If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I rise to speak on my private senator's bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025. In this place, we often talk about the long-term challenges facing our communities. Over the past year, whether it's been through the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence, in town halls I've held across Canberra, in mobile offices across Canberra or in hearing from experts and advocates, everyday Canberrans have got in touch to raise their concerns about artificial intelligence and deepfakes.

We are seeing an unprecedented rise in the use of artificial intelligence. We hear much about the benefits—benefits to productivity, benefits to the economy—but we also need to be very clear eyed about the not-insignificant downsides to this technology. There are very real risks to our privacy, our democracy, our safety and, I believe, our humanity—the thing that makes us human and allows us to function in the community.

Currently, our laws are falling dangerously behind. We essentially have no regulatory guardrails to stop the malicious use of AI to generate deepfakes other than for sexually explicit images, and that is clearly not enough. Everyone would agree that generating sexually explicit images and videos of someone is not something we should stand for. But I believe we need to go one step further and say to Australians, 'You own your face, you own your likeness and no-one can create a realistic, AI generated deepfake of you without your consent.'

We're seeing artificial intelligence weaponised in ways that are exploitative and damaging to our shared life together. They are beginning to, and will continue to, tear at the very fabric of our society. We're seeing a rise in sophisticated impersonation scams, like the one the ones featuring Alan Kohler. These scams rob hardworking people of their savings. We're seeing fake political footage explicitly designed to mislead Australians and distort democratic processes. Each time AI is used to deceive, it chips away at the trust that underpins our institutions and tears at the social fabric of our communities.

The my-face my-rights bill operates on a very simple commonsense principle: an individual's face, voice and likeness are intrinsic to their identity as a human and should not be used without their consent. We should be able to protect our identity in the digital world just as fiercely as we protect it in the physical world. I do not think the government's current approach is sufficient. We need to stop using guidelines and expectations and start giving Australians actual protections. This bill does just that. It provides a structural response, introducing two key pillars of reform to give people whose identity has been used without their consent meaningful avenues for redress.

First, this bill amends the Online Safety Act to empower the eSafety Commissioner. It establishes a dedicated, streamlined complaints system specifically for the non-consensual sharing of deepfake material. It grants the commissioner powerful new tools to issue removal notices to social media platforms, hosting services and individual end users, legally compelling them to take down fabricated content. Furthermore, it introduces strict civil penalties, including a 500 penalty-unit fine for users who post deepfakes without consent or for service providers who ignore a removal notice. If platforms and perpetrators do the wrong thing, there will finally be real, enforceable consequences.

Second, this bill amends the Privacy Act to establish a new civil cause of action. Current laws regarding image based abuse, defamation and privacy simply do not cover the unique harms of deepfakes. This legislation creates a statutory cause of action for the wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material. It empowers individuals to bring civil proceedings against anyone who knowingly or recklessly uses their likeness without consent to cause detriment or turn a profit. Victims will be able to seek court ordered remedies, including injunctions to halt the spread of the material, mandatory apologies and correction orders.

Crucially, this legislation recognises that you do not need to suffer financial ruin to be fundamentally harmed. The damage caused by deepfakes is deeply emotional and reputational. Under this bill, victims can pursue action and be awarded damages for emotional distress and psychological harm without needing to prove financial loss. This is about restoring dignity and personal autonomy.

Good policy must always strike a sensible balance. We must ensure that these vital new protections do not unreasonably infringe upon freedom of expression or the public interest. This is why I've consulted widely to ensure this bill includes targeted, pragmatic exemptions. These rules will not apply to the legitimate use of material by journalists acting under professional standards, by law enforcement acting in good faith, by individuals under 18 years of age or for material used for genuine medical, scientific or legal proceedings.

We don't have to look very far to see the disruptive, sometimes disastrous, consequences of failing to regulate technology before it runs rampant. We don't have to wait for a crisis to overwhelm us, and we shouldn't have to wait for the major parties to slowly catch up to reality when it comes to artificial intelligence. We have an opportunity to set a world-leading standard that protects humans, that protects Australians, their personal identity and the integrity of our democracy. We need to find the political courage to act now, to stand up to these big multinational AI companies and actually say: 'There are things that we value as a country, as communities, as human beings, and we will not allow you to undermine that. We will not allow you to use your technology in a way that is disruptive, in a way that is damaging and in a way that chips away at an already fraying social compact in this country between fellow citizens and between elected representatives, the parliament, and the institutions that are meant to be there to serve them and the Australian people.'

Much work has gone into this bill, and I'd like to thank my team for their work on it. I'd like to thank the amazing drafters in this place for their work in drafting and working through some of the technical challenges of this bill. I'd like to thank the many, many Canberrans who've been in touch on this issue and who have helped inform the design of this bill.

We know that this is an issue that's not going away. It's only getting worse. The rapid advancement of AI technology is such that a deepfake video from a year ago cannot be compared to what you can produce today. We have some warnings from the very people who are profiting from this. The CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, said:

Very soon the world is going to have to contend with incredible video models that can deepfake anyone or kind of show anything you want.

He's warned that it'll bring really strange or scary moments and erode trust in video as a record of truth. Separately on AI enabled fraud, he said he is very nervous that we have a significant impending fraud crisis, calling reliance on voiceprint authentication crazy because AI has fully defeated it.

Yoshua Bengio, who's a Turing Award winner and one of the most cited AI researchers in the world, warned that AI capable of persuading people could be used to influence political opinion and destabilise democracies. He has urged governments to move quickly to rule against counterfeiting humans by AI bots. Nina Schick, the author of Deepfakes: The Coming Infocalypse, warns of a coming 'infocalypse' in which it becomes nearly impossible to tell what is real, undermining public trust in politics and creating a liar's dividend where the existence of deepfakes lets bad actors dismiss genuine evidence as fake.

This is not the world we want to live in, and we have an opportunity as a parliament to change that. We have an opportunity as a Senate to send a very clear message that we will not stand for this. We actually want an Australia where people can believe what they see, where people can engage in good faith. And so I would commend this bill to the Senate in good faith. If there are issues that people have with it, I am obviously very open to discussing amendments and really trying to ensure that we have something that every senator in this place says is the right direction for our country. These are the right rules and safeguards that we need to have against the misuse of artificial intelligence. Again, we hear so much about the benefits. This is about saying, 'Yes, there are benefits, but we have to guard against the harms and guard against the misuse of this technology'. And so I commend this bill to the Senate.

Australia's online safety work is world leading, and the Albanese Labor government is taking decisive action to minimise online harms and hold big tech accountable. Under the current Online Safety Act, the existing image based abuse scheme already allows the eSafety Commission to take action against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, regardless of whether the material is AI generated. Further, under the current unlawful material codes and standards, digital service providers are already required to take proactive steps to prevent the generation and distribution of all class 1 material, including child sexual abuse material and pro-terror material, and material that is generated by AI.

Our government has also ensured that the eSafety Commissioner is well resourced to assist Australians who face these harms each and every day, to educate Australians about online risks and to hold online service providers to account. The Albanese Labor government has been very clear this work must continue. We remain committed to introducing a digital duty of care, putting the responsibility on digital service providers to protect their users from harm before it occurs. We know that big tech companies have the technology, resources and responsibility to manage harms before they occur, rather than solely relying on individuals to report harmful material post exposure. That is what the digital duty of care will do. It will require all online services operating in Australia to be proactive and take steps to design safe services, rather than this being the exception. This includes AI platforms and chatbots.

Australia is leading the world when it comes to online safety, including our social media minimum age laws, and we will continue our work to protect people online. We delayed access to social media until the age of 16, with five million accounts deactivated so far. We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are. We want to give kids three more years to build real-world connections and online resilience.

Our world-leading measures in online safety complement our privacy reforms. Our government has already implemented a first tranche of privacy reforms, to ensure Australians' privacy is respected and protected, and is committed to further uplifting privacy laws to ensure they are fit for purpose in the digital age. In 2024, the government amended the Privacy Act to include a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which may include sharing of deepfakes as a misuse of a person's private information. This enables Australians to take legal action directly against individuals and entities not otherwise covered by the Privacy Act.

Privacy is an important and complex policy area, and reform cannot be pursued in a piecemeal fashion, which this bill does. The government has committed to uplifting privacy laws to achieve the right balance between strengthening privacy protections and enabling personal information to be used in ways that benefit individuals, society and the economy. The government shares many of the concerns that Senator Pocock has outlined and the intent of this bill. However, we intend to address these concerns as part of holistic reform rather than through piecemeal reform. We are also concerned that, if passed, this bill would likely increase regulatory and enforcement overlap, including between the functions of the eSafety Commissioner, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and law enforcement agencies. This bill does not address the intersection of such overlap, and therefore the government will not support it. For those reasons, while supporting the bill's intent, the government will be opposing the senator's bill. Our government will continue our world-leading action in online safety and ensure that we hold big tech accountable, but we'll do that in a holistic rather than a piecemeal manner.

I rise to contribute to this debate this morning on a bill that's really important, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025, and I commend Senator Pocock for bringing this bill to the chamber today. It's a good bill and it's an important bill that brings forward changes that we actually need to the law. It is time for real laws to protect real people. For too long, big tech companies have been making megaprofits off the rubbish that is spread and created on their platforms. For too long, big tech has allowed deepfakes to spread, to be created and to be monetised.

It's not just individuals who are harmed by this. It's not just the young women who are copping the abuse of these deepfakes, although they, of course, need proper and real protection in law. The problem is that this isn't just an individual issue. These deepfakes and the monetisation of this deepfake technology, in the spreading and the viral nature of them, is now actually undermining the very essence of democracy.

Deepfakes aren't just used to harm, harass and abuse individual people—individual users; they are being used to undermine democracy and the very institutions that support our democracy, like journalism. We know that to have a strong, functioning democracy, we have to have a strong, trusted news system. Journalism must be able to do its job to hold power to account and be trusted to do that. Just this week, the New Daily has reported multiple deepfakes of journalist Natalie Barr clashing with politicians—posts that have thousands of likes and shares, primarily run by operators in Vietnam. We now have deepfake images, videos and technology being used as part of foreign interference in the very institutions that underpin our democracy here in Australia. One of these fake posts of Natalie Barr, actually accuses me of not being Australian. The deepfake Natalie Barr says:

Test her. I'm sure she's not Australian.

It is utterly absurd, utterly untrue and totally fake, but it is online, and it is circulating. The post also claims that Natalie Barr calls Anika Wells 'Anthony Albanese's puppet' and told her to 'sit down, Barbie', something that a journalist obviously wouldn't say. But this looks real. It's designed to look real, and it's designed to meddle with Australian politics. It's designed to make Australian citizens think that this journalist has made this statement and has conducted this interview. It should be illegal, and the people impacted by this should be able to have legal recourse.

I am worried that there are some in this place who are benefiting from the use of this deepfake technology. I am very concerned that there are some in our political class who are benefiting from the foreign interference of this type of deepfake technology. I would ask Senator Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party just how involved they are in a number of these deepfake accounts and deepfake material that is circulating online. Are they involved? Who's paying for them, and what is their connection? Now, I can see Senator Hanson right here sitting in the chamber. What is she going to say about this piece of legislation? I put it to you, Deputy President, that One Nation is up to their neck with foreign interference and political meddling in this country, and they are using the technology—

Senator Hanson, on a point of order?

On a point of order, I think that language is offensive. It is untrue, and I want it withdrawn.

I'll take some advice. My own view is that it was a debating point that you'll have the ability to respond to, but I will take further advice. Being there was no personal reflection, it is a matter that you can address in your contribution, Senator Hanson. I will give the call back to Senator Hanson-Young. I will just remind all senators in the chamber that we should treat other senators with respect.

That is precisely the point. Our institutions should be treated with respect. The use and weaponisation of deepfake technology to benefit one's political endeavours should be illegal. It should not be allowed to continue, and the foreign interference of it should be absolutely flushed out. We need to make sure that individual Australians are protected from the use of deepfake technology. It should be individual Australians who have the right to say how their faces and their voices will be used online. Our media institutions, our journalists, should absolutely be protected from this type of undermining, dishonesty and foreign interference attack. Australians should be able to know that, when something like this occurs, it will be taken down and corrected.

Now I ask you, through the chair, how will One Nation vote on this bill? Will One Nation admit to having any interaction with, or to having any benefit from, the type of deepfake posts and technology that is being pushed out of these Vietnam centres? There are some media organisations that have already tried to report on this, but, of course, One Nation sits there and pretends that they've got nothing to do with it. Every politician in this place should be standing up for the very essence of our democracy, for strengthening the foundations of our democracy, not for finding ways to undermine it.

Deepfake technology is being used to abuse and to harass individual Australians. It is being used to try and trick people and undermine the trust of our very important public interest journalism. Deepfake technology is being used to intimidate journalists from doing their job. Every politician in this place should be calling it out and putting in place laws that protect us as a community, as a society and as a democracy.

I want to acknowledge the intent behind the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025. At its heart is a genuine concern that every person should have control over their likeness, their face, their voice and their identity, and that, when that control is taken away, there must be consequences. That is something that we can all agree on. This chamber must ask itself: how do we respond in a way that actually works, not just for one form of harm today, but for the many forms of harm that we know are coming tomorrow, the next day and the next day? The reality is that online abuse does not sit neatly in one box. It crosses platforms, content and technology. That is why the Albanese Labor government is taking a comprehensive and proactive approach to online safety reform. We are not standing still—far from it.

Already Australia has some of the most world-leading protections through the Online Safety Act, including schemes that allow harmful, image based abuse, including AI generated content, to be rapidly addressed. We have strengthened the role of the eSafety Commissioner, ensuring Australians have somewhere to turn when harm occurs, and, importantly, we have begun modernising our privacy laws, including creating new avenues for people to seek redress when their privacy is seriously invaded. We also recognise that responding after harm occurs is simply not enough, and that is why we are progressing a new digital duty of care, a reform that goes to the heart of where the responsibility lies, because, for far too long, the burden has been on individuals, on women, on migrants, on people with a disability and on victims to report, to fight and to chase down harmful content after it has already spread online. Quite frankly, the internet should not be the Wild West. But it is, and the harms Australians are experiencing online are real. The same standards of decency, responsibility and respect that exist offline should apply online. This Labor government believes Australians deserve a comprehensive response to that harm, not a fragmented response but a comprehensive response. We need to respond as online harms continue evolving. Technology is evolving, and our laws too must do the same.

Australia is already leading the world on online safety. Under the Online Safety Act, the eSafety Commissioner already has strong powers to address image based abuse, including AI generated material. Under Australia's unlawful-content codes and standards, online service providers are required to take proactive steps to prevent the generation and distribution of the most harmful material online, including child sex abuse material, terrorist material and AI generated material. We have ensured the eSafety Commissioner is properly resourced to help Australians, to educate Australians and to hold online platforms to account.

We have legislated a social media minimum age of 16. Already, millions of accounts have been deactivated. We want children to know who they are before platforms assume who they are. We want children to build resilience. We want children to build real world connections. We want them to be safe, and so we have strengthened privacy protections. We've introduced a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, giving Australians stronger rights and stronger remedies when their privacy is violated, and we're continuing the work of modernising Australia's law for the digital age. That is why this government remains committed to introducing a digital duty of care.

It's a simple principle: if a company profits from Australians being online, it should take responsibility for keeping them safe online. Big tech companies have the resources. They have the technology. They also have the responsibility, and the burden should not fall solely on individuals after harm has occurred. The focus should be on preventing harm before it occurs, and that is exactly what this government's digital duty of care will do. It will require online services to design for safety from the outset. It will require platforms to identify risks, to mitigate risks and to protect users, including users of AI platforms and chatbots. This is a significant reform, and it is being developed as part of a broader framework, because privacy reform cannot be done in isolation, online safety reform cannot be done in isolation, and a regulation cannot be done in isolation. We must get the whole framework right.

The government is concerned that this bill would create overlap between regulators, overlap between enforcement bodies and uncertainty about responsibilities. Australians deserve clarity, Australians deserve consistency, and Australians deserve laws that work together. As a woman in politics, I know this personally. Every day, I see the abuse. Every day, I see the intimidation that women face simply for participating in public life, not because of what they say and not because of what they do but simply because they are women. I know some of my colleagues have personally fallen victim to deepfakes.

I acknowledge Senator Pocock's intentions. This parliament contains a record number of women. This is something Australians should be proud of, but the personal abuse and the negativity directed to women online is not. If this is happening to women in politics, what is happening in our community is far worse and far more damaging to people who have no voice and no recourse. The women who see this happening in public life—it discourages them from wanting to pursue a life in public life, and that matters, because, when good people decide public life isn't worth the abuse, our democracy is weaker.

The internet has become our modern public square. It's where Australians work. It's where they learn. It's where they connect. It's where Australians participate in democracy, and Australians should be safe there. Just as we work to make our streets safe, just as we work to make our community safe, we must work to make the digital world safe as well, and that is why the Albanese Labor government is taking action. So while the government will not be supporting this particular bill, I want to be clear that we share the objective. We recognise the challenge and we are acting in a comprehensive manner, not with a single measure but with a comprehensive framework, a plan that puts responsibility where it belongs—on the platforms, on big tech, on those who profit from Australians being online.

The Albanese Labor government will continue to lead the world on online safety. We will continue to hold big tech to account and we will continue working to ensure Australians are safe online, just as they should be safe everywhere else, because safety should not stop when you log offline.

Well, One Nation will not be supporting this Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill, but I do appreciate Senator David Pocock coming up and having a discussion with me about it. The bill allows a person to complain to the eSafety Commissioner about their face being used as a deepfake without their permission. The definition of 'deepfake' is so broad that it could capture many things, including our Please Explain cartoons. This is a lawyers' picnic and that concerns me greatly. The cartoons, yes, they depict many of our political people in this place. They've been going for four years and are well received by the Australian public. I think they've learnt more about politics watching our cartoons. It would devastate so many people if this piece of legislation was to capture and get rid of our cartoons, which I think are more informative to the public than what would be warranted with this bill.

Senator Watt, who's comments I hardly ever agree with, is right. It is already there in legislation that the eSafety Commissioner can act on this. The commissioner can issue takedown notices, but she can already do that and she's doing it, so we already have these laws in place. The existing powers of the commissioner allow deepfake material to be taken down if it's abusive. Now, it's not protecting people from abuse but there is a strong potential for the bill to stop legitimate satire.

Oh, come on, guys, you know, toughen up. Let's get some political hide about us in this place. If anyone were to complain about satire, after what I've had to deal with over the years, I'd be the first one supporting this bill because nearly 30 years I've been attacked with so much. At the moment, I could complain because they've got me out there as Wonder Woman. My God, they've got me out there with all this deepfake as a band leader singing in a band. I've got to put up with all this going on. I'm not complaining about it. I've toughened up over the years. So let's toughen up. Let's get some political hide about us, shall we? Look, I will acknowledge that deepfakes are a problem and that kids are putting up teachers' heads on porn stars' bodies, but the eSafety Commissioner already has powers to take them down, so it's just ridiculous.

This whole bill is about a carve-out for journalists. Why should journalists be carved out? Are journalists' cartoons also carved out? Now, some of those cartoons can be very offensive. Are they carved out? Why are journalists and agencies of state and territory authorities carved out? Why are they carved out? Why would they need to be carved out for deepfake? Also, law enforcement bodies—what on earth would they be doing to warrant carving them out for deepfake? Also, intelligence agencies—why would they be carved out? You've got to ask yourself these questions. This is a poorly drafted bill with no real understanding. It is going to be a lawyers' picnic. There's no carve-out for satire, yet satire has been a legitimate and widely accepted tool for political commentary for centuries, for a long time. This is the problem with a lot of legislation; laws should not be in subjective language. Language in legislation should be objective and definitive. The High Court has ruled on the implied right of political communication, so that's what's happening.

Where's the Russian money?

Order!

Senator Hanson-Young has made reference to foreign interference. The thing is that Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens would dearly love to have the social media that I have. They probably know I have over a million viewers, who are organic, on my Facebook page alone—over a million followers. They'd dearly love to have that. What's happening is that foreigners are actually piggybacking on our social accounts and on our followers.

Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order?

Just on a matter of clarification, I think Senator Hanson—

Is there a point of order?

meant that foreigners are funding her.

Senator Hanson-Young, you know that you have to raise a point of order. There is no point of order. I remind everyone to refrain from interjections and to make comments through the chair.

Through the chair: it's another false statement. That's all they've got. All the Greens have got are comments they constantly throw across the chamber which are so untrue.

Senator Hanson-Young!

It's just farcical. They are so concerned about One Nation and the rise in the polls that we have that they're throwing out there all these lines with no basis to them whatsoever.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Anyway, it's a joke. It really is a joke. Oh, my God, you're so—

Order, senators! We all appreciate everyone's having an opportunity to have a say, and I understand there will be a few others, but we are also entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Hanson, please continue.

Thank you. These false allegations that you're making in this chamber—this happens all the time. Like I said, I've built up a political rawhide over the years, so, like they say, it's like water off a duck's back. They wouldn't want to say it outside this chamber. They haven't got the guts to say it outside, but they'll throw these false allegations at me across the chamber. But that's the Greens for you. I think they're very concerned. You'll get over it. If you actually do get the support from the public, maybe you'll get over a million followers on your Facebook page. You only wish to have the followers that I have.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Hanson-Young, order! Order, senators, please! We understand everyone's passionate about the bill before us, but we have limited time.

Senator Mulholland spoke about the impact it's going to have on getting women into parliament, with all these deepfakes. I don't know if that's the case at all. Do you know what? You don't need to be on a Facebook page or on social media and that type of thing to get attacked, because all you've got to do is get attacked in this parliament. More attacks happen on the floor of this parliament, across this chamber—the false allegations, the comments that are made, the accusations and the words that are used in this chamber. This is where it starts. This is where it starts—here. Don't worry about social media. This is what I've had to put up with for a long, long time. I get it from numerous senators around this place. That's what needs to change. So don't say that, using social media, women won't want to get into politics. They watch what goes on on the floor of parliament—the allegations that are made in this place.

What was that phrase—'Suck it up, sweetheart'?

Through you, Chair, I have really sucked up a lot over the years that a lot of other people in this place couldn't. They wouldn't have the backbone to be able to do it. I know what it's like to suck it up. I do.

Look, I understand; she's hurt. She's feeling upset about the rise of One Nation in the polls. That's understandable. It's up to the Australian people. There's still a year and a half. You can still get your act together and get rid of climate change, get rid of all the BS—the cost of living to everyone. Get rid of your policy to open up the floodgates for a lot more immigration into the country and all the refugees you want to flood the country with, for all the foreign aid that you want to give away overseas and for the destruction of our environment to put in wind turbines which are destroying our countryside. What is happening in this country is just unbelievable.

But let's get back to the bill that Senator Pocock introduced, and I do appreciate him having a talk to me. He said it would not include satire, because it's not mentioned here; it's been carved out. I don't believe it has. It hasn't been shown to me that it is carved out.

You're not worried about satire; you're worried about Vietnam—

Order, Senator Hanson-Young! Your interjections are disorderly.

Anyway, the fact is that we've brought in hate-speech laws and we're shutting down people. I tried to put freedom of speech in our constitution. I moved a motion in the parliament to have it put, by referendum, to the people. That was stopped; no-one wanted that. You voted against that. You're controlling people more and more with your laws and legislation, and people are frightened to say or do anything whatsoever. We are not building resilience; we're protecting everyone. We're putting them in cottonwool. 'You can't do this; you can't say that.' That's the problem with a lot of these kids: they have built up no resilience whatsoever.

We have to get back to the larrikinism that we had in Australia. We used to have Paul Hogan, Bert Newton and Norman Gunston. We could actually have a laugh at ourselves with the things that were on TV. That's all gone because you're offending someone, and this is another form of shutting people down. Yes, if it is offensive, it can be taken down. We do have the laws, and I don't believe in anything being put up that's going to create violence. I think that's wrong. But we've got to realise who we are. People aren't stupid out there. Give them some credit to actually look at this and understand. They know I'm not this leader of a bloody band singing a song on a stage. People can work a lot out for themselves.

So stop shutting people down, because that's what I see happening in this parliament all the time. Let people have an opinion and have a say. The same as you nearly did in this parliament by bringing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024—that's what you want it to do. Again, you can't control the people. People must have a right to work it out for themselves. You can't put them in cottonwool and baby them. That's what democracy is about. It's about freedom of choice. It's about rule of law. It's not about parliaments controlling them, and if we keep going down the way that we're going—we are becoming such a socialist country. That's where we're headed, and that's not what the people want.

People want their freedom: freedom of expression, freedom of choice. Let's get back to the Australia that we used to have. I know damn well people would be a lot happier in their own life—without being controlled.

What about women's freedom to choose?

Senator Hanson-Young! I'm getting my vocal cords working this morning. Senator Shoebridge, you now have the call, and I hope you're heard in silence as well.

Thanks, Acting Deputy President; I appreciate your efforts. That's pretty remarkable, isn't it? One Nation comes in here and defends the right to create deepfakes, and then tries to draw a parallel between the appalling harm that overwhelmingly women are facing with these appalling sexualised deepfakes that are able to be produced through AI and political satire or picturing somebody as being a member of a band when they're not a band. To come in here and minimise the reality of deepfakes—particularly how they're used in the manosphere and the misogynistic way in which they've been used across the internet—and belittle it, like Senator Hanson did, is an extraordinary act.

Of course One Nation is going to come in here and defend deepfakes. They want to keep running their big offshore deepfake factory in Vietnam. They want to be able to keep getting the dark money from wherever the hell it's coming from. Whether it's coming from Russia, a tech bro in the US, Gina Rinehart or wherever they get their funds from, they want to be able to keep the funds coming in to produce the deepfakes in order to lie and spread their racism and misogyny. That's what they want. They want their deepfake factories to keep coming in and destroying any sense of collective response. That's why One Nation comes in here, and that's why Senator Hanson opposes this bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025.

What I find remarkable is we don't have the government trying to find a pathway to get this bill through or to say deepfakes, without consent, should be illegal in this country unless they meet criteria such as those that already exist in the Copyright Act. Pick up those provisions in the Copyright Act that exclude satire—exclude those existing exemptions in the Copyright Act. We know that would work. We could just pick them up, pop them in this bill and have very clear exemptions. But, instead, we're going to get to this point where, literally, the Labor, Liberal and National parties all join with One Nation to vote down a bill to stop deepfakes.

We're watching One Nation with their right-wing politics using this technology to literally tear our society apart, to spread deep lies about politicians and about political positions, to spread deeply destructive messages online: racism, hate and lies. We have a chance here with this bill, to take it through to committee, to work through some amendments and to say, 'Actually, the hate factories of One Nation, in the right of politics, should be illegal when they're abusing people's images and producing realistic deepfakes.' But, instead, Labor's just shutting it down; I've got to vote it down today. There's so little leadership, again, from the Labor government on a core issue.

Now we have One Nation making the false argument that this bill would stop their 'please explain' cartoons. Well, I'd recommend One Nation read the legislation before they come in here and speak about it, and I think that's generally good advice for politicians before they speak about legislation. What is the definition of 'deepfake' in this bill? It is material that could be a still image, a speech, music or sound. And then it says, very clearly, 'the material depicts, in a realistic way, an individual's face or voice or an attribute or aspect of an individual's face or voice'—in a realistic way. This isn't picking up political cartoons; it's not picking up satire like that. The Greens wouldn't support legislation to do that. I'll tell you again: when you have politicians come in here and lie about the legislation, deliberately misleading people about the effects of this legislation in the course of trying to retain the right to spread deepfakes against people, I think it exposes exactly what that political project is for.

What does this bill do? Well, let's take a step back. It's not in dispute now that AI can fabricate a person's face, their voice and likeness convincingly enough to deceive people, to humiliate people, to exploit and profit. The cost of that falls on the individuals who are often not politicians. Often, they're just people trying to live their lives without being humiliated, insulted or misrepresented. The ability of AI to do that is continuing to improve.

This bill goes to something essential about being human. Our face, our voice, our presence, the way we walk—it goes to those singular and essential natures that each of us know is us as an individual, as a human. Protecting that essential humanity, not just our data or our reputation but what makes us us, is what's at stake here. It's a simple principle, and I'm surprised we can't get agreement on it across the chamber: that your face, your voice, the way you walk and your likeness are yours, and they can't be appropriated by somebody and used without your consent. And they definitely can't be appropriated by somebody and used without your consent to drive the hate, the misogyny and the profits of overseas big tech. And, unless we deal with this, that's what's going to keep happening. So I welcome Senator Pocock's bill and thank him for bringing the legislation in. It's a meaningful step to address a real and growing harm.

The bill would strengthen the Online Safety Act with a dedicated complaint system for deepfake material and would give the eSafety Commissioner powers to issue take-down orders on hosts and on users to take down deepfake content once a complaint is received. It also allows for consent to happen, and there actually are instances where what would otherwise be a deepfake may have a really powerful role if it operates with consent. For example, some people are using AI to create what would otherwise be a deepfake to do real-time translations in multiple different languages. If that's done with consent and it's getting out there and it's helping communicate issues across a diverse community, there are arguments that that can have a positive outcome. But it needs to be with consent, and I think it should be labelled as deepfake content so people can tell that that's what the material is.

The bill also creates penalties for posting non-consensual deepfake content on social media and lets the commissioner direct that fast removal and have the platforms held to account. It's a really important provision. It creates a new private right, a tort, where individuals can seek injunctions, damages and to have the harmful material removed. In doing that, they don't have to go to the expense of proving financial loss. It's assumed that a non-consensual deepfake is harmful and there's a right to have it removed.

The bill references human rights obligations under the ICCPR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and preserves legitimate use by journalists, law enforcement, ASIO and scientific research. I want to be clear: if this bill gets to committee, the Greens would also like to see incorporated in this bill those exemptions that exist in the Copyright Act that allow for satire and similar reasonable use provisions.

It's critically important to give people impacted by deepfakes the power to have them removed and to seek a remedy. It's also critically important for our law to seek to work upstream. I don't often quote the Pope, but I reckon Pope Leo was useful in the first encyclical this year, where he talked about how technology takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance and profit from it, and its worth must be measured by who it harms and who it serves. I think that's a really important contribution to how we look at technology: who does it harm and who does it serve?

The deepfake platforms, particularly the nudify apps and the platforms monetising them, aren't neutral infrastructure, and we shouldn't regulate them as though they're neutral. We should recognise the harm and we should regulate to protect people from the harm. We should recognise who it serves and we should regulate to hold them to account. The tools and platforms that generate this material currently face no real accountability, and they keep profiting. So we need that safety by design and those duty of care obligations to work upstream on generative AI providers to really protect communities. Theft or abuse shouldn't only be unlawful if you're caught or you target someone who is a lawyer.

It's the Greens' position that, until laws comprehensively deliver that safety, platforms that are shown to present an inherent risk, particularly of deepfakes, should be banned. We could start with Grok, and we could work on from there—we bloody well could. A take-down and sue model is at the heart of this legislation. Whilst it does create a right and we think it's a powerful way to create a right, I think we should be having a look at alternative ways in addition to that to ensure that deepfakes can be addressed. Giving a more proactive right and a more proactive regulatory power to eSafety is one of the ways of doing that. Of course, whilst I recognise that torts are an important way of holding people to account, it often requires money and lawyers, and we want to make sure that everybody who's impacted by deepfakes has a realistic right to get a remedy.

The take-down model also captures the public viral nature of some of this material. But we need to make sure it also reaches encrypted messaging, peer-to-peer transfer, some of those closed forums and offshore sites. I think that's a difficult task, but I think public sharing is only one dimension in which deepfakes can actually cause harm. We should be looking at that, and the government should be working with the crossbench in order to come up with provisions that don't only look at public sharing but look to some of that other non-public or less public sharing where we know that there's coercive material and we know that this is causing harm. With sextortion, in particular, the threat to share is the weapon and the image may never be posted publicly. That needs to be picked up in this legislation.

I'll say it again. I appreciate Senator Pocock for bringing this to the chamber. In the lead-up to the last federal election, the Greens were very clear about saying we need to get ahead of this and we need to prevent deepfakes from poisoning our politics. I saw Senator Pocock at that same time raising the issue in real time before the last federal election. Of course, the government didn't listen.

I want to be clear: there are jurisdictions that are forging ahead and getting this far closer to right than Australia does. You could look at what South Korea has been doing in regulating its online platforms and preventing deepfakes being shared. Look at some of the creative regulation that's happening in Taiwan about ensuring the online space is meeting basic duties and having some nimble regulation. There are places in the world we can look at to get working real-time examples about how we can address deepfakes while keeping the right to produce satire and comedy material and to hold politicians to account. We can keep the right to do all of that but come up with laws that say: 'You can't use deepfakes for misogyny, racism and hate. You can't use deepfakes without people's consent. You can't see politicians and political parties creating these hate factories and attaching them to deepfakes.'

I say again that I urge the government to vote to put this into committee and then to work on amendments, if they're needed, to put in the copyright provisions to take this forward, because simply voting this down today—walking across and voting with One Nation to vote this down today—will send exactly the wrong message. It will send the message that the deepfakes, the hate, the misogyny and the racism are not going to be addressed under the Albanese Labor government. Let's not get there. Let's support the second reading of this bill. I again thank the mover of this legislation for bringing it to the chamber.

On this side of the chamber, we certainly agree that the online space has been unregulated for too long, and it's put people, particularly young people and women, at risk for far too long. That's why we have taken strong and decisive action since coming to government to put the onus on platforms to do better in this space. The Prime Minister and Minister Wells have put these tech companies and platforms on notice and said: 'We will no longer accept them shirking their responsibility. If they want to operate in Australia, they should do so while taking responsibility for protecting Australians and, in particular, protecting young Australians.'

Last year, of course, we delayed access to social media until the age of 16 because we want kids to know who they are before platforms make those assumptions for them. We want to keep kids safe online. The digital space really was the Wild West for far too long. So I think our world-leading social media ban—which has now, I note, been adopted by a number of countries around the world—is a really important step in the right direction, towards putting that onus back on the tech companies. We've also quadrupled the eSafety Commission's base funding to ensure that they can enforce the law, help Australians who face serious abuse online and educate Australians about the risks that exist online. We also brought forward the independent statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021 to ensure the act remains fit for purpose. One of the really important recommendations of that review is to legislate a digital duty of care, and that is something that our government has said that we will legislate very, very soon.

Why is a digital duty of care important? Because we believe that the onus should be on the platforms, not on users, and that online platforms and big tech companies have the technology and the resources to do this work. They should reduce, manage and remove harmful content. They should stop it before it ends up in people's feeds, and they need to do better in this space. Our government expects them to do better in this space. So Labor will ensure, through our digital duty of care laws, that we will force platforms to take stronger action to keep Australians safe.

Our work in online safety is world leading. Under the current Online Safety Act, the existing Image-Based Abuse Scheme already allows the eSafety Commissioner to take action against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, whether AI is used or not. Further to that, under the current Unlawful Material Codes and Standards, digital service providers are already required to take proactive steps to prevent the generation and distribution of class 1 material, including child sexual abuse material and pro-terror material, and, again, that includes material that is generated by AI. The government has ensured that the eSafety Commissioner is well resourced to assist Australians who face serious abuse online, to educate Australians about online risks and to hold online service providers to account. But there is more work to do. We know that, and we are committed to doing that work through our digital duty of care.

The other thing I think is really important to call out and talk about is the responsibility that we have as leaders, as elected members of this place, to think about the kinds of things that we do online. In recent months, I have been absolutely disgusted by some of what I have seen posted online by One Nation. I know that we've got Senator Walker here in the chamber. I asked her whether she would be happy with me talking about this in here, and she very generously said that I can. I think it's really important that we do. Some of the content that Senator Hanson and her colleagues in One Nation have posted about Senator Walker online is absolutely disgraceful. Not only is it disrespectful to Senator Walker—who I've come to know very well over the last 12 months and I know is extremely tough, one of the toughest people in this place, who doesn't blink an eyelid and who continues to come in here and stand up for young people—it is extremely disrespectful to other young people who shouldn't feel discouraged from being a part of the political conversation, from putting themselves forward, whether it's on the Labor ticket or the Liberal ticket or the Greens ticket or as an Independent. Young people should feel like they belong in this place. I want more young people like Senator Walker in this chamber—not fewer.

Senator Hanson and her colleagues need to do better. I don't know why Senator Hanson is so afraid of Senator Walker. I think it says a lot that she's afraid of what Senator Walker will do in this place now and for the next five years, and I'm sure for many, many years to come after that, because it's clear to me that she is afraid of Senator Walker and what she can do. But that is not an excuse to post content online that sends a message to young people that says, 'You don't belong here,' 'You don't belong in the places where decisions are made,' and 'You don't belong at the table when important conversations are happening.' We know in the Labor caucus just how important it is to have a diverse range of people elected to this place as part of the conversation. It is completely unacceptable that Senator Hanson and her colleagues think that it is okay to post that kind of shameful political content.

I've made my fair share of political ads over my time as a party official. And you know what? We all sometimes like to have a bit of fun. I think that's an important part of engaging people in the political conversation. But there is a line that we, as elected members to this place, with the responsibility of representing Australians, should be held to. So I say to Senator Hanson and to her colleagues in One Nation that that behaviour is absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. Senator Walker can take it. She's tough. I know she can take it. But I don't want other young people to feel discouraged from being part of the political conversation. That is why I say in this place that it is absolutely unacceptable, and we will continue to call Senator Hanson and her colleagues out for doing that kind of absolutely disgraceful online content. I believe we may have met the hard—no? Oh, I've got a bit more time. Okay, excellent. So I think the intention of the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 is good, and I think broadly we agree on the—

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker. You've now met the hard marker.

Debate interrupted.

Pursuant to order agreed to on Tuesday, the Senate will now further consider the Treasury Laws Amendment tax reform number one bill of 2026 and a related bill. The second reading debate on the bills concluded yesterday evening, and I'm now required to put the questions on the second reading of the bills. I will now put the questions before the chair and then the remaining stages on the second reading of the bills. I'll begin with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Chandler. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3883 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

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

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

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

I will now deal with the remaining second reading amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3884, 3887 and 3892 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3884

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the Government is reducing housing supply in the midst of a housing crisis,

(ii) the Government's higher taxes mean 35,000 fewer homes, higher rents and less housing investment,

(iii) the Government's higher taxes add to the cost of housing, with existing taxes, fees and charges already adding up to 50 per cent to the cost of a new home, and

(iv) the Government is already more than 100,000 dwellings behind its own 1.2 million housing target and is projected to miss the target by well over 200,000 dwellings; and

(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation to ban APRA-regulated super fund investment in residential property".

_____

SHEET 3887

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

(a) the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill was a rushed sham;

(b) the inquiry did not have enough time to enable the committee to consider hundreds of submissions;

(c) Treasury officials refused to provide evidence, refused to undertake basic preparations for their appearance and refused to table answers to questions on notice within a reasonable timeframe; and

(d) the Treasurer announced amendments one day after the committee concluded its hearing, making a mockery of transparency, scrutiny and proper parliamentary process".

_____

SHEET 3892

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

(a) the Government's higher taxes will starve junior minerals explorers of capital;

(b) 75% of Australia's economic mineral discoveries are made by small and mid-tier explorers who rely on investors willing to back high-risk projects;

(c) discovery to production can take 15 years and therefore Australians will pay the price for decades to come of exploration drying up; and

(d) the Government has already hit the resources sector by cutting the highly successful Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive".

by leave—Please can I record my support for 3887 in that group of amendments.

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3870 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) despite substantial investments from the Albanese Labor Government in new social and affordable housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund, there remains a shortfall of around 640,000 affordable homes in Australia, and

(ii) the reforms to CGT and negative gearing will deliver significant ongoing benefit to the budget, with at least $6 billion in revenue not foregone over the forward estimates; and

(b) calls on the Albanese Government to reinvest a majority portion of these savings in new public, social and affordable housing".

The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

I move:

That the motion be amended as follows:

At the end of the motion, add "and the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the provisions of the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2026".

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(1) That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 to:

(a) incorporate Schedules 1 and 2 in a separate bill; and

(b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and a provision giving effect to the amending schedules.

(2) That the bill incorporating Schedules 1 and 2 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2026.

I understand I can speak to that, so I will. I just want to be very clear here about exactly what the opposition is proposing. Senator Pocock's motion, which he has just moved, relates to incorporating schedule 1 into a separate bill and sending that off to further committee inquiry. Now, the opposition would like to see both schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the bill removed and, again, sent off to an appropriate Senate inquiry.

I've said this before in the debate on these bills, and I will say it again. Schedule 1and schedule 2 will deliver a net tax increase to Australians—schedule 1 through changes to the capital gains tax and schedule two with changes to the negative gearing regime. As I said in my second reading speech yesterday, the coalition supports schedule 3 and schedule 4 of these bills simply because we will always support lower taxes. But we also want to see schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the bill, the schedules that contain the changes to negative gearing and to capital gains tax, referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 of September 2026.

If anyone wants to know why we are in this position, why we are still seeking to refer schedules of this bill off to the committee inquiry, they are questions rightly asked of the government because it is this government that set up a sham inquiry into these bills and that requested that the economics committee only have two days to undertake hearings into inquiries. It is this government whose bureaucrats admitted in testimony to that Senate inquiry that they had not had time to consider all of the submissions in relation to these bills. Now, that is a pretty galling admission from Department of Treasury officials to say that the inquiry has been too short, that there have been too many submissions and that the government has not been able to consider all of the evidence before the inquiry. What we are seeking to do here today is to once again refer the negative gearing provisions in this bill and the capital gains tax provisions in this bill off to an additional Senate inquiry so that Australians and Australian businesses can finally get the answers that they deserve to hear in relation to how these provisions work and in relation to exactly how much revenue these provisions will be bringing in for the government.

The Albanese government came up with a budget of broken promises, and it is spending recklessly, so recklessly and without discipline that we are headed to a $1.25 trillion debt bomb. That is the admission of the government's own budget papers. The interest bill on that debt bomb is almost $80,000 a minute. Now, we all know that today's debt is tomorrow's taxes, and what this government has done with its changes to capital gains tax and its changes to negative gearing are nothing more than a tax grab on hard-working Australians. It is too important for this Senate chamber not to be able to consider these tax changes in full. Like I say, in a situation where government officials have appeared in front of a Senate committee and not been able to answer any of the questions that we had, it is only right that we, again, take the opportunity to seek to refer the elements of these bills, after further Senate inquiry.

As I've said in other contributions in this place, with this budget this government will become the highest taxing government on average in Australia's history. This government, with these bills, is placing a tax on: family savings; on renters; on first home buyers; on death; on small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs; and on investment. You name it, and this government, with these bills, is seeking to tax it. Apparently, this is what the Albanese government wants the history books to show. They are okay with that, but it is not all right. With this current bill, once it passes, Australia will become the country with the highest capital gains tax in the world. Now the Albanese government is putting a no-investment advisory tag on Australia's economy. That is not productive. That doesn't sound promising for the economy or for the prosperity of our country, does it? Worse, it will lower Australians' living standards, Australians who are working so hard to get ahead.

In conclusion, just in case those opposite haven't heard clearly, the Senate inquiry that we have just had into these bills was an absolute sham. It was short. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions. Treasury's own officials admitted there were so many submissions and the inquiry was so short in time, they did not have the ability to read all of the submissions. The government has not appropriately considered just how concerned Australians and Australian business owners are about the changes that have been proposed in these bills. We need, this Senate needs, to have an appropriate inquiry where everyone will have sufficient time to prepare a submission, sufficient time to read all of the submissions. Treasury officials, we're doing this for you. We want you to have the requisite amount of time to read the submissions and consider the evidence, and we also want the chamber to have sufficient time to report on those changes. It was so obvious that the Albanese government didn't want any scrutiny on their so-called tax reform bills. That is why they set up this sham inquiry and these bills were forced upon all Australians.

We have to remember, at the end of the day, no-one voted for these new taxes. Twelve months ago, Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers stood in front of Australians so many times—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—and said there would be no changes to capital gains tax. There would be no changes to negative gearing. The Prime Minister said 'my word is my bond'. With this motion today, moved by Senator Pocock, amended by myself, we are giving the government the chance to redeem themselves and respect every Australian and every Australian business that pays taxes in this country. Let this Senate chamber have the appropriate level inquiry into these bills. Give us another few months to look at them and maybe we will finally get some answers.

Senator Wong?

I have a point of order in relation to Senator Pocock's motion. I think Senator Pocock moved the incorrect motion for the purposes that he seeks. I realise he has a lot of pieces of paper flying around the chamber with procedural aspects. But he did not move his contingent motion 6A, which was the necessary motion for what he is seeking to do. He moved a substantive amendment to the second reading, which has already occurred. So I'd ask you to note that, in fact, the contingent motion has not been moved by Senator Pocock.

I'll certainly do that. The Clerk advised me that the contingent motion wasn't moved, and I'm now inviting Senator Pocock to clarify what motion he is moving.

Thank you, President. My apologies to the Senate. I had conflicting papers in front of me, but I have that now, if I'm able to move it?

Yes.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the treasury laws amendment—

Just s moment, Senator Pocock. Minister Wong?

Just to seek a direction from you, and it may be that we'll do Senator Pocock the courtesy of remedying his error, but my recollection is the moment at which he could move a contingent motion has now in fact passed, so I'd like an indication from you. If that is the case, then he can seek leave.

Thank you, Senator Wong. I will indeed seek advice. I am advised, Senator Pocock, that you now should be seeking leave to amend the motion that you moved.

Thank you, Mr President. I seek leave to amend a motion in my name.

Is leave granted.

Leave to move the 6A contingent motion.

Well, I was advised, and I'll check my advice, Senator Wong, that he should seek leave to amend but I may have misheard. Senator Pocock, I am advised that you need to seek leave to move your contingent motion 6A, and then, if leave is granted, I will need to offer an opportunity to Senator Chandler to make sure that her amendment is in fact attached to the right motion.

by leave—I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 to:

(a) incorporate Schedule 1 in a separate bill; and

(b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and a provision giving effect to the amending schedule.

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(1) That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 to:

(a) incorporate Schedules 1 and 2 in a separate bill; and

(b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and a provision giving effect to the amending schedules.

(2) That the bill incorporating Schedules 1 and 2 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2026.

So the Senate is clear about what is happening here, this motion is being moved so there's the capacity to separate the bills. The government's position is that these bills proceed and the schedules of the bills proceed as a package. Senator Pocock is seeking the capacity to separate the CGT elements of the package out but allow the negative gearing, the working Australian tax offset and the instant deductions—schedules 2, 3 and 4—to proceed or to be dealt with separately. Senator Chandler's amendment to that adds schedule 2 to Senator Pocock desire to have schedule 1 set on a separate path or separated. Essentially, the end result would be to remove CGT, and, if Senator Chandler's amendment got up, to have CGT and negative gearing separately dealt with. The government does not support either of those propositions. We do believe that it's important that both the CGT and the negative gearing adjustments are progressed together with the other tax reform measures, including the tax cuts for Australian workers. It's not just because they all support the rebalancing of the tax system but because, importantly, one part helps fund the other part. That's why we've had stakeholders, including experts, backing the package as a whole. In the submissions to the inquiry, the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute said:

If these reforms are to be adopted, we would strongly encourage adopting them as a package.

In another inquiry submission, Professor Miranda Stewart said:

The reform package should be considered and passed as a whole by the Senate. It presents a coherent set of reasonable and fair policy choices.

The reforms must be seen together. The government have thought about these things carefully, and we won't be supporting any attempt to separate and delay certain elements of the package whilst proceeding with others.

The question is the amendment moved by Senator Chandler be agreed to.

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

by leave—In respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3882 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 47 (line 24), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 2, page 48 (line 1) to page 53 (line 11), to be opposed.

These amendments go to a simple principle: that Australian families and businesses should be better off, not worse off, because of tax reform. The opposition believes in a lower, simpler and more certain taxation system. We want to deliver lower income taxes permanently and ensure governments cannot increase taxes without proper scrutiny and the passage of new legislation. What is before us today, as I have said many times now in this chamber, does not meet that test; in fact, it comes nowhere near it.

I want to be clear once more: what this government is proposing is not genuine tax reform. This is a bad deal stitched up together between the government and the Greens. But, deal or no deal, the coalition remains unconvinced that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 leaves Australians better off. For that reason, we cannot support schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, which contain the provisions in relation to changes to capital gains tax and the provisions in relation to changes to negative gearing, and we will not support the associated Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026.

This debate is very simple. Capital investment by everyday Australians is made using income that has already been taxed. Capital gains tax is not some separate tax in isolation; it is, in effect, another layer of income tax. Under these changes, Australians will pay tax when they earn their income, and then again if they take the risk to invest and build something more. They work hard and they take risks, and yet under these changes they will be left with less. That is not fair and it isn't right. In fact, the day that these bills pass will be the day that Australia will become the country with the No. 1 highest capital gains tax in the world. That simply does not make sense.

The Senate is being asked to legislate what is, in reality, an income tax increase—an increase that was not put to the Australian people at the last election and an increase that the government repeatedly assured voters, time and again, that it had no intention of pursuing. Remember the Prime Minister's words:

My word is my bond.

The last six weeks in this place and outside this place, as these laws have been debated amongst the community, and the business community in particular, have demonstrated just how inaccurate the Prime Minister's assessment was when he said that his word was his bond. Clearly, that was not true.

This is a proposal that is so complex that, through the sham Senate inquiry process that we held for these bills, even accounting and advisory professionals advised that they cannot clearly explain these changes to their own clients. That's a pretty galling situation for professionals to be in, and, as I've said previously, they didn't get any help or guidance from Treasury officials who came to the Senate inquiry clearly unable to answer basic questions about how this legislation would operate.

This legislation is a regime that leaves key definitions unresolved and significant matters to be determined later through delegated legislation. Again, this is far from a perfect situation for Australian taxpayers. Taxpayers deserve certainty when it comes to the system they are operating within. What we will be doing today when these bills inevitably pass this chamber, because the government has done a deal with the Greens to facilitate that, is setting in motion changes to the taxation system that are not yet fully understood or fully defined.

This is a system that is expected to impose hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs each and every year. In a situation where Treasury can't answer basic questions about how the legislation is going to operate, when we have financial professionals saying that they don't know how to advise their clients on how the changes are going to operate, I fear that those estimations of the compliance costs will end up being woefully under what they actually end up being, because we don't know the full extent of what we are being asked to agree to today. These changes will cause real and avoidable harm to the housing market, to investment in resources, to small- and medium-sized businesses, to innovation, to the integrity of the taxation system itself, as I've said, and even to the charitable sector. Despite all this, this government, backed by the Greens, has been pressing on with this plan.

I've lost count of how many different off-ramps we've tried to provide the government. Indeed, Senator Pocock and I just tried to provide an off-ramp in referring the problematic schedules in relation to CGT changes and negative gearing changes off to a further Senate inquiry. Those Australians listening along at home today can be very sure that this government knows that there are issues with this legislation. They would have been listening along to the Treasury officials that appeared at our Senate inquiry. They know that there are basic questions that cannot be answered. Indeed, I suspect when we get into the Q&A section of the Committee of the Whole consideration today, it will again become abundantly clear that there are questions yet to be answered from this government in relation to this legislation, yet they are pressing forward. You can't make decisions if you don't have all the requisite information in front of you, and I think it is really problematic that that is what we are being asked to do here today.

We have seen an extraordinary process unfold with this legislation. Amendments have been circulating for days. Further government amendments have been introduced following last minute carve-outs announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. That tells its own story. It tells us that these tax policies were rushed. It tells us that it was being negotiated on the run. In fact, it was clearly being negotiated quite quickly. I think I made comments in the media at the start of the week that I anticipated that at some point in the fortnight a dodgy deal would be reached. I had no idea that it was about to happen in the next 24 hours. This tells us that key elements of this bill have been treated as bargaining chips, whether we're talking about ministerial powers, definitions or the scope of application. The most significant amendments are not coming from scrutiny; they're not coming from consultation—we know that because of the rushed inquiry process that we've had to go to. They are coming from the government itself trying to fix its own flawed legislation in real time.

Australians deserve so much better than this. They deserve so much better than what they are getting from this government. They deserve a tax system that is stable, predictable and fair. They deserve reform that encourages investment, not punishes it. And they deserve honesty about the impacts of what is being proposed and how much it will cost to implement what is being proposed. They don't deserve a measure that was ruled out before the last election, several times, only to be introduced in this place 12 months down the track, in a rushed manner, where people have not been able to fully consider the consequences. Let us not forget: the government does not have a mandate to make the changes that they are proposing here today because they did not take these changes to an election.

The coalition's position is clear. We support sensible tax reform, we support lower taxes and we support a system that rewards effort and investment. Maybe, if that's what this government was doing, we would be able to support what they are trying to achieve here today—but it is not and we cannot. That is why I'm moving an amendment seeking to move items (3) and (4) on sheet 3882 together, just to clarify. This amendment will remove schedules 1 and 2 from the bill, the provisions relating to capital gains tax and negative gearing changes, to keep the taxation system fairer, simpler and more certain. I commend these amendments to the Senate, because, like I say, Australians deserve much better than what they're getting from this government.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The amendments seek to, essentially, do as was in the discussion on the moving of the contingent notice of motion, which is to separate the schedules and not proceed with the CGT and negative gearing schedules in the bill. I really think this goes to demonstrate in a very clear way the complete lack of economic or budget credibility of those opposite. They sit here, having moved a second reading amendment just a second ago which calls upon us to consider indexing tax brackets in line with the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, without having that costed, without having any idea how they would fund that, and then try to take out the two elements of the package which then fund the working Australians tax offset as the other component of the package. What we've done is put a package of reforms together, funded reforms, that take those decisions about CGT and negative gearing and rebalances the tax system so that those earning an income are not having to take on an unfair level or not have a heavier burden, perhaps, than those who earn income from assets, and move it onto a more equal footing. But, in order to do that, yes, we have to make some decisions about negative gearing and capital gains tax which we think are right and fair. They allow us to ensure that we're giving all of that back across the forward estimates via the working Australians tax offset, which is then coupled with the instant deduction as part of this package. Those two elements feed into the tax cuts that we've already taken through the parliament, which will come in on 1 July this year and 1 July next year.

In relation to Senator Chandler's concerns about there being further tranches of legislation, the Treasurer and I have made it clear that when you do complex, big tax reform—which is what our budget does—there will always be a series of bills associated with that. These bills set that overarching framework and provide the certainty that's needed for investors and the like about the tax arrangements that are going to operate from 1 July next year. That is no different to the way former governments have done significant tax reform. If you go back and consider the last comparable tax reform that was done under the new tax system, I'm advised that there were 30 bills over a period of time associated with that tax reform. Tax law in this country is complex, and it is appropriate that you deal with some of those in separate pieces of legislation, just as former treasurer Costello did in relation to his reforms under the new tax system. So we have been clear from budget night that that would be the case, but we were also very clear and keen to make sure that there was certainty provided through these bills as soon as possible, and the passage of these bills later today will provide that certainty.

There are already a number of issues that the Treasurer is consulting on with regard to startups and the like. We've got some other amendments that we will move in order to deal with the amendments we've already determined, but we expect there will be issues that we will work through and bring back to this parliament in a second tranche of legislation, and it's absolutely appropriate that we do that. There will be complex interactions of tax law that will require amendment through a second tranche of legislation. We've been clear about that; it will be coming. But, essentially, the important architectural legislation is what we are debating today. So I don't think the criticism from Senator Chandler about the staging of our legislative implementation of the budget is appropriate. I disagree with it, and the fact that we have so many TLABs, Treasury law amendment bills, coming through this Senate is an example of the normal course of business when it comes to implementing legislative reform through the Treasury portfolio.

So that's the approach we will take. I think Senator McKim wants to say a few words before 11.15. We do not support the splitting of the bills. It is packaged reform, and you can't just take one side of it and not look at how you're going to fund the implementation of other elements of the package.

The Australian Greens will also not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Chandler on behalf of the opposition. But I want to offer some general reflections on the legislation and, in particular, the splitting of the bill. Let's be very clear about this. The government has put this forward as a package, and it's very interesting to watch attempts to split various pieces out of this legislation because the interaction of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount is significant. With regard to the way those two tax breaks operate, the Greens have been very clear that we want to see substantial reform of both of those tax breaks with far higher ambition than the government has shown in this package. But folks who don't understand how they interact in real life, in reality, are missing the obvious point: if you are going to engage in reform of either the capital gains tax arrangements or negative gearing arrangements, it should be done together at the same time simply because of how they interact.

Today is a massive missed opportunity for renters and first home buyers. Labor's gift of $33 billion of continued handouts to wealthy property speculators means that this country's housing crisis will be worse than it needs to be for longer than it should be. The real issue here is that the test for Labor is whether this legislation will fix Australia's housing crisis for people struggling to buy their first home. The clear answer is that it will not—because Labor has shown a lack of ambition and a lack of political courage. The housing crisis in Australia is now Labor's housing crisis. They've made it worse since they came to office four years ago, and they have spurned chance after chance to try to repair it and bring some real hope to people who are struggling to buy their first homes. Those people are, overwhelmingly, young Australians. They are stuck in a skyrocketing rental market where rents are soaring out of control and becoming ever more unaffordable and where they are watching house prices recede into the distance—and have been for some time.

We need to make housing more affordable for people who are struggling to buy their first home. We need to cap rents and stop out-of-control rent rises. Those are the policy levers that are available and that Labor has chosen not to pull. Young Australians are watching the drawbridge being pulled up in front of their eyes, and cheering from the battlements are the older people who have the tax advantages that have allowed them to accumulate, in some cases, massive portfolios of investment property, and, ultimately, those benefits and those tax changes will be significantly grandfathered in by this legislation. So it's no surprise that young people are not cheering.

There's a bigger issue here, and that is the way that income derived from labour, from going to work, is taxed as opposed to income that is derived from capital. I'll make the obvious point that, in order to derive income from capital, you have to be wealthy enough to buy things in the first place. For millions of Australians, the dream of share ownership or the dream of an investment property is just that. It's something they can never legitimately aspire to, because they simply don't have the wealth necessary to buy into the share market or to buy an investment property, or 10 or 20 or 50 investment properties. Why should we tax income from work so much less advantageously for people than income derived from buying and selling things? There is no good argument. Under current arrangements, if you go to work as a cleaner or in hospo or as a carpenter or a plumber or a nurse, you are paying double the tax on the same amount of money as someone who makes their profits by buying and selling investment properties. That is the system that we've got, and this legislation, while it will make some difference and is—

Senator McKim, could you please resume your seat. It being 11.15, the committee will report progress.

Progress reported.

Pursuant to notice given yesterday, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 for 10 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Regulations 2026 and Biosecurity (Electronic Decisions—Goods) Determination 2026.

I present the seventh report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2026

25 May 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 June 2026 at 7.12 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a)    the provisions of the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 August 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral),

(b) the provisions of the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral),

(c) the provisions of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 October 2026 (see appendix 3 for statement of reasons for referral), and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 August 2026 (see appendix 4 for statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

24 June 2026

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:Defence Legislation Amendment(RCDVS Implementationand Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026

Reasonsforreferral/principalissuesforconsideration:Scrutinise legislation

Possiblesubmissionsorevidencefrom:Relevantstakeholders

Committeetowhichbillistobereferred:ForeignAffairs,DefenceandTrade

Possible hearing date(s): July-August

Possible reporting date : August 2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameofbill:DefenceLegislation Amendment (RCDVS ImplementationandRelatedMeasures No. 2) Bill 2026

Reasonsforreferral/principalissuesforconsideration:ThisisacomplexBillinwhichstakeholdersthatwanttocommenton.

Possiblesubmissionsorevidencefrom:FamiliesofVeteransGuild Veteran Advocates

Committeetowhichbillistobereferred:ForeignAffairs,DefenceandTrade

Possiblehearingdate(s):5 August, 2026

Possiblereportingdate: 24 August, 2026

(signed)

Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameofbill:HealthInsuranceAmendment(IncentivePaymentsandOtherMeasures)Bill

Reasonsforreferral/principalissuesforconsideration:Scrutiniselegislation

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s): July

Possible reporting date: 14 August 2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameofbill:HealthInsuranceAmendment(IncentivePaymentsandOtherMeasures)Bill2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Hear from stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from: Representative groups, government departments, various stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): 1 hearing in July

Possible reporting date: 14 August 2026

(signed)

Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameof bill:Private Health InsuranceAmendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutinise legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committeetowhichbillistobereferred:Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s): July-September

Possiblereportingdate:7October2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameofbill: PrivateHealthInsuranceAmendment(ModernisingthePrivateHealthInsuranceRebate)Bill 2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Hear from stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Health representative groups, consumer representative groups, government departments, various stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): 24 August — 25 September

Possible reporting date: 7 October 2026

(signed)

Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Nameofbill:TreasuryLawsAmendment(TaxReformNo.2)Bill2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutinise legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committeetowhichbillistobereferred:Economics

Possiblehearingdate(s):July

Possible reporting date: 13 August 2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move an amendment to the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted, as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2026".

The question is the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 529 be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Kovacic, I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Corruption in the Construction Industry, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) allegations of corruption, criminal infiltration, intimidation, coercion and misconduct in the construction industry;

(b) the impact of such conduct on project costs, productivity, workplace safety, competition and public confidence in the construction industry;

(c) the adequacy of Commonwealth laws, policies, procurement rules, regulatory frameworks and enforcement responses;

(d) risks arising in relation to tendering, subcontracting, labour hire, industrial arrangements and Commonwealth-funded projects;

(e) the adequacy of existing oversight and administration mechanisms, and whether further enduring institutional or legislative reform is required; and

(f) any other related matter.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 18 November 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and

(d) 1 nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

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

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

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

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

(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.

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

(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

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

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

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

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 486 standing in the name of Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 31 August 2026, all written or digital correspondence (including all attachments to any written or digital correspondence), ministerial submissions, briefing notes, briefing materials, file notes, reports, reviews, audits, assessments, evaluations, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notices, meeting minutes, text messages, electronic messages and other records of interaction since 2 July 2024 between the Minister for Indigenous Australians or the minister's office and:

(a) the National Indigenous Australians Agency; or

(b) the Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation (TCAC);

in relation to:

(c) Commonwealth funding, grants, agreements, contracts, procurement arrangements or financial assistance provided directly or indirectly to TCAC;

(d) the monitoring, evaluation, accountability, reporting, governance or administration of Commonwealth funding provided to TCAC;

(e) performance measures, milestones, deliverables, key performance indicators, outcomes, service standards or reporting obligations relating to Commonwealth-funded programs delivered by TCAC; and

(f) any audit, review, investigation, assessment, evaluation, compliance activity, risk assessment, assurance process or value-for-money assessment relating to TCAC.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 527, standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Thursday, 2 July 2026, a list of the titles of all Senate estimates briefs prepared for officials of the Climate Change and Energy portfolio who appeared at the 2026-‍‍‍27 Budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on Tuesday, 26 May 2026.

The question is that general business No. 528 standing in the name of Senator Henderson, and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

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, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 29 July 2026:

(a) all documents evidencing the cause of the increase in Australia's mortality rate during the period January 2020 to December 2025 including documents evidencing:

(i) health conditions associated with any increase in excess mortality rate during the period,

(ii) excess mortality rate increases not caused by COVID-19 mortality during the period,

(iii) excess mortality rate increases temporally associated with lockdowns and border closures during the period, and

(iv) excess mortality rate increases temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination rates during the period; and

(b) all documents evidencing the type, timing, location and uptake rates of COVID-19 vaccinations in Australia for the period January 2020 to December 2025.

The question is that general business No. 530 standing in the name of Senator Antic, 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 6 July 2026, the following documents:

(a) all correspondence, briefings, emails, file notes, meeting records and other documents held by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) or the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation for Welfare Services (ATSICWS), between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026;

(b) all correspondence, briefings, emails, file notes, meeting records and other documents:

(i) provided by ORIC or the NIAA to the Minister for Indigenous Australians or the minister's office, relating to ATSICWS, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026,

(ii) exchanged between the NIAA and the Queensland Government, including the Department of Housing and Public Works and the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, relating to ATSICWS, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026,

(iii) exchanged between the NIAA or the minister's office and Mount Isa City Council, relating to ATSICWS, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026, and

(iv) held by ORIC and the NIAA referring to Virginia Mayo in connection with ATSICWS, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026;

(c) all documents relating to any consideration by ORIC of compliance action, investigation, examination, special administration, deregistration, prosecution, or any other regulatory action concerning ATSICWS between 1 January 2019 and 24 June 2026;

(d) all correspondence, briefings, file notes and other documents held by the NIAA relating to any caveat, mortgage, charge, security interest, covenant, title restriction, funding condition, asset transfer condition or other registered or unregistered interest held by the Commonwealth, the NIAA or any predecessor Commonwealth agency over properties owned by ATSICWS, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026, including any documents relating to whether such interests may affect the sale, transfer or auction of those properties; and

(e) all correspondence, briefings, emails, file notes, meeting records and other documents relating to engagement by the NIAA with residents of ATSICWS properties (tenant information redacted), including records of assistance offered or provided, referrals made, information distributed, stakeholder meetings attended, and any plans, assessments or advice relating to the housing security, relocation or support needs of affected tenants, between 1 January 2023 and 24 June 2026.

Question agreed to.

The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and amendments 3 and 4 on sheet 3882 moved by Senator Chandler. The question is that schedules 1 and 2 stand as printed.

I rise to make a few remarks here. I also would like to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Treasury Laws Amendment Bill (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. I would like to outline what those amendments are going to be because it relates directly to some of the discussions we've been having on amendment 3882.

The government amendments and the explanatory memorandum that I just tabled implements the government changes to the bill announced on 18 June 2026. As we announced on that date, the government is proposing target amendments to the bill to provide certainty on implementation detail consistent with the original intent of the policies. The amendments extend the eligibility of the 50 per cent active asset reduction to more businesses by increasing the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million. They also ensure deductible gift and donations reduce capital gains that are subject to the minimum tax to maintain tax incentives in relation to charitable giving, provide the list of income support payments that qualify for an exemption for 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.

The increase in the small-business concession eligibility threshold brings eligibility for this concession into line with the turnover threshold for the instant asset write-off. This will mean that all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98 per cent of active businesses will be eligible for a 50 per cent CGT discount on active business assets on top of the discount for inflation where eligible once these reforms are in place. The payments that exempt recipients from the minimum tax on capital gains include age pension, Austudy, carer payment, disability payment, JobSeeker parenting payment, youth allowance, family tax benefit, parental leave pay and veteran payment.

The government also intends to remove ministerial discretion in relation to the following aspects of the bill, with legislation to be introduced later this year following consultation around the definition of new builds that are eligible to choose a 50 per cent discount on gains accrued from 1 July 2027 and eligible to access negative gearing for properties purchased after 12 May 2026, consistent with the details outlined in the bill, and also the definition of types of housing investment exempt from the limits on negative gearing, including affordable housing. The government will amend these two ministerial powers to limit the scope of both definitions in line with their intended use as an interim step ahead of removing these powers and moving the full definitions into primary law in subsequent legislation. These amendments reflect the substantial consultation undertaken since the budget, consistent with the government's commitment to engage with stakeholders on implementation. They provide more clarity and confidence to investors and more support for small business.

I note also that, in some of the amendments that have been circulated and will be moved through the course of the committee stage this morning and into the afternoon, there are some amendments that relate to some specific interactions of how the tax system operates and the reforms that are being put in place today.

I know there are discussions happening with interested parties on this across the parliament, but we have made clear from the get-go, from the evening the budget was announced, that we were aware that there would be tranches of legislation, as I said in response to Senator Chandler's amendment earlier, that would require us to work through some particular and specific interactions of tax law in subsequent legislation. We were aware of some of the issues that Senator Pocock is raising around grandfathering and shared ownership. We are working through them in the usual way, and we intend to address the arrangements for jointly owned assets in circumstances like inheritance or divorce in subsequent legislation.

In both answers that I and the Treasurer gave yesterday we took care around our response given. We are still considering the amendments that were being circulated in the Senate throughout the day but we have been clear on a number of occasions that the complex details that arise through these reforms remain to be worked through following consultation. The core arrangements in the bill are consistent with the existing arrangements in the tax system around the acquisition of assets, because wherever possible we have aligned the core legislation with the existing system. Now there are a number of complex considerations here, including ensuring the right treatment for new-build properties, ensuring consistency with existing CGT rollovers that apply to property transfers in these circumstances and ensuring that changes don't introduce unforeseen integrity risks.

As we've said all along, legislating significant reforms in tranches is the standard approach. Past reforms such as the GST and other major changes have similarly been implemented in tranches. I hope that just provides some additional information about how the government has been and will continue to work through the tax reform package as a whole, including dealing with some of those issues that are being raised in amendments that we were aware of, and we will bring back our response to that through subsequent pieces of legislation.

Just to move to some questions now, in particular in relation to schedules 1 and 2, because, as previously stated with this amendment, that is what we are seeking to have removed from the bill. Minister, how much in higher taxes are you imposing with your changes to capital gains tax alone contained in schedule 1?

The capital gains tax and negative gearing components, I think we've been clear, have a positive impact of $3.6 billion over the forward estimates, and about 85 per cent of that revenue is from the changes to negative gearing. That's all published in the budget papers. I would say in relation to that that the working Australian tax offset, which is also included in this package, has a forward estimate impact of $6.4 billion. Essentially, what is being raised through those schedules is being more than offset and returned to 13.3 million taxpayers through the provision of the working Australian tax offset.

Just so I can be very clear, Minister, did you just say that, of the $3.6 billion in revenue that these changes bring in collectively, between capital gains tax changes and negative gearing changes, the negative gearing changes will bring in 85 per cent of that $3.6 billion?

():  Yes, it's my understanding that that information has been provided in a question on notice. About 85 per cent of the revenue across the forward estimates is from the reforms to negative gearing.

Just to be very clear, then, because my initial question was in relation to the changes to capital gains tax, how much revenue will the changes to CGT bring in over the forwards?

I was just taking some advice, as you do. We haven't separated the components. The published figure is a combined impact of $3.6 billion, but we have provided that figure, as I understand it, the 85 per cent figure, through a question on notice response. I don't have any further information to provide on that.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be tricky here, but am I correct in saying that the remaining 15 per cent of the $3.6 billion revenue stream from these tax changes would be from the CGT changes?

Yes, I think that is over the forward estimate period.

():  Right. Well, I'm glad that we finally do have a response to that question from the minister, given it was a question that we asked during Senate estimates. It was a question that we asked during the committee inquiry, and it was quite staggering that we went through that two-day inquiry and were unable to get a cost breakdown from Treasury in relation to the revenue that those changes would bring in. So, to be very clear, the $3.6 billion in the budget, 85 per cent of that is attributable to the negative gearing changes and 15 per cent of that is attributable to the capital gains tax changes? I just want to be very clear that that's what you're telling this chamber, Minister.

I don't think it's—I mean, I'm surprised. I think we've been clear. Certainly, I've spoken in interviews about how, across the forward estimates, negative gearing has a larger impact than capital gains tax. I don't think that's a secret. So, for the $3.6 billion, the interaction between the two of them—the capital gains tax and negative gearing—has a positive impact of $3.6 billion. Of that, the vast majority comes from the reforms to negative gearing, and, as I said, that's being more than offset and returned to taxpayers through the working Australian tax offset, which is $6.4 billion across the forward estimates.

Sure. But there is a difference between saying the majority of the revenue stream was attributable to the negative gearing changes and actually having some numbers to put behind that, Minister, so I do thank you for providing that information to the chamber today finally. Minister, we heard extensive evidence during the committee inquiry that estimated that the compliance costs or the regulatory burden to implement these changes and to ensure that businesses are able to comply with these changes would be upwards of $500 million per annum. I think it was CPA Australia that gave that estimate to the committee. How can we justify the $88 million per annum regulatory burden estimate that the Treasury has provided when witnesses to the committee were saying that it was going to cost, as I said, well north of half a billion dollars per annum?

I note Senator Chandler uses, I think, an estimate of compliance costs from CPA Australia. We can't and don't—obviously, we don't verify their numbers. They use their numbers and defend their numbers. The Treasury estimate is $88 million per year, and Treasury's estimates were calculated in the normal way and informed by their work with the Australian Taxation Office, who are the experts on these matters.

I would also say to Senator Chandler that the first regulatory reform bill to reduce regulatory burden in this second term of our government was opposed by the opposition. We've got another bill that's currently before the parliament where we seek to, again, reduce compliance burdens. Obviously—and, again, this goes to the issue of the tax reform package as a whole—there's been a lot of commentary and interest in certain elements of the tax reform packages. The tax reform package seeks to make a simpler and more sustainable tax system. The instant deduction, for example, will relieve. And I think people are pretty keen on being able to have an instant tax deduction of $1,000 without receipts. There's also the instant asset write-off, making that permanent, and modernising PAYG to help businesses. And then, of course, there are a whole range of other investments into small business. But you have to look at the tax reform package as a whole.

I understand that the politics of this debate mean that you will be picking certain numbers to support your arguments. But the Treasury estimate for the compliance costs is a much, much smaller number than that provided by CPA Australia. As I said, we don't verify or work through their numbers. They're matters for the CPA to defend.

Recognising what you've just said, that the CPA Australia numbers are a matter for them, it's still a pretty big difference. Has the Treasury done any analysis to determine whether or not the compliance cost number that they came up with, the $88 million, is an accurate breakdown given that we had evidence to the committee inquiry to suggest that that number might have undercooked it slightly?

Treasury doesn't usually adjust its numbers based on submissions to an inquiry. I mean, Treasury's estimate is based on the information they have. They work with the ATO, and it informs the advice they provide. But their advice to government, and publicly, is that the compliance cost estimate is $88 million per year.

We continue to—as I said, through every way possible—look at how we reduce compliance burdens on business and individuals. There are a number of elements in this budget that seek to do that, which I would hope the opposition are able to support, including the instant asset write-off and expanding dynamic monthly business tax instalments on an opt-in basis, if businesses would like to do that. We will continue to progress regulatory reform through the term of this government. But, in this budget alone, making the instant asset write-off permanent—there's modernising PAYG, and the instant tax deduction is making a simpler tax system. The Treasury's estimate on compliance costs remains at $88 million.

Minister, just going back a bit, in your initial response to my question about the revenue that would be brought in by the capital gains tax changes alone, you said that that information had been provided in response to a question on notice. Could you tell me to which Senate committee, which inquiry or, indeed, which estimates process that QON was provided, if that was the case.

I've just been advised that the question on notice was taken through the inquiry on the bill—that is, through the economics legislation inquiry into the bill—and the answer was provided to the committee on Monday.

How much is collected by the minimum 30 per cent tax on taxpayers with less than $45,000 in taxable income?

I'm just seeing if we have that information available. I'm advised that we don't have that information available today to provide to you. It hasn't been assessed, essentially, in that way. I'll see if there's anything further I can provide you. But my advice is we don't have those numbers here.

Why? I note there's a bit of paper shuffling over there. This is entirely foreseeable and, I think, an element of this taxation package that's important to consider. Is there a reason why seemingly no-one in the department has broken down this particular element of the revenue stream?

Sorry, Senator Chandler. It's difficult to listen to your question and try to get advice on your question at the same time. I understand your question essentially related to why we don't have that number. It's not broken down in that way for reporting through the budget process at an aggregate level. That's not how Treasury provide those numbers. So I'm not in a position to give you a breakdown in the way that you're seeking to break that number down.

During Senate estimates earlier this month, I asked the Treasury secretary whether Treasury had undertaken any specific assessment of how the government's capital gains tax and negative gearing changes would affect women. That question was taken on notice at the time. Minister, as the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, can you confirm that you did not ask Treasury to analyse the impact of these tax reforms on women before they were announced?

As the Minister for Women, I get a range of information on the measures through the budget process, as you would understand. We publish the Women's Budget Statement, which actually does have, from my recollection—I don't have that book in front of me—a section that relates to tax reform and the impact on women. But, as the general gender analysis will show when we look at matters around tax—you can see it in the Tax Expenditure and Insights Statement, which now reports on gender as well and breaks it down—overwhelmingly, overall, more than a majority of tax concessions, when they apply, benefit men, because women tend to have fewer assets and less income. The way that the tax system works and that tax concession works is that, overall, men tend to do better out of tax concessions than women for those reasons—lower income and lower assets.

In terms of whether some gender analysis was done on the tax reform, I can confirm that there was, and, in general—not that we usually release specific or individual analysis, because they remain cabinet documents—the reforms put forward would improve gender equality by reducing the relative generosity of the current concessions which primarily benefit older and higher income taxpayers, and men are overrepresented at the higher income levels and report a larger share of net capital gains. Just going back to that—thank you to those that found the information for me—the Tax Expenditure and Insights Statement in 2022-23, by gender, reported 420,000 men and 410,000 women used the CGT discount. Men received 58 per cent of the benefit from the discount. By gender, it was equal on taxpayers who claimed rental reductions—1.2 million men and 1.2 million women—but men received 57 per cent of the benefit from those deductions. When we look at other elements of the package in relation to the working Australian tax offset and the instant deduction by gender—obviously, 13.3 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut of up to $250 in 2027-28 from the working Australian tax offset, including 6.3 million women, which constitutes 48 per cent of those who benefit, and 47 per cent of the WATO benefit is expected to go to women.

On the instant tax deduction, 3.3 million beneficiaries of that, or 54 per cent of that, for the 2026-27 income year, are expected to be women, with 52 per cent of the instant tax deduction benefit as expected to go to women. Although more women than men are expected to benefit—this goes back to the earlier point—the average benefit for men is higher than for women so that is men in receiving the order of $215 through the instant tax deduction and women around $200. That is driven, really, by the underlying distribution of taxable incomes. Men have higher average taxable incomes than women and are subject to higher marginal tax rates on average.

The Women's Budget Statement includes information on the gender impacts of various tax policies, including the combined impact of the government's tax cuts and tax deduction, and, for an average Australian female worker on $68,343, the combined benefit of those tax cuts and the instant tax deduction could be up to $2,494 per year from 2027-28, relative to 2023-24 tax settings. On average, an average Australian female worker earning that income, all things being equal, would benefit almost $2½ thousand per year compared to the 2023-24 tax settings. I'm not sure there's more I need to provide there, but, yes, we do consider these and assess them. In fact, the Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement—I thank the Treasury and the Treasurer for this—now reports against those by gender.

There were a few numbers in that document that you were reading from. Is there any possibility you could table that document for the Senate?

I'm happy to provide that outside of this; I don't know how we do it. It's like a question on notice. I'm happy to provide those numbers to you, Senator Chandler.

There was a lot of content in that answer that you just provided, but I'll just paraphrase that first part. Am I correct in saying that you have undertaken specific assessment of how the government's CGT changes and negative gearing changes would affect women, but you aren't willing to provide the information breakdown of what that impact looks like to the Senate?

I did, in a sense. I did, in relation to reporting against the current arrangements for CGT and rental deductions, and in future Tax Expenditures and Insights Statements, because of the changes we've made to that report, which do report on and provide some gender analysis. Once these reforms are put in place, which is from 1 July 2027, that report will continue to provide that information. If there's anything more that I can provide you with—as you know, we do gender-responsive budgeting. We do consider measures coming through the ERC process through gender analysis or gender impact assessment, depending on the size of the measures and the magnitude of it. We did so for these reforms.

Can you provide that modelling to the Senate?

No. They're cabinet documents. To be clear, I did say in my earlier answer that, if you look at Schedule 1, which is CGT—and I specifically read out the relevant paragraph—the proposal would improve gender equality by reducing the relative generosity of the current CGT discount, which primarily benefits older and higher-income taxpayers. We know that men are overrepresented at higher income levels and report a larger share of net capital gains.

I'm not tabling the document—it's a cabinet document; it's a budget document—but that's essentially summarising the analysis. We did it for the other schedules as well. On negative gearing, the proposal would support gender equality by reducing a concession that currently provides a greater benefit to higher-income taxpayers, of which the majority are likely to be men. On our support for the first home buyers component, if we're reducing investor demand for particular types of housing, that could support more women to enter the housing market. When we look at the Working Australians Tax Offset, that's fairly evenly spread across genders; it has a neutral impact there. On the instant tax deduction, women are expected to receive slightly more than half of the total tax relief provided by that measure.

We heard evidence—I believe it might have been at Senate estimates rather than the inquiry into these bills—that Treasury had not undertaken modelling on the productivity impacts of these changes. Is that still the case? If it is still the case, why has the government not fully modelled the productivity impacts of these changes?

I refer back to the evidence that was given at estimates on this. The evidence that I recall from sitting there listening to the Treasury advice is that the reforms in the budget, taken as a whole, support their confidence about their productivity forecasts, which are outlined in the budget. If I recall Macroeconomic Group's appearance—it was a long appearance—I think that essentially encapsulated all of the evidence provided that day.

We have this every estimates hearing about modelling and what constitutes modelling. I think the way the officials dealt with that when they considered—because macro has a certain way of viewing modelling, they don't do, necessarily, individual specific reforms; what leads them to support the productivity numbers in the budget is the amalgamation of all of the decisions taken in the budget. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that, but no-one's looking particularly worried in the box.

But I think the other argument made, or the evidence given, was that by removing some of the distortions that exist now in the tax system—and we've seen that—and it's very clear when you look at the tables in budget statement 4 of BP 1, which, again, I don't have with me, and look at the evidence or what those tables show, there has been a significant attraction in investing in established properties away from other types of asset classes. We are essentially rebalancing that and making the system neutral to that and changing negative gearing so that things can't be separated, really. By making those decisions we've made on negative gearing, we are supporting a system that allows investors to make decisions in a more efficient way by making decisions based on real returns. 'What is the best and most productive use of my investment dollars into what asset class?' rather than 'Established property delivers the best in terms of tax concessions and returns.' That's what we are seeking to do here.

Some information just passed to me is that Treasury Deputy Secretary, Macroeconomic Group, Dr Grant, stated in estimates, 'The proposed reforms provide us with greater confidence in achieving the medium term,' sorry, it was the productivity assumption not forecast, 'productivity assumption of 1.2 per cent per year, which is outlined in the budget papers.' In testimony to the Senate inquiry, former Productivity Commission Chair Michael Brennan, and independent economist, Saul Eslake discussed possible productivity benefits of the reforms, and their views are consistent with the department's assessment. Mr Eslake said, 'The reforms are expected to improve economic efficiency and housing affordability by reducing tax distortions that favour property speculation,' and Mr Brennan noted, 'The productivity effects come from improving the allocation of capital, but the overall change to Australia's investment environment is relatively modest.'

Yes. I do recall that evidence at the Senate inquiry, Minister, but I also recall that those witnesses said during the inquiry that they hadn't undertaken specific modelling to bear out that assessment and that that was a general assumption that they were making without being able to put numbers behind it.

Can we go back to the Treasury modelling, though, and the productivity impacts of these changes so I'm very clear that I've understood what you've said. Treasury haven't undertaken specific analysis on how these tax changes impact productivity. They come up with some aggregate number based on all of the provisions that are within the budget and say, 'This will be the overall impact.' Are you saying that you don't have to hand an itemised list of the productivity impacts of every budget measure? Obviously, every budget measure aside, specifically what I'm interested in hearing about today are the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes.

The productivity assumption in the budget has a lot of inputs into it. It's not just the tax reform component. I think macro went through how they approached the task of getting all of those various inputs across the economy and the decisions that the government takes through the budget process in terms of having confidence about the productivity assumption that is provided in the budget documents. It's not something that's done on an individual, smaller measure. It's a built-up model of a lot of different pieces of information that feed into that 1.2 number. So, again, I'm not sure we can take it much further than that. The budget papers have been published. Treasury have explained how they came to those numbers that are provided in the budget.

In terms of productivity and the focus of the government, we've been clear in the documents around the productivity reforms in the budget—including on the regulatory reduction approach, the legislation and other decisions that are being made—about the effort that's going into productivity more broadly and making sure that we are throwing everything we can across government and across the economy to drive productivity growth. As we know from discussions in this place lower productivity growth has been a feature of the Australian economy for some time, and the decade to 2020 had the slowest productivity growth in 60 years. So this is not a new challenge for our economy. We're bringing new and additional effort into responding to some of those challenges. But, Senator Chandler, this has been something that's been a feature during your term of government in particular.

Minister, a concern from businesses, particularly in the tech space, that was raised repeatedly during the Senate inquiry was about the productivity impacts of these changes. I think all the business peak bodies came in and presented to the committee and raised concerns about the impact of these changes on productivity. So beyond the macro productivity number that is contained within the budget, subsequent to the budget being handed down in May and, as we went through this very short Senate inquiry process, noting that Treasury didn't have time to read every submission has Treasury done any further analysis to determine the productivity impacts of the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes specifically?

Treasury's work in terms of advising government on the numbers and the impact is reflected in the budget papers. Treasury has been undertaking continued consultations since budget day in a number of areas, and those consultations have led to a number of amendments which, as I foreshadowed earlier, the government will move. So Treasury has been doing continued work on these reforms and will continue to do so as subsequent tranches of legislation come before this chamber.

I think my earlier evidence remains. Treasury do a lot of analysis to inform the numbers that are reflected in the budget. That considered tax reform as a component of feeding into those productivity assumptions. If you look at some of the evidence to the committee through the submission process, some of the experts talk about this having small but positive impacts on productivity for the economy. If you look at the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute's inquiry submission, it says the same as some of the independent experts who provided evidence, including in an open letter from some academic experts, which says:

The existing CGT discount rewards investment based on tax minimisation rather than genuine productivity. Replacing it with cost base indexation across all assets will help reduce that damaging incentive.

So Treasury's advice to government that leads to the numbers in the budget has been addressed at estimates. The further work Treasury's been doing has really been consulting on those areas we identified on budget night.

Minister, again in reference to some of your previous answers, you yourself have been referencing responses to questions on notice in relation to the Senate committee inquiry into these bills. My understanding is that those responses to questions on notice were circulated by the relevant Senate committee at five minutes to midday—so a bit more than 35 minutes ago. I note that it's not an instantaneous process by which Treasury sends responses to QONs to a Senate committee and they are circulated for senators to read. I was wondering whether you could tell the chamber at what time the responses to these questions on notice were provided to the economics committee for circulation.

My understanding is that it was at close of business on Monday.

Thank you for that, Minister. I want to turn to some of the small-business concerns that have been aerated through the committee inquiry process into this legislation and, indeed, more broadly through the media and through social media for those businesses that were not able to submit, submitted but didn't have their submissions processed, or weren't able to present at the Senate inquiry. Minister, even after your amendments to take the turnover threshold for the small business concession to $10 million, nine out of 10 small businesses remain worse off, as you have removed the 50 per cent CGT discount, which could be stacked with small-business concessions. Why do you continue, then, to claim that small businesses are protected from your CGT changes?

I'm not certain, Senator Chandler. I'm just trying to understand. You said 'nine out of 10'. I'm not sure where you got that figure from in your question. What are you referencing? I'm just asking in order to understand. The advice to me is that we're making changes about how the concession is calculated. We're not taking away the concession, so small businesses obviously will have that. We're raising the turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million for the existing component—I think there are four components in small business, potentially, depending on what you're eligible for. One of them is the existing 50 per cent active asset reduction. We are increasing that turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million, but the new way of calculating the CGT concession will still remain available.

Minister, you've still removed the 50 per cent CGT discount that they otherwise would have had.

Yes, but we're replacing it. That is changing; that's the reform. It is moving from a flat 50 per cent concession to a concession that seeks to tax real gains after adjustments for inflation. I may be misreading this from you, but the idea that we're just removing something and not replacing it, or not having a different way of calculating the concession or the discount, is not correct.

Minister, have you undertaken any analysis to determine what the difference will be for businesses if they have the 50 per cent CGT discount removed from them as an option and then have your new way of undertaking these concessions? Have you undertaken analysis to demonstrate that businesses will be better off under your new plan?

Yes, because the threshold has changed for a start. All those businesses that were operating above $2 million and below $10 million will now have access to the 50 per cent active asset reduction. This means all 2.7 million active small businesses, not just some, and 98 per cent of active businesses will be eligible for concessional treatment. This is on top of the other concessions, which we haven't gone to but which, depending on your circumstance and what you're doing when you make that gain or when you trigger that capital gain event, mean that eligible small-business owners pay reduced or no capital gains, including when the time comes to sell. We have an understanding of that. The increase in the threshold from $2 million to $10 million—and I appreciate the discussions the Treasury has had with COSBOA over the last little while—has been an important adjustment to make under these reforms.

Minister, why did you not extend all four small-business CGT concessions to businesses with a turnover under $10 million? Why only the active asset concession but not the 15-year exemption, the retirement exemption and the rollover exemption?

In terms of the government's decisions, lifting that threshold was the most effective way to reach all 2.7 million active small businesses. It aligns it with other small-business concessions. We believe that it, in the most affordable and effective way, deals with some of the concerns that have been raised since the reforms have been announced.

I thank my adviser for bringing this to my attention. If you go to Budget Paper No. 1, page 149, you can see there's a table there, box 4.2, which shows part of the issue we're addressing here is that under the 50 per cent CGT discount arrangements there were significant periods of time over the last 25 years where investors have been under-compensated for inflation. Moving to an indexation model will address that—you are taxing real gains.

Minister, if you were aligning the definition of 'small businesses' to $10 million, why are they not getting the 15-year exemption, the retirement exemption and the rollover exemption?

We have looked at this. Ninety per cent of small businesses still get access to those concessions. But we think this is the most effective way to ensure that all 2.7 million active small businesses are eligible for concessional treatment in a way that both deals with some of the issues being raised by small business with us but also does so in an affordable way.

Minister, even after the application of the small-business CGT concessions, are small-business owners still subject to the 30 per cent minimum capital gains tax?

():  Yes, they are.

Minister, it's been noted by the media that many single older women use limited recourse borrowing arrangements to provide for their secure retirement. Why is the government supporting taking this secure retirement avenue away?

I understand that some there have been some accountants who say they use this in a particular set of circumstances. I mean, I haven't actually seen the gender breakdown of limited recourse borrowing, but, as I understand it, buyers of about 4,000 properties per year, a very small percentage of the residential market, utilise limited recourse borrowing arrangements. And I should say, SMSFs are still able to purchase residential properties. The change here is that they can't borrow to purchase residential properties. We're responding, in fact, not only to the issue of the Council of Financial Regulators but also of the Murray inquiry, which found that these arrangements can represent a significant risk to some individuals' retirement savings, particularly when they have low-balance SMSFs with high asset concentration or personal guarantees. As Minister for Women, when I talk with women's organisations—

There's no systemic risk identified. None of it is right. It's all wrong.

Well, if I can answer, you can have the opportunity to ask questions. When I work with women's organisations and women's advocacy organisations right across the economy, in the non-government sector, in business, in industry, when they are talking to me about issues that affect women, they are definitely talking not only about housing but also about actually even being able to afford to rent a house to live in. It's around making sure they have superannuation. That's a good start. As you know, we have done a number of things to make sure that women get a better deal when it comes to superannuation, including boosting the low income super tax offset.

It's a scam.

Well, you think super's a scam? I know you think it's a scam, Senator Bragg, like everything about you and everything you say in committees. I understand what you think about super.

You're obsessed with it.

I'm not the one obsessed, Senator Bragg. With all due respect, your hatred and loathing, particularly of industry superannuation is well understood—

You're going out of your way to protect these big guys, and you're kicking the small people.

and well known in this chamber—

Minister, could you resume your seat just for a minute. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I know it's very tempting to take the interjections. It's not my time you're wasting, Senator Bragg. If you want the call, stand up, and I'll give it to you. Minister.

That is well understood, Senator Bragg. So anything you say about super really should be seen through the lens that you don't think people should have super. We have a different view on that. We think superannuation and being able to live a dignified retirement with savings accumulated through your working life is an important part of the social compact we have here in this country, and we don't resile from that. We have, since coming to government, looked at ways to make the system fairer and stronger—except that you, I think, have voted no to any of those reforms.

Going back to the question around women, the issues that are raised with me around super and women and how to get a better deal are: how we make sure that women are paid properly for the work they do; how we close the gender pay gap because, when we're doing those things, women will get more super into their superannuation account; how we compensate for periods of time away from work, like paid parental leave—and we're dealing with that—and, for those on lower incomes, the lower income super tax offset which we are adjusting and increasing. They have all been part of our thinking. So I don't know that any criticism of the government in terms of how we approach the question of superannuation and women is warranted. This is a decision taken quite separately to that around risks to financial stability and ensuring that people's retirement savings aren't impacted by decisions to borrow against their SMSF.

Can we just go back to the new limited recourse borrowing arrangements. Which superannuation industry bodies did the government consult with regarding this amendment before agreeing to it, and on what dates did those consultations occur?

I don't have that information available with me. This is an issue that has been around for a long time. It was first raised in 2014 under your government obviously in another area. We saw you get some information and do nothing about it, as is symbolic of that period of time in government. You got a whole lot of information about a whole lot of things, and you did nothing about it. Add that one to the list. So this is not a new issue in terms of people raising it. I don't know that I'm going to be able to provide an answer to when, who, how—all of that—but I will see what I can provide if there is anything further.

In relation to whether there's anything that you're able to provide further, Minister, I note that the Treasurer has referred to advice from the Council of Financial Regulators in 2019 and 2022 relevant to these changes. Will the minister undertake to table that advice in full and confirm whether that advice recommended prohibiting these borrowing arrangements?

My understanding is that those reports are public. In the Council of Financial Regulators 2022 report, it says:

LRBAs may present a significant risk to some individuals' retirement savings, particularly low-balance SMSFs with high asset concentration and/or personal guarantees.

The earlier inquiry, though—the one that your government received—the 2014 Murray Financial System Inquiry, says:

Direct borrowing by superannuation funds … is also inconsistent with the objectives of superannuation to be a savings vehicle for retirement income.

It goes on to say:

… prohibition … would preserve the strengths and benefits the superannuation system has delivered to individuals, the financial system and the economy, and limit the risks to taxpayers.

That was from the Murray inquiry.

The Treasurer has stated that the changes to limited recourse borrowing will improve the budget position by $50 million over the forward estimates. I was wondering whether the minister could tell the chamber on what date Treasury first provided the government with a costing for this measure and on what date Treasury first provided advice recommending it.

I don't know how we take things on notice in this process. There was advice provided following the committee inquiry hearings where this issue was raised, and I would expect that the costing—an indicative costing—would have come alongside or just after that. The Treasurer did say, in his media conference when announcing this, that it's an indicative costing and it will be updated in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook at the end of the year, as is normal for any decisions taken post-budget. We update them in the next economic update.

Thank you, Minister. I note that you have endeavoured to provide that information in whatever way possible. So that I'm very clear, you said that the costings and the advice were likely provided following the committee inquiry. I don't think I've paraphrased you too much there. Was that following the inquiry or was that following the tabling of the report into the inquiry?

I don't know that I can be any more specific than I've already been. In relation to the decision the government has taken, which was announced, I think, on Thursday—we made some announcements on Thursday last week and then announced earlier this week—my understanding is that the advice on limited recourse borrowing was provided from Treasury post the committee hearing. If I can be more specific than that, I will.

So, at some point between the Senate committee hearings wrapping up and the Treasurer announcing the changes last Thursday, it would be fair to say that the advice and the costing had been provided?

Yes. Sorry—I wasn't clear in my earlier answer, but I was saying on Thursday, so before, because I think the committee reported on Thursday. It was Thursday or Friday; I can't remember. It was last week sometime. We made some amendments. We made an announcement about amendments on Thursday last week, which go to the small-business arrangements, some of the decisions we took on testamentary discretionary trusts and a few other things. The decision was reflected in the announcement on limited recourse borrowing. The announcement was made on Tuesday this week.

Minister, I'll move on to a different topic: the impact of your tax changes on housing. We know that the budget says 35,000 fewer homes will be built as a result of the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes. We also know that the reason any houses are being built is that the infrastructure fund you borrowed from a previous coalition policy we have indeed since matched and increased. Minister, I was wondering whether you had a breakdown of how many of those 35,000 fewer homes that will be built under these changes are as a result of the CGT changes in schedule 1 alone?

This goes back to our earlier discussion. It's not broken down by impact on capital gains alone. The advice feeds into the figure, is my understanding, of the impact on 35,000 over the next decade, and that's comparing just on the tax changes. So, as you say, we've made a range of other decisions in the budget papers and in the budget measures which will increase housing supply by 30,000 because of the investments we're making in the housing infrastructure side of the budget. That 35,000 dwellings number is not broken down by a particular change to just one element of the package.

Before I call Senator Chandler, I notice that Senator Pocock is waiting patiently. Senator Chandler, I'm keen to share the call around if we can.

I seek leave to withdraw amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, standing in my name, on sheets 3878 and 3898.

Leave granted.

I withdraw these amendments. I have been provided with assurances from the government in this chamber earlier, including by Minister Gallagher, that they will address the issues I've raised regarding the need to preserve grandfathered CGT and negative gearing concessions in the case of death or divorce and will give effect to this in the next tranche of legislation.

I don't think this is ideal. This should have been sorted out in this primary legislation. The Senate should have had more time to actually look at these issues that we are identifying. However, I'm prepared to take the government's commitment in good faith and therefore will no longer proceed with the amendments, which will be a couple of votes less in the guillotine.

I do want to say, though, as a crossbencher, that the government's language is a little bit disappointing. They're saying that this is something that they knew about all along and were going to address, and yet, just this morning, we had ministers on the radio saying that it wasn't an issue and it was just how the system worked and there was nothing to see here. I just want to note as a crossbencher that, when you engage in good faith with amendments, it seems like the Labor government has this default position on private senators' bills on amendments. Unless they absolutely have to, they don't really want to entertain any, and I think we could have far more constructive politics.

But these amendments do go to fairness and also ensure that this legislation doesn't disadvantage predominantly women, who, as I said yesterday, statistically outlive us men and have less superannuation savings. Clearly, if you look at the case of death or divorce, this is something that we need to be taking into account. I thank the government for its good faith commitment and the Treasurer's office and his staff who have worked on this. I look forward to seeing the government deliver it in the next tranche of legislation.

Thank you, Senator Pocock. The Senate notes that you've withdrawn your amendments.

Just to follow on from Senator Pocock, because I did try to address these when he wasn't in the chamber, I have a couple of things. I take your criticism—well, I don't accept it, but I note the criticism you made of the government. I would say that we try to engage in good faith in this chamber. The door is open to anyone who has ideas and amendments and suggestions. But that requires crossbenchers or members of the opposition also putting those forward.

I understand there was a crossbench briefing yesterday that went for nearly an hour. Some of the issues, Senator Pocock, that you've raised through amendments were not raised through that forum. That's your choice about whether you use that forum for that. I'm just saying that it's not just a one-way street. You could have raised some of your concerns around this with the Treasurer, engaged and sought a way through.

You're a very naughty boy!

No, I'm not saying that, Senator Bragg. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's not a one-way street here. My understanding, and how I choose to work, is that my door is always open. If anyone comes and says, 'I think you need to amend your bill,' or 'This is a particular concern,' then I sit down and talk with them about it. I may agree with them, or I may disagree with them, but I try to get to the bottom of it. I think that goes for the Treasurer and other ministers as well.

Yesterday, Senator Pocock, you raised this in question time. In my answer I said that because there are a number of different ways, and because the system is complex, big reform is complex. I said earlier that the GST reform, A New Tax System, took 30 bills to implement because of these different interactions that happen across the tax legislation that exists in Australia. It is not unusual to have an overarching piece and then do subsequent pieces of legislation. Particular circumstances and arrangements—whether it be inheritance, marital breakdown, tenancy arrangements or a whole range of things—will need to be worked through and responded to in subsequent tranches of legislation where there is obviously open room for debate on all of those things.

The government had been clear that this was going to be our approach. We made clear on budget night that there would be a series of bills that implement the decisions. But in order to get these ones locked down, the overarching architecture has to happen before you can do subsequent pieces of legislation. It's the nature of how you approach this task. We have TLABs in here all the time because of that. Treasury laws are constantly being amended because of the various ways changes interact across different pieces of the statute. Dealing with this piece allows the focus on the second piece which will deal with a lot of these specific interactions and how they occur.

I think I've been clear in a number of interviews, and the Treasurer has been clear in a number of interviews, that we're aware of the fact that we need a second piece of legislation and that we will be dealing in there with some of the more specific interactions and complex interactions that exist across the tax legislative program.

Thank you, Minister, for that. We do appreciate the briefings. I always took what happens in there to be confidential, but, given that you're wanting to tell everyone what questions I didn't ask—

I didn't mean to breach any confidentiality.

For people's understanding, there are a whole range of bills, and it's fairly rapid fire; it's not like you get a chance to go through every single one of your amendments or concerns about bills. It's a good thing that the government does, but it is in no way an opportunity to talk at length about suggested amendments.

As to the GST bills, there was also a three-month Senate inquiry into those changes through a select committee. I think that's in stark contrast to what senators are having to deal with when it comes to these changes, which was an almost farcical, compressed Senate inquiry. A huge number of concerns were raised, and the government palmed most of them off, saying, 'Sure, we'll deal with them down the track.' A lot of stakeholders are rightly concerned. As someone who actually agrees with the intent of these bills, my argument has been that if it's about closing loopholes, let's do it properly. I don't understand why there is such an urgent rush for changes that only come into effect down the track. Surely, we should just get this right. I think the Greens had an opportunity to do exactly that—to make sure that we are closing the loopholes and that we are creating a tax system that rewards hard work and taxes sweat less than it taxes equity.

I appreciate the minister's commitment on this, but some of it's hard to cop when you're really scrambling to get stuff drafted—we've talked about drafting resources so many times as a crossbench. We agree with the intent of the bill. We're putting forward amendments in good faith, and then we're somehow accused of not engaging.

I'm sorry if I've breached confidence. That was not the intention of making that remark, but I am responding to the fact that there are multiple avenues for discussions to occur. You criticise the government. I'm merely saying that there was plenty of opportunity for discussions to be had on these matters well before this committee stage of the report. In relation to the inquiry, there has been a Senate select inquiry into this that did go for some period of time.

These issues have been well ventilated in public debate over a number of years that I can recall. This legislation seeks to provide the certainty that the reforms are changing. The reforms are being made. It provides certainty about the way forward, and then the subsequent opportunity for extensive discussion and consultations will happen on the second piece of legislation, and I would encourage everyone who's interested in that to get involved and to engage and to engage early. We as ministers stand ready to support those consultations.

I have a couple of questions on housing, but, before I do that, I seek leave to withdraw amendments on sheet 3893 please.

Leave granted.

I withdraw the amendments on sheet 3893. Effectively, this budget has now been announced four times in four different ways. On 30 May, you had the main budget. On 18 June, you announced a bunch of different changes for small businesses. On 23 June, you announced the self-managed super fund thing. On 25 June, today, you announced you're not going to do the death and divorce tax. On what basis is the original regulatory impact analysis actually valid? Which model of these four budgets did you actually cost?

Another wonderful contribution from Senator Bragg—cynical, treats it like it's a bit of a joke, a bit funny, a bit schoolboy, a bit university. This is significant and serious tax reform. You might find it funny and entertaining. We flagged on budget night that there would be further consultations in a number of areas. We are doing that. We flagged on budget night that there would be several pieces of legislation. That has not changed. The arrangements and the budget we tabled is the tax reform we are proceeding with, with some amendments that we have responded to now. Either you don't respond to ideas that come forward and then we're criticised for not responding or, where we can reach agreement and make sensible adjustments to the overall package, you criticise us for that. One might think that maybe you don't support this overall tax reform, Senator Bragg, and that you're going to criticise whatever happens, and you'll see it in the cynical lens through which the opposition has chosen to view this important reform.

As someone who's so fixed on housing—and you are. You've been focused on this in the last term and this term. It's a shame that you weren't as focused on this in the government that you were a member of, when they built about 370 social and affordable housing properties over a decade. They could've done with your level of interest on this that you have now, when you were actually in a position to make decisions and deliver on them. Anyway, let's put that aside. I think, if you weren't a member of the Liberal Party, you would support these changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax because you know that what we say is true.

The distortion that exists in the housing market and its intersection with the tax system at the moment is not working in the interests of every Australian. It may be working in the interests of some, and that's fine. Those laws and the arrangements are there as they are today. But, when these laws change, we think it will be a better and fairer system for a lot more people. Senator Bragg, I've watched you talk about housing and I've listened to what you have said on it, but I can't reconcile your focus on housing in this country as a key economic and social priority with your opposition to these changes. I can't reconcile them. Therefore, I have to think that you don't think that; it's just because you're over there that you have to take this political position.

It's really clear that first home buyers and younger generations have been competing with investors for established housing in this country and have often lost out because they are not able to avail themselves of the concessional treatment that the laws currently allow in order to compete on a level playing field. We think that's wrong. We think the system as it stands now, the status quo, that you seek to protect is broken, and these reforms tackle that. This is the budget we tabled on budget night. These are the laws that we're debating that relate to those decisions. We've made adjustments where it's sensible, reasonable and affordable to do so. We think a government that listens and responds is a good thing, and we will bring forward further legislation to implement the full package over this calendar year.

In the interest of time and given that the minister wants to make political speeches, I'll note a few things for the record, because I think this is an important process of our parliament. What we don't have as it stands, given you want to pass this bill today, is any sense of what the definition of a 'new build' would be. I know you've flagged it'll be in future legislation, but I would've thought, if you were going to crow about some sort of a tax reform on housing, that the housing tax reform—noting the bunny ears here, as an indication of my view that it's not really reform, because $77 billion in new taxes is not tax reform when you leave the country with the highest 'pay as you go' system and the highest 'capital gains tax' system in the English-speaking world. But I note that we have no sense of what the definition of a 'new build' would be, which I would've thought would've been pretty germane to this endeavour, but apparently it's not.

The other thing that we don't have is any explanation as to the question I asked before, when I received a political torrent, in relation to the regulatory impact analysis and which version of this budget was actually put through the analysis. We also don't have any sense of why there's been a distinction in this new reform, as you said, between a new build and an existing home in relation to your principle reforms. But, then, when you come to your reforms to prevent certain funds from investing in houses, we have no sense of why you have not chosen to make a distinction there. As far as we can see, you're wanting to stop all SMSFs from borrowing to invest in housing, irrespective of whether that is an existing house or a new house.

We also have no explanation as to the government's response to the many esteemed economists that have predicted significant increases in rents. As Senator Chandler canvassed before, we have no real understanding of the modelling done on the 35,000 fewer houses. Every time we've sought to ask detailed questions about how you have modelled these 35,000 fewer houses, all we've been able to hear is political responses that this has been offset with infrastructure funding. I think it is a reasonable line of inquiry for us to understand exactly how you can justify, and how you have modelled in detail, those 35,000 fewer houses. Most typical people would look at it and say, 'Why would any government want to reduce any supply endeavour at the moment?' But this fourth iteration of this budget reduces supply in two areas; it reduces supply by 35,000—that is the Treasury's own number—and then it will also reduce supply by preventing certain investors from investing into houses, including new houses. Those are the main questions I have. I'd put them separately, but, given the propensity for lengthy political speeches, I thought, for the efficiency of the chamber, I'd put them all at the same time.

I appreciate that, Senator Bragg. You're usually pretty direct and straight to the point.

On the new builds and the definitions, we have been clear that we will bring back those definitions. The budget paper already sets out the core elements of a new build for the purposes of the tax changes. It says: 'A new build is a dwelling that genuinely adds to new housing supply and includes a new constructed apartment off the plan, a duplex constructed through a knock-down rebuild replacing a single house, thereby increasing the total number of dwellings. Any residential construction on previously vacant land, a knock-down and rebuild, isn't a new build unless it adds to the number of dwellings. For example, two townhouses replacing one house and a substantial renovation isn't a new build if it doesn't increase the number of dwellings.' What we are consulting on, to bring back through the second piece of legislation, is the drafting of those principles into legislative content, and we will continue to work through those. Senator Bragg, you will have plenty of time to apply scrutiny to those definitions. We're doing this to provide as much certainty on the implementation details on the government's tax reform as possible.

In relation to the assessment of the budget and whether anything further has been done, the analysis that was done for the budget remains. In terms of impact on renters, I think page 158 of BP1 should answer some of your questions. Box 4.4, 'Housing measures in this budget', talks through the additional 75,000 Australians that we expect will buy their own home over the next decade, driven by these reforms, and the new 30,000 homes that are supported by our investments in infrastructure. It goes through the impacts on house prices, I think, and the impacts on rent:

The reforms are likely to have a small impact on rents, with an expected increase of less than $2 per week for a household paying the current median rent.

As we all know, that analysis is based on the reforms. We know there are many different factors that affect how the housing market operates. But we believe the analysis in the budget provides people with the information they need to understand how Treasury expects these reforms to impact across the economy.

This is the worst budget that's been handed down. The public are having a say over this. All this is is a tax grab because you, the government, cannot rein in your spending; that's what this is about. You're going to rip $77 billion out of the taxpayers' pockets—more taxes going your way because you can't control your spending. That's what this budget is about.

You talk about investment. We're keeping people out of the investment market. Why has that happened? It's because we've had the highest immigration into this country basically in history under this government. In 2022-23 we had 739,000 people arrive. Yes, there might have been a couple of hundred thousand that left, but high immigration has caused the squeeze on the Australian people in terms of being able to get into housing. This is what I've been on and on and on about—high immigration.

Another thing too is foreign investment. You have not reined in foreign investors in the country. You worry about the Australian investor. You want to shut them out of it. You've done nothing. Only after I spoke about it prior to the last election did you finally put a stop to foreign investors for two years. But you keep bringing so many people into the country. What are you doing about the foreign investors that are here in Australia to ensure that Australians can have homes?

It's so frustrating to listen to your concern about the Australian people because so many people are homeless in this nation. There are 130,000 living in their tents, living in their cars or couch surfing. They don't have a roof over their heads. But you kept bringing in immigrants regardless of what the people said. Therefore, we're in the predicament that we are in. This is nothing but a scam. Your whole policy, even that $10 billion housing policy, which never built a house for years—you have never been able to produce that at all. Then you have a go at us, saying, 'One Nation never supported housing policy.' I'll support good policies, but I won't when I see it's rubbish and smoke and mirrors from that mob over there. You're really not doing anything.

You think you're fooling the Australian people. What you've done is put them in poverty in this nation with your policies because you can't rein in your spending. Why have we got an Aboriginal ambassador that's travelling the world at a cost of $800,000 and has done absolutely nothing—no reports—and we're paying them $400,000 a year? I thought our issues were here in Australia, not travelling the world. This is where the money's gone. Why is there $600 million for Papua New Guinea for a footy team? I can go on and on and on about the waste of money that you've allowed, and now you want to put your hand into the pockets of Australians again over this.

You talk about investment in the country and you talk about negative gearing. There's no aspiration whatsoever for those future generations. Those people have watched their parents, who are from my generation, be given the opportunity to invest in housing. You could rent it out. That rent could actually pay off the mortgage, and then eventually you could actually sell it for a profit, which would help you later in life, which we have done. And now we're trying to help our kids as well. That was aspiration, not just socialist policies.

What you want to do is get rid of investments in Australia by the Australian people. Most of your investments in Australia are coming from police, nurses, paramedics—these sorts of people—who have an opportunity to invest for their future. Heaven knows how the hell they're going to support themselves. I can't see them getting the age pension, because there won't be the money under this government. We've got $380 billion coming in in revenue in this area, and we're paying out over $300 billion in welfare in this nation. We won't be able to support future generations in aged care. Even the pensioners now are suffering. You can't even support the 100,000 pensioners waiting for packages. It's a tax grab.

You talk about capital gains tax. Again, I want the people to understand what this is about. I've worked hard. I've paid my taxes and PAYG tax. I've then gone and used that money to buy myself some jewellery or whatever it might be. I've bought myself something with that. When I bought that piece of jewellery, I paid tax. You robbed me of another 10 per cent of my hard-earned money. You took another 10 per cent in tax off me.

Under your bill, when I want to go and sell that piece of jewellery or that painting or whatever I may have bought, which may have increased in value, you now want to put your hand in my pocket again and you want to profit. You want to take from that increased value of that piece of jewellery or that painting or whatever I might have. You want to take that from me again. You want to take the profit from it. Of course, I've got to get that all valued and I have to put down on paper what it's worth, and you want to take the profit from me. Tell me, if I actually make a loss on that, are you going to reimburse me in my tax? Where do you stand on this? Where do you stand on taxing people on the assets that belong to them? Why do you think that you have the right to put your hand in the pockets, again, of all those Australians out there because they've decided to buy themselves something that they may value, and rip them off again?

Sorry, I must have missed the question at the end there. I think it was about losses. I mean, if you make a loss on your asset now, you can—

I've got the floor.

You don't know what you're answering.

I'll answer that part of it.

I'm quite happy to tell you what my question was.

Senator Hanson, please take your seat. The minister is on her feet, and she has the call

With all respect, I was trying to get some advice to answer components. You had quite a lot in that; it wasn't a single question. There was a range of issues that you raised that I was seeking advice so that I was in a position to answer you. If you make a loss on an asset, you can offset that against other income, so that doesn't change. I hope that addresses that question.

Just to be clear, we are changing the way a concession operates. We are not changing the fact that there is a concession. If you look at the budget papers across all asset classes, there are big periods of time where the current arrangements under compensate investors because it's a flat 50 per cent. It's all there in the budget papers. The model we are moving to adjusts that rate so your concession is made based off the real gain adjusted for inflation. So it's not that there is no concession. The way the concession is calculated is different and is more neutral to ensure that there isn't an overwhelming advantage to investing in established housing, which has had flow-on impacts onto the housing market.

In relation to your criticism of the budget as a whole, this government are proud of this budget, accept that you disagree with large parts of it and accept that you wouldn't support the decisions we have made. But we are determined to make sure that younger generations are able to purchase a house and are not competing against investors, which is the problem that's happening at the moment. Now, you can shake your head, Senator Hanson, but that is a problem. You talk to first homebuyers, and I've talked to some since the budget, where they have attended auctions and for the first time are not competing against investors who get a tax concession to bid against them. They don't get that same opportunity, so we are very focused on making sure that happens and also on making sure that wages earned through work are not doing the heavy lifting, or are more fairly balanced with the tax arrangements that exist for tax on assets, because at the moment that isn't treated as equally as these reforms would allow.

My concern over the last 24 hours is about having to have older and historic cars valued before 1 July next year. I've got a mate, Nick, in Melbourne, who is rebuilding a HK Holden. It won't be together by 1 July next year. How do we go from a zero value on a car that is not built? Everyone knows every car restoration project becomes 'that one-year project is the best three years of your life'. How does he go about getting a value on something that's not built?

Senator Cadell, cars and motor vehicles are exempt from CGT, and this includes vintage or classic cars. This is not changing. Those current arrangements apply. It's clear on the ATO website. An ATO determination sets out that even where a car is a collectable, it still remains a car for the purposes of this exemption, and any CGT is disregarded.

Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?

Yes I do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson.

I just want you to clarify, if I own a piece of jewellery—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It now being 1.30 pm, pursuant to the order agreed to on Tuesday, the time allotted for the debate on these bills and the two further bills has expired. I will now put the questions before the chair. Senator Chandler?

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further considerations of the bills without a limitation of time.

Let's be very clear about what is happening here. It is 1.30 pm on Thursday, and we have hit the guillotine on the most significant tax changes that we have seen in this country in a generation—rushed through a Senate inquiry process, rushed through this chamber. We have had limited time in the Committee of the Whole this afternoon to ask questions of the minister. I recognise the minister has sat here and answered questions, but we have not even been able to touch the sides on the consideration of the amendments more holistically.

The Committee of the Whole is meant to be one of the most important safeguards in this chamber. It is where we examine legislation line by line, it is where we examine amendments line by line and it is where we properly test the technical detail without artificial time limits. We are a chamber of scrutiny, and this is where scrutiny actually happens. But what we are seeing today is the exact opposite of that process. As I said, this bill has been rushed from the start. It has the hallmarks of legislation that has been written in haste. And when legislation is written in haste, it demands deeper scrutiny; it does not demand less. Instead, what do we get? We get an inquiry process that can only be described as a sham. It was an inquiry where serious questions were put forward by senators: questions from stakeholders, questions about how this legislation would actually operate. Those questions were not properly answered by officials at that Senate inquiry. They were avoided. They were delayed. They were brushed aside—and I will get to what happened with the questions on notice in a moment.

Now, after a rushed drafting process and an inquiry that failed to genuinely test the bill, we arrive at the final stage. The government's answer is to turn up here and say they were unable to answer certain questions. They can't provide the relevant modelling for others, and now they want to shut down debate altogether, before we have even been able to fulsomely debate the amendments that are here today, and pass this legislation. At one point, there were 20 amendments listed on the running sheet for this legislation today. Twenty amendments! That is not the sign of a bill that is already ready. That is not the sign of a bill that doesn't need fixing. Many of these are the government's own amendments to its own bill. We are being asked to consider legislation that was drafted quickly. It wasn't properly scrutinised through the inquiry process, and it is now being substantially amended at the last minute. And, at precisely the moment that those amendments should be examined in detail, we have regrettably hit the guillotine on this debate. That means senators will not have the opportunity to properly interrogate these amendments to test their consequences or ask the questions that should already have been answered.

This isn't actually about us. We need to remember in this place that this is not about us; this is about the people that we represent. When I talk to Australian businesses and when I get letters or emails from my constituents, I know that there are real and genuine concerns about the impact of these tax changes on them. It is our responsibility as senators to come into this place, to ask these questions and have them answered by the government. It is our responsibility to come into this place to try and make this legislation better. We have not been able to fulsomely do that today because we have not had enough time to consider the amendments.

Even the minister has acknowledged that these bills contain complex details. If that is the case, these complexities must be tested. Instead, we are being told, in effect: 'Trust us. We're the government. There's nothing to worry about here. All of the concerns that have been raised are nothing to worry about.' We've been asked to read the amendments quickly. We've been asked to try to understand exactly what they mean, very quickly. We haven't had the opportunity to ask further questions of the government about how these amendments work or what they might mean for the legislation or what they might mean for Australians. Instead, we are being forced to proceed to a vote.

What makes matters worse—I think we need to be very aware of this—is that the answers to questions on notice coming out of the Senate inquiry last week were only circulated to the relevant Senate committee at 11.55 am today. The committee-of-the-whole process was already underway when those QONs were provided to the chamber. So we are being asked to consider complex legislation and deal with 20 amendments, and we're still receiving basic answers as the debate is already underway. This is the guillotine in action, and this chamber should not accept it.

():  I move:

That the motion be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Pursuant to order agreed to on Tuesday, the time allotted for debate on these bills and two further bills has expired. I'll now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill.

I will begin with amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 3882, moved by Senator Chandler, to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. The question is that schedules 1 and 2 stand as printed.

As the last question was resolved in the affirmative, the consequential amendment on sheet 3882 will not be put. For clarity, as the One Nation amendments on sheet 3881 are identical to opposition amendments which were negatived, the question on the One Nation amendments will not be put. I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the government. We move to sheet AU131. The question is that the amendments on sheet AU131 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments to Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 12 (line 6), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 16 (line 6), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(3) Schedule 1, item 24, page 27 (line 12), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 28 (lines 3 to 5), omit "a new residential dwelling, to the provision of affordable housing, or to other CGT assets of a kind determined by the Minister", substitute "a new residential dwelling or to the provision of affordable housing".

(5) Schedule 1, item 28, page 28 (line 8), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(6) Schedule 1, item 30, page 28 (line 26), omit "New residential dwellings etc.", substitute "New residential dwellings".

(7) Schedule 1, item 30, page 29 (lines 14 to 19), omit subsections 115-102(2) and (3), substitute:

CGT assets to which this section relates

(2) This subsection covers a *new residential dwelling.

(8) Schedule 1, item 42, page 32 (line 15), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(9) Schedule 1, item 42, page 32 (line 27), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(10) Schedule 1, item 58, page 40 (lines 24 and 25), omit "to ensure a rate of tax of 30% on those gains (before applying offsets)", substitute "to ensure, before applying offsets, a rate of tax of 30% on so much of those gains as remains after applying section 119-5".

(11) Schedule 1, item 58, page 41 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 119-5(1), substitute:

(1) Your minimum tax capital gain (if any) for an income year is worked out as follows:

(a) first, total the amounts of *capital gains (if any) covered by subsection (2) that are remaining after applying step 6 of the method statement in subsection 102-5(1);

(b) next, reduce the result of paragraph (a) (but not below nil) by the total amount (if any) you are entitled to deduct, for the income year, under any of the following:

(i) Division 30 (about gifts or contributions);

(ii) Division 31 (about conservation covenants).

(12) Schedule 1, item 58, page 41 (line 22), omit "new residential dwellings etc.", substitute "new residential dwellings".

(13) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (line 27) to page 43 (line 10), omit section 119-15, substitute:

119-15 Exception for recipients of certain payments

(1) Section 119-10 does not apply to you if you receive, at any time during the income year, a payment covered by any of subsections (2) to (5).

Social Security Act 1991 payments

(2) This subsection covers the following payments under the Social Security Act 1991:

(a) an age pension under Part 2.2 of that Act;

(b) an austudy payment under Part 2.11A of that Act;

(c) a carer payment under Part 2.5 of that Act;

(d) a disability support pension under Part 2.3 of that Act;

(e) a double orphan pension under Part 2.20 of that Act;

(f) a jobseeker payment under Part 2.12 of that Act;

(g) parenting payment under Part 2.10 of that Act;

(h) special benefit under Part 2.15 of that Act;

(i) youth allowance under Part 2.11 of that Act.

Other social support payments

(3) This subsection covers the following payments:

(a) family tax benefit under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999;

(b) a stillborn baby payment under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999;

(c) farm household allowance under Part 2 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014;

(d) parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010;

(e) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 payments

(4) This subsection covers the following payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986:

(a) an age service pension under Division 3 of Part III of that Act;

(b) a carer service pension under former Division 6 of Part III of that Act, as saved by clause 8 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

(c) income support supplement under Part IIIA of that Act;

(d) an invalidity service pension under Division 4 of Part III of that Act;

(e) a partner service pension under Division 5 of Part III of that Act;

(f) a veteran payment under section 45SB of that Act;

(g) a pension under Part II or IV of that Act at a rate determined under or by reference to subsection 30(1) of that Act;

(h) a pension under Part II or IV of that Act at a rate determined under or by reference to paragraph 30(2)(a) or (b) of that Act;

(i) a pension under Part II or IV of that Act at a rate applicable under section 23, 24 or 25 of that Act.

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 payments

(5) This subsection covers the following payments under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004:

(a) a Special Rate Disability Pension under Part 6 of Chapter 4 of that Act;

(b) the weekly amount mentioned in paragraph 234(1)(b) of that Act, including a reduced weekly amount because of a choice under section 236 of that Act;

(c) a lump sum mentioned in subsection 236(5) of that Act.

(14) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 25), after item 77, insert:

77A Subsection 152-10(1AA) (note)

Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

77B At the end of subsection 152-10(1AA)

Add:

Note 2: Disregard the $2 million threshold in paragraph (b) for working out the availability of the small business 50% reduction mentioned in Subdivision 152-C (see subsection 152-205(2)).

(15) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 27), after item 78, insert:

78A Section 152-200

After "if the basic conditions in Subdivision 152-A are satisfied", insert "(assuming the $2 million threshold for a small business entity to be a CGT small business entity were disregarded)".

78B Section 152-205

Before "The amount", insert "(1)".

(16) Schedule 1, page 46 (after line 2), after item 79, insert:

79A At the end of section 152-205

Add:

(2) In working out for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the basic conditions in Subdivision 152-A are satisfied, disregard paragraph 152-10(1AA)(b).

(17) Schedule 1, item 82, page 47 (line 6), after "102", insert "or 152".

(18) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (line 18), omit ";", substitute ".".

(19) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (lines 19 to 21), omit paragraph 26-155(2)(d).

(20) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (after line 27), after subsection 26-155(3), insert:

(3A) Before determining an activity or purpose for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), the Minister must be satisfied that determining the activity or purpose will assist in achieving one or more of the following objectives:

(a) improving availability of social or affordable housing;

(b) improving housing outcomes for one or more of the following:

(i) Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons;

(ii) persons with a disability;

(iii) aged persons;

(iv) another class of persons suffering disadvantage.

(21) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (line 32), omit "; or", substitute ".".

(22) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (lines 33 and 34), omit paragraph 26-155(4)(c).

(23) Schedule 2, item 1, page 51 (line 26), omit ";", substitute ".".

(24) Schedule 2, item 1, page 51 (lines 27 and 28), omit paragraph 26-160(1)(e).

(25) Schedule 2, item 1, page 52 (line 20), omit ";", substitute ".".

(26) Schedule 2, item 1, page 52 (lines 21 and 22), omit paragraph 26-160(4)(e).

(27) Schedule 2, item 1, page 52 (after line 22), after subsection 26-160(4), insert:

(4A) Before determining requirements for the purposes of subsection (4), the Minister must be satisfied that determining the requirements will assist in achieving the objective of genuinely adding to the supply of residential dwellings in Australia.

(28) Schedule 3, item 1, page 56 (line 16), omit "(1)".

(29) Schedule 3, item 1, page 56 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph 61-160(1)(b), substitute:

(b) the amount that would be the amount of your basic income tax liability for the income year if your taxable income was comprised only of your net labour income worked out under subsection 61-155(2) for the income year.

(30) Schedule 3, item 1, page 56 (lines 20 and 21), omit subsection 61-160(2).

Question agreed to.

We're dealing with the amendments on sheet 3834. The question is the amendments be agreed to.

Australian Greens's circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (line 13), after "12 May 2026", insert "and in respect of which you have made an election under subsection (3A)".

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (after line 27), after subsection 26-155(3), insert:

(3A) You may make an election for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) in respect of one, and only one, *residential dwelling.

(3B) The election must be:

(a) in the *approved form; and

(b) given to the Commissioner.

(3C) The election can only be made once and cannot be varied or revoked.

I will now deal with the remaining Australian Greens amendments. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3886 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "taxation", insert "and superannuation".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:

(3) Page 65 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Limited recourse borrowing arrangements

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993

1 At the end of subsection 67 A( 2)

Add:

; and (c) for an asset that is real property—the asset is business real property (within the meaning of section 66 of this Act).

2 Application of amendment

(1) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to arrangements entered into on or after the commencement of this Schedule under which money is borrowed, or borrowings of money are maintained, for the acquisition of assets.

(2) However, the amendment does not apply in relation to such an arrangement to the extent that:

(a) the arrangement is for maintaining (or refinancing) a borrowing of money under another arrangement entered into before that commencement; or

(b) the acquisition of the asset (to which the borrowing under the arrangement relates) happens under an arrangement entered into before that commencement.

Note: This item means each of the following continues to be covered by the exception in subsection 67A(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993:

(a) a borrowing arrangement entered into before commencement;

(b) a refinancing arrangement covered by paragraph (2)(a);

(c) a borrowing arrangement for which the related asset is acquired under an arrangement entered into before that commencement (even if the settlement for the acquisition of the asset happens after that commencement).

I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3869, 3872, 3873, 3874, 3875, 3876, 3877 and 3879 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

SHEET 3869

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items.

(2) Omit Schedule 1 and incorporate it as an amending schedule to a separate bill (the second bill).

(3) Insert at the beginning of the second bill:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes

The Parliament of Australia enacts:

1 Short title

This Act is the Treasury Laws Amendment (CGT Adjustments) Act 2026.

2 Commencement

(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 as effect according to its terms.

Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.

(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.

3 Schedules

Legislation that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.

_____

SHEET 3872

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "to 3", substitute "to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Independent review of amendments

Requirement to conduct review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before 1 July 2029.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the review is completed on the day the report of the review is given to the Minister.

Minister to be given report of review

(4) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3873

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 65 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Small business instant asset write off

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 Section 328-170

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

2 Section 328-180 (heading)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

3 Paragraph 328-180(1)(b)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

4 Paragraph 328-180(2)(a)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

5 Paragraph 328-180(3)(a)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

6 At the end of section 328-180

Add:

(6) Any amount of $30,000 referred to in this section is indexed annually.

Note: Subdivision 960-M shows you how to index amounts.

7 Subsection 328-215(4)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

8 Subsection 328-250(1)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

9 Subsection 328-250(4) (heading)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

10 Subsection 328-253(4) (heading)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

11 Section 960-265 (after table item 12)

Insert:

Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997

12 Subsection 328-180(4)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

13 Paragraph 328-180(4 A)( b)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

14 Subsection 328-180(5)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

15 Subsection 328-180(6)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

16 Subsection 328-181(2)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

17 Subsection 328-181(3)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

18 Subsection 328-181(5)

Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".

_____

SHEET 3874

(1) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 35), after item 46, insert:

46A Section 152-5

Omit "$6,000,000", substitute "$12,000,000".

46B Subsection 152-10(1AA)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1AA) You are a CGT small business entity for an income year if you are a *small business entity for the income year.

Note: For the purposes of subsection (1A) or (1B), in determining whether an entity would be a small business entity, see also sections 152-48 and 152-78.

46C Section 152-15

Omit "$6,000,000", substitute "$12,000,000".

(2) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 6), after item 47, insert:

47A Subsection 165-115 AA( 1)

Omit "$6,000,000", substitute "$12,000,000".

47B Subsection 165-115 GC( 4)

Omit "$6,000,000", substitute "$12,000,000".

47C Subparagraph 328-430(1)(d)(ii)

Omit ", or would be satisfied in that income year if paragraph 152-10(1AA)(b) were disregarded".

_____

SHEET 3875

(1) Schedule 1, item 30, page 29 (after line 13), after subsection 115-102(1), insert:

(1A) This section also applies to a *discount capital gain if:

(a) you are an individual; and

(b) neither section 115-105 nor 115-110 (about foreign or temporary residents) applies to the discount capital gain; and

(c) you make the discount capital gain from a *CGT event happening on or after 1 July 2027 in relation to a *CGT asset covered by subsection (3A).

(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 29 (after line 19), after subsection 115-102(3), insert:

(3A) This subsection covers a *CGT asset in relation to which all of the following paragraphs apply:

(a) the CGT asset is *equity interests in the *shares of a company issued to you at a particular time;

(b) subsection 360-40(1) (about early stage innovation companies) applies to the company immediately after that time;

(c) the issue of those shares is an *acquisition of *ESS interests under an *employee share scheme.

(3) Schedule 1, item 30, page 29 (line 29), omit "the *discount capital gain", substitute "a *discount capital gain to which this section would otherwise apply because of that subsection".

(4) Schedule 1, item 30, page 30 (after line 4), at the end of section 115-102, add:

(6) Despite subsection (1A), you may choose for this section not to apply to a *discount capital gain to which this section would otherwise apply because of that subsection.

Note: Instead, the cost base of the CGT asset may be able to be indexed (see subsection 110-36(1A)).

_____

SHEET 3876

(1) Schedule 1, item 58, page 40 (line 24), after "30% on", insert "so much of".

(2) Schedule 1, item 58, page 40 (line 25), after "(before applying offsets)", insert "as exceeds $18,200".

(3) Schedule 1, item 58, page 41 (line 12), after "an income year is", insert "so much of".

(4) Schedule 1, item 58, page 41 (line 15), at the end of subsection 119-5(1), add "as exceeds $18,200".

_____

SHEET 3877

(1) Schedule 1, item 58, page 41 (after line 21), after paragraph 119-5(2)(a), insert:

(aa) the capital gain does not arise from a *CGT event happening in relation to a *CGT asset of a trust estate resulting from the will of a deceased individual; and

_____

SHEET 3879

(1) Schedule 1, page 36 (before line 30), before item 45, insert:

44B Before Division 130

Insert:

Division 129A — Capital gains averaging

Guide to Division 129A

129A-1 What this Division is about

This Division requires the Minister to make rules allowing capital gains made in an income year to be averaged over a 5-year period. The rules may set eligibility requirements and modify the operation of this Act to give effect to the capital gains averaging. The rules are legislative instruments.

Table of sections

Operative provisions

129A-5 Capital gains averaging

Operative provisions

129A-5 Capital gains averaging

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, make such rules as are necessary to allow you to average any *capital gains you make in an income year over a 5-year period that includes the income year in which you make the gain.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules may:

(a) specify requirements that must be met, or circumstances that must exist, for the rules to apply to your *capital gains; or

(b) modify the operation of any provision of this Act; or

(c) include application, saving or transitional provisions.

(3) The first rules under subsection (1) must be made within 3 months of the commencement of this section.

by leave—On behalf of Senator Lambie, can we please note that she was opposed to the amendments on sheet 3874?

Thank you, Senator Askew. I'll now deal with the amendment circulated by Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock on sheet 3880, but, before putting the question on the amendment, I will deal with the amendments to the amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that One Nation's amendments on sheet 3896 to Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock's amendment on sheet 3880 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments to Jacqui Lambie Network and David Pocock's circulated amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026—

AMENDMENTS TO JACQUI LAMBIE NETWORK AND SENATOR DAVID POCOCK AMENDMENT [SHEET 3880]

(1) Amendment (1), item 1, heading to subsection (3A), omit "one residential dwelling" substitute "two residential dwellings".

(2) Amendment (1), item 1, subsection (3C), omit "one, and only one, *residential dwelling", substitute "up to 2 *residential dwellings".

(3) Amendment (1), item 1, after subsection (3D), insert:

(3DA) At any one time, you may have an election under subsection (3C) in force for a maximum of 2 *residential dwellings.

The question is now that the amendment from Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock on sheet 3880 be agreed to.

Circulated amendment of Jacqui Lambie Network and Senator David Pocock to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 49 (after line 27), after subsection 26-155(3), insert:

Exception for one residential dwelling

(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1), disregard amounts you could otherwise deduct, and amounts of assessable income, to the extent those amounts relate to the using or holding of an *ownership interest in a *residential dwelling:

(a) that you *acquire on or after 7.30pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 12 May 2026; and

(b) in respect of which you have made an election under subsection (3C).

(3B) Despite subsection 118-130(2), for the purposes of paragraph (3A)(a) of this section, for a *residential dwelling that you *acquire under a contract, you have an *ownership interestin the residential dwelling from the time when you enter into the contract.

(3C) You may make an election for the purposes of paragraph (3A)(a) in respect of one, and only one, *residential dwelling.

(3D) An election under subsection (3C) must be:

(a) in the *approved form; and

(b) given to the Commissioner.

(3E) An election you make under subsection (3C) in respect of a *residential dwelling:

(a) cannot be varied; and

(b) remains in force until you cease holding an *ownership interest in the residential dwelling.

I will now deal with the requests for amendments to the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 circulated by One Nation. In accordance with the usual practice, the statements accompanying the requests circulated to this bill will be incorporated in Hansard. The question is that the requests for amendment on sheet 3895 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated reques ts for amendment s to the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 202 6

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Minimum tax on capital gains".

(2) Page 3 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Indexation of income tax thresholds

Income Tax Rates Act 1986

1 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

income tax threshold means the following amounts (subject to indexation under section 20A):

(a) the dollar amount mentioned in the definition of tax-free threshold in this subsection;

(b) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers);

(c) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for non-resident taxpayers);

(d) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers).

2 At the end of Part II

Add:

Division 5 — Indexation of income tax thresholds

20A Indexation of income tax thresholds

Indexation

(1) On 1 July 2027 and each later 1 July (the indexation day), each income tax threshold is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula:

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply for an indexation day if the indexation factor for the indexation day is 1 or less.

(3) The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards).

Indexation factor

(4) The indexation factor for an indexation day is the number worked out using the following formula:

Note: For index number, reference quarter and base quarter see subsection (8).

(5) The indexation factor is to be worked out to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the fourth decimal place is 5 or more).

Changes to CPI index reference period and publication of substituted index numbers

(6) Amounts are to be worked out under this section:

(a) using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index; and

(b) disregarding index numbers published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the index reference period).

Publication of income tax thresholds

(7) The Commissioner must, by notifiable instrument, publish the amounts worked out under subsection (1) for an indexation day as soon as practicable before the indexation day.

Definitions

(8) In this section:

base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter.

index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.

March quarter means a period of 3 months starting on 1 January.

reference quarter means the last March quarter before the indexation day.

3895-EM

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

(Request for amendments to be moved by Senator Hanson, on behalf of One Nation, in committee of the whole)

Statement pursuant to the order of   .the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation.

The amendments should therefore be moved as requests.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant   .to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (2)

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

Pursuant to order, I will report the bill.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 reported with amendments, including an amendment to the title of the bill; Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 reported without amendment.

Senator David Pocock has circulated an amendment to the motion that the report from the committee be adopted. I understand that Senator Chandler has circulated an amendment to Senator David Pocock's amendment. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave. Senator Chandler, are you seeking leave to move the amendment?

Yes, I am, President.

Leave not granted.

The question is that Senator Pocock's amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to, and the bills be now passed.

I will now deal with the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2025-2026 and a related bill. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The question now is that these bills be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senators, that concludes consideration of the bills. We will move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Under the legislation that the Albanese government and the Greens just voted for in the Senate right now, a new widow tax has just been legislated, which means that if a woman currently owns an investment property with her husband and her husband passes away, she will then become the sole owner but will no longer have access to a favourable CGT arrangement or negative gearing. This is the legislation that you just voted for, supported and applauded. Why is the Albanese government using the death of a spouse as a trigger to take away grandfathered capital gains tax and negative gearing treatments, and why should Australian women have to face higher taxes in their time of grief?

I thank Senator Hume for the question. She references the legislation that was just passed by this Senate, and I can confirm that that legislation will ensure that more Australians are able to buy their own home. It does deliver an additional tax cut to 13 million Australians, and I'm not surprised that Senator Hume stands when we talk about tax cuts—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume?

Madam President, a point of order on relevance. My question was about a widow's tax that has just been voted for.

Thank you. The minister is being relevant. I'll continue to listen closely and, if she isn't relevant, I'll draw her to the question.

I had 24 seconds in, and I appreciate that you don't like us talking about tax cuts for working people, Senator Hume, but that is the thing. What we on this side are very focused on is that these tax cuts will be delivered to working people, to 13 million Australians. And this ambitious change in our tax policies will ensure that more Australians are able to own their own home. In relation to the issues that were raised by the senator—and I think Minister Gallagher discussed yesterday—I can indicate the government does intend to address these issues in subsequent legislation.

So you just legislated a widow's tax?

Well, I would just make the point that we've been upfront about there being a set of tranches, of changes, to the tax arrangements, just as we have been clear that we have cut taxes for working Australians five times—five times.

Opposition senators interjecting—

And what we know, what is striking about that, is that every single one of those times you opposed it. So, Senator Hume, don't come in here with that fake outrage when you are the person that has led the opposition to vote against cuts in the taxes of working people.

Order! Senator Hume, resume your seat. I can assure senators, I am not having a question time where those on my left think it is your job to yell louder than the minister. The minister has an absolute right and should be given the same respect as the person asking the question. If you can't sit in silence, leave the chamber. But I'm giving you a warning. I will name you today. This is not a football match. It's not your job to yell louder than the minister. Senator Hume, first supplementary?

How insultingly smug. It's clear that the widow tax was actually a deliberate design feature of the Albanese government's heartless tax grab, along with your death tax. It was either rushed and incompetent or it was tricky and mean. Are you only allegedly planning to change these arrangements because you have been found out?

Absolutely not. Senator Hume, I would remind you that it is under this government that many changes, which have benefited women in particular, have been passed, often without support from those on the other side, whether it be the funding—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber. That was both sides of the chamber. Senator Cash and Senator Watt, I've asked you to listen in silence.

Whether it is the higher wages for those industries which employ many Australian women, whether it's early childhood educators or aged-care workers, the movement in the gender pay gap, which I know many on your side—I think this was described as a useless statistic by Senator Canavan, but what it actually means and what this actually has to do with, Senator Ruston, is the position of women in Australia. If you cared about the position of women in Australia, you would actually have supported some of these measures, but you do not. You have not been supportive of the gender pay gap improving. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

How can the Australian people trust a government which today knowingly voted for a widow's tax as part of its broken promises and cash grab? Is it true or is it not true that the Prime Minister is planning to change his position not to fix the widows tax issue at all but instead to force Australian women who are grieving to pay higher taxes?

Senator Cash, you're not answering the question. I've called the minister.

How could the Australian people trust an opposition that, no less than five times, has been opposed to tax cuts for working Australians? Let us just remember that it is this opposition that has tried to stand in the way of lower taxes for working Australians. It's very, very clear. That is what those opposite have done. And this is not a new position, because we remember that, under Senator Hume, also known as the senator—

On relevance, I think it's more appropriate for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to apologise to those women rather than abuse them.

Senator Hume, that is not a point of order. Minister Wong, please resume.

Labor senators have worked to deliver lower taxes for 13 million Australians. You, Senator Hume, also known as the 'senator for higher taxes', have not only today voted for lower taxes for working people but also went to the election wanting higher taxes for working people. So we all know where your priorities are.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Labor senators understand the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing, and we are acting to ease them. Today the Senate passed the Albanese Labor government's tax reforms—another step in delivering real change for millions of Australians. Can the minister update the chamber on what these reforms mean for Australians?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and commend her, along with all of her colleagues, for their steadfast support for working Australians, because the reforms that passed the Senate today deliver real change and deliver positive change for Australians. Labor is helping more people buy their own homes. Labor is cutting income taxes for workers again and again, and we are better aligning the treatment of Labor and asset income. This is not just for today; it is for the future, because our changes will mean more first home buyers will come into the system. That is 75,000 more Australians owning their own home. It will make the system fairer for the generations that follow.

This is all part of a budget focused on relief, resilience and reform; a budget which is about delivering a better, fairer, simpler tax system. The Albanese Labor government's five tax cuts will mean the average working Australian will be up to $2,800 a year better off every year from 2028, through new and permanent income tax cuts for every Australian worker and through the $250 working Australians tax offset. Australians can claim a $1,000 instant tax deduction with no receipts needed. Our changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts don't impact the majority of people, but they will help fund tax relief for more than 13 million Australian workers.

We on this side know the pressure Australians are under, which is why it is so important that we reject the fake outrage of those opposite, those who offer anger and scare campaigns but no solutions. This tax package is pro worker, pro aspiration, pro investment. It is about delivering for all Australians. (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

Minister, thank you for that answer outlining the ways the Albanese Labor government's tax reforms benefit Australian workers but also first home buyers and small businesses. Why is it so important that we have delivered these changes?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. You're right; it's important that these changes are delivered. It's important that they're delivered by the parliament now because Australians are under pressure and Australians do want change. That is what this Labor government is delivering.

Today the three right-wing parties—the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation—voted no again. They voted no to better, fairer, simpler taxes. They voted no to helping more Australians buy their own home. They voted no to cutting income taxes for workers again and again. You have to ask yourself, President: what do those opposite stand for? They don't even know themselves. They're not even sure who they want to stand for them. Even this morning we hear reports that the Liberal leader is on 'borrowed time'. There are some even arguing for Mr Wilson as an option. Well, let's just pause on that for a moment.

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for setting out how the Albanese Labor government reforms make for a simpler, fairer, better tax system which will get more Australians into their first home and cut taxes for millions of workers. Can the minister outline whether anything stands in the way of the government's approach to delivering real cost-of-living relief for millions of Australians?

At a time of global instability, of serious challenges in the world and at home, Australians do want their representatives to be serious and to deliver for them. That is why the Australian government is working hard to do just that—to deliver tax cuts for 13 million Australians and to ensure that more people can buy their own home.

What do we see from those opposite? We have the fake outrage from the senator for higher taxes, also known as Senator Hume, who went to the last election promising higher taxes for hardworking Australians. The opposition's outrage is about as real as Mr Wilson's hard-hitting doorstops on social media. Well, he will have to face some real questions if he does want to be Liberal leader. He'll have to come up with some actual answers because right now those opposite don't have any. All they do is seek to divide people and play Australians off against each other. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. This week, the Queensland Treasurer revealed that stamp duty revenues had been revised down in the wake of the federal budget because of the government's broken promises on capital gains tax and negative gearing. Why has the government imposed a tax grab on Australians, based on a lie, which now threatens the ability of state governments to properly fund our schools and hospitals?

I would make a few points. The first point I'd make is that we are here to deliver for a federal Labor government and for working Australians, and that is what we have done. That is why we have supported a tax package which ensures that 13 million working Australians will receive another tax cut. I would say to you, Senator—because you style yourself, with your hi-vis, as the champion of the working man—please tell us why it is you don't think working people deserve a tax cut, because that is what you have done. Now, when it comes to—

Senator Canavan, you need to wait until I've called you. Senator Canavan.

Madam President, a point of order on relevance. The question went to state government revenues. The minister hasn't gone there at all.

The minister's being relevant to your question, Senator Canavan. Minister Wong, please continue.

The second question I'm asked about is the states' schools and hospitals. It is this government which is delivering more funding to Australia's public schools and to Australian hospitals than any government in Australian history. It is this government which has rolled out and delivered 137 urgent care clinics providing bulk billed services to Australian families. It is this government. I think we have a very clear record about the priority this side of politics—the Labor government—attaches to delivering for schools, for hospitals and for Medicare. That is very clearly what we have been doing while you have been opposing, Senator Canavan.

You're smashing state revenue. It's economics 101!

Senator MacDonald, come to order.

I'll take the interjection from Senator Hume, who has a go at me again. I would say to you, Senator, your record demonstrates—

Would you like to talk about Chinese spies? Do you want to talk about that? Do you want to start this debate? Why don't you talk about the Chinese spies and how that single-handedly lost more votes for the coalition than any single person on that— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan, I assume you have a point of order but the time has expired. I would remind the chamber across all sides to be respectful. Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

I might ask again about state government revenues, because we went off on quite a few tangents in that question. The New South Wales government's budget this week showed a shortfall of $5 billion over their forward estimates from reduced stamp duty revenue, which is in part due to the anxiety that the government's tax grab has created in property markets. They're in freefall. Will the government provide additional support to state governments to ensure that our schools, our hospitals and other state government services don't suffer as a result?

This government has provided a great deal of support to state governments, particularly through—

More than any other government.

The finance minister tells me—and I'm sure her advice is correct—more than any other government in Australian history. I think our record stands for itself. We are funding hospitals at a higher level than any previous government. We are funding schools at a higher level, and we are putting more money into Medicare and the delivery of urgent care clinics. Senator, I appreciate that you want to stand up for the Queensland government; I wish you'd stood up for Queensland workers—

It was New South Wales.

Sorry—New South Wales. I apologise. I thought he said Queensland in the earlier question.

He did, in the first question. Now it's New South Wales.

Thank you. I appreciate your assistance, Senator Cash. What I would say to you, Senator Canavan, is that maybe it would have been better to stand up for the workers in Queensland and in New South Wales and voted for a tax cut today.

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

The government recognised in its budget that the tax changes may force some small businesses to change their company structures, and the government is offering rollover relief from the imposition of federal taxes, like capital gains tax, for companies that make such changes. However, such structural changes often also trigger a stamp duty tax by state government laws. Will the government compensate businesses who face a state government tax bill from its tax grab which is based on lies?

Thank you, Senator Canavan. My recollection is the Treasurer and the finance minister did flag in the budget papers the capacity for people to restructure their affairs, given the pending changes. I'm sure that those transitional issues, including the issue you addressed, will be addressed through that process.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Woodside's proposed Browse gas project would release 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution over its lifetime, the equivalent of four years of Australia's total current emissions. It's the carbon bomb to feed the North West Shelf and would threaten the pristine Scott Reef, pygmy blue whales and green turtles. New carbon attribution evidence shows that these emissions will directly contribute to mass coral bleaching events that each kill up to 30 million coral communities on the Great Barrier Reef. The evidence is clear: it doesn't matter where the gas is burned. The impact of climate change on nature must be considered. Minister, will you listen and commit to properly assessing Browse's massive climate impacts on our precious Great Barrier Reef?

Thanks, Senator Waters, for the question. As Senator Waters would be well aware, this project is currently subject to assessment under the federal EPBC Act, just as it is currently under assessment under Western Australian law. The project is right now being assessed by the Western Australian EPA and also by my department, soon to become the EPA on 1 July when, for the very first time in Australia's history, we will have a national EPA as a result of the Albanese Labor government's environmental reforms. The project is in the final EPBC decision stage awaiting regulatory advice and information from NOPSEMA and additional information from the proponent.

As a final decision has not been made on this project, it would not be appropriate to comment further. I am surprised that Senator Waters is asking me to express an opinion on the future of this project. She does remind us from time to time that she is a former environmental lawyer, and, on that basis, it would be a strange decision for a minister of the day to express an opinion on a project that is currently under assessment. That is a sure-fire way to make sure that the decision that is ultimately made is challenged in the courts, and I have every intention of complying with Australian environmental law when I conduct this assessment and approval decision.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Next month, the World Heritage Committee will be considering whether to include the Great Barrier Reef on the in danger list. Climate change is the biggest threat to the reef yet. This government has approved 36 fossil fuel projects and is now considering whether to add Browse to that list. People are watching what you, as environment minister, do and whether you choose to protect the reef or approve more oil, coal and gas. Which is it going to be?

I think we've all become familiar with the binary world that the Greens Party live in where you can only do one thing or the other. You can do one thing or the other. What this government has said consistently is that we will always assess individual projects on their merits, and this government has a record of finding ways to support economic development while protecting the environment. We've done that repeatedly when it comes to individual project decisions, and that was, of course, the guiding principle that sat behind our EPBC reforms, which were about delivering stronger environmental protections and faster and simpler decisions. That is, of course, a principle that the Greens Party supported in agreeing to pass those reforms at the end of last year.

Now, Senator Waters and her Greens colleagues do like to focus on coal and gas projects and what happens with them in terms of decisions. What they always fail to mention is that this government has approved over 140 renewable energy projects since coming to office, and we intend to approve a lot more than that. (Time expired)

This week, 10 Australians lodged a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing that by approving massive fossil fuel projects, failing to consider climate impacts and exporting our pollution, the Labor government is breaching international human rights obligations. When will the government finally take its climate responsibilities seriously and stop approving massive climate wrecking fossil fuel projects?

Of course Australian citizens are entitled to make those types of applications if they choose to. What the Australian government will do is comply with Australian law. And that's what we're doing in relation to the projects that Senator Waters has raised, as we have done with every single project that has been considered by me as minister or by my predecessors as environment minister. In the previous question, Senator Waters also raised the status of the Great Barrier Reef. We've certainly been working very hard over the last few months to put before the World Heritage Committee the evidence that demonstrates that the Great Barrier Reef is the best managed coral reef anywhere in the world.

Order!

It's why we have expended so much investment on the Great Barrier Reef since coming to power. It's why we've worked very hard with the Queensland government.

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson!

Senator Whish-Wilson, I called order twice. I called your name and you still showed such disrespect towards me. Listen in silence or leave the chamber.

We've been very pleased to put before the World Heritage Committee the evidence about what we're doing to protect and restore the reef, including the recent changes we made in the EPBC reforms. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. After extensive consultation, the first stage of the Albanese Labor government's tax reform package has now passed the Senate. The most significant tax reform in a quarter of a century, it delivers a tax cut for over 13 million working Australians, helps more first home buyers get into the market and backs small businesses. What does this landmark package deliver for Australian workers, small businesses and people trying to own their own home?

I thank Senator Sterle for the question. I acknowledge Senator Sterle's dedicated his entire career to working on behalf of working people, and it's with the support of all of those on this side of the chamber and in the other place that we have put forward this legislative agenda, this important tax reform package, which passed the Senate just before question time today. This is a victory for workers, first home buyers and future generations. The bill that passed today will help ensure that aspiration and opportunity are the birthright of every Australian, not just some. Today we've locked in two more rounds of income tax cuts for millions of Australians, a fair go for first home buyers and a fairer tax system that better aligns the treatment of labour and asset income.

This bill delivers on three objectives: it cuts taxes for every Australian worker again and again, it makes it easier for people to buy their first home, and it better aligns the tax treatment of income earned from wages with income earned from assets. The bill has four key elements that are central to the tax reform package, including a $250 working Australian tax offset for over 13 million Australian workers and a $1,000 instant tax deduction for workers. It reforms negative gearing, to apply to new builds only from 1 July 2027, and returns the capital gains tax concession to its original intent by reintroducing cost-base indexation so that only real gains are taxed. So we're reforming the tax system for workers, businesses and future generations. This is more assistance for working people from a government which cuts income taxes whenever we responsibly can. And we're now cutting income tax five times in three different ways. (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, first supplementary?

These reforms, as you said, are aimed at helping working people, first home buyers and small businesses. Who stands to benefit and how has the Albanese Labor government's consultation shaped a fairer package delivered collaboratively and in the interests of all Australians?

I thank Senator Sterle for that question too. In relation to consultation and working with others, we were upfront in the budget that we were consulting on certain details of the reforms, including for small businesses and startup businesses with a low cost base. The government's additional amendments are all about providing more clarity, confidence and support for small business and more incentives for innovation.

Senator Sterle asked, 'Who benefits?' Well, all working Australians benefit, Senator Sterle. Income tax cuts for over 13 million workers, first home buyers—these reforms will help 75,000 homeowners get into the market. In relation to young people, Treasury's analysis found that over 90 per cent of Australians would have been better off by the age of 30 had these tax reforms been in place from the year 2000, before factoring in housing affordability. For small businesses, there are a range of concessions, including raising the threshold from $2 million to $10 million to ensure that all active small businesses can get— (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

Minister, as you have said, this package delivers a tax cut for over 13 million working Australians. Minister, did anything stand in the way of delivering this tax relief, and why will the Albanese Labor government always back lower taxes for working people?

I thank Senator Sterle for that question. Through the passage of this legislation today, we're another step closer to delivering our tax reforms for workers, homebuyers and businesses. We know that those over on that side of the chamber all voted against tax cuts in the last term, and they're continuing that approach in this term. They're voting against tax cuts for working people, and they're voting against sensible changes, sensible reforms, to make the housing system work better for everybody.

What they have done today, in the way that they have voted, is to protect the status quo and to say that the housing system's working perfectly and that anyone who wants to buy a home can buy a home. We, on this side of the chamber, know that that's not the case. That's why we've been prepared to take this decision to reform the system and to make sure that younger Australians, in particular, can buy their own home without having to compete with investors who are getting concessional tax treatment to do so.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Morgan Stanley's chief economist has forecast property prices to decline by up to 10 per cent due to tax changes and rate hikes. On Wednesday morning, the Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, said Australia's falling house prices are due to a 'correction' in the housing market. That's confronting news for the two-thirds of Australian households who own their own home or are paying a mortgage, many of whom will now have negative equity. Was it a deliberate effect of your housing policy to reduce the value of a family home?

Thank you to the senator for the question, and, as I've said previously, as the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and others have said, our changes are about backing first home buyers and levelling the playing field. The reality is we all know that house prices have increased. I think it's in the order of 400 per cent since 2000. We know from our engagement with so many Australians that it is so much harder for young Australians to get into the housing market. We don't believe that status quo is acceptable. That is why we passed the reforms that we have.

In relation to house prices, what I'd refer you to is that the forecasts that were referenced in the budget papers indicated house prices will continue to grow, and that the changes in the budget would mean that house prices would be two per cent lower than they otherwise would have been. Obviously, that is the Treasury's modelling, and the modelling is the basis on which the government considers these policy matters.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

According to Roy Morgan, 1.19 million Australians are in mortgage stress and 830,000 are in extreme stress, after interest rates have risen 15 times under Labor. Many Australians have been forced to sell their homes, while auction clearance rates have fallen to their lowest level since the early days of the pandemic. Was this uncertainty a deliberate effect of your new taxes?

I think there are two points on that. The first is, obviously, we know the challenge inflation presents. We inherited very high inflation. We continue to work and to do what we can to deal with the inflation challenges in our economy.

The second point I would make is that one of the ways in which you can deal with this and the cost-of-living pressure that people are under is to ensure that you provide tax cuts where you can. And so I would remind you that you and your colleagues voted against tax cuts for working Australians, the very working Australians that you purport to be representing by way of that question.

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

Rents have increased 24 per cent since 2022. Your own budget papers admitted that, because of your tax hikes, rents will increase. Former Treasury economist Peter Downes has warned the changes will increase rents by up to $2,000, significantly higher than the $2 a week increase claimed in the budget. Were higher rents for Australians a deliberate effect of your new taxes?

The policy objective is about making sure that we can help more Australians enter the housing market and that we have 75,000 more Australians able to own their own home, because we on this side understand that the opportunities that most of us have had—we should ensure we do what is required to enable those opportunities for the next generation of Australians. It's as simple as that. We don't think the status quo, where so many young Australians are locked out of the housing market, is appropriate. We don't think it's right. We don't think that is about having a fair go in this country.

This legislation—the objective of the tax changes in relation to housing was about making sure that more Australians, more renters, have an opportunity to be homeowners. Again, I come back to this: if you were worried about cost of living, why did you vote against tax cuts?

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. Yesterday, H5 bird flu was detected in my home state of South Australia, following earlier detections in Western Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest information available about these detections and outline how the Albanese Labor government is working with states and territories, including South Australia, and with industry to respond? Can the minister also outline how the Albanese Labor government has supported states and territories to prepare for detections such as these, including through national coordination, surveillance, preparedness measures and broader biosecurity arrangements across Australia?

I thank Senator Walker for the question. Like many in this place, we recognise the seriousness of the detection of H5 bird flu in wildlife, and we understand the concern in the community, particularly in Senator Walker's home state of South Australia and also in Western Australia, President. I want to reiterate that the Albanese Labor government has been preparing for this since we've come to government, and our response to these detections is swift and coordinated. As confirmed yesterday, there have now been three detections of H5 bird flu in migratory seabirds—two were located in remote Western Australia and one in South Australia. A further sample from Western Australia is undergoing testing by CSIRO, and updates will be provided as results become available.

There remains no evidence of mass wildlife mortality and no evidence of infection in poultry or agriculture, and the risk to human health is low. With the global spread of H5, we have always been clear that we cannot prevent migratory birds from bringing the virus to our shores. That's why we've invested $113 million in preparedness as part of over $2 billion in strengthened biosecurity since coming to government. Our funding has made a difference on the ground, across all states and territories, to ensure Australia is well prepared for the arrival of H5 bird flu.

National biosecurity response arrangements have been activated. States and territories are leading on-ground responses, including testing and surveillance, supported by the Commonwealth. Along with our technical experts, ministers have been in close and continuing contact with industry, states and territories to manage our response to these detections.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

Can the minister outline how the Commonwealth is coordinating with states and territories, and relevant agencies, to ensure a consistent approach to surveillance, information sharing and response activities, including in relation to wildlife impacts and environmental considerations?

The national response to this issue has been comprehensive. As I mentioned earlier, national biosecurity response arrangements guide how the Commonwealth works with states and territories when we receive detections like these. States and territories are leading response activities on the ground, with Western Australia and South Australia managing surveillance, testing and engagement with industry and local communities. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is coordinating nationally, and chief veterinary officers from every state and territory are meeting daily. The Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases has met multiple times, endorsed a national surveillance plan and brought together every jurisdiction, CSIRO, industry representatives and wildlife health bodies. Environment and wildlife health experts are part of this work, including monitoring for impacts on native species. This is what coordinated national action looks like. (Time expired)

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

How does this response demonstrate Australia's broader national preparedness for H5 bird flu, including the systems, governance arrangements and investments in place to support a coordinated response across jurisdictions?

These detections show that our preparedness investments are working as intended. We said H5 bird flu was not a question of 'if', but 'when'. We acted on that assessment. In 2024 we established a dedicated whole-of-government taskforce across agriculture, environment, health and emergency management. We have run six national simulation exercises so that every jurisdiction knew their responsibilities before a single case was confirmed. Cost-sharing arrangements and governance frameworks were established and tested. Surveillance systems are now functioning as designed. Our $113 million investment has strengthened frontline capacity in every state and territory. This is what over $2 billion in biosecurity investment since coming to government looks like in practice.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister ruled out a coalition with the Greens, in his words, 385 times prior to the 2025 election. 'I don't negotiate with the Greens,' was one statement—tough talk! Since the Prime Minister's commitment to his voters not to deal with the Greens, how many times has Labor provided the Greens with concessions or other benefits to pass legislation?

The Prime Minister made very clear we would not enter any minority government with the Greens—and we won't. We are in a chamber where—unless we have the opposition behaving responsibly—we have to negotiate to get our legislation through. We make no apology for making sure we negotiated to ensure that 13 million Australians got a tax cut. We make no apology for that, and we will continue to do that until and unless we have people in this chamber who are prepared to actually give a fair go to working people, which is central to what this government wishes to do.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

A new party room, pushing oil and gas out of the streamlined EPBC pathways, and now delaying vital NDIS cuts to keep your coalition comrades' support on the worst tax hikes we've seen in generations. Will the Prime Minister come out and apologise to voters who were misled before the election, not realising that it would in fact be the Greens setting the agenda?

Two points. First, this is a Labor agenda, and Labor has delivered five tax cuts for working people in the period we've been in government. We will continue to do what we can to address cost-of-living pressures that Australians are experiencing, whether it is making sure that we support minimum wage rises and higher wages, particularly in the care industries, or making sure we continue to support public education and the delivery of bulk-billed services through urgent care clinics and elsewhere.

Second, I would make the point, Senator, that your party has voted with the coalition on numerous occasions against cost-of-living measures. You have voted against industrial relations changes which are about protecting working people. Your leader said, very clearly:

I'm not anti the coalition … I hope that we can work together…

(Time expired)

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

This Labor government has clearly entered into a coalition in substance with the Greens. All of the deals are being done behind closed doors—deals that are trading a tax cut equivalent to a cup of coffee a week for government ownership interests of up to 47 per cent of people's businesses. This Labor government is losing its base because it has abandoned them for the insane Greens party agenda. Will the Labor Party recommit now to its pre-election promise and stop making deals with the dirty Greens?

One Nation talks a big game about supporting Australians against the major parties, but your voting record demonstrates a different story because when you've had the opportunity to support Australians, you have said no. You've said no to five rounds of tax cuts. You've said no to five consecutive increases in the minimum wage. That's about 12 grand a year more, compared to when we came to office—sorry, I withdraw that; it's up $12,079 per year, compared to when we came to office—and 137 urgent care clinics. You have been opposed to that, but what you are prepared to do is work with the coalition to stand in the way of Labor delivering for working people. Senator Hanson, your leader, has made that very clear. She said:

I'm not anti the coalition … I hope that we can work together…

The uniparty—the right wing parties—are those opposite. It is Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, working together. (Time expired)

My question is to the minister representing the minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government's signature free TAFE program is opening up pathways for hundreds of thousands of people to get qualified in jobs that communities rely on each day. Jobs like being a chippie, a sparkie, an enrolled nurse or a childhood educator rely on the skills and training that TAFE provides. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of free TAFE enrolments and what impact this is having on the economy?

Thanks very much to Senator Dolega, who I know is a really strong supporter of those free TAFE programs in his home state of Tasmania. The Albanese government is backing apprentices and trainees and we're setting them up for a great career. Right around the country, we're building pathways for Australians to get the skills they want to do the jobs that we need.

Through free TAFE, we're opening up pathways for hundreds of thousands of people to get qualified for jobs that communities rely on each and every day. Through the free TAFE program, we've seen 742,000 enrolments in just three years. This will keep on growing, including in construction courses and care work, because our government has made free TAFE permanent. Free TAFE construction courses have now seen more than 58,000 enrolments nationwide, helping our government build that pipeline of tradies that we need to build more homes for Australians.

Another way is through our Key Apprenticeship Program, which provides $10,000 in incentive payments for new apprentices in housing construction and new energy industries, plus incentives for most employers too. We rolled out this program in July 2025 and, since then, more than 29,000 Australian apprentices have made their start in housing construction trades backed by our incentive payments. From carpenters to plumbers and electricians, the Albanese Labor government is backing more Australians to kickstart their apprenticeship in housing construction and helping them through to the finish line, too, with our $10,000 incentives. One such apprentice is Nick, a first-year carpentry apprentice from my home state of Queensland, who's earning and learning thanks to our Key Apprenticeship Program. Nick is one of 6,731 new housing construction apprentices in Queensland. Nick said he saw this carpentry apprenticeship as a pathway to setting himself up for the future in a job that is quite literally nation-building.

I hear the shadow minister piping up over there. Who could forget that first interview she did as the shadow minister for skills and trade, where she said she wanted to cut this program and take rights away from housing apprentices.

No, I didn't. That's you lying again.

Minister Wong, on a point of order?

I ask you to ask the senator to withdraw that please.

I didn't hear anything, Senator Wong. I'm not even sure who you're referring to.

Senator Nampijinpa Price made an unparliamentary remark in relation to Minister Watt. I'm requesting—

It's being deceitful.

She's now saying it again. I'm requesting that she withdraw.

Senator Nampijinpa Price, I didn't hear you make an unparliamentary remark, but, in the interest of the chamber, I would ask that, if you did, you withdraw please.

I was talking about what you suggested I said, which wasn't—

Senator Nampijinpa Price, when I ask for a withdrawal, I want you to withdraw without making comment. I'm asking you to do it again.

I withdraw.

Thank you. Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

Having a pipeline of skilled tradies in the critically important housing construction sector is vital in ensuring there are more homes being built in communities across the country. What other programs is the Albanese Labor government investing in to get more skilled people building more homes?

I know Senator Nampijinpa Price is a bit sensitive about her voting record. She's already been a National, now she's a Liberal and before long she's going to be a One Nation senator. So I understand the sensitivity, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Whether it's free TAFE or the Key Apprenticeship Program, the Albanese Labor government is supporting the—

That's right. Go personal when that's all you've got. You're pathetic.

You'll be able to say whatever you want when you're in One Nation. You haven't got long to wait. We all know you're going there. It's okay.

Minister Watt, I'm going to direct you back to the question. I'm also going to direct you to respond to the chair.

As I was saying, the Albanese government is supporting the next generation of tradies to get the skills they need. But of course not everyone in this chamber shares the same support of tradies that we do. Like their position on cutting tradies' wages, raising tradies' taxes and scrapping tradies' conditions, the Liberal Party and One Nation, including Senator Nampijinpa Price when she's a One Nation senator, are on a unity ticket when it comes to axing free TAFE. They're happy to go to a worksite, whack on the hi-vis vest and chase tradies' votes, but, every time they have a chance to vote for tradies, they vote against them, including by voting against free TAFE.

Senator Dolega, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is backing more Australians to become more qualified with the skills that we need, including in the care sector, for more nurses and aged-care workers. Minister, why is it important that the government present a united front in their support in getting more Australians into work?

Care sector courses as well are important in free TAFE. They represent one in four free TAFE enrolments nationally, and more than 60 per cent of all free TAFE enrolments are from women. The Albanese Labor government is all about building up our workers with the skills they need to get the job they want.

That, of course, is the complete opposite of what we're seeing happening on the other side of the chamber. Instead of the Liberal Party building each other up, they are tearing each other down. Just today we saw more reports that Liberal MPs are already saying their new opposition leader is on borrowed time. One Liberal went as far as saying this: 'What's not immediately obvious is who's viable as an alternative.' Guess what? You perform like this, and people become viable. They haven't got a viable alternative, but one is going to become viable because of what a shocker of an opposition leader Mr Taylor has become. We've been out there talking about the cuts and chaos from the Liberals and One Nation. It turns out it's the cuts from One Nation and the chaos of the Liberals after all. Cuts and chaos are not what we need. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Does the government want less private investment in Australia's housing market?

I thank Senator Bragg for the question. The government wants as many houses built as possible, which is why the government has put in place our $47 billion Australian housing plan, investing eight times more in housing than the coalition did in a decade. It is why the government has now successfully passed legislation through the Senate that works to level the playing field for first home buyers by limiting negative gearing to new builds and by the reform of capital gains tax, which, as you and I have discussed on multiple occasions, Senator Bragg, will ensure that there are 75,000 more first home buyers over 10 years. That's why we're investing $6.2 billion in local infrastructure for housing—again, 50 times what the coalition invested in enabling infrastructure—and why we have the five per cent deposit scheme helping more than 260,000 first home buyers, more than four times as many as the coalition helped in government. It is why we have the Help to Buy shared equity scheme, which is saving 40,000 workers up to 40 per cent off the cost of their own home. It is why we have delivered 55,000 social and affordable homes, when the Liberal Party in government built 373.

So it is very clear, Senator, that we want more investment in housing, we want more housing supply and we want to level the playing field for first home buyers, which is why we are pleased that the legislation has just passed the Senate—legislation you voted against. I remind you, Senator Bragg, that you have again voted against tax cuts for working people. Tax cuts for working people is obviously something you don't support.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Thank you very much for that answer. Is the minister aware that industry participants say that SMSFs can account for up to 30 per cent of pre-sales in apartment developments?

I didn't hear some of the question because of the interjections, but I assume you were talking about limited recourse borrowing arrangements. I think you and I spoke about this yesterday or the day before, Senator. I made the point that less than 10 per cent of self-managed super funds have one of these arrangements for residential property and, of course, existing arrangements will be unaffected. I think I may have also made the point that limited recourse borrowing arrangements are less than one per cent of total residential property borrowing and less than half a per cent of new—

Senator Bragg.

I have a point of order on relevance. The question was very clear in seeking whether the minister was aware that industry says that up to 30 per cent of new pre-sales can be supported by SMSFs.

Senator Bragg, the minister is being relevant to your question.

Senator, I was giving you the percentages that I'm advised about total residential property borrowing and new residential borrowing. I was also going to make the point that only about 4,000 new self-managed super fund borrowing arrangements occur each year on average. I know, because you can't actually defend the position you have, you're interested in having another argument and trying to make this a much larger issue than I think these statistics demonstrate that it is. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

If SMFSs are helping finance new housing, why is the government driving that investment out of the market?

As I said yesterday, these are a very small number of arrangements. The logic of them and of the amendment passed is the protection of superannuation savings. People are still able to purchase. We are simply banning these particular borrowing arrangements. I know, Senator, that you want to try and make this the issue because you want to try and avoid answering the question about why it is you don't want more first homeowners over the next 10 years and why you don't want 13 million Australians to be given a tax cut.

Happy Thursday, everyone. My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Bring it home, mate. A strong manufacturing industry president is key to Australia becoming more self-sufficient and less vulnerable to global supply chain vulnerabilities and pressures. What action is the Albanese Labor government undertaking to back in Australian businesses and strengthen our manufacturing industry?

It has been a big week in the Australian Senate—a big week delivering real change for young people who want to get their first home. That's what this Senate has done—not slogans, not Insta posts, but real tax reform, the hard road for Australians. The pathway in manufacturing is just the same—delivering real change for workers, real change for industry and tax cuts. The people who stand in the way are just the same. We have the biggest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history, from the Albanese government. It's to build a future economy that makes Australia stronger and more resilient and includes our regions and outer suburbs meaningfully in our economy. It is delivering for Australia 7½ thousand more manufacturing firms since 2020 to 2022. Manufacturing exports are up by 43 per cent. Manufacturing investment is up by 35 per cent—real substance not posturing.

I did watch with interest what the alternative position is on these questions, and that is self-indulgence and a race away from the centre. The Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator McKenzie, as opposed to the Leader of the Nationals who's in the Senate, has spent her time not here in the Senate fighting for manufacturing jobs but in London at some bizarre offbeat—

A point of order—there shouldn't be any reflection upon the absence of a senator from this place.

That's correct, Senator Scarr, but I don't think Minister Ayres actually referred to whether a senator was present or not. He just named—

He did.

If he did, then he shouldn't have done that. Minister Wong?

I'd ask you to consider that ruling, because I think, if the senator is making clear through media where they are, it is a legitimate point. You're right—there should not be no adverse inference in circumstances where that is not a public matter. But, if the senator is making clear where they are publicly, surely that's a matter of legitimate debate in the Senate.

Senator Wong, it is a long-held convention in this place, regardless of what might happen outside of this place, that we don't make reference. Senator Ayres, I don't think we normally ask people to withdraw, but I would ask you to withdraw.

I'm happy to withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Quick, ask ChatGPT.

Senator Canavan, which part of 'Order!' did you not understand? Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that wonderful answer. No wonder we call you the best industry minister this country has ever had.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, I do anyway! The Albanese government, as we know, is providing much-needed support to back Australian businesses facing an uncertain global environment. How is the Economic Resilience Program helping these Australian businesses manage the cost pressures, and how is it maintaining critical supply chains?

Thanks, Senator Ciccone, I think you've made my life more difficult than it necessarily needed to be! The Economic Resilience Program that we announced shortly after the conflict in the Middle East commenced is a good example of the practical assistance that this government is providing. Since the program opened eight weeks ago, more than $220 million in zero-interest loans has been approved for more than 240 firms impacted by the supply chain crisis, principally freight and logistics firms that have not immediately been able to pass diesel price rises on, predominantly small and medium businesses. That has kept Australia moving and kept essential supply chains moving.

So, while the Liberals and Nationals are focused on themselves and getting closer and closer to their partners in One Nation, this Albanese government has been delivering for blue-collar workers and for Australian manufacturing.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

Alright, last one—here we go. Minister, I'll be polite. Many businesses and, I think, many in the economy are starting to get confidence, and that is good to see, thanks to very strong and decisive action that has been taken by the Albanese government of late and also for a period of time. But I want to ask you this, Minister: what are the alternative views on how to support Australia's manufacturing industry, something that I know you and I have a very strong and personal connection to?

Well, there's a difference between real action and cheap political slogans. There is a real difference between real support for businesses like the Mount Isa smelter, the Port Pirie lead smelter, the Hobart zinc smelter and Whyalla steel, billions of dollars worth of support for the Boyne aluminium smelter, working hard in every industrial area—

including, as Senator Colbeck points out, in north-east Tasmania. We have been working hard, as a government, with real businesses. And what do we see over there? Mr Hastie's Insta posts. I don't want to reflect on whether or not people turn up here, but Insta posts are not a substitute for a complete lack of industrial policy. All that Mr Hastie has contributed is imported ideas that, if implemented, would export Australian jobs. This is a party that has lost its way completely and doesn't really know anymore what it really stands for.

Thank you, Minister Ayres.

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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026.

Well, let me just explain to the chamber, for those of you who are not aware of what it is that I've just said, what has just happened. The Labor Party this week has continued to sneak through this parliament legislation that would secure union favouritism during procurement by the Commonwealth. It will assist the Labor Party to help its union mates, and it is trying to sneak this through the parliament. It's doing it under the guise of helping the Fair Work Commission deal with its backlog of unfair dismissal claims, which has gone unrecognised, unnoticed and ignored for the last six months.

The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, which has been introduced and passed through the House of Representatives, seems innocuous enough, and it has good intentions. However, it has a sting in the tail. The Fair Work Commission has been overwhelmed with unfair dismissal claims for the last six months. That did not happen overnight. In fact, last year, in October, the Fair Work president, Adam Hatcher, said that he felt sick when he saw the extraordinary increases in claims facing the commissions. Then, in May this year, the general manager of the commission, Murray Furlong, said:

The increased workload is placing strain on every element of the commission's operations.

Those pleas from the commission have fallen on deaf ears until this very urgent bill that has suddenly been included in the guillotine this week.

Now, finally, the government has put together a bill that will deal with those claims, and that is terrific. But sneakily hidden inside this bill is part 9, a provision that will allow the Commonwealth to discriminate in favour of businesses that have union agreements in procurement, in contracting and in grants—and not just businesses that have union agreements themselves but businesses that have supply chains that have union agreements as well. This is the dirtiest of deals.

Let me be clear. The coalition supports the Fair Work Commission reforms, and that is exactly why we have introduced this bill today. Labor has bundled those reforms with an entirely unrelated procurement scheme. Part 9 has nothing to do with reducing the Fair Work Commission's backlog. That's why we have introduced a bill so that the Fair Work Commission reforms can go through unamended, exactly as Labor want, without this terrible sting in the tail, which will fundamentally change the way the Commonwealth deals with the private sector.

Part 9 allows the Commonwealth to preference businesses with union-backed enterprise agreements. It applies to procurement. It applies to grants. It applies to contracts. It creates what is known around the rest of the country as a CFMEU tax. This situation has already been in place in Victoria and in Queensland, where we have seen union corruption rife, pushing up costs for taxpayers, causing blowouts on government funded—taxpayer funded—projects, and all Australians have paid a price for that. This government promised that it was not going to allow that to happen to Commonwealth projects but that is exactly what this legislation will do, and it's being pushed through without any debate, without any scrutiny, because that's what Labor does. That's why we're moving a suspension of standing orders today, to replace the government's bill with the coalition's bill in a Greens-backed guillotine so that the Senate can pass it and the Fair Work Commission can get rid of its backlog today. They can do it today if they want. That's what the Fair Work Commission want. I know this because I have spoken to the president myself. He wants these reforms through and he wants them through quickly. You can do it now. You can do it today. You don't need to wait until next week with your sneaky little amendment with your sneaky part 9 that is going to fundamentally change the way that the government deals with the private sector.

The BCA have said how dangerous this is. This is a corruption risk written into law for every Australian, and every Australian will pay for it. It reaches into every corner of the economy. The ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said there are nearly one million employing businesses in Australia that operate without a union-negotiated enterprise agreement and they will be discriminated against. The Ai Group has said this completely risks undermining this vital principle by opening the door for a current or future governments to force employers and employees to strike deals with unions to commercially deal with the government.

Queensland has said how dangerous this is. Victoria has seen how dangerous this is, and you are doing this for your mates. We know you're doing this for your mates. This is a CFMEU tax and it's being done in disguise. It's been done in disguise of the Fair Work Commission. Senator Wong, shame on you, because we know that the CFMEU is your former employer. You are doing this for them—for them!

President, I would ask you to ask the senator to withdraw.

It's a fact, I'm afraid. I'm sorry, did you not work for the CFMEU?

Senator Hume, in the interests of the chamber, Senator Wong has asked that you withdraw it, so I'm asking you to withdraw it.

What am I withdrawing?

I'm not repeating it. You're well aware of what you need to do.

I'm not sure what it is that I'm withdrawing. Am I withdrawing a fact? Because Senator Wong used to work for the CFMEU.

It was the way that it was used, I think, is the issue. I've asked you to withdraw it in the interests of the chamber. If you don't wish to do it, then that's on the public record.

I withdraw the imputation, but it is a fact.

Senator Hume, I've asked you to simply withdraw in the interests of the chamber.

I withdraw.

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question now is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

I move:

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

Today, Labor has legislated its budget of broken promises and lies, and it did so because its legislation was supported through a dirty, rotten deal with the Australian Greens. Australians have been left scratching their heads this afternoon. How can it be that a political party that got just 34.6 per cent of the vote join with a political party, the Australian Greens, who got 12 per cent of the vote—that is less than 50 per cent of the vote at the last election—but still have the power to legislate a budget of broken promises and lies? This afternoon there was a stark warning to every Australian. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, supported by Treasurer Jim Chalmers and supported by Labor senators, revealed that Labor is happy to do deals, to govern hand-in-glove, with the least representative party in Australian politics, with the least centrist party in Australian politics, with the least moderate party in Australian politics, the Australian Greens. That should be a warning sign for Australians. What we saw was a willingness from the Prime Minister to break promises. But let me remind you, not so long ago, the Prime Minister broke other promises, and, because the Australian community let him get away with it last time, he thought he could get away with it this time.

So, the message to Australian voters is a simple one. If you want a political system that will be governed by broken promises into the future, then continue to vote for the Australian Labor Party. But if you want improvements in our political system and if you want trust to be restored in our political system, then punish Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Labor members of parliament. But don't just punish them for breaking promises. Punish them for governing hand-in-glove with the least representative, the least centrist, the least moderate political party in our system, the Australian Greens.

Every Labor member of parliament, senator or member of the House of Representatives, should hold their head in shame that they choose to govern with a radical party of the left. The two left-wing parties of Australian politics this afternoon joined arms and voted together, and, unfortunately, it is not an uncommon occurrence. But if you want to change that then you have to change your vote. If you don't want things to get better in this country, if you are happy with the way that things are going in this country, well then, continue to vote for the Australian Labor Party who works in unison with the Australian Greens.

Unfortunately, the economic challenges for Australia remain, irrespective of the budget passing today. Inflation remains unchallenged. Interest rates are speculated to continue to rise. Government spending continues to go up and up and up, and it's at its highest level in 40 years outside a recession and a pandemic. That is bad news for Australian families. That is bad news for the Australian economy. (Time expired)

I think, to be fair to those that are in the gallery, that we should actually just put on the record the difference that we have made since we've come into government in terms of building a stronger economy. We've been able to support some of the lowest paid workers in this country who are doing some of the most important work that any Australian can do, that being early childhood educators for our children who are our future. We have also increased the remuneration for those who care for the ageing members of our communities. These are essential responsibilities, and we as a government have supported them.

Let's not allow those opposite to rewrite history. On five occasions when we've put forward tax cuts for Australian workers, what have we seen from the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation? They voted against it each and every time. As Minister Wong said in her response today, the reality is that on every occasion when those opposite have had the opportunity to support working Australians, they have voted against it—every measure. In relation to the tax cuts, there's the additional money since we came into government. Next year, Australian workers will be $2,800 better off thanks to this government. For $1,000 of that, you won't need to keep any of your receipts.

We talk about, and hear the questions around, building homes in this country, but what was the record of those opposite when they were in government for over 10 years? How many houses did they build? Not one—zero. What did they do in terms of TAFE? They ran that down. Did they do anything to incentivise apprentices? After all—despite what they may think over there—you need Australian workers. You need electricians, builders and plumbers. They did nothing. We have incentivised those workers by giving them $10,000 to assist them. Why? Because we know they're terribly important to our economy. You can't build houses without builders, carpenters, electricians and plumbers—and the list goes on.

Instead of having this fake outrage, what we really should be seeing from those opposite is their plan for the future. We know what history has recorded of their actions in caring for workers and industrial relations and creating more access to GPs and cheaper medicine. There are 137 urgent care clinics right across Australia so that, when you have an urgent matter that doesn't require you to go to accident and emergency, you can be seen, without having to pay with a credit card or having to decide whether you can afford to take your child there.

What do we see from those opposite? They vote no, every single time, with their new coalition partner, One Nation. I am, though, somewhat surprised that some of those opposite would agree to go along and form a coalition with One Nation. I've been in this chamber a little while and seen contributions over a long period of time, and it is, frankly, very disappointing. But our record is strong and people know they can rely on Labor to protect Australian workers and Australian rights.

Senator Polley, your time has expired.

Senator Polley!

Sorry, I didn't hear you.

Senator Polley, you very well heard me.

I'm reminded by that somewhat coherent defence of the position—I'm showing my age here—of the dead parrot from Monty Python. 'What a beautiful plumage,' they keep saying about a dead parrot in the dead parrot skit. This is what this government is doing. They say, 'What about the tax cuts?' It's an amazing thing when $77 billion in new taxes, as shown by the budget documents, can be described as a tax cut. Imagine that! They're going to charge $77 billion more to the economy, but they'll call that a tax cut because they'll give you $1 in your hand while picking your pocket behind you. It's a great way to do things. It's misdirection—the wonderful thing that magicians do. But this government are not magicians. Great politic talkers are all they are, but it's not good policy. And this is what matters—the policy matters. When you sit there and say you're giving tax cuts and tax reform but taxing $77 billion more, it is wrong.

They rushed the bills through because they didn't want anyone to find out the details. It's like the Dodgy Brothers coming to your house and saying: 'We fix. Good price. Don't worry about any of the detail. We fix. We promise you.' This is what's going on here today. We heard that, if you or partner is widowed, that will be a new capital gains tax trigger. Effectively, capital gains tax will be charged on the joint assets, or there will be the trigger to revalue. If you're going through a divorce, you'll settle with your ex-partner, you'll have a fight with a lawyer and you'll pay those bills, and then the Prime Minister will come in and ask: 'Where's my cut? I'll have a bit of the CGT too.' They'll do all of this.

They've said, 'But don't worry, we fix.' It wasn't fixed today. If it's not fit for purpose, don't rush it. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 is not fit for purpose. We have seen these things—a death in the family or a divorce triggers a capital gains tax event, and their answer is, 'We fix.' It can't be trusted. It's not right. They sit there and talk about tax cuts. They say, 'We fix.' But they are getting the Australian people all of the time. For taxes that aren't going to be due for another 12 months, would it have worried them to come back in the next sitting and fix it in one block so people would know what they're getting? But they couldn't do that. They rush it through, rush it through, rush it through. And it's always a spin. It's always, 'Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian blue.' That's all they go on about. This parrot couldn't get through these gates if electric volts were put through it.

We hear about fee-free TAFE. They tell you the numbers. We heard of 6,700 people going through fee-free TAFE in Queensland. What they're not telling you is that fewer than 20 per cent of people are graduating and sticking with it. Some of these numbers are people doing course after course to find one they get, but they're not getting through it. This is what matters. The detail matters. They don't get the policy work of it. They get the politics. They can spin. They've got great software and a great team on sentiment analysis. They can spam you all they want through your social media and put up the messages that you want to hear. But Australians know they are no better off. Australians see $77 billion worth of new taxes and know it's not a tax cut. Australians aren't stupid.

More to the point, they sit there and complain about votes going to One Nation, but they don't see their own part in it. When you treat the people as stupid, when you treat them as not worthy of trust, they look for other solutions. It is not on the people in One Nation why people are going there; it's because of acts like this in the government. So I say: get back to doing better on the ground. Be honest with your policies. Come here with tax bills and things that are fit for purpose. We're running this through. You had new amendments we hadn't even seen until today, and we're hearing there are new amendments coming down the track. It is not good enough.

We all know why you tax things. Why do we tax smoking? To stop people doing it. Why do we tax all sorts of things? To stop people doing them. Why do we have a carbon tax? To stop people doing it. Why are we taxing capital gains? Because you guys don't like it. You tax things to make less of it happen—less profit, less money, less Australia.

After the contributions we've had, the actually terrible quality of the questions that were asked of the government today and these hyperbolic, hyperventilating responses, we really just need to pull it back and get some facts on the table.

I grew up in Australia where you worked hard and you paid your fair share of taxes, and whether you were in a small business, a large business or whether you're a worker, we were all in it together. I actually think Australians still believe it's good to get a tax cut. The legislation that has gone through today is going to deliver a tax cut for over 13 million people who are working in our country. Whether they're in a small business, a big business or getting their first job—it doesn't matter—13.3 million of us are getting a tax cut. Yet you heard these fear and alarm contributions from the opposition, who went to the last election wanting to tax Australians more. So it's hard to hear anything they say as authentic and genuine.

The other thing is that I was a teacher before I came into this place, and I lectured a whole lot of teachers who went out to teach the future of our nation. Some of them had come to university through TAFE themselves. People getting proper training makes a big difference to what happens in our country. Even amongst those students who got to me uni—across the course of my teaching time, I saw a lot of people who had a lot of trouble trying to manage paperwork. It's not their priority. They just want to go to work, do their job and pay their tax. When tax time comes around, they don't want to ask for anything more than they deserve; they just want a fair go. I'm thinking about lots of kids who had very messy homework, if it came in. Those people are going to get $1,000 as an instant tax deduction. They don't have to have the shoebox. They don't have to pull the bits and pieces of paper together. They don't have to have it on some app that you pay for. They're going to get a $1,000 instant tax deduction. That's it. We legislated today for that. Yet from the bleating, the moaning, the fear, the alarm, the drama—there's drama everywhere you look in terms of the Liberal-National coalition—you'd think that people had their throats slit today. The reality is a $1,000 tax cut, an instant tax deduction, for every Australian. That's what's going to happen as a consequence of this. They're just two of the items that are coming through.

I know as a Labor politician we have such a long way to go to really fulfil the promise of Australia and people who want a fair go, but we're committed to that task. Some of the measures in this budget will let us move to that $47 billion home investment for Australia. So far, we've helped over 260,000 ordinary, decent, hardworking Australians into their first homes with a five per cent deposit. All we get is no and no and negativity from the opposition and their partners, who sit and want to plan some sort of dastardly future for the country. I think it's great that 260,000 families have a roof over their head tonight because of Labor policy. This is another great achievement today in tax reform for the Australian people—binding us together, not pulling us apart.

What an extraordinary contribution we've had from Labor senators during this take note session. Let's talk about the difference that Labor has made to Australia in what feels like very, very long years, particularly if you're a young person, if you own a small business or if you're a family just trying to make ends meet. We've seen productivity stall. For the first time, we are seeing living standards go backwards in this country. That's not something that, if I were in government, I would be proud of. We are seeing inflation running out of control. We're seeing interest rates continually climbing, and there seems to be no end in sight. Australians were promised $275 back on their electricity bills, and we're still yet to see that delivered—another broken Labor promise, another Labor lie.

Labor seems to be quite obsessed with partnerships that exist within this chamber and within the parliament. The partnership that exists here is between Labor and the Greens. Labor and the Greens have got together and rammed through what is probably one of the most disastrous budgets that Australia has ever seen. They've partnered up, they've got together, and they've basically stuck their middle finger up to everyday Australians who are working hard out there. It's important to remember that the government does not produce any revenue. There is no revenue that the government produces. The revenue it collects is from hardworking Australians. Every dollar the government takes in tax, an Australian has to earn first. Think about that. This government is going to grab $77 billion more from hardworking Australians—and they cheered when that legislation just passed. They cheered for the $77 billion more that they are going to take from hardworking Australians. That's not something that deserves to be cheered. That is such a shame. It is a shame for our economy. It is a shame for the state of our national debt, which is hurtling towards $1.25 trillion.

Twenty years ago, Australia had zero debt. We had zero debt as a nation. We were in a strong economic position where we could withstand global shocks. We could withstand things like the global financial crisis. The situation that we're in today under Labor and the budget that they have just passed—that they have just celebrated passing with the Greens—means that Australia is not in a strong position for global shocks. It means that, when things like the Strait of Hormuz are closed, it has devastating impacts here, a long way away from where that conflict is. We are in no position to be able to withstand and continue to prosper as a nation, and that makes me incredibly sad. I've got young adult children who just want to get out there and buy their first home, and this government has just passed a budget that is going to deliver 35,000 fewer homes, and they've done that with the Greens. They're going to deliver 35,000 fewer homes, on their own targets, yet they want to sit here and lecture us and say they're doing everything they can for young Australians.

This is a terrible budget. It is a war on young people; it is a war on older people, who have done the right thing and saved and put their money into super; and it is a war on anyone who owns a small business and anyone who wants to start a business here in this country. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today.

Megapolluter and tax avoider Woodside have a proposal which would drill dozens of gas wells near Scott Reef, an ancient marine ecosystem home to endangered whales, sea turtles and rich marine life. This Browse project is a disaster waiting to happen. Woodside admits that a spill from its wells or from its 900-kilometre underwater pipeline could spew out pollution for months. That alone should be enough to say no to this destructive project, but it would also be a massive carbon bomb, releasing 1.6 billion tonnes of climate pollution. That's equivalent to four years of Australia's total current emissions. Yet the minister, under our environmental laws, doesn't have to consider that. He can ignore that Browse would turbocharge climate change, even though it drives coral bleaching, heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and puts nature and communities at risk.

New expert evidence from the Australian Conservation Foundation shows that Browse emissions will have a direct impact on the Great Barrier Reef. They've asked the minister to reconsider whether those climate impacts need to be assessed, and it's essential that they are. Environmental laws that fail to consider climate impacts ignore the biggest threat to nature. Approving fossil fuel projects while ignoring climate impacts breaches our international obligations. We need a climate trigger in our environmental laws, and, until we get one, the minister must commit to at least considering the direct climate impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.

Australians won't see any benefit from Browse, but we will pay the price for Woodside's greed. The project only stacks up for Woodside if they get our gas for free. Woodside would be raking in massive profits while Australia misses out on the millions that we could earn from a 25 per cent gas export tax. It's all downside for nature and for Australia. A Green environment minister who had the chance to stop a climate bomb and protect Scott Reef and the Great Barrier Reef would put the environment ahead of their fossil fuel mates.

Woodside's Browse project isn't an economic opportunity. It is a climate bomb—a project that would unleash 1.6 billion tonnes of pollution, put our reefs at risk and make billions for Woodside while Australians get nothing except a clean-up bill. And for what? So a multinational corporation can take Australia's gas, ship it overseas and pay next to no tax. That's the deal. Woodside gets the profits; Australia gets the pollution. Labor says it's following the law. What kind of law allows fossil fuel projects to be assessed without considering climate impacts? What kind of law lets a project that threatens one of the world's greatest natural wonders ignore the damage that its emissions will cause?

Thanks to the Australian Conservation Foundation, new evidence is sitting on Minister Murray Watt's desk showing Browse's emissions will contribute directly to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef through climate driven coral bleaching. The evidence is clear. The science is clear. Now, the question is: will the minister listen? Will he stand up to the gas lobby, or will Labor once again put fossil fuel profits ahead of our environment and our communities?

This is a defining moment. If you care about the Great Barrier Reef, Scott Reef, our oceans, our marine life and making multinational corporations pay their fair share, now is the time to speak up. Tell Minister Watt that our reefs are worth more than Woodside's profits. Tell him Australians do not want another climate bomb approved—a climate bomb that depends on getting our gas for next to nothing. Tell him enough is enough—no new gas, no drilling at Scott Reef, no more putting multinational corporations ahead of people and nature. This is your chance, Australia, to drown out the voices of multinational gas corporations who want to pollute our planet and pay next to no tax. Let's drown their voices out. If ordinary Australians stay silent, the only voices the minister will hear are those of the fossil fuel industry—the voices of Woodside and their mates, and they have had the microphone for far too long. Make a submission. Let's get this thing killed off.

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 the Albanese government and the Australian Greens.

We have heard plenty of porkies from Labor, but for the Prime Minister to repeat himself 385 times before an election and then change his position is a betrayal of the people that put him in the job in the first place. I haven't been here a particularly long time, and I'm sure there was a time when the Labor Party were for the working class. There probably was a time when they didn't cave to the Greens to pass terrible legislation. There was probably even a time when they had some moral fortitude. But that time is long gone. The Labor Party that I have seen deals exclusively with the radical Greens. The Labor Party that I have seen raises taxes, hurts families and kills ambition. The Labor Party that I have seen sells up its houses, grandfathers its investments and feathers its nests right before it pulls the ladder up on the next generation.

One Nation rejects the changes to the CGT, negative gearing and family trusts. They will have a disastrous effect on the ambition and ingenuity of this country. These changes prove that this is a government that doesn't understand economics. They think that wealth just happens like a magic pudding, and the only question is how to carve it up: 'Who should we distribute the wealth to? Whose vote can I buy? Where do my kickbacks come from?' All this despite the government having nothing to do with generating wealth of this country—taking no risk but destroying the reward. And they turn to the Greens when they need this rubbish rushed through. They have made the radical tax grabs worse by holding up the vital reforms to the NDIS. The Greens are setting the agenda for the Labor government. They are pushed further and further to the left, leaving workers behind for an agenda that raises power prices, pushes rents higher and maintains record immigration rates.

This is a government that will say anything to stay in power, and a prime minister that will repeat 385 times that he will not make deals with the Greens and then turn around and cut deals left, right and centre. One Nation has stood by its word. We will be the party of integrity, something sorely lacking by Labor and the dirty Greens.

Question agreed to.

I understand Senator Carr is taking the call to present the Privileges Committee report.

Once again, I'm delighted to be mixed up with my dear good friend Senator Carr from Victoria, and I hope he's enjoying his retirement. I enjoyed my time working with both him and Senator Fierravanti-Wells very much on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, where my friend Senator O'Neill has taken up the baton and is charging forward in her typical way. But putting that aside, I present the 190th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Mr John Fenwick.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly—

This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 18 December 2025, the President received a submission from Mr John Fenwick relating to a speech made by Senator Roberts in the Senate on 1 September 2025. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Mr Fenwick's response be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of the Chair of Education and Employment References Committee, I present the committee's report on wage theft together with accompanying documents.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

I present Scrutiny Digest 7 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I present the 233rd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

At the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I table the reports on legislation as shown on item 15 on today's Order of Business.

I present delegated legislation monitor no. 6 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 191 legislative instruments registered between 23 March and 1 May 2026. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the collaborative way in which that committee works. I know that there's a lot of contest in the public place. People should have faith in democracy delivering a good work with people on either side of the chamber and the crossbenchers working together in the national interest, and this is one of the committees that very much does that. I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague Senator Paul Scarr for his longstanding service on this committee, and it's a pleasure to work with him with regard to these matters.

In this monitor, the committee has commented on three new instruments and one ongoing instrument, and has concluded its examination of two instruments. The first new instrument is the Air Navigation Regulations 2026. This instrument prescribes a system of international airline licences, mechanisms to approve timetables for scheduled international air services and associated administrative and compliance arrangements. The committee has identified scrutiny concerns regarding provisions in the instrument which permit automated decision-making for the approval of timetables for scheduled international air services. The committee's longstanding view is that automated decision-making may operate as a fetter on discretionary power by inflexibly applying predetermined criteria to decisions. However, where an instrument does provide for automated decision-making, the committee expects the explanatory statement to that instrument to provide sufficient explanation and justification.

In this regard, the committee is concerned that, although the explanatory statement explains that automated decision-making will only be used for straightforward timetabling decisions based on objective criteria, the instrument appears to authorise a computer program to be used for all timetabling decisions, including those where the secretary of the department forms an opinion or has regard to public interest in making decisions. Furthermore, while the committee noted several important safeguards—including the power for the secretary to substitute automated decisions—it's unclear how these safeguards might operate in practice. In light of these concerns, the committee has resolved to seek the minister's advice in relation to the scope of automated decision-making and the operation of safeguards under the instrument.

The other new instruments the committee has commenced on are the Regional Investment Corporation (Drought Hardship Loans) Rules 2026 and the Regional Investment Corporation (Marine Recovery Loans) Rules 2026. These instruments set up loan programs to provide finance to certain businesses affected by drought or harmful marine events. The committee has identified scrutiny concerns in relation to the drafting of key terms, including terms that confer broad discretionary powers, as well as the availability of independent review and the consultation that was undertaken in relation to the instruments. In particular, the committee considers that several terms regarding loan eligibility, debt management, debt waiver and charges are unclear.

For example, one of the conditions that must be satisfied to be eligible for a loan is that there has been a material reduction in the turnover of a business because of impacts of drought or certain harmful marine events. The committee is unsure what constitutes material reduction and how the causal link between a reduction in turnover and the drought or marine events would be established. The committee is also concerned about whether loan decisions would be subject to independent review. While the committee notes that the instruments provide for the development of guidelines and procedures to support internal review of such decisions, it's unclear whether the instruments provide a legal right to seek independent merits review.

Finally, the committee noted that, while the explanatory statements to the instruments explain some of the consultation that occurred during the development of the instruments, they do not explain whether experts or key stakeholders were consulted, nor did they explain what the outcomes of the consultation were. Given these concerns, the committee has resolved to seek the minister's advice about these matters. In this monitor, the committee has continued its consideration of the Electoral and Referendum Regulations 2026. This instrument prescribes authorities and permitted purposes in relation to access and use of electoral roll information and provides for matters regarding electronically assisted voting for sight impaired persons and Antarctic electors.

In Delegated legislation monitor 5 of 2026, the committee sought the minister's advice regarding criminal offences in delegated legislation, privacy, the availability of review and consultation on the instrument. In his response to the committee, the minister confirmed that all of the offences in the instrument are criminal offences and provided a justification for application of strict liability. The minister also explained the relevant privacy safeguards that apply to protected information that the Electoral Commission shares with other government agencies. On the basis of this advice, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of these matters.

However, the committee retains scrutiny concerns in relation to other aspects of the minister's response. In particular, while the minister explained that reversal of the evidential burden of proof was justified given, for example, the vulnerability of Antarctic electors and sight impaired persons, the response did not refer to key matters outlined in Aguide to framing commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers. As per the guide, the committee expects that, where an instrument reverses the evidential burden of proof, the explanatory statement should outline whether the matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant and whether it would be significantly more difficult and costly for the prosecution to disprove the matter than for the defendant to establish the matter.

Furthermore, although the committee welcomes the minister's further explanation regarding the consultation undertaken for the instrument, it remains unclear whether consultation was undertaken with stakeholders likely to be affected by the instrument, including sight impaired voters and Antarctic electors or their representative groups. Given the committee's ongoing scrutiny concerns regarding the reversal of evidential burden of proof and the explanation on consultation, it has resolved again to seek the minister's advice.

The first instrument the committee has concluded its examination of is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Regulations 2026. This instrument prescribes exclusions for certain kinds of employees and payments from the Superannuation Guarantee framework which were previously contained in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. In the previous monitor, the committee sought advice about why it was considered necessary and appropriate for the instrument to consolidate the exclusions previously contained in primary legislation into delegated legislation. The minister advised that the changes introduced by the instrument enhance the readability and navigability of the legislative framework and reduce complexity. The minister also explained, on a provision-by-provision basis, that the exclusions operate in limited circumstances, are consistent with pre-existing exclusions in delegated legislation and were designed to promote employer awareness of all the relevant exclusions. Furthermore, the minister undertook to amend the explanatory statement to the instrument to reflect this advice.

The committee welcomes the minister's advice but notes that the exclusions affect the scope and operation of an important primary law statutory entitlement, which may have significant consequences for affected individuals, including potentially vulnerable cohorts. Given the inclusion of such significant matters in delegated legislation, the committee resolved to draw this matter to the attention of the Senate under standing order 23(4). On the basis of the minister's undertaking, the committee has concluded its consideration of the instrument and resolved to withdraw the notice of motion to disallow this instrument.

Finally, the committee has concluded its examination of the Biosecurity (Electronic Decisions—Goods) Determination 2026. This instrument sets out relevant provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015 under which decisions may be made by the operation of a computer program, and related matters. The committee sought advice in monitor 5 of 2026 about safeguards on automated decision-making authorised by the instrument. In particular, the committee was concerned about how safeguards noted in the explanatory statement, such as business rules and instructional material which are not contained in the legislation, would be maintained and remain effective.

The minister provided detailed advice about testing and updates of the business rules, regular scheduled reviews of the department's instructional material and the department's overarching IT processes, including role based controls and mechanisms to identify unauthorised ICT changes. While the committee considers that the mechanisms support the maintenance of relevant safeguards in relation to the use of authorised computer programs, it retains the view that, as these materials are not legislative instruments and not prescribed by the instrument, parliamentary oversight of these safeguards is limited. However, in the light of the minister's detailed advice and undertaking to amend the explanatory statement, the committee has resolved to conclude its consideration of the instrument and withdraw the notice of motion to disallow this instrument.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2026 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

In respect of Scrutiny digest 7 of 2026, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to make some remarks on the previously tabled committee report Scrutiny digest 7 of 2026. The digest contains the committee's consideration of 21 bills introduced between 11 May and 4 June 2026. The committee has commented on 10 new bills and concluded its consideration of eight previously introduced bills.

I wish to draw senators' attention to the committee's commentary in chapter 1 of the digest regarding provisions in two bills that adopt similar novel approaches to the automation of administrative decision-making. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill) 2026 proposes amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, which include provision for the automation of specified administrative action by the National Disability Insurance Agency, or the NDIA.

Under the bill, the NDIA's CEO would be able to arrange in writing for the automation of administrative actions or decisions identified in the bill or in legislative instruments made by the minister. In particular, the bill would expressly allow for the automation of administrative decisions involving the exercise of discretion or evaluative judgement.

The committee has, in recent years, increasingly drawn attention to provisions that authorise the making of administrative decisions by a computer program. It does so under Senate order 24(1)(a)(iii), which requires the committee to scrutinise whether provisions of bills would 'make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent' upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Under this scrutiny principle, the committee examines whether the decisions proposed for automation involve complex or discretionary considerations or tests.

This focus reflects a core administrative law requirement that decision-makers engage in active intellectual process when doing so. A failure to engage in this way when making a decision can lead to legal error, such as failing to take account of a relevant consideration. There is also a risk that automated systems will apply predetermined criteria inflexibly in a way that fetters legal discretion, which the parliament has resolved should consider the individual merits in each case. For this reason, the committee expects explanatory memoranda to explain why automation is necessary and appropriate for each decision, how ordinary administrative law requirements will be maintained and what safeguards are in place to prevent legal error.

On this occasion, the bill proposes that the CEO be required to make a standard operating procedure instrument setting out the circumstances in which they would always exercise their discretion or judgement in a certain manner. The CEO is required to do so by reference to objective criteria to ensure a computer program would be able to do so in the same way. The committee has noted that this approach may effectively convert the exercise of the CEO's discretion into rules of fixed application that would be applied inflexibly by a computer program.

The committee has requested detailed information from the minister about this automation framework and has also sought similar information in relation to the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026, which proposes a substantially similar approach. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 7 of 2026 to the Senate for its consideration.

Question agreed to.

I present seven government responses to committee reports as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business, and I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:

Aged care service delivery

July 2026

OVERVIEW

On 28 July 2025 the Senate referred aged care service delivery to the Committee Affairs References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report.

The Government acknowledges the work of Committee in producing its final report and thanks those individuals and organisations who contributing to the Committee's consideration of this matter through submissions or public hearings.

The Australian Government is reforming in-home aged care, to ensure that older people have access to high quality aged care services and can live their lives in the way they wish to and deserve.

The aged care reforms respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Aged Care Taskforce. The reforms were announced with bipartisan support, which led to the successful passage of the Aged Care Act 2024 (Act), ensuring that these aged care reforms are enduring and that older Australians get the care and dignity they deserve.

The Aged Care Act 2024 (the Act), Support at Home and many other associated reforms to

Australia's aged care system commenced from 1 November 2025.

The rights-based Act delivered on 58 recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It enshrined the rights of older Australians in law and creates a system designed to deliver safe, dignified and high-quality care for an ageing population. It creates a single-entry point with clear eligibility requirements and includes a fair, culturally safe single assessment framework. It increased provider accountability through a new regulatory model and supports the delivery of aged care services. It also established new system oversight and accountability arrangements and strengthens the aged care regulator.

Support at Home, which the Australian Government is investing $4.3 billion in, will improve home care wait times and add 300,000 more places over the next 10 years.

In response to the high demand for in-home aged care support, on 3 September 2025, the Government announced that an additional 20,000 packages would be released ahead of the Support at Home commencement on 1 November 2025. To further support older people, an additional 63,000 Support at Home places will be released between 1 November 2025 and 30 June 2026. Importantly, Home Care Packages (HCP) were released weekly to people assessed as needing in-home aged care right up to the commencement of the new program. This weekly place release has continued since the commencement of Support at Home.

Since that commencement, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (the Department), in close collaboration with delivery partner agencies including Services Australia and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, has continued to actively monitor and support implementation of these generational reforms through a coordinated approach, with heightened sector engagement and incident management arrangements.

This approach has also involved regular engagement with Ageing Australia, the Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Person Advocacy Network (OPAN) to proactively identify and address issues as they arise.

On Wednesday 22 April 2026, the Government announced a new $3 billion Government aged care investment as part of an early announcement ahead of 2026-27 Budget. This builds on the Government's investment at MYEFO 2025-26, which included $1.1 billion in investments to support older Australians. This further investment will deliver changes to support older people receiving aged care at home and in residential services.

Government responses to committee recommendations 5

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Australian Government release all 83,000 packages promised prior to the 2025 federal election, before 30 June 2026.

The Government notes this recommendation, having already committed to the release of 83,000 additional in-home aged care places by 30 June 2026 per the schedule below:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government make provision for additional Support at Home packages as a matter of urgency, to meet the needs of the over 200,000 older Australians who are either waiting for a package or waiting for an assessment for a package as identified by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Australian Government work towards ending the rationing of care packages in a timeframe that is consistent with the sector's capacity to deliver the additional packages.

The Government notes these recommendations.

Funding for Support at Home will grow in line with projected growth in demand.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends the Senate refer to the Community Affairs References Committee the following matter for inquiry and report by the first sitting week of August 2026:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing publish real-time information on both the waiting period for assessment and receipt of a home care service package; and review communication strategies to ensure that older people remain engaged with seeking assistance.

The Government notes this recommendation.

As the aged care system undergoes major reforms to make it simpler and more responsive, the Government will continue to improve the clarity and reliability of information provided.

The Department also continues to review and refine its communications to help older people and their families plan with confidence and remain engaged in seeking assistance.

Recommendation 6

The committee urges the Inspector-General of Aged Care to consider conducting an urgent review into the operation of the Single Assessment System.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends the Senate refer, to the Community Affairs References Committee, for inquiry and report by 15 April 2026, the expected impact of the Support at Home Program model on:

The Government notes these recommendations.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the Australian Government should consider the adequacy of daily living supports delivered through the at-home aged care system for older Australians living with a disability, in comparison with those delivered through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The Government notes this recommendation.

Daily living supports delivered through the at-home aged care system for older people living with a disability were considered in the design of Support at Home. The design of the program includes a higher level of care for people living at home (approximately $78,000 per year) and a new Assistive Technology and Home Modifications scheme which benefits older people living with a disability.

Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, in consultation with allied health professionals, undertake an urgent review of the list of inclusions for the AT-HM scheme.

The Government notes this recommendation.

The AT-HM list sets out the equipment, products and home modifications that are available for older people under the AT-HM scheme.

The list was constructed using internationally agreed instruments and standards (Australian-adopted AS/NZS ISO Assistive Product- classification and terminology standard (2023)) and informed by subject matter experts and consultation with allied health professionals, providers, AT suppliers.

The Government has separately agreed to establish a review process for the AT-HM list to consider changes over time to support required adjustments and account for emerging technologies and ensure the list remains current and fit for purpose.

Recommendation 1 0

The committee recommends that the Australian Government provides aged care service providers with a schedule for the release of places under the Home Care Packages Program and the Support at Home Program, which includes details on the volume of places, the timing of their release, and their geographical locations.

The Government notes this recommendation.

The release of places is dynamic, being based on characteristics of the priority system. The composition and allocation of places vary daily depending on the classification level spread and volume of assessments undertaken.

During the Home Care Package program the Department regularly published statistics on packages released each quarter and their geographical distribution, through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare GEN Aged Care Data website.

This practice has continued under Support at Home.

The Department also publishes the overall annual target for number of places in its Corporate Plan.

Recommendation 1 1

The committee recommends that the Australian Government finalise its Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems as a matter of urgency to ensure that providers can be ready to meet the requirements of the Aged Care Act 2024 on 1 November 2025.

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government had the necessary ICT systems ready for all users including older people, the My Aged Care Contact Centre and the aged care workforce, including assessors and providers, to support implementation of the Aged Care Act 2024 and Support at Home from 1 November 2025.

Further support was provided to the sector through a series of webinars as well as published guidance including digital change guides and provider transition resources. Providers were assisted to prepare through digital maturity and impact assessments, complemented by detailed operational guidance and FAQs. Direct support was also available through the My Aged Care and Services Australia contact centres, including one-on-one Support at Home claiming assistance where required.

_____

Dear President

I write to advise that the Australian Government has provided its response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report titled "Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 [Provisions]".

The Government's response was addressed via the Revised Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Iefrastnicture and Other Measures) Bill 2024 [Provisions} on 4 October 2024. For completeness and ease of reference, I have attached an extract of the Revised Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.

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

Yours sincerely

Dr Daniel Mulino, Assistant Treasurer

Enc. Revised Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.

_____

Dear President

I am writing to convey the Government's response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report titled "Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021", which predates the 47th Parliament.

The Government notes each recommendation of the report. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Please accept this letter as the Government's response to the Committee's report. A copy of this letter has also been provided to Senator Varun Ghosh, Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Yours sincerely

Dr Daniel Mulino

_____

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Human Rights Subcommittee report:

Inquiry into Australia's efforts to advocate for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty

April 2026

Introduction

The Australian Government thanks the Committee for its report and recommendations regarding Australia's efforts to advocate for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

The Government also recognises the valuable contributions made to the inquiry by civil society organisations.

The Government has agreed, fully, in part or in principle, with all of the recommendations made by the Committee.

Australia's opposition to the death penalty is longstanding and principled. There is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters crime, and any mistake or miscarriage of justice in the imposition of capital punishment is irreversible. The death penalty is also disproportionately imposed on individuals in vulnerable situations.

145 countries have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. 113 are abolitionist for all crimes while 23 are abolitionist in practice and nine are abolitionist for ordinary crimes only. The move towards global abolition reflects the growing consensus that the death penalty has no place in modern society. Despite this, the number of annual executions worldwide is the highest in almost a decade. This underscores the significant need for

Australia's continued advocacy efforts.

The Government regularly uses bilateral, regional and multilateral mechanisms to urge all countries, including close partners, to abolish capital punishment in law and in practice. We also work alongside civil society and likeminded governments.

Australia has raised its opposition to the death penalty in retentionist countries through regular bilateral representations, and statements against the death penalty in relevant multilateral forums. This has included making recommendations or comments on reform to 78 of 84 UN member states that retain the death penalty in law through those countries' most recent Universal Periodic Reviews (a UN Human Rights Council mechanism that periodically examines the human rights records of each UN member state).

The Government is committed to strengthening its advocacy on the death penalty, which is an important part of Australia's broader efforts to advance the protection and promotion of human rights within our region and globally.

The recommendations of the Committee have informed the development of a revised Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty. This revised strategy will ensure the document remains effective, reflects current international and legal developments since 2018, and more broadly guides whole of government engagement on abolition of the death penalty.

In November 2025, the Government appointed the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP as Australia's Special Envoy for International Human Rights. As Special Envoy, Mr Dreyfus undertakes an enhanced advocacy role for the abolition for the death penalty, including implementation of the revised Strategy.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government continues to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in all retentionist countries through bilateral, multilateral and regional fora, and with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

This advocacy should consider canvassing support for a coalition of like-minded abolitionist countries in the Asia-Pacific region to work together on advocating for the abolition of the death penalty regionally.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

Australia undertakes a principled and global approach to its advocacy on the death penalty, urging all retentionist countries to take steps towards complete abolition.

The Government will continue to advocate for the global abolition of the death penalty through bilateral, multilateral and regional mechanisms. This includes but is not limited to bilateral representations, formal dialogues, and use of regional, plurilateral, and multilateral forums and processes, including the United Nations, World Congress Against the Death Penalty, and region-specific forums.

As part of these efforts, the Government will pursue opportunities to partner with likeminded abolitionist countries in the Indo-Pacific region on collective advocacy efforts, including potentially delivery of joint representations and statements through or in the sidelines of regional forums. Such partnerships will be dependent on the capacity and willingness of relevant countries to engage in collective advocacy, as well as the anticipated effectiveness of these advocacy efforts.

The Government will also consider options to elevate its general advocacy strategies within the Indo-Pacific region, including strengthening engagement with governments and parliaments, as well as prominent and influential civil society actors and international organisations.

Recommendation 2

The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government, recognising that the path to abolition may be incremental, advocates for a reduction in the categories of crimes that carry the death penalty in retentionist countries and for discretion in sentencing. This should include the development of strategies to advocate for:

the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes, which the United Nations notes

do not constitute 'most serious crimes', and

the abolition of the mandatory death penalty for all crimes, in recognition that courts contemplating imposing death sentences should have the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.

Mechanisms that could be utilised for such advocacy include United Nations fora, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government recognises that retentionist countries' progress towards complete abolition of the death penalty may be incremental and that different paths are taken towards this goal. This recognition is articulated in Australia's Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty alongside the specific goals of Australia's advocacy, which includes a focus on the reduction in the number of crimes that attract the death penalty in each retentionist country, and the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes.

These are longstanding components of the Government's advocacy against the death penalty, which are raised regularly by the Government's officials overseas with relevant retentionist countries and in Australia's engagement in multilateral mechanisms. For example, the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes is raised consistently in Australia's high-level statement and broader engagement at the annual United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND).

As part of these efforts, the Government will continue to work to strengthen its advocacy against use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes as well as advocacy on the abolition of the mandatory death penalty for all crimes, including where appropriate by developing forward plans to increase advocacy efforts on these specific issues in relevant bilateral and regional advocacy, as well as continued use of multilateral mechanisms and forums to raise awareness, including at the CND and relevant ASEAN forums.

The Government will continue to use the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review process (UPR) to encourage reform on these specific matters, noting that Australia has made recommendations or comments relating to reform on the death penalty to 78 of 84 UN member states that retain the death penalty in law in their most recent UPRs.

The Government will also encourage and support the sharing of recent reform experiences and processes related to the abolition of the mandatory death penalty and the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes, particularly in our region.

Recommendation 3

The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government provide an annual statement against the death penalty, to be delivered in Parliament and across multiple platforms. The statement should:

Be a joint statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General.

Reinforce the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Strategy for Abolition of the

Death Penalty and allow the Australian Government to clearly articulate Australia's stance

on the death penalty and global abolition.

Highlight Australia's advocacy activities in bilateral, multilateral and regional fora.

Recognise progress in abolishing the death penalty in retentionist states, while also

detailing regressive initiatives taken by states.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government will deliver an annual statement about our work to advocate for the global abolition of the death penalty. This would provide an opportunity to articulate Australia's strong opposition to the death penalty, highlight the Government's advocacy efforts, and recognise developments globally.

Recommendation 4

The Subcommittee recommends the Australian Government in consultation with civil society organisations, consider the development of a strategy for domestic education and awareness raising to reinforce Australia's opposition to death penalty and its efforts to advocate for its abolition worldwide.

This work could include multicultural groups and associations in the development of resources to engage with diaspora communities in Australia about Australia's global stance on the death penalty.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation in principle.

The Government recognises the importance of ongoing domestic education and advocacy to ensure the public's understanding of Australia's position as an abolitionist country and its strong opposition to the death penalty. The Government will consider opportunities to promote and raise awareness of Australia's opposition to the death penalty, and the reasons for this opposition, through future outreach efforts.

Recommendation 5

The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government consider providing adequate funding for civil society organisations to more accurately gather data on trends and current areas of concern regarding the use of the death penalty.

The data will provide the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with valuable insights to better formulate country specific engagement strategies for the abolition of the death penalty.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation in principle.

The Government is committed to supporting and working alongside pro-abolition civil society organisations as part of its advocacy efforts for the global abolition of the death penalty and recognises the valuable insights and expertise that these organisations contribute.

The Government will continue to support civil society organisations where possible, including to gather data and assess trends and current areas of concern regarding the use of the death penalty.

Recommendation 6

The Subcommittee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department consult Capital Punishment Justice Project, who have global expertise and experience working with anti-death penalty networks worldwide, regarding the list of lawyers provided by Australian Missions to ensure the competency and qualifications of the local lawyers engaged to represent Australian nationals in capital cases.

Further, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consider the engagement of specialist legal support services such as the Capital Punishment Justice Project to monitor the progress of trials involving Australian nationals and, where appropriate, to support the work and advocacy of local capital defence lawyers.

Response:

The Government agrees in part with this recommendation.

The Government will continue to consult Capital Punishment Justice Project, noting its expertise on death penalty issues and relevant legal representation, about the composition of the list of local lawyers for Australians provided by Australia's missions overseas.

It is beyond the scope of the Australian Government's consular role to engage legal advice for Australians directly. DFAT will continue to engage and communicate with civil society organisations and/or legal support services on death penalty abolition advocacy and, where appropriate and with the consent of the relevant clients, on individual death penalty cases.

Recommendation 7

The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government undertake annual reviews of the mechanisms and operations of the Australian Federal Police's Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board to ensure the processes are sufficient and that they adhere to Australia's human rights obligations and commitment to the global abolition of the death penalty.

This should include reviewing the AFP National Guideline on International Police-to-Police Assistance in Death Penalty Situations to ensure that potential death penalty situations are being appropriately overseen by the Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board.

The annual review should be conducted by an independent person appointed by the Attorney-General in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Consideration should be given to expanding the membership of the Board to include experts external to the Australian Federal Police.

Response :

The Government agrees in part with this recommendation.

The Government supports robust and effective operational oversight of the AFP's decisions in death penalty matters, and will examine appropriate ways that a regular review can take place.

The AFP is an independent statutory agency, and the AFP Commissioner is responsible for the AFP's governance arrangements and performance of functions. The AFP's governance framework and processes for providing assistance to foreign law enforcement in death penalty situations are consistent with Australia's longstanding opposition to the death penalty, as well as international human rights obligations.

The AFP undertakes periodic review of its implementation of the National Guideline on International police-to-police assistance in death penalty situations (the National Guideline), generally every 3 years. Additionally, the National Guideline may be updated as required to respond to emerging challenges and operational requirements.

In January 2024, the National Guideline was re-published noting decisions to provide assistance in matters involving the death penalty would be made at the Deputy Commissioner level after review by the AFP Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board (SIOB). This change, instigated in May 2023 at the request of the Attorney-General in his capacity as the minister responsible for the AFP, elevated the level of decision-making and strengthened oversight of decisions to provide assistance in cases with death penalty considerations.

The Government accepts that the AFP's Guidelines should be reviewed regularly to ensure they remain appropriate. The AFP will also continue to undertake periodic reviews of all governance instruments to ensure Terms of Reference and National Guidelines are fit for purpose.

_____

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

National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army)

June 2026

Introduction

On 26 August 2025, the Senate referred the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army) to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 6 November 2025. The inquiry was a re-referral of the inquiry on the same topic that lapsed at the end of the 47th Parliament, and the terms of reference remain unchanged in the 48th Parliament.

The terms of reference for the inquiry were:

The formation of a National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army) to respond to the immediate aftermath of natural disasters in Australia, with particular reference to:

establishing targeted initiatives to encourage young people to participate in the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army);

exploring strategies to enhance volunteer engagement, including systems to recognise and compensate volunteers to promote satisfaction and positive culture;

integrating volunteer opportunities within educational institutions to increase student participation in volunteer organisations;

creating a nationally recognised qualification scheme that provides tangible benefits to volunteers and formally acknowledges their skills and contributions across sectors;

investigating whether there are appropriate laws and safeguards to protect the health and safety of volunteers;

the structure and governance of the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme (Climate Army);

comparison of relevant overseas models and best practices; and

any other related matters.

On 6 November 2025, the Committee tabled its report. The Australian Government thanks the Committee and the secretariat for the report, and everyone who contributed to the Inquiry.

The Government recognises the many Australians who volunteer, dedicating themselves to saving lives and supporting communities in the face of extreme weather and disasters. We value their contribution to Australia's preparedness, and their role in building Australia's national resilience.

The Government will continue to work collaboratively with state and territory governments to enhance volunteering arrangements across Australia. This is to support the volunteers who support our communities, and to maintain Australians' trust and confidence in the nation's disaster preparedness, response and recovery capabilities.

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertakes deeper consultation with the emergency response and broader volunteering sectors before any decisions about the feasibility, risks and benefits of establishing a national volunteer incentive scheme are made.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges the importance of consultation in developing any strategies seeking to address challenges in attracting, supporting and retaining volunteers who serve communities facing extreme weather and disasters.

As many submissions to the Inquiry noted, establishing a national-level scheme to mobilise volunteers for disaster response would duplicate functions delivered by existing organisations at the national, state and local levels. The Australian Government supports working collaboratively with states and territories, who are responsible for many emergency services organisations that rely on volunteers within their jurisdictions, and in consultation with the non-government sector, to address the barriers and challenges specific to emergency volunteering.

This engagement is already underway. The Australian Government, together with state and territory governments is supporting the development of a National Emergency Volunteering Strategy, through the National Emergency Management Ministers' Meeting

The Minister for Emergency Management chairs the National Emergency Management Ministers' Meeting, which brings together emergency management portfolio ministers from all Australian jurisdictions, and the President of the Australian Local Government Association. Together their purpose is to drive national cooperation and a consistent approach to managing emergencies. Their focus is addressing long-term, strategic issues in disaster management and resilience, reporting to National Cabinet each year.

The draft National Emergency Volunteering Strategy is based on six priority areas identified through consultation as being vital to strengthening emergency volunteering across Australia. The six priority areas are: Training and Compliance; Incentives; Insurance and Protection; Disaster Funding; Honours and Awards; and Surge Capability. Many of these are consistent with issues canvassed by the Inquiry. The National Emergency Volunteering Strategy also considers the roles of volunteers beyond response, extending to those involved in prevention, preparedness, relief and recovery roles.

Consultation on the draft National Emergency Volunteering Strategy will continue in 2026.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government avoid using the term 'Climate Army' if any type of a national volunteer incentive scheme is implemented in the future.

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges the term 'Climate Army' is not supported by volunteers, as detailed in evidence to the Committee. The Government considers this military-stye framing does not accurately capture the nature and spirit of emergency volunteering, nor is it an appropriate way to describe the diverse functions volunteers provide in an emergency context, including community relief and recovery.

Additional Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Establish a National Volunteer Resilience Framework to coordinate training, safety, recognition and data across states, integrating with existing emergency services rather than duplicating them.

Recommendation 4:

Develop a nationally recognised credentialing system to provide portable qualifications in disaster response, safety and leadership, with recognition across education and employment sectors.

The Australian Government agrees in principle withrecommendation 1 and notes Recommendation 4

Enhancing volunteer training, education, safety and recognition are among the six priority areas being addressed through the National Emergency Volunteering Strategy. This includes modernising training and compliance systems and supporting the development of portable skills. The Australian Government will work collaboratively with state and territory governments to support these initiatives.

These efforts will build on a strong foundation. Australia's Vocational Education and Training (VET) system provides nationally recognised training and is designed to support a range of national needs and priorities.

This includes the Public Safety Training Package (PUA) which provides nationally endorsed qualifications to support emergency prevention, preparedness, response and recovery capabilities, including units designed for public safety roles, such as volunteers in Firefighting and State Emergency Services. It contains nationally recognised training products, including endorsed training package qualifications, units of competency and skillsets that support the delivery and maintenance of contemporary knowledge and skills across the public safety industry-sector.

Public Skills Australia is responsible for the implementation and development of the Public Safety Training Package, including updates to ensure the responsiveness and relevance of training products. Public Skills Australia is one of 10 established Jobs and Skills Councils in Australia, funded by the Australian Government. Jobs and Skills Councils provide industry with a stronger, more strategic voice to ensure Australia's Vocational Education and Training sector delivers better outcomes for learners and employers. As a national network of industry owned and industry-led organisations, Jobs and Skills Councils provide strategic leadership in addressing skills and workforce challenges for their sectors. Public Skills Australia is the Jobs and Skills Council responsible for the Public Safety and Government sector, including career and volunteer workforces within Fire and Emergency Services.

Public Skills Australia is currently finalising a Volunteer Leadership Research project focused on leadership training opportunities for non-operational emergency volunteer roles. The project is expected to produce recommendations regarding existing training products and assess whether additional training products are required to better support volunteer leadership.

Recommendation 2:

Undertake further consultation with young Australians about volunteering, with a focus on identifying the barriers to participation and the incentives and supports needed to encourage sustained involvement in disaster preparedness and response.

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government recognises young people's resilience, strength and capacity to lead positive change across Australia. In November 2025, Public Skills Australia, whose role is outlined in response to Additional Recommendations 1 and 4 above, released its 2025 Workforce Insights Report for Public Safety, covering Defence, Fire and Emergency Services, and Police. This report highlighted youth engagement and retention in volunteering as a key workforce challenge within the sector. In response, Public Skills Australia proposes to undertake further work in partnership with volunteer organisations to examine the factors influencing youth attraction, recruitment, and retention in the fire and emergency services context.

The Australian Government has implemented a Youth Engagement Model to give young people opportunity to engage on the policies and programs that impact them. The Office for Youth is a dedicated unit in the Department of Education that supports the contribution of young people and advocates, improves and harmonises policy across government, and ensures government is communicating effectively with young people. This mechanism has been used to undertake consultation with young Australians about volunteering and emergency management, and remains available to support youth engagement moving forward.

Recommendation 3:

Ensure volunteers have access to adequate resources, equipment and nationally consistent training and support to carry out their duties safely and effectively.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government's support for nationally consistent training through the VET sector and initiatives underway to strengthen these arrangements are outlined in response to Additional Recommendations 1 and 4.

Responsibility for providing resources, equipment and a safe environment for volunteers rests with the relevant volunteering organisations, some of which are part of state and territory governments.

The Australian Government does support the delivery of generalist training and resources to strengthen volunteer management practices nationally through the Volunteer Management Activity (VMA). The VMA is funded through the Department of Social Services and delivered by state and territory volunteering peak bodies. The VMA is designed to modernise and strengthen volunteering by building the capacity of organisations to recruit, train, manage and retain volunteers. It focuses on digital tools, best-practice training, improving regional coverage, and reducing barriers for priority groups. This includes training to support volunteer recruitment and retention, inclusive volunteering practices, and resources linked to the National Standards for Volunteer Involvement. It also provides free legal resources and services that are developed and delivered by Justice Connect for not-for-profit community organisations that engage volunteers.

The Australian Government's Volunteer Grants program, provides $10 million annually to support eligible not-for-profit organisations to access resources such as online communication and insurance items, small equipment, training, reimbursement of fuel costs and background screening checks.

The Australian Government also currently funds targeted mental health support for emergency services workers including eligible volunteers, such as:

Recommendation 5:

Explore options to incentivise youth participation, including education credits, HECS or TAFE fee reductions or integration of volunteering into secondary and tertiary curricula.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges volunteering supports young people's civic engagement, skill development and career exploration.

Version 9.0 of the Australian Curriculum was agreed by all Education Ministers on 1 April 2022. It incorporates volunteering into secondary curricula, particularly in relation to career education and pathway planning, to build essential employability skills, enhance career development, and support transition planning. Volunteering is recognised as a valuable component of career pathways, fostering skills, community engagement, and personal, social, and emotional growth as part of the curriculum's general capabilities.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is currently developing a curriculum connection resource that supports schools to better identify and plan career education using existing Australian Curriculum V 9.0 content from across learning areas. In response to requests to better integrate volunteering through education settings, the resource will reference volunteering in its key aspects as a meaningful context for career development learning and pathway exploration.

This work will be aligned to the Australian Blueprint for Career Development (a resource for career development practitioners and others with an interest in career development), and its core career management competencies. It will make clear how volunteering can support career development and build transferable skills. It will also support schools to embed volunteering as a meaningful learning context using existing Australian Curriculum content.

Recommendation 6:

Invest in community resilience projects to maintain engagement between disaster events and shift investment toward prevention and mitigation.

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Disaster Ready Fund is the Australian Government's flagship disaster risk reduction and resilience program, providing up to $1 billion over five years from 1 July 2023. The program is delivered with funding contributions from state and territory governments. Three rounds of up to $200 million in Australian Government funding per round have already been announced, providing investments in community resilience across Australia.

For example in Round 3, the Australian Government committed $1.5 million for the Northern Rivers Community Resilience Alliance for the Connected and Prepared project, with a further $375,682 co-contributed by the NSW Government. The project aims to deliver a step-change in disaster resilience by supporting at least 60 independent, grassroots volunteer-led resilience groups. Through tailored support for these groups to develop sustainable governance systems, processes, tools and structures, the project lays the groundwork for scalable, regional disaster preparedness.

The Australian Government also invests in community resilience and risk reduction through the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, the joint cost sharing arrangements with states and territories for disaster response and recovery. Under the arrangements, the Prime Minister may agree to share the costs of a range of initiatives that states and territories request to support community recovery and to 'build back better' after a disaster. Examples include grants for small businesses and not-for-profit organisations, community mental health and wellbeing programs, and rebuilding communities and infrastructure to a more resilient standard.

Recommendation 7:

Ensure there is clear separation from Defence resources, by establishing the Climate Army as a distinct civilian capability that supports, but does not draw from, ADF personnel or funding.

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is collaborating with states and territories to address the challenges to emergency volunteering through the approaches outlined in response to the Recommendations above. These maintain a clear distinction between volunteering organisations and the Australian Defence Force.

Separately, the Australian Government will consider requests from states and territories for Australian Defence Force assistance with disaster preparedness, response or recovery when local capabilities are not sufficient, overwhelmed or no alternative is available. The Defence Assistance to the Civil Community Guidelines provide for this support, which remains an option of last resort to ensure Australian communities facing crisis are safe and protected.

_____

Australian Government response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report No. 486

Regulatory Activities—Inquiry into Auditor General's Reports 33, 47, 48 (2019-20) and 5 and 8 (2020-21)—Recommendation 7

JUNE 2026

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide TEQSA with the ability to extend a deadline by mutual consent with a provider to allow providers additional time to submit further evidence in the interests of reducing the necessity of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Government Response

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

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

Qantas' decision to close regional bases in Canberra, Hobart and Mildura

April 2026

Overview

The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the interim report by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the Committee) into the state of Australia's aviation sector and its ability to deliver reliable and affordable services to rural, regional and remote communities.

The government notes that the interim report tabled on 18 February 2026 addresses the matters in term of reference (aa) which refers to Qantas' decision to close regional bases in Canberra, Hobart and Mildura.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government's response to the interim report is set out below.

Recommendation 1

3.15TheCommitteerecommendsthatQantas/QantasLinkworkswiththeTransportWorkers'

Union, Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Flight Attendants' Association of Australia, and affectedpersonneltoagreeonappropriatecompensationforpilotsandcrewwhohavebeen 'doubly disrupted' by this decision, including:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation is a matter for Qantas Airways Limited to consider.

Recommendation 2

3.34 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers options for a formal mechanism to facilitate meaningful consultation between employees, the flying public, aviation sector stakeholders, regulators, and airlines on decisions affecting Australia's aviation network into the future.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Aviation White Paper sets out the Australian Government's policies to improve the safety, productivity, competitiveness and sustainability of the Australian aviation industry.

The Government will further consider this recommendation in the context of the findings from the Committee final report.

I moved to take note of a report, No. 33 on page 15 of the Notice Paper. The Greens support payday super. Workers should be paid their super at the time they are paid their wages. This is simple and fair, and it's long overdue. But today we're debating a glaring injustice that Labor has chosen to leave in place. Under the regulations, 515,000 young workers stacking shelves, serving burgers, making coffees and cleaning tables continue to be denied superannuation simply because they are under 18 and work fewer than 30 hours a week. They are currently robbed of an estimated $405 million in super contributions last year alone.

Let's be clear about what that means. A 17-year-old can work. They can work hard. They can pay tax. They can contribute in their workplace and to the economy, but, when it comes to retirement savings, Labor says their work somehow doesn't count. It's an outrageous double standard. More than 500,000 young Australians are expected to miss out on super because of this loophole. Around 93 per cent of workers under 18 work fewer than 30 hours a week. That's not a small carve out. It's not a technical anomaly. It's a rule that affects almost every young worker in the country.

Who benefits from this anomaly? It's not workers, not young people. The beneficiaries are some of the largest and most profitable corporations in Australia. The major supermarkets, the fast-food giants and retail chains are making billions in profits while employing armies of young workers. Our inquiry found that companies like Coles, Woolworths, Kmart, Target, Chemist Warehouse, Hungry Jack's and McDonald's employ tens of thousands of teenagers yet still refuse to pay super unless those workers meet outdated minimum hours thresholds. Meanwhile, these same corporations are making enormous profits—over a billion for Coles, $1.38 billion for Woolworths, nearly $600 million for Chemist Warehouse and almost $2.9 billion for Wesfarmers, which owns Kmart and Target. The global profits of McDonald's exceeded $13 billion. These companies can afford to pay super. Many simply choose not to, because the law lets them off the hook. Labor, regrettably, has decided to protect that loophole.

The SDA submission provided testimony from young workers about this pay discrimination. Sarah, for example, who is 18 years old, has been working since she was 15. She works in a discount department, and Sarah's super balance would have exceeded $3,000 by now if contributions had been paid while she was under 18. That's nearly three times what she has now. When asked how she felt about it, Sarah said: 'Not good. That's a lot of money unpaid, and I'm doing the same work as those older people alongside me. That's just not fair.'

This exclusion entrenches lower lifetime savings before workers even turn 18. The system is designed to disadvantage people at the very moment they enter the workforce. Every dollar of super paid early in life has decades to compound. It's very, very sweet, important money. Missing out on super as a teenager can mean thousands—potentially tens of thousands—of dollars less in retirement. That matters. That's painful. That's a serious loss for young workers, many of whom are on very low wages. At a time when young people are facing a housing crisis, rising rents, insecure work and declining living standards, this parliament should not be taking money out of their future pockets. Young Australians are already being asked to carry more than their fair share. They should not also be expected to subsidise the profits of multinational fast-food chains and supermarket giants.

Labor often says, 'No worker should be left behind', but the Labor Party's inaction on these young workers, and their pay packets and their super, speaks louder than words. Let's be clear. Let's be really clear. Labor is backing the wealthy one per cent—those very big corporations—over young workers right at the beginning of their working lives in this country. They're asking young workers to subsidise the profits of some of Australia's biggest and most profitable corporations by letting them continue to avoid paying super to these young workers. The Greens will continue to stand with young workers and fight to close this loophole, and this entire parliament should join us in that effort.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (INCORPORATION OF PROPOSALS) BILL (NO. 1) 2026

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026 (the Bill) amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures in two customs tariff proposals moved in the House of Representatives in May this year, and another proposal that was moved in August 2025. The Bill also makes certain minor technical amendments to the Customs Tariff Act.

The first set of amendments repeals the general rates of duty for almost 500 tariff classifications and replaces the rates with 'Free'. These tariff classifications were selected because the majority of importers utilise relevant tariff concessions or free trade agreement preferential rates, which in practice reduce the 5 per cent duty rate to a 'Free' rate of duty.

Eliminating customs duty for these classifications will reduce business compliance costs and make it easier to import a range of goods including foodstuffs, homewares, items of clothing and personal hygiene goods.

Cumulatively, these amendments together with similar amendments made in 2024, has reduced the customs duty rates for almost 1,000 tariff classifications.

The Albanese Government has reduced to 'Free' the general rates of customs duty for more tariff classifications than any other government in the last two decades. Reducing the duty rates for these additional tariff classifications helps to cut red tape and reduces compliance costs for Australian businesses.

Amendments will also be made to the corresponding free trade agreement preferential rates to ensure they are not higher than the general rate of duty. This ensures that importers utilising free trade agreements are not disadvantaged by the unilateral reduction of the general rate.

These amendments are consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2026, moved in the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026.

While other countries are putting up trade barriers, we are tearing them down. This government is reducing more customs duty rates to 'Free' because we recognise that it delivers benefits to Australian businesses and to the Australian consumer.

The second set of amendments extends the temporary additional customs duty on goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia and Belarus for a further 24-months. The temporary 35 per cent duty applies in addition to the general rate of customs duty that would ordinarily apply.

In applying this measure, Australia joined with like-minded countries in response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus. As Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules-based international order, this measure is necessary for Australia's essential security interests. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, which are necessary for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security.

These amendments are consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2025, moved in the House of Representatives on 28 August 2025.

The third set of amendments extend the temporary 'Free' rate of customs duty applied to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine for a further 24-months. The 'Free' rate of duty applies to all Ukrainian goods, except for petroleum, fuel, tobacco and alcohol products.

The extension of the concessional treatment supports Ukraine's continued participation in international trade. The tariff concession is one part of Australia's package of defence, economic and humanitarian support and a sign of our ongoing and steadfast support for Ukraine and its people.

These amendments are consistent with the alterations made by Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2026, moved in the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026.

The Bill also makes certain technical amendments to Schedule 6A of the Act, which provides for preferential rates of customs duty for goods that are originating under the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The amendments remove spent phasing rates and as such do not alter the operation of the Customs Tariff Act.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (FUEL EXCISE RELIEF NO. 2) BILL 2026

I move that this Bill be read a second time.

Today the Albanese Labor Government is introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026.

This Bill will extend fuel excise relief for another month to take some of the sting out of petrol prices and help Australians with the cost of living.

It does so in a considered and calibrated way—acknowledging support is still needed while tapering that support over time as we return to more normal settings.

We welcome the agreement last week between the United States and Iran, but we desperately need it to stick.

We need the Strait of Hormuz to be opened—and to stay open.

We cannot afford another false dawn or another false start.

But even after the signing of that deal, even after the proper opening of the Strait of Hormuz, we'll still be paying a hefty price for these hostilities long after they end.

Despite the welcome and substantial drop in fuel prices, we know people are still under pressure.

That's why we are taking action to provide a bit more help to Australian motorists and businesses.

The Bill extends fuel excise relief for another month, making petrol and diesel 16 cents per litre cheaper compared with normal prices, saving Australians around $11 per tank.

It follows our three-month cut to the fuel excise of 32 cents per litre we announced in March.

This additional support will commence on the 1st of July and run to the 2nd of August, in line with the scheduled fuel excise indexation date.

Following discussions at National Cabinet, the States and Territories have also indicated they are willing to contribute to this discount.

In addition to this Bill, we are also reducing the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge by 16 cents per litre which will save truckies.$64 on a 400-litre tank of fuel.

This Bill to extend fuel excise relief is both responsive and responsible.

It is responsive to changing global circumstances and the pressures people are under.

Since the war in the Middle East broke out almost four months ago, we have seen higher fuel prices here and across the world.

We welcome that prices have moderated significantly from these peaks, providing Australians some much needed relief.

Since the end of March, petrol prices in most capital cities are around 90 cents per litre lower and diesel prices in most capital cities are more than

$1 per litre lower.

Since the conflict started at the end of February, petrol prices are lower in almost all capital cities and diesel prices are on average around 20 cents per litre higher.

This Bill recognises that although fuel prices have moderated recently, people remain under cost-of-living pressure.

Australians didn't choose this war, but they continue to face the costs and consequences of it.

That's why a more modest but still meaningful discount is the appropriate way to continue this support for a bit longer.

This Bill delivers that cost of living relief in a responsible way because it is temporary and it is tapered.

We know that economic and fuel market recovery will take time, and this extra month will help Australian motorists and businesses as this support tapers off and we return to normal excise settings.

It is also a responsible way to help to manage demand at service stations across the country towards the end of this month.

This responsible cost of living relief is in addition to all the other action we are taking on fuel including:

This all helps to take pressure off—for the farmers who grow our food, the truckies who get goods to where they're needed, and the businesses that sell our everyday essentials.

It also builds on the other ways we are providing responsible cost of living relief, including income tax cuts for every taxpayer, making medicines cheaper, helping more Australians into a home, and backing higher wages for workers.

From July 1, we'll have more temporary cost of living help in an extension to the fuel tax cut, as well as more permanent cost of living help in another round of tax cuts for every taxpayer.

It comes after a Budget that is all about making it easier for people to buy their own home, more income tax cuts and better aligning the treatment of income from labour and assets.

All of these measures are about helping Australians with the cost of living and responding to the very real pressures they are facing, while shoring up our critical supply chains and navigating all this global uncertainty.

This extra fuel excise relief is just the latest, but still a very important, way we are continuing to help Australian families and businesses.

I commend this Bill to the House.

WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUILDING COOPERATIVE WORKPLACES NO. 1) BILL 2026

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

The government's first term workplace reforms were the most significant since the Fair Work Act commenced almost 17 years ago.

These reforms have delivered on our objectives to promote job security and gender equality, get wages moving, improve safety, and address loopholes that had undermined fairness in the workplace.

With this Bill today, we build on those reforms with a package of practical measures to further improve the operation of the workplace relations system and support more co-operative and productive workplaces.

These include amendments designed to:

I now turn to outline the measures in the Bill in detail.

FWC workload measures

This bill includes six important administrative measures which will streamline the operations of the Commission and assist it to manage its workload, without reducing protections for workers.

The Commission plays a critical role as our national workplace relations tribunal, and the Government is committed to ensuring that it continues to provide efficient dispute resolution services to workers and employers across Australia.

The first measure will remove the requirement to hold a formal hearing to determine whether or an applicant in a general protections matter has or has not been dismissed. The amendment will allow the Commission to simply conduct a conference to seek to resolve the dispute. This will save the time and resources of the Commission, as well as the parties involved in the dispute.

Secondly, the Bill will allow the President of the Commission to delegate some functions to Commission staff, including the power to issue certificates that provide that parties to a general protections dispute have made all reasonable attempts to resolve their dispute but were unsuccessful. These certificates allow such matters to proceed to consent arbitration or a court. The delegation power will ensure that the time of the President and Commission staff can be more effectively used.

Thirdly, the Bill will give the Commission more discretion to determine matters 'on the papers', without the need for a formal hearing or conference, where it is appropriate to do so and the parties consent.

Fourthly, the Bill will provide the Commission with additional powers to more effectively deal with vexatious and frivolous applications, including by enabling the Commission to make orders to prevent vexatious litigants from making further applications without permission.

Fifthly, the Bill will allow the Commission to dismiss unfair termination and unfair deactivation applications that are frivolous or vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success.

Finally, the Bill will streamline the process for obtaining supported bargaining authorisations from the Fair Work Commission. This is a practical measure that will reduce the administrative burden associated with applying for a supported bargaining authorisation, where there is an existing supported bargaining agreement and the new agreement would covers the same or substantially the same group of employees and employers, and the application is made no earlier than 3 months before, and no later than 2 years after, the nominal expiry date of the earlier agreement. Under the provisions, employers can be removed from a further authorisation by the Commission, both before and after an authorisation is made, where the Commission is satisfied there has been a change in their circumstances.

Supporting Good Faith Bargaining

The government inherited a bargaining system that was not working effectively and had not worked effectively for a long time. It had got to the point where less than 15% of employees were covered by a current federal enterprise agreement.

The government's first term reforms have reinvigorated the bargaining system, reducing barriers to bargaining to make it easier for employers and employees to negotiate agreements that meet their needs.

The result is we have seen record high numbers of employees covered by enterprise agreements delivering real wage increases for

Australian workers, and productivity and flexibility improvements for employers.

The Bill contains a measure designed to enable Commonwealth spending to encourage the use of good faith bargaining which supports secure jobs and fair conditions. The Bill allows Commonwealth Government spending to preference employers with enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed, where appropriate to do so.

Importantly, the Bill does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth to do this—how and when it would be appropriate to do so is being carefully considered as part of the development of the Secure Australian Jobs Code, which will sit alongside requirements to ensure value for money and high-quality, timely delivery.

All Commonwealth entities will continue to be bound by the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and Commonwealth Grant Guidelines.

Road transport measures

In 2024, the government introduced new protections in the Fair Work Commission for truckies and small road transport businesses from unfair contract terminations and unfair contract terms. Currently, access to these provisions is limited by a high-income threshold.

However, because of the high operating costs of road transport contractors to pay for fuel and maintain their vehicles, particularly for long-distance owner drivers, this threshold is not fit for purpose.

This change will enable the establishment of a separate, fit for purpose road transport contractor high income threshold, which will allow these hard-working Australian truckies and small road transport businesses to access our protections against unfair termination and unfair contracts.

CFMEU Administration measure

The Australian Government took the strongest possible action by legislating for the appointment of an administrator to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of outgoing Administrator, Mr Mark Irving KC, and thank him sincerely on behalf of the Government for his leadership and the unprecedented progress he has made in improving the culture of the construction industry and tackling criminality and corruption in the CFMEU.

This Bill will give the Administrator an appropriate timeframe to prepare and submit a bi-annual financial report to the Minister, as required under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

There is no change to the content or scope of the financial reporting requirements, or the timing for the Administrator's separate bi-annual report on the operation of the administration.

Measures supporting the operation of tripartite bodies

This Government has provided strong support for co-operative and productive approaches to workplace relations, including through tripartite arrangements to bring employers, workers and government together.

National Construction Industry Forum

One of those tripartite statutory advisory bodies is the NCIF. Its function is to provide advice to the Australian Government in relation to work in the building and construction industry.

The bill makes minor updates to the ministerial membership of the NCIF and enables travel allowance for members of the NCIF who are not Ministers to also be prescribed by reference to Remuneration Tribunal determinations.

Road Transport Advisory Group

The bill confirms that RTAG members can receive a travel allowance, in line with other consultative bodies, and clarifies the RTAG's members, Chair and subcommittee members are not otherwise entitled to receive remuneration or allowances.

Conclusion

Reform is never a set and forget job.

It requires ongoing stewardship and responsiveness.

Our landmark Secure Jobs Better Pay and Closing Loopholes reforms laid the foundations, and this bill builds on and continues that work.

This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring our workplace relations framework supports cooperative and productive workplaces—the kind of workplaces that work for businesses, workers, and the broader economy.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the resignations of KPMG's former Chief Executive Officer, Chair, Chief Operating Officer and National Managing Partner of Audit and Assurance as a result of substantiated whistleblower allegations that KPMG partners misused confidential client information to win audit work on multiple occasions,

(ii) that KPMG and those involved are presently subject to multiple investigations, including by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Department of Finance,

(iii) that KPMG has shown the Parliament and the Australian public that they are not up to the job, that they have failed basic ethical tests, that they are not fit for government work and that their ethical failures are particularly egregious considering the PricewaterhouseCoopers tax leaks scandal, and

(iv) that it is Labor's responsibility to act on the mountain of evidence and recommendations to meaningfully reform the auditing, assurance and consulting sectors; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) break up and regulate the 'Big 4' firms,

(ii) penalise and ban unethical contractors, and

(iii) strengthen protections for whistleblowers.

Today I rise to speak about a troubling pattern of conduct that's further damaged public trust in one of Australia's largest professional services firms, KPMG Australia—a firm that made $2.3 billion in revenue last year. This is not a story about one mistake or one individual exercising poor judgement. It's a story of a laundry list of repeated ethical governance and accountability failures and years of cover-ups and obfuscation. It's a corporate culture that time and time again has prioritised commercial interests over the public interest. It's a story of established and repeated patterns of unethical behaviour.

KPMG's sins are multiple: senior partners misusing confidential client information to win lucrative audit work; breaches of audit independence; multiple instances of cheating on internal ethics exams; lying to the Senate about the firm not power-mapping when in fact they did; overcharging Defence while raking in billions of dollars; mistreatment and harassment of multiple whistleblowers, including Brendan Lyon in the TAHE matter in New South Wales and the more recent experience of a brave new whistleblower; attempting to use legal professional privilege to obscure the work of this parliament; and not notifying the Department of Finance of recent developments and incidents as required by their contractual obligations. And the list goes on.

Then we turn to the current architecture of the audit scandal. KPMG's misuse of confidential client information to win lucrative audit work—and this is very lucrative work—is one of the most egregious examples of misconduct to emerge from within an accounting firm in decades. What's worse is that this didn't happen just once. KPMG has confirmed that this happened multiple times. First there was the use of material from Lendlease's board papers, to which KPMG had privileged access as auditors, to assist an audit pursuit team with the Westpac audit. Second was KPMG's leaked Optus unredacted information to colleagues bidding for an audit contract with Telstra. Former CEO Andrew Yates said the confirmation of this leak motivated his decision to resign not so long ago. These revelations are made more concerning by the fact that KPMG provides corporate auditing services to seven of the top 20 ASX companies.

This latest KPMG scandal would not have been unearthed without the bravery of a whistleblower, who tried to raise these matters through the appropriate channels and nothing was done. They went to KPMG partners, to the head of audit, to the firm's senior leadership, to independent directors, to KPMG's international whistleblower hotline, to global leadership and finally to ASIC and ultimately this parliament, through the work of senators in this place, especially Senator O'Neill.

Last Friday the parliament heard, over a very long session—more than 10 hours—damning evidence of KPMG's toxic culture of retaliation, of establishing fear, of retribution and of the pursuit of profit at all costs. We heard how that brave whistleblower was threatened and retaliated against for speaking up about what was going on within KPMG. The whistleblower's laptop was accessed without their permission, without their knowledge, and KPMG dismissed this individual as someone with 'simple workplace grievances'. They targeted these as employment matters rather than legitimate whistleblowing disclosures.

And what happened within KPMG's so-called speak-up culture, much spoken of publicly by their proud leadership in recent years? A person who did the right thing spoke up, was shown the door and suffered horrendous personal, mental and career costs and no doubt enormous costs to their family and friends. They've since said that speaking out has had devastating consequences for them, and when asked whether they would do this again they said no.

KPMG said they did not make the whistleblower comfortable. They were very far from making them comfortable. They drove them out of the organisation, they subjected them to enormous pressure and they failed to treat their key whistleblowing information in the serious way they are obliged to do. That's one way for KPMG to describe it—that they did not make the whistleblower comfortable. Another way to describe what they actually went on to do was that they used multiple external law firms across multiple jurisdictions, circulating the whistleblower's identity in the substance of their protected disclosure within and beyond KPMG, causing retaliation and the end of the person's employment, and the coordination with member firms across the global network of KPMG.

Then we turn to the evidence of ASIC, who confirmed that they have numerous formal investigations underway into KPMG and those involved. Sarah Court, the new head of ASIC, said that this scandal is 'an egregious and serious breach of trust and honesty in this profession'. She also emphasised there are clear gaps in regulatory settings and that the Corporations Act needs to be extended to big partnerships. The latest resignations from KPMG are essential. But much more needs to be done to clean up the mess of unethical contracting, which is rife across KPMG, and the solutions need to be systemic. We need some key structural reforms. This is not an issue of one or two bad people who make their formal resignation and turn to the Australian public and say that the price has been paid by one or two individuals. That is not what we need here. We need systemic reform, specifically within KPMG but more broadly across the sector.

This is our third parliamentary inquiry into the big four firms. We already know what recommendations are needed. It's now time for the Labor government to implement them so we can properly regulate a sector that has gone rogue. We've got systemic recommendations out of two very thick and significant reports before this parliament, which provide an important guide to the way forward.

In a published statement to the committee, the whistleblower said that three things were, in his mind, essential based on where we are today. Firstly, regulation. Firms like KPMG are, in practice, left to regulate themselves—a billion dollars of revenue and self-regulation. They've shown themselves, over and over again, unable to self-regulate. If there's a prospect of a revenue bucket across the other side of the room, their ethics get wiped out on the path to get that money into their revenue coffers. This has created incredibly wide gaps that are being exploited to avoid accountability while maintaining an appearance of compliance; indeed, an appearance that they are exemplary in their treatment of whistleblowers in a speak-up culture—a speak-up culture that has toppled in this example multiple times, causing enormous personal harm to a whistleblower and no doubt enormous personal damage to many people who would no more think of acting unethically in the way that we've seen in this firm than fly to the moon. These are good people within KPMG who are damaged by the failure to take the responsibilities of self-regulation seriously. It's time we went beyond self-regulation to proper regulation and filled those gaps that allow these very large partnerships to have different tax regimes, different reportability, a failure to be transparent and accountable to the public and certainly inferior and very inappropriate attention to whistleblowers.

Secondly, we have to really look closely at ownership structures, as the whistleblower pointed out. Conflicts of interest are built into the big four model, and there are too many commercial incentives and pressures that create very significant conflicts of interest. Finally, and, of course, most importantly, we need whistleblower protections. Whistleblowers are key agents in assuring accountability and integrity. But they're subject at present, as we've seen, to very confusing laws, the little gaps in those laws and the big gaps in those laws that these very big partnerships waltz through to disadvantage our community, the regulation of our financial system and certainly the individuals who are trying to blow the whistle. We see the use of silencing tools like non-disclosure agreements and settlement deeds that prevent organisations from being held accountable for very serious and significant wrongdoing. We see retaliation against well-meaning and sacrificial whistleblowers.

In pointing to those three particular areas of reform, as this whistleblower does, regulation, ownership structures and whistleblower protections are spot on and on the money. We need to address these issues as we go forward. Greater protections for whistleblowers have been advocated for by so many people, over so many years, in Australia, including ASIC, the Greens, many parties and human rights advocates across our country. And there is tripartisan support for applying whistleblower protections to large audit, accounting and consulting firms.

The government also has to give greater practical support to whistleblowers. Whistleblowers need the support of independent resources and organisations to back them in, to give them support and to assist them to hold strong against massive institutional kickback when they do things that make them incredibly uncomfortable or hold them to account. They need access to civil remedies and financial compensation, particularly in instances where disclosures result in the imposition of a penalty on the relevant entity or organisation. So there's so much to do and so much that we obviously need to do. There's so much already before the parliament in these very comprehensive reports from two very longstanding and extensive inquiries into the big four and the consulting and audit sectors.

Two of the big firms, PwC and KPMG, have shown us they are not fit for government work. They have had the dubious honour of uniting the Australian parliament across the parties in the face of flagrant ethical breaches and misuse of confidential client information. PwC's primary sin—and there were multiple sins—was to use information provided confidentially in pursuit of economic benefits. So the business model of PwC trumped ethics at the first hurdle. And the lesson from KPMG is the same—the use of confidential information to monetise benefit. The really egregious thing about KPMG, on top of and different from PwC, is that their sins came after PwC's. They had seen the example. The lessons of it should have been obvious to anyone who's engaged in the big four system across our country, yet they came to the party here and committed exactly the same type of misdemeanour over and over again and also demonstrated other really significant losses, like the damage to a whistleblower and the repetitive cheating on exams—models of poor leadership and ethics that we should not be seeing in the wake of the PwC scandal.

It is this parliament's responsibility, but it is especially the Labor government's responsibility, to act on this mountain of evidence and the mountain of recommendations to meaningfully reform the auditing, assurance and consulting sectors. We have been too slow. Labor has been too slow to act on these important issues, and we're back here again with the second of the big four learning the same lessons. Well, let's not waste this really important opportunity for us as a parliament. I hope Labor will not waste this opportunity and will work with this parliament to get the changes in regulation, in structure and in whistleblowing and to impose really significant penalties so that those who misbehave, who take the Australian public for a bunch of mugs, get real punishment when the wheels fall off, when they capitalise and make money out of the use of information that is entirely unethical and demonstrates over and over again poor culture and poor leadership.

We have a really significant opportunity right now to drive reform. We can make the changes we need to. The Greens are ready to assist the government in any way possible to deal with these regulatory gaps and make sure that never again do the Australian public need to read in their newspapers or see in the media, day after day, about the failure of ethics and the failure of the responsibility of very large partnerships in the very critical business of audit and consulting, damaging the confidence of Australians in the institutions that are so important to our financial system and to our economy.

I'll first observe your role, Acting Deputy President Colbeck, in relation to the examination of matters relating to PwC. I acknowledge the service which you've provided through your committee memberships, in terms of exposing that dreadful, egregious conduct. And here we have, unfortunately, another piece of egregious conduct, this time engaged in by senior—that must be emphasised—members of KPMG.

At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge Senator Barbara Pocock's passionate pursuit of these issues and her forensic examination at the committee hearing last Friday. I think Senator Pocock has provided great service to the people of Australia, in terms of pursuing these issues, and I commend her for it. I also agree with Senator Pocock that there is a need for reform, and I'll provide some comments in that respect in my remarks. I'd also like to acknowledge Senator O'Neill, of course, who has provided outstanding leadership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

This has to be emphasised: but for the fact that Senator O'Neill took seriously the disclosure made to her by the whistleblower—and, through Senator O'Neill, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—this matter would not have come to public light. But for the fact that a Senator in this place had to give a speech in the Australian parliament, KPMG would not have taken appropriate action. The chief executive officer of KPMG would still be in his position. The chief operating officer of KPMG would still be in her position. The head of audit would still be in his position. The relevant audit partners would still be in their positions. The chairman of the board of KPMG Australia would still be in his position.

But for the fact that the whistleblower made the relevant disclosures and Senator O'Neill gave that speech in March of this year—but for the fact that the whistleblower blew the whistle—ASIC wouldn't be engaging in the investigations it's engaging in now and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand wouldn't be engaging in the investigations they're engaging in now. A whole raft of other responses wouldn't have been set in train.

We've got to ask ourselves the fundamental question. What is wrong with the system when someone who is seeking, and is doing, the right thing, within, in this case, KPMG and is trying to get their concerns taken seriously, both within KPMG Australia and by going through appropriate avenues to bring it to the attention of KPMG International—why did it take Senator O'Neill giving that speech for this matter to come to light?

That is the reason why reform is necessary, and this reform is urgently required. Why? Because the whistleblower has told us that if they knew, back when they made their initial disclosure, what they would be going through over the last 12 months—the personal toll, the financial toll and the toll on their career—they wouldn't have blown the whistle, because of the huge cost they have incurred. That's not good enough. There are systemic failures that must be addressed.

I think—and Senator O'Neill has made this point repeatedly—that the audit function is integral to trust in our financial system. From large superannuation funds to listed public companies to government owned entities, audit is absolutely crucial as a function. It's a key check and balance in our financial system, and it provides everyone associated with the financial system, including investors, shareholders and creditors, with confidence in the system. Once you undermine that confidence, you are undermining trust in our financial system.

We heard the gravity of the situation in the comments made by the chairman of Lendlease, who said, in essence—these are my words, not his—'Given KPMG used our information the way they used the information, in breach of the terms under which they were given that information, how can we trust KPMG? They've undermined our trust.' Lendlease has moved to terminate the engagement of KPMG as its auditor after over 60 years. That, to me, underlines the importance of pursuing these issues.

The second point I'd make is that it is clear there are huge gaps in our regulatory system. KPMG is a large partnership, and our corporations law is simply not fit for purpose in regulating a large partnership and holding to account those in large partnerships who are engaging in misconduct. Reform is necessary; there's no doubt about that. That reform extends to the provisions in the Corporations Act relating to whistleblower protections, because in a situation, as was the case here, where a whistleblower is hired by a service company, but that service company is part of the puzzle of a large partnership, there are serious questions as to how the provisions relating to protections for whistleblowers respond. I personally believe there are good arguments that those protections did apply to the whistleblower, given the whistleblower was hired by a service company. That's my view. But there shouldn't be any doubt about this. It was absolutely shameful. I said this last week in my questions directed to the leadership of KPMG, and I'll say it again: it was absolutely shameful that KPMG presented the situation as if it was the whistleblower's fault that the whistleblower didn't provide information when KPMG asked, without emphasising the fact that KPMG could not or would not give comfort to the whistleblower that they had the benefit of those protections under the Corporations Act. That was absolutely shameful. I say that again here this evening.

So there are gaps in the regulatory regime. What the actual regulatory response to that should be is still, in my view, with all due respect to Senator Pocock, somewhat of an open question. There must be one. There must be reform. There must be change. This must never be allowed to happen again. I agree, and I'll passionately advocate in that regard. I commend Senator Pocock for bringing this motion forward to provide me and Senator O'Neill, whose contribution I'm looking forward to, the opportunity to provide remarks in relation to this matter. There needs to be reform. There needs to be change. Whether that means a break-up, which is the phrase used in the motion, or whether there's some other reform needed here, there certainly has to be reform in terms of the regulatory oversight so that ASIC has appropriate authority to regulate large partnerships such as KPMG. But what that reform actually looks like is still an open question in my mind. I'm sure it's a question which we as a committee will be pursuing over the course of the next few weeks.

I say to the government that they don't have to wait for us. They should be looking at this now. I do note there's a Treasury consultation paper open on whistleblowing laws. It's good that there is, and I'll make some comments in relation to that in a moment. The government needs to get moving on this. We can't let this happen again. And it's not just the responsibility of the Labor Party. Labor's in government, but I think it's the responsibility also of everyone in this chamber, including the coalition, including my party, the Liberal Party, in this place to make sure we engage constructively in relation to this reform process. Reform must occur. There's no question about that. There must be reform, and all of us need to constructively engage in that.

The last area I want to talk about is the whistleblower. Once again I place on the record: thank you to the whistleblower. In my view, whistleblowers are the great civic heroes of our society. They're the people who, at great personal cost, are the ones who step forward when others don't. When others either engage in misconduct or are prepared to turn away from that misconduct and not raise red flags, the whistleblower is the person with the courage to step forward and to make sure that the egregious misconduct comes to light. This whistleblower should be congratulated for that.

But it's not enough for us just to do that, just as it wasn't enough for KPMG to say on a mere piece of paper that they were sorry. It doesn't cut it. We must introduce protections for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers deserve a standalone statutory authority, a whistleblower protection authority, that is there to serve their interests and to look out for them. This whistleblower was left adrift. KPMG could go out and hire the biggest commercial corporate law firms Australia has—and they hired a number of them. KPMG International hired some of the leading Magic Circle firms to provide them advice. We found out last Friday that some of the people who have resigned, who admitted that they could have done better, had the benefit of their own independent legal advice, paid for by KPMG. But what about the whistleblower? Who's in the whistleblower's corner? Who's standing up for the whistleblower? We've done our best, but there needs to be a standalone regulatory authority that's there in the whistleblower's corner from day one.

I want to quote from a exchange I had with Mr James Shelton, a whistleblower who blew the whistle in relation to the foreign bribery offences committed by Securency and Note Printing Australia; they basically went overseas and bribed overseas officials to use Australian technology in terms of banknotes. James Shelton is an Australian hero who blew the whistle and suffered terribly for it. In an exchange I had with him in relation to amendments to the public interest disclosure legislation, I asked him about the need for an independent whistleblower protection authority. I want to end this contribution with his words: 'An independent whistleblower protection authority which could provide a guide, a way forward and a pathway on what you will experience, what's going to come up and what you will feel, and also provide some support services, would have made the world of difference to me. It's too late for me, but for others who come after, yes, 100 per cent, there needs to be an independent whistleblower protection authority that covers both the private and public sectors.'

It was too late for James Shelton. It's now too late for the KPMG whistleblower. It should never be too late for future whistleblowers. They should have the benefit of a whistleblower protection authority. They should have the benefit of that support. They should have someone standing in their corner as they go on this journey of doing right, acting in the public good for the benefit of all Australians. Each senator in this place, in my view, owes them a moral obligation to make sure that this reform occurs and that whistleblowers in the future have the benefit of a whistleblower protection authority standing up for them and protecting their interests.

This is a speech that you would hope you wouldn't have to make in the country in which we live. I know your contribution through F&PA, Acting Deputy President Colbeck, as the former deputy chair, has been acknowledged by your colleague Senator Paul Scarr as important in revealing some of the appalling practices that seem to live and thrive in a toxic culture that has now been revealed at both PwC and KPMG in the public space. I acknowledge once again, and it's the second time this evening I've been able to speak happily about, the collaborative nature of important work we can do for our country in this place, the Parliament of Australia and the Senate of our nation.

When I arrived here, I was truly humbled to walk through the doors of this place and serve the country that my parents came to—as immigrants; that debate rages—with very little education and very little opportunity. They came to a democratic country where the rule of law is respected, operates and provides incredible levels of opportunity and protection for the Australian people. That's what we want to happen here. I acknowledge the great contributions of my colleagues who are sitting here on the Senate floor alongside me, Acting Deputy President Colbeck. Senator Scarr has just made another profoundly important contribution to thinking about what we do as we go forward in response to the problems that are becoming manifest to Australians. We've been working on this for a very, very long time on the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I want to also acknowledge the crossbench in a way that is not commonly reported in the public. I have been working so closely with my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock on both the F&PA committee and also on the corporations and financial services committee to do the work that we have done to bring what can only be described as a very dry subject into the public realm.

At the heart of why we do this is the question that needs to be asked: why is this important? It's in the answer to that question that we will find our resolve to undertake the necessary change. Why is this matter important? I think Australians are beginning to wake up to why it is so important for them that we do this work, that we do it carefully, that we do it collaboratively and that we do it in a time sequence that is responsive to the challenge that is there but not in a rushed and haphazard way filled with outrage and alarm. Good governments of any persuasion take the task of reform seriously. They consult. They do the very best they can to bring things forward. That is the way that I think we need to proceed with this matter.

The reason that what we are talking about matters—about those four little letters on the Notice Paper today, K-P-M-G—is because Australians now have $4½ trillion under management because of our superannuation system. It was a great development for Australia that a Labor government established the superannuation system. Now every working Australian has a share in the future wealth that is generated by investment in a range of companies both in Australia and overseas.

Whether you're managing your own superannuation in an SMSF, or perhaps you've got money and have just started your first job and you've got a thousand dollars being managed by your industry super fund, or you are in a retail fund and having some choices about what's going on by negotiating with a broker about what you want to do, all of the decisions, no matter how your superannuation is invested, rely on the truth of the documents that are provided by these massive companies in which we are all invested. What has been shown to occur in the case of the KPMG matters is that the people who are supposed to verify the authenticity of those books on which decisions are made and that basically the financials are accurate—those people called auditors in a position of profound trust and centrality to the proper functioning of the markets—have not been operating in anything that approaches an ethical disposition.

We have seen evidence of profound breaches of professional responsibility by these auditors who are given huge access to what's going on in the companies. We've referred to Lendlease. Senator Scarr mentioned the leadership of Lendlease talking about how they felt when they found out, after the fact, about how their confidential information was used. KPMG shows up as an auditor, and, as is required by the law, Lendlease had to open all of their books for inspection. Mr John Gillam, Lendlease's chairman, described the misuse of confidential client information by KPMG as 'a grave misuse of their access privileges'. He says, 'We were deeply disconcerted.' Now 'grave misuse of access privileges' means that when KPMG went in, instead of acting to see everything and then retreat quietly without sharing anything that they had seen in any way with anyone else, they failed. Absolutely and totally, they failed. They took information away with them. Not only did they fail in taking that information which should have been confidential; they then sought to use it for their own advantage. It's this pursuit of money, this pursuit of some prestige that apparently they think comes with money no matter how you get it, that is driving the sorts of behaviours that are now becoming known to the Australian people.

I found it extraordinary when reports from my office and also from members of the media who have been covering this indicated that upwards of 78,000 people had watched the YouTube video of a hearing on Friday. It's an extraordinary indication of interest in what is happening in this place. It wouldn't have ever got to that point but for the courage of an individual who was inside KPMG. No matter what they were promised—no matter the lure of millions of dollars, potentially as a partner—the moral fibre, the moral fortitude, the discernment and the ethical disposition of the whistleblower, who saw egregious behaviours of theft of information, sharing of information and basic lying to their own clients, meant that the whistleblower had courage enough to put forward a document.

So here we are. It's June 2026. This journey started for that whistleblower in 2022-23. By 30 May 2024, the whistleblower had determined that this matter could not go unaddressed and wrote to a senior audit provider, one of his direct reports, about failures of audit quality with regard to Dexus, Telstra, Macquarie Bank, Westpac, SingTel Optus and of course Lendlease, to whom I've been referring. Without the courage of that whistleblower to document what had been observed, we would still not know that one of these big four entities, so vital to the success of our financial markets, had done what they'd done. That careful document was basically used inside KPMG not as an opportunity to be appalled at what was being reported but rather as a document to be managed, and the person attached to it, our whistleblower, was turned into a person to be managed.

Many people don't know much about these big companies or about what an office of general counsel is. I certainly didn't have anything to do with that world before I came here. But a lawyer inside a big company is a common thing. That's what a general counsel is. In this circumstance, the office of the general counsel was used as a tool to silence the whistleblower. We know that, within a couple of days of material being proffered by this whistleblower to his direct report, his own laptop was searched without his permission. And that pattern goes on.

In addition to using the office of the general counsel to silence this person, we find later on in our hearings that, when frustrated by all of the processes inside KPMG, the whistleblower goes to the independent directors and there's a not-virtuous circle established by none other than the chairman of the board, who tells the independent members: 'If you hear from the whistleblower, jump up and talk to the office of the general counsel.' Again, it's another tool of oppression, another tool to silence the whistleblower in the most disgraceful way. That is just one tiny chapter of the volumes of information that we have received about failures inside KPMG.

Critically, there is a massive failure in terms of the structure of these companies and the way they have been allowed to operate. I'm very proud of the work that we did, and I see my two very engaged colleagues sitting here with me. We had 40 recommendations in the report that we advanced about how we might move forward. I know that there was one contentious matter for us, and that was about how many partners there should be. There are a thousand people that are all in on what KPMG did, because that is the level of partners you can go up to. We know that it's about 680 at the moment, but the upper level is a thousand. That's a thousand partners who are not governed in any way by ASIC or any federal entity or anyone who has reached into that partnership. We know that ASIC can capture a few company auditors. That is a critical breaking point in the proper supervision of those who are in these positions of profound responsibility.

There is so much more to say. We have so much more work to do. This is not an end point for us but rather a renewed and invigorated commencement of making sure that the reform that needs to be undertaken is undertaken, and the committee will continue its work.

Debate interrupted.

Senate adjourned at 17:30