureaucracy and less freedom. That's what I keep getting.

In Australia, we don't have a cost-of-living crisis because ordinary Aussies just forgot how to budget, we don't have a housing crisis because young Australians suddenly stopped working hard and we don't have an energy crisis because Australians started using too much electricity—not at all. We have all of these crises because the government has become too large, too expensive and too intrusive. The establishment constantly tells Aussies that it has the answers, but most of the problems that Aussies face today were created by these very same people who always somehow have the answer but can never solve the problems.

Housing affordability has collapsed, government debt has exploded and energy prices, as we all know, have soared. Trust is basically non-existent in the major parties of the left and of the right as well. The bureaucracy has expanded beyond recognition, now reaching into every corner of our lives. Australians are working harder than ever before, and we're getting less and less in return. At some point we've got to ask a simple question: if many of you in this place were going to solve these problems like you always claim that you're going to do, wouldn't you have done it by now? You've had your shot, and you've blown it time and time again.

In Australia, we now have hundreds of agencies, commissions, authorities, boards, advisory councils and bureaucratic empires. Too many of these paper pushers are paid more than the Prime Minister himself. The worst part of it all is it doesn't matter who sits in that big office, the PM's office, in Parliament House. These shadowy bureaucrats never go anywhere. They are the permanent power structure that underpins all of the waste. Each agency has executives, managers, consultants, communications teams, compliance officers—all this stuff. What do they want? All they want is more staff, more power and more control over the lives of ordinary Australians, who just want to be left alone. These people are bleeding us dry.

At the federal level alone, Australia has more than 1,200 acts of parliament on the books. Just think about that. That's 1,200 federal laws. In the last parliament, what did you guys pass? You passed 355 bills and then added thousands more regulations, legislative instruments, rules and compliance requirements. It just never ends. Every single one of these things is another burden on business, on workers, on families and on people just trying to build a better life for themselves. It's no wonder productivity is stagnant, housing takes years to approve, business spend too much of their time filling out forms rather than serving their customers and morale is just so low.

I understand something that the professional politicians, the professional political class, in this building refuse to acknowledge. I understand it, and it's this: government is not the source of prosperity; people are, businesses are, workers are, families are and entrepreneurs are. Prosperity comes from human freedom, not bureaucratic overmanagement. Instead of constantly creating new departments, new agencies and new regulations, why don't we make a decision to see which departments we can abolish instead? Which agencies can we merge together? Which programs can be eliminated altogether? Which laws can we repeal? We should not be asking, 'What can we pass this week?' That is rubbish.

We need to reduce the size of government, not constantly expand government. We need to cut red tape, not make more of it. We need to lower taxes, not find new ways to extract more and more money from Australians. The primary point of government is not to control every aspect of our lives. The primary point of government is to protect our freedoms, to defend liberty and to get the hell out of the way of ordinary Australians.

We're not looking for another sales pitch from Labor. We're not looking for another sales pitch from the Liberal Party. What are we looking for? We're looking for a different direction. We want less government. We want less regulation. We want lower taxes. We want less bureaucracy—because the path that we are on right now is simply unsustainable. This is why both of you major parties are declining in the polls. This is why you're going nowhere fast. Everyone is sick of you, least of all me! I know half of you better than the people on the outside do, and I don't even like you!

While those on the opposite side of the chamber seek to divide everyday Australians and denigrate Australian workers, our government is concentrating and focusing on delivering for everyday Australians. The work that we are doing in northern Australia to increase housing supply is something that I am incredibly proud of and something that we continue to work hard at every single day.

When we talk about northern Australia we often talk about its enormous potential, but unlocking that potential requires investment, confidence and a government willing to back the north for the long term. That's exactly why the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is so important. The NAIF has become one of the most effective tools we have to support projects that deliver real benefits to northern communities—not just roads and ports but the infrastructure that helps people build their lives in the north.

That's an important point, because there was a time when people questioned whether the NAIF was capable of delivering. Under the former Liberal-National government, NAIF was often referred to as the 'no actual infrastructure fund', and, despite the fact that NAIF had been headquartered in Cairns since its inception, Cairns went years without seeing a single local project supported through the facility. It took an Albanese Labor government to change that. Today we're seeing NAIF deliver exactly what it was established to do: unlocking investment, supporting regional communities and helping build the future of northern Australia.

Nowhere is that more important than housing. Today, one of the biggest challenges facing regional Australia is housing. When there isn't enough housing, it becomes harder for businesses to attract workers, for essential services to recruit staff and for communities to grow. If we want communities to grow, businesses to expand and regional economies to thrive, then we need more homes. That's why it's so significant that some of the first Cairns projects supported by NAIF have been focused on exactly that: building more social and affordable housing.

In Cairns, NAIF is helping to deliver 490 social and affordable homes. In Townsville, a $42 million NAIF loan is supporting the delivery of 81 social and affordable homes. Again, these are exactly the types of projects that might struggle to secure finance but deliver enormous benefits to their communities. In Darwin, NAIF is supporting a new Charles Darwin University student accommodation project in the CBD that will provide housing for 402 students, because access to education should not depend on whether you can find somewhere to live. Students need somewhere safe, secure and affordable to stay while they study. That investment will support students, strengthen Darwin's CBD and help grow the Northern Territory's future workforce.

These are exactly the kinds of projects NAIF was created to support, but only under the Albanese Labor government are they being delivered. We're delivering projects that might not otherwise have got off the ground, projects that create jobs during construction and projects that leave behind infrastructure that serves communities for decades to come.

These investments form part of the Albanese Labor government's broader agenda to tackle the housing crisis in Australia. We're delivering the $47 million Homes for Australia plan. We're investing in more social and affordable housing. We're supporting enabling infrastructure, in places like Cairns, so that new housing developments can proceed. I was so proud to stand next to the member for Leichhardt, Matt Smith, to announce in Mount Peter, just days after the federal budget was delivered, that we will be delivering the Mount Peter residential plan.

We're making it easier for first home buyers to get into a home sooner, and we're increasing housing supply because we know there is no single solution to the housing challenge. We need to invest in infrastructure that makes those developments possible. But every single time our government has sought to make it easier for Australians to own their own home, those opposite—the Liberal, National and One Nation parties—have voted against those changes. Time and time again, the Liberal, National and One Nation coalition have voted against measures to support more homes for Australians.

The Albanese Labor government is investing in northern Australia. We're investing in the infrastructure the communities need to grow. We are ensuring that NAIF can continue to do exactly what it does best: back projects that deliver real outcomes for people in the north.

We are now moving into two-minute statements.

Australia is sitting on a Labor debt bomb. Yes, Australia went into debt during the pandemic, necessary debt to face a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic challenge. But, since that time, Labor's addiction to spending has seen our debt grow and grow. This year it is going to top $1 trillion in gross debt, 34 per cent of our GDP. If you include the state and territory governments, the vast majority of which are Labor governments, you're looking at $1.6 trillion across Australia in gross debt.

Now, what does that mean for you? It's an obscure number; it's hard to relate to the impact on families. It means that the government is currently having to find $25 billion in your taxes just to fund the interest bill on that debt alone—$50,000 each and every day to fund the interest alone. And that is just going up and up. As interest rates rise, the amount you have to pay in tax goes up in interest repayments. It is estimated that the repayments over the next few years will increase to $40 billion every year to sustain Labor's addiction to spending. This is a failed budget full of tax increases because the Labor government is addicted to spending your money.

I rise today to celebrate some fantastic news for the community of Victor Harbor and the wider southern Fleurieu region. Last month the Albanese government announced $2.5 million in funding for the Victor Harbor Regional Community, Sport and Recreation Precinct through the regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. This investment will help bring to life a project that will provide sporting facilities, childcare services, allied health spaces and community amenities for local families.

As someone who grew up on the Fleurieu Peninsula, I know how important community spaces are. They are where kids play their first game of netball, football or basketball, where families gather on weekends, and where friendships are formed and communities strengthened. Regional communities deserve facilities that meet the needs of a growing population. And that's exactly what this project is about. It will help address gaps in sport, recreation and childcare services while supporting local jobs and economic growth across the region. I recently had the opportunity to visit the site, and it was wonderful to see the enthusiasm and optimism surrounding this project. The local community has worked incredibly hard to get it to this point, and this funding is an important step towards making their vision a reality.

Too often regional communities are told to wait their turn. This government believes regional Australians deserve investment now. We believe communities like Victor Harbor should have access to the infrastructure they need to grow, thrive and attract the next generation of families. I am proud that the Albanese government is backing Victor Harbor, and I look forward to seeing this precinct become a lasting asset for the Fleurieu region.

Last week we saw on the media platform one of the most hateful, disgusting and cruel addresses that I have ever seen. It was a dystopian vision of Australia from Senator Hanson—mean, cruel and selfish, where neighbour turns against neighbour, where women's right to choose is wound back, where workers' wages plunge and bosses hold all the cards and where we fight each other for the scraps dropped from above by billionaires pulling the strings. That is One Nation's Australia. For nearly three decades, they have been running the same grift, sowing division and fuelling bigotry and racism while selling out working people to their wealthy donors. It is a hell of a business model. The target has shifted over time, now centred on Muslims, but the product is always the same.

Make no mistake: if you value a multicultural country, its neighbourhoods, its culture and its economy, One Nation wants to take all that away from you and turn us into a small, bleak and bland society, swallowing up our richness and vibrancy. Also, make no mistake that the conditions for the far right to flourish have been provided courtesy of Labor, who have wasted their majority government. Failing to make people's lives better, they have instead been dog whistling and scapegoating migrants. One Nation is not an anti-establishment party; they are billionaire-funded grifters. One Nation is not just another political party; they are a racist movement dressed up in electoral clothing. I have spent a decade taking them on in parliament, in the streets, in the courts. I'm not done yet.

If you're a regulation Australian male in 2026, you might actually be excused for wondering what this country has on offer for you anymore. You get told from an early age that your masculinity is toxic. You get Reconciliation Week. You get welcome to country ceremonies every time you step into an event. The constant talk of gender and racial disadvantage gets framed as your inherited guilt. And then Pride Month rolls around, with its rainbow flags on buildings, and you get made to go and attend a Pride morning tea at your work, while your own culture and identity is identified as being problematic. You've got to navigate through diversity quotas in government jobs, university admissions and training programs, and they're all excluding you. It sends a pretty clear message, as far as I'm concerned, that this building and others like it in 2026 are telling the regular, routine Australian male: 'Your background makes you less of a priority. You're the default—the one who's got to step aside or apologise for simply existing.' You've got to check your privilege and the system check boxes that don't include you.

Merit, competence and effort are all now secondary to optics and identity. It's not diversity and inclusion; it's quite exclusionary. It's exclusion dressed up as social justice. It tells Australian men the belief that, if you work hard, you can get ahead no longer applies. How do we get to this point, though? Well, it's the listless bureaucrats, the corporate carpetbaggers and the political midwits who continue to allow this to happen. Is it any wonder that Australian men are feeling so disillusioned, so disengaged and quietly angry as a result of the manner in which they're being treated? Real Australians reject that which divides us into winners and losers based on our race, our sexuality or any other check box, for that matter. Australians have had enough.

That's certainly not the Australia that I encounter when I travel the country, and they are not the discussions that I have with men around the country at those times. It says a lot about what the Liberal Party have become in recent years, when you see a contribution like that and we see the effort from the opposition leader, Mr Taylor, yesterday, which was the weakest explanation that I have ever seen at a press conference from an opposition leader in my lifetime. Absolutely disgraceful! I think anyone over there that might have had any engagement with Angus Taylor or supported him as opposition leader would be shivering in their boots about that sort of performance yesterday. He would have known that question was coming, and the best he could do was gibber on without any defence of multiculturalism.

But that is the Liberal Party in 2026. That is what they have become: they come into the chambers like this and actually think that that is a contribution that they want to make and that advances their party or advances the interests of the country. That is not what I encounter when I go out and talk to people. To be honest, it's not a lot that you get when you talk privately with the members of the Liberal Party as well, but they're not actually brave enough to stand up against that sort of contribution, and that's why they are suffering at the hands of One Nation at the moment—because they actually are not brave enough to stand up and fight.

At the start of this year, we had a contribution following the passing of former senator Ron Boswell, who said his proudest achievement was actually taking on One Nation and defeating Pauline Hanson in an election—defeating Pauline in the Senate. This lot here, the Liberals and Nationals, are a pale imitation of that. We saw evidence of it in the contribution from Senator Antic. We saw evidence yesterday in the contribution at the press conference from the opposition leader, Angus Taylor. Australia deserves so much better from the Liberal and National parties than what we're seeing dished up by this mob. We will stand up for multicultural Australia, and we will stand up every day of the week.

Australians are watching in horror as Labor's disgusting giant tax grab of a budget, which punishes aspiration, breaks promises and makes Australia poorer, is being rammed through parliament off the back of a shadowy deal with the Greens. This is despite the Prime Minister telling us 50 times he would not raise taxes by making changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing. This is despite the Prime Minister saying 385 times, 'I don't negotiate with the Greens.' Yet here we are with another broken promise and another dirty deal done with the Greens. Labor went to the last election telling Australians one thing, and again it is doing another. Is it any wonder that the Fire the Liar campaign has resonated so successfully with Australians? The Prime Minister has broken promises, and, in doing so, he has given the Australian people a new political punchline: 'I have merely changed my position.'

Labor's budget is rushed. It has been botched, and it is politically desperate. It is a great big tax grab from a government that has lost control of a cost-of-living crisis, lost control of a housing crisis and lost the trust of the Australian people. It's got to the point now that, whenever Labor brings a proposal to this parliament, you know it is going to cost the Australian people more—more regulation, more tax, more pain, more suffering—because Labor has a spending addiction. They keep coming back for another fix, treating hardworking nurses, teachers, police, cleaners, bus drivers and tradies—the people of Australia—like an ATM that they can fund their addiction with. Labor think they can mislead people, rely on their buddies the Greens to run cover for them, pass this big tax grab and get away with it, but they cannot. One Nation supports Australians keeping more of the money that they earn to be spent on the things that they want.

I am glad there is an audience in this chamber today, because they need to know that they were absolutely betrayed on budget night—absolutely betrayed. You had your prime minister tell the good Australian people that these tax changes would not be on the table. More than 50 times he promised the Australian people that he would not make changes to the capital gains tax or negative gearing. And what did he do? He said he changed his position. Well, I'll tell you what. He didn't just change his position; he moved the goalposts on every single person in Australia, and he has lost the trust of the Australian people. What did we see here in the chamber yesterday? Labor doing a dirty deal with the Greens. And what does that mean for the rest of Australia? More taxes coming out of your hard-earned money. It's a crying shame, and we will fight this to the very end.

We want to know why Labor and the Greens think that if you want more of something—if you want more of housing, if you want more of investment or if you want to grow this economy so that we can raise our living standards—you should tax it more. Tell us that, Labor. Why tax it more?

The Greens stood in this chamber yesterday and said that the budget didn't go far enough and was not ambitious enough. Do you know what that says to the Australian people? They want to tax you more and take more of your hard-earned money. Well, we will not stand for it and we will take that all the way to the election.

This is a government that wants a share in your business and in your ambition, and it wants to tax your dreams. This is an armchair shareholder, and this is the way of the Labor government: when it runs out of money, it comes after yours.

I rise to recognise a significant victory for young workers and to acknowledge the advocacy of the SDA union through its 'Adult Age = Adult Wage' campaign. I was proud to meet with many SDA members and young retail workers at Parliament House this week, as many senators in this place have, to celebrate this wonderful achievement. Speaking with them was a reminder of just how important this reform is and will be for many thousands of young Australians right across the country. For years, the SDA union and its members have campaigned for a simple expectation: that, if you are doing an adult job, you should be paid the same wage. If you do the same job as your colleagues, you deserve that same pay. No worker should earn less simply because of their age.

In March, the Fair Work Commission delivered a historic decision to abolish junior pay rates for those that are 18, 19 or 20 years of age in the retail, fast food and pharmacy awards, with changes starting from the end of this year—something that those opposite, the Liberal, National and One Nation senators, all voted against, despite what they say in this place. This will put more money in the pockets of young Australians, and I don't know why those opposites hate young Australians—those who are 18, 19 or 20 years of age. Why do you want to treat them like children? They are adults. They vote for us, and they have a right to be paid and respected like adults. Young workers make an enormous contribution to our economy and our communities right across the country, and they deserve fair compensation. These outcomes will be backed, and are backed, proudly by the Albanese government because we are on the side of workers, unlike those opposite, who are complete hypocrites when it comes to who is on the side of the working people.

Australians are struggling because Labor, the LNP and One Nation care more about pandering to their gas donors and their billionaire backers than about teachers and parents who are raising our next generation, nurses and other care workers who are caring for our older people, and our regional workers, who work longer and harder than any billionaire CEO or heiress ever has. All of these workers pay more tax than multinational gas corporations. People are struggling, yet the gas corporations have never performed better. When gas export terminals opened in my home town of Gladstone in late 2014, pumping Australian gas into international markets, the majority of the benefits flowed to giant gas corporations. While gas corporations enjoyed their new billions, my fellow Queenslanders got shafted, and Australians suddenly had to pay world prices for domestically produced gas.

Taxing gas exports means everyday Australians can benefit from our own natural resources. That's an extra $17 billion a year for our underfunded public schools, for our hospitals and for our communities so that they can thrive rather than have people just trying to survive. The Greens want what Australians want: a better deal for everyday people and a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports. If the government is too scared to do it on its own then it should give every Australian a say with a direct vote. Give us a plebiscite to back the change in. It's time this Labor government stood up to the gas lobby. If it won't, let's take the power back and put it where power belongs: with the people.

The Albanese government is tanking in the polls. We all know that. And who is surprised? Not me. Australians will forgive mistakes, incompetence and even the occasional bad policies, but Australians will not forgive being treated like fools.

Before the election, we were assured that there would be no changes to capital gains tax arrangements. Then came proposals and negotiations that left us concluding that perhaps the Prime Minister's greatest strength is duplicity. One Nation began a Fire the Liar campaign that raised millions of dollars from ordinary people during a cost-of-living crisis. Many of these people had never donated to a political party before, but they just wanted to express how upset and angry they were.

And how did the PM respond? He went and broke another promise. Australians were repeatedly told by the PM that the government would not do deals with the Greens—no arrangements, no horsetrading and no dependence on a party that long ago abandoned environmentalism. And yet here we are. The remarkable thing is not that the Prime Minister has chosen to work with the Greens. We kind of always knew he would. The remarkable thing is that the Prime Minister, having made a reputation, in my opinion, for breaking his word, now figures he may as well just keep going.

The public, meanwhile, are paying close attention. They notice that there's a gap between words and actions; they notice when promises quietly disappear; they notice when the Prime Minister changes his position; and, most importantly, they notice when a leader asks them to believe that today's assurance is golden after yesterday's assurance turned out to be worthless. Do you know what? When leaders lose trust and when they lose respect, that is when they fall, and the Prime Minister, by his own hand, no longer has either.

I rise today to acknowledge an historic win for young Australian workers: the SDA's successful 'Adult Age = Adult Wage' campaign. This reform recognises a simple but powerful principle: if you are old enough to be treated as an adult in every other part of your life, you deserve to be paid as an adult at work. For too long, young people in retail and fast food have done the same jobs, carried the same responsibilities and faced the same cost-of-living pressures while being paid less simply because of their age. This campaign has been decades in the making, and its success will mean real, life-changing pay rises for workers across Australia.

On Monday, I was pleased to meet with the SDA's delegation here in Canberra as they continued campaigning for a better deal for their members. I particularly want to acknowledge two fine young Tasmanian delegates: Olivia Richardson, from Target in Mowbray, in Launceston, and Brayden Cox-Pregnall from McDonald's in Prospect, also part of the great city of Launceston---two wonderfully passionate young Tasmanians who deserve better pay and safer workplaces. They will get that because they're members of the SDA union, and they have the support of this government and the people on this side of the chamber here in the Senate.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the SDA—Joel Tynan, the Secretary of the SDA in Tasmania, and Gerard Dwyer, SDA National Secretary—for their tireless work in helping and delivering this important reform for equal pay for 18-year-olds. I congratulate them on their campaign. They know they can depend on a Labor government to protect workers and to ensure workers get the pay and the safe work environment that they all deserve.

Australia leads the world in mammal extinctions. We are one of the only developed countries in the world still driving large-scale deforestation. On nature, our record is, tragically, one of the worst on this planet.

But, late last year, the parliament did something that they haven't done for a quarter of a century, and that is update our broken environmental laws. Exactly a week from today, our first national environmental regulator, Environment Protection Australia, opens its doors. These reforms were far from perfect. I would have loved to have seen them go further and to actually have the starting point of an ethos of stewardship—an attitude that says, 'We do not own the land; we are part of nature, and we are custodians of this incredible continent.' But they were a step in the right direction and they opened the door to big reforms this year, because, as we sit here today, the government is drafting national environmental standards—in plain terms, where the rubber hits the road, the rule book, the thing that actually makes our environmental laws protect nature, protect this incredibly biodiverse continent that we call home. So this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right, for the government to stand up and say, 'We will be judged by future generations on what we do to protect our natural heritage and we're going to do the right thing by ourselves, by this incredible continent and by future generations.' So I urge the Albanese Labor government to do this properly.

Court Network is a free community court support service run by volunteers in four courts across the country. Volunteers attend court and accompany people who are going through their court matters. Often, they're survivors of family or sexual violence. Recently, a volunteer sat with a woman who was the survivor of family violence. Without the volunteer, she would have had to sit alone for six hours in a safe room. She was distressed and spoke about her experience of family violence. The volunteer accompanied her and this enabled her to give her evidence. One person who has been accompanied by this program said, 'Court Network changed my experience of the justice system. When I felt overwhelmed and alone, someone sat beside me and helped me through one of the most difficult periods of my life.' Another person has said, 'Court Network helps make the justice system more humane, accessible and effective.'

But this program is having its federal funding, it's only funding, cut at the end of this month. This program costs your government $300,000 per year. Is this really too much money for the Labor government? This is affordable. You talk about standing up for women, about family violence, but you cut the very funding that supports and enables women to feel safe to tell their story. The incredible volunteers that take time out of their lives to support vulnerable people who are needing this support the most—$300,000. Maybe cut one of your pay packets and pay for it.

I rise to speak of an issue that should make all Australians furious because Australians work hard, they pay their taxes and, when they pay their taxes, they expect that their taxpayer money will go to developing things like roads and hospitals and infrastructure, that it won't go to lining the pockets of criminals, yet that's exactly what has happened in Victoria and Labor is complicit. Today, Victoria's most controversial gangland-linked labour hire firm, Women in Construction, was finally given the boot, with seven days to get off the North East Link project. Now think about that name, Women in Construction. It is not a coincidence that it is also the name of the Labor program that was backed by the CFMEU. It is now also the name of a construction company that hires only women, but it's a company owned by a serial domestic violence offender, Luke Ellery, and it's managed by a fellow named Wayne Junior Carter, a former CFMEU official with links to bikie gangs who's been jailed for drug trafficking and accused of family violence. He was then replaced—surprise surprise—by another CFMEU official with links to assault and who's also been accused of domestic violence.

Women in Construction is the name of these blokes' company—outrageous. How do we know this? We know it because of public scrutiny. We know it because of investigative journalism. But how many more cases are out there? How many more operators with criminal links are there? We don't know because those opposite are denying the Senate an opportunity for inquiry into this very issue. Labor and the Greens cannot claim to be champions of women and workers and people of integrity while they are refusing to shine a light on this. It is abhorrent. If you do not support the inquiry that is facing the Senate today, well, you are complicit in this corruption. The coalition is prepared to ask the questions. Why won't Labor? Why won't the Greens? Because their donations would dry up if they did.

I always find it interesting to see members of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation get so worked up whenever we say they're a uni party. Let's have a look at this. Just yesterday, independent research reported in the Australian found that One Nation's workplace measures could leave essential health workers up to $34,000 worse off.

We're going to move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. CPA Australia has publicly stated that the Prime Minister's capital gains tax changes could force Australians to obtain defensible market valuations for personal use assets, including valuable items held in people's homes, their garages and their sheds. Can the minister confirm whether a vintage car, a classic car, a collectable vehicle or even a number plate worth more than $10,000 will need to be valued before 1 July 2027 under Labor's new capital gains tax regime?

As the senator would know, we have replaced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a new discount based on inflation for gains accruing from 1 July in 2027. Obviously that arrangement was clear in the budget papers. I have to say that I don't mind that people are interested in vintage cars, but I have to say that I'm not somebody who does collect vintage cars, but—

Some Australians do, and they're about to pay more.

Indeed. And what I would say is the taxation arrangement that the government has put in place—which will hopefully pass the Senate tomorrow—is one that is fair and equitable, and it applies across asset classes and it is ensuring that income from assets is taxed in a way that is analogous to the way in which income on wages is taxed.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

If an Australian has restored a vintage car over many years, often without keeping every receipt for parts, for labour or improvements, what records will Mr Albanese require to prove the car's cost base and market value?

It isn't our practice to provide in Senate question time individual tax advice. The budget measures are clear.

You can't even say whether or not it's going to be—

No, the budget measures are clear. From 1 July 2027, we will have a different arrangement in relation to capital gains tax, which will reflect the real gain that an asset has had.

Wouldn't have a clue.

If I may, it will reflect the real gain—

Why bother?

Okay, if you don't want to hear an answer, that's fine. They're interrupting.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Is this another example of Labor's toxic tax complexity—Australians who saved, restored and cared for a classic car in their own garage now being forced to pay for accountants and valuers just to work out what Mr Albanese might take from them when they sell it?

(—) ():  The Australians who are investing in vintage cars will also be the Australians who get new and permanent tax cuts as a consequence of both this package and tax cuts that will be in place from 1 July this year. If I may remind you, they are tax cuts that you voted against and propose to vote against as a consequence of Senator 'High Taxes' Hume and the policy she took to the election. We know that Australians, whether they are investing in vintage or non-vintage cars, will get the benefit of tax cuts that the Labor government is delivering. I would just remind those opposite that they were gearing up to vote against the working Australians tax offset. Yet again, the coalition, who are supposed to be the party of lower taxes, are demonstrating that they are the party of higher taxes. (Time expired)

Minister, please withdraw the additions to Senator Hume's name.

I withdraw.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. In one week's time, our Paid Parental Leave scheme will reach a full 26 weeks, the biggest expansion of the scheme in its history. Can the minister outline why the Albanese Labor government has prioritised investment in women's economic security, in particular in paid parental leave, since coming to government?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for the question. It's an important one around the increase to paid parental leave and the fact that, in a week's time, the Paid Parental Leave scheme will reach a full 26 weeks of providing support to families and those caring for new babies whilst they are out of the workforce.

From 1 July, eligible families will be able to access 26 weeks of PPL backed by the government. With Labor's changes, families will receive almost $30,000 across their paid parental leave period, including super. I think it was the final employment entitlement that didn't have superannuation paid on it. We on this side of the chamber have fixed that. Parents of more than 460,000 children have already benefited from our changes to PPL. Every single year those changes will benefit around 180,000 families.

Our changes mean more time. Parents who are welcoming a new baby or adopting a child will have six months of PPL, giving families more precious time at home with their newest family member. They also mean more money. Parents accessing PPL from 1 July will receive more than double what they would have received before Labor came to government. Under our expanded scheme, parents will be about $15,692 better off than they were before we came to government. There is more support for sharing care because we know the dads or the second parent want to make sure that they are able to spend time with their children, and they should be supported by the scheme's design. More people are eligible, with the annual income limits for paid parental leave also rising. PPL is a Labor legacy, and we are proud to build this, expand on it and deliver it for Australian families.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

Paid parental leave is just one of the Albanese Labor government's policies to support women, from women's health to closing the gender pay gap and lifting wages in female dominated industries. How are these reforms improving outcomes for women across Australia?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for that question too. She is right that we have put driving gender equality and providing better support to women at the centre of government decision-making since coming to government. It is about the programs in women's health, about closing the gender pay gap, which is now the lowest it's ever been, about lifting wages and about ensuring women are able to work if they choose to and are not penalised for taking on extra hours.

We've done, of course, our paid family and domestic violence leave, our expansion of PPL, our super on PPL and, in women's health, modern contraceptives, adding them on the PBS the first time in over 30 years. Modern menopause treatments are coming through the PBS, where no new options had been placed for the last 20 years. We've opened up our endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics around the country. They are open and being very well supported by women who need that kind of care. And we will continue to focus on making sure we are addressing gaps in how we support women across our economy.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

Is the minister aware of any risks to these important social programs, and how can we continue to protect them?

(—) (): I thank Senator Whiteaker for that question too. It is important. We know that, while we can make gains and we do make gains, on this side of the chamber we always look at ways we can better support women. We know that that doesn't come without challenge or without threats to that, and we need to protect it. In the last little while, we have seen comments made about women just having children to get these types of payments, that PPL will send small business broke and that if people bring children into the world it's their responsibility, not the taxpayers', and we don't accept that on this side of the chamber. In the last month, Senator Hanson said: 'Why should business pay because they're not at work? That's the difference. That's why the pay gap is there.' That, again, is not correct analysis. Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson, back in 2013, said: 'PPL, to me, is a very bad scheme, and I make no ambiguity about it. This is not my choice that women have children. It's genetic.' (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Will the government expand its ban on super funds buying houses to APRA regulated institutional and union backed super funds?

The terms of the agreement with the Australian Greens to pass a tax package—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I would make the point that the Australian Greens are prepared to vote for a tax cut for working people, but the coalition is not. We have made it clear that we would have agreed to support an amendment to ban future borrowing arrangements by self-managed superannuation funds for residential property. I would—

What are the terms of the agreement?

The Prime Minister has been upfront about that. If you want to vote for a tax cut, let us know. One day the coalition might actually vote for a tax cut. Do you know we've had five tax cuts that the Labor government's introduced that you have voted against?

Senator Bragg?

I have a point of order on relevance. The question was very clear about whether the proposed ban would apply to APRA regulated institutional and union backed super funds.

Senator Bragg, you are absolutely right, but you could assist me by asking your colleagues not to intervene, because there was an interjection, and, as you know, a minister is entitled to address the interjection.

I made it clear in my opening response, Senator Bragg, that these arrangements would apply to self-managed super funds in relation to residential property, and I would say less than 10 per cent of self-managed super funds have one of these arrangements. These will all be unaffected.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Why is the government singling out families and individuals again for punitive tax treatment but leaving major institutions with a tax leg-up?

You might, as someone who is interested in tax policy, be aware of a gentleman called David Murray, who did an inquiry in 2014. That inquiry also raised concerns about the risk from these arrangements to retirement savings, as did the Council of Financial Regulators in 2019 and 2022. So I would make the point to you that, if the Council of Financial Regulators and Mr Murray's report in 2014 have raised concerns about this, I'm surprised that you don't apprise yourself of the concerns that were raised when considering your position.

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

I think it would aid the Senate if we could not only have the terms of the agreement tabled but also ask this supplementary question: how does the government now defend its position that super funds and foreign investment funds should have significant tax benefits that are no longer available to individual Australians?

The Prime Minister has been upfront with the Australian people. He held a press conference. I'd invite you to read the transcript of that press conference, but if we want to talk about arrangements perhaps we could ask Senator Hanson and Senator Cash to talk about the partnership between the coalition and One Nation that Senator Hanson speaks about and that members of your party speak about. You want to be upfront about—

Senator Bragg?

The point of order is on relevance—whether the government can defend its position that institutions should have a preference over individuals.

The minister was being relevant to your question, but I also advise the chamber that there—

No, she wasn't. She was talking about One Nation.

I would think, Senator Bragg, that, when you stand up and ask me for a point of order, you would at least have the courtesy and the respect to not interject when I rule on it. I was going to advise the chamber that there were so many interjections that I could barely hear Senator Wong. She began by being relevant, and then I could not hear what she was saying because of the loudness, particularly from my left but not only from my left—also from my right. I will listen carefully, Senator Bragg, and, if the minister isn't being relevant, I'll remind her to be relevant. Senator Wong.

You see, Senator Bragg believes that the status quo on all fronts is working. We can see that because he, along with his coalition colleagues, has consistently voted no to all change. Senator Gallagher reminds me that you voted against changes to superannuation. You propose to vote against tax cuts. You don't want to listen to what Mr Murray said or what the Council of Financial Regulators said, because you just defend the status quo. That is what you think is the way forward. We don't. We think change is necessary, and we look forward to the passage of legislation tomorrow, which will be good for Australians. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister Wong. Minister, a new independent UN report has found Israel consistently, directly and intentionally targeted individual children across Gaza. It documents the use of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, including sexual and gender based violence against Palestinian children—children, Minister! These were children used for target practice by Israeli soldiers—a 15-year-old killed while carrying a white flag, a 10-day-old baby shot in the head while being breastfed, a three-year-old shot dead in the arms of his father just last Sunday. More than 20,000 children—dead. It is a wonder that you can look parents in the eye while Australia trades parts and weapons with the perpetrators of these horrors. Minister, why won't the Albanese government end the arms trade and impose comprehensive sanctions on Israel, just like we do against Russia?

No child should be targeted. We condemn, Australia condemns, the targeting of children. We have consistently done so through this conflict and through other conflicts. We take these reports very seriously. We have consistently advocated for the rights and protection of children, including as a longstanding member of the Group of Friends on Children and Armed Conflict. Later today, we will speak, Australia will speak, at the United Nations Security Council in relation to the rising violence against children in situations of armed conflict.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

On one side, you have the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a host of other expert organisations and scholars the world over who have the courage to call this genocide what it is: genocide. On the other side, you have Trump, his far-right US government and its compliant allies like Australia's Labor government. Minister, why won't you admit that Israel is committing a genocide and call it what it is? Call it a genocide.

Firstly, in relation to the response to the question on the United Nations, I said in my primary answer that the UN Security Council will be discussing, later today, the rising violence against children in situations of armed conflict and that Australia will make a contribution in that debate. What I would also say is the Greens political party consistently seeks to misrepresent the government's position and actions. The government has spoken many times about Australia's view of what is happening—

Honourable senators interjecting—

and what has happened in Gaza and in the West Bank. We have taken action, including the sanctioning of two senior ministers in the Netanyahu government for human rights abuses, in coordination with the United Kingdom, Canada and other partners.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Faruqi—no, I haven't called you—and Senator Waters, Senator Faruqi asked her question with complete silence from the chamber. That same courtesy and respect will be shown to the minister. Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Minister, your government has continued trading arms with the genocidal Israeli regime. You've refused to sanction the perpetrators responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 children. What absurd horrors are next? Can we expect to see you supporting the suggestion from One Nation and its owner, Gina Rinehart, to gift Israel chunks of Queensland to build these kid-killing weapons?

I remember Pauline Hanson saying this country was 'in danger of being swamped by Asians', and I will never support One Nation.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government understands that Australians are doing it tough right now with the rising cost-of-living pressures. The government is doing its part by advocating for wage rises, providing tax cuts for every worker and ensuring that workplace conditions are improved. How is the government's position on boosting wages helping workers in industries like health get more in their pay packet?

Thanks to Senator Stewart who, along with every other Labor senator, has a proud record of standing up for working people in Australia. The Albanese Labor government is helping Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, with higher wages and more tax cuts. Before the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, we saw strong real wage growth for eight consecutive quarters.

We know that enterprise agreements continue to be a key source of wages growth for Australian workers, which is why our efforts to reinvigorate bargaining are so important. For two years in a row now, our government has strongly advocated to the independent Fair Work Commission for an economically sustainable real wage rise for Australia's minimum and award wage workers, many of whom work in the health and aged-care sectors. The recent decision by the commission to increase the national minimum wage and modern awards by at least 4.75 per cent will deliver a real wage increase from 1 July for almost 2.7 million Australian workers around the country. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the previous Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison coalition governments who for a decade had a policy of deliberately keeping wages low.

Only the Albanese Labor government is committed to increasing the pay packets of working Australians. An article on news.com.au this morning quoted new analysis which looked into how much better off workers in the health sector are under our government. And that analysis found that allied health worker wages have risen by between $8,000 and $13,000 per year as a result of Labor's wage rises, including for workers such as physiotherapists and radiographers. A further $1,200 per year had come to those workers from Labor's reforms allowing multiemployer bargaining, while gender based undervaluation changes could account for up to an additional $20,000 per year for some classifications. For aged-care workers, it's a similar story. Changes to bargaining were estimated to have accounted for an additional $600; wage theft reforms, a further $1,840; and gender based—

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Our hardworking health workers are on the front line of providing quality care for our kids, for our grandparents and for other loved ones who are sick. Minister, why is it important that governments ensure that these workers are earning more and keeping more of what they earn?

Whether it's wage rises or tax cuts, the Albanese government is doing everything we can to help working Australians. But we see today reports in the Daily Telegraph that One Nation wants to form a new partnership with the Liberal Party that would risk all of that. Now, this isn't a surprise to those of us who've seen One Nation and the Liberals vote together for years now to cut wages, but it would be a surprise to many aged-care and health workers.

The analysis in news.com.au estimated that under One Nation an allied health worker would be up to $34,000 worse off per year. Aged-care workers would be up to $20,000 worse off under One Nation's plans. So Senator Hanson has already set out a plan to wind back Australia's workplace laws to cut workers' wages and make it easier to sack workers. And, under their partnership with the Liberal Party, they certainly have a willing partner in the Liberals. Only Albanese Labor government, is delivering the real change that Australians need.

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

With an ageing population, not just retaining workers but attracting more workers to the healthcare sector is vital to keep pace with the demands that are growing in the community. What are some of the ways governments can encourage more workers into this really important industry?

To ensure that our country can meet the challenges and demands of the future, we need to make sure that the health sector has enough skilled workers. We're backing those workers with wage rises and tax cuts. But, of course, the One Nation and Liberal partnership want to dig into their pockets and rip thousands of dollars out.

It really is hard to know what the point of the Liberal Party is anymore. Who are you? What do you stand for? You've got a leader in Angus Taylor, who's being directed by his mentor, Tony Abbott, to pander to the hard right and who doesn't know whether he's for a monoculture or a multiculture. You've got a leader in waiting in Andrew Hastie, who says he 'won't bend the knee' to One Nation. You've got senators like Senator Antic who are already wearing their One Nation orange ties before they jump ship. But then you've got others like Senator Scarr who celebrate multiculturalism. The One Nation-Liberal partnership won't help Australians. The One Nation-Liberal partnership just means more cuts, more chaos and more division.

Senator Watt, I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.

My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Over a dozen Aboriginal families in Mount Isa are facing homelessness after the local council decided to auction off their homes because their Aboriginal housing provider failed to pay council rates. Desperately needed Aboriginal housing will be permanently lost to private buyers and many of these families fear they will become homeless. What emergency action are you taking to ensure these families stay in their homes and these properties are retained for Aboriginal housing? Is there emergency funding coming?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. What's happening in Mount Isa is a real concern. I have reached out directly to the Queensland government, speaking with the minister for local government. The mayor for Mount Isa City Council has been in touch with us as well. We are working on this on a number of levels, looking at the opportunities for Indigenous Business Australia to assist some of the families who want assistance with it. For those who are unable to use IBA, we're also looking at the opportunity—as are the conversations that I'm having—with the Queensland government and the Mount Isa Council in terms of the debt itself.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

Families have been raising concerns about this housing provider for years, and the issues have been on ORIC's radar for years too. When were you first briefed on this situation? When did the NIAA first engage with the tenants? We've heard that there were a few pamphlets circulated by NIAA but nothing else.

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I'd have to get the date for you as to when I was first briefed, but I have been aware of the issue for at least a month, to try and get on top of it and to find out what we can do. I am very concerned about the timeline that is left for the council to use the option of selling the properties. I want to know that the families have choices and that the families are very much involved, so I have asked the agency to make sure it is working with the families. But I also want to be reassured that the council itself—Mount Isa council—and the Queensland government are working with me to ensure that we do not have added homelessness in Mount Isa.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

Queensland says Aboriginal housing is the Commonwealth's responsibility. Your government says it's Queensland's. This is the usual handballing while our people pay the price. You're the federal Indigenous minister. Will you guarantee none of these Aboriginal families will lose their homes?

I think most Australians would also question the relationships between jurisdictions and the Commonwealth. But I would say to the families in Mount Isa that I am very concerned about their situation and, yes, I am working with the Queensland government and the Mount Isa council. I want to reassure the families that it's important that you are not left homeless in this whole situation.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last year, the Prime Minister, on the election trail, promised not to raise taxes on superannuation. When he was asked about whether he would increase taxes on superannuation, the Prime Minister said:

… there are no policy changes, our policy stands. There is nothing unusual.

But yesterday the PM and the Labor Party did a deal with the Greens to raise taxes on self-managed super funds. How can the Australian people have any trust in their government or the tax system if the government constantly breaks its promises not to increase taxes on small business, on investments, on property and now on superannuation too?

With respect, Senator Canavan, the changes are in relation to borrowing arrangements, and the logic—

It removes the tax discount.

Well, the borrowing arrangements are not—

Well, I'm just making the point that in fact I think the reason that there was concern raised by the Council of Financial Regulators and the Murray financial system inquiry was the effect or the potential risk of these arrangements to retirement savings. But I'm very happy to talk about tax, Senator, because I would make the point that at the last election you went to the election advocating $75 billion more in higher personal taxes, $14 billion in higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors through the abolition of the production tax credits, higher taxes on motorists, higher taxes on housing construction, higher student debts, higher power bills and more expensive training courses—because you wanted to abolish free TAFE. So we're very happy to have a tax argument with you, Senator.

Senator Hume, you will withdraw that.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

I'm always happy to have an argument with Senator Hume about taxes, because she is Senator Hume of higher taxes—Senator Hume of the higher tax.

Minister Wong, please—

Senator Hume, I just asked you to withdraw and I'm going to ask you again, and I'm warning you: don't do it again.

I withdraw.

I'm just making the point that I know that Senator Hume thinks that pointing at me and yelling at me is going to make us all forget that she went to the last election advocating for higher taxes for working people, higher taxes for all Australians, higher personal income tax, more taxes on resources and manufacturing, higher taxes on motorists and higher taxes on housing construction. This was the economic policy platform that they took to the last election, and they rewarded her by making her the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Goodness me! And now, under the leadership of Senator Hume and Mr Taylor—if you can call it that—they're going to vote against tax cuts again.

Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

To the extent the government has an economic plan, its plan seems to amount to increasing taxes on small businesses via the changes to trusts, on investments via higher capital gains taxes, on property via changes to negative gearing arrangements, and now on people's savings too by taxing superannuation. Why is the government attacking people's superannuation and therefore people's retirement plans that they've worked hard for?

Well, simply, we're not. We are dealing with a specific issue, which is the ability to borrow. It is a very small number of Australians who engage in borrowing against their super fund, and existing arrangements will be protected. I make the point that this policy was the subject of consideration by Mr Murray and the Council of Financial Regulators.

More broadly, Senator, the package that will be passed in the Senate tomorrow is pro aspiration, it is pro worker and it is pro investment. It applies the same rule across all asset classes, which keeps the system simpler and fairer, and it will include tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer both this year and next through the working Australians tax offset and the instant tax deduction. Now you have the opportunity tomorrow to vote for tax cuts. You have the opportunity to vote for tax cuts as part of this package. (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Minister, will the government rule out doing a deal with the Greens to introduce a death tax?

Senator, you know that there is no intention, no way, in which that would occur. I would say this to you: it says something, doesn't it, that the best they can do with a tax package in front of the Senate is not to argue about the tax package but to make up some other tax arrangements to run a scare campaign on. I mean, that is all you have left, Senator Canavan. That is all you lot have left, baseless scare campaigns, because you don't know what you stand for and you don't know who you represent.

When the coalition has voted five times against tax cuts through the life of the Albanese Labor government and is now gearing up to vote against tax cuts again, I think Australians know that you do not know who you represent, and all you have left is baseless scare campaigns, and the pundits can see through it. (Time expired)

I advise the chamber that Senator Payman has passed her question to Senator David Pocock.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Minister, why is it that the government is seeking, in the tax reform legislation before the parliament, to remove people's access to grandfathering if there's a change in ownership of a jointly-held asset transfer that is simply due to death or divorce? Why does that count as a transfer in ownership?

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. As Senator Pocock knows, we are making these changes to make the system overall fairer and simpler and to better align the tax paid on assets with the tax paid on income, to make it fairer. That is the overarching aim of that element of the—

Death and divorce—

Yes. I'll get to it, Senator Cash. Thank you, I don't need your help. I have one minute. The grandfathering arrangements in relation to shared ownership are consistent with the existing arrangements in the tax system around the acquisition of assets. Wherever possible, we've aligned the arrangements in the core legislation with the existing system so that new laws operate effectively and consistently with established administration of the tax system. The grandfathering rules we have put in place are reasonable arrangements that mean what you owned at budget night can continue to be negatively geared in the future, but anything bought, sold or acquired after that date is treated under the new rules. There are often, as we all know—when we get through the committee—complex interactions and details which, as we've said, we will work through in the usual way.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

But, Minister, surely if the parliament is going to grandfather these arrangements, we should just grandfather them properly. I don't see how it's fairer and simpler, when just because your spouse dies or you get divorced you lose those benefits. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that it is consistent when, under the current arrangements, you continue to get the 50 per cent CGT discount but going forward you won't, should your spouse die?

I'll see if there's anything further I can add to my earlier answer. I accept that there are complex interactions in any changes to tax arrangements. What we have tried to do with the drafting of this legislation is to make it as consistent as we can with the existing system and all of the different ways that various tax laws interact with each other. But I'm not sure there's anything else I can add. We have sought to protect the grandfathering arrangements to make sure that people are not penalised for the arrangements and the investments they made under the earlier system, and there are extensive grandfathering arrangements that have been put in place—that some have criticised us for for being too generous—to make sure that people aren't disadvantaged by the reforms going forward.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, does the government concede that, if this isn't amended, it will be women who are disadvantaged the most, given women have 20 per cent less super on retirement and outlive us men?

What I would say about the issues that women raise with me around concerns about getting older and retiring is that they don't have enough super, they haven't earned enough income during their working life and they weren't compensated for the periods of time that they were in and out of the workforce. These are the issues that are raised with me, overwhelmingly, and violence against women and health provision for women and housing provision for women. They are the overwhelming issues that are raised with me. When we look at tax reform, the Women's Budget Statement provides commentary on the entire package of our tax reform measures and their impact on women and, overall, we have sought to address issues of gender through the tax arrangements and the reforms that we've put in place.

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Remote communities across northern Australia have faced significant challenges following cyclones and flooding events. These disasters have had a devastating impact on local economies and communities. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is supporting recovery efforts in affected communities by delivering programs that create employment opportunities and help to strengthen local economies?

Thank you, Senator Mulholland, for the question. I'll be watching the next State of Origin game, too, I think, from Queensland.

Who do you go for?

Your great state. You're absolutely right, our remote communities remain particularly vulnerable to natural disasters and their recoveries can take longer. Last week, I was welcomed onto beautiful Eastern Kuku Yalanji country at Wujal Wujal, in Senator Mulholland's state of Queensland. As they say, it's a place so nice, they say the name twice, Wujal Wujal. I was privileged to receive a water blessing from Aunty Kathleen at the foot of the spiritual waters of Wujal Wujal Falls.

The scars of Cyclone Jasper have left deep physical marks on this community, but the impact is not just physical. Elders speak of the fear they feel when they hear heavy rain, remembering the devastation they endured and the challenge of rebuilding their community. But the Albanese Labor government is there to support them and to back their aspirations, and that includes jobs, jobs, jobs. We are delivering 6,000 jobs in remote communities, providing the dignity of work with proper pay, sick leave, annual leave and superannuation, and that includes in the community of Wujal Wujal. I visited the nursery and market garden where local RJED workers are already benefiting from these opportunities. One of those workers, Topsy, said to me: 'I love gardening. I always go home at the end of the day with a smile on my face, telling my family what I've done.' The Albanese Labor government is strengthening our remote communities by providing the dignity of work, and Wujal Wujal is just one of many examples of the success of the program.

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

The cost-of-living pressures continue to affect families across Australia, and these challenges can be even greater in remote communities where food and essential goods often cost significantly more. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is helping to ease the cost-of-living pressures for families in remote communities?

Well, mayors from across the country are in Canberra this week—Alister Gibson from Wujal Wujal, Bruce Gibson from Hope Vale, James Woods from West Arnhem, Elsie Seriat from Torres Shire Council and Richard Sewter from Mornington Peninsula Shire. There is one thing their communities all have in common, and that is support from the Albanese Labor government through our Low-cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme, which is helping to ease cost-of-living pressures. I'm proud to announce to the Senate that we now have 120 stores right across Australia signed up to the scheme and more to come. We have slashed the cost of 30 essential items in remote communities, meaning those items cost the same as they would in a city. This is about fairness and it is about delivering.

Senator Mulholland, a second supplementary?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians continue to experience disparities in health, housing, education and employment outcomes. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is delivering meaningful investments to address these challenges, and how this approach differs from those who continue to call for cuts to programs that support First Nations communities?

Well, there they are, the coalition of chaos. That's right; they're the coalition of cuts. Come on, I woke you up. Senator Nampijinpa Price has been penning op eds and sending out fundraising emails criticising our jobs agenda while providing absolutely no policy solutions of their own, and Senator Hanson has been declaring her desire for a monoculture. One Nation is leading this coalition, which is now committed to the abolition of all Indigenous programs. The opposition has no plan apart from cuddling up to One Nation. They only believe in the negative, nasty politics of chaos and cuts and in punching down on First Nations Australians. (Time expired)

Senator Kovacic.

Order! Minister, I have called Senator Kovacic.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. CPA Australia has warned that Labor's capital gains tax changes could capture inherited assets and important family heirlooms including what is described as 'Grandma's jewellery box'. Can the minister guarantee that Australians will not be forced to obtain valuations for important family keepsakes, such as inherited jewellery, wedding rings of departed loved ones, watches and artwork before 1 July 2027.

What I have said a number of times in this place and that the budget announced was changes to the capital gains tax arrangements apply the same rule across all assets to ensure that the system is simpler and fairer, and the system that is being applied is a system of real gains. Now, what I would say to the senator—

Senator Cash, everything is an outrage, isn't it? But what is not an outrage to you is the spinelessness of your leader when he is asked seven times about whether or not he supports Ms Hanson's monoculture and he is not able to answer. And I have to say, that stands in stark contrast to the courage that is shown, at least by Mr Hastie, who says he will not bend a knee to them, and, if I may, Senator Scarr, who gave a very decent contribution in this chamber in support of multiculturalism. I am wondering where the rest of the moderate wing of the Liberal Party are when it comes to this, and to their leader's silence on this.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam?

A point of order on relevance. The question has nothing to do with anything that's being spoken about, so I wonder if the minister might return to the question.

Senator Kovacic, are you also standing on a point of order?

I am. I'd like to point out the reflection that Senator Wong has made on individuals on this side of the chamber who have spoken strongly in favour of multiculturalism, and I ask that she withdraw it.

Senator Kovacic, I did not hear any offence. An offence is committed when—

Senator Kovacic, I haven't finished. An offence is committed not by commenting on what someone may have said in this place but when slurring by using their name. I didn't hear that. I will continue to listen carefully; I did not hear that.

In relation to Senator Duniam's point of order, I am happy to draw the minister back to the question, but I will also remind you not to interject, because if you interject the minister is entitled to take the interjection. I'm going to continue to listen carefully. If there's silence and the minister is not directly relevant to the question, I will draw her to the question—but that means no interjections.

On the point of order, I'm very happy to withdraw, Senator Kovacic. I will always recognise those on your side who do stand up for multiculturalism.

As I was saying, what the government is doing is replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a new discount that is based on inflation, with gains accruing from 1 July 2027. That will apply across all asset classes. That is part of a package which also will involve working Australians getting a tax cut—

Do they need to be valued?

Senator Hume, you just interrupt all the time because you don't want people to know that you were the one who was for higher taxes at the last election and you are leading them into another vote against tax cuts. They keep following you into the trenches, don't they? (Time expired)

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Hume, I have called you many times this afternoon. I would appreciate silence in the remaining time we've got for question time. Senator Kovacic, first supplementary?

Minister, I note your comments about these taxes being simpler and fairer. Given that, who will be required to pay for the valuations of these family valuables?

We are changing the discount available. That is what we are changing. We are also making sure it applies across all asset classes. I can't be any clearer than that. What I would say to you, Senator, is that this is part of a set of tax changes, both on capital gains and negative gearing and also on income tax, which represents one of the largest changes to Australia's tax arrangements in a generation. They will ensure that income from assets is taxed in a way that is analogous to income from work—

Senator Cash, on a point of order?

It's on direct relevance. It was a very simple question. The minister has admitted assets will need to be valued. It is a simple question: who needs to pay for the valuation?

The minister is being relevant to the question. I am listening carefully and I appreciate that the interjections have stopped, so I thank you all for that.

Again, the change that is being applied is in relation to the discount on capital gains tax. That change has been put forward for many reasons, one of which is that it ensures that asset gains are more equitably, fairly and consistently taxed. The package also ensures that income from— (Time expired)

Senator Kovacic, second supplementary?

Minister, isn't this exactly what Australians fear from Labor and the Greens: a tax that reaches into family inheritances, a quasi-death tax, and people having to put a price tag on wedding rings and family heirlooms, leaving ordinary Australians paying accountants and valuers to deal with property that has been in their family for decades?

I have a fair degree of respect for Senator Kovacic, so I will try and respond in a respectful way because I think that was not a question she should have been given. It is a demonstration of the fact that those opposite have no capacity to engage on the basis of the tax policy, so they have to—

You demonstrated you have no capacity to answer one question—

May I finish?

Senator Cash, come to order.

Those on that side, those opposite, have no capacity to engage with the debate on tax, so they have to make up a scare campaign on taxes which do not exist. Most importantly, and I again say this to the coalition senators: you are about to vote for higher taxes. Be very, very clear that Senator Hume and Senator Cash, under Mr Taylor's leadership, are going to make you vote for higher taxes for working Australians. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. At a time when global energy markets are under pressure, Australian wind, solar and batteries, backed by gas, make Australia stronger and more secure. That's why the Albanese Labor government is helping more Australian households purchase a home battery. How has this policy helped Australian households to weather these global energy shocks?

Senator Brown, you're right; with the war in the Middle East, global energy markets are indeed once again under some pressure. That underscores the importance of the work that this government, and in particular Minister Bowen, has been leading over the course of this year in all aspects of our energy system—none more important than building a new modern, Australian, reliable electricity grid, with Australian wind, solar batteries and gas. Vladimir Putin in Ukraine can't stop the wind blowing in Australia. The Iranians may be able to block the Strait of Hormuz but they cannot stop the Australian sun shining on the roofs of Australian households, securing Australian energy to drive down prices for Australians. Just one of these programs, the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, has made an outsized impact for businesses and for households.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It's the old outrage metre over here. It's a complete mystery. I don't want to divert myself off my own topic, but when everything comes along and you get so angry but you get smaller, they get so angry and they get bigger. What's going on? It's this mystery of political thermodynamics that just keeps happening to you. Is it physics? Is it chemistry or biology? You don't know, but you keep doing it. You get angrier and angrier, and you get smaller and smaller. What is going on over there with the once great Liberal and National parties?

Senator Brown, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that very interesting answer; I'm sure everyone here in the chamber found it extremely informative! Today, the government's Capacity Investment Scheme has announced 15 new successful energy storage projects, with big batteries to be built in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. How will these new projects— (Time expired)

I am anticipating that I know how that question would have concluded! This is a very important program, and, of course, I'm, as you all know, very easily distracted. It's important to point out that this program, alongside the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, which has provided for 450,000 cheaper home batteries, provides 12 gigawatts of capacity. In terms of the number of batteries installed in the world, we are behind only the United States and China here in Australia, making household bills go down for the houses that install them and putting downward pressure on prices across the grid. Of course, 15 more large-scale successful energy storage projects were announced today through the Capacity Investment Scheme, $6 billion in private investment. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Great anticipation, Minister! The Albanese Labor government is securing Australia's future by building a modern Australian energy system. What are the risks to Australia's future energy security by turning back the policy clock on renewables?

(—) (): There are so many risks over there as the right-wing parties merge. They are not dual ticket holders. They are triple ticket holders now. As they merge, they can agree about very little of real substance for Australians. They can agree they want to make workers poorer, they can agree they want to cut back social services and they can agree that they want to wreck electricity investment in Australia. The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Taylor, told Sky News this morning that he stemmed the decline apparently. He stemmed the decline in the Liberal primary vote. Put a pencil next to that one, and we'll see how we're looking in six weeks' time. Put a pencil next to that and see how it's going. No person has done more to wreck electricity investment in Australia than Mr Taylor. No person has done more— (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on notice

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers to all coalition questions during question time today.

I want to talk about three issues arising from question time today in terms of the answers given to questions asked by coalition members: integrity, equity and efficiency. Now, let's talk about integrity first. It is a fact that the Prime Minister went to the Australian people no less than 50 times before the last election and said there would be no change to the capital gains tax regime, said there would be no change to negative gearing and said there would be no change in relation to superannuation tax arrangements. That's a fact. It is a fact that after the election we saw those changes put in place after the Prime Minister said he would not put them in place. That is a broken promise. It goes to the integrity of our political system and, in particular, in relation to superannuation. As my colleague Senator Canavan said on 10 October 2025, the ABC reported that the Prime Minister said in relation to superannuation:

… there are no policy changes, our policy stands.

Yet, just this week, the Labor Party has entered into a deal with the Greens. We heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, refer to 'the terms of an agreement' between the Labor Party and the Greens.

What about the Australian people? Where do they fit into this equation? What about the commitment to the Australian people that was made before the last election? What about their 'agreement' with the politicians representing the Labor Party, who were seeking to be elected on the platform that there would be no changes to capital gains tax, to negative gearing or to superannuation? What about the mandate that the Australian people gave to the Labor Party, based on the false pretence that the Labor Party would stick by the Prime Minister's word that there would be no changes? That's the integrity question, and that will hang around the Prime Minister's neck like an albatross until the next election.

Then we have the question of equity. The point that Senator Bragg made was this: under the current arrangements, before the deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, self-managed super funds had an ability to go into the market and enter into appropriate arrangements to borrow to acquire residential property for investment purposes. Whilst I acknowledge that the Leader of the Government in the Senate referred to David Murray, those arrangements are entered into on the basis of limited recourse loans, which protect the body of the superannuation fund from entering into negative territory, so there are already probity and fidelity arrangements in place. What's changed is that the Prime Minister said there would be no change and there now is going to be a change because of the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens.

The third point relates to efficiency and bureaucracy. CPA—Certified Practising Accountants—Australia have estimated that over $800 million is going to have to be spent before the end of the next financial year on valuing assets because of the Labor Party's change. Because of the Labor Party's broken promise, $825 million will be paid by valuers to go all over Australia and value all sorts of assets that might be subject to capital gains tax. That's over $800 million spent on that compliance activity when Australia is in a productivity crisis. Tell me how that makes sense when Australia is facing a productivity crisis—$825 million being spent on valuers and millions being spent on accountants. (Time expired)

There's been a lot of hot air in this chamber over the last couple of days. Certainly, at question time, it's been writ large. Let's be really clear: this tax package is pro-aspiration, it's pro-worker and it is pro-investment. It will build us a better, fairer and simpler tax system. We have significant ideological differences between ourselves and our coalition colleagues across the chamber—that's obvious—but what we are seeing here is an awful lot of hot air being thrown around alongside that.

Let's be really clear. We know that we, the Labor senators over on this side of the chamber, believe that wage earners should have as much opportunity as wealth generators. Our colleagues over there, in the coalition party and however many partners they may have on any given day of the week, believe that those wealth generators are the ones that should have priority in our system. We don't agree. We believe it should be fair and balanced. We believe that everybody should have opportunity. We believe that business should have opportunity. We believe that first home buyers should have opportunity. We believe in a much fairer playing field, and that is exactly what this package is going to deliver.

Like I said, there's been a lot of hot air in this chamber over the last week. What I will do now is not just the shouting, the yelling and the opinions from either side, which we know full well come off the back of a solid ideological difference. Let me share with you some of the comments from stakeholders, from the people who have commented.

Let's start with the Tax Institute, who said:

We commend the Treasurer for the political bravery to tackle some big ticket issues in our tax system and set out on the road to tax reform.

Yes, tax reform. It can be done. I know. You were in government for almost 10 years, and I'm not sure there was anything much done in that. Then we go to Michele O'Neil from the ACTU, who said:

This budget marks a shift that gives workers a fairer shot at housing stability through tax changes that will start to rebalance the rules.

Australian Community Housing said that they are 'strongly and unequivocally supportive of the proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing'. They further commented:

The reforms are a serious attempt to shift Australia's housing system in a fairer direction.

Then we hear from Homelessness Australia. These are some of the people seeing the market at its worst out there, who are dealing with some of our most vulnerable people. They said:

… these measures represent an important structural reform that will help improve housing affordability, reduce inequality, strengthen intergenerational equity, and support a fairer housing system.

Then we go to the McKell Institute, who said:

The bills represent a meaningful step toward rebalancing Australia's tax system …

And so it goes on. The Barefoot Investor, not always our biggest fan, said:

The system lets wealthy families with good accountants pay less tax than nurses and tradies. That doesn't pass the pub test.

It doesn't. The Barefoot Investor is bang on. It does not. We need a balance here. We need to make sure that young people and workers out there across Australia have an opportunity to own their own home. (Time expired)

I just want to respond to a comment from Senator Grogan about there being a lot of hot air in this chamber about this topic. I wouldn't call it hot air in this chamber; I would suggest that it's white-hot anger in our community, and we are reflecting that, as it is our job to do, because every single day, over and over, we hear from people who are impacted.

Today I asked my question about important family heirlooms. I had my own father pass away a little over a year ago, and he, before he passed away, gifted me his own wedding ring. So it was a legitimate question. That happened a year ago. What happens now? What happens to people who are in exactly the same circumstances as I am? Do we go out and get a valuation for that item? What is the cost base for that item? Why should I even have to now pay, presumably, 30 per cent tax on that item after almost six decades? Why should anybody else? That's just one small example. There are many other such examples that are perhaps more significant in value dollar-wise. But that significance doesn't make it any different or any more stressful for somebody to understand what they need to do.

What you have to realise when you're talking about how those same Australians are going to get a tax cut is that those Australians are going to have to think about whether they have to sell that asset at some point in order to ensure that they can pay any commensurate tax on that or any other assets. This is the consequence—unintended, perhaps—of the terms of the agreement that the Albanese Labor government has entered into with the Australian Greens, and I think that is a really important thing for us to think about. Among the other things that we've heard about is that this wasn't even something that the Albanese Labor government wanted to do. They were only going to apply the removal of the CGT discount to residential investment properties, but Treasury told them to apply it to everything else, and now we have the Australian Greens dictating terms to them. It's extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary.

I think the other thing that's really important to note is that Minister Wong said that the Prime Minister has been upfront with the Australian people. No, he has not. He has misled the Australian people, and that is why they are furious. He has misled them over and over again. We also have the Treasurer now coming out and saying that the tax treatment that previously applied to assets in relation to negative gearing and CGT will no longer apply to those assets post the death of one partner or the divorce of a couple. Have a guess who that's potentially going to impact the most in relation to divorce? Women. They might have to think about whether they can actually afford to leave a marriage, perhaps an abusive marriage, based on the recalculation of what assets might be there, because, whether we like it or not, they are the calculations that women make out of necessity. You should be ashamed. (Time expired)

For those tuning in at home this afternoon, they might have been a little mistaken that they'd wandered into an episode of Antiques Roadshow and not the Senate question time. But here we were. Was the first question off the bat from the Liberal Party today about cost-of-living relief? No, it wasn't. Was it about housing? No, not even close. Was it about health? No, you'd be coming up short again. It was about vintage cars, collectable cars, and personalised number plates. The burning issue for the modern Liberal Party coming into this question time today wasn't about Australians struggling to get into a home of their own and wasn't about Australians struggling with the cost of living. It was about Australians worried about their vintage cars, their collectable cars, their personalised number plates, their vintage jewellery, their watches.

While young Australians can't get into a home of their own—cannot get a foot on the property ladder—when older Australians are struggling to hold on to their rentals due to the rising cost of rentals, this lot are talking about vanity plates on collectable cars and vintage Rolexes. Nothing says the modern Liberal Party quite like personalised number plates. Honestly! If an out of touch vehicle had a number plate, that would be it.

We also heard a lot of mock outrage from the opposition during question time regarding the passage of these Treasury laws through the Senate. There was much talk about an agreement. We would all love to see the modern Liberal Party be able to get an agreement on anything—anything! They can't even get internal agreement in the coalition, let alone on the Senate floor. We know they've had a chequered history—on again, off again, on again—and I would be really annoyed, too, if I was the party of business, the party of commerce, and I was being outclassed by the Australian Greens on the ability to do a deal. I'd be a little annoyed about it, too, because we all know the Liberal Party couldn't even pass a note in class, let alone a piece of legislation in this Senate. They have been unable to come to the table on a single piece of legislation in this parliament.

It's a bit rich to hear the Liberal Party talking about us changing positions on anything. This is a party that cannot land a consistent position from breakfast to lunchtime on net zero. This is a party that takes more positions on that issue than a Bikram yoga class, so we're not going to sit here and be lectured to by that lot about changing positions. In fact, there are frontbenchers in this very chamber who promised the Australian people and the media that, if their party walked away from net zero, they would walk away from the front bench. But they're still here lobbing up on the front bench, pretending that none of us remember what they said. But we do and we do keep receipts.

But this week, this chamber gets a chance to come one step closer to delivering a tax system that gives a fair go for all—I know that those opposite can't stand the thought of a system that tips the scales in favour of working people and that gives working Australians an opportunity to get into a house of their own—to deliver a fifth round of tax cuts: $2,800 in the back pocket of working Australians. When they vote against these tax cuts, they are voting against 14 million Australians getting a tax cut.

Let's bring this debate back to what it's about. This motion is about Labor's broken promises to the Australian people in relation to their tax policies at the last election. Labor went to the last election promising that they would not change the tax on capital gains. They went to the last election promising that they would not change the tax on superannuation. They went to the election promising they would not change the tax on other elements of the economy. Then they came in here and did exactly that in this budget.

How can any Australian believe anything that this government says in response? How can the Australian people take anything that the Labor Party says at face value anymore? We saw that in question time again today. We saw Labor senators come in here in this debate and try and portray it as being about something else. This debate is about the tax treatment of the assets of the Australian people—their super and other assets that they own—which the government promised they would not change. But they are now changing the tax treatment through a dirty deal with the Australian Greens. That's what's happening here. We have Labor senators coming in and trying to deflect. They are going personal against members of the opposition. What this is genuinely about is Labor's word and what it's worth.

This government has, following the 2022 election and the 2025 election, broken its promises to the Australian people so many times. The broken promise with respect to superannuation is not their first broken promise on superannuation. At the 2022 election, they promised they would not change the tax treatment of superannuation. They then did that, again with the support of the Greens. So they're breaking that promise for a second time today because they made the same promise again at the 2025 election.

You cannot believe a single word that this government says, including in question time, when it's trying to push back on questions from the opposition on concerns raised by our constituents legitimately. They have lost the value of their word. The Prime Minister went to the 2022 election and the 2025 election saying, 'My word is my bond.' Those were his words. What do those words mean now? As a member of parliament, your word is one of the more paramount things that you have. When you sacrifice that—through the promises that this government has broken—what do you have left? You have absolutely nothing left.

These budget measures are a betrayal of the Australian people and the promises that this government made to the Australian people at the last election. The Australian people know it. The word of the Labor Party and of this government now has zero value in the Australian community, and the Labor Party deserve every element of that.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Palestine.

Israel's depraved, monstrous and evil crimes go beyond using children as target practice, and I shared some appalling examples, like the 10-day-old baby shot in the head while being breastfed. The independent report adds to the evidence that Israel has systematically targeted hospitals and health infrastructure while intentionally depriving children of the nutrition, safety and support that they need to live a life, let alone thrive.

In response to Russia's war in Ukraine, the Australian government imposed comprehensive sanctions and have extended them in the years since. Here is the racist double standard that calls out some crimes against humanity while allowing genocide in Gaza to go unpunished. Despite pleas for years and the mounting death toll, Labor has time and again refused to impose comprehensive sanctions on our trade relationship with Israel. Narrow sanctions against a few individuals do not cut it when the murderous apparatus of the Israeli state and its military are hell-bent on the root-and-branch destruction of Palestinian people. A refusal to call this genocide what it is does not cut it when Palestinians continue to be murdered long after the so-called ceasefire. What a farce.

It breaks my heart that anyone in power could read all of the stories in this report—of torture, of sexual abuse, of children killed while playing together—and then stay passive. How can we see Israel's allies in this parliament, Labor, the Liberals and One Nation, as anything but apologists for child killers? Here is, very simply, what I'm asking the Albanese Labor government to do for the children of Palestine: end the arms trade between Australia and Israel, put comprehensive trade sanctions against Israel and call a genocide for what it is: a genocide.

The independent UN commission of inquiry into the violent occupation of Palestinian territory by the Israeli government has now made this damning report into the killing of children. Palestinian children, the UN has found, have been deliberately targeted, including post-ceasefire, with the Israeli Defence Forces intending to destroy the existence of Palestinians in Gaza. The report details how more than 20,000—20,179—children have been killed. More than 44,000 children in addition to that have been injured, and the report details the brutality of the IDF and the Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Children have experienced torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, including sexual and gender based violence, and Israel has been targeting critical infrastructure through large-yield bombs. Schools, orphanages and healthcare facilities have all been targeted and destroyed by Israel through large-yield bombs.

Some of the examples are just so appalling that it's hard to imagine how Israel has escaped widespread global sanctions, but here are some. In January 2024, five-year-old Hind Rajab was killed alongside the rest of her family of seven in a family car, and the IDF deliberately obstructed rescue attempts, despite knowing that there were seriously injured children in the car. In January 2024, a member of the IDF with a sniper rifle shot a 15-year-old boy three times. He was waving a white cloth as his family attempted to evacuate a building in Khan Younis. The conclusion is that the last two shots were likely meant to ensure that the boy—the 15-year old boy with a white flag—was dead. His 20-year-old brother was also killed while rushing to the body of his brother.

Three times Senator Wong was given the opportunity to explain why, in light of these findings, Australia has not imposed a two-way arms trade embargo. Three times Senator Wong was asked, 'Why won't Australia impose the same sanctions on Israel as we imposed on Russia for their illegal war?' and three times Senator Wong failed to even mention the two-way arms trade and failed to even mention the details in the UN report. Her silence and her refusal spoke volumes. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Indigenous housing.

There is one thing this Labor government is very good at. It's good at saying it's concerned. It's concerned about the mass incarceration of Aboriginal people across this country. It's concerned about families being made homeless, as the Minister for Indigenous Australians said time and again in her answers this afternoon. Families have been raising concerns about this provider for years. ORIC has known about it for years too. The minister has known for at least a month that these families in Mount Isa risk homelessness. And what has her department done? It's handed out a few fact sheets about getting a home loan or renting in the private market, which we all know is near impossible to do, especially in a place like Mount Isa. Now it's concerned? It's talking to the state government. It's talking to the council. But what is the government actually doing? I'm hearing about caveats on these properties and also auctions that are about to happen in July.

The National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness says the Commonwealth partners with the states to help people who are experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness. Does this just mean the governments' handball to one another? Because that's what my people are hearing and seeing—no action, just handball, state to fed, fed to state. Why are Aboriginal people homeless or at risk of homelessness in our own country? This is our land. We have a right, a human right, to have a roof over our heads like all the other people in this country. So the response is inadequate. And if Aboriginal people in Mount Isa become homeless because the federal government here, the Labor government, chose not to act, chose not to intervene, then, I'm sorry, but it is on the Indigenous minister's head, and she will know about it. (Time expired)

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 the budget.

The government has decided to grandfather existing CGT and negative gearing arrangements. I think there's a solid argument for that. People have made those investments under the current rules. Whether people like that or not, they were the rules, so there's been a determination to honour them. Yes, we need to acknowledge that this is, in a sense, pulling up the ladder. Future investors won't have the opportunity to buy in the existing market. This is something I really support. I think we've got to start treating housing more as something that we truly want to be accessible and affordable rather than as an investment vehicle. But they will be able to buy new homes and get the CGT discount and negatively gear. We hear a lot about supply in this place, and rightly so, and that will incentivise that. But, if we are going to grandfather, let's do it properly. Let's actually ensure that, should someone's spouse die or should they get divorced, it is not treated as the sale of an investment property and that the spouse continues to get that benefit until they do what most reasonable Australians would consider and sell an investment property.

So I agree with the intent of this policy. I am just disappointed at how quickly this is being rammed through without due process and actually getting it right. If the intent is this, then let's actually make sure we deliver on that intent when it comes to ending the overly generous CGT and negative gearing concessions on investment property and when it comes to trusts. If it's about closing the loopholes, let's close the loopholes. Let's absolutely close the loopholes for people who are using trusts to not pay their fair share of tax, who have the opportunity to do that when most Australians simply do not have that opportunity. But let's not penalise people who aren't rorting the system, such as small businesses who have set up in trusts in good faith because of the advice they got from their accountant. This does go to process, and I'd urge the government to back my amendment tomorrow, which is in line with their intent and will ensure that mostly women aren't missing out due to this oversight. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 April 2026 of Trish Crossin AM, a former senator for the Northern Territory from 1998 to 2013.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 13 April 2026, of Trish Crossin AM, former senator for the Northern Territory, places on record its gratitude for her service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to her family in their bereavement.

Nhamirr bukmak? Manymak walnga nganapurr nhinan ngarra ga gurrutumirr ngarrak, ngunhal Yirrkala wangangur. Yolngu walal ngarrak djaka, ga gurrutu gathar ngarrak ga marnggikungal ngarran Yolngu Romgu. Buku—wekan mhuma, wanga—watangun Yolngun, nhe ngarrak, djaka.

Those were the first Indigenous language words in a speech in the Australian parliament, and they were spoken on this very day in 1998, and today we honour the woman who said them. Twenty-eight years ago, in her first speech to the Senate, Trish Crossin was saying to the traditional owners, 'Thank you for welcoming my family and me, for allowing us to live on your land and for the opportunity to understand your culture.' With characteristic boldness and authenticity, Senator Crossin set the tone for her 15-year contribution and set the tone for many others to come, not least with her personal apology on that day to the stolen generations. And what followed was 15 years of persistent, determined, compassionate and courageous advocacy for a better, more respectful, more just and more modern Australia. How lucky we were to have her.

I want to express my personal condolences and those from all on this side of the chamber to Mark, Paul, Melinda, Amanda and Kate and to all of her grandchildren, as well as other family, friends and parliamentary colleagues—to all who knew and loved Trish.

Trish was many things—a working mother, later a grandmother; a proud feminist; a stalwart unionist; a committed practitioner of reconciliation; a believer that ceilings were made to be broken, not least by becoming the Northern Territory's first female member of federal parliament. And what a formidable senator she was.

Trish's life tells a story of deep devotion to the people she loved and the causes she championed. From the streets of Kensington, Melbourne, where she grew up, to Yirrkala in East Arnhem Land, where she first taught, wherever she went, Trish's first thought was to help those around her. Someone needed help. Something needed fixing. It didn't matter what it was or where you came from, Trish would show up.

In 1956, Clare and Albert Borlase were convinced they were going to have a baby boy, due around St Patrick's Day, and thus they were primed to name him Patrick. But on 21 March, in her first act of defiance, she was born a girl. Still the name more or less stuck. But Trish didn't like being called Patricia much and even less Pat. So Trish or Trisha was how she continued. Growing up in Kensington, her youth exposed her to what she described in her first speech as a 'rich, multicultural, working-class community', and she credited this setting with imbuing in her the spirit of social justice and fairness she would come to embody throughout her life.

It was in these early years that Trisha's gift to connect deeply with any community she found herself in was first nurtured. She played organ in her local Catholic parish at mass, weddings and funerals, forever part of the rites of her neighbours. And, as a young adult, she earned a diploma of teaching at Mercy College and her bachelor's in education from Deakin University. She knew early on the power of an education. At 13, Trish met Mark and, soon after, announced her intention to marry him. Eventually she did and soon found herself on a new adventure with him, moving to a remote community in the Northern Territory where they would both teach. At 24, Trish took up a post teaching in Yirrkala, and there she fell in love with the community and the local language of the Yolngu people, Gumatj. She recognised the opportunities afforded to children if they were allowed to be educated in a bilingual environment.

Her experience teaching in remote communities, along with Mark's influence, drove Trish to join the Labor Party, to get involved in her trade union and to eventually become an industrial officer at the NTEU. Trish Crossin was never there to occupy the space. We see this throughout her life, including at the union. She had seen firsthand the change she could make to students' and educators' lives if she worked for it, and she fought successfully for the pay and conditions of Indigenous teachers to match those of non-Indigenous teachers under the award. It is no surprise that her tenure as union secretary from 1996 to 1998 was marked by a rapid growth in membership. In Darwin, she also helped establish the NT Working Women's Centre and was central to unearthing a shocking case of migrant worker exploitation, where workers were paid roughly 75c an hour and faced threats to their families.

In 1998, Trish won support to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate. As I said at the outset, today is the anniversary of her groundbreaking first speech. As well as thanking the Yolngu people and apologising to the stolen generations, the first commitment Senator Crossin gave in this place was to the Yolngu to work hard to represent them and to continue to respect and acknowledge their rights. Trish Crossin never shied away from saying what she thought, and she famously earned the ire of then senator Vanstone for being controversial in her first speech. Given how polemical Senator Vanstone was willing to be, it seems like Trish might have struck a nerve. She said:

As a Territory senator, I will continue to promote the benefits of a tolerant, multicultural Australia.

… We must continue to strive for a country that is built upon the foundations of unity rather than division …

Trish might have been responding to the politics of her day, but they are words that resonate today.

Trish Crossin also brought to this place her lived experience as a working mum, and she fought consistently and continuously for the importance of child care to be recognised by this parliament. In that prescient first speech, she observed that this building housed no childcare facilities for people like her, a deficit it would take over a decade and a Labor government to correct. You see, child care in Parliament House might now seem obvious, but it was not seen that way. As a result of efforts by Trish and others, along with Labor's affirmative action policies, we now have a parliament that far better reflects our society.

Over the years, Trish Crossin was a member of more select, standing and statutory committees than you could count, and she understood that the concentrated work of Senate committees could help achieve generational change, be it in education, employment and workplace relations, where she drew from her time both as a teacher and as a union official, or as chair of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, where she led a 2008 review into the Sex Discrimination Act, which amongst other reforms saw the inclusion of protections for breastfeeding mothers.

In a speech after the 2010 election, Trish remarked on another occasion in which she crossed paths with history, saying: 'Last night I was calculating with Kate, my 14-year-old. After 4,486 days, as of today, I'm now the longest-serving senator from the Territory.'

Two years later, Trish again took up the fight for others, introducing the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 into the Senate. She made the case for marriage equality, something that is today accepted as given, and spoke to the heart of Australian values. In her second reading speech, Trish said:

Australians do not tolerate discrimination based on race or religion or ethnicity or sexuality. And still we have Commonwealth law … that in its very meaning entrenches discrimination.

She went on to say:

But almost equal is not equal. Discrimination based on sexuality is still discrimination.

As was Trish's way, she saw her actions as a duty to right a wrong she saw, and her support meant a great deal to me personally.

Trish's work was neither limited to nor bound by the confines of Canberra, and, though she spent countless days here in this building, her heart and her thoughts always remained in the Territory and with Territorians, and she was known to welcome anybody into her electorate office, regardless of the issues they may be having. Whether they needed help navigating government services or, in one moving case, were a single father struggling to help his daughter through the changes of adolescence, her attitude was that, if someone needed your help, you showed up and you stuck with them. For Trish, that often meant reminding her colleagues across this chamber about the unique challenges faced by rural, remote and Indigenous Australians.

Trish Crossin gave her valedictory to this chamber on 18 June 2013, and she gave her thanks to almost everyone in the building, including the clerks, whom she knew all by name, and the men and women of Parliamentary Services, the library, Broadcasting, Hansard and beyond. It's a reflection of 15 years she spent in this Parliament House, and she warmed this Parliament House, and it is a reflection of the many deep relationships she built throughout her time here—relationships which extended across the political divide. She spoke warmly of Senator Nigel Scullion, her fellow senator from the Territory for over a decade, and she also retained her belief in working constructively across political divides with members and senators that she knew to hold convictions as earnest as her own.

Trish knew the best solutions to our biggest challenges came from a willingness to engage eye to eye and to learn from the experiences of others, no matter where they came from, and Trish Crossin ended her time in this place just as she began. From her first speech to her last, Trish's deeply felt dedication to First Nations justice and equality permeated her parliamentary service, and, after 15 years, hundreds of sitting days, thousands of divisions and countless committee hearings, Trish used her closing words to once again thank the Yolngu people and once again in the Gumatj language.

For Trish Crossin, being a senator was neither the beginning nor the end, and her commitment to reconciliation and to Indigenous Australians and her drive to empower other women stretched from her time as a teacher in a remote school to post-parliamentary life and all throughout. She served as a director on the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, where she always ensured the community's voice was heard. She worked with Gender Equity Victoria and she chaired the Gordon TAFE in Geelong—roles she used to continue her lifelong ambition of expanding educational opportunity.

In the time since Trish's passing, as well as reflections on her remarkable contribution, there have been reflections on the profound pride and deep love she had in and for her family. She always said Mark was her best friend and greatest support, and, of Paul, Mel, Mandy and Kate, Trish sang endless praise. Senators would know I have the great fortune of coming to know one of Trish's kids well. Kate works in my office, and she's known to many of you. As Kate's sister Mel said at Trish's funeral, 'Nothing made her prouder than tuning into the Senate during a late night sitting and watching you working away in the advisers' box.' Kate, take comfort and strength from the pride in you she had and her love for you. From wherever she is watching, I know that, like me, she can't wait to see where your extraordinary talent and commitment take you.

On the issues that animated Trish, there is more work to do, not least the acute challenges in addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Trish's dream of this country, Trish's dream of Australia, never centred on why we couldn't do something or why it was too difficult. Instead, I think it's better encapsulated by what she said, with typical gumption, whilst marriage equality was still being debated: 'Let's get over it and let's just do it.'

I close by saying, to Mark, to Paul, to Mel, to Mandy and to Kate, to all of Trish's grandchildren, to her family and loved ones and to all who called her friend, accept my deepest condolences for the loss of a true comrade. Farewell, Trish Crossin.

I rise on behalf of the coalition to pay tribute to former senator for the Northern Territory Trish Crossin AM, who passed away on 13 April at the age of 70. Senator Crossin served, as we know, in this chamber for 15 years, from June 1998 to September 2013. I had the privilege of serving with Trish between 2008 and 2013, and I echo Senator Wong's comments. Trish was someone who was thoroughly committed to the issues she came here to prosecute. She was someone who was always up for a chat, but she was also someone who would sit down with you and actually work through the issues that she wanted to get done in this place.

She was chosen in June 1998 to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins. She was subsequently elected to the Senate in her own right at the 1998 election. She was re-elected four more times, in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010. She was the 472nd member of this place, she was the fifth senator for the Northern Territory and she was the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in the federal parliament.

Before entering parliament, she served as an industrial officer and then as the Northern Territory secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union from 1996 to 1998. Indeed, during her tenure, NTEU membership in the Territory more than doubled. She was also the founding chair of the NT Working Women's Centre, something of which she was incredibly proud.

As we've heard, though, when she worked in this place her passion for Indigenous issues was second to none. Senator Crossin's connection to Indigenous Australia predated her parliamentary career by over two decades. She taught at Yirrkala Bilingual School from 1981 to 1985, and she wasn't a visitor to the community; she lived and worked there with her husband, Mark, and she was regarded as a lifelong friend to the community after she left. She fought passionately against the abolition of bilingual education in the Northern Territory. When the Territory government moved to dismantle the system, she actually opposed it from this chamber. She had seen firsthand what the education model meant to the communities that it served.

In her first speech in this place in 1998, before she had held a Senate seat for a single sitting week, she offered a personal apology to Aboriginal people and to the stolen generations. That was nine years before the national apology delivered by the Rudd government in 2008. She did not frame it, though, as a political position; she framed it as a personal statement of regret for the harm caused by the forced removal of children from their families. She then co-authored a book on the stolen generations, prepared for use during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, and continued to lobby for compensation for members of the NT stolen generations throughout her time in this place.

She chaired the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples from November 2012 until she left the Senate in August 2013. She was a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs in 2004, serving as its chair from June to November of that year. She sat on the Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities from 2008 to 2010. The NT Emergency Response, which began in 2007, occupied much of her attention during those years.

Her other committee work in this place was extensive. She served on the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for many years, including as chair from February 2008 to May 2009. She chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee from May 2009 until she left the Senate in September 2013. She also chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee from June 2005 to September 2006, and she again served on it from May 2009 to September 2013. Her work on the education, employment and workplace relations committee spanned many years, including as chair of its references committee from December 2004 to June 2005. As we have heard, and as she is well known for, she co-sponsored the first marriage equality bill in this Senate. This is a very interesting fact about Trish and something she was very proud of. Early in her career, she asked in Senate estimates how many Australians had trachoma. The answer from the department was that they actually didn't know. That exchange then contributed to the Commonwealth committing $17 million to trachoma eradication in 2009.

Her Senate career, as we know, sadly ended in 2013, and she used her valedictory speech to say at the time what she thought about how that had been handled, but whatever the politics of that decision, 15 years of service to this institution speaks for itself. In 2023, Trish Crossin was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her service to the parliament and to the people of the Northern Territory. She is survived by her husband, Mark, her children, Paul, Melinda, Amanda and Kate, whom we know so well, and her grandchildren. On behalf of the coalition, I extend my sincere condolences to the Crossin family.

It's a real privilege to stand and make a few remarks during this condolence debate, although it's a very sad occasion to do so. I acknowledge Trish's family up in the gallery here today.

Trish's sudden passing, just weeks after she celebrated her 70th birthday, has shocked and saddened everyone who knew, cared for and loved Trish. Listening to the contributions already in the chamber today and reflecting on her memorial, three words keep coming to mind: principled, passionate and pioneering. She was principled in her fight for fairness and equality for women, for First Nations people, for anyone who endured discrimination and, of course, her constituents, the people of the Northern Territory. She was passionate about her adopted home of the Northern Territory and all the people who call it home. I think her proud record in this Senate clearly demonstrates how committed she was to representing First Nations Australians in this chamber, and, in many ways, it goes to my third point of pioneering, and how Trish was a woman of many firsts.

She was the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in this parliament. Before that, she was the first full-time industrial officer in the Territory for the National Tertiary Education Union. She was the founding chair of the Northern Territory Working Women's centres, which continue to work today, and, as we've heard from Senator Wong and others, the co-sponsor of the first marriage equality bill ever brought to the Senate. She was the first speaker of First Nations language in this chamber and the first to apologise to the Stolen Generation. In her first speech, Trish said it was important that more women be directly involved in the decision-making bodies of this country so that they looked like the electorates they represented.

I didn't have the opportunity to work directly with Trish in this place, as our paths were narrowly misaligned in terms of our service in this chamber. But looking around the chamber today, with a woman leading every party in this chamber, I think Trish would have been pretty proud of how much progress has been made. She was a strong advocate and champion for the National Women's Alliance to create a better, more informed and representative dialogue between women and the Australian government. Again, I think she was pleased and would be proud to know that, when I met with them earlier this year, they're still carrying on the work that she supported so actively throughout her career.

In her time in parliament, Trish fought for better retirement outcomes for women, for paid parental leave, for closing the gender pay gap. Back in 2011, she put it simply:

The concept of equal pay for equal work of equal value seems like such a simple and logical concept …

And yet the gap persisted. She led major amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act and Fair Work Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, same-sex marriage or relationship status, gender identity and to remove breastfeeding as grounds for discrimination in the workplace. She argued for better wages for childcare workers, and, very fittingly, she was instrumental in establishing the childcare centre right here in Parliament House, so that no parent in this building would have to choose between their work and their children the way so many women of her generation had. I thought of her this morning as we gathered in the marble foyer to recognise the extension to paid parental leave that is coming in, in a week's time, where we had women members of parliament with their babies on their hips—some of whom attend the childcare centre that Trish was instrumental, along with others, in establishing here. In that sense, this morning I was thinking of how much the work she did, working with others in the party and across the parliament, is impacting the lives of serving members, and senators in this chamber, right now.

When you look back and read about Trish's work, it is striking how relevant much of it remains today. The work she did in all those areas I've just touched on, around gender equality and women's policy—they are still things that all of us on this side and across the parliament continue to work on today. In many respects, she was years ahead of her time in some of her pursuits of those issues. For us on this side of the chamber, this is work that we now have the responsibility to continue. But we know that we are building on the work of those like Trish Crossin. These changes don't come just from a change of government; they come from years and years of campaigning for change, and she was always there doing that. As a serving woman in politics, I know that the capacity to contribute and work the way I do over my career is because of the work the women of Trish's generation started. We hope to continue that and build on that in this parliament.

I was reading Trish's valedictory, because I want to make a few comments about Kate as well. I noticed, in that speech, she talked about Kate riding on a Teletubby scooter around the parquetry floors of the Senate chamber. It's always struck me: how does this young professional woman know so much about the Senate? I learned from Kate pretty much on a daily basis. Kate, when I read your mum's valedictory, of how you used to sit and watch how the counts were done from a very young age, it made a lot of sense to me—and the image of you sliding around the floors as a two- or three-year-old will not leave me as I continue to work with you! To Kate and to the entire family—to Mark, to Paul, Melinda and Amanda, to Trish's grandchildren and to the many friends and colleagues across her career throughout the Territory and the broader labour movement—the collective arms of everyone who knew, cared for and loved Trish are wrapped around you at this really difficult time.

I watched Trish's memorial a few weeks ago when it was held, and I thought it was lovely. I thought it was perfect, and it really showed—from listening to stories from her family and friends and to memories of Trish, and recognising the extraordinary contribution that she made to public life, not just to the many communities that she was a vital part of and a constant advocate for and organiser of—just how much she contributed and, also, how much family and friends were so central to who she was and the gift she has given to others. I send my condolences to Trish and her family. She was a great Labor senator. She had a great career in this chamber—15 years. I know she saw that as a privilege, but we were privileged to have her as part of the Labor team.

I rise today on behalf of the Nationals to acknowledge the passing of former senator Trish Crossin AM, and to extend our sincere condolences to her husband, Mark; her children, Paul, Melinda, Amanda and Kate; her grandchildren; and all those whose lives she touched through her decades of service to the Northern Territory and to Australia. Senator Crossin served the Territory with distinction over many years, first as an educator and later as a senator. While we sit on different sides of politics, there is so much to be said in recognition of a life dedicated to public service, community involvement and improving opportunities for others.

Born in Melbourne in 1956, Trish Crossin's life took a defining turn when she moved to the Northern Territory as a young teacher. Like so many who go to the north and to the Territory, she found something special there and made it her home. Before entering federal politics, Trish spent more than a decade working in education. Most notably, she taught in north-east Arnhem Land, including at the Yirrkala bilingual school. Those years were formative, not only in shaping her understanding of the Territory and its people but also in demonstrating a lifelong commitment to education and public service.

Teaching in remote Australia demands patience, resilience, adaptability and a genuine belief in the potential of every student. It requires people willing to leave the familiar behind and commit to communities that face complex issues and challenges. Those who worked alongside Trish in Arnhem Land have spoken warmly of her dedication, her willingness to listen and her determination to make a difference. Former colleagues recalled her as a teacher who always sought to do the best she could do for her students and who earned the respect of the local Indigenous community. Relationships she built during those years remained important throughout her life. They helped shape her understanding of remote communities and informed, as we have heard, much of her later work in public office.

In 1998, Trish Crossin entered federal politics, becoming the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in the Commonwealth parliament. That achievement alone secured her place in the Territory's political history and allowed many other women to come behind her. Being the first is never easy. It comes with expectations, with scrutiny and responsibility. Yet, by all accounts, she carried that responsibility with determination and a strong sense of duty. She blazed a trail for northern Australian women to participate in political life, and, as the first Northern Territory woman elected to the federal parliament, she demonstrated that leadership and public service were open to everyone.

Her appointment to the Senate in June 1998 marked the beginning of a parliamentary career that would span more than 15 years. She served five terms before retiring in 2013, and throughout that time she was a strong and consistent voice for the Northern Territory. Territorians expect and, indeed, need their representatives to understand the unique circumstances of life in the north—the vast distances, the remoteness, the challenges of service delivery and infrastructure, and the opportunities that exist in one of Australia's most remarkable regions. Senator Crossin understood those realities because she had lived them. Whether speaking about education, regional development, community services, Indigenous affairs or the challenges facing remote communities, she sought to ensure that the Territory's voice was not only heard but understood in Canberra.

Her contribution to the Senate extended well beyond the chamber itself. Over the course of her career, she served on parliamentary committees dealing with education, legal and constitutional affairs, Indigenous affairs, foreign affairs, regional communities and parliamentary administration. As we know, committee work is rarely glamourous. It attracts little public attention, yet it is often where some of the most important work of parliament takes place. It requires diligence, attention to detail and a willingness to work constructively with colleagues from different political backgrounds. Trish Crossin earned a reputation as a hardworking parliamentarian who approached these responsibilities seriously. Whether serving as a member, the deputy chair or the chair of a committee, she contributed to the detailed scrutiny that is such an important part of our parliamentary system.

Many of the tributes offered following her passing have highlighted her deep commitment to Indigenous Australians and to reconciliation. Those commitments were shaped by her experiences living and working in remote communities and, of course, by the friendships she formed throughout her life. Others have spoken of her dedication to education, her concern for vulnerable Australians and her determination to ensure that regional and remote communities were not overlooked in national conversations. What emerges from these reflections is a picture of someone who genuinely cared about the people she represented.

Politics can be a difficult profession. It invariably involves disagreement, contest and conflict. Yet when parliamentarians pass away, we are reminded that beyond political differences lies a shared commitment to public service. Many who worked alongside Trish Crossin, including political opponents, have described her as determined, hardworking, approachable and deeply committed to the Northern Territory. These qualities earned her respect across the political spectrum and, after leaving the Senate, she remained active in public life and continued contributing to the community through a range of roles. In 2023, that contribution was formally recognised when she was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the Parliament of Australia and to the people of the Northern Territory, and it is a fitting acknowledgement of decades spent serving others.

Public life often demands sacrifice. It requires long periods away from home, endless travel, missed family occasions and a commitment to causes larger than oneself. Behind every parliamentarian stands a family that shares those burdens and makes those sacrifices possible. Today, our thoughts are especially with Mark and the Crossin family. Recent tributes from her family paint a picture not simply as a senator or public figure but of a devoted wife, a mother and grandmother whose greatest achievements may well be found beyond politics. Their reflections speak of a woman deeply involved in her community, generous with her time and devoted to those that she loved. That is perhaps how many people will choose to remember her, not only for the positions she held but for the relationships she built and the lives she touched.

While political differences are an inevitable part of parliamentary life, occasions such as this remind us of the common purpose that brings people to this place—a desire to serve their communities and contribute to the nation. Trish Crossin devoted much of her life to that endeavour. As a teacher, she sought to expand opportunity. As a senator, she sought to represent the people of the Northern Territory with conviction and shared commitment, and, as a community member, she gave generously of her time and energy to causes she believed in. Her passing marks the loss of a significant figure in the political history of the Northern Territory and of northern Australia, and of a woman whose contribution to public life spanned many decades. And perhaps the most wonderful legacy for Labor and for the Senate is in Kate. May her family find comfort in the respect, gratitude and affection that so many Australians hold for her years of service. Vale Trish Crossin.

I'd like to associate myself with all the comments made by my colleagues here today in relation to this special and important condolence for a woman of strength and honour that many of us worked very closely with. Firstly, I just want to say to her family who are here today: we're thinking of you. This is always a difficult time. Thank you for being here and thank you for giving so much of your time to us and our parliament through the work and dedication that Trish gave to this place. No-one would ever say that Trish Crossin wasn't a hard worker. She was dedicated to this job like no other. She was a genuine person, a deeply genuine person. You always knew where you stood with Trish. I want to say to her Labor colleagues she was definitely a Labor stalwart through and through. She loved your party like it was her family, but she was aware that, in this place, in order to get things done, you had to work across party lines. Particularly in this chamber, you have to work across lines, so Trish, while always being the strong advocate for Labor, was prepared to listen to other people's points of view and to find that commonality, whether that was in working out recommendations for various reports or working through some of the difficult issues that we have from time to time, not just on the floor of the chamber but in our committee process.

I was very lucky to be able to work with Trish during her time as chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. At the time, I had two issues that were really in my sights. They were marriage equality, and, of course, Australia's immigration system and the treatment of refugees. Trish was so fabulous to work with because, despite political differences, we always found a way to make sure that the witnesses we both wanted to hear from were heard, there was respect in how the committee would operate and that, if we could come to an agreement, an arrangement and a compromise on recommendations and committee reports, we would. Trish always treated everybody with respect, with care and with kindness. But I don't want to suggest that she was soft, because she was not soft. There were times when Trish and I had some barnies. She was a bit of a hard arse at times, but she was always honest about it, always direct and did it with empathy and compassion.

Her work helping young women in particular in this place be able to manage the job and our families was really important. Her work to help establish the childcare centre is a legacy that should not be forgotten and is one that is so important today. When I came to this place as a young mum, Kora couldn't even walk when I first arrived. Trish was so supportive and just so lovely. I remember the day that Kora was thrown out of the chamber. Trish was one of the first people to come up to me and see if I was okay, because she knew how important it was for working mums to be able to care for their kids and do their job and have respect for the institution. I will never forget that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get upset. There were some times in this place that there are people you meet who do have a real impact on how we get our job done: whether we can do it properly, whether we can think differently about ideas and whether we can find ways to collaborate. In that moment, Trish showed me that it didn't matter about the political differences; there was humanity in this place and, for mums in particular, we had to stick together. That is what she taught me.

Kate, I can see you sitting up there. You spent a long time in this building. I'm not sure I want my daughter working in politics, but I know that Trish was very proud of what you do and very proud of the work that she has done. I know you are as well. I won't take up any more time. But, as I said, most people come to this place wanting to contribute to their communities, and it comes with huge sacrifices for family. Trish knew that. She knew everybody else did that. She was prepared to give grace where grace was warranted and to call you out when that was deserved, as well. She was a genuine person and somebody this chamber should be very proud to have had as one of our serving colleagues and senators.

I rise today to remember someone who means so much to me and my families in the Gulf country of Borroloola. I first met Trish when I was a young mum in Borroloola. I remember meeting her in the Working Women's Centre with her dear mate Gillian Harrison, both of whom became very good mates of mine as well. We offer our deep condolences, Mark. I've been thinking a lot about you and your children and your grandchildren. Mel and Amanda and Kate and Paul, your mum loved you all so much. She'd leave on a Thursday from the Senate, get on that plane and make sure she was with you over the weekend. She'd be there at committee meetings over the weekend, dragging one of you or all of you along with her. She'd be holding those meetings too, with our Labor women, forever encouraging and inspiring the next generation, not just her children but so many of us in the Northern Territory who learnt so much from her and were mentored by her.

When I had the opportunity to run for the seat of Arnhem, Trish was there, and we had so many bush trips together. Oh, yes—some of those bush trips! Tomato Island—remember that one? I think the most memorable one was trying to get Trish out to Beswick when the rivers were flooding. She really wanted to get back from the Senate to help and, with a lot of us bush members, try and get out to the communities. Your mum was so determined to come with me, and I was a little bit worried, thinking, 'I don't know; if we get out there, we might get stuck, and you won't be able to get back down to Canberra in time.' She would come up on the Thursday night and fly down on the Sunday night or in the early hours, which is something I've learnt from her, I think—doing that same flight.

When we tried to get out to Beswick, we couldn't get across the Waterhouse River. The community were on the other side, and they were really needing help, and we were on our side trying to work out how we were going to get across. We couldn't wade across; the water had risen too high—no good. Your mum spotted a good old tractor down the road, so we went and looked for a driver. In the next minute we were on that tractor, ploughing through the water, making sure we didn't fall in—there are crocs up there, as we all know. We were determined to get to the other side, and I remember looking at your mum and thinking: who is this woman? For us it was pretty normal to do all sorts of things out bush to just get on with it. I have always admired your mum and love her dearly. I miss her greatly.

When I lost my seat in 2012 it was Trish who rang me first, straightaway, and she came to see me to find out what had happened but also just to check in. We've heard some really beautiful stories here of her humanity, her kindness and her empathy, and I certainly experienced that in that moment. When so many others judged you differently, she made sure she was there to check in and say, 'How are you going?' Four years later, when I had the privilege of getting a seat in the Senate, Trish was there again. One thing I couldn't believe was how she still remembered, even after three years of not being in the Senate herself, every single detail: 'On Monday, Malarndirri, it's 10 am that the Senate opens. You make sure you're there. You have to be there at five minutes to 10. You've got to go in, and, when you go in, you stand there and you do this. And then you can finish at this certain time.' And she knew exactly the time. Then she said: 'There are all these committees. There's the legal and constitutional committee. There's the community affairs committee. You could do that one, but this one over here is also good.' It was just impressive. She had her own handbook. She wanted to show me all these things. I just loved the fact that, no matter what time of night it was, I'd get a text, going, 'If you need someone to talk to, I'm here,' because she'd be watching her favourite channel, the Senate!

I am going to miss her deeply. I think the love that she had from so many people that never knew her and then got to know her and the service that she provided as senator for the Northern Territory—the love that she had for the Yolngu, Gumatj and Rirratjingu and all the families. I was in Nhulunbuy recently, and their big love to all of you will always be there no matter what time of day you get out to Arnhem Land. Your family is deeply respected, Mark, through you and through Trish, and your children and grandchildren. Thank you for your service as well, with Trish, in working for the people of the Northern Territory. I know that the Northern Territory parliament has also provided a condolence motion—rightly so and beautifully so—and now the Senate has too. Know that Trish is deeply missed by us as well. We love her dearly. Yo, bauji barra.

I too would like to make a few brief comments about Trish, who was one of the most welcoming people when I first arrived here in 2012 as a fresh-faced kid who had absolutely no idea what I was supposed to do. Trish came over and I thought, 'Oh, my gosh, there are real people in the Senate,' because she actually spoke just like every other person you've ever met. There was nothing toffy about Trish. She was just the most down-to-earth person that you could ever imagine. She didn't care whether you were sitting on this side of the chamber, that side of the chamber or down the other end; she cared about all the people in this place.

For us here, the day that we heard about the famous Julia Gillard's captain's pick—when Trish was no longer going to come back to this place as a senator—deeply saddened so many people in this place, so many people who were in her own party but also those of us on this side who had respected Trish's absolute dedication and commitment to the people she represented. It did not matter what the issue was, Trish always applied a lens of what was in the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory. Most particularly, she had such an incredibly strong focus on the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.

A funnier couple you could not have imagined in Nigel Scullion and Trish Crossin as the two representatives in the Senate from the Northern Territory, yet, together, the impact and effect that those two people had was because there wasn't a snowflake's breadth of difference between them in what they wanted as outcomes for Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. That sort of practical, pragmatic approach to everything made them deeply, deeply lovable, the pair of them. But Lord only knows what the pair of them got up to after they left this place and there was no further scrutiny on them, because the one thing you can say about them was that neither of them was very conventional about their approach to things.

Trish was taken way too soon. I'm sure, to her family, it must feel incredibly real for a life that was cut short. I'm sure Trish had so much more to give, not only to you as her family but to her nation and to the great love that she had for the Northern Territory. But the one thing you can be assured of, when it came to the people that knew her in this place, nobody could have packed a bigger punch than she did in what she achieved and the impact she had on the lives of the people that she interacted with while she was here.

The fact that we're sitting here today—you heard the beautiful comments from Senator Hanson-Young, you heard the comments from her colleagues in the Labor Party and you heard the comments made by both Senator Cash and Senator McDonald—you can see she was universally loved in this place. I've got to tell you, that is not something that is particularly common; perhaps it was more common in the past than it is now. But the one thing I can absolutely say about Trish is that she was absolutely, universally loved. There was not a person in this place that didn't have respect for her, for who she was, and the fact that she called a spade an absolute bloody shovel every single time. We always knew exactly where she stood.

She was a trailblazer. She was somebody who was immensely respected. She will have a legacy that will live much longer than her short time on this earth, because it was her incredible passion and commitment that has seen a lot of change. I'm sure she wanted to see a lot more and, if she has her way, I'm sure she'll be dictating from where she is now to make sure things continue to change, such was her passion. Can I just put on the record my incredible sadness in hearing of Trish's passing, and my condolences to you, Mark, and to your family for your incredibly great loss. Her loss to you is obviously felt deeper than anywhere else, but please be assured and take comfort in the fact that your loss is shared by so many people across this country, so many people whose names we don't even know. She made a difference.

At the heart of our democracy is the principle that ordinary people with enough passion for their ideas and enough commitment to their community can make a real impact on the floor of the Australian parliament, and Trish Crossin's life is a testament to that principle.

Arriving in the Northern Territory in Yirrkala on the Gove Peninsula in 1981, she became the first woman elected from the Northern Territory to the Australian parliament, and she made her mark in this place and in many other places across her life. A committed unionist, she was a significant figure in the early history of the NTEU, and she was the founding chair of the territory's Working Women's Centre. The current CEO of that centre, Abbey Kendall, has described how Trish operated, saying:

She was relentless. Trish was known for turning up, pushing hard and refusing to leave offices.

She did not accept vague assurances or half answers.

Certainly for her Labor colleagues who knew her through the Labor Party this is a very recognisable description because she brought that same energy to our party and to this parliament. In fact, Hansard records that her first speech had so riled up the Howard government senators that it descended into interjections across the chamber. She was a fierce advocate in the very best traditions of Labor women, and she was smart and tough and completely committed. She used her time here as a tireless advocate for education, First Nations communities, the environment and the advancement of women.

I couldn't date when I first met Trish, but it was many years before I came to this place. It was through our shared involvement in our national party organisation and through our shared interest in the advancement of women and women's issues in that organisation. The many people who worked with her in the Labor Party through that period will remember her as a person of deep conviction, with deep commitment to the party and deep commitment to her community. Every time I saw her in that period, during her period as a senator and after, she was full of energy, full of warmth, full of opinions and full of enthusiasm that never stopped. It was a mark of her commitment to advancing the interests that she believed in and the interests of the communities that she sought to represent.

My heart goes out to her family, to you, Mark, and to Paul, Melinda, Amanda and our beloved colleague Kate. We in the Labor Senate family know that her smarts and her courage and her sense of justice will live on.

I too rise to share some thoughts about Trish and my condolences with her family who are here today. Trish was a woman who was fiercely devoted to her own family and a woman who was fiercely devoted to her Labor family as well. On the first day of May, her two beloved families were able to come together at the Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Melbourne's west to honour Trish and say farewell. I was really pleased to be able to be there and help honour Trish's contribution at that service. Trish was baptised at that church, and we were told there that her values of justice and fairness formed through her Catholic faith. Her family and all of her friends and comrades came together in sadness that day, but we also came together in a lot of pride in an amazing woman as well, a woman who always stood up for the people she cared about, who always fought for the underdog and who absolutely never wavered in her belief in the Labor cause.

Much has been said already today about Trish's incredible contribution. She was the first woman to represent the Territory in the Australian parliament. Her 15 years of service here in this place were incredible, as we've heard. She really lived out her values—the values she learnt through her Catholic faith and the values she learnt in her time teaching in remote Indigenous communities in the Territory as well, where she developed that deep and abiding respect for First Nations people which was in evidence every year of her time here, from her first speech through to her valedictory.

Trish was an absolutely passionate fighter. She fought injustice, she stood up for working people, she stood up for First Nations people and she stood up for women. She was absolutely tireless in her work to build a country that she believed in—a country built on unity, not on division. Those were not just values that Trish pursued in her work; I think they were values that she pursued in her life as well. We've heard that from the contributions that leaders in this place have made from across the political spectrum, and I just wanted to thank all of those people who've made those contributions.

I think one thing that I have heard today is that Trish was really a senator's senator—someone who had immense respect for the institution and knew how to use this institution to do good things for the people that she fought for. Trish was not a fence sitter. She did not hedge her bets or wait on the sidelines; she picked sides. She backed people. She backed causes, and, when she did, that was it—she didn't second-guess anything. If you were lucky enough to have Trish on your side, you had a constant champion.

Like many Labor women—including Senator McCarthy, who spoke so beautifully before—I was pretty lucky to have Trish on my side as well after I entered the Senate in 2019. I first met Trish through Kate, who worked in my then backbench opposition Senate office. Luckily for Kate and for all of us, we've all gone on to greater things now, but Trish and Kate very much came as a bit of a package deal for me, and what a gift that was.

Trish took the time to give me the benefit of her advice, her experience and her strength, and she took mentoring really seriously. She saw it as a responsibility to support those people, particularly women, who came to this place after her. I remember Trish coming to my house for a cup of tea and a bit of a chat about life in the Senate, and it was more than a chat; it was a massive pep talk. Really, every conversation with Trish was a pep talk. I was pretty new, still, to the Senate, and, as with so many Labor women, what she did with me was tell me that my experience mattered, my voice mattered and it should be heard. I remember that meeting so much. I remember her dedication, her commitment and her absolute determination to pass her strength to me and to all Labor women. She was so generous in sharing her strength, and I am forever grateful to her for that. When you left a conversation with Trish, as I did on that day, you stood a little bit taller and you were also a fair bit more grounded, grounded in those values that bind us all together in the Labor movement: belief in workers' rights; belief in equality for women; belief in the strong, proud 60,000 years of culture and connection that we have in this place; and belief that how far you travel in your life should not be determined by where you begin your life.

Her fierce loyalty to her Labor family was magnified a millionfold in her devotion to her own amazing family, who are with us today. The same strength, certainty and generosity she brought to our movement, I know, was felt most deeply by those closest to her. Trish has done an amazing job raising her children, and her daughters. Melinda, Amanda and Kate, spoke at the service incredibly powerfully about what it was like to grow up with a mother like Trish, a mother who was a strong woman who was clearly determined to build and grow strong women too—and that is exactly what she has done. They spoke about how, whatever idea they had, Trish would back it 110 per cent, so much so, I recall, that you had to be really clear what your idea was because, if it wasn't a good idea, she'd back it anyway. So make sure that it's a good idea!

Kate, you spoke so movingly at the service. You honour your mum in your own journey in this place—from being a two-year old, as we've heard from other contributions, wandering the corridors as a senator's daughter to now in this place as an adviser to the Labor leader of a second-term government in this place. That is an absolute tribute to your mum. I just want to reflect on this moment with you, Kate, which I now realise has so much of your mum in it, which is when you were working with me: we were in an opposition backbench Senate team, and I remember Kate marching me on the blue carpet through the ministerial wing, and I said, 'Kate, why are we doing this? Why are you marching me on the blue carpet through the ministerial wing?' and she said, 'Because we're going to be here one day.' That was such a Crossin moment.

To Amanda, to Melinda, to Paul and to Mark, her beloved partner of so many years: we stand with you in your loss. We saw the strength of your family as you all came together, with Paul there as well in the church. We saw how much her grandchildren will miss their nan, and we know that Trisha's strength leaves you so much stronger for the journey ahead. Thank you for sharing her with us for so many years. You have our condolences. May Trish rest in power.

I wish to pay my tribute to Trish Crossin and to offer my condolences to her family and all those whose lives she touched. Trish served the people of the Northern Territory in this place for 15 years, from 1998 to 2013. She made history as the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in the Australian parliament, but Trish was never interested in history for its own sake. What mattered was what she could do with the opportunity that she'd been given. She used her time in this place to stand up for people that too often went unheard. She was a strong voice, as we've heard here today, for First Nations communities, women workers, public education and people living in remote and regional Australia.

Before entering parliament, Trish was a teacher, and those years shaped her understanding of the Territory, her respect for Yolngu culture and language and her lifelong commitment to justice and reconciliation. In her first speech to the Senate, Trish thanked the Yolngu people in their own language. She made a public promise to work hard to represent them and to respect and acknowledge their rights, and she kept that promise. She fought to protect bilingual education. She pushed for better health and education services. She supported early work for compensation for members of the Stolen Generations. She spoke up for communities that were often a long way from Canberra but never far from her mind.

Trish also brought to this place the values of the union movement. Before becoming a Senator, she worked as the industrial officer and as secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union in the Northern Territory. She understood that secure work, fair pay and dignity at work can change lives. She never lost sight of why unions exist for the people they represent.

Trish was a proud feminist. She helped establish the Northern Territory Working Women's Centre and fought for reproductive rights, child care and greater equality for women. Indeed, Trish had pursued a relentless campaign on entering the Senate on the lack of childcare facilities in Parliament House and the barrier it presented to women's participation in politics. She said at the time:

… it is unfortunate that there are no child-care facilities in this building … It may well be one of the reasons limiting the capacity of women to enter this arena.

She kept her promise, and 10 years later, when the childcare centre proposal was finally being approved, she reflected:

From the moment I put those words down in Hansard, I decided that I would spend my time in this place developing a campaign and pushing for some recognition that a childcare centre would benefit … the many thousands of families, women and men, who work in this place—

another successful Trish Crossin campaign.

Another proud moment, we've heard it here today, was when Trish co-sponsored the first marriage equality bill in the Senate, along with Gavin Marshall, Louise Pratt and myself. Working with Trish with on that bill and taking it through the Senate—unfortunately, unsuccessful at that time—was such an insight into the work of Senator Trish Crossin. She was just an amazing person with her support and her acknowledge.

She served as the deputy opposition whip and was a renowned chair of both the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Across those roles she brought discipline, courage and deep respect for the people affected by the decisions made there. I had the privilege of serving alongside Trish from the time I arrived in this place until the time she left the Senate in 2013.

To many Australians, Trish will rightly be remembered as a trailblazer, a fierce advocate for the Northern Territory and a proud champion of the causes she believed in. But those of us who worked with her will remember something else as well: her generosity, her friendship and her unwavering support for those around her. Trish was strong, determined, courageous and deeply intelligent. She was never afraid to stand up for what she believed was right, and she approached every challenge with conviction and purpose. But she also brought warmth, humour and kindness to her work and her relationships.

For many of us in the Labor family, Trish was someone you could always turn to. She offered wise counsel, practical advice and steadfast support whenever it was needed. She understood that politics is ultimately about people, and she invested deeply in the people around her. She built lasting friendships throughout her parliamentary career, and I know that former senators Gavin Marshall, Claire Moore and Ruth Webber, among many others, will be mourning the loss of a dear friend. The affection and respect they held for Trish reflects the esteem in which she was regarded by her colleagues. The Prime Minister described Trish as a 'trailblazer 'who served her community, the Labor Party and the parliament with 'strength, decency and pride', and that is a fitting tribute. As we heard, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy spoke about the wise counsel and support Trish offered after she entered this place. That generosity was characteristic of Trish. She was always willing to share her experience, offer encouragement and help others find their way through what can often be a demanding and challenging environment.

I also want to acknowledge in the chamber here today, Amanda Diprose. Amanda was one of Trish's closest friends, and, in the days since her passing, she shared many stories around Trish's extraordinary generosity, loyalty and capacity to care for others. Through those stories and through my own experience of serving alongside Trish, I am reminded that her greatest legacy lies not only in what she achieved but in the lives she touched and the friendships she nurtured. Amanda's presence here tonight, and the presence of so many others here and listening to this condolence motion, is a reminder that behind every parliamentary career is a life rich with friendship, shared experiences and cherished memories. Those personal connections are every bit as important as the public achievements.

I also want to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of former senator Anne Urquhart, now the member for Braddon, who served alongside Trish from 2010 to 2013, and knew Trish as a colleague and a friend. I know Anne has been feeling Trish's loss.

After leaving the Senate, Trish continued to serve. She worked with the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and continued contributing to public and community life. In 2023, she was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the Parliament of Australia and to the Northern Territory community. Her death was a terrible shock to all who knew her and loved her.

To her husband, Mark; her children, Paul, Melinda, Amanda and Kate; her grandchildren; and her wider family, I offer my sincere condolences. The Labor family has lost a cherished friend and comrade, and all of us who had the privilege of knowing and working with Trish have lost someone whose wisdom, courage and generosity enriched our lives and made this parliament a better place. Vale, Trish Crossin.

I acknowledge Mark and the Crossin family as well and pass on my condolences. I did not know Trish as a senator. I only got to know her subsequently after Kate started working for me, after she worked for Senator Walsh and before she started working for Senator Wong. I wasn't as familiar with Trish's Senate record, but, hearing the changes and what she achieved in 15 years in the Senate—and, I was thinking, only six or fewer of those years would have been in government—it's a remarkable record to have that length of achievement. It shows her capacity to work across the aisle with other senators and make the most of the opportunity before us. Whilst I hope we never go back to opposition, there'll certainly be inspiration there for us, knowing what you can do when you are back there.

As I mentioned, Kate worked for me as well. I only met Trish once, and that was when I was walking back to my office here, when Kate was working for me. I spotted Trish waiting in the corridor as I was going back there. I got the sense that she didn't want to come and interfere with Kate's work but was sort of hoping to say hello. I saw her and started talking and invited her back to come into the office. The one thing that became clear to me from getting to know Kate is the impact that Trish had on her family. I've got the sense that she also had that impact on colleagues here and in the Northern Territory and anyone who's come across her. As someone whose mother was extremely influential in my life, I know how influential she's been in Kate and her children's lives as well, and as a partner, but also as a friend and family member.

I know that she will be missed greatly by the family and that these days are difficult. As I said to Kate on Monday when I saw her, there's not a day when you don't think about your mum when she's had an influence on your life, like she has, but it does get easier, and I'm confident that, over time, those memories will be something that you'll cherish and embrace. You should know that Labor colleagues are thinking of you. So many people across the country are thinking of you. Trish will be remembered for her outstanding career but also for the role model she was and the impact she had on her family and friends. Vale.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 for 11 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Biosecurity (Electronic Decisions–Goods) Determination 2026 made under the Biosecurity Act 2015.

Also on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for 11 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Regulations 2026.

by leave—as acting Nationals Senate leader, I advise the Senate that Senator Cadell will continue in the role of Nationals Whip.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move government business notices of motion Nos 1 to 3 together:

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Defence—Facilities to support Air Mission Training System Project.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at London Central, 40-60 London Circuit, Canberra City.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Campus Utilities Building Project, Lucas Heights.

I table statements in relation to the works.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, 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 table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Albanese Government supports free and fair trade.

Since coming to office, we have repaired our trading relationship with China and signed free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

We are a trading nation. Rules-based trade is good for Australia and Australian jobs and households.

But when trade is not fair, we stand up for Australian businesses and Australian workers, with evidence-based processes that safeguard the national interest.

We take action to ensure Australian manufacturing isn't hurt by unfair trade.

We act, because we want a strong and resilient economy and a Future Made in Australia.

Today I introduce the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026.

This Bill represents an important step forward in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex and shock prone world.

This Bill vests responsibility for undertaking safeguard inquiries with the Australian Trade Remedies Commission (currently known as the Anti-Dumping Commission).

The transfer is an important step in modernising Australia's trade remedies system.

This will streamline Australia's trade remedies architecture.

Australia's trade remedies system has not undergone significant reform in a decade.

The turbulence of global trade and significant over capacity requires us to strengthen our trade defences. This is why the Albanese Government has committed to strengthening and modernising Australia's trade remedies system—to ensure it is fit-for-purpose to address current and emerging trade challenges.

Australia is increasingly at risk of import surges that threaten our domestic manufacturers. Safeguard actions are an important tool in maintaining our sovereign capability in response to such surges. Safeguard actions may be applied when a safeguard inquiry finds that there has been an increase in imports that is causing or threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry.

The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill will give effect to the transfer of responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Commissioner of the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. This is a commitment that we made following the Economic Reform Roundtable. Better, more efficient regulation was a key area of consensus from the Roundtables.

Consolidating responsibility for all trade remedies functions within the Australian Trade Remedies Commission will better support Australian manufacturers and consumers through a single expert agency, while streamlining processes and improving regulatory efficiency.

The Bill will rename the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Australian Trade Remedies Commission to reflect the Commission's broader remit.

Consistent with our obligations under international law, safeguard actions can be imposed by the Government if an inquiry objectively determines that an increase in imports due to unforeseen developments is causing or threatening to cause serious injury to an Australia industry. These measures serve as short-term "emergency relief" to allow local producers to adjust to new market conditions and to defend Australia's interests. These measures support local businesses, giving Australian industries vital breathing space to adapt, restructure, or improve their competitiveness, in line with the international rules-based approach and Australia's overall open trade commitments.

As occurs under the existing approach, in practice, industry representatives would write to government to apply for safeguard inquiries. The responsible Minister can—if warranted—ask the Commissioner to commence a safeguard inquiry and issue a Terms of Reference for that inquiry.

The Bill establishes a framework for fair procedures for the parties involved and rigorous approaches in the conduct of safeguard inquiries. The Bill ensures that the Commissioner conducts inquiries based on evidence to establish if there has been an unforeseen surge in imports that is causing, or threatening to cause, serious injury to Australian industry.

Given safeguard measures can impact on the economy, downstream industries, and consumers, the Bill introduces a legislated public interest consideration. This requires the Commissioner to have regard to whether implementation of a safeguard measure is in the public interest before making a recommendation to the Minister.

To do this the Commissioner will consider:

Under the Bill, as is currently the case, the Commissioner must provide the Minister with a report of the safeguard inquiry. The written report will then be tabled in Parliament for transparency. The Commissioner must also, subject to certain exceptions relating to confidential information, make public all material received as part of a safeguard inquiry.

The Productivity Commission will continue to be responsible for safeguards inquiries that are in train before the commencement of the Bill. This means that the existing safeguard inquiry on fabricated structural steel will remain with the Productivity Commission until completion. That inquiry will remain governed by the current laws and processes and not by this Bill.

In summary, this Bill will create one-specialist body in the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitments to the World Trade Organization and the rules-based trading system. It will provide stronger defences against sudden and unforeseen surges in imports by providing a single authority that can bring deep expertise to trade remedies—supporting Australian industry, our regions and a Future Made in Australia.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 11 August 2026, in accordance with standing order 111.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie from 12 to 14 May 2026, and 22 June to 22 July 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to myself for 22 June 2026 and for 29 June to 22 July 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to workplace relations, the road transport industry and registered organisations, 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 related to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Thank you, President.

I rise to introduce the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026.

This Bill is straightforward.

It responds directly to concerns raised by the Fair Work Commission about increasing workloads, mounting delays and growing pressures on Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

It contains practical reforms that the Commission itself has identified as assisting it to perform its functions more efficiently, while maintaining fairness for workers and employers alike.

The Coalition believes these reforms deserve to be considered on their own merits.

The Fair Work Commission is one of Australia's most important workplace institutions. It resolves disputes, approves enterprise agreements, sets minimum standards and plays a critical role in maintaining confidence in our workplace relations system.

When delays increase and workloads become unmanageable, workers wait longer for outcomes, businesses wait longer for certainty and confidence in the system suffers.

That is why it is important that Parliament responds constructively when the Commission identifies practical improvements that can assist it to do its job.

This Bill does exactly that.

The Pressure on the Fair Work Commission

The Commission has publicly warned of increasing workloads, rising numbers of self-represented applicants, resource constraints and the growing complexity of matters coming before it.

The President of the Commission and the General Manager have both spoken publicly about the challenges facing the institution.

The Coalition takes those concerns seriously.

This Bill contains a package of sensible reforms designed to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary delay and allow Commission resources to be focused on resolving genuine workplace disputes.

Jurisdictional Objections

One of the most important reforms relates to jurisdictional objections in general protections dismissal and unlawful termination matters.

Before the decision in Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford [2020] 279 FCR 591 (Milford), the Commission's usual practice was to proceed directly to an early dispute resolution process such as conciliation, mediation or conference.

Parties could still raise arguments about whether a dismissal had occurred or whether an employment relationship existed. However, those issues generally did not need to be determined before the Commission attempted to help the parties resolve the dispute.

The Milford decision changed that approach.

In many cases, the Commission was required to determine threshold jurisdictional questions before it could commence the dispute resolution process.

That created additional hearings, additional delay and additional expense.

The Commission has indicated that hundreds of matters each year are affected by this issue.

This Bill restores a more practical approach.

It makes clear that, for the purpose of commencing early dispute resolution, it is sufficient that a person alleges they have been dismissed or terminated unlawfully.

The Commission can then proceed to its core function of helping parties resolve disputes.

Importantly, questions about whether a dismissal actually occurred can still be determined later if the matter proceeds to arbitration or litigation.

This reform reduces procedural complexity without removing substantive rights.

Delegation of Procedural Powers

The Bill also allows the President of the Fair Work Commission to delegate certain procedural functions to appropriately senior Commission staff.

These powers include issuing certificates in circumstances where all reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute have been unsuccessful.

This is not a delegation of substantive decision-making powers.

It is a practical administrative reform that provides the Commission with additional flexibility to manage its workload efficiently.

The Commission requested this reform and it is sensible that Parliament respond positively.

Frivolous and Vexatious Applications

The Bill also strengthens the Commission's ability to deal with frivolous, vexatious or hopeless applications.

Every hour spent dealing with applications that have no reasonable prospect of success is an hour that cannot be spent resolving genuine workplace disputes.

The Bill expands existing powers and introduces safeguards to ensure that repeat misuse of Commission processes can be addressed appropriately.

Importantly, safeguards remain in place.

Any restriction on future applications requires a Full Bench of the Commission. Applicants must be given an opportunity to be heard.

Procedural fairness is maintained.

These reforms strike an appropriate balance between access to justice and protecting the integrity of the tribunal.

Determining Matters on the Papers

The Bill also allows certain matters to be determined on the papers where appropriate and where the parties consent.

This reform reflects a simple reality. Not every matter requires a hearing.

In some cases, the relevant evidence is documentary, the issues are straightforward and an oral hearing adds little value.

Where the Commission is satisfied that a matter can be fairly determined on the papers, and where the parties agree, it should have the flexibility to do so.

This will reduce delay and improve efficiency while preserving fairness.

Supported Bargaining Authorisations

The Bill also streamlines the process for obtaining a subsequent supported bargaining authorisation where parties already have an existing supported bargaining agreement.

This is a practical reform.

Where the Commission has already considered whether a particular cohort of employers and employees is suitable for supported bargaining, it makes little sense to require parties to repeatedly establish the same threshold matters if circumstances have not materially changed.

The Bill reduces unnecessary duplication while preserving appropriate safeguards.

Road Transport Contractor High Income Threshold

The Bill also creates a separate road transport contractor high income threshold.

The Government and industry stakeholders have argued that unique operating costs within the road transport industry can result in contractors appearing to earn significantly more than they effectively retain after business expenses are taken into account.

The Bill provides a mechanism for a separate threshold to be prescribed.

Reasonable people may hold different views about the merits of that proposal, but it is an issue that warrants consideration and debate.

Technical and Machinery Amendments

The Bill also contains a number of technical, administrative and machinery amendments.

These include changes relating to the National Construction Industry Forum, travel allowance arrangements for the Road Transport Advisory Group, reporting arrangements and other technical corrections.

These amendments are sensible and largely uncontroversial.

Conclusion

President, this Bill is a practical reform bill.

It responds directly to concerns raised by the Fair Work Commission. It reduces unnecessary delay.

It removes procedural bottlenecks. It improves efficiency.

It helps workers and employers access a tribunal that is able to resolve disputes promptly and effectively.

Most importantly, it takes reforms that have broad support and allows them to be considered on their own merits.

The Fair Work Commission has identified genuine operational challenges. Parliament should respond constructively.

This Bill does exactly that.

There is one final point worth making.

This Bill is focused squarely on improving the operation of the Fair Work Commission.

It does not seek to use Commonwealth procurement policy to influence workplace bargaining arrangements.

It does not seek to preference particular industrial instruments over others.

It does not seek to advantage one class of business over another based on the type of workplace agreement they may have in place.

That is dangerous policy that those opposite engage in.

This Bill is about ensuring that workers and employers can access a Fair Work Commission that is efficient, responsive and able to focus its resources on resolving workplace disputes.

That objective should attract support from all sides of this chamber.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2026:

Management of, and plans for, Australia Post's retail network, with particular reference to:

(a) Australia Post's engagement with licensees, representative bodies, shareholder ministers and other stakeholders about these plans;

(b) the governance, transparency and decision-making processes underpinning those plans;

(c) the crucial role that licensed post offices play in delivering services to support local communities, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia;

(d) alternative business models to support the sustainability of Australia Post's retail network;

(e) the adequacy of Australia Post's evidence to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee at the 2026-27 Budget estimates' hearing on 27 May 2026; and

(f) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27, relating to Treasury advice concerning first home buyers, with a compliance date of no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025,

(ii) on 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 119, relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme, with a compliance date of no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025,

(iii) since those orders were agreed to, the Senate has agreed to a further 9 motions concerning the minister's failure to comply with the orders, rejected a public interest immunity claim raised by the Minister for Housing and required a minister to attend the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders on 5 separate occasions,

(iv) most recently, on 12 May 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attended the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders or to respond in full to the orders,

(v) the additional explanation provided by the minister was not satisfactory and did not address the minister's failure to fully comply with the orders, and

(vi) the orders have still not been fully complied with; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that orders for the production of documents nos 27 and 119 have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to fully comply with the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 519, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 522, standing in my name.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Industry and Innovation, the Minister for Science and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Monday, 27 July 2026:

(a) all documents held by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Office of National Intelligence from 1 January 2010 to the present, relating to:

(i) Australian participation in, funding of, collaboration with or oversight of overseas high-containment biological laboratories, biological threat reduction programs, pathogen research programs including gain of function research or dual-use biological research,

(ii) agreements, contracts, grants, memoranda of understanding, funding arrangements, scientist exchanges, training programs or joint research projects between Australian entities and foreign governments, foreign government agencies or foreign entities conducting or funding high-containment pathogen research,

(iii) assessments, briefings, reports, correspondence, intelligence products, biosafety reviews, biosecurity reviews or risk assessments relating to gain of function research, dual-use research of concern, enhanced potential pandemic pathogens or pathogen enhancement research conducted in connection with such programs, and

(iv) reviews, audits, inquiries or investigations conducted since 2020 concerning Australia's knowledge of, involvement in or collaboration with, international pathogen research networks; and

(b) for each document that is captured by the order and withheld under a public interest immunity claim, an indexed schedule which lists the name (or a short description of the document if untitled), date and type of the document as well as an explanation of the basis on which the document is withheld.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 523 standing in the name of Senator Antic 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 Monday, 29 June 2026, all documents and advice provided to the Treasurer or the office of the Treasurer in relation to the Government's proposed ban on self-managed superannuation funds borrowing to purchase residential properties.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 524 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

That the resolution relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for 23 to 29 June 2026, agreed to on 23 June 2026, be amended as follows:

(1) After paragraph (4), insert:

(4A) On Tuesday, 30 June 2026, contingent on a message being received from the House of Representatives regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026:

(a) the bill be called on immediately at the commencement of government business; and

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 1.30 pm;

(2) Omit paragraph (5), substitute:

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

The question is that general business notice of motion no. 526 standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 1 July 2026, the following information relating to the Northern Territory Remote Housing Federation Funding Agreement 2024-34:

(a) all 6-monthly delivery reports detailing delivery of capital works and property and tenancy management measures, as outlined under table 2 of the agreement schedule;

(b) the sum of all payments made by the Commonwealth under the agreement;

(c) a breakdown of each payment made against each associated performance milestone, including payments made against each 6-monthly delivery report delivered to the Commonwealth;

(d) the monitoring and evaluation framework, which was endorsed by the joint steering committee members at the September 2025 joint steering committee meeting; and

(e) the collective statement advocating for a genuine partnership approach, which was presented by Aboriginal caucus members to the joint steering committee at the September 2025 joint steering committee meeting.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 8 July 2026, the following documents:

(a) all reports provided to the Commonwealth by states and territories under the National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30 as at the date of this order, including but not limited to:

(i) projected Commonwealth funding reports provided under clause 43 of the partnership agreement,

(ii) performance reports provided under clause 44 of the partnership agreement, and

(iii) other reports provided under clauses 46 and 47 of the partnership agreement; and

(b) any documents held by the Commonwealth relating to unmet legal needs under the National Access to Justice Partnership; and

(c) all advice, correspondence, meeting records and other documents held by the Commonwealth relating to consideration of potential incorporation of recommendation 22 (legal assistance impact assessments) of the Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25 into the National Access to Justice Partnership, including any similar mechanism or alternative proposal.

Question agreed to.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

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

The need for the government to invest in the services and supports disabled people need instead of handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to Trump for AUKUS, at a time when disabled people are fighting for the NDIS supports they need and families are facing increasing cost of living pressures.

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.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

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

The need for the government to invest in the services and supports disabled people need instead of handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to Trump for AUKUS, at a time when disabled people are fighting for the NDIS supports they need and families are facing increasing cost of living pressures.

In this motion, the Greens ask the parliament to join with us in supporting two key propositions. First is that Australia and the Australian community should not be drawn into an ever-closer relationship with the Trump administration, one that makes us dependent on Donald Trump, locked in to the United States for our so-called defence and security. Whatever you may think of the concept of us funding defence and security in our region by shackling ourselves to the United States, nobody can seriously argue that it is a good idea for us to be guided in our foreign and defence policy by Donald Trump.

The Australian taxpayer, the Australian public, should not be asked to spend over $368 billion buying what seems to be, among other things, a bunch of used nuclear submarines from Donald Trump. I've heard of the art of the deal. This government is a bunch of suckers. They are allowing themselves to be ripped off by one of the world's most prolific con artists. What else could we do with that money? We could fund the NDIS. Scrap AUKUS, and there is no need in the world for these cuts. Tax the gas companies, and we'd have even more to provide to the community. Let us choose disabled people and our families. Let us put disabled folks and our needs first. Let's chuck AUKUS in the bin and fund the NDIS.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the urgency motion moved by the Greens. (Quorum formed)

Leave not granted.

Per the notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion.

We saw yesterday another example of how easily the Greens, at the other end of the chamber, can be bought, and I genuinely feel sorry for Senator Steele-John, who has been working so hard on this NDIS issue, as he actually got rolled. Quite frankly, the decision yesterday to do a dirty deal of which the Leader of the Government in the Senate said 'the terms of the agreement'—they're quite happy to admit that there was an agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens to move some of the most substantial and egregious tax increases to Australians. The Greens were prepared to provide their support for that in return for an extension to a committee inquiry into the NDIS bill that they know that they are still going to vote against.

While we're standing here today under a guillotine that has been conjured up in the terms of the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens to do a dirty deal on these tax changes that are going to see Australians paying more and more tax, we have got a situation where the NDIS bill, which we know the Greens have said they will not be supporting—let's be clear here. Nothing will change between now and when this bill comes back in a couple of months time. Why can't this bill be dealt with now? We have sought, through many means, to have this bill dealt with simply because why can't certainty be provided to Australians in relation to this bill?

If I thought that the Greens decision to have this bill, the NDIS bill, further investigated was going to change anything, then we would have a completely different situation, but nothing is going to change. You're still going to vote against this bill, so why don't you just give some certainty to all of the Australians who, right now, do not know what is going on? Force the government to actually go into committee on this bill—going to committee on a bill, that would be a novel thing!—that actually matters to the Australian public and actually tell Australians what you are intending to do on the NDIS bill.

Today, we have a motion here that's been put forward by Senator McKim in relation to the NDIS. If you are so concerned about this particular issue, why didn't you put it in your dirty deal that you did with the Labor Party yesterday? You're not particularly good negotiators if all you got out of your deal with the government in relation to this were these absolutely egregious tax changes that they told the Australian public, over 50 times before the last election, they weren't going to bring in. Why didn't you get it negotiated? It just goes to show how incredibly poor your negotiation skills are, and poor Senator Steele-John is the one who has to wear it.

Why don't you just allow us to get on with it? Why don't you allow us to get on with it and get some scrutiny? Today, we tried to get scrutiny on the bills in relation to the tax changes that you're going to make, but, no, you all ganged up and didn't allow any scrutiny. You wouldn't let us go into committee today on the tax bills. So if you really are genuine about doing what you have all said you came into this place for—which was to provide greater transparency, greater accountability and greater scrutiny—why won't you let the Australian public be able to see what is going on with these two incredibly important bills? 'No, we're much happier to just do dirty deals behind closed doors.'

The reason why it was important for us to suspend on this is that I think that there has to be some sunlight shone on the fact that the two parties that sit on the other side of this chamber are prepared to completely trash the conventions of this chamber that have stood the test of time. You have got no control of the chamber unless you gang up. You deny Australians the opportunity to see what's going on with a bill as important as the NDIS bill and the tax bills. You deny Australians from having the line of sight to hold you accountable for what you're about to do and what you've done in the last two days. You deny Australians the opportunity to have us, on this side of the chamber, scrutinise what you are doing.

The thing that probably is the most laughable about what we have seen happen in the last 24 hours is that the Greens have rolled over on some of the most serious tax increases to the Australian public that we have seen in generations and in the process of doing that have failed to get anything at all for their efforts, apart from an extension on a bill that they're not going to change their position on, no matter how long it stands out there for.

Folks, let's just take a breath. There's a lot of political noise going on at the moment in this place. Let me step out very clearly what is occurring in this moment. The Liberal Party, for the last six weeks or so, has been engaged with me in a Senate inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The members of that committee—ably contributed to by Senators Liddle, Askew, Kovacic and others—have heard directly from the disabled community and our families, as well as allied health professionals, service providers, disability experts, legal advocates and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

The evidence has been overwhelming; the verdict has been unanimous. The bill in its current form should not pass. The bill in its current form will enable multibillion-dollar cuts not to the fraudsters and the big providers, not to those massive corporations that are ripping people off and not to the criminal CEOs and the abusive service providers that are responsible for so much of the pain that is experienced by disabled people. The bill doesn't really touch them. The bill cuts, over the next four years, nearly $40 billion from the vital supports needed by disabled people and provided under the NDIS. These are the supports that enable you to go outside, go into the sun, help your kids get to school and be part of your community.

This bill grants sweeping powers, we heard, to the minister of the day to take control over a disabled person's life and to dictate what accessible supports they may be able to utilise. It enables the government to subject people to medical interventions before they enter the scheme, regardless of the waitlist for those interventions. Therefore, how long might they be asked to sit in the dark and wait for the supports?

As committee members, we were pretty much of a unanimous view that this bill is something, in its current form, that should be chucked in the bin or shredded and that there should be an additional inquiry. The disabled community and our families very clearly said to this chamber, to this parliament, the bill shouldn't pass in its current form. The Greens and I, with me being the only physically disabled person in this chamber, talked with everybody in this place to achieve the best outcome for the community.

What we saw announced yesterday was an additional two months for the inquiry in order to allow more evidence to be gained and more pressure to be built on this government to chuck their bill in the bin and, if they won't do that, to persuade the Liberal Party—who, up until that point, had been listening with great concern to the experiences of disabled people—to join with us in chucking that bill in the bin.

That's where I thought we were some 48 hours ago, and now we have this motion from the Liberal Party, which asks the chamber to pass these reforms in this sitting fortnight. These reforms, this bill, will put disabled lives at risk. You're now 'team ram it through in the next fortnight', are you? This is not a serious proposal. This is not a serious party in this moment. I am not sure, quite frankly, what's going on here, folks. Some could say that you're a little bit mean in this moment. I reckon some of you, on an individual basis, are better than that. I hope to be proven right in the next few weeks. (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to be able to follow up on this particular matter, the urgency motion moved by the Greens. I won't take up my full time so that the Greens can have some of their time back. I think I've made my point very clear in my contribution on the suspension. It seemed almost hypocritical, at the other end of the chamber yesterday, that they were prepared to do a dirty deal in relation to the taxation changes that the Labor Party wants to push through this place without appropriate scrutiny. The Prime Minister and his government promised Australians on more than 50 occasions, prior to the election, that there would be no changes to the tax arrangements on CGT and capital gains. But how—

Senator Ruston, I hate to interrupt. Senators, if you're not sitting in silence, particularly at the back of the chamber—the noise is carrying to the front while Senator Ruston is on her feet. Please either leave the chamber—

Come on. Calm down. Pick on someone else. Do your job.

Senator Thorpe, Senator Ruston has the call and she is on her feet. Either leave the chamber or sit in silence while the debate continues. Senator Ruston, you have the call.

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. The incredible hypocrisy of what we are seeing here with this motion is that, somehow, the Greens now think it is tremendously important that we make all this investment when it comes to the NDIS, and yet we were the ones who were putting forward the support for the Greens to be able to have an inquiry. They gave it all away yesterday, but now they want it all back today. It is quite incredible.

The reality is that this particular motion that has been put forward by the Greens completely and utterly denies the fact that yesterday they were prepared to do a deal and use this very important piece of legislation as the bargaining chip for that deal. That deal will see most Australians worse off as a result of the legislation that they're going to see forced through this chamber, but it's the Greens who have to go and explain to their constituency why they are stopping young Australians getting ahead. They profess to be the party that supports young Australians, and yet it will be young Australians who are denied opportunities because of the dirty deal that they did yesterday. Apparently, as part of that deal, they weren't able to secure the deal that they want to put on the table today as a matter of urgency. If it was that urgent, why didn't you put it in the deal yesterday? Weren't you able to get anything better than a two-month extension on the NDIS bill in return for stitching up every single Australian, including the young Australians who you profess to be the champions of?

I would say that what we have here is, once again, the Greens somehow virtue signalling to try and cover up the fact that they have stitched up every single Australian with their dirty deal. I'm sure, over time, as the terms of the agreement that have been put in place between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens to get this particular deal underway so that we can get these bills forced through this place so Australians can end up with a situation where their taxes will be increased—despite this government promising not to make any changes to these particular tax arrangements before the election, they've been ably abetted by you down the other end of the chamber.

Before I call Senator Ananda-Rajah, I will advise the chamber that this debate will conclude at 6 pm.

The NDIS is a vital piece of social infrastructure. It was born of a simple but powerful idea that people with disability deserve to live in dignity and security and participate in wider society. Prior to the NDIS, for families and participants, it was a living hell. They were effectively segregated and lived in the shadows, so the NDIS has indeed been transformative for thousands of participants and their families. It has brought them relief from carer stress and the rigours of looking after people with disability.

However, in order to protect the NDIS for future generations and the current generation, we must confront some hard truths. Growth has been unsustainable, the scheme is riddled with fraud and it has suffered from mission creep beyond permanent and significant disability, with particular growth seen in autism spectrum disorder. It has far too much variation because it lacks consistency, standards and quality.

On the topic of costs, costs have ballooned. The scheme now costs $50 billion for 760,000 participants. This contrasts, for example, with Medicare, which costs $40 billion for 28 million people. The scheme is at genuine risk of losing social licence amongst the Australian public because costs are accelerating out of control.

On the topic of diagnostic inflation, autism is the fastest-growing category on the NDIS. Currently, there are around 300,000 participants with autism. I'm concerned about this overmedicalisation we've seen of neurodiversity, and it turns out I'm not alone. Prominent neuroscientist Professor Uta Frith also raised similar issues and concerns around autism diagnosis. Reported in the Times recently, she said:

The spectrum has become so accommodating that I fear that it has now been stretched so far that it has become meaningless and is no longer useful as a medical diagnosis.

As a former medical professional, I know that orthodoxy is often challenged when new evidence emerges in medicine. This orthodoxy that has been present and which has seen this diagnostic inflation and massive growth in self-diagnosis of autism has been challenged now by the very person who did the seminal research and work on autism. This means that we all need to sit up and pay attention. We all need to sit up and pay attention. That's one aspect—diagnostic inflation.

Then we have all the other issues, including fraud. Those issues have been well described and are due to systemic design failures in the scheme. The reforms in this bill for the NDIS are designed to address these gaps. They will fight fraud and stop the rorts, slow the rapid acceleration in cost and apply clear, standardised eligibility criteria that will be grounded in functional capacity so that we move away from this overmedicalisation of disability and we move away from medical diagnosis as an entry, a gateway, to the NDIS. As a doctor, I am staunchly against overmedicalising anything, and I think this is what I mean—this is what I speak of when I talk about mission creep.

We're also aiming to deliver better-quality services to participants. These reforms are not about winding back the NDIS. To the contrary, they are all about strengthening the NDIS.

On the issue of eligibility, we'll be standing up a technical advisory group that will bring together clinical, allied health, disability and lived-experience expertise to help thrash out what assessment and thresholds around functional capacity look like.

On the issue of social and community participation changes, these are also very contentious, and we heard a lot about this from people during the hearings. But, again, this particular aspect of the scheme has seen rapid, rapid growth—a tripling in just the last five years. We will be constraining that and moving away from this individualised support to a more inclusive program that is embedded in the community. We will also be setting up a $200 million communities fund in order to integrate disability with mainstream society—and that is really important. These reforms are much needed and they are long overdue.

There's no doubt that the NDIS has changed lives. The original design and premise of this scheme was one of Labor's, and is one of the most amazing and significant social reforms in this country ever. But I fear that a lot of the conversation is not based on reality. It's not based on all the fine details of the facts of the matter. We have seen very clearly, through the hearings, people telling us about situations they're experiencing right now—not situations they might experience in the future via the nature of the NDIS bill but challenges they are having today and have had in recent times.

One of the things that we know will change fundamentally with the NDIS bill is that it won't matter which assessor you go and see; you'll get a fair outcome. There will be a fair standard. There will be a fair way of engaging so that everybody gets the same treatment in terms of how their assessments are done. It's not based on how much money you've got, how many reports you can afford or who you luck out with that's doing your assessment. That's one of the big things there, and the changes to how the plans are going to be reviewed will give us consistency. It means that people will know what it is that they have into the future. They'll understand what supports are there.

Unfortunately, the entire essence of this urgency motion is based on the wrong premise. The notion that you can fund all the rorts and the fraud that we know are writ large in the NDIS—'Yes, no worries, don't worry about it, just keep funding it,' say the Greens. No, that's not alright. This is taxpayer money. This is money that wants to go towards doing the right thing for people in our society who are living with disability and who deserve the care, support, independence and all the structures they need to live a full life. The idea that we would just keep on keeping on is ridiculous. That's not what this is about. The social licence of the scheme is already under strain because of the amount of fraud, because of the challenges people face. It is not structured appropriately. There needs to be change. We are putting forward a raft of changes to improve the scheme, to put it back on track to its original intent and to ensure that those people who need the supports get those supports.

Yes, it's true, some people will no longer qualify for the scheme—people for whom a permanent and significant disability isn't where they're at. There are supports within the health system and within the social services system that are better placed for them. But, just to be clear, those people who have permanent and significant disability will get the support they need. They will get the structures in place that they need to live a good and fulfilling life; that's the important point. What has happened through this scheme is that so many other supports that people may need with different challenges in their lives do not necessarily fit with the NDIS, but they still need support—medical support or social support or whatever it might be. This is about rightsizing the scheme, taking it back to its original intent. The premise that we would just keep throwing as much money at it as it can possibly absorb, and then start carving out our defence forces to pay for it, is quite frankly ridiculous. We won't be supporting this.

Yes, that's Labor all over in 2026—actually ignore the issue. Their budget plans to take tens of billions of dollars out of the NDIS, funnel it into AUKUS and give it to Donald Trump, putting a US president ahead of people with disability.

The time for this debate has now expired. The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator Bragg has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

Labor's housing agenda is another broken promise, with the Prime Minister doing a dirty deal with the Greens to ram through housing tax hikes that risk worsening the housing and rental shortage, all while the Government is already more than 100,000 homes short of its own target and now needs some 270,000 homes built each year by mid-2029.

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.

So far, we've had three iterations of this terrible budget. We had the first iteration on 12 May, where we first saw the 30 per cent tax. We had the second iteration of this terrible budget on 18 June, when the Prime Minister humiliated the Treasurer by announcing on his own letterhead a slew of changes to this budget on his own website, which also gutted this legislation that we'll be dealing with tomorrow and promised a future tranche of legislation would deal with the key definitions including what a new build would be. Then we had the third iteration of this budget on 23 June, when the Prime Minister announced that he'd been able to cobble together a deal with the Australian Greens on the passage of his budget bills.

Now, this third iteration, of course, has been conducted without any consultation with anyone and is another element of arbitrage that we're going to see in this market. But a precursor to all this was the knowledge in the Prime Minister's mind that he was going to change negative gearing and capital gains tax. The question is: when did he first make that judgement in his own mind that he was going to? Of course, in the past few years, the Prime Minister has sold a number of investment properties and has made a gain of at least $200,000. That wouldn't have been possible if the changes had been made. So the question is: when did the Prime Minister know he was going to make the changes? Has he engaged in insider trading of the sort where we've seen a person benefit from inside knowledge, make transactions, sell properties and then make changes later? I think the publications in today's press raised this spectre, that the Prime Minister has conducted himself in an improper way by engaging in insider trading in relation to his own personal property transactions.

But that is just one of the many issues with this budget. And, as I say, this third tranche of the budget, which was announced this week in the deal with the Greens, does raise the spectre of a new system in superannuation where some super funds will be able to go around and buy properties and buy houses but others will not be able to because they are, of course, self-managed super funds and Labor wants to punish individuals and families but protect their favourite vested interests. This is the golden thread of Australian Labor for these past four years, a constant commitment to look after the people that run their campaigns and that give them donations, their fellow travellers. That is what they've done, and this is just more evidence today that the government is more interested in protecting the profits and the interests of their friends than doing the right thing for the Australian people.

Of course, when you've announced three budgets or three versions of the same budget in a month, there are going to be wrinkles. We've seen today more evidence of these wrinkles in the form of death and divorce. When these things happen—and they happen to people—people will lose the benefits of negative gearing and the grandfathering that goes with them just because a spouse has died or there's been a divorce. Now how can that possibly be fair? The answers we heard in question time today from Minister Wong were totally inadequate, because the answer is they don't have any idea. They have no idea about the consequences of this budget, and that's because, when they did the regulatory impact analysis for these budget bills they were conducted on the basis of the Greens inquiry, not on the basis of the legislation presented to this parliament. The Greens model for capital gains tax and CGT reform was fundamentally different to the model that had been presented in the budget and is before this parliament today. The government has no idea of the impact. We do know that it will collapse supply, we do know that it will damage confidence and we do know that it will damage the ability of Australians to invest into their businesses and invest in their futures.

The other wrinkles we will have to sort out in future sittings of this parliament, because it can't be sustained that because a spouse has died or there's been a divorce someone should have a tax penalty. Surely that's not fair. I mean, even in the doctor evil brains that sometimes exist on the other side of this chamber, that can't be a fair and just outcome for Australian families.

I understand the real agenda here is to enrich vested interests. But surely, it can't be an agenda which hurts people because a family member has died or because there's been a divorce. There have been three iterations of this budget so far. They want to rush this bill through tomorrow. It's a disgrace, but I'm sure this won't be the last word.

I've been thinking a lot in recent days about: what's the point in coming to this building if you're not making a difference to people's lives outside of this building? I'm not sure there's a more important purpose than to come to this house and make changes that are necessary to help young Australians right across our country buy their own house, and ultimately that is at the heart of our budget measures and that has been at the heart of the work of the Albanese Labor government during the first term and over the last 12 months, since we were re-elected in May last year.

This budget is a reflection of the fact that, while we've done a lot of really good and important work, there is more work to do. We can do more to help young people own a home of their own. When I talk to young people around the country, they are really clear that they feel like they are doing everything right—working hard, saving their money—but they just can't get their foot in the door. We've heard a lot of drama, a lot of hyperbole from those opposite about our tax measures and about what it will mean for the housing market, what it will mean for young people. They talk a lot about the idea that we're taking away aspiration from young people. I think they like to try to fool the young people of this country into believing that they might be able to make it, to invest in property, to own five or six or seven properties and make money at the end of it. But the truth is, most young Australians, most young working Australians, will not be able to achieve that dream. They can't climb the ladder because the first few steps have been taken away. We should be really clear about who ripped those steps out of the ladder. It was those opposite while they were in government, when they sat on their hands for nine years and did nothing to build more homes, did nothing to help young Australians realise the dream of homeownership, when they barely had a housing minister for most of their time in government.

We should also be clear about the tax mechanisms that incentivised investment in housing and made it a really appealing way to make money. Sure, I don't begrudge those who have, under previous arrangements—under the capital gains tax arrangements—made money from those arrangements. But the reality is that it has meant that my generation and the generation below mine have not had the same opportunity to enter the property market. They can't even buy their first home, let alone their second or their third or their fourth. Our government believes that it should not be easier to buy your fifth home than it is to buy your first.

In 1999, I was only six years old. John Howard, as the Prime Minister, changed the tax arrangements to give property investors and other investors a really generous discount on the amount of tax they paid on their profits. Those are the changes that we are seeking to change because, since then, house prices have risen in a way that has made it completely impossible for most ordinary young Australians to buy their first home. Labor says that is unacceptable. That is not an arrangement that we will allow to continue. We will not stand by and let young people miss out on the opportunity to own their first home.

It's clear that our housing system—our housing crisis—is a matter of public importance, so I'm delighted to stand up and talk about it. That crisis has a number of parents. It has parents on both sides of this house. This motion only acknowledges Labor's role, and it is a very significant role over decades, in being a parent to this crisis. But we have to acknowledge that there were decades of inaction on the conservative side of politics that have landed us in the spot where we are today, where we have millions of people in dire housing insecurity.

We were warned about this as an outcome of deliberate policy decisions many years ago. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute put out a report two decades ago sounding the alarm that our housing system is and was, from that time 20 years ago, structurally unsustainable from an intergenerational perspective. We had tax policy put in place that would bring that result, and it surely has. Those researchers warned us the burden would fall most heavily on young people, those denied homeownership and those increasingly dependent—the 31 per cent of Australians now who are totally dependent—on rental accommodation. What did the Labor and Liberal governments do in response to all of that data, all of that prediction and all of that reliable research? They did nothing. We've kept in place a tax policy which has failed us and has landed generations of people in a disastrous housing situation.

Most Australians—nearly 90 per cent—use the language of and recognise this as a crisis. They recognise it as a crisis whether they are parents or grandparents or young people or people at school. The committee I'm chairing, the Select Committee on Intergenerational Housing Inequity, at present has had submissions from people who are 13 years old talking about the fear and the loss of hope that that very young generation has about the state of housing affordability that lies ahead for them. It is a dominant concern for so many Australians and no surprise, given that house prices have increased by 400 per cent since 1989, courtesy of both the major parties. And those are the Treasurer's own numbers.

Over recent decades we've experienced a really significant fall in homeownership, nowhere more seriously than for young people aged 25 to 34, where homeownership has fallen from 61 per cent in 1981 to 43 per cent in 2021. It's only gone down further from that. Young people are giving up hope, and they've turned to rental accommodation, where they are facing massive increases in rent as a consequence. So many young people in every city in Australia are living in serious financial stress because of rent rises that make it impossible to afford groceries and a social life and are destined to feel genuine insecurity in their housing.

We've been pushing for a long, long time—more than a quarter century—to get rid of those unfair property investor tax perks that have priced so many people out of their home, and we wanted to cap the grandfathering provisions to one investment property. That's been our policy for a long time. If the budget had actually done that, we would have an extra $33 billion on the table to build the public housing that we know we need. Baking in the advantage that's there for those who already got in on the housing investment gravy train means that we are failing to put the money that we need to and that we could have put into that public housing. Treasury's own numbers show that 54 per cent of the lost revenue from the CGT discount in 2022-23, which is around $13 billion, went to the richest one per cent of taxpayers. We've been advantaging the very wealthy at the cost of the very poor and the young.

This motion acknowledges the government's falling short of its own housing target, yet where do the Liberals stand on this question of building social housing? Where do they stand on the question of capping rents, and where do they stand on the essential policies we need to deal with homelessness across our country? The solutions on the table from the Liberal Party are to raid superannuation, for young people to reach into their savings which might give them a retirement income that gives them a decent standard of living, and to use it to get to their house. The other solution that's offered is to reduce the interest rate buffer and expose them to more risk in the housing market and more insecurity in their lives. The hypocrisy here is rank. We have a housing crisis. We need solutions. Neither party have them. (Time expired)

I feel it is extraordinary to have a conga line of Labor backbenchers coming out to talk about housing supply when every single one of their policies in the last four years has been designed, whether by intent or by incompetence, to make it harder for Australians to own their own home. My least favourite at the moment is the five per cent deposit scheme, which not only drove up house prices but, in combination with the out-of-control spending and higher inflation under this government, has meant that those Australians who went into that program are now faced with having more debt than equity. What a shocking position to put people who are desperately trying to get into their own first home in, and it's one that the coalition warned about. We said: 'This is a failed policy. It will end up leaving people worse off.' That's exactly the situation that we're left in.

The most recent budget—it's terrible. It's anti-aspirational, and it is not delivering more houses. We know that Labor is more than 100,000 dwellings behind the 1.2 million housing target by mid-2029. It will miss this target by more than 200,000 houses. This is a government that is planning to fail. It is extraordinary to me that there is no understanding of the basic economics of when you have out-of-control spending, when you drive up inflation to some of the highest rates in the advanced economies, when you drive up interest rates—for people listening, inflation is a term that's used a lot but not always well understood. Inflation simply means you pay more. You pay more for your groceries. You pay more for your rent. You pay more for your shoes and your clothes and every other thing in your life. It also means that the RBA, whose only purpose in life is to keep inflation to a band, is then forced to increase interest rates. If you're a young person seeking to get into the housing market, the Labor government's out-of-control spending has pushed up inflation, made it harder for you to buy every single thing in your life and then also driven up interest rates, which means that the deposit you've worked so hard to build is worth less. Your bank is going to lend you less with a higher interest rate.

Of course, the final thing is that, once Labor's finished spending their money, they come after yours. It also increases taxes. This is the trifecta of antihousing policy. Thanks very much to Labor, because we have the highest inflation and the highest interest rates for the G7, for many developed countries, and Australia is unfortunately the winner in that competition.

Housing is incredibly important. Australia, unlike many other countries, still has a goal for people to own their own home. Many other countries have already given that up. They have long-term rentals and that is an accepted way of life. But in Australia the idea of owning your own home is a dream, an aspiration that everybody aspires to. But, under this Labor government, you are worse off every day. And the budget, in its latest round, will only make that harder.

The changes to capital gains tax mean that if you seek to buy a home or, potentially, to rent out a room, you are now disadvantaged under this government's policy settings. I'm not sure why this was such a burningly urgent priority for the Prime Minister, a man who has benefited from the John Howard reforms to capital gains tax of many years ago. He was happy to take the gearing and happy to take the tax benefit. Yet now that he's out of the investor property market, he's willing to leave everybody else in deep water. I think it is mean spirited and—worse—means that Australians who wish to own their own home and wish to benefit from the great country we live in are destined, under this Labor government, to have higher prices, higher inflation, higher taxes and no access to a new home.

I always enjoy these debates because Senator Bragg wanders into the chamber, points at Australia's housing crisis and somehow concludes that the people who spent a decade ignoring it are the ones with all the answers. Today's motion is no different. Apparently, Labor's housing agenda is a broken promise. Apparently, we're doing 'dirty deals'. And, apparently, we're making the housing crisis worse.

I know we're only a few days away from the midwinter break, but I think Australians deserve a little bit more than a political press release read into Hansard. Let's touch some grass for a moment. Australia has a housing crisis. Nobody on this side denies that. Young people know it, renters know it and people trying to save for a deposit know it. There is unquestionably a housing challenge. The actual question is: who is actually doing something about it?

When those opposite had nearly a decade in government, they treated housing like an optional extra. For a lot of that period, they didn't even have a housing minister; that sounds to me like a skill issue. House prices were skyrocketing, rents were climbing, social housing waiting lists were growing, and the coalition's response was, 'She'll be right.' Now they come in here acting shocked that Australia has a housing shortage. That's a bit like spending 10 years ignoring a leaking roof and then demanding to know why the carpet is wet when there's a storm.

What is the Albanese Labor government actually doing? We're delivering a $47 billion homes for Australia plan. We're working towards 1.2 million new homes. We're delivering 55,000 social and affordable rental homes and 100,000 homes reserved for first home buyers. We're investing in infrastructure, training more tradies and cutting red tape to get homes built. And, importantly, we're recognising something that young Australians have been saying for years: housing isn't just a supply problem; it's also about fairness. For too long we've had a system where it can feel easier to build a portfolio of investment properties than to buy your first home.

I know the coalition get very nervous whenever anyone suggests the tax system should work for first home buyers as well as investors. They've spent weeks predicting catastrophe, talking about how, apparently, the sky is falling—the rental market will collapse, and civilisation itself is hanging by a thread. They seem to be having a crash-out of epic proportions. If you listen to the coalition rhetoric over the years, you'd think every reform ever proposed was moments away from ending life as we know it. Our reforms are designed to encourage investment into new housing supply and help level the playing field for first home buyers. The government's estimates suggest around 75,000 additional first home buyers will be able to enter the market over the coming decade.

I find it interesting that the coalition has suddenly become deeply concerned about renters. This is the same coalition that opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund, opposed help-to-buy and opposed build-to-rent. It is the same coalition whose first instinct, every time a housing measure appears, is to vote against it and then complain that not enough houses are being built. It's a bit of a chopped political strategy to block the housing policies, delay the housing policies, vote against the housing policies and then bring this motion complaining about housing.

At some point everyone has to ask, 'What exactly is their plan here?' So far, the answer seems to be preserving the status quo. The status quo is what got us here. It's true that housing challenges built up over decades, and they won't be solved overnight. Nobody seriously believes that, but progress is happening. Housing commencements are up. Construction cost inflation has fallen dramatically from the peaks we inherited. More builders are entering the industry. Hundreds of thousands of homes have been completed since Labor came to office. That doesn't mean the job is finished, but it does mean we're moving in the right direction.

Well, that's an extraordinary contribution from Labor over there, when their own Treasury documents tell them that they will actually build 35,000 fewer homes for Australians with these measures. Labor has broken yet another promise to the Australian people. The Prime Minister said he would not do a deal with the Greens, and now Labor are ramming through a dirty budget deal with the Greens to pass one of the most deceptive budgets in our nation's history. This government is a failure. Labor has not only failed to be honest about their budget but failed to manage migration, failed to deliver housing supply and failed young Australians and families who are working hard and trying to buy a home.

Everywhere I go, I am being told the same thing. People feel that this government has let them down. Parents are worried that their children will never be able to move out of home. I have three children, and I feel as though they are going to be living with me forever. Young Australians are working, they're saving, they're doing everything they can, but that dream of owning their own home is slipping further and further away and is almost completely out of touch with Labor's latest budget. The Australian dream of owning a home that I got to experience and that my parents got to experience is not something that this generation of young Australians will ever have. Even a basic unit is now unaffordable for many young people who would once have seen that as their first step into the market. That is the reality of living under this terrible Labor government who, for those who want to live near where they grew up, the dream of homeownership is entirely dead because this government is saying the only homes that you can go and buy will be brand new builds. Where are brand new builds happening? They're happening in outer suburbs, a long way away from where these young people have grown up. So it's saying that, if you want to own a home, you can live a long way away from your family, your friends and the community that you've grown up with.

Labor keeps saying that the overseas net migration numbers are coming down, but 301,000 migrants came to Australia to December 2025. How many homes did we build in that time? Not 301,000. Labor keep telling us that the numbers are coming down, but it's fair to say that that is not showing in the housing market. You tell that to the families that are lining up to get a rental. You tell that to the young couple that are going to an auction to bid on their first home. Under Labor, about 1.6 million people have come to Australia, while only about 600,000 homes have been built. The problem is right in front of them, and they will continue to ignore it. There are not enough homes, prices have risen beyond control and young Australians are again being pushed to the back of the queue.

It's fair to say that the median house price in Australia has reached records that I never thought that I would see in my lifetime. But it's okay because, for the Prime Minister and his cabinet, they already own their homes, so they're laughing at the capital gains that they're making. But how's that for the young Australians that are just trying to get in?

Labor promised that they would deliver 1.2 million homes by June 2029. That's their own target that they set, and they are nowhere near it. Labor is not building at the pace that is required, and the government is more than 100,000 homes short of where it needs to be. Australia now needs about 270,000 homes built each year by mid-2029 to meet Labor's own target. If that's a test, Labor are failing at their own test. The question for the Prime Minister is simple. If he's going to bring more people into the country than the number of homes being built, where are those people supposed to live?

Labor promised homes, and they've not delivered anything like the homes that Australians need. Labor promised no new taxes. Labor promised not to negotiate with the Greens. Labor has lied to the Australian people, and the dirty deal with the Greens is the latest of a long list of Labor lies.

The coalition will fight this bad Labor government and its dirty deals with the Greens. We will fight for lower migration that matches our housing capacity, more homes, faster approvals and a housing market where young Australians who work hard still have a chance to own one.

The time for the discussion has expired.

And, at a time when Australia should be encouraging people to build wealth and create jobs, what is this government doing? They are deliberately making it harder. And that is why the bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—that will pass through this Senate tomorrow in the dirty deal done with the Australian Greens are dangerous, because they don't simply affect today's investors; they affect tomorrow's investors. They affect today's workers; they affect tomorrow's workers. They affect every young Australian hoping to build a better future, hoping to get ahead.

The Albanese government will tell you: 'Well, hey, hold on. This is all about fairness.' Well, guess what? There is nothing fair about making it harder to build wealth in our great country. There is nothing fair about making it harder for our young people in particular to invest. There is nothing fair about making it harder to start a business. There is nothing fair about locking younger Australians out of the opportunities that previous generations enjoyed. This is a prime minister that happily enjoyed the benefits of negative gearing, and I say, 'Good on him!' because that is exactly what it was there for—for people to actually be able to invest in themselves for their retirement. But how dare the Prime Minister of Australia now look, in particular, that next generation of investors in the eyes and say, 'For everything that I had success with, I am going to deny that to you,' because that is what this prime minister is doing.

Labor talk endlessly about intergenerational equity, yet their toxic taxes do precisely the opposite. They are going to make it harder for young Australians in particular to buy a home. They are going to make it harder for younger Australians to invest. They are going to make it harder for all Australians to start a business. They are going to make it harder for younger Australians to build financial security. That, sadly, is the reality. The Australian people know it, and that's why there is white-hot anger across the community. It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from; there is white-hot anger across the community in relation to the dirty deal that Albanese Labor has done with the Australian Greens. The government, of course, will say: 'Well, hey, hold on. There are a whole lot of carve-outs and exemptions.' But let's be clear about what those carve-outs are. They are an admission that Mr Albanese knows he got it wrong and has had to back-pedal at a million miles an hour.

If these taxes are such wonderful policy, as Mr Albanese and Mr Chalmers announced on budget night, why are they scrambling to create exemptions? Why are they now desperately trying to say, 'This person's not affected here,' and, 'Perhaps that person's not affected there'? Why are they trying to negotiate carve-outs behind closed doors? I say this to the Australian people. Senator Wong made it clear in the Senate today in question time when she said 'the terms of the agreement with the Australian Greens'. I'd like to see the terms of the dirty deal that was done with the Australian Greens. What else is there that hasn't yet been announced? Why has Mr Albanese been negotiating these amendments behind closed doors? We all know why. It's because they know in their heart of hearts that these taxes will do damage. Yet, sadly, they will go through tomorrow.

Let's talk about their innovative-business exemption. That is possibly the most extraordinary part of the package. Labor now wants Canberra bureaucrats deciding which businesses in Australia are innovative and which businesses are not. Think about that. A public servant sitting here in the Canberra bubble is apparently going to determine which entrepreneurs get favourable treatment and which entrepreneurs do not, which founders qualify, which founders miss out, which businesses are innovative enough and which businesses are not. You've got to be kidding me. What could possibly go wrong?

Innovation does not come from government departments. Innovation does not come from bureaucratic checklists. Innovation does not come from politicians picking winners. This is where innovation comes from: it comes from Australians willing to take risks, it comes from Australians willing to back themselves, it comes from small businesses who are prepared to try something new, it comes from founders solving problems and it comes from aspiration. The whole point of innovation is that nobody knows what success looks like before it happens. But, sadly, Labor think that they can write a definition of innovation in Canberra, and somehow that will determine who is going to get support.

The Australian people have seen through what the government is doing. Australians know that, every time Labor and the Greens get together, taxpayers end up paying the price. Sadly, this is what's going to be the result of this dirty deal that has gone through. It's very, very sad. There will be higher taxes, less opportunity, less aspiration, less investment and less growth. Shame on the Australian Labor Party.

We will take a mandate to the next election to get rid of Labor's toxic taxes. Why? Because we stand for a fairer, freer and better Australia. These bills represent an assault on aspiration, a tax on ambition, a tax on investment and a tax on Australia's future. That is why the coalition will oppose them. We will fight this in the parliament, and we will take our case directly to the Australian people.

I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I have to say that the period since the budget has been one of complete shambles for this government as they have scrambled to manage the fallout from the terrible reaction to their budget and then, of course, tried to design, on the run and at the direction of the Greens, a solution to some of the problems that they created by breaching faith with the Australian people. For me, this is one of the saddest things about where we find ourselves at this point in time during the debate, because, as members of parliament, one of the things that is most important to us is the value of our word. When we go out and talk to the Australian people and say, 'This is what we intend to do if we are elected,' then that is the promise, that is the contract that we as members of parliament have with the Australian people when we put our platform on the table and ask for their vote. That is the deal. When we breach that contract in such an egregious way as this government has done with this budget it undermines this whole profession, this whole vocation that we participate in as members of parliament. It not only diminishes us all but, as we have seen from the public reaction, it has had a significant impact on the capacity of the Australian community to believe whatever it is that the government might say.

The government promised before the election that there would be no changes to capital gains tax. They promised before the election that there would be no changes to negative gearing. In the budget they broke that promise, and their rationale—'we changed our mind'. What an extraordinary breach of faith, and on what basis? Given that breach of faith, breach of contract with the Australian people, what confidence can the Australian people have in anything this government say in the future, even anything they say in defence of their current policy position? We know, because we see it every day, that it's all about the politics. It's not about actually resolving the issues that the Australian people need fixing; it's about the ideology and the politics. We see it time and time again, where the political deal is the thing that is most important, and the impact on the Australian people is something completely secondary. I'd hate to see this government trying to work through a game of join the dots, because, when you look at the impact that the changes that they've made to these tax measures in the budget are going to have along with a whole range of other things that they've done through other legislative change, and you actually put all of the pieces together and start connecting the dots, you see why we're getting the outcomes that we are in the Australian economy.

Members on the other side come into this place, parrot the talking points and talk about the aspiration to build 1.2 million homes over the coming five years. People can't live in an aspiration. The fact is this government are building 170,000 houses a year, which is way behind their aspiration, and, worse, it's 30,000 houses a year fewer than were being built when the coalition was in government. They talk about this huge amount of money, this huge investment that they're making in housing around the country. Only the Labor Party could spend $47 billion on housing and build fewer houses. I mean, seriously, $47 billion a year or more on housing and they are building 30,000 houses a year fewer than were being built when the coalition was last in government. Worse, their own budget papers say there will be 35,000 houses fewer over the forward estimates than the already paltry 170,000 a year they're building at the moment, and that's because of all of the policies that they've put into place, their loss of control of inflation, their massive government spending which is fuelling inflation and their unwillingness or their incapacity to acknowledge that that's what they're doing. Yet they come in here and they parrot the talking points so many times it's as though they themselves believe them. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something that's not true; it doesn't make it true.

This budget will not make it easier for young Australians to get into housing. In fact, the punitive measures in this budget will make it harder for young Australians to save for their housing deposit, so it will make it harder for them to get into housing. The increased tax on the investment measures where young people are now investing—if they're just putting money in the bank and relying on interest, their money is going backwards against the market, so what are they doing? They're using investment mechanisms like ETFs and the stock market, and what has the government done as part of this process? They've increased the tax on those returns and made it harder for young Australians to save that first deposit for their new home, and because the country is building 30,000 fewer homes a year under the economic settings of this government there's less stock in the market; therefore, it's harder to buy a home.

The government needs to connect the dots, but more importantly it needs to be honest and upfront with the Australian people, which is what it has failed to do and is why the Australian people are increasingly not believing what this government says. You can't believe them when they promise that they're not going to increase capital gains tax. You couldn't believe them when they said they weren't going to increase negative gearing—just like you couldn't believe them at the 2022 election, when they said they wouldn't change the tax on superannuation, and then they went and did it. And when they stitched up their dirty deal with the Greens this week they changed the taxation on superannuation again when they promised they wouldn't do it, so they've broken that promise twice. They broke the promise after the 2022 election; they broke the promise again after the 2025 election. And now what are they doing? They're attacking the capacity of self-managed super funds to invest in housing because that's what the Greens want.

What an absurd situation. You have the Greens dictating economic policy to the Labor Party. I never thought I'd see that happen, but that shows that the government is only about the politics of the deal rather than the impact on the Australian people, and it's the Australian people that are going to pay for this. These budget measures are slated to raise an extra $77 billion, yet the talking points tell us they're reducing tax and giving everyone a tax cut. No, they're not. They're taking an extra $77 billion out of the Australian economy by taxing people's investments. That's what they're doing, because Labor think they know how to spend your money better than you do. That's the fundamental deal, and I've seen that so many times over my time in politics at a state and a federal level. The Labor Party thinks they know how to spend and invest your money better than you do, so they need to take more of it.

As has been said, I think, quite a number of times in this debate, when they run out of your money, they come to get more. In this budget that is to the tune of $77 billion more, and they have the nerve to come into this place and tell us that they're giving everybody a tax cut. On what planet does raising an extra $77 billion in tax by taxing people's investments equate to a reduction in tax? As we've seen with a range of other tax measures that Labor has put into place over a period of time, you don't raise taxes on something so that you can get more of it. We saw it with alcohol between 2007 and 2013. We've seen it with cigarettes; that's turned into a complete basket case, a loss of control of the tobacco market in this country and a complete and utter bonanza for organised crime. That's how blind the Labor Party are when it comes to managing tax policy in this country.

They say, and they go out and they promise to young people, that this tax package is about intergenerational equity. They say, 'This is about helping you get into a new home.' You cannot believe any of those things, because it does none of those things. All of the things that Labor's talking points say they are trying to do with this tax package—all the things they are looking to do and aspire to do—are things it does not do. It doesn't make it easier for a young Australian to get a home. It doesn't make it easier to save for a home. We know that the additional tax on young Australians' savings through these measures, through their investments, will make it more difficult for them to save that first home deposit, because it's taxing the measures that everyone else has had in the past at a higher rate than it did previously.

There's a cameo in their budget of a young person who's earning $35,000 a year through investments, who would pay $1,400 tax under the old system and ends up paying $1,600 more with the 30 per cent tax rate in the new system. That's the government's own cameo in their own budget papers, yet they have the nerve to come into this place and tell us that it's about supporting young people to get into the housing market, when they're building 30,000 fewer houses per year than what was happening before 2022. There are fewer houses in the market, and they're actually making it harder for young Australians to save the deposit for that first home that is more scarce because we're building less housing.

It's no wonder Australians are coming to the conclusion that they can't believe a thing this government tells them, when it's broken promise after broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. There was the famous $275 reduction in electricity prices that never manifested. They talked about a lower cost of living. They talked about cheaper housing prices. They promised they'd make no changes to superannuation and broke that promise. They promised they wouldn't change the capital gains tax system and broke that promise. They promised they wouldn't change negative gearing and broke that promise. Then they broke the superannuation promise again in their stinking deal with the Greens.

Why would you believe anything that the Labor Party told you? They'll trot the talking points out. That's what they do. They're very good at that, but you can't believe a word they say, because they have no respect for the Australian community. They have no respect for this parliament. They're here to do a deal, a political deal, rather than to actually get the detail of how this system is going to work, as we've seen through questions in question time and through the inquiry. They really shouldn't be trying to force this through in the way that they are—but, of course, Labor's only about the deal, not about the Australian people. (Time expired)

I thank other senators for their contributions to this important debate. This is a bill for workers, first home buyers and future generations. It's the first step in delivering the most ambitious tax reform package in a quarter of a century. These reforms will make it easier for Australians to buy their first home. They will cut income taxes for over 13 million workers, again and again. The reforms will better align the tax treatment of labour and asset income. I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate and the experts and stakeholders who have shared their views as well.

Schedule 1 to the bill and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 implement significant reforms to capital gains tax arrangements. These reforms replace the 50 per cent CGT discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships with a cost based indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains accruing from 1 July 2027. The 50 per cent discount is an arbitrary adjustment for inflation, overcompensating some investors while undercompensating others. Since it was introduced, it has distorted investment decisions, particularly in favour of existing housing, and the greatest share of the benefit has flowed to those who earned the most over their lifetime. At the same time, homeownership has been pushed further and further out of reach, particularly for younger Australians. These reforms will correct the mistake made by the Howard government, ensuring investment decisions are made on the basis of economic returns, not tax advantages, which will support productivity over time. The introduction of the minimum tax also addresses distortion in the system by reducing the incentive to defer realisation of capital gains, ensuring gains are subject to a tax rate closer to the rate paid by most workers. To maintain support for new housing supply, investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent CGT discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell the property.

The government will also ensure all 2.7 million active small businesses, and 98 per cent of all active businesses, will be eligible for generous CGT concessions by expanding eligibility for the 50 per cent reduction on active business assets, which applies on top of the discount for inflation, and we are consulting on the design of a 50 per cent CGT discount for early-stage investors, including founders and employee share scheme participants of innovative startup businesses, in recognition of the risk that founders and early investors take and the contribution they make to our economy. This is in addition to all other measures that lower taxes for business announced in the budget, which are being delivered in future legislation. It brings the total amount of new tax measures to support businesses and startups in the tax reform package to over $3.8 billion.

Schedule 2 to the bill will limit negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds. Properties held at announcement can still be negatively geared in future years until sold. New builds can continue to be negatively geared after 1 July 2027, ensuring the benefits of negative gearing are directed to investments that support growth in Australia's housing stock. Together, these reforms will help to level the playing field for first home buyers while maintaining support for investment in new housing supply. They will support 75,000 more homeowners into the housing market, equivalent to reversing a decade of declines in homeownership.

Schedule 3 to the bill implements a new working Australians tax offset of up to $250 for over 13 million workers. The $250 WATO will increase the effective tax-free threshold for workers by nearly $1,800 to $19,985, or to $24,985 for workers also eligible for the low-income tax offset. This represents the largest increase to the effective tax free threshold since 2012-13.

Schedule 4 to the bill implements a $1,000 instant tax deduction from the 2026-27 income year. This measure implements the government's election commitment and is an important element of our tax reform package. It will make the tax system simpler and deliver additional relief to Australian workers.

The government is cutting taxes five times in three different ways, with our next round of tax cuts from 1 July, just next week. When combined, our five tax cuts will mean an Australian worker on average earnings could receive a benefit of up to $2,816 a year from 2028.

The government is also moving targeted amendments to the bill to provide certainty on implementation detail, consistent with the original intent of our policies announced in the budget. These amendments extend eligibility for the 50 per cent active asset reduction to businesses with turnovers of up to $10 million. They will ensure deductible gifts and donations will reduce capital gains that are subject to the minimum tax; provide the list of income support payments that qualify for an exemption from the minimum tax on capital gains; embed the calculation method for the working Australian tax offset in legislation; and remove ministerial powers no longer needed to give effect to the government's policy intent or otherwise limiting the scope of these powers while the government consults on final details.

The government has also agreed to support an amendment that will be moved by the Australian Greens to ban future limited recourse borrowing arrangements for residential property by a superannuation fund. Multiple inquiries have raised concerns that these arrangements raise risks for superannuation investors, including the 2014 Murray financial system inquiry conducted for the coalition. Limiting new arrangements going forward will help to protect people's savings.

I note the committee report into these bills. I thank the committee for their inquiry and for the report, and for the recommendation that the bills be passed. With regard to the coalition's dissenting report, the government supports the passage of these bills as a package, with passage this sitting period providing certainty for investors, workers and businesses. The government has no plans to change the Charter of Budget Honesty, and the government is delivering real cost-of-living relief by cutting taxes five times, including two more tax cuts in these bills.

With regard to the additional comments of other senators, the government's view is that the proposed transitional arrangements are appropriate for these reforms. The government has separately announced that all types of testamentary trusts will be exempt from the minimum tax on discretionary trusts, provided they are established for genuine testamentary purposes. The government is making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent from 1 July 2026. The government has not proposed reintroducing averaging, which was removed for integrity reasons. The government is investing $47 billion to increase housing supply to get more first home buyers into homes and to build 55,000 more social and affordable homes. The government released modelling and analysis of these changes in the budget and continually monitors tax settings over time.

As always with tax policy changes of this kind, there are complex interactions and details. We will work through these in the usual way. We have indicated, for example, that complex and specific details such as the interactions with attribution managed investment trusts, tax consolidation, residency changes and other issues will be legislated through future tranches of legislation. Legislating significant reforms in tranches is a standard approach, and past reforms such as the GST and other major changes have similarly been implemented in tranches.

These reforms are delivering the real change that Australians are calling out for. Unlike our opponents, who are defending a broken status quo, we are helping workers with even more income tax cuts and helping first home buyers get into the housing market. We know that big tax changes like these are always contested and contentious, but they are the right decisions for the country. We are proud of these bills and proud of the real difference they will make for workers, for first home buyers and future generations. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Pursuant to order, the Senate stands adjourned and will meet again tomorrow at 9 am.

Senate adjourned at 19:08