If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I rise to speak to the Greens Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025. This bill does something very meaningful and long overdue: it scraps the JRG fee hikes.

In 2020, the Morrison government took a wrecking ball to universities, draining funding and implementing cruel, unfair and completely unjustified hikes. And yes, these fee hikes were brought to students by the coalition government almost six years ago, but they have been kept in place by the Albanese Labor government for the past four years. In that time, the cost of humanities degrees has skyrocketed to $56,000.

This bill takes a significant step towards reversing the worst of Job-ready Graduates by reversing punitive fee hikes that have seen the cost of degrees and the burden of student debt skyrocket for students in law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce, society and culture, communications, medicine, dentistry and veterinary science. This bill reverts the cost of these units to pre-JRG levels. The impact of this would be to halve the cost of an arts degree.

It is really difficult to overstate just how widely JRG has been condemned as a flawed and failed policy. In the Senate inquiry into this bill recently, it was called one of the five worst policy mistakes made by the Commonwealth this century. All but one of the 74 submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill supported this bill itself or supported the intent to reverse the JRG fee hikes urgently. Students, staff, their unions, universities and VCs all want to see the back of JRG, and they want to see it scrapped urgently.

Even the Liberal Party, which is responsible for this train wreck of a policy, is now embarrassed about it and made the point that it has been in place under this current government longer than it was under the Liberal government who actually introduced it. I'm glad that the Liberals are taking some talking points from the Greens now.

Labor has been in power for more than four years, and yet they continue to kick the can down the road when it comes to job-ready graduate fee hikes. When JRG was introduced, Labor in opposition called it 'inequitable, perverse and punitive'. Labor MPs labelled the policy 'economic and cultural vandalism' and described the new fee schedule as fundamentally inequitable. I couldn't agree more. But now, in government, Labor doesn't have the courage or desire to rectify a policy that has done so much harm—the desire to rectify it urgently. Under Labor, fees for humanities, arts, law and social science degrees have exploded. A student starting an arts degree today will accrue a debt of $56,000 for their degree, and it's a figure that will increase each year with indexation. That is a lifetime of debt that is stopping people from going to uni.

When the Morrison government rammed through this bill in 2020, it was an act of breathtaking short-sightedness. It came at a time when universities were already reeling from 35,000 pandemic job losses, brutal funding cuts and years of neglect. Rather than support higher education, the coalition used the crisis to further its ideological war against public universities and the arts. This was about punishing students, it was about punishing universities and it was about punishing critical thinking. It was about making education serve the market, not the public. It was about turning universities into profit driven corporations, rather than places of learning and discovery. This was an attack on education itself, on the idea that universities should exist to expand knowledge, not serve in a market. The damage has been devastating. Universities are teaching more with less; students are paying more for less; casualisation is rampant; research is gutted; and jobs are being cut left, right and centre.

It is more than $50,000 to study literature, politics, philosophy or history. These are the disciplines that help us understand who we are, why the world is as it is and how to make it better. People who study these degrees go into the Public Service, into our classrooms and into our parliaments. But the Liberals decided they weren't 'job ready' enough, or they decided that only the wealthy should be afforded these opportunities.

That is the history of JRG, but the present reality is that JRG belongs to Labor—squarely belongs to Labor. They should have scrapped it the minute they came into government, yet they still haven't done it. The quiet tragedy of JRG is not just the students and graduates crushed by debt; it is the people who will never enrol at all. Between 2020 and 2024, low-socioeconomic student commencements decreased by 9.8 per cent. In courses with the highest student contributions, which are humanities, social sciences, law and commerce, low-SES commencements decreased by almost 20 per cent over this period. As was rightly pointed out by a witness to the Senate inquiry, this is making 'the professions that shape our services and institutions even less representative of the communities they serve'.

This Labor government talks a big game on intergenerational equality. They talk a big game on educational equity. But they continue to preside over the most egregious and inequitable policy in higher education. Labor want to pat themselves on the back for a one-off student debt cut that does nothing—absolutely nothing!—for students that start their degrees this year or the year after. In opposition, Labor talked a big game. Once in government, they said, 'Wait for the accord.' The accord said JRG required 'urgent remediation'. So then they said: 'The accord implementation is in process. Wait for ATEC.' And now, over four years later, we have an ATEC and we're no closer to seeing the back of these punitive and damaging fee hikes and funding cuts.

The Labor government could pass this bill today, deliver desperately needed relief to students and fund universities properly. The government say that they want to reform JRG but that it's too expensive. Since 2021, nearly $4 billion has been taken out of the higher education system. Passing this bill and reversing the funding cuts would require the government to make just a shortfall of about $1 billion in funding. This is a government that is willing to spend $385 billion on nuclear submarines that will probably never materialise—they don't even exist—and a government that says no to a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, despite the potential for it to bring approximately $17 billion annually. They just need $1 billion to fund universities and get rid of JRG. The Albanese government still collects more in student debt repayments than it raises from the petroleum resources rent tax. Scrapping the JRG is not a matter of financial feasibility; it is a matter of political priorities.

In a sector that is able to spend almost $2 billion of public money a year on consultants, you would think there might be some available to ease the massive burden on students. Students are now paying 93 per cent of their arts degrees cost, with the Albanese government contributing only seven per cent of the funding. JRG has overseen a 113 per cent increase in the price of humanities courses. In 2024, Labor's failure to remove JRG resulted in students paying up to $386 million more than they would have under pre-JRG rates. Some who want JRG gone argue that it will leave a shortfall in uni funding.

Well, my friends, Labor is in government. They have the means to fund universities properly, and they can choose universities and students over fossil fuel corporations and war. While the focus of this bill is student fees, the issues at the heart of JRG, and, at the heart of our higher education system, run so much deeper. When I was an academic, I saw firsthand how corporatisation hollowed out our universities. Universities have become corporate machines obsessed with branding, rankings and revenue diversification. Vice-chancellor and senior executive salaries have exploded, while academic and services staff are underpaid, overworked and pushed into insecure work. Students are treated as numbers and teachers treated as expendable.

Job-ready graduates supercharged that shift. It decoupled teaching from research, slashed public funding and locked in a model where students, not the government, pay the price of education. Universities should be life making, not profit making. Teaching should be about producing informed, creative, critical thinkers—people who are motivated and equipped to shape a better world. The idea that an arts degree is somehow less valuable than an engineering or business degree is absurd, and I say that as a proud civil engineer.

Humanities graduates work in so many professions and hold our democracy together. We need more of them, not less. This bill recommits this parliament to the principle that higher education is a public good—something we gladly invest in because it benefits all of us. It benefits society. It benefits the world. When we invest in students, we invest in our future. When we invest in universities, we invest in research, innovation, arts, science, engineering, culture and progress. When we make education free, and support students and staff, we build more equal, creative and democratic societies.

Education is a right, not a privilege, and we can't sit by while this government keeps a broken, punitive system in place and says education is only for some of you. The Greens will keep fighting for a fully funded, free higher education system; for the abolition of student debt; for secure work for university staff; for investment in research; and for democratically run universities by staff and students, not by corporate shills. We need a higher education system that values knowledge for its own sake, that nurtures curiosity, creativity and critical thought, and one that pays and respects its staff. This vote today is not going to be the end. We will keep pushing until every student, regardless of background or postcode, can study without a lifelong debt.

While their student debt grows, so too does the cost of rent, groceries, transport and bills. We know that students and young people are being hit the hardest by cascading cost-of-living and housing crises. Just last week, a report found that student-living costs have increased by 29 per cent since the introduction of the JRG scheme—29 per cent! That is not a squeeze; that is crushing. Students are skipping meals. They're sleeping in cars. They're living in tents while completing placements. They're working exhausting hours and balancing class between multiple jobs.

This is what happens when education is treated as a market and not as a public good. This is what happens when a government wants to talk about equity in education but refuses to raise youth allowance and doesn't see the urgency of scrapping high fees or wiping student debt—or indeed making uni free for all. Education should be a pathway out of poverty. Instead, this government has allowed it to become another driver of it. When brilliant young people are forced to abandon their studies because they cannot afford to eat, it is not an individual failure. It is a political failure, and Australia will be poorer for it.

Scrapping JRG is the bare minimum, and it should only be the start. Everyone here knows that JG is completely cooked. Everyone knows it. Everyone out there knows it. Everyone wants it gone, and they want it gone now—everyone except perhaps the Labor government, who don't see the urgency. Labor could support our bill, fund universities and make this happen today. You know it is unjust, you know it is unsustainable and you know it can be fixed. Art students have watched in horror as the cost of their debt soars past $50,000. Students are doing it tough. Don't look the other way. Don't look away. Don't team up with this parliament's right wing to oppose cheaper degrees.

The time to close the JRG chapter is now, not in 18 months, not in two years. The only thing stopping the Albanese government from doing so is themselves, and that shows a real lack of care for students. We should be making uni free, just like it was for the Prime Minister. We should be getting on with abolishing student debt and supporting students living below the poverty line. Instead, we've got Labor dragging their heels on the easiest of reforms. Well, today you have the power to make $56,000 arts degrees history. I'm proud to commend this Greens bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025. The Albanese government is building a better and fairer education system where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. That's why we're taking action to help with the cost of living and cost of degrees through our changes to the Higher Education Loan Program. In our first term, we made indexation on HELP debts fairer, and we wiped $3 billion of student debt for more than three million Australians. We capped indexation to the lower of the CPI and the WPI so that student debt can't grow faster than wages. In our second term, our 20 per cent HELP reduction has cut a further $16 billion in student debt, and we've raised the minimum repayment thresholds for when people need to start repaying their HELP debt, so people only pay when they start to get the benefit of having a degree.

We promised it before the 2025 election, and we've delivered. That legislation passed in mid-2025, and the ATO has applied the 20 per cent reduction to over three million student accounts. An individual with an average HECS debt of $27,600 saw around $5½ thousand dollars wiped from their debt. Our changes to the way the student debt repayment system works provides real cost-of-living help. It means that repayments are lower when people are on lower incomes. For example, for someone on an income of $70,000, it means they will have around $1,300 per year back in their pocket.

The Treasurer has also made it easier for people with a student debt to get into the housing market by asking the banking regulators to review their rules, and the banks are starting to provide more flexibility in the treatment of student loans. These commitments build on other significant reforms the Albanese government is delivering for uni students.

From 1 July 2025, the government established a Commonwealth paid prac scheme for the first time. This will support around 68,000 eligible teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students completing their compulsory prac training at university. We've massively increased funding for Fee-Free Uni Ready courses. These are the bridging courses that help to get students ready to take on a degree. We've committed an extra billion dollars over the next 10 years to help thousands of Australians do one of these courses for free.

The National Student Ombudsman started work from 1 February 2025, and a national code to prevent and respond to gender based violence started in January 2026, which will give the ombudsman's recommendations real teeth. We have doubled the number of university study hubs across the country, including 20 new Regional University Study Hubs and, for the first time, 15 new Suburban University Study Hubs in our major cities' outer suburbs. We've introduced a demand-driven system for all Indigenous students from 2024, meaning, if you are an Indigenous student and you get the marks for the course you want to do, you will get a Commonwealth supported place at university. We have quadrupled the higher education disability support fund for more programs and services that empower students with disability to participate and succeed at university.

We've also established the ATEC, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, as an independent national steward to oversee, coordinate and reform Australia's tertiary sector. The ATEC will help us steer future reforms, including by providing advice on the cost of teaching and learning and by driving diversity across the sector to deliver for students. It will also have a lead role in delivering a joined-up tertiary education sector to make it easier for students to get the qualifications they need. It's going to drive the big structural reforms needed to break down the invisible barrier stopping a lot of Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, the suburbs and the regions from getting a crack at university.

The bill in front of us today purports to reverse Job-ready Graduates and end 50K arts degrees. As the Senate committee heard, the evidence suggests that this bill would reduce university funding and could adversely affect course offerings, staffing, research capacity and the sustainability of regional and smaller providers. Fixing the former coalition government's Job-Ready Graduates scheme was a recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord, alongside a number of other recommendations to reduce student contributions and reform HECS repayment arrangements. As I've already outlined, we've implemented many of those recommendations, including fixing indexation, making the repayment system fairer and reviewing bank lending practices for those with student loans.

On 25 June 2026, the Minister for Education introduced legislation in the House to change the way that university places are funded in Australia, to open the doors of opportunity for all Australians. This legislation introduces a new managed growth-funding system and demand-driven needs based funding for students from low socioeconomic areas, the regions and the bush. This will support an extra $3.6 billion over 10 years to help more students from disadvantaged backgrounds access and succeed at university.

The government notes the additional recommendations made by the Australian Greens, including making tertiary education free, wiping student debt, fully funding all public universities and increasing Commonwealth contributions to Commonwealth supported places. Our government's ongoing response to the universities accord reflects the range of actions the Albanese government has taken to deliver cost-of-living relief to Australians and to help more students from underrepresented backgrounds to access, participate and succeed in tertiary education. As the Minister for Education has said, the accord is not a plan for one budget but a blueprint for the next decade and beyond. The government will keep working through the accord's recommendations and will take advice from the ATEC as we do our work to build a better and fairer education system.

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025. While I appreciate Senator Faruqi bringing this important discussion to the chamber, I indicate that the coalition will not be supporting this bill. This bill, frankly, is about grandstanding rather than just reform. The evidence is clear that it will strip $1.3 billion out of the university sector every single year, and there is simply no mechanism to replace that. The Greens made the decision to introduce the bill in this place; they decided as a party not to introduce the legislation in the House, where they would have been constitutionally permitted to appropriate the consolidated revenue and restore to the sector the money that this bill would strip out. They decided not to do so. They were not prevented from doing so by the Constitution. What that tells you is that the Greens' approach to this bill was not about reform; it was simply about virtue signalling and messaging. It says that the Greens were not serious about this piece of reform, because they knew it would have been incredibly destructive for the sector and that the Senate simply would not pass it.

So what does this bill do? This bill is not a coherent redesign of higher education funding. It's also not accompanied by an appropriation to make universities whole. It does not restore the pre-2021 system. It does not move to a simple, uniform student contribution model. It does not resolve the problems of governments picking winners between disciplines; it merely picks a different set of winners, while leaving universities to carry that financial burden and cost.

The purpose of the bill, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear, is to reverse the Job-ready Graduates fee increases in selected fields, including law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce, communications and society and culture, and to end what its proponents call $50,000 arts degrees. This bill amends section 93-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by replacing the table of maximum student contribution amounts. Those amended rates would apply to units of study with census dates on or after commencement, whether the course began before or, indeed, after commencement.

This bill is replete with problems. The first and most fundamental problem, which I alluded to just a second ago, is that this bill would massively cut university revenue. That is not a small technical flaw; it is an absolute, fatal flaw of this bill. As Professor Andrew Norton explained to the committee, the Senate may reduce student contributions, but a bill originating in the Senate cannot appropriate money from the consolidated revenue fund to replace that funding with increased Commonwealth contributions. The Greens think that there's this magic pudding that you can draw on or that there's some little tree that you can pluck revenue from. We don't live in fairyland. We live in reality. We live in the real world, and that means that you've actually got to make ends meet; you've actually got to pay your way. If you take that revenue out, what's going to happen? How do you replace it? This bill, of course, as I've said, does not deal with this issue.

The evidence before the committee—the good work that Senator Maria Kovacic, as the deputy chair of the committee, was able to prosecute—revealed this very problem. Universities Australia estimated the loss to the sector to be around $1.3 billion each year. That's not a small sum of money. Where are you going to find that? Where's that money? What magic tree or pudding are we going to draw that from? The University of Melbourne adopted the same figure. Innovative Research Universities estimated the loss at around $1.38 billion a year as well and warned that up to 8,400 full-time-equivalent jobs would be placed at risk. Is that what we want to see? Of course not. No responsible government—no responsible opposition—would support a measure that claims to help students while imposing an unfunded billion-dollar cut on the institutions that are to teach them. A university funding cut of that scale would not be abstract; it would affect courses, staffing, student support, regional provision, research capacity and the quality of student experience.

That is not enough to oppose the bill. There is another problem. The second problem is that this bill gives a partial and selective account of Job-ready Graduates. The scheme not only increased student contributions; it also reduced student contributions in a number of areas. Nursing, teaching, agriculture, mathematics, English and the sciences were among the fields where student contributions were actually reduced. These are occupations and professions greatly needed within our economy, our country and our society. Without nurses, without teachers—without that sort of support in our community—we wouldn't have the kind of workforce that we absolutely, desperately need for our economy to thrive.

The Regional Universities Network acknowledged that the scheme had a favourable cost impact for students in fields such as agriculture, teaching, nursing, health, IT and engineering—fields which, as I've said, are in acute demand in many regional communities. The community evidence also recorded that, for teaching, nursing and agriculture, the maximum annual student contribution actually fell by 42 per cent.

A complete review of Job-ready Graduates must consider both sides of the ledger. It must consider the disciplines where contributions increased and those where contributions decreased. It must consider whether lower contributions in teaching and nursing help students entering areas of workforce shortages. That should always be the consideration when it comes to funding for higher ed, whether it's in our university sector or, indeed, in VET. We should be putting the money and support into courses where there are job demands. Simply funding someone's educational fantasy is not actually helping, assisting, our country to move further or nudging it closer to being a more productive community and society. So we shouldn't be afraid of actually looking at that and having that as a goal within the funding envelope that we have.

A complete review must also consider whether regional communities benefited from cheaper pathways into priority professions. It must consider the overall coherence of the system, not simply the parts that support a preferred political conclusion.

Our position, on review, has been consistent. We've said, since before the 2022 election, that the job-ready graduates scheme should be reviewed. It's not set-and-forget. Just because we put it in place doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge that it could be improved or amended.

In opposition, Labor complained about it; in fact, they even campaigned against it at elections. In government, they have included it now in five budgets. So they acknowledge that it's actually a good thing—that it has its place, and that, designed right, it can have a real, positive impact.

The third problem that I want to address here is that the reasoning advanced for the bill is internally unstable. The committee report records evidence that only a very small portion of students changed their field of study in response to fee changes. If that is right, then the price signal did not substantially redirect student choice. But proponents of this bill also argue that reducing fees in selected disciplines will improve access, reduce barriers and change student behaviour. But let's face it: both claims simply cannot be true at the same time. It's internally unstable. If students' contributions do not materially influence choices—as was the central criticism of Job-ready Graduates—then lowering them in selected fields is unlikely to have a transformative participation impact. The argument needs much more rigour than this overly simplistic, dangerous bill provides.

The fourth problem is the design of the proposed fee structure. The bill does not simply repeal Job-ready Graduates and restore the old arrangements; it reverses the increases for some fields while retaining the reductions for many others. The result is a fee structure that has not previously existed. It keeps cheaper contributions for some disciplines, introduced under Job-ready Graduates, while lowering contributions in other disciplines to levels derived from pre Job-Ready Graduates system levels. It's a selective rollback which entrenches a new set of arbitrary distinctions.

The fifth issue is responsibility. And this is something that—let's face it—the Greens political party simply can't match, nor are they interested in taking that principle of responsibility. Like others in this chamber, they like to just say things as a statement and appeal to their base, but the reality is that you've got to actually deliver cohesive policy that's actually going to impact.

This bill criticises the scheme. It promises reform. The government criticised this scheme as well. They've promised reform, yet they've actually retained the scheme across five successive budgets. It is Labor policy. The government points vaguely to the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, another excessive bureaucratic body that's been put in by this government. The committee report identifies ATEC as the future vehicle for comprehensive reform, yet this government over here has brought no legislation in to actually fulfil their vision of what they want to see happen. There's no legislation before the parliament that makes it clear. The coalition's position is, however, clear. We support a higher education system that is accessible to students, sustainable for universities and defensible to taxpayers. We support reviewing Job-ready Graduates across the board. We support serious reform that considers the whole funding system, not only selected disciplines. We support reform that deals honestly with both student contributions and Commonwealth contributions, and we support reform that is properly funded, properly designed and constitutionally capable of implementation.

This bill that we're dealing with here today, that we're discussing and debating here today, fails those simple tests. It would reduce university revenue by around $1.3 billion a year. It would leave universities worse off. It would create a fee structure that has never previously existed. It would preserve some elements of Job-ready Graduates while repealing others, and it would replace one set of distortions with another. It would give the appearance of relief to maybe some disciplines and some students. I'm sure those students might like to get these really cheap courses. Yet, in areas of demand within our economy, maybe they're not the sort of occupations that the Greens like to espouse or want to see develop in the country. I don't know. I'm not sure why they would be wanting to attack some of these key occupations and want to see those fees rise yet see arts degrees plummet in their fee structure. So it would give the appearance of relief while failing to provide a sustainable answer.

For all these reasons that I've laid out here in my contribution to this discussion here today, the coalition will oppose this bill. We don't think it should pass. While it's worthy of discussion here—and thank you again, Senator Faruqi, for bringing this before us—it's simply not something that we can support. It's unsustainable. It doesn't meet the test. It simply cannot be supported, because it just wouldn't work, frankly.

I thank Senator Faruqi for bringing forward the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025 and her continued advocacy to reform the failed job-ready graduates scheme. While I don't agree with everything in this bill, I do agree with its core premise—that JRG urgently needs reform. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the Albanese government rightly criticised JRG reforms when they were in opposition. Over four years later, they've done exactly nothing to change this program. It isn't working. The Australian Universities Accord found that it's not working. Yet JRG has now been in place for longer under Anthony Albanese than under Scott Morrison. Maybe as a Senate we should just start calling it the Albanese government's job-ready graduates scheme. They've had over four years to fix it, and yet we've seen nothing. We've seen them kick it down the road to ATEC. We now know that ATEC, as yet, doesn't have a directive to look at this as a matter of urgency.

Yesterday I hosted students here at Parliament House to talk about the impacts that JRG is having. Charlie, a humanities student at the ANU, said: 'As a student, it's hard enough logging into myGov and seeing the mountain of debt that I'll need to pay off, and it's that little bit more disheartening knowing that, on 1 June each year, indexation adds to that debt. My brother graduated only three years ago with a HECS debt of around $30,000. We studied the same degree. Mine will cost $70,000.' Chip told us:

I expect to graduate with a HECS debt of around $90,000 because of this harmful Job Ready Graduates Scheme. And for me and others like me, the additional cost is frustrating because it adds so much to the cost of living the young people already face in a great country that promises the next generation a fair go.

A Treasury working paper from May 2025 found: 'In both creative arts and humanities, we expect it to take more than 25 years for three-quarters of students in each field to repay their bachelor's debt.' The paper said:

Many students in these disciplines may continue to make repayments toward their debt in their late 30's, 40's, and beyond.

The government talks about the fertility crisis, about young people not having children—and they wonder why! When you look at carrying a massive HECS debt, the cost of rent, the cost of housing, just the general cost of living in this country—you cannot talk about intergenerational inequality without actually addressing something as fundamental as the job-ready graduates scheme.

Innovative Research Universities found that it is segregating our higher education sector, putting degrees like law out of reach for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. They found that total domestic bachelor's degree commencements declined by 3.5 per cent between 2020 and 2024. They said:

… but low SES student commencements were down 9.8%—

almost 10 per cent down—

… with a 2.2% decline for non low SES students.

So, clearly, when we talk about intergenerational inequality, this is a matter of urgency for this government and for this parliament. IRU goes on to say:

For courses with the highest student contribution rates—

under the JRG policy—

(including Humanities, Commerce and Law), low SES commencements declined 19.7%.

That's a long way from leaving no-one behind, when you have a 20 per cent decline in low-SES commencements for those degrees.

PBO modelling I commissioned in 2025 found JRG has jacked up student debt by $10.26 billion. New research from Universities Australia shows that, since 2021, the cost of maintaining a basic student standard of living has increased by 29 per cent, well above economy-wide inflation.

We've got students in Australia now paying over $50,000 for an undergraduate degree. And these changes, as young people point out, were made by some people who had free university education and others who had very affordable university education that they could pay off once they got into the workforce, yet both sides of politics here seem very happy to be saddling young Australians with $50,000-plus of debt that they're going to be paying off into their 30s, into their 40s.

Surely we don't want a two-tier higher education system in this country. The whole idea behind HECS, or HELP, is that, regardless of your background, regardless of the balance of your parents' bank account, you can pursue your dreams. If you want to go to university, you can go to university and study what you love.

This business of trying to incentivise students into certain degrees based on the cost clearly doesn't work. Young people are not making their life decisions based on what they think their HECS debt is—unless you're from a low-SES background; then you certainly are because $50,000 worth of debt is not something that you want. Young people are making and should be able to make their decision based on what they love, what interests them and how they want to contribute to our society. There's wide recognition amongst the major parties, from what I've heard in their contributions, that it's a failed scheme. Let's get on with changing this scheme and let's get on with making it fairer for young Australians who are studying.

One of the related issues has been raised by the crossbench. I thank the member for Kooyong for her work on this. She introduced a private member's bill on Monday that goes to the timing of HECS indexation. As a country, we are happy to charge indexation—essentially interest—on money that graduates have already repaid to the ATO. We wouldn't allow that anywhere else. Why does the Commonwealth government think that it's acceptable to charge indexation on money that has already been repaid? You can see why young people are getting cynical about some of the decisions made in here. You wouldn't accept the bank charging you interest on money you'd already repaid to them. Why do we do this to students?

We've heard some contributions slamming the bill rather than putting forward amendments. I would hope that we would be able to engage on an issue like this and actually make a bill better.

We've also heard about the need to get more young people into STEM. I think that's something that people across the parliament agree with, but the major parties need to understand that you can't do that unless you fund research in this country. I speak to so many academics and researchers about the lack of funding for research and just how hard it is to recommend to their students that they go into research. For one, it's so damn hard to get research money. If you can, you're spending 30 to 40 per cent of your time filling out paperwork for grants. I've spoken to researchers who say they can't, hand on heart, say to young Australians, 'Yes, go into research; it's a great career,' because we are at record low spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP in this country. We are so far below the OECD average.

Labor, again, had big promises, coming into government with a target of three per cent for spending on R&D. It hasn't shifted at all. We've got the SERD review sitting there now but no action. No doubt the minister will say, 'We're taking a very calculated and methodical approach,' but I hear from researchers that this is desperate. For one, we're losing people here in Australia, as we've seen with CSIRO. There have been more cuts at CSIRO under the Labor government than we saw under the Abbott government. We're seeing a talent drain—young, talented Australians who are going overseas. I met with a professor who had just had his hundredth PhD student graduate with a doctorate, and 96 of the hundred were working overseas—had gone to Europe, had gone to the US. It just shows how tragically shortsighted our approach is when it comes to R&D in this country.

You have to assume that the real reason that we haven't seen reform to Job-ready Graduates is that it costs money. As was pointed out by Senator O'Sullivan, part of JRG lowered the cost of a whole range of courses and jacked up other courses. So there is a cost to undoing that. There is a cost to having a system where, regardless of what you study, you have a manageable debt that you can pay off. But surely we have to start viewing this as an investment in our future. This is something that surely the Treasury should be looking at and saying: 'Yes, it's going to cost us money, but we're investing in our future. We're investing in education. We're investing in young people in this country.'

I won't tolerate that excuse from the government when they won't bring in something like a gas export tax, which the ACTU put forward, that would raise us $17 billion every single year, which is us basically getting paid for our own resources—for the export of our gas. They won't touch something like the fuel tax credits for the biggest, most profitable miners in this country. That's another $3 or $4 billion. That's $20 billion a year. How is that fiscally responsible? How is that fair to Australians who have a HECS debt and have been slugged until recently? I think there were welcome changes to the rate of indexation, but they are still being charged indexation on money they've already paid back to the ATO. Why are we a country that raises revenue by charging indexation on amounts that have already been repaid to the ATO and raises revenue by having one of the most expensive passports in the world?

If we go to 2030, we're going to get almost as much from Australian citizens paying their passport fees as we'll get from the petroleum resource rent tax. That should embarrass every one of us in this place. That is not the country we should aspire to be. There is money there if we want to invest in young Australians. There is money there if we want to make our higher education system truly accessible to the point where we have first-in-family students taking that opportunity, graduating, moving into the workforce and serving Australians; where research is seen as an exciting career; where we have more funding for research and development in this country; where we have a government that doesn't just keep kicking the can down the road rather than making the hard decisions to change things and to actually take on hard reform.

On the one hand, we're happy to slug Australians. As I said, we charge them indexation on money already repaid to the ATO. We slug them. It'll be $1 billion next year to get passports in this country. For an Australian passport, we charge double what the Canadians are paying, what the British are paying, what the Americans are paying and what the Kiwis are paying. That's flat out revenue raising. But we won't even take on the multinationals. We won't lay down the law for these big hyperscalers who want to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in data centres here. We won't put a mechanism in place to say, 'We want a fair return so we can invest in things like education.' We're going to be in the same situation we're in with gas if we continue with the major parties. We're going to look back and we say, 'What have we done?'

There was a great little sugar hit to GDP during construction, but now we're not actually getting a good return from this AI boom and all these data centres that are owned by multinationals because they don't pay much tax here, and we have to pay international prices to access compute in our own data centres. I thank Senator Faruqi for this bill. I really think this is a matter of urgency for this parliament.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

To continue the remarks that I commenced last night—the matters contemplated by the legislation before the Senate have been considered since 2017 by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. The board and the chief nursing and midwifery officers have conducted extensive research and consultation on nurse prescribing models. The NMBA developed the standard for designated registered nurse prescribers through multiple rounds of public consultation.

Sorry, Minister; I'll just get you to pause. Colleagues, I'm struggling to hear the minister speak. Can I ask—if you are wanting conversations to continue, please do that outside. Thank you, Minister. Back to you.

During these multiple rounds of public consultation, the standards for designated registered nurse prescribers received strong support. All health ministers endorsed the Scheduled Medicines Standard, which came into effect in September 2025, with the first cohort of nurses expected to complete their education and receive endorsement by July 2026. By enabling designated registered nurse prescribing under the PBS, the bill supports safe, timely and affordable access to medicines.

Registered nurses can already prescribe. This bill that we contemplate today enables them to prescribe under the PBS. That improves affordability for consumers. It enables registered nurses to better meet community health needs and strengthens the health system by addressing workforce shortages and building long-term capacity and sustainability. As with other prescribers, the list of medicines able to be prescribed under the PBS by a designated registered nurse prescriber will be considered by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This reform aligns with the objectives of the National Medicines Policy. It promotes equitable, affordable and timely access to high-quality medicines and related services. It supports the government's commitment to deliver cheaper medicines to the Australian community.

The bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to ensure that nurses prescribing under the PBS are subjected to the Professional Services Review scheme. This peer-review mechanism safeguards the integrity of the PBS and other Commonwealth programs. Designated registered nurse prescribers must maintain an active prescribing agreement with an authorised health practitioner, like a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner, ensuring appropriate oversight and collaboration in care delivery.

I note there are a number of second reading amendments that have been proposed, and I will address those briefly. The government will not be supporting Senator Ruston's amendment 3770. I can indicate that the final report from the scope-of-practice review was released in late 2024, alongside three other Strengthening Medicare reviews, and that included the General Practice Incentives Review, the After Hours Review and the Working Better for Medicare Review. The department is providing coordinated advice on all four reviews. An expert panel has been established to support this process, comprising primary-care sector representatives. Advice on all four reviews will be provided to government. Comprehensive action will be considered based on advice on all four reviews.

Similarly, in relation to Senator Steele-John's amendment, the government will not be supporting that amendment either.

The government is committed to supporting access to health and affordable medicines and enabling health professionals to work to their optimal scope of practice safely. In the matters before the chamber today, there has been extensive consultation, and that same consultation and careful planning has not yet occurred for podiatrists. Senators, I commend the bill before you. These are important reforms that will improve access and equitable access to health care in our country.

The question is the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Senator Steele-John, I believe you have indicated you have a second reading amendment, which you need to move.

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) podiatrists and podiatric surgeons are the only professions in Australia who can gain endorsement to prescribe medicines but are not able to access PBS benefits for those prescriptions,

(ii) Australians are paying out of pocket for non-PBS subsidised medicines or taking an extra trip to the GP to get around this barrier, and

(iii) allowing endorsed podiatrists and podiatric surgeons to access PBS benefits when prescribing medicines would save patients money in the short term and would achieve budget savings by reducing avoidable hospitalisations; and

(b) calls on the Government to, as soon as practicable, allow endorsed podiatrists and podiatric surgeons to access PBS benefits when prescribing medicines".

The question is the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The question now is that the second reading, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I, at the request of Senator Lambie, move Jacqui Lambie Network amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3666 together:

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Amendments relating to nurses".

(2) Page 12 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to podiatrists

Health Insurance Act 1973

1 Subsection 81(1)

Insert:

eligible podiatrist prescriber has the same meaning as in Part VII of the National Health Act 1953.

2 Subsection 81(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of service )

After "an optometrist,", insert "an eligible podiatrist prescriber,".

3 Subsection 92(7) (after paragraph (ba) of the definition of Part VII authority )

Insert:

(baa) the approval of an eligible podiatrist prescriber as an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB of that Act;

4 Subsection 106U(5) (after paragraph (ba) of the definition of Part VII authority )

Insert:

(baa) the approval of an eligible podiatrist prescriber as an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB of that Act;

National Health Act 1953

5 Subsection 4(2)

After "(1C),", insert "(1CA),".

6 Subsection 84(1)

Insert:

authorised podiatrist prescriber means an eligible podiatrist prescriber in relation to whom an approval is in force under section 84AADB.

eligible podiatrist prescriber has the meaning given by section 84AADA.

7 Subsection 84(1) (after paragraph (c) of the definition of PBS prescriber )

Insert:

(ca) an authorised podiatrist prescriber; or

8 Subsection 84(1) (after paragraph (a) of the definition of prescriber bag provisions )

Insert:

(aa) section 93AAA (supplies by authorised podiatrist prescribers);

9 After section 84AAD

Insert:

84AADA Meaning of eligible podiatrist prescriber

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is an eligible podiatrist prescriber if the person:

(a) is a podiatrist; and

(b) meets the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (3).

(2) However, if there is no determination in force under subsection (3), a person cannot be an eligible podiatrist prescriber for the purposes of this Part.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more requirements that a specified person must meet in order to be an eligible podiatrist prescriber for the purposes of this Part.

(4) The requirements that may be determined under subsection (3), include (but are not limited to) one or more of the following:

(a) a requirement to hold particular qualifications in podiatry;

(b) a requirement to have particular experience in podiatry;

(c) a requirement to be endorsed by a particular body.

84AADB Authorised podiatrist prescriber

(1) An eligible podiatrist prescriber may apply to the Secretary, in writing, to be an authorised podiatrist prescriber for the purposes of this Part.

(2) The Secretary may approve the application if satisfied that the eligible podiatrist prescriber meets the criteria determined under paragraph (3)(a). The approval is subject to any conditions determined under paragraph (3)(b).

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine either or both of the following:

(a) criteria by which applications are to be considered under this section;

(b) conditions to which approvals under this section are subject.

(4) Without limiting paragraph (3)(a), the criteria may include the following:

(a) a requirement to have an agreement (a podiatrist prescriber agreement) in place with one or more other kinds of PBS prescribers;

(b) a requirement to have specified features in a podiatrist prescriber agreement.

(5) Without limiting paragraph (3)(b), the conditions may include the following:

(a) a condition that podiatrist prescriber agreements are to be retained and produced to the Secretary on request;

(b) a condition that the eligible podiatrist prescriber does not, under a podiatrist prescriber agreement, prescribe a pharmaceutical benefit that could not be prescribed by a PBS prescriber with whom the agreement is made.

(6) The Secretary must, as soon as practicable, approve or reject an application under subsection (1) and notify the applicant in writing of the decision.

Note: Section 266 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 requires the person to be notified of the person's review rights.

84AADC Secretary may suspend or revoke approval of authorised podiatrist prescriber

(1) The Secretary may suspend or revoke an approval under section 84AADB if satisfied that the person to whom the approval relates:

(a) is not, at the time of the suspension or revocation, an eligible podiatrist prescriber; or

(b) does not, at the time of the suspension or revocation, meet the criteria that would apply if the person were to apply under subsection 84AADB(1) to be an authorised podiatrist prescriber at that time; or

(c) has breached a condition to which the approval is subject under paragraph 84AADB(3)(b); or

(d) has breached a condition to which an approval would be subject under paragraph 84AADB(3)(b) if the person were to apply under subsection 84AADB(1) to be an authorised podiatrist prescriber at that time.

(2) Before deciding to suspend or revoke the approval, the Secretary must notify the person that suspension or revocation is being considered. The notice must:

(a) be in writing; and

(b) include the Secretary's reasons for considering the suspension or revocation; and

(c) invite the person to make written submissions to the Secretary within the period of 28 days (the submission period) after being given the notice.

(3) In deciding whether to suspend or revoke the approval, the Secretary must consider any written submissions made by the person during the submission period.

(4) The Secretary must give to the person written notice of the decision. If the decision is to suspend an approval, the notice must specify the period for which the approval is suspended.

Note: Section 266 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 requires the person to be notified of the person's review rights.

(5) If the Secretary does not give the person written notice of the decision within the period of 60 days after the end of the submission period, the Secretary is taken to have decided not to suspend or revoke the approval.

(6) If the Secretary suspends the approval, the Secretary may, by written notice at any time, further suspend or revoke the approval under subsection (1) or remove the suspension.

84AADD Review of decisions relating to authorised podiatrist prescribers

(1) If the Secretary:

(a) decides not to approve an eligible podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB; or

(b) suspends or revokes an approval under section 84AADC;

the person to whom the approval relates may apply, in writing, to the Secretary for reconsideration by the Secretary of the decision.

(2) On receiving an application under subsection (1) relating to a decision not to approve an eligible podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB, the Secretary must reconsider the decision and:

(a) affirm the decision; or

(b) approve the eligible podiatrist prescriber.

An approval under paragraph (b) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be an approval under section 84AADB.

(3) On receiving an application under subsection (1) relating to a suspension or revocation of an approval under section 84AADC, the Secretary must reconsider the decision and:

(a) affirm the suspension or revocation; or

(b) reinstate the approval.

A reinstatement under paragraph (b) has effect as if the approval had never been revoked.

(4) The Secretary must give to the applicant written notice of the Secretary's decision under subsection (2) or (3).

Note: Sections 105AC of this Act and 266 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 require the person to be notified of the person's review rights.

(5) In this section:

decision has the same meaning as in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

10 After subparagraph 86(1)(b)(iii)

Insert:

(iiia) podiatry treatment by an authorised podiatrist prescriber; or

11 After subsection 88(1C)

Insert:

(1CA) Subject to this Part, an authorised podiatrist prescriber is authorised to write a prescription on or after 1 July 2026 for the supply of any pharmaceutical benefit determined from time to time by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection, by legislative instrument.

12 Subsection 88(1EA)

After "(1C),", insert "(1CA),".

13 Subsection 88(1F)

After "(1C),", insert "(1CA),".

14 After paragraph 88(3)(c)

Insert:

(ca) by an authorised podiatrist prescriber otherwise than in relation to the podiatry treatment by the authorised podiatrist prescriber of a person requiring that pharmaceutical benefit; or

15 Paragraph 89(b)

After "section 93,", insert "section 93AAA,".

16 After section 93

Insert:

93AAA Prescriber bag supplies — authorised podiatrist prescribers

(1) Except as prescribed by the regulations, an authorised podiatrist prescriber is authorised to supply such pharmaceutical benefits as the Minister, by legislative instrument, determines to persons who are entitled under this Part to receive those pharmaceutical benefits.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the maximum quantity or number of units of a pharmaceutical benefit which may be obtained by an authorised podiatrist prescriber during a specified period.

(3) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the obtaining of pharmaceutical benefits by an authorised podiatrist prescriber for the purposes of this section.

(4) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to payments by the Commonwealth in respect of the supply of pharmaceutical benefits under this section.

17 After paragraph 98(1)(c)

Insert:

(ca) an authorised podiatrist prescriber requests that the authorised podiatrist prescriber's approval as an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB be cancelled; or

18 After paragraph 99ZJ(4)(aa)

Insert:

(aaa) a letter from an authorised podiatrist prescriber signed on or after 1 July 2026 to that effect; or

19 Subparagraph 99ZJ(4)(b)(ii)

After "optometrist,", insert "authorised podiatrist prescriber,".

20 After paragraph 99ZJ(4A)(a)

Insert:

(aa) for substances prescribed by an authorised podiatrist prescriber—on or after 1 July 2026; or

21 Subsection 99ZJ(5)

After "(aa)", insert "(aaa),".

22 After subparagraph 99ZK(3)(c)(iii)

Insert:

(iiiaa) a letter from an authorised podiatrist prescriber signed on or after 1 July 2026 to that effect; or

23 Paragraph 103(4AA)(a)

After "midwifery treatment,", insert "the podiatry treatment by an authorised podiatrist prescriber,".

24 After subsection 105AB(3)

Insert:

(3A) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Secretary under paragraph 84AADD(2)(a) or (3)(a).

25 After paragraph 133(1)(ba)

Insert:

(baa) in the case of a defendant who is an authorised podiatrist prescriber—suspend:

(i) the approval of that person under section 84AADB; or

(ii) the authority to supply prescribed pharmaceutical benefits conferred upon that person by section 93AAA; or

26 Subsection 133(6)

After "optometrist,", insert "a podiatrist,".

27 Subsection 133(7)

Insert:

authorised podiatrist prescriber has the same meaning as in Part VII.

28 After paragraph 134(1)(c)

Insert:

(ca) the approval of a person as an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB is suspended or revoked; or

29 After paragraph 134(4)(a)

Insert:

(aa) an approval of a person as an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB;

30 Before paragraph 134(4)(d)

Insert:

(cb) an authority conferred upon an authorised podiatrist prescriber by section 93AAA;

31 After paragraph 135A(6)(gb)

Insert:

(gc) a person or persons who, under a law of a State or Territory that provides for the registration of podiatrists, or the authorisation (however described) of persons to practise as podiatrists, are empowered to:

(i) take disciplinary action with respect to podiatrists; or

(ii) investigate podiatrists in connection with the taking of such disciplinary action; or

32 Paragraph 135A(9)(c)

After "(gb)", insert ", (gc)".

33 After paragraph 139A(1)(db)

Insert:

(dba) a person was or was not an authorised podiatrist prescriber under section 84AADB;

34 Paragraph 139A(1)(de)

After "93,", insert "93AAA,".

I rise to speak to the amendment that's been moved by One Nation at the request of Jacqui Lambie. Can I just put on the record that the coalition will be supporting this amendment.

As identified in the Senate committee process, podiatrists have long raised concerns about their exclusion from this bill, as they currently face very similar issues to those that have been faced by nurses, and about the response of the government to those concerns raised by nurses. Specifically, while, under state and territory law, podiatrists can legally prescribe certain medicines, such as painkillers and antibiotics, as part of their scope of practice, they cannot currently issue such scripts under the PBS, as federal legislation does not enable it.

This amendment that has been put forward by Jacqui Lambie aligns with the coalition's broader position on the bill: that health professionals should be able to prescribe and issue a script under the PBS—that is, under federal law—for any medicines that they are already legally permitted to prescribe under state and territory law. The government has not provided any substantive argument as to why podiatrists cannot be also included in this bill. We urge the government to incorporate podiatrists as part of this bill, alongside nurses, so that Australians can get the access to the affordable medicines that the government keeps telling them that they're able to get access to.

The government won't be supporting these amendments. The government is committed to supporting access to health care and affordable medicines and to enabling health professionals to work to their optimal scope of practice safely. There has been extensive consultation, including with medical peak bodies and colleges, such as the AMA and the RACGP, over a period of 10 years, and that has contributed to this bill enabling designated registered nurse prescribers to become authorised prescribers under the National Health Act.

This same consultation and careful planning has not yet occurred for podiatrists. However, the government has engaged with stakeholders, including the Australian Podiatry Association, on the issue of access to PBS subsidies for endorsed podiatrists. Suggestions to expand access to the PBS to other professions are outside the scope of this bill, and they should be undertaken through a separate process. The Podiatry Board is currently working with the National Medicines and Poisons Advisory Group on updating the podiatry endorsement for scheduled medicines. The board will return to the advisory group later in 2026 as work progresses, including to facilitate broader consideration of endorsement for scheduled medicine arrangements for the wider podiatry profession. Accordingly, these steps—sensible, orderly steps—should be completed before podiatrists are considered for inclusion under the act.

I make the further point that any delay in passing this bill, the one that has been subject to consultation and has been worked through in the ordinary way, will result in a failure to utilise Australia's largest and most geographically dispersed health workforce: 400,000 hardworking nurses across the country. It will delay patients in regional areas from accessing cheaper medicines. It will delay efforts to strengthen the delivery of high-quality care in aged-care settings, supporting residents to receive the right care at the right time.

The sector has been preparing for this change. The sector has been preparing for the change that is before the parliament today. Universities are already accredited and delivering the required education programs, students commenced in January this year and the first registered nurses are graduating now. All states and territories are progressing updates to their drugs and poisons legislation to permit nurse prescribing. The ACT, Northern Territory and South Australia have already made these changes. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the PBAC, has begun recommending amendments to listings to add designated RN prescribers as authorised prescribers.

This is important work. It has been a long time coming. We are so pleased to be championing these reforms because we know how important they will be for patients, and for citizens, right across the country. We encourage the relevant podiatry organisations, including the Podiatry Board and the Australian Podiatry Association, to continue to work with the department, of course, and to continue to work with the Medicines and Poisons Advisory Group, with health ministers and other health and medical peak bodies on access to medicines in the PBS, as the nurses have for the last 10 years.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3666 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to give qualified, if you like, support to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. We do think there is a need for action here on certain unfair behaviours in the marketplace, and I'll come to the details, but particularly things like subscription traps and drip feed pricing. These things are potentially covered by these changes. On the Liberal and National side, we do support strong consumer protections and have always had a proud history of doing so. However, as I said, there are some qualifiers here that I'll go through this morning, because we think it's very important that changes like this are clearly made so that, of course, the courts can interpret them clearly but more importantly, perhaps, so that businesses know the environment they're operating in, especially small businesses, who don't have and shouldn't have to seek expensive legal advice every time they just want to go about their business.

As I said, there is an issue here that we are willing to work with the government on to see some change. As I indicated, the Liberal and National parties have long supported strong consumer protections in our law. We were strong advocates for somewhat of a predecessor to this, the unfair contract terms legislation that passed around 15 years ago in this place. Then, when we were in government, we moved to extend that to protect small businesses as well from the imposition of unfair contract terms. They were things like long-form contracts that hid terms and conditions in it and 'take it or leave it' type contract arrangements—things that would provide some protection for small businesses.

This bill here seeks to move further, quite substantial amendments, which would effectively see the prohibition of unfair conduct more fully—that is, unfair trading, not just unfair contract terms per se. The issue here that should be properly discussed and responded to, hopefully, by the government is exactly what is meant by 'unfair'. In a simple term, of course, we could all be against unfair practices. It would be hard to find someone who says they are for unfair practices. The issue, though, will always be that unfairness can at times be in the eye of the beholder. What is unfair to some person might not be unfair to someone else.

There are also a variety of different economic relationships in the marketplace involving people with different levels of power and authority, responsibility and accountability, and those things should be factored in as well. In particular, we need to keep in mind that imposing such new obligations is not free. Every new law or regulation that passes this place does impose a compliance cost on the businesses that are subject to it—and the consumers too, for that matter. They ultimately pay these prices. The estimates here are that these changes will impose a significant cost. We cannot avoid that or not factor that into our decisions here.

The estimates are that this will cost an extra $123 million per year in annual regulatory costs, and perhaps what's most important to us on this side is that $103 million, a good 80-odd per cent of that amount, will be imposed on small businesses alone. They'll pay the lion's share of these costs. I imagine the way these estimates have been worked out is that there's probably a fixed cost, an overhead cost, associated with complying with these laws, and there are many more small businesses than there are large businesses, so they disproportionately pay the cost of this. That's because small businesses themselves do not have their own in-house legal teams. They already have to deal with higher costs right now and a weakening economy, it would appear, thanks to the government's mismanagement there. Imposing another cost like this needs to be very carefully considered. That's why we will be arguing for, here, some relief for small businesses, given those costs, and also some greater clarity in and tightening of the definitions in this bill that deal with what is an unfair matter.

I have the reasonable hope that other senators will consider this amendment we will move, which is that we should delay the start date of these laws for small businesses—and we would define those, in terms of this act, as those with under $10 million in aggregated annual turnover. That is any business that is below that level—and, keep in mind, that's similar to the level the government has extended the capital gains tax concessions to, from $2 million to 10 million; it's something that government has used as well recently. We would delay the start date of these laws until 1 July 2030 to give small businesses a chance to become familiar with this law and to, hopefully, have some of this law explained further through our judicial system, the courts and the ACCC's interpretation, so that small businesses will come into the scheme at that point, after that four-year period, much better educated about what exactly they have to do to comply—and, therefore, that will, hopefully, lower that $100 million cost being estimated now. It would be a lower amount because all that law would be, hopefully, somewhat settled or at least a lot more clear to everybody. I think that's very reasonable.

The other point to make here is that, clearly, you would think what we're trying to deal here with is unfair conduct from larger businesses; that would be the typical issue people would have in the marketplace. As I highlighted earlier, and as the government has highlighted, one of the reasons the government is seeking to do this is to deal with issues like subscription traps, where you sign up for something—often online these days but it could be anything, like a gym—and you're locked into renewed payments with little or no knowledge, and it is often a very difficult process to extract yourself from such payments. It's becoming an increasing problem with a move to a subscription economy for everything like software to streaming. This has become a favourite tactic, but one that's really used by large businesses. It's not something you typically would see going into a coffee shop—getting locked into a coffee every morning or a haircut at a hairdresser's; it's really a problem for big business.

Likewise, there is drip price feeding, which is the general tactic of getting you to buy something upfront, but—again, usually online—it is not until you click through to the end that you notice you've got admin fees, shipping and postage and some other fees added on top, and the price is a good 50 per cent more than, or even double, what you thought it was when you first clicked through. Again, that tactic typically would be used by larger businesses. They're the harms, the mischief, that the government has identified for why we're doing this now. Given those harms are associated primarily with larger businesses, in our view it makes sense to start these new arrangements with a focus on those larger businesses, get the law bedded down, see if there are any teething issues—we can always come back and fix things if there are—and then see the scheme more widely apply across the economy, through this amendment we will move.

Even if that were not supported, we still, even for those larger businesses, have some issues with the exact definitions that have been used here to define 'unfair conduct'. The bill sets a number of tests to define what 'unfair' is, which is pretty typical in these types of laws. To determine that something is unfair or a breach of these new provisions, a good or service must be supplied in a way that 'manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts how a consumer makes a decision, and causes or is likely to cause detriment'. I just want to make a couple of points about these things. 'Manipulates a consumer' is a fairly broad term. I would think the ordinary use of the word 'manipulate' would include a level of deception or deviousness associated with the act. However, another meaning of the word 'manipulate' is simply to control, such as when you use it to say 'manipulate a car'—you're not necessarily doing it in a devious way; you're just influencing the direction of a car by turning the steering wheel or some such. So we just think that language needs to be tightened. I think the government means it in that former sense—that it's something that is manipulative and that is seeking to mislead or deceive people in an undue way—but we are proposing that, just to make it clear, we add the word 'unfairly' before 'manipulate'. Then the prohibition would only apply when a business unfairly manipulates a consumer. That way—drawing back to the actual title of this bill and the reason we're doing this, which is to stop unfair practices—what we're targeting in this case would be very clear.

Keep in mind that the second arm of that particular dot point says 'or unreasonably distort'—it's an 'or', not an 'and'—and 'unreasonable' is not attached to the word 'manipulate'. But, if we add 'unfairly' there, I think we will have a reasonable test here to make what we're actually trying to do in these laws clear.

The second leg of that test says that the good or service has to also—there's an 'and' there. In this part, there's an 'and'—'and causes or is likely to cause detriment'. Again, I just think that's a little bit broad. 'Detriment' there is obviously unrestricted, so it potentially means any detriment. We believe that, to engage and trigger laws of this nature, it would typically have to reach a threshold of pain, of difficulty, to merit the ACCC's or a court's being involved. So we are suggesting that the word 'material' be added before 'detriment' so that it would then read that the act 'causes or is likely to cause material detriment'. Again, I think this is fairly reasonable, and it is also standard practice in the Competition and Consumer Act.

Typically, where the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits certain behaviours, there is a qualifier, an adverb—it would be an adjective in this case—before the description of the harm. In section 46 of the act, which deals with the misuse of market power, the test is that the conduct has to 'substantially' lessen competition. So we don't ban any conduct that just lessens competition; some other thresholds have to be met before it falls foul of section 46. The key point I'm highlighting here is that the conduct has to substantially lessen competition.

Again, we just think—to be consistent with other parts of the act and with other parts of the law that have had longer standing and that, perhaps, have a greater basis in broader competition and consumer laws, like misuse-of-market-power provisions—there should be a qualifier, a threshold, a bar, that has to be jumped over before regulatory or legal action is required. I think it's very reasonable to say 'material' as well.

We think we've made some reasonable clarifications here, because we have to stay focused on what we're trying to do—that is, protect consumers. It's certainly not to benefit lawyers. If we make the language unclear and don't describe exactly what we mean, we create the risk of making a lawyers' picnic that will see this law bogged down in action, time and time again. It's not only that; it would come at a greater compliance cost, as I mentioned. In such a case, it would be greater than the $120 million estimate—a cost to our economy and a cost to our productivity. It would mean, almost necessarily, that you wouldn't get the consumer protections either. You won't actually get the benefits of what we're trying to do if it ends up in a morass of legal dispute because we haven't been clear with the language we've used here.

So we will move these amendments later in this debate, but, as I highlighted at the start, we do support the overall approach here. We will support this bill's going through, but we respectfully ask that we play our role, as we should in this chamber, of considering issues like this in a deliberative fashion. If other senators see merit in our amendments, I think it will strengthen this bill and give it a greater chance of succeeding.

Many of you here, and those up in the gallery, may well have experienced this. Signing up for something is easy; cancelling it, though, is another matter entirely. Do you remember the date when a free trial for an app or subscription is due to end? Do you read every privacy policy before you click 'accept'? Do you always read the terms and conditions? Have you ever gone to cancel a subscription only to find the process is far more complicated than necessary? Have you had to wade through multiple screens, move from an app to a desktop mode, find a hidden menu, call a phone number—maybe multiple times—or even attend somewhere in person before eventually giving up? I can tell you that I've had this personal experience myself, and I suspect most Australians have experienced at least one of these behaviours.

I think of myself as a careful consumer, and I like to think that I'm reasonably savvy. I compare products, shop around and don't generally enter contracts without reading them. But I know there have been times when I've clicked 'accept' without reading every single word, and I suspect most people have. I reckon that these experiences are becoming increasingly common. In fact, I'm dealing with one similar situation right now.

I won't name the organisation, but I am still paying $30 a month for a subscription I cannot log into. I've emailed multiple times. I've called several different numbers. I've been told multiple times I don't have an account with them. Yet, on the 18th day of every single month, there is a charge that is deducted from my bank account. I am seemingly making a monthly donation at this point in time. The bank won't do anything.

Is it a trade union?

It is definitely not a trade union. I happily pay my subscription fees to those organisations. Right now, the only practical option that I have available to me, for this particular subscription, is to change my bank account and close it down. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope most Australians haven't had my experience, but I am sure that many Australians have. The landscape that consumers navigate now has changed dramatically. More and more of our purchases, subscriptions and services are delivered online. Digital platforms are a normal part of everyday life. They bring enormous convenience and opportunity, but they have also created new ways to exploit consumer attention, create confusion and ultimately cause harm. We are not blind to these behaviours, which is why the government is taking action.

Consumers are increasingly navigating systems designed to steer behaviour. The ACCC's digital platform services inquiry and the Consumer Policy Research Centre's Let me out report have shone a spotlight on the practices that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 seeks to address. From subscription traps to drip pricing, businesses are purposefully making it difficult for customers to understand their pricing or to cancel a service. The consumer watchdog said that consumers simply do not engage with privacy policies and, in many cases, have little practical option but to accept the terms and conditions in order to access a product or service. Frankly, this isn't surprising. According to the ACCC, it would take the average person nearly 46 hours every month to read every privacy policy that they encounter. The average privacy policy contains almost 7,000 words and takes around half an hour to read. The reality is that consumers cannot reasonably engage with that amount of information, no matter how diligent a consumer you might think you are.

That is where so-called dark patterns come in. These are practices designed to confuse users, make it difficult for them to express their genuine preferences or manipulate them into taking certain actions. They steer consumers towards outcomes that may not reflect what they actually want. Look, this isn't about punishing businesses for making their products attractive or persuading consumers to give them a go. Businesses have always advertised, and they have always competed for customers. The issue is when every click, every preference and every behaviour is analysed and used to create an environment designed to influence decisions in ways consumers may not fully understand, and, at that point, choice really stops being genuine.

Apps and platforms have learned that automatic renewals and friction fuelled cancellation processes boost revenue. They have learned that hiding menus, making certain options harder to find, changing the order in which choices are presented or requiring consumers to jump through multiple hoops can slow down or prevent cancellations altogether. Something that took one click to join can suddenly take an afternoon to leave—or, in my case, a never-ending story.

Australians are noticing. I chaired the inquiry into this legislation. Research before the committee found that three in four Australians with subscriptions have had some form of negative experience when trying to cancel. One in 10 have given up trying to cancel altogether and continue paying for a product or service that they no longer need or want, and I am one of those unlucky 10 per cent. Something that took one click to join can suddenly take an entire afternoon or much longer to leave. That is not retention based on value; it is retention based on friction and deception.

During the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, Ms Chandni Gupta, deputy chief executive officer and digital policy director of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, estimated that Australians are likely losing more than $1 billion—$1 billion!—every year to unfair trading practices. Personally, I would have thought a better business model would be earning trust and retaining customers because the product or service that a business provides is genuinely valuable, not because a business has made it more difficult than necessary to leave and is hoping customers forget, give up or become frustrated by the cancellation process.

These practices are not limited to subscriptions. Another common example, as mentioned by Senator Canavan, is drip pricing. Many Australians will have experienced this when booking flights or holidays. You see a fare that looks really cheap and attractive. You start the booking process, and then a fee appears and then another one and then another one. By the end of the transaction there might be four or five additional charges, and the fare no longer looks nearly as appealing as it did at the start. These are called junk fees. They distort comparison and they trap customers. You can abandon the purchase and start again to compare prices, but there is a good chance that you won't, and that is exactly what these businesses are relying on. Or it might be an app that appears free when you first download it only for key features to become paid add-ons once you are already signed up and have invested in the service. These practices are often stacked up on top of one another to wear consumers down. At best, they are frustrating. At worst, they can cause real serious financial harm.

A fair market depends on clear prices. When prices are not transparent, competition does not work properly. Even the most careful consumer cannot accurately compare products or services and make informed choices in that sort of environment. These are not problems that can be solved by longer terms and conditions. When entire interfaces are engineered to minimise comprehension, adding more fine print, this does not fix the problem. At a certain point, fairness requires a clear rule rather than a longer disclaimer. The result is an environment in which consumers are no longer simply making decisions. They are being steered.

The problem is that many of these practices feel unfair to consumers, yet they are not always clearly captured by existing consumer laws. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard that, while some conduct may be unfair, harmful and manipulative, it is not always adequately addressed by existing provisions of the Australian Consumer Law or captured by the high threshold required to establish unconscionable conduct. Witnesses were overwhelmingly supportive of introducing a general prohibition to ensure that sophisticated commercial practices, particularly those involving digital choice architecture, do not fall outside the reach of our consumer protections. I'd like to thank all of those who made submissions and appeared before the committee. Their evidence really has helped demonstrate why these reforms are necessary.

Australia is not acting alone. Comparable jurisdictions around the world are recognising the same problem and responding in similar ways. Europe, India and the United States have all moved to strengthen consumer protections against practices that make cancelling more difficult than subscribing. One example was the United States Federal Trade Commission's complaint against Amazon in 2023 concerning alleged use of dark patterns to encourage consumers to subscribe to Amazon Prime. Just yesterday, the ACCC announced proceedings against Amazon Australia. The ACCC alleges that Amazon Prime introduced advertisements in July 2024 and required consumers to pay an additional $2.99 a month if they wished to continue receiving an ad-free service. As ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said, consumers were effectively left with no choice but to pay more for the product they already had. This is where the bill comes in.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 strengthens the Australian Consumer Law in three important ways. It introduces a general prohibition on unfair trading practices, it addresses subscription traps and it strengthens protections against drip pricing. Together, these reforms ensure consumers are treated fairly and that honest businesses, including small businesses, are not disadvantaged by competitors who rely on tricks, complexity and confusion rather than genuine value and service.

The bill requires businesses to clearly disclose, when a consumer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and, very importantly, how it can be cancelled. That information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, it must be easy to do and it must involve only those steps that are reasonably necessary. Importantly, these rules apply not only to consumers but also to standard form subscription contracts entered into by small businesses.

The bill also tackles drip pricing by requiring businesses to disclose all mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time they display the advertised price. With this bill ensuring mandatory fees and charges are clearly visible upfront, consumers will be able to see the true cost of a product or service before making a decision. That means better comparisons, better information and better decisions, and it also means businesses that are already doing the right thing will no longer be disadvantaged by competitors who hide costs until the final stage of a transaction.

To support the implementation of this bill, the ACCC will also develop guidance materials on the operation of the new laws. The government will also undertake a review in the first two years of operation of the subscription provisions to ensure that the protections are working as intended.

This bill focuses on consumer protections, but we know unfair trading practices do not affect only individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face many of the same vulnerabilities when dealing with large suppliers. The government has already consulted on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those operating within franchising arrangements. These issues matter because consumer protection is ultimately about fairness and transparency. Australians should be protected from misleading conduct and manipulative practices, because competition and fairer markets are essential to addressing cost-of-living pressures.

This bill forms part of the Albanese government's broader agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers. As per the evidence, this bill in particular may save consumers up to $1 billion—money back in their pockets—by saving them from these unfair subscription traps.

We have increased funding for the ACCC by more than $30 million, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing practices, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, given the ACCC and ASIC the power to seek penalties against companies that breach those laws. We are strengthening the Unit Pricing Code and cracking down on shrinkflation so consumers can see when product sizes have been reduced, even if the sticker price remains unchanged. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by significant penalties to prevent supermarkets from unfairly using their market power against suppliers and farmers. We've increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million, because consumer law only works if there are meaningful consequences for businesses that breach it.

Together, these reforms strengthen competition, boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace. Australians should not need extraordinary persistence, endless spare time or specialist knowledge to exercise basic consumer rights. They deserve genuine choice, transparency and a fair go.

The Greens will support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 because it does improve protections for consumers, but I have to say this is a classic Labor piece of legislation: do the bare minimum necessary to address an issue and leave a whole bunch of reforms that should urgently be implemented on the table, leave them behind and kick them off into the never-never. I listened closely to Senator Darmanin's speech and I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Senator Darmanin said—but, goodness me, there's an elephant in the room here, colleagues, isn't there? It's a giant elephant that nobody wants to talk about.

I'm sure you will!

Senator Scarr, you are, as you often are, right, because the Greens will talk about the elephant in the room, and that is that these reforms that do protect consumers do not cover the financial services sector. A little later on I will explain for everyone listening exactly why Labor has chosen not to cover the financial services sector in this legislation, but, before I get there, I want to be clear that this bill implements an important reform that consumer organisations, including the Consumer Policy Research Centre and the Consumer Action Law Centre, along with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have long advocated for—and that is to ban businesses from engaging in unfair trading practices. I congratulate and thank those organisations and many other folks in this country who have advocated tirelessly for these reforms over a long period of time.

I want to add to that the Greens have consistently pushed for this reform. In fact, when we established and chaired the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, which reported in May 2024, that report included the banning of unfair trading practices as one of the many recommendations that we made in order to bring a little bit of much-needed regulation to bear against the supermarket duopoly in this country made up of Coles and Woolworths. Currently Australian Consumer Law does prohibit misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct, but many people, including the organisations I mentioned earlier and our regulators, have been saying for years that the threshold is too high and fails to capture business behaviour that does harm people and exploit people and rip people off but doesn't meet the high test under our existing laws. That omission leaves people exposed to harm without recourse. While the Greens welcome this reform, as I said, we're very disappointed that it stops short of applying the new provisions to the financial services sector and, therefore, doesn't cover the entirety of the Australian economy.

The ACCC and ASIC and consumer organisations have consistently said over a long period of time that unfair trading practices must be banned in the financial services sector—and not just banned in the financial services sector but banned at the same time as they are banned under consumer law. This should not just be a provision that is inserted into consumer law. It should also be inserted into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. But, instead of listening to the experts, and instead of listening to the regulators in this country, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh, stated in his speech when he introduced this legislation that the government will 'consider' whether extending unfair trading provisions to the financial services sector is 'necessary'—so there is no commitment to actually do it. The government is thinking about it. That is not good enough. There is no commitment to do it and no timeframe.

Senator Darmanin's speech was absolutely spot-on about the traps that people find themselves in, and she referred to a subscription service trap that she herself is stuck in. I say to Senator Darmanin on behalf of the Greens, and I say to the Labor Party and, in fact, to all colleagues in this chamber: if it's good enough to help people get out of subscription traps, why is it not good enough to help people who are trapped in a particular financial arrangement with a financial services company? Why is it not good enough to help those people who can't get out and who are trapped in an arrangement with a financial services company? We are leaving them at the mercy of rapacious financial services companies because this government is in thrall to the big banking corporations and the big financial services companies in Australia.

I want to quote from the Deputy Chair of the ACCC, Ms Lowe, during the inquiry into this bill:

The lack of harmonisation between the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act on unfair trading poses the risk that consumers and small businesses will be left exposed to harm and markets functioning suboptimally. Inconsistent protections … lead to regulatory gaps that unscrupulous providers can take advantage of or that businesses can simply fail to fall within … and thereby escape regulation.

I want to particularly remind my colleagues in the coalition on the opposition side of this chamber that many small businesses are stuck in traps where they can't get out of arrangements they've got with unscrupulous financial services sector providers. Ms Lowe also indicated it can be difficult to determine whether some products and services are indeed a financial product or whether they are not, or whether they are a combination of financial services product and non-financial services product. That confusion and that lack of clarity will likely impede effective regulatory action.

In a speech to the Australasian Consumer Law Roundtable in 2024, ASIC Commissioner Mr Kirkland advocated for a ban on unfair trading practices to apply to the financial sector at the same time it is applied to the rest of the economy. He argued that limiting the ban to consumer law creates regulatory gaps and leaves consumers exposed to harm. For example, the new laws will apply to businesses trapping consumers in an unwanted subscription, as we heard from Senator Darmanin, but not to businesses making it difficult for companies to either switch to a different financial product or withdraw from an arrangement with a financial services company. Importantly, Mr Kirkland argued:

… the harm that can be created by unfair trading practices in financial services is commonly far greater than in other areas of the economy.

So you've got both regulators in this country, the ACCC and ASIC, calling on the government not to allow a gaping hole in the consumer protection framework in this country that will expose people to harm. Wouldn't you think the government would listen to them? No. Entirely predictably, Labor is caving to its big corporate donors. Labor is caving to its corporate masters in the financial services sector, including the giant banking corporations who run so much of Labor's policy.

Who can forget the handshake I had with former assistant minister Jones to apply significant financial penalties for dodgy bank executives? Who can forget the head of the ABA, Ms Bligh, a former Labor Queensland premier, calling up Prime Minister Albanese overnight and giving him his riding orders to instruct Minister Jones to backflip on the agreement that he and I had made in his office only a matter of a day or two earlier? And who can forget Labor going to bat for the top end of town, for dodgy bank executives who fail to take appropriate action to ensure rigour and probity in these giant banking corporations that they run? Here we are again—

They denied they had an agreement with you as well, Nick.

Yes; as Senator Scarr says, they denied they had an agreement. But I've been in politics for a long time, and I know what a handshake is. And I know exactly the agreement that former minister Jones and I made. Again, it's Labor in cahoots with the big banks to protect the profits of giant banking corporations, who also happen to significantly donate to Labor Party election coffers, I might add, through the institutionalised bribery of political donations. Once again, it is the consumers, the people who have to have accounts with the big banks, who are exposed to harms because Labor will not side with everyday Australians—because Labor is siding with the big banking corporations, who are also significant political donors to the Labor Party.

People should not be able to be ripped off by financial services sector organisations, including the big banking corporations. So it's fine and it's good that Labor is putting in place protections in the consumer law, but it is completely unacceptable that Labor is leaving a gaping hole in these regulations that the big banks are going to be able to drive a truck through. That is why the Greens are seeking to amend this bill to apply these provisions to the financial services sector. We're also moving an amendment to include lead generation as an example of behaviour that would constitute an unfair trading practice, to ensure that predatory behaviour—lead generation—is captured.

That amendment, and in fact our other amendment as well, is particularly important in the context of the collapse of managed investment schemes First Guardian and Shield, which has cost around 12,000 Australians over $1 billion in lost retirement savings. At Senate estimates in October last year, the Chair of ASIC, Ms Court, indicated that a ban on unfair trading practices in the financial services sector may have assisted ASIC in its investigation and prosecution of the complex web of actors involved in the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. Wouldn't you think the government would want to be doing everything it could to give our regulators the tools they need to either prevent things like First Guardian and Shield happening again or to properly be able to investigate them if, heaven forbid, they do happen again? But no. Labor again has left a gaping hole, because Labor is here for big corporations and not for ordinary Australians.

Well, that's not the way the Greens roll. We don't take donations from big banking corporations or, for that matter, from big corporations at all, so they have no influence over our policies. That is why we're coming in here today demanding that Labor act to apply these provisions—which we welcome being applied across much of the economy—to the financial services sector. When our amendments are moved in the committee stages, this will be Labor's test. If they support the Greens amendments, they'll be able to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We are backing everyday Australians in, over the profits of the big banking corporations and the other financial services sector behemoths that exist in this country.' But if Labor fail—and I predict they will not support the Greens amendments—that will be living, breathing proof that the Labor Party have been captured by corporate Australia, that the Labor Party are in thrall to the big banking corporations and that the Labor Party are puppets to the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, ANZ and the other massive corporate giants that operate in the financial services sector in Australia. We will also, I indicate, be moving amendments on behalf of Senator Payman which also favour consumers.

The coalition supports strong consumer protections because Australians should not be misled. They shouldn't be ripped off, and bad businesses need to be held to account. Law created in this place must be unambiguous and workable in the real world. That matters. These are issues that we need to address, though, with the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026.

The coalition's amendments that we will be moving are simple yet substantial. These amendments would make this bill clearer, better targeted and more workable for businesses that will be impacted by these changes. They are practical. They preserve the consumer protection objective of the bill. Importantly, they reduce further uncertainty in what is already a period of great uncertainty for businesses. Those amendments, I believe, will improve this bill. The coalition amendments insert words like 'unfairly' before 'manipulate' in reference to the offence. They insert the word 'material' before 'detriment', and, importantly, they delay the start for small businesses under $10 million aggregate annual turnover until 1 July 2030 to reduce the $100 million a year compliance costs on small businesses.

Labor could and should accept these amendments. It is Labor policies and economic mismanagement that has actually contributed to small business insolvencies being at record levels in this country, where real household disposable income is down, energy costs are up, never-ending compliance costs are piling up and businesses that are already stretched to their limits are being tested again. Who on earth would want to run a business under Labor? Let me tell you who would. They are Australians with aspiration, Australians who deserve a fair go, Australians willing to have a crack. Labor should care about them.

Everywhere, business owners are telling me the same thing: the cost and complexity of running a business has never been higher and the government support that they get to reduce it has never been lower. Small businesses are this country's employers. They create jobs. The owner of a small cafe in Mount Barker, the family hardware store in the Barossa, the independent travel agent in the Adelaide Hills—these are the people who will bear the compliance burden of this legislation while their larger competitors absorb it through legal departments. They'll just move on.

This bill creates a broad new general prohibition on unfair trading. The problem is: who decides what is unfair? That question matters more than anything else. This bill, unfortunately, does not answer it. To answer it, the bill says that practices that manipulate consumers or distort their decision-making and then lead to a detriment, including non-financial detriments like wasted time, are unfair. This in effect is Labor now legislating against wasted time. This legislation actually lays the table for what will be a lawyers' picnic. Labor promised they would cut red tape and boost productivity, but they did not do the work to make that happen.

The reality is that this bill results in an estimated $123 million per year in annual regulatory costs, with $103 million of that falling on 1.5 million small businesses. In South Australia, you don't have to go far. Just walk down the streets of rural towns on the Yorke Peninsula or on the Eyre Peninsula. Store after store has closed down. You see the same in suburban Adelaide and in the city of Adelaide. It's becoming much worse. They don't need more costs. What they need are less costs.

CPA Australia told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that Labor's new capital gains tax would result in $500 million of compliance costs for taxpayers each year, plus an additional $800 million in the first year alone, because people will need to re-evaluate their assets—more costs, more businesses that have to comply. Labor was so far off when it claimed the cost to businesses in that little exercise would be $88 million a year. That's a far cry from what the experts said it would cost. In truth, the real cost is eight times what Labor said. Labor is clueless. It has no solutions and it didn't do the work.

In contrast, the coalition's focus is rewarding hard work, boosting small-business investment and allowing small businesses to immediately write off assets costing up to $50,000, not $20,000. The coalition's tax-back guarantee will ensure hardworking Australians keep more of what they earn and will deliver an automatic tax cut that gets bigger every year—stopping inflation by pushing workers to pay more tax when they are no better off is bracket creep; Labor loves bracket creep—and that is what backing small businesses and backing hardworking Australians actually looks like. The reality is businesses will pass costs that are passed onto them by this legislation to consumers. A small business that spends $20,000 a year managing compliance requirements is a small business that doesn't employ more staff, doesn't upgrade its equipment and doesn't invest in its own future. There are impacts from red tape. There are impacts from greater compliance when you haven't actually measured the value return not just to the business and not just to ordinary Australians but also to us, in here, when we make legislation.

The coalition is open to targeted reforms on drip pricing and subscription traps. Cancelling a subscription should not be harder than signing up. Consumers should know when a free trial becomes a paid subscription. The option to opt out should be clear and accessible. Consumers should know when a temporary discount ends, they should know how to cancel the subscription, and it should be simple and clear—without being run around in circles. Consumers across Australia know that frustration well, so elements in this bill are great, and the coalition supports consumer protections that make those things less of the experience of a consumer.

But here is what's not sensible and what this parliament should be asking loudly. While subscription traps on streaming services are rightly covered by this new law, guess what? Union memberships will not be. For many unions, you can sign up on a simple website form, but if you want to leave there are mandatory waiting periods and requirements to sign special letters. That sounds exactly like the kind of trap this very bill is meant to prevent. So what we see here is a classic case of this government applying new rules to everyone else but refusing to apply them to their union masters. Again, we see it. It cannot be a rule for one and not for another. The Labor government must come clean on why they are exempting unions from this. Why don't you tell voters it's because they are your masters? That's what you should be telling them: the truth. But we don't hear that often from the other side.

We heard repeatedly across Senate estimates and the Senate inquiry into this legislation that people want better protections. Labor rushed this bill, did not consult the industries or stakeholders affected and failed to provide modelling for its impacts in the same way it failed to provide modelling and proper consultation on its so-called budget tax reform bill. No modelling—just a catchy bill, with a bit of a connection to the content of that heading of the bill, and some headlines, with nothing sitting beneath it that substantiates exactly what they're doing. 'Don't worry about the detail; we'll sort that out later.' That's Labor's way. We've seen that over and over again. We want to know how many consumers will and won't be protected under existing law, and what is the measurable benefit? If this government cannot answer those questions, because it didn't bother to find out before it introduced this bill, then consumers and businesses should be disappointed.

We will support this bill, but, in the interests of small business and Australians, the government and the crossbench should accept our amendments. Labor's hallmark is more legislation, more bureaucracy and more power concentrated in the hands of government, and bills that protect and preserve the union movement. The coalition will instead stand for consumers, small businesses, clear laws and common sense, so the economy can thrive and provide a benefit to all Australians, including small-business owners and workers who deserve a government that backs them—not one that buries them in red tape and walks away and protects its union masters, not one who gives the unions special treatment at the expense of all others. That's not the way you preserve a fair go. That's not the way you leave no-one behind. None of that applies when you apply legislation to businesses and don't apply it to the unions.

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This scenario should be familiar to all Australians. You want to buy an airline ticket, you start off with one price and then you're prompted, as you're going through the payment system, as to whether you want extra leg room or whether you want extra baggage allowance—or maybe you want to hire a car or perhaps you want to choose between a sandwich or noodles. By the time you get to the end of it, you realise the final cost is way higher than you were first led to believe. Meanwhile, you've got dinner going in the kitchen, you're nursing a headache because you haven't slept—frankly, I don't know anyone who sleeps well in this country; I certainly don't, and no-one sleeps well or gets a good night's sleep because we're all perpetually exhausted—and you've got your child tugging at you, needing help with their homework. No-one has time for this.

Then there's another scenario. You're a young person. You've signed up to a gym. You decide maybe six months down the track that you want to cancel the gym membership, except it is almost impossible to do so.

Here's another scenario. You have subscribed to a newspaper magazine because you want to stay abreast of current affairs. You decide you want to cancel the subscription because circumstances have changed; you've decided to find something else. You click through various pages on the site. You can't find where to cancel the subscription; it isn't a single button. In the end, you send an email—goodness knows where this email goes; it disappears off into the aether. Then you decide, 'Alright, I'm going to try the 1800 number.' You ring this number and you get a call centre in another country. You speak to the person. They then say to you: 'We're going to issue you a email. Can you send another email back to confirm,' et cetera—and so it goes. This stuff drives Australians crazy, undermines their confidence in business and drains their hip pockets. We are calling time on this nonsense.

This bill introduces measures to basically ban unfair trading practices. The level of harm is significant. Every year, more than five million Australians say they have been caught up in at least one unfair trading practice—things like sneaky fees and confusing and pressure based sales pitches. It comes with a cost; Australians are losing around $5 billion a year to these kinds of sneaky, underhand tactics, at a time when the cost of living is a real issue for millions of Australians. But it's not just consumers who cop it; it's also small businesses. Roughly one-third of small businesses report being hit with unfair behaviour from suppliers or digital platforms, like sudden changes in their contracts or unclear fees.

With regard to drip pricing, it shows up in around 40 per cent of online purchases, including travel, ticketing and other digital services. And who is affected? Older people are particularly vulnerable; they are less digitally literate, so they tend to be fair game. One in five people over the age of 65 said they have been pressured into buying something they didn't really want. It turns out that consumers on lower incomes are also targeted by these sorts of tactics, especially in essential services like energy, credit and telco plans—but so are young people. Young people between the ages of 18 and 29 say that they have experienced at least one unfair digital practice in the past year; that's three in four young people in that age group. Why? Because they are new entrants into the payment system. They've come straight out of school. They're less experienced and less savvy. But this makes them learn these lessons the hard way. We are calling time on this nonsense.

Australia is catching up now with the rest of the world, with other peer countries like Singapore, the UK and Japan and with the EU having banned these unfair trading practices that seek to manipulate, coerce, pressure or exploit consumers. This legislation ensures that the law can address harmful conduct, both now and as markets evolve, without relying on ongoing piecemeal amendments. It sets across all sectors clear, consistent standards of fair conduct which are designed to improve consumer confidence and encourage healthy competition. Competition is the consumer's best friend. It ensures that consumers are protected not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice.

Support for stronger protections is huge. Around 84 per cent of Australians say that they want tougher rules against unfair trading practices. This bill will help give Australians the confidence that they need that they aren't being short-changed at the check-out or when they are using these services. Indeed, CHOICE lauded these laws. They said:

For too long, big businesses have raced each other to the bottom when it comes to unfair practices. Particularly when so many people are doing it tough, this important reform will help remove some of the worst tricks and traps designed to get people to spend more than they should. Businesses should compete on price and quality, not the most effective ways to manipulate or distort the decisions consumers make.

We agree.

This bill forms part of our wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across this country. The government has legislated the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that large mergers are properly assessed before proceeding and that anticompetitive acquisitions do not escape scrutiny.

Just this morning I read that the ACCC has banned Coles from opening a supermarket in Western Australia because of competition reasons. This is clear evidence that these changes to competition laws are working. We actually increased funding to the ACCC by about $30 million to enable them to deal with this kind of enforcement work. We are also cracking down on shrinkflation so that we can clearly see when products shrink while prices stay the same. I cannot believe how we've been gamed at the check-out, honestly. We have made the food and grocery code mandatory, backed by real penalties that have gone up from $10 million to $100 million. Penalties matter. They act as a deterrent to this kind of dodgy and underhand behaviour.

Through national competition policy reforms, the government is working with states and territories to remove barriers that stop new businesses entering the market. We want new entrants to enter the market. We talk about the haves and the have-nots. There's another battle that's being played out, and it's the fight between new entrants and incumbents. The incumbents will do everything they can to keep new entrants out. But that is really bad for the economy, it is really bad for competition and it's bad for consumers. This bill will help address some of that. This bill gives consumers something that they have been missing for a long time, and that is confidence—confidence that they can shop, book a service, enter a subscription or compare prices without being pushed into choices they did not intend to make; confidence that regulators can act when conduct is unfair, not only when it is technically misleading; and confidence that honest businesses will not be undercut by those who profit from this kind of confusion. I commend this bill to the Senate.

One Nation supports strong consumer protections. We welcome the parts of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 that provide clear legislative rules for business and outlaw subscription traps and drip pricing. As we've already heard, there are few things more frustrating than trying to find the unsubscribe button when it's hidden under three different menus, then needing to email someone else and, by the time you get there, paying for another month or going to buy something online where the price seems reasonable but, by the time you get through the check-out and they've added a booking fee, a delivery fee, a ticket fee and a service surcharge, finding it's three times the price. These practices add nothing to the consumer experience and are deliberately designed to frustrate people into paying for something they may no longer want. These parts of the bill are positive reform for consumers, and, as such, we will be supporting the bill.

However, One Nation has concerns about the broader powers handed down as part of this bill. This bill confers upon the ACCC broad powers to be able to stop unfair trading practices, with very loose definitions as to what that entails. Who decides what is unfair? Unlike the new laws in this bill that address drip pricing and subscription traps, this is a broad provision that does not identify a known issue; rather, it looks to the ACCC to assess business practices and outlaw them as they see fit. This is poor legislation, and it contributes to business uncertainty. It is part of the wider trend that we see from this government, where legislation is done by delegation to bureaucracy.

An important part of writing clear and precise legislation is that it first sets the obligations of constituents and businesses but also limits the actions that are available to government to intervene. Setting clear rules to the game means both parties can reasonably predict how the other will act and provides them with regulatory certainty. Simply legislating that a regulator will set the rules provides no certainty. It drives up the risk of legal challenges and limits businesses' ability to take risks. It's lazy legislation and poor governance. It is a result of ministers and politicians who have not taken the time to understand the issues or the current legislation and come up with a solution.

There may be limited circumstances where this flexibility is required, but what we are seeing in this parliament is a repetitive pattern of abdication of responsibility. We've seen it with the powers being handed to the eSafety Commissioner to enforce the government's internet censorship regime, and, since that isn't working, we're about to see further powers handed down to give the commissioner even more sweeping powers—judge, jury and executioner—instead of the government legislating clearly and providing certainty to businesses and consumers.

We have seen this with the 20 per cent gas reservation, a half-cocked, rushed piece of legislation so poorly thought through that it has to rely on a huge range of ministerial discretions to make it work. How can a business make long-term decisions about its investments if, at any moment, the government can change the rules midgame? One year, you might be eligible for a domestic supply exemption; the next, you are required to reserve a full 20 per cent of your gas supply, which you didn't expect. This is what kills industry. It's what kills investment and innovation. Look at the EPBC reforms. Once again, there are no hard and fast rules. Rather, the responsibility has been handed down to a regulator, and they have been told to set the rules as they see fit.

As I have said, the rule of law is in place not just to set the rules for constituents and businesses but to limit the government and provide predictability. This pattern of legislating by handing power to the various bureaucracies must stop. It is the responsibility of government to set the rules of the game and to make those rules definitive and easy to follow. We are constantly hearing from the uniparty that One Nation is not fit to lead, but here we have another lazy government which, instead of coming to terms with the issues at hand, is expanding the bureaucracy by handing ever-increasing powers to public servants. This is not what you were elected for. This government came to this place promising to cut red tape and to get business moving. Instead, all they have done is tie this country up in regulations.

The uncertainty faced by business is bad for industry, bad for jobs and bad for the country. Worse, in the case of this legislation, there is no clear need for these general prohibition provisions. The ACCC already has substantial powers under the existing legislation to address harmful conduct. If you have identified an issue, as is the case for drip pricing and subscription traps, fix them, but do not push your responsibilities as legislators onto unelected bureaucrats. This is an issue that we will continue to highlight. One Nation will always stand for stronger consumer protections, but we will stand against subjecting businesses to the whims of bureaucracy.

Senator Whitten should take his own advice with respect to unfair trading practices and stop spewing this rubbish that there's actually a uniparty in this place. I can remember actually standing in this place and calling for greater powers to deregister the trade unions engaging in corrupt practices. Senator Whitten wasn't here but comes from the building industry, and One Nation voted against that enhanced control, that ability to deregister trade unions engaging in corrupt practices repeatedly. One Nation stood with the government. They stood with the government when that legislation was introduced under the Morrison government. So, whilst we're talking about unfair trading practices, maybe we should talk about unfair political representations like the one you just made, Senator Whitten. Having said that, I did agree with much of what you said in relation to delegation of executives, but I reject this rubbish about there being a uniparty. I've consistently voted against legislation put up by the Labor government in accordance with Liberal values. Whilst I've been in this place for the last seven years, I've consistently voted for Liberal values. So I reject this rubbish, this propaganda, this misleading political rhetoric about there being a uniparty. It's nonsense. It's rubbish.

Now I'd like to move to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. First, Senator Darmanin, we must catch up. You must tell me about who this subscription service is. I promise to give you the benefit of my 25 years in the legal industry at no cost to come up with strategies in which we can hold them to account. But I would say to you that perhaps we do need to make public the names of these businesses that are engaging in this sort of unfair practice in relation to subscriptions. So I do sympathise with you, and I noted how prudent you are when you enter into these arrangements. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My beautiful wife Louise would say I'm a 'rusher-innerer'. I suspect my credit card statement is full of subscriptions I don't even know I have and which I need to purge. But thank you for that contribution.

Senator McKim, I wasn't aware, I must say, of the nuances in relation to—well, it's more than a nuance. You referred to it as the elephant in the room in terms of these laws not applying to financial services products. I think you made a number of very relevant points, and I know that you've got a longstanding commitment in relation to prosecuting these issues. Due to changes in terms of my responsibilities over the last six months, I've now rejoined the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and it's certainly something I'll be looking into further, including the comments you referred to that were made by Commissioner Kirkland, who I've got a great deal of respect for. So thank you for that contribution.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the economics committee in terms of the preparation of the report. Looking into this from somewhat of a standing start, I thought it was an excellent report. I thought that both positions of all stakeholders were weighed appropriately and reflected in the content of the report. So, as a former chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, good job.

I want to make three points in relation to this legislation. The first is that one of this Senate's main roles is to act as a house of review. What does that mean? That means, when a piece of legislation comes to the Senate, we should all try and work collaboratively to improve the legislation, to make sure that the legislation doesn't have unintended consequences, and to make sure that the legislation is reasonable and proportionate and doesn't place disproportionate burdens on individuals or on small businesses, as Senator Canavan referred to. In that process, we must always remember that it's easy for us to pass laws in this place that other people have to actually abide by and implement in their day-to-day lives. We heard from Senator Liddle that the regulatory impact of this law is estimated at about $123 million for one year. That's $123 million that business in particular, including small business at over $100 million, will have to find to comply with this legislation. So, if there is a way we can reduce that regulatory burden, I would argue that we should try and identify that way and work together to pursue that course.

In that respect, the coalition has put forward a number of what I believe are sensible amendments, and I want to speak to those amendments. Whenever we're imposing additional legal obligations on anyone in this country, we need to ask ourselves the question as to whether or not the obligations which we're imposing are clear and easily understood. In this case, I think the obligations around subscriptions and with respect to drip pricing, which are specifically defined in the legislation, meet that requirement—I have absolutely no problem with those at all and I fully support them. I do have some concerns with respect to clause 28B of the bill, which refers to unfair trading practices towards consumers and introduces a more general obligation. When you have general obligations, you've got to ask yourself the question: what does that mean in practice? In this case, in paragraphs (a) and (b), the text of the bill refers to 'conduct that':

(a) does or is likely to do either or both of the following:

(i) manipulate the consumer—

just hold onto that phrase—

(ii) unreasonably distort the environment in which the consumer makes, or is likely to make, a decision; and

(b) causes or is likely to cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to the consumer.

Going through each of those clauses, the first is 'manipulate the consumer'. What does that mean? I did what, presumably, many people would do when trying to interpret a bill, and that's look at the Oxford dictionary for the definition of 'manipulate'. That definition includes conduct which is unfair, but it also includes conduct which isn't necessarily unfair but tries to influence someone. Obviously, a marketing campaign which is engaged in by a business is seeking to influence people to buy a product or service, so the question is: when does that manipulation cross that line from influence into unfairness? In order to make that clear, given that the Oxford dictionary definition of manipulate includes both 'influence' and 'unfair actions', the coalition is suggesting—and Senator Canavan has put forward an amendment—that the word 'unfairly' be inserted into the bill before the word 'manipulate'. That makes sense to me. In circumstances where the general, plain, clear English meaning of the word 'manipulate' covers both unfair conduct and conduct which is not unfair, I think we should include 'unfairly' as an adverb in relation to 'manipulate'.

The second amendment proposed by the coalition is in relation to this concept of 'causes or is likely to cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer'. Again, I think there's good argument that there needs to be some sort of materiality test inserted in that regard. In this case, adding the words 'material detriment', again, as is generally proposed in the amendment, is a way to address that issue so that we're only talking about detriment that reaches a certain materiality standard with respect to the conduct. Those are two sensible amendments, and they would actually assuage the general concern that the general provision is a bit too general and needs to be tightened. I genuinely think that would improve the law.

The second point I want to make is in relation to small business. Senator Whitten referred to the regulatory impost on small business, and I agree with him with respect to those comments. All of us need to be alive to the fact, especially in today's environment, that small businesses are struggling out there. Small businesses are struggling. They're just holding on in many circumstances, and the last thing they need is an additional regulatory impost of over $100 million to try and address these issues, because they don't have a back office who can give them legal advice in relation to how they should abide by the laws. They don't have that back office to give them advice.

We heard examples of conduct engaged in by Amazon. Amazon's at one end of the spectrum. They're big enough to look after themselves, and they should be held accountable. But the other end of the spectrum is the small business just trying to survive, and I have a lot of sympathy for those small businesses. As I said before, it's easy for this place to impose additional obligations on those small businesses because we don't have to pay the cost. Senator Canavan's amendment with respect to delaying the imposition of these obligations on small business until a date in the future has a lot of merit. One of the reasons it has a lot of merit is it will give time for there to be certainty with respect to what this provision means.

People have referred to lawyers' picnics. I've been to a few picnics myself. I love a good picnic, and I've attended some picnics in all sorts of capacities, including as a lawyer. I agree that there will be a lot of litigation in relation to this. I've got no doubt about it. There will be millions of dollars spent on litigation in relation to this provision and what it actually means. To the extent that it's possible, it is sensible to try and protect small business from being dragged into that litigation as our legal system tries to work out what 'manipulate' means and to delay the imposition of these provisions onto small business. That makes a lot of sense. I commend Senator Canavan in relation to putting forward that amendment.

The last point I want to make through you, Acting Deputy President, is—and I don't think it's been touched upon by any of the speakers—one of the issues that I was glad that Senator Darmanin and her committee raised: recommendation 3. Hopefully, some members of the ACCC are listening to this, and I commend the work they've done in this regard. That recommendation relates to the provision of guidance by the ACCC to businesses as to what these new provisions mean in practice, and that is really important for small business in particular. Actually define, through the use of examples, what these provisions are intended to capture.

I know there are some examples listed in the legislation, but I think it would be very, very useful for the ACCC to provide some detailed guidance, especially for the benefit of small business, as to what falls within the domain of acceptable conduct under 28B and what crosses that threshold and becomes an unfair trading practice. I request that the ACCC have a look at that, consider that and provide that guidance. I'll put on notice that I'll certainly be pursuing that through Senate estimates to ensure that appropriate action is taken by the ACCC to communicate with all those stakeholders who will be required to comply with the provisions in this legislation.

In closing, again I'd like to commend all members of the department who were involved in this process. There has been extensive consultation, which gives considerable comfort. The opposition has proposed some reasonable amendments which I think should be considered and which are logical and coherent. I'm happy to say, subject to a few reservations, I'm happy to support the bill.

by leave—at the request of Senator Whitten, I move:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the protections under this bill to guard consumers against unfair trading practices in relation to drip pricing and subscription traps are good, prescriptive reforms,

(ii) the broad prohibition powers in this bill around unspecified "unfair trading practices" risk creating an uncertain regulatory environment for businesses in Australia and continue a troubling trend by this Government in delegating sweeping powers to regulatory bodies, rather than providing prescriptive rules that industry can follow; and

(b) calls on the Government to commit to preparing complete legislation that limits red-tape and regulatory uncertainty, as opposed to rushing legislation that requires delegated powers to regulatory authorities or excessive ministerial directions".

I want to thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 amends the Australian Consumer Law by introducing a general prohibition on unfair trading practices alongside targeted reforms to address subscription traps and drip pricing.

I want to thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill and all of the stakeholders who contributed to the inquiry. The committee made five recommendations, including that the Senate pass the bill.

Recommendation 1 seeks that the government consider whether further clarification of section 28B is needed. The government notes this recommendation. The formulation is intentional. It captures harmful and emerging conduct while preserving flexibility, with courts providing clarity over time.

Recommendation 2 suggests expanding the examples in subsection 28B(6). The government notes this recommendation to the 'grey list' plays an important role but is designed to remain illustrative, ensuring the framework stays adaptable as practices evolve. The government will monitor whether additional examples are needed over time.

Recommendation 3 encourages additional ACCC guidance. The government supports this recommendation and has provided funding for guidance and education to assist businesses, particularly small businesses, to comply.

Recommendation 4 relates to financial services. The government notes this recommendation too and is taking a staged approach—first consulting on extending protections to small business and franchisees and then considering application to financial services, to ensure reforms are appropriately tailored to that complex sector.

These reforms will not only protect consumers but also promote better functioning markets where good and honest businesses are not undercut by competitors who rely on tracks, manipulation and unnecessary complexity. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3912 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 17), before "manipulate", insert "unfairly".

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 20), after "to cause", insert "material".

These amendments, as I discussed in my second reading speech, would just clarify the definition of unfair conduct in this bill. In particular, it would add the word 'unfairly' before the word 'manipulate' to make it clear that this is targeted at malicious or devious, if you like, types of manipulation. Obviously we don't want to capture usual practices within a competitive marketplace.

The other amendment here would be to add the word 'material' ahead of the word 'detriment'. Again, as I stressed in my second reading speech, it is typical in competition laws that penalties only apply in the event of a certain threshold being reached. So we only trigger section 46 misuse of market power provisions when competition is substantially lessened, not just when competition is lessened in any case. The way this particular term has been drafted at the moment would potentially give rise to a penalty in the event of any detriment, minuscule as it might be. I don't think that's probably the government's intention. I think we should be clear with our language. So we've suggested adding the word 'material' so it would only apply when there's material detriment to a consumer. We should focus our regulation on those issues that create the greatest harm.

The government will be opposing the amendments on sheet 3912. The inquiry heard evidence that adding a qualifier before 'manipulate' risks narrowing the prohibition in ways that would reduce consumer protection. The ACCC supported removing 'unreasonably' as a qualifier in front of 'manipulate' for that very reason. 'Manipulate' already has a clear negative meaning and goes beyond legitimate persuasion or ordinary marketing activity. There are no ways where it is appropriate or reasonable to manipulate a consumer. Adding a qualifier does imply that some consumer manipulation is acceptable.

The government also opposes inserting a limitation before 'detriment' for very similar reasons. The bill is intended to address real consumer harm, including harm such as wasted time, frustration and a loss of confidence. Introducing these qualifiers weakens the very purpose of the reform, leaving conduct that is harmful to consumers outside the scope of the prohibition.

Could I just ask the minister another question. The Oxford English definition of 'manipulate' itself refers to unfair conduct and other conduct which is not unfair conduct. Doesn't it make sense, Minister, to actually insert the qualifier 'unfairly', when the Oxford English definition of manipulation includes both unfair conduct and conduct which is not unfair?

Beyond what I've already said—or, maybe, to go back to that: 'manipulate' already has a very clear, negative meaning. It is not possible, in the government's view, to fairly manipulate an Australian. That proposal would narrow the prescription in ways that would allow additional harmful activity to occur, other than what is already clearly in scope of the legislation.

Just on the other leg of this amendment, the minister said the government didn't want to restrain the types of detriment or the definition of detriment. The minister mentioned that this is aimed at costs on consumers, including waste of time. I'm just trying to get clarity. Is the government's position that any waste of time amounts to, or could meet the test for, unfair conduct? It just seems strange to me. In the normal practice of business, people are confused or people need time to evaluate a proposal, an online form, terms and conditions, an end-user licence agreement—all these things. Is the government's position that any potential waste of time amounts to unfair conduct? I'm just a little perplexed by that. Surely, there must be some bar or threshold before we send something off to the ACCC, or before we get lawyers involved. That's why, as I mentioned earlier, everywhere else in this act there are these qualifiers that seek to restrict regulatory responses to stuff that is harmful—very harmful. It's not just any harm; it's substantial harm or material harm. This is very, very common in law.

Given that we haven't had these laws, ever—yes, we've got an issue here and we do support these changes; we've said that. But the country's not falling apart without them. I'm just worried that we've now got a sledgehammer cracking a nut. Why don't we just make it very clear what we mean? Maybe the minister could just make clear here, at least, in this debate, which has some weight, whether or not in fact all detriment and all waste of time is potentially covered by these proposed changes.

There are two concepts here: 'manipulate' and 'detriment'. In order to excite the attention of the act and these provisions, first of all, the behaviour must manipulate and, secondly, it must do harm. It's not right to conflate those two propositions. It's 'gate 1, gate 2' in order to come under the scope of these provisions.

In the report of the Economics Legislation Committee, the Law Council of Australia—and these are the legal experts; I recognise, Minister, that you have many talents, but you're not a lawyer—says:

The Committee strongly submits that the prohibition needs to include a materiality threshold (for example, "significantly", "materially" or "substantially") to provide greater certainty for businesses and consumers.

Why are you right and the Law Council of Australia wrong?

You're right, Senator Scarr, about my status here as—not even!—a bush lawyer. Removing 'unreasonably' from 'manipulate' ensures that the law captures the harmful conduct we intend while still allowing ordinary marketing. That's the clear advice that the government has—

Progress reported.

I rise today to speak about one of the most urgent responsibilities before this parliament: preventing violence against women and children, supporting victims-survivors, and building an Australia where women and children are safe. Violence against women and children is predictable and preventable, and it is not inevitable. I know this issue personally. I grew up seeing violence in my own family. Later, as a police officer in Western Australia, I sat with women and children in some of the darkest moments of their lives. I heard their stories. I saw their courage. I saw where the system worked, and I saw where it failed. Those experiences shaped my work here as a senator, as a mother and also as a Noongar Yamatji woman. I'm proud to stand here as part of the Albanese Labor government, because this is a government who has treated women's safety as a national priority. We've not just spoken; we've acted.

Women and children deserve more than a crisis response after harm. That has already happened. They deserve prevention, early intervention, recovery, healing and safety, whether it be at home, at work, at school, online or in their communities. That's what the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is delivering. Since the national plan was launched, the Albanese Labor government has invested $4.4 billion to support its delivery, whether that be frontline services, housing, legal assistance, health responses, perpetrator interventions, prevention programs or practical help for women leaving violence. All of these are about national leadership. It's not just about one announcement, about one program, but a whole-of-government response.

Violence does not start when someone finally calls the police or arrives at a hospital. It starts in inequality, it starts in disrespect and it starts in control. And it continues when systems allow perpetrators to punish women long after the relationship has ended. That is why the Albanese Labor government's child support reforms matter so much. This budget invests $182.6 million to make child support systems safer and much more effective. These are the most significant reforms to the system in almost 20 years.

Child support should be about children. It should never be used as a weapon to punish, harass or control an ex-partner, and too many women have told us that this is exactly what has happened. Unpaid child support is used as control—income being underreported, tax returns not lodged, women dragged back into conflict and children inevitably missing out. Around one million children rely on the child support system, and there is around $2 billion in unpaid child support debt in the government collection system alone. When child support is withheld, women and children pay the price.

We are making it easier to move from private collection to agency collection, where there are stronger protections. We are expanding employer withholding so that payments can be more reliable. We are improving data sharing so that assessments are more accurate. We are strengthening compliance, and we are giving Services Australia more powers to stop harassment and to protect the information of parents at risk. This is safety by design. Commonwealth systems must not be used as tools of abuse.

We have also made the Leaving Violence Program permanent, backed by $925.2 million over five years. Leaving violence takes money, transport, a phone, documents, food for your children, a bond payment, safety planning, legal advice, and support that understands the dangers and does not judge. No woman should feel forced to choose between violence and poverty. No child should remain in danger because practical help is not there. In its first five months, the Leaving Violence Program supported more than 10,000 victims-survivors, and that is real help, because it's practical. It is real help in the moment that it's needed. We are backing frontline services, legal services, 1800RESPECT, community legal centres and the National Access to Justice Partnership, because timely support can be the difference between being trapped and being able to move forward. We're investing in housing because safety requires a roof over your head, and that's why investments in crisis and transitional accommodation, Safe Places, the Housing Australia Future Fund and social and affordable housing matter.

I also want to speak directly about children and sexual abuse. The National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 is the first of its kind in Australia, and it's addressing abuse in organisations, in families and online. The second action plan is now being developed, and this is another important step. Child abuse does not stay in childhood. It causes lifelong harm to mental health, physical health, relationships, economic participation and a person's sense of safety in the world. More than one in three girls and almost one in five boys are impacted by child sexual abuse here in Australia—and that does not fully capture the online abuse. New technologies are creating new risks. Online grooming, child abuse material, deepfakes, AI generated harm and cross-border offending mean our responses must absolutely keep pace. This is why the second action plan will focus on prevention, child-safe cultures, supporting victims-survivors, responding to harmful sexual behaviours, preventing offending before it occurs and strengthening the evidence base.

This matters for women's safety too. Violence against women and violence against children are connected. Trauma compounds. These systems overlap, and families need synchronised responses, not silos. Our government is consulting with victims-survivors, advocates, experts, frontline workers, children, young people and communities so that the next phase reflects lived experience and those emerging risks. We are doing that carefully because words matter, safety matters and trauma informed engagement matters.

I also want to speak directly about First Nations women and children. One size does not fit all when it comes to policy. It does not work for our communities. It never has. Safety for our women and children must be grounded in self-determination, culture, truth-telling, healing and community led solutions. That's why 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices' is so significant. This is the first standalone national plan to end family and domestic and sexual violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, and it is backed by a $218.3 million investment to support Aboriginal community controlled organisations to deliver specialist and culturally safe services. Our communities hold that knowledge. Our services hold the trust. Our women must be at the centre of those solutions, and our government understands that. It is listening and investing in First Nations led safety. We are acting on prevention. We are investing in Our Watch, respectful relationships education, consent education, the Consent Can't Wait campaign and programs that work with men and boys before harmful attitudes become harmful behaviour.

Men must be part of that solution—not as bystanders and not as commentators but as active participants in challenging disrespect, calling out controlling behaviour, checking in on your mates and modelling respect to boys and young men. We are also investing in perpetrator responses, because responsibility sits where it belongs. It belongs with a person who chooses to use violence. We are acting online too. Women and girls deserve safety online as well as offline, and we've acted in workplaces. We've implemented Respect@Work. We've introduced a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. We funded working women's centres in every state and territory, and we've introduced 10 full paid days of family and domestic violence leave. No-one should have to choose between their job and their safety, and this is what a serious national response looks like—child support reform, housing, legal support, paid leave, workplace safety, child safety, First Nations led action, prevention, perpetrator accountability and gender equality at the centre of government.

But there's still more to do. Too many women are still feeling unsafe, too many children are still being harmed and too many lives are still being taken. But the Albanese Labor government is listening. We are investing and we are reforming systems. We are backing communities. We are making practical changes that save lives. Ending violence against women is a national responsibility, and I'm proud to be part of a government that's taking that responsibility seriously. We are building a safer, fairer and a more respectful Australia, and we will absolutely keep going.

When I first stood in this place in April 2019, I said that none of us knows what the future holds. None of us knows how long we have to serve here. I have been so grateful to have served my fellow Tasmanians and my country for more than seven years, but today I'm announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning from the Senate.

I came to this place in circumstances I could never have fully expected. I had spent many years around politics, many years working for others, many years watching this parliament from the advisers boxes, the corridors, the offices and the committee rooms. But to stand here as one of Tasmania's senators was something altogether different. It was humbling then; it's humbling now. My family, my work, my community, my politics and my sense of public duty all have their roots in Tasmania. To be here, many of my fellow Tasmanians supported me, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Tasmanian Liberal Party members and supporters for putting their faith in me.

Tasmanians have a particular way of looking at the world. We are practical people. We understand distance. We understand that decisions made far away can have very real consequences for communities that are not always heard first in national debates. We understand the importance of small business, regional jobs, schools, hospitals, aged care, roads, ports, energy, agriculture, forestry, tourism and the countless community organisations that hold our communities together. I've always believed in bringing the lived experience of one state into the national parliament. I am proud of the work that I have done to bring issues that, while they may not be as fashionable as some, have changed the lives of my fellow Tasmanians and Australians. Politics and policy are never abstract. A program that is poorly designed, a service that is too slow, a form that is too complex, a decision that is too remote—these things land on real people.

That is one of the reasons I have valued the committee work of this Senate. Committees do not always attract the attention and rarely come with the theatre of question time, but they are where much of the parliament's most serious work is done. They are where witnesses are heard, where legislation is tested, where officials are questioned, where the detail matters and where senators from different parties can, at their best, put the national interest ahead of the daily contest. I have served on committees with many of you here, from community affairs, education and employment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and even the Parliamentary Library. During my time in this place, I have participated in well over 100 inquiries, 47 of them as chair or deputy chair, and there have been positive outcomes achieved as a result of the recommendations made by those committees. Together with my involvement in parliamentary friendship groups, there have been many highlights, but I particularly want to note the rare cancer inquiry, the delivery of the first National Parkinson's Action Plan and more recently the epilepsy inquiry, which is due to report in coming weeks.

In part because no one party controls the majority, the Senate is sometimes criticised for being difficult. It is difficult. That's the point. It is designed to make governments explain themselves. It is designed to achieve consensus. It is designed to require negotiation, patience and persistence. Those qualities may not always be celebrated in modern politics, but they are the fundamental secret to this place. I have achieved more working together with my fellow senators than we ever would have alone. I have achieved more by building relationships with people who, while I may not have much in common with, I have the most important common interest—a better Australia. I say to all of you as I leave this place that you will remember the great achievements you make together far better than simple victories you take alone. This is the Senate. You may have the votes today, but no triumph is forever. Treat each other with this in mind, and you will protect our institution and achieve great things.

I've also had the honour of serving as Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate, and I suspect that no-one truly understands the work of a whip until they have done it. It is a role that requires arithmetic, patience, discretion, stamina and, on some days, a sense of humour. It requires trust. It requires respect for colleagues. It requires an understanding that parliamentarians are human beings, each with their own pressures, views, obligations and responsibilities. The work is often invisible when it is done well, but it matters. The Senate cannot operate without cooperation across the chamber, and oppositions cannot do their job unless they are organised, disciplined and purposeful. I'm grateful to my colleagues for the trust they placed in me in that role, and, to my fellow whips across the chamber, thank you for your cooperation and support over the past four years.

I've been proud to serve as a Liberal senator. The Liberal Party I joined and have served for many years is at its best when it trusts people, respects enterprise, values communities, supports families, defends institutions and understands that government should empower citizens. Those beliefs are not slogans to me. They come from experience. They come from watching small businesses struggle under red tape. They come from seeing families trying to navigate complicated systems. They come from understanding that communities flourish when people are given the freedom and confidence to build, work, save, volunteer and serve. Our great party, led by Angus Taylor and Jane Hume, is well positioned to rebuild and lead the party to success at the next election. I wish them, along with Matt and the National Party team, all the best.

To serve in this parliament is also to understand the importance of family. No-one serves alone. Families carry the absences, the late nights, the cancelled plans, the travel, the scrutiny and the emotional weight of public life. John and I married just months before I entered the Senate. We have lived most of our married life apart, yet he has been my rock throughout. I have known and appreciated his love and support throughout my time here, and we are looking forward to spending more time together in retirement. My children, Thomas and Amanda, have both married during the past seven years, and my four grandchildren have arrived—Wally in 2021, Clarke in 2023, Elsie last year and little Rhys literally just four weeks ago. Family is my everything. They are the reason I am here, wanting a better world for them. They're also the reason that I've decided to leave.

To my staff over the years, Jorden, Simon, Charles, Sharna, Mary, Ruth, Julian, Maree, Johanna, Don, Bec, Thomas, Charles, Nick, Anita and John, and to my current staff, Caitlin, Kylie, Callum, Jess and Celia and especially Helen and Jacki, who have both been with me since the beginning, I say a very simple but heartfelt thankyou. No-one can do this job alone, and I have truly appreciated the loyalty and commitment shown by you all. To the clerks, Table Office, committee staff, attendants, Broadcasting, Hansard, security and everyone in this amazing building, thank you for what you do to make this place tick.

While I may be leaving here, I still have hopes for this place. My hope for those who remain and those that come after us is that they remember the Senate's purpose. It is not an inconvenience; it is a house of review. It can make governments better and is a safeguard within our constitutional system. My hope for my party is that it remains confident in the values that have sustained it: personal responsibility, reward for effort, respect for families, support for small business, prudent economic management, strong national institutions and a deep belief in the capacity of Australians to shape their own lives. My hope for Tasmania is that it continues to be ambitious. Tasmania has extraordinary natural advantages, remarkable people, world-class produce, innovative businesses, strong communities and a story that deserves to be told with confidence. My hope for all of you in this chamber is that you use your time in this place wisely. Take the advice of a chief whip: you will never have the numbers forever, but together you can achieve amazing things for our country.

None of us knows what the future holds, but, for what it has given me, I'm so very grateful—grateful to the Liberal Party for the opportunity to serve my party, grateful to the people of Tasmania for giving me the honour of representing them, grateful to my colleagues and staff for their support and friendship, grateful to my family for their love and patience, and grateful to this Senate. This chamber can frustrate, test and exhaust those who serve in it, yet it remains one of the great pillars of our Australian democracy.

Madam President—Deputy President, in fact; the President is here too—none of us knows what the future holds. I am confident, however, that this Senate will be ready for whatever that may bring.

Senator Askew, you've certainly done this on your own terms. It would be remiss of me if, on behalf of all senators, I did not thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship and wish you all the best for the future.

I will get to my 10-minute statement, but, before she leaves the chamber, I'll just place on the record my personal thanks for the years that I've spent working with Senator Askew and for her contribution to the community affairs committee, particularly. I had the opportunity to work with her quite closely when I chaired the Senate Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia, and came to know, through that work, her passion for these areas of policy—particularly supports for Australians recovering from or journeying with cancer. I wish her well and happiness in this new chapter of life.

With that said, I will move to the subject of my speech, which is health care in Western Australia. It is fair to say that Western Australians often feel misunderstood by those in Canberra. Often it is perceived that decisions made on the east coast don't reflect the realities or the needs of our communities. I have to say that, in my time in the Senate, I have seen members of parliament that represent WA play those feelings up for political gain, but I've also seen instances where that feeling is very much justified—and one of those areas is the provision of health care.

In Western Australia we have a situation right now where there are large areas of our community that go without the basic provisions of health care in this country—and I do mean the basics. I mean the ability to go to the doctor if you're sick, to see a GP, to have a hospital with a doctor present to help you. These communities often don't make headlines because they are regarded and classed as rural, regional or remote communities. They are easily placed, it seems, out of mind, because they are out of the sight of those in positions of power—and that is wrong.

The level of government often closest to these communities, most accountable to them directly, is local government and local shires. These structures—and often we're talking about communities of fewer than 5,000 people—were never created with the purpose of funding and maintaining healthcare services. That isn't what local government was meant to do in Western Australia; it's not what it's constituted to do. Yet, according to a report by the WA Local Government Association, some 41 local governments are right now spending ratepayers' money to keep healthcare services functioning within the community—and I'm talking about directly.

Many of these local governments directly fund GPs, directly pay for medical surgeries and directly pay for the housing and transport of doctors, just to keep a bare minimum—a baseline, a lifeline—of medical service within those communities. These are local governments that are often really struggling to make ends meet and to make budgets match up. Yet they're having to dedicate hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayer money to keep these services going. Even with the effort and energy that's going in, there are many communities in Western Australia that are staring down the barrel, for the first time, of having no GP access, or they have been struggling for years without a nursing station, or they have a hospital without a doctor.

Recently, there was an announcement that the Kalbarri Doctors Surgery in Western Australia has decided to close its doors. It can no longer function. For folks in Canberra, the name 'Kalbarri' and what this might mean might not trigger anything or ring a bell. But what this means for this WA community is that people will have to now drive up to 100 kilometres to see a GP. So few people in here can imagine what it's actually like to have to look at that expense to get basic medical care. We see in community after community the healthcare service kept afloat because of local government. As I said, this places legitimate stress and strain on budgets.

Some local governments, about a year ago, began to realise that—in fact, it was more than a few years ago—there was a potential avenue for them to get more revenue to be able to fund these health services. They'd been coming to Canberra, again and again, saying: 'We need to fund these services through the healthcare system. Local government can't bear the weight, and a lot of the policy made in Canberra doesn't account for the cost of delivery of service in rural, regional and remote communities.' Those requests are too often turned away. So they looked to find other revenue sources of their own so that they didn't have to put the cost on to ratepayers. They realised that some of the wealthiest corporations in Australia—the mining companies—had not been paying rates, even though legally they were in fact required to. So, after asking nicely, they took them to court.

Initially, the application to the court was rejected. But a couple of plucky local governments decided to appeal that ruling—and one at the higher court—so that they would have the power to require mining companies to pay rates, just like everybody else has to. It was a moment where, finally, funding these services sustainably would maybe be possible, and then what happened? WA Labor, owned and operated as they are by the big mining companies—in their pocket—rode to the corporate rescue and rammed through legislation that not only cut off the avenue to raise rates from mining companies for these struggling local governments but also required those local governments to back pay the big corporations for any rates that they had taken. So now so many of them are back to square one.

This decision made me so angry because I know how much hope there was in these local governments for that brief period of time, where maybe they'd be able to make these health systems work and maybe they would be able to fund these things properly, and then it was taken away. Well, it's time for the Commonwealth to step in, step up and meet the need of the communities in Western Australia, in our rural, regional and remote communities, to make sure that people have health care. If resources are needed to do that, then let's tax the big gas exporters. Let's tax the wealthy mining corporations. Gina Rinehart can put in a bit more so that the people of Hopetoun can have a staffed nursing station and so that the people of Kalbarri can go to see a GP without having to drive for 100 kilometres. Come on—let's put these communities first. Let's put these people first.

Over the last five months I've had the immense privilege of meeting with parents, educators, providers and communities right across Australia, and these conversations have reinforced something very important to me. Before we can talk about child care, we need to talk about Australian families. Australian families are facing the largest collapse in living standards in the developed world. Since this Labor government came into office, average inflation has almost doubled, from 2.2 per cent under the coalition to 4.1 per cent under Labor. Underlying inflation has remained above the Reserve Bank's target band in 13 of the last 16 quarters, and government spending is now at its highest level outside of a recession in more than 40 years.

Families don't need an economist to tell them that things are tough. They feel it every single day. They feel it every time they open their electricity bill, every time they pay their insurance, every time they fill their car, every time they buy their groceries and every time they pay for their child care. Since Labor came into office, insurance costs have increased 42 per cent. Electricity is up 38 per cent, gas 37 per cent and rent 23 per cent. Education costs have increased by 21 per cent. Food is 17 per cent up, and health costs are up 17 per cent as well. Every one of those increases is making raising a family harder. Every one of those increases forces parents to make very difficult choices. And every one of those increases should concern every member in this chamber. Families are not asking the government to raise their children; they're asking the government to stop making it so expensive for them to be able to do it themselves.

Before the last election, the Albanese government made a simple promise, which was cheaper child care. It's one of Labor's signature election commitments. Four years on, Australians are entitled to ask: where is it? Where is it cheaper? The latest consumer price index showed that childcare costs have risen by 9.4 per cent in this last year alone. Since Labor came to office, childcare fees have risen by 27 per cent. Almost 40 per cent of providers were already charging above the government's hourly subsidy cap before the latest changes to the worker retention payment. Then, instead of putting downward pressure on fees, the government quietly increased the allowable fee growth cap from 4.2 per cent, and it's about to hit 5.8 per cent. Families were promised cheaper child care. Instead, they're paying more.

Meanwhile, taxpayer spending continues to soar. The Child Care Subsidy is projected to cost more than $20 billion a year by 2029-30. That's $20 billion. Yet around half of young Australian children are not actually using CCS approved care. That should make every policymaker in this place stop and ask a very simple question: that is, is the issue really how much we're spending, or is it a question of how we're spending it?

This is the coalition's concern. This is what I've been looking at. This is our concern with Labor's approach to family policy. When a problem emerges, the answer always seems to be the same from those over there. They spend more, they subsidise more, and they announce more. But where is the long-term vision? Child care is not just an employment policy; child care is a family policy. It shapes how parents spend their time with children, it influences decisions about work, it affects household budgets and it influences whether Australians feel that they can afford to have children at all. Australia deserves a government with a long-term vision for families, not simply a government that spends and reacts, because, if we're serious about improving outcomes for children, then we have to start where every child's journey begins, and that's in family.

There is overwhelming evidence that the first 1,000 days of a child's life are critical for brain development, attachment and long-term wellbeing. That is why paid parental leave matters—not because it benefits governments but because it benefits children. Today the government will claim that it has delivered six months of paid parental leave, but the fine print tells a different story. The primary carer receives just five additional days of leave, bringing their entitlement to around 5½ months. The remaining four weeks are reserved for the secondary parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. If those weeks aren't taken, the family loses them. They cannot be transferred to the primary caregiver.

Many fathers simply can't afford to take four weeks at minimum wage. It might be something they would like to do, but they may not be able to afford it, and that's completely understandable. They already use annual leave so that they can be home during those precious first weeks of their child's life. Under the coalition's Dad and Partner Pay scheme, families had greater flexibility, and today that flexibility is gone. Ironically, a single parent can access the full entitlement, but a two-parent family cannot choose to transfer those four weeks to the primary carer. If government decides who gets to use that leave, that isn't family choice; that's government choice. The coalition believes that we should trust families. Parents understand their own circumstances better than the government ever will—certainly those sitting in here. That same principle should guide our approach to child care. Every family is different. For some, long day care is the right choice—a perfect choice for them. For others, it's family day care or in-home care, or maybe it's using grandparents or having one parent stay at home while children are young. None of these choices is more valued or more important than another. They're simply different choices for different families and we should back those choices. Governments shouldn't be in the business of picking winners. It should be in the business of backing families to choose the care that works best for them.

Whenever we talk about child care, we have to remember one simple truth: there is no such thing as the average Australian family. Every family is different; every community is different. Government policy should reflect that. That is especially true outside our capital cities. Regional Australia is not remote Australia. Each has different strengths, different challenges and different needs. Yet too often we write one national policy and expect every community across Australia, no matter where they are, how remote they are or how distant they are from a capital city, to fit within it. Well, it doesn't work, and communities across Australia are experiencing that right now. There's a term that's been out there now for a while: childcare deserts. These are communities that do not have access to child care. The government speak about universal child care and how it's their dream that that would be available to everyone across the country. How universal is it if you don't even have a childcare centre within 50 or 100 kilometres or more of where you live? The childcare solution for a regional city won't necessarily work in a farming community and won't necessarily work in an Indigenous community. That's why consultation matters. The people closest to the challenges are often the people closest to the solution. The government doesn't always just need another program. Sometimes it's simply just needs to listen, to remove the barriers and to back communities already finding innovative ways to support children and families—because good policy isn't written for communities; good policy is shaped with communities.

Australia is the best country in the world, and it should be the best country in the world to raise a family—a country where young Australians don't put off having children because they can't afford to, a country where parents have genuine choice in how they care for their children, and a country where government backs families, not one model of care. That means asking whether our childcare system is delivering the flexibility, choice and support that Australian families need. These are conversations worth having not because we want to spend less but because we want to spend better.

Child care alone won't solve Australia's declining birthrate, which now sits at 1.48 children per woman. It won't solve housing affordability or the cost-of-living pressures making it harder for Australians to start and raise a family. What Australia needs is a genuine family agenda, one that asks a simple question every time a policy comes before this parliament: does it make it easier to raise a family here in Australia? That should be our benchmark—not how much government spends but whether Australian families are better off. Government cannot love a child the way that a parent does, and it cannot replace the role of a mother or father. (Time expired)

As everyone is aware, it is 1 July, and there are a number of changes coming for Australians today. Because our government continues to deliver real change for Australians, they will see real changes today. Australians are hardworking people. They work hard. They look after their families. They contribute to their communities, and they want what every generation before them has wanted: the chance to get ahead and build a good life. But, for too many Australians, the cost of living has hit hard and hurt families, and we know that the conflict overseas and disruption in the global economy has pushed prices up here at home.

We know that many Australians still feel pressure in their household budgets, but we also know something else: Australians want a government focused on the challenges that they face every day. That's exactly what the Albanese Labor government has been doing. From day one, we've been focused on delivering practical help with the cost of living while building a stronger economy for the future because we understand that the economy should work for working people. That's why from 1 July we are delivering another round of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. These tax cuts mean people get to keep more of what they earn—more money in their pocket and more breathing room when it comes to balancing the family budget.

We're also backing higher wages, and around three million minimum-wage and award workers are receiving a pay rise today. If you're working hard, you deserve fair pay for the work that you do. Labor has always backed working people, and, on this side of the chamber, we believe that these workers should not go backwards. We're proud on this side to stand with workers and to support wage growth after years of wage stagnation under the Liberal-Nationals.

But cost-of-living relief isn't just about tax cuts or pay rises; it's also making sure that Australians get a fair go. That's why we're taking action on supermarket price gouging. Australians deserve confidence that they're being treated fairly when they walk through the check-out. Families should not feel like they're being taken advantage of while trying to put food on the table. Our reforms are about fairness, transparency and ensuring that big corporations play by the rules.

We're also delivering more support for families. From 1 July, paid parental leave expands to six months, and that means more time for parents with their newborn bubs, more support during one of the most important times of a family's life and more flexibility for parents to make decisions that work for them. We know how important that time at home is, and that is why our government is delivering this important reform.

We've also delivered, for the first time ever, super on paid parental leave because having a child should not mean losing out in retirement. Historically, we know that is exactly what has happened. Women have worn the burden of not being paid super on paid parental leave. These changes are practical, meaningful reforms that make a real difference to families across Australia.

At the same time, we're strengthening and protecting Medicare because access to health care should never depend on whether you can afford it. That's why Labor's Medicare urgent care clinics are now a permanent part of our health system. Across Australia, people can walk into an urgent care clinic and receive the care they need with just their Medicare card. That's alongside our investments in bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and stronger public hospitals. Labor built Medicare and Labor will always protect it and strengthen it.

We're also tackling one of the biggest challenges facing our country—housing. For too long too many Australians have felt that owning a home was slipping further and further out of reach. You talk to any young person, or their family, and they will tell you the same thing: they thought buying a home was never going to happen. That's why we've passed new laws that give first home buyers a fair go and a crack at owning their own home. The dream of home ownership should be achievable for the next generation of Australians. These reforms are about creating opportunity and restoring fairness in a system that was broken. This is what is happening on 1 July: lower taxes, higher wages, more support for family, stronger Medicare and a better pathway to home ownership.

This week the National Rental Affordability Scheme, NRAS, a previous Labor government initiative, came to an end. At its peak it provided affordable rental accommodation to around 55,000 Australians across 30,000 tenancies. So, while the Albanese government's commitment to provide 55,000 new social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund is welcome, it effectively replaces previous support rather than substantively adding to new supply. And it fails to meet need—a need estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of a 640,000 shortfall of affordable homes. That's why I find it incredibly frustrating that, after more than four years of the two levels of Labor government here in the ACT, not a single new affordable home, despite what we heard so much about at the 2022 election, has been built on the CSIRO Ginninderra site. In fact, that site hasn't even changed hands.

Delivering new housing supply is an urgent undertaking. Both levels of Labor government need to start treating it that way here in the ACT. Senator Gallagher, the finance minister for Australia, signed off on divestment of the site in February last year—almost 18 months ago!—and yet a sale still has not happened. How is one level of government selling land to another level of government so hard? What's it going to take to get this moving? More pressure in Bean? More pressure in Canberra? More pressure in Fenner? Canberrans want, and are demanding, more action when it comes to housing, and we have an opportunity with the CSIRO Ginninderra site. The federal government and the ACT government need to get on with it now. They need to use that land to ensure that there is more affordable housing in Canberra.

We recently saw a report from the UN that found that, since the Hamas terror attack on 7 October 2023, the Israeli Defence Force has now killed 20,000 Palestinian children and injured 44,000 more. This is indefensible. The report found evidence of attacks on child essential infrastructure, like orphanages and schools, and the starvation and torture of detained children. It identified really horrifying evidence that IDF soldiers deliberately shot at children's limbs as some sort of twisted game of target practice. The report found the scale of child deaths is unprecedented, to the point where it is unparalleled across modern conflicts globally—'unparalleled'. I think we need to come to terms with what it means in this moment in history to be defined this way.

And what action is demanded of middle powers like Australia in response? We have international legal institutions to prevent this kind of catastrophe from continuing, to look at the evidence and make a determination. We have the interim findings from the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and multiple reports from the United Nations outlining the Israeli government's breaches of international law amounting to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. As a member of the international community, Australia needs to play our part in upholding international law. We must continue to demand the end of hostilities, enforce the outcomes determined by the ICJ and the ICC and further sanction Israeli government officials until they meet their obligations. To quote Shannon Bosch in The Conversation:

Under international law, children are supposed to be the most protected people in war. The children of Gaza have not just suffered in the war, they have become one of its defining legal fault lines.

This cannot go on, and I urge the Albanese government to be a middle power that stands up.

We are being inundated from overseas by AI slop and bots. It's being used to boost One Nation and spread hate online. Foreign websites are pumping out hundreds of fake posts a week, using deepfake AI to promote One Nation and attack everyone else. They spread racist, hateful messages, and we've seen it lead to real-life violence in the UK and elsewhere after these online campaigns had whipped up hate against migrants. Tsunamis of trash funded by billionaires from overseas are being spewed into comment threads. Remember when they used to tell us that social media would democratise our information? Well, it's not. The point of this torrent of hate is to flood the zone, to crowd out opposing views. It's not organic. It's an orchestrated campaign funded by billionaires for one reason: to distract people from their extreme wealth and the deep inequality that it's causing. It's happening globally. We've seen it in America. We've seen it in the UK. The Greens are calling it out. The time is now to fight back. We can't let billionaires and big corporations keep buying political influence. Australia can't keep sleepwalking into fascism. It's time to wake up.

Do you feel heard? Millions of people around the country are speaking up and demanding a tax on gas, but our prime minister is only listening to one group: the gas industry. He's taking their money, he's saying what they tell him to say, he's backing their projects, but he won't make them pay their fair share. Santos, one of the three biggest gas corporations, pays zero corporate tax. The average nurse, who catches the bus for an hour to get to work, pays more tax than Santos. The cleaners in this building pay more tax than Santos. Your kid's teacher pays more tax than Santos. And none of those workers are destroying the planet. How is that fair? Australians aren't stupid. They know when they're being taken for a ride.

A 25 per cent tax on gas exports could raise $17 billion. That sort of revenue could deliver immediate cost-of-living support. But the big political parties won't do it. Labor, the Liberals and One Nation are compromised. They've been bought off and they've sold out. It's time to break the gas lobby's grip on Canberra and ban their lobbyists from Parliament House and, most importantly, put power back where it belongs: with you. We're fighting for people. The rest of this place seems to be in it for themselves or their corporate donors.

Every political party in this country except the Greens is bleeding votes to One Nation. The major parties are in decline, and we have an opportunity for real change. But the thing is, Labor, the Liberals and One Nation are all the same; they all serve the same vested interests. They take the same billionaire and big corporate donations. They pass the same legislation to protect profits and not people. As a result, we have the worst wealth inequality in history. No wonder people are angry. But blaming migrants won't make big corporations pay their fair share of tax. It won't restore funding to essential services. It won't lift people out of poverty. It won't make housing more affordable. It won't make wages rise.

If people want a fair go in Australia then they need to vote for the only party that puts people ahead of profits, and that's the Greens. We can replace the major parties. We can make big corporations pay their fair share, to invest in the things that people need. We can stop privatisation and bring the essentials back into public hands, to be run for people and not for profit. That's how we stop One Nation. That's how we give people hope for the future. Better is possible, but we've got to fight for it.

From the day Labor's Gough Whitlam imposed multiculturalism as an official government doctrine in 1973, Australians have been misled about what it really means. We were told it was simply about welcoming migrants, respecting different backgrounds and allowing people to keep their traditions, but multiculturalism has always been far more than that. It has always been a government directed ideology, enforced and policed through departments, grants, regulations and public institutions. For more than 50 years, under Labor and coalition governments, Australians have been encouraged to see themselves as members of separate ethnic and religious groups, rather than as citizens of one nation with a shared identity.

Well, we—the One Nation party—reject that doctrine. We believe Australia must once again be governed on the basis of one people, one law, one flag and one Australian culture. It means we believe Australia is a Western nation and that Christianity forms the bedrock of our moral foundations, and it means we understand that our legal system, parliamentary traditions and public institutions were shaped by our Anglo-Celtic heritage. This is what makes up our national foundations and values. From these foundations, gifted to us through our ancestors, generations of Australians created something distinctly our own: mateship, courage, fairness, freedom, plain speaking and the fair go.

A nation needs a shared language, shared values, common institutions and loyalty to one country. Without that common foundation, a nation becomes a collection of separate groups living alongside one another, each with its own leaders, grievances and political demands. That is the direction in which the divisive ideology of multiculturalism has taken us. Government increasingly approaches Australians as members of ethnic and religious blocs. Organisations are funded to speak for these groups; bureaucracies are created to manage them; and politicians court them as separate voting constituencies, further entrenching division.

We must reject the moral relativism beneath the multiculturalism ideology. It has taught too many people in authority to hesitate before condemning practices that should be rejected outright. There can be no cultural defence of child marriage, forced marriage, child abuse, violence against women or intimidation in our streets. But, too often, we see the doctrine of multiculturalism used to defend the indefensible. Australian law must apply equally, and Australian values must set the standard for conduct in this country.

For too long, governments have been timid in confronting violent Islamist ideology, antisemitism and preachers of violence. Officials fear causing offence, so they soften their language, delay action and hope the danger will remain contained. Well, that hesitation carries a cost. On 14 December 2025, Islamist terrorists attacked a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach. They attacked Australians—men, women, children—and murdered 15 innocents. These Islamic extremists bear direct responsibility for that atrocity. But the country must also examine the political culture and the political doctrines in which extremist ideas are allowed to spread, with leaders who are more concerned with cultural sensitivity than with defending Australian citizens. A government that refuses to defend a common national culture will struggle, always, to confront those who openly despise it. The divisive ideology of multiculturalism has helped create a climate in which authorities are fearful and reluctant to draw firm moral boundaries, even as hatred and extremism take root.

We see the same failures in communities that have become socially and economically isolated. We must not have enclaves where English is rarely spoken, employment is limited and welfare dependency becomes entrenched, but—by government translating more services, creating more specialised programs and adapting the system to encourage permanent separation—this is what we get. This approach limits opportunity, weakens social trust and allows imported conflicts and prejudices to survive across generations.

Australia once followed a better path. Millions of migrants from southern and eastern Europe came here before the doctrine of multiculturalism became official government policy. They kept their food, churches, festivals and family traditions. They also learned English, worked hard, joined local communities and became part of Australia's shared national life. They understood that coming to this country brought both opportunity and responsibility.

One Nation will restore that expectation. We will abolish the federal multicultural affairs portfolio and review the grants, regulations, agencies and directives that promote this division. We will replace them with a focus on strengthening Australian citizenship and English proficiency, with a renewed focus on responsibility and loyalty to our great nation, because Australia has a culture, a history and an identity of its own: one national language, one law for everyone, one flag, one nation, one Australian culture.

I rise to speak about the Be Hers Foundation, an organisation doing important work with women and girls in our community. Recently I attended the Key to Freedom evening hosted by Be Hers in Hobart. The evening marked the launch of the Key to Freedom initiative, a fundraising campaign to support the Be Hers Hub and the work that happens through it. It was a good opportunity to hear the CEO, Melody Towns, reflect on the organisation's growth and recognise the many people who have helped build and support it.

Be Hers works with women and girls, including women from refugee, migrant and multicultural backgrounds. Many of the women who come through its doors have experienced isolation, uncertainty, discrimination or hardship. Some are rebuilding their lives in a new country. Some are looking for work, confidence, connection or a safe place. That work is not always easy to describe in a single program title. It is steady, careful and often challenging work.

The Be Hers Hub gives women a place to come together, access support, take part in activities, meet mentors, learn new skills and build relationships. It is a place where women can be seen and heard. For many people, that sense of belonging is not a small thing; it can be the foundation for everything else. It can help someone take the next step towards work. It can help someone feel less alone. It can help someone connect with services, with neighbours and with a community that values them. That is what Be Hers brings to our community.

Earlier in 2025 I had the opportunity to visit the Be Hers Hub. I met members of the team and spoke with the women involved in the program. I also met Jida, one of the remarkable women connected with Be Hers. It was good to catch up with Jida at the Key to Freedom evening. That visit from early last year stayed with me. It showed what the work of Be Hers looks like in practice: women coming together, sharing food, learning skills, meeting mentors and finding support.

The Albanese Labor government is proud to support that work. We have provided $300,000 in funding to Be Hers. This includes $200,000 for the Dream Again Mentoring Program, which supports refugees, migrants and at-risk women through mentoring and employment assistance. It also includes $100,000 for the Be Hers community connect hub, which helps strengthens intercultural connections with community activities, arts, sport and social connection.

The Key to Freedom material makes clear why this work is needed. It talks about creating pathways from vulnerability to safety, healing, employment, independence and freedom. That is a serious task, and it takes time, trust and consistent support. It also points to the next stage of the Be Hers work, including the Dream Free cafe. I understand the cafe has now been approved and is aiming to open very shortly. The Dream Free cafe will give women the chance to learn in a supported setting, build confidence and gain experience. For some it will be a step towards work, independence and a stronger connection to the community.

In Tasmania community organisations do a great deal with limited resources. They often work quietly without seeking much attention, but their impact is significant. Be Hers is one of those organisations. The Key to Freedom initiative asks the broader community to play a part in that work. It invites businesses, community leaders and supporters to contribute to the future of the hub and the women and girls it serves.

I acknowledge Melody Towns, Allison Levinson, Jida and the entire Be Hers team. I also acknowledge the mentors, volunteers, donors, supporters and community members who have helped Be Hers grow. I was pleased to attend the Key to Freedom evening and to recognise the contribution Be Hers is making in Hobart and across our Tasmanian multicultural community.

This morning I attended the launch of the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency. Along with many other coalition MPs and senators, I was pleased to welcome the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral David Johnston AC, and it struck me there this morning that in a couple of weeks Admiral Johnston will be one of the veterans who will hopefully not have to access this service but will be an advocate for this service. Admiral Johnston has had a long and honourable career in the Royal Australian Navy. I believe he joined when he was 16 years old; it is my understanding that he spent 48 years in the Navy. Can you imagine committing your life to the defence of this nation at 16? He joined as a junior entry cadet midshipman. Over the time of his career in the Navy, he created a family. I thank his family for the commitment they have made to defending this nation for us—in particular his wife, Belinda Johnston, who is a patron of the Defence Member and Family Support branch.

As I said, it's noteworthy that Admiral Johnston was there this morning, in light of the launch of the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency, like so many other proud Australians who served their country with distinction. This agency will be charged with looking after the wellbeing of our outgoing CDF but also of all veterans in Australia. It reminds us in this place of our obligation, of every senator and every member of parliament, to our veterans. That obligation is at the core of our service in this place, and it should never be forgotten.

This agency exists to ensure that veterans and their families are not left to navigate a complex system alone. A few people here in this chamber were listening to my speech last night; I talked a lot about the Navy family. That sense of family is at the absolute core of defence culture. It forms part of the esprit de corps. It builds tradition and builds long ties to the nation well after service has ended. It's a common spirit, a loyalty and a pride which is shared by everyone. As I said last night, my grandmother, who served in World War II in the Royal New Zealand Navy, passed away at the age of 106 just a few weeks ago, and the Navy turned out in droves to support us and her family and to pay homage to the life of service that she gave.

Another veteran is my good friend Senator Lambie, who is not in the Senate chamber today. Jacqui—if you'll indulge me, Acting Deputy President Ghosh—has been missed from this chamber for far too long. The coalition and I will welcome her back in a few short weeks; I understand she has been having a difficult time having to navigate these very complex systems.

With your indulgence, Acting Deputy President Ghosh, I also take the opportunity to pay homage to my very good friend Senator Wendy Askew. Senator Askew is finishing up as whip in a couple of weeks, and she will be very sorely missed by not only everybody in the coalition but everybody on the crossbench and in the government. She is a person of integrity inside and outside of this chamber, of great intellect and fairness, and has a great sense of duty not only to her Liberal Party but also to her state of Tasmania and to this great nation.

One message that we learned from Senator Askew in her speech just before is that you can make a difference in this chamber. Sometimes it doesn't feel like you do, but you can always make a difference. Committees are important work. Collaboration is important work. But, as with the running theme of this speech, family trumps all, and it's time for Senator Askew to go and join her family. Thank you so much.

Taxation is an anchor on productivity growth, reducing wealth creation for all Australians. The Treasurer has produced a budget that overtaxes and undersupports productivity. The social alliance—the Labor Party, the Greens and teals—have never seen a dollar they don't think belongs to the government to finance their woke UN social agenda. The Treasurer learnt, from the weight of public opinion, that his new capital gains tax threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market. He fails to understand that when you take too much of people's wealth, they stop creating new wealth.

One example is young people using small-dollar investments in things like crypto to grow their home deposit faster and get into the housing market before they get too old to pay off a 30-year loan, which is what most young people said they intend to do with their capital gains. Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It's one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs.

The government has disincentivised productive risk-takers: investors. Business owners are punished, and overtaxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This sets workers against workers—more division from a divisive government. Instead, the true culprit is government's acute failure to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. In fact, the Treasurer is still spending money he doesn't have on things this country does not need, such as $3.8 billion for Victoria's Suburban Rail Loop—billions that, like the billions before, will disappear into the pockets of organised crime and eventually produce a railway from nowhere to nowhere that nobody wants, and, according to Victoria's Parliamentary Budget Office, will cost over $200 billion. That cost is in addition to the fraud and corruption in Big Build projects. The Commonwealth government is just getting started shovelling money into the Allan government's black hole.

Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing at record rates, and small business bankruptcies are at record levels. The public sector is bloating; two thirds of full-time equivalent jobs that the Albanese government conjured since 2022 are taxpayer funded through some arm of government, notably the NDIS. For years I've said that for every job created in solar and wind—so-called renewables—two jobs are lost in the productive economy. Data now verifies this. That's not sustainable. No wonder the government refused to support my motion to implement indexation of tax brackets to stop bracket creep. This government needs higher taxes to pay for this level of public service growth. Private enterprise can no longer provide the jobs needed to grow the economy and create new wealth for our huge number of new arrivals.

At some point, this Ponzi scheme will come crashing down and a One Nation government will have to clean up the mess. This is how we'll do it. Real productivity comes from cheap, reliable, Australian sourced energy. It's good roads connecting regions with cities. It's high-speed rail lines and Australian controlled ports. It's fuel refineries guaranteeing supply when the world is in crisis. It's a competitive construction industry. It's cutting petty, unnecessary red tape, and green and blue tape from the UN and foreign agencies. It's high-speed, reliable internet everywhere, including along highways and in regional areas. It's the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It's a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment. This will be life under a One Nation government; real, breadwinner jobs and the freedom to keep more of your own money to enjoy life.

Our policies detail how One Nation will invest $30 billion a year in Australia's infrastructure to drive productivity and increase wealth for everyday Australians without having to work harder. Everyday Australians are working hard enough. Polls show One Nation is the most popular party amongst working Australians. We will fulfil your faith in us. A lot of this infrastructure is private finance, not taxpayers. In working with companies promoting new infrastructure projects, I'm amazed to see how much finance is available for these projects. Merchant banks and investors are jack of so-called solar and wind renewables. They want bricks and mortar investments again. We'll give it to them.

One Nation knows private sector productivity requires placing trust and respect in businesses, freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens to hire staff, reward the hardest workers and voluntarily pay above the minimum wage. To ensure this does not turn into a corporate free-for-all, we have a system of industrial relations tribunals and competition protections. Our policy is to grow the economy, to create wealth and opportunity for all—businesses and workers. This is why our policy is to expand funding for the ACCC and the Administrative Review Tribunal, to protect workers rights. Polls show, as I said, One Nation is the most popular party among working Australians. We will fulfil your faith in us.

We are now moving into two-minute statements.

I refuse to give up on Australia. And I refuse to abandon the Australian people to the Labor Party and their obsession with taxes and desire for control. Your family deserves better than what this socialist Labor government is selling. Let me be clear, and this is a really important point, never before in Australian history has a government presided over such a significant decline in living standards—never before. And Australians are becoming poorer. You feel it; you're becoming poorer. Australians have been in a per capita recession for 10 of the last 15 quarters—10 out of 15. Never before have we seen such a sustained decline. That is the legacy of this Albanese government.

In contrast, the coalition oversaw the highest increases in living standards across the last half a century. Records show that when Liberals and Nationals are in government, families and households thrive, the economy grows and living standards rise. That was not a fluke. That was not by chance. That's because a Liberal government gets it right when it needs to and then gets out of the way. When that happens, the greatest nation does what Australians do best and the greatest things happen. That's what happens when the Australian people put their trust in the Liberal Party.

Economic management goes to the core of our being. That is the standard that Menzies set, which continues to this day—lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom. I refuse to go quietly against the poorly managed decline we have seen from Labor for four long years now. I refuse to let them say that this is as good as it gets. Australia's best days are ahead and no other party has a better history of delivering the best for Australians than the coalition.

Happy 1 July, a very important day, and never has the choice been clearer for the Australian people than it is today. Labor is cutting taxes for every Australian taxpayer from today. We're helping workers earn more and keep more of what they earn—backing higher wages, making medicines cheaper, building a stronger Medicare and giving more help to first home buyers.

But what's the offering from the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation? Well, it's pretty clear. The Liberal Party went to the last election with a plan for higher taxes. They said to working Australians, 'If we win government, you will pay more.' The Australian people gave them their answer; they rejected it. They continue to reject it. But today every single taxpayer receives a tax cut thanks to Labor—and it's another tax cut because we've delivered a number of tax cuts in previous years as well. It means more money in Australians pockets, more help for people trying to save for the future and to get by. This is, of course, happening alongside a pay rise for three million workers on minimum and award wages. Together, lower taxes and higher wages mean real cost-of-living relief for Australians. That is what Labor is delivering.

What does the Liberal Party think of that? Well, Senator Hume told us earlier in the week when she called our tax cuts 'egregious'—not once, but twice.

Tax hikes!

She said our tax cuts—I've seen the transcript—were egregious not once but twice.

What a lie!

It's not a lie; go and read the transcript! But Labor says it is not egregious; it is practical cost-of-living relief that we are delivering for Australian taxpayers. What's really clear is the Australian people are not buying what the Liberal Party are selling them.

This is a shout-out to our wonderful Socceroos. In an upside-down world, where so many are struggling and suffering, cheering for the Socceroos gives us wonderful moments of joy and unity. The Socceroos help fill our head and hearts with green and gold. I love the beautiful game, too much some would say. Years ago, in the throes of labour in a hospital lobby in Lahore at midnight, I was still watching the World Cup semifinal between Argentina and Italy. My first child was born only a few hours later. When my children were younger, no matter what time the game was on, we would watch it live on SBS. We loved the commentary from Les Murray and 'Fozzie'. Sadly, an ACL injury ended my short-lived soccer career, but that hasn't stopped me from rooting for the Socceroos and the Matildas.

It is true what the Socceroos say: no matter where you come from, football is for everyone. It should be true for our country. No matter where you come from, this country should be for everyone. To Irankunda, Volpato Velupillay, Irvine and all the other legends in our team: go you good things. You are doing us so proud.

Well, today it's seven years since I first started in the Senate—seven-year anniversary. It is an enormous privilege to come and represent the great state of Queensland and, of course, be in the Senate for all Australians. I came here because I wanted to make Australia, Queensland and my community a better place. I wanted to ensure that my children had the same quality of life that I did—the ability to get a well-paid job, to start a business, to take a risk and to do well. And yet here I stand, after seven years, horrified to tell you that, after four years of an Albanese Labor government, we are worse off. The Australian standard of living is back to 2011 levels. Indeed, the wage increases that have been promised for today will not outstrip inflation. That is the direct result of this government's out-of-control spending.

In our budget in reply, we talked through what we would do differently, but, unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government is the government, and whether it be the attacks on capital gains and negative gearing, which the Prime Minister on 50 occasions promised he wouldn't touch, whether it be the result of inflation and higher costs of living or whether it be the direct response by the RBA to increase interest rates—because that's their mandate,—at every turn Australians are worse off and doing it tougher under this Labor government.

I'm ashamed because I came here to make Australia a better place and not be a part of what's happening under Labor. I stand here firmly believing that our mission is more important today than it was seven years ago, and I'll continue to fight for Australia.

Now, you might be wondering what my favourite New Year celebration is. It's not the one with fireworks and it's not the one with confetti. Mine comes with spreadsheets. That's right; it's the new financial year, and this financial year we have a lot to celebrate. From today, we're giving every taxpayer another tax cut, which means people will be keeping more of what they earn. We're giving minimum wage earners a six per cent pay rise, and modern award wages a 4.75 per cent rise. We're expanding Paid Parental Leave to a full six months, and super is being paid on top of that. We're making our Medicare urgent care clinics permanent, and that means, if you need urgent care, all you need is your Medicare card. We're increasing public hospital funding. We're expanding into endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to include menopause and perimenopause services. We're improving patient outcomes by requiring pathology and diagnostic imaging providers that they must upload test results to My Health Record.

We're introducing payday super so workers start earning returns sooner and reducing the chances that super will go unpaid. We're permanently extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses permanently. We're banning supermarket price gouging with a new mandatory food and grocery code that prohibits very large retailers from charging prices that are significantly excessive. We're opening a new National Environmental Protection Agency, and we're establishing a new veteran wellbeing agency.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering real change that matters to Australians, and we will keep working to deliver more cost-of-living help and build a more productive economy, a better tax system and a fairer housing market to help all Australians.

I've spoken before about the need to break our universities of their addiction to foreign students. My concern has always been about the welfare of Australian students and the huge impact of foreign students on housing demand, but my stance is also about the best interests of the universities themselves.

Their reputations and rankings are already in decline. If they don't crack down on the use of artificial intelligence by foreign students who can't speak English, this decline will only accelerate. An article published yesterday by MacroBusiness highlights the problem. It says:

… Australia's universities have been dumbed down by the flood of international students with poor English.

Foreign students who don't speak English are using translators to capture lectures and read the literature and using AI to complete assignments in English. That's not education; it's just a money spinner.

Degrees are being devalued, and teaching standards are being degraded. In order to keep the revenue, universities are pressuring academics to pass foreign students who cheat or plagiarise. Labor hasn't helped matters, last year lowering basic English requirements for migrants that were already substandard. Labor's strategy to lift tertiary education attainment will only be achieved by further eroding university entrance standards.

Speaking English to an acceptable level and standard should be a requirement not only for foreign students but for all new arrivals to Australia. It's in their best interests, it's in the economy's best interests, it's in the country's best interests and it's a defining feature of the Australian monoculture we should all be striving for—everyone being able to speak our language, which is English.

Australia runs on diesel, whether it's our farmers, our mining industries or our transport operators, and that's exactly why Labor and the Greens need to keep their hands off our fuel tax credits. There's a lot of misinformation out there. Fuel tax credits are not a subsidy; they're a refund of tax paid by businesses that use fuel away from public roads. If you're a farmer harvesting crops, a miner operating heavy equipment, a construction business building vital infrastructure or a commercial fisher out on the water, you are not using the public road network and you shouldn't be paying a road user tax. It's simply a principle of fairness.

These credits help keep Australian industries competitive. They support thousands of regional jobs and hold down the cost of things that we rely on every day: our food, our homes, our resources and our exports. If these credits were abolished or capped, the costs wouldn't disappear; they'd simply be passed on to Australian families through higher grocery prices, more expensive construction, increased transport costs and reduced investment in regional Australia. This isn't just about one industry. It's about the farmers who feed us, the miners who power our economy; the manufacturers who keep Australia producing; the tourism operators, the fishers, the transport operators and the construction workers who keep our country moving. If you believe in supporting regional Australia, protecting Australian jobs and keeping the cost of living down, you need to send a strong message to Chris Bowen and this bad Albanese government: hands off our fuel!

We've all seen how supermarkets increase their prices unfairly, even when things go on sale. Yes, it's about time someone did something about this. That's why this government has taken action, when other governments have failed to do so. From today, the government is cracking down on price gouging by the major supermarkets. That means, from today, it's now illegal for retailers like Coles and Woolies to charge excessive prices. We will no longer be getting ripped off at the checkout without any legal accountability. The gravy train without any responsibility stops today. These new laws will say to the two major supermarkets, 'If you're charging us more than you should, then the ACCC will be empowered to come after you.'

If the regulator finds that they're charging excessive prices, they can be slugged with big penalties like a fine of $10 million or 10 per cent of their annual turnover. We've made these laws so that Australian families are protected from artificially inflated prices on their groceries. Not only that, we're supporting farmers and fresh food suppliers to secure a fairer deal when negotiating with these supermarkets. We're providing funding to the National Farmers' Federation and AUSVEG to provide free, high quality training to fresh food suppliers across Australia to help them better understand their rights under the new mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. We will all win when our suppliers and our retailers work together equally and fairly. When our farmers, workers and suppliers win, we consumers at the checkout also win through better prices and having peace of mind, knowing that the process in the background has been ethical and respectful.

Israel intentionally targets children in Gaza—an infant shot in the head while breastfeeding, a 3-year-old shot dead in the arms of his father, a teenager slaughtered while carrying a white flag. More than 20,000 children are dead since Israel launched its assault on Gaza in October 2023. This is the evidence documented in a new UN report, a report that also details systematic use of torture and sexual violence against Palestinian children. Yet Labor continues to run cover for the Israeli regime and continues to trade arms with a country that is actively engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing on multiple fronts.

The Australian people and people all over the world see Israel for what it is now: a colonial apartheid state run by a fascist government that murders and brutalises with impunity. Yesterday, Helen O'Sullivan, a grandmother and member of the Gaza flotilla, was arrested in Brisbane for saying, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' a peaceful call for freedom that the people of Palestine and their allies have been making for decades. There have now been 31 people charged in Queensland under LNP laws that have banned this phrase. The intent of this ban is clear, to use the power of the state to try to crush criticism of Israel and silence those exposing Australia's complicity, but it's not working. Palestinians and their allies are still turning up to tell the truth and oppose the genocide, risking their own freedom to fight for a just and moral cause, an end to the genocide and freedom for the Palestinian people, and solidarity with Helen O'Sullivan and everyone else charged under these draconian laws. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

The Albanese government today celebrates its latest cost-of-living masterstroke, a tax cut. How much is it? Five bucks a week, just enough to buy, well, probably not much, actually. Decent coffee? I don't think so. Half a sandwich? Maybe, if the cafe didn't update its price list for 10 years or so! A beer? Not even at the local lawn bowls club. Treasurer Jim Chalmers proudly presents this as relief for struggling Aussies. Unfortunately the Reserve Bank appears determined to steal that relief before anyone has any time to spend it.

Economists are warning that another interest rate rise could arrive as early as August, adding roughly 28 bucks a week to the average mortgage repayment. In other words, the government is handing Australians a band aid, while another arm of the state is warming up a chainsaw. It's a remarkable political achievement, really. Imagine setting fire to someone's house and then arriving with a garden hose with about a cup of water in the hose, demanding applause for your 'compassion', if you can call it that. The trouble is families live in the real world. They pay with money, and that money seems to evaporate faster than Prime Minister Albanese's promises.

The script doesn't change. It never changes. Government keep spending freely, and then they say, 'Inflation stays stubborn.' Then the Reserve Bank tightens policy, mortgage holders suffer, Canberra announces another microscopic rebate, and round and round we go. It's the same thing all the time. Australians are not asking for miracles. We simply want the government to stop congratulating itself for giving back a few bucks with one hand while quietly taking more with the other hand. That's all we want.

Happy 1 July! Starting today, the Albanese Labor government is giving taxpayers another tax cut as part of our plan to deliver a series of five tax cuts and ultimately save the average worker up to $2,800 a year; making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of Australia's health system to help deliver the best care to patients and also to take pressure off our hospitals; backing minimum wage and award wage increases to boost the pay of three million Australians; expanding paid parental leave to a full six months, helping new parents spend more time at home with their newest family member; introducing payday super so workers start earning returns sooner and so the chance that super will go unpaid is reduced; permanently extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses; banning supermarket price gouging with a new mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct that prohibits very large retailers from charging prices that are significantly excessive; injecting an additional $25 billion into public hospitals to help states deliver care; expanding services at our endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to include perimenopause and menopause; improving patient outcomes by requiring pathology and diagnostic imaging providers to upload test results to My Health Record; and opening a new National Environmental Protection Agency, the first in Australia's history. Why are we taking all these steps? Because we've been listening to Australians. We want to help them with the cost-of-living measures. We've introduced, in addition to all of this, cheaper medicines. I give a big shout out to my young brother. I'm delivering to you, along with this Labor government, a tax cut for your birthday today. (Time expired)

Twenty-nine billion dollars—it's a lot of money. It could put dental into Medicare, you could build tens of thousands of new public homes, or it would go a long way to wiping all student debt. It would fund our foreign aid program for the next five years. Instead, Labor and the Liberal Party, with their friends in One Nation, have spent $29 billion on cost blowouts in just a handful of big-ticket projects in defence. This isn't just scandalous; it's criminal. Public wealth that could have been spent on improving our lives has instead been handed over, mostly to US arms corporations, on contracts that have increased, on average, by 38 per cent since the signed agreed price.

We've seen the government blame this on red tape today. Well, where was the oversight when the same department sank $45 billion into the Hunter frigates project without any value-for-money assessment? We've seen the government blame this on long meetings. Well, tell me: where was the long meeting on AUKUS? Was it the two-hour no-docs briefing that now prime minister Albanese got from Morrison before agreeing to AUKUS?

It's all just spin and deceit while our public wealth is burnt at the altar of Trump and the US. One Nation and Labor want to make Australia an interoperable cog in the US military, which is the most expensive military in human history. Cost blowouts are embedded in that project, and Defence leadership know they'll never be held to account. Over the last decade, Defence spent $150 billion on acquisition, so that means the cost blowout from just this handful of projects was 20 per cent of that budget, wasted. The government plans to spend over $425 billion on new capabilities in the next decade. That will see $100 billion wasted on cost blowouts. This is daylight robbery of the public, with the burglars getting promotions and the crime bosses getting a ministerial suite and a Comcar.

The Albanese government came to government on a promise of transparency, but the Prime Minister has proven to be secretive and has developed an allergy to transparency. Last week, my office was tipped off about a massively concerning secret plan being worked on by government to sell out Australian creatives' work to multinational AI companies. This is after promising to protect creatives' work and not water down our copyright protections.

What cabinet is considering is the ultimate dirty deal: selling out Australian musicians, writers, authors and other creatives in return for an eye-wateringly large investment in AI data centres, which, as we know, are currently wildly unregulated in this country. The government has criticised me a lot but has not denied this, because it's true. The government needs to get up in this place and categorically rule out any carve-out, any exemption or any watering down of copyright exemptions now and into the future. To sell out Australian creatives would be a reckless act. To sell out Australian creatives for a couple of hundred billion dollars in data centres, a bump to GDP, would be reckless.

The Copyright Act is a beautiful solution to valuing the work of creatives and making sure they keep control over how their work is used in our society. Caving to vested interests has become standard operating procedure on too many issues now. I urge the government to stand up for Australians and our future and the creatives that tell where we're from, where we are now and where we're going as a country.

As Joni Mitchell's song Big Yellow Taxi says, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. This is very prominent around regional media and our media outlets in Australia. We're seeing the big digital companies come in, take the advertising revenue and drive them down. Just last week in the Hunter we saw 19 cameramen and journalists taken from the NBN News studios. There's always been a Prime there. NBN's been a great thing in the Hunter. We've gone to bed with Big Dog at 7.30 at night. We've listened to the live broadcast at six o'clock. That is now gone for us, with prerecorded stuff instead. We had the Newcastle Herald, which had hundreds of journalists. It had my uncle, who met his wife, my Aunty Effie, in the classifieds sections when he was covering sports there. My office now is in the Newcastle Herald building. We're losing these things. We had the Maitland Mercury from Maitland, a place just down the road from Cessnock. We grew up having a massive number of journalists five days a week. It's now an online landing page.

We need to find a mechanism that funds regional journalism the way it should be. It isn't just the jobs; regional journalism and telling our stories enhances our culture, is part of our community and brings people together. It is the very fabric that holds so many of our people together in our areas. We are losing this. We're not able to tell the stories. We're not going out there. The push on journalists who work so very hard for journalism to create so much cut-and-paste stuff because they have to create content at such a rate needs to stop. We need to value these places across all media—TV, print and radio. We need to find a mechanism to fund them correctly. Don't make them dependent upon the government, but have them there to tell our stories. If we aren't able to rely on our local areas, if we don't have the Big Dog of tomorrow, if he goes the way of Prime Possum, down the gurgler, in the Hunter, we'll have nothing to define one region from another, nothing to bind communities, nothing to bind us together.

Australians are hard workers and they always have been. They do the extra shift. They pay the bills. They raise the kids. They save a little extra for a rainy day. But, for too long, Australians have felt like the economy has not been working for them. After a decade of Liberal neglect, wages were held back, Medicare was weakened, housing got harder to afford and working people were told to just cop it. Those across from me still don't get it. They don't get that working people are not asking for miracles. They're asking for a fair go.

This Albanese Labor government gets it. We're doing something about it. From today, every taxpayer is going to get another tax cut. Around three million minimum-wage and award workers are getting a pay rise. It's lower taxes and higher wages, and that's money back in people's pockets. We are banning supermarket price gouging because Australians deserve a fair go at the checkout. We're expanding Paid Parental Leave to six months because new parents deserve more time with their new bub. We're making urgent care clinics a permanent part of Medicare so that people can get free urgent care closer to home. We're cutting the cost of medicines and we're strengthening bulk-billing. We've now passed new laws to give first home buyers a fair go because, if you work hard, you should be able to buy a home of your own.

This is what a Labor government does. We do not wring our hands. We get things done—lower taxes, higher pay, cheaper medicines, stronger Medicare, six months of paid parental leave, a fair go at the checkout and a fair go for first home buyers. That's real change. That's what the Albanese Labor government is delivering, and we are just getting started.

It is a great day to be a worker in this country. We backed a pay rise for three million minimum and award wage workers, which kicks in today. The minimum wage goes up to $26.44 an hour—above $1,000 a week for the first time ever. Millions of workers—check-out staff, hospo, cleaners, aged care, child care and retail—are about to take home more because Labor backs workers. Under Labor, you'll always earn more and keep more of what you earn.

We'll now mover to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister voted for the widows' tax but has failed to introduce legislation to abolish it?

I'm sorry, I meant to jump in earlier. Could I have an extra five seconds to just acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Malaysian defence minister, Minister Khaled; Datin Sharrina, the high commissioner; and Tan Sri Johari, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia. Welcome to Australia, and I'm sure I speak for the opposition as well in welcoming you here.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

I appreciate that. I thank the Senate. Senator, in relation to your question, I think I've been through this a number of times. It is the case that the government indicated on budget night that there would be a number of issues that we would work through in consultation with industry and the community. We have flagged very clearly that the first legislation which was passed contains the core architecture of the tax changes and that further tranches of legislation would follow, dealing with a range of issues of which one is the issue you have mentioned. It's an issue about the extent to which grandfathering is applicable and in which circumstances the provisions in relation to the grandfathering of people's existing tax arrangements continue. We will certainly look at that. The Prime Minister has made that clear, and the Treasurer made that clear on Sunday.

I think that is the answer, broadly, that I've given every time you have asked me the same question, Senator, but what I would say to you is that it does say something, I think, to all of us that you're not engaging with the content of the tax policy or the legislation which has passed, because you have, actually, no answer. You have no answer on the simple fact that Australians know the status quo is not working when it comes to the housing market and that something needed to happen, and what has happened is that this government has put first home buyers on the level playing field and removed the advantages that investors had which meant people were priced out of the market—advantages which you clearly are intent upon retaining.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

Has the Prime Minister now struck another deal with the Greens to keep the widows' tax, which is why he's failed to introduce legislation to repeal it?

The Treasurer could not have been clearer on Sunday about our intentions—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I'd like to hear the minister's response, and, for that to happen, I need order in the chamber.

The Treasurer has made the government's position clear. As I said, this goes to grandfathering arrangements. What I again say to the opposition is no-one in this, perhaps other than you—I think very few Australians believe that the status quo is working for so many Australians, and we on this side want more people to be able to own their own home. That's fundamentally the logic and the motivation behind the legislation which has now passed this parliament.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Given the Treasurer had made himself so clear, when were drafting instructions issued to prepare legislation to repeal this widows' tax?

Senator, really! You would know we've only just passed the core legislation. We've given the undertaking—

You know there's a flaw.

These are changes which, from my recollection, are coming 1 July 2027, so a year from today. I can indicate to you that drafting instructions, I'm sure, will be prepared in relation to the tranches of legislation that have been flagged, both by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, to deal with some of the detail of these tax policies well ahead of 1 July 2027, which is when the relevant changes are to come in.

Then why did you rush them through?

I'll take that interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. I say to her: I know that you don't enjoy the fact that the majority of the parliament was against you when it came to these tax policies, but it is a good thing for certainty to be delivered to the market, and that certainty is— (Time expired)

Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of the Speaker of the House of Representatives from Malaysia and the Malaysian Minister of Defence. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. From today, Australians will benefit from a new suite of cost-of-living measures, including the latest rounds of income tax cuts and the expansion of Paid Parental Leave to a full six months for the first time. How will these changes help support women and their families?

I thank Senator Grogan for the question and for all the work that she does, along with all of my women colleagues in the Labor Party—and not just women but all party members in our caucus room—to progress gender equality.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering real change for women and their families with a suite of cost-of-living measures that start today, including more tax cuts coming in on 1 July 2026 and a full six months of Paid Parental Leave. We're also strengthening Medicare and making all of those investments in women's health that have been so important and so well taken up by Australian women.

In relation to our tax cuts, as I said yesterday, our plan is to deliver a series of five tax cuts. Two have already been delivered. We've got more coming next year: the instant tax deduction and of course the Working Australians Tax Offset. We've expanded Paid Parental Leave to the full six months, helping new parents spend more time at home with their youngest family members. Thanks to our changes here, supported by the Labor government, families accessing the full entitlement will receive almost $30,000 across the Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is around double the entitlement that was available to families before Labor came to government.

We're also backing in the minimum-wage and award-wage increases that also start today, both in our submission to the Fair Work Commission's Annual Wage Review and also through the direct investments that we have made into care workers—in particular aged-care workers and early educators working in the childcare system—who had been left without earning adequate wages and with no government, prior to our government coming to the table, prepared to pay for— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

From today, millions of workers will receive a pay rise through increases to the national minimum wage and modern award wages. Many of them are women, including aged-care workers and early childhood educators. These increases were supported and funded by the Albanese Labor government. Can the minister outline why the government has focused on addressing care workers' pay and how this has increased women's earnings?

I thank Senator Grogan for the question and, again, for her dedication to addressing adequate wage outcomes for workers in these important sectors of our economy. In relation to the Annual Wage Review, we did back in a real wage increase and the Annual Wage Review provided a six per cent increase to the national minimum wage, taking the national minimum wage to just over $1,000 per week for a full-time worker, for the first time ever. Modern award wages will increase by 4.75 per cent, delivering a pay boost to around 2.7 million award-reliant workers across the country. As we know, women are the majority of those reliant on minimum and award wages.

In addition to this, our direct investments into aged care and early education and care workers have significantly increased wages in that sector. We now know that women working full-time today are on average $300 more per week— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

It really is excellent to hear about these measures, and I know they're going to make a significant difference. Could the minister outline what other positive outcomes for women the Albanese Labor government has been focused on?

I can do that. Just to cover off, at the end of the last question I was making the point that women working full-time today are, on average, earning almost $300 more per week than they were when we came to government. It's because of those investments we've made, but they haven't just been into wages and supporting the wage review. We've also been working around lowering the gender pay gap. We've introduced the Women's Budget Statement. We've seen 650,000 new jobs created for women. We've done our extension of paid parental leave. And this has been reflected in Australia increasing our ranking in the international gender equality rankings from 43rd, when we came to government, to 13th on the latest ranking. This shows that our work of driving gender equality because it's good for everybody and good for the economy is working in measurable ways that we've been focused on.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, can you confirm that Australia completed 198,000 houses a year on average under the former coalition government, compared to 170,000 houses in the year to June 2024 under Labor? If not, what are the government's figures?

Thank you, Senator Bragg. In anticipation that you might ask me some questions, I did get some information about what was particularly happening in your home state of New South Wales, and I thought it would be good—

That wasn't the question.

I would hope that you would actually want to know—are you not interested in what happens in New South Wales? More than 40,000 Australians have bought their first home in New South Wales thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. More than 40,000—I'm surprised you're not interested.

Senator Bragg on a point of order?

On relevance, the question was about completions under the former government and under this government.

Thank you, Senator Bragg. I listened carefully to your question and I'm listening to the minister. As she's only just begun her answer, I'll continue listening carefully. If the minister doesn't address your question, I will draw her to the question.

I can indicate that over 660,000 homes have been built since Labor was elected and that new home starts are up—26 per cent higher than a year ago. Approvals are up three years in a row and there are more first home buyers under Labor compared to the coalition. Those are figures—

I'm sorry?

So completions are down?

What I would say to you, Senator, is that I'm advised that more have been built since we were elected, new home starts are up, approvals are up and construction cost inflation has been reduced—and, as importantly, more people are now owning their first home under our government as compared to the Liberal Party. I would hope that you would be very pleased that more than 40,000 Australians have now bought their first home in your home state of New South Wales, thanks to Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. We can provide you with more information around the 40,000 and where they are, and I'm sure Senator McAllister would be very happy to take you to some of the projects as well that we are supporting through the work that we are doing.

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

They've gone down. Minister, can you confirm that housing completions under Labor have fallen to the lowest level in a decade? And, if not, what is the government's figure?

I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. She made a suggestion about the government, and what I would say to her is that, unlike your government, we have actually invested in more houses. We actually have—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Senator Watt and Senator Cash! Senator Bragg has asked his question. He's entitled to an answer, but the minister's also entitled to take interjections. And senators should respect it when I call you to order.

I would make the point that, under you, my recollection is you didn't invest in any housing. You come in worried about—

You'll take credit for everything else.

Well, you didn't invest in any housing, and you did not invest in the drivers of housing supply. You believed—and you still assert this—that it should be just left to the private market. Well, we have a view that it is important for government to participate—

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

Under Minister Clare O'Neil as housing minister, housing completions are at their lowest level in more than a decade. First home buyers are falling into negative equity. Renters are facing higher rents. Builders are warning projects won't proceed, as a record number of construction companies face insolvency. Is this what Minister Clare O'Neil considers to be a successful housing policy?

First, we recognise that the status quo in the housing market is not acceptable. That is why we have worked on both the supply side but also on the tax side—all of which you have opposed. Not only did you impose taxes, but you opposed the changes to taxation that actually gave first home buyers a crack at the market. You opposed the changes to tax—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister McAllister, you were almost louder than the minister. I've asked for order across the chamber. That is what I expect. Minister Wong, please continue.

Senator, what I said to you is, for you, the status quo is fine. But I wonder who you've talked to. I wonder how many young Australians and how many first home buyers or people who aspire to be first home buyers you've actually spoken to. Because if you had, you wouldn't come in here and tell everybody it's all fine. You wouldn't come in here and say the five per cent deposit scheme is rubbish. You wouldn't come in here and say the tax changes are rubbish. (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, I think I've called you every day for the last sitting period. There is no KPI to the number of interjections you can make. I've asked you I think every day this week not to interject, and you interjected constantly. I'm asking you again today. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber.

The government hands over billions of dollars of public money every year to Australia's biggest and most profitable mining corporations through the Fuel Tax Credit scheme. It's cheap diesel for big polluters—fossil fuel subsidies while everyone else has to tighten their belts in a fuel crisis. It's public money to make climate pollution worse. It undermines the climate gains made by renewables. And it disincentivises electrification of heavy industries. The chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean, has described this cheap fuel for big miners as 'insane'. The OECD has called for its elimination. Fortescue is running a national ad campaign calling for reform. Climate groups, the ACTU and Labor's own Environment Action Network all say it's got to go. In a climate, fuel and cost-of-living crisis, why is this government giving billions in handouts to the most profitable and polluting industry on earth?

I thank Senator Waters for the question, and I acknowledge this is a long-held view of the Greens political party on the diesel fuel tax rebate. Our tax policies have been outlined in the budget papers. The ones that we have focused on in this budget have been around doing tax reform—big tax reform—in the areas of negative gearing, capital gains tax and trust reform. In terms of all of those other areas that Senator Waters identifies around climate, around energy and indeed around fuel, our focus has been on implementing our climate policies and seeing the big change that we're seeing across our economy and actually delivering that, which we are doing. We're not only supporting jobs across the economy but also putting downward pressure on energy bills, and we'll continue to focus on that. We'll continue to engage in discussions as we need to in this place. It has been a long-held view of the Greens to end that rebate. The government has a different view. We have not changed our view on that.

In relation to energy, in relation to climate, in relation to renewables—I mean, look at what's happening in terms of renewable energy in this country. It's reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. This government is focused on delivering the change that will power a renewable energy future in this country. That's the work that Minister Bowen and other ministers are focused on, and we are seeing that change happen. This government welcomes that, and we will continue to work across the board to make sure we can deliver the transformation that's required across the economy.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

This government is handing $627 million to BHP, Australia's most profitable company, and $416 million to Rio Tinto at the same time as you intend to kick 241,000 people off crucial, life-changing NDIS support. Why are you prioritising mining company handouts when disabled people are being asked to accept cuts?

I understand the political kind of argument around trying to link those two things, but they are quite different. There is a diesel fuel tax credit scheme that has operated for as long as I can recall, and then there are sensible and needed changes that we are making to the NDIS to secure its future and to ensure that it is sustainable into the long term. They are not linked. The government doesn't see them as linked. We are making those changes to the NDIS because it cannot continue to grow at the rate it is growing. The NDIS will continue to grow, as we know. What we're trying to do is slow the growth of the scheme. A scheme that was originally intended to be $13 billion a year is now over $50 billion a year and growing. If we do nothing about it, it will continue to grow in excess of $70 billion a year. It is not sustainable.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

The budget papers show that, by 2030, Australia will be burning even more diesel than today, diesel emissions will be higher and Australia will be more vulnerable to fuel shocks. How can you be serious about energy security and meeting your pathetic climate targets while continuing to subsidise big polluters with a fuel tax credit scheme?

As I said in my original answer, the government has a different view to that of the Greens political party on the diesel fuel tax credit scheme. In relation to the change that's required—and there is a difference between the Greens political party and a Labor government in that we are actually delivering the change. We are actually delivering a transformation of our economy into a renewable energy future. We are doing it. You can stand on the sideline and criticise and complain about it, but the reality is, when you look at what's happening across our economy, we've seen demand for gas come off because we've seen so much investment in storage, in batteries that this government is rolling out and in making sure that people have access to storage for the solar that they have on their roof that we are also supporting. We'll get on with delivering the change, actually doing it, in the interests of the nation while you stand on the sideline and complain. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government is backing Australians through a range of measures designed to support Australian small businesses. Last month, the Treasurer announced more than $3.8 billion in new, practical support to boost Australian small business. Minister, how is the government helping small business grow, create jobs and seize new opportunities?

Thanks, Senator Sterle, for that question. As somebody who's worked in the trucking industry for a long time in his life, full of Australian small businesses, he's the right person to ask this important question. We know that a strong economy is only possible when you have strong small businesses, and that great Western Australian Albanese government minister Anne Aly is making sure we do exactly that.

Every year, 2.7 million businesses employ 5.2 million Australians and contribute $623 billion to the Australian economy. That's why we are delivering more than $3.8 billion in new measures that provide tax relief and support small businesses' resilience and encourage their growth. From 1 July, we are making permanent the $20,000 instant asset write-off and also the two-year loss carry back—both of those measures unwound by the coalition when they were in office. We're delivering tax cuts for 1.5 million sole traders, including the new $250 working Australians tax offset, and delivering $8 billion to support the mental health and financial wellbeing of small business owners.

That's not all. We're expanding tax incentives for venture capital, to unlock more capital for expanding businesses; refocusing the research and development tax incentive, to get more impact out of Australian ideas in small businesses; and providing free access to mandatory standards that will save some businesses over $1,600 a year.

There are 7½ thousand more manufacturing businesses in the economy. Exports in manufacturing in my area are up by 43 per cent. Investment in manufacturing is up by 35 per cent. This is a government that's delivering for small business every day of the week. (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, first supplementary?

Small-business owners are located right across the country, from those that work in Australian agriculture to those in rural towns and in our big cities. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government's support for small business is helping regional communities create jobs and drive economic growth?

Regional Australia, of course, is home to sole traders, gig workers and small businesses. Many of Australia's farmers and agricultural workers are also small-business owners. And that part of the economy in regional Australia, more than any other part of the economy, has felt the impact of this year's global supply shocks.

The Albanese government has worked hard to secure the fertiliser and the fuel that they need. In my portfolio area, the economic resilience plan, the National Reconstruction Fund has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to Australian small businesses, particularly in freight and logistics. The Albanese government is securing fertiliser and fuel. Today, Phosphate Hill has announced that it has reached the end of its sale process. The Albanese government and the Crisafulli government are working together to deliver for the 500 workers who are— (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

Through our tax relief, fairer competition and cutting red tape, the Albanese Labor government is boosting productivity and helping Australian small businesses stay strong, adapt and grow. This is alongside our tax cuts for every Australian, of which there have now been five under this government. Why has the government taken this approach to support Australia's small business sector?

Thank you, Senator Sterle. Of course, tax cuts benefit Australian workers and they benefit small business too. Earlier this week, Senator Hume said that Labor's tax cuts—of which there have been five—were 'egregious'. She said what she said, no matter what she wishes she said. She said the Liberals' quiet part out loud.

Senator Scarr?

A point of order on direct relevance. Senator Sterle asked a sensible question—

Thank you—

and it's become a personal attack on one of our colleagues.

Senator Scarr, we don't need the running commentary. The minister is being relevant to the question; I'll continue to listen carefully and, if he isn't, I will draw him back to the question. Minister Ayres, please continue.

They don't like it when Australians earn more and they don't like it when they keep more of what they earn. I wasn't sure what 'egregious' meant. I was sure it must have meant 'good'! So I had a look at it in the dictionary, and I can tell you the etymology of 'egregious'. It is used by Australians 0.7 times for every million words that are issued. You're just so lucky, Liberals! You're just so lucky that Senator Hume chose to say—

Senator Scarr?

President, again, the minister is being egregious, in terms of his response to this question!

Thank you, Senator Scarr. Thank you, Minister. Please continue.

Well, that's the word that she chose to use to describe tax cuts for every working Australian and support for every Australian small business. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Walsh. Minister, this week Comms Declare revealed that big coal and gas corporations like Woodside, BHP and Santos are funding climate denial propaganda in our early childhood centres, in our schools, in our museums and in our sports clubs to downplay the role of coal and gas in driving climate change and to promote fossil fuel brands to children as young as six months old.

Minister, we would not allow tobacco companies into schools to teach about health. We wouldn't allow gambling companies to teach financial literacy. Do you think it passes the pub test for multinational coal and gas corporations to be teaching kids about climate change in our classrooms?

I thank the senator for her question. In relation to the report that you reference, which relates to fossil fuel industry approaches on the curriculum, it's probably important to outline what the Commonwealth's role is in relation to these matters. Our role is one of leadership in setting and advocating for what the national priorities are in education and what the national priorities are for the curriculum.

One of the national priorities for the curriculum is sustainability. That is one of three cross-curriculum national priorities. At the same time, it is really the states and territories who are responsible for managing and regulating schools, and that includes how curriculum is delivered. It includes what resources and what programs are used in our schools. It is at that level of government that decisions are made around teaching materials, around partnerships and around programs, along with education authorities and the schools themselves.

Beyond that, we value the work of the nation's teachers. We value the work of the nation's educators. We trust our teachers. We trust our educators to use their professional discretion to tailor learning to students in the classroom. Again, it's important to understand that our role as the Commonwealth is in setting and advocating for the national priorities in education.

Senator Hodgins-May, first supplementary?

Minister, aren't these education programs just loose change compared to what multinational gas corporations should be contributing through a gas export tax that could properly fund our schools and early learning centres so teachers didn't have to rely on nonsense curriculum because they're simply overworked and underfunded?

I'm proud to report to you and the chamber—in case you missed it—that the Albanese Labor government is investing an additional $20 billion in our public schools through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. For the first time, on our watch, under our government, every single public school student will be funded to the full Gonski standard in every single public school around the country. This is an additional $20 billion commitment, for the first time, to fund our public schools to the level that all of our public school students deserve, and we are proud to make that commitment. Only the Greens could complain about the biggest new injection of Commonwealth funding to public schools ever.

Senator Hodgins-May, second supplementary?

I didn't hear an answer there, so let's try again. Minister, parents expect schools and early learning centres to educate our children, not to market fossil fuel companies. It's outrageous. Will the government finally, finally stare down the gas lobby and support an inquiry into keeping big coal and gas out of our classrooms? It seems like a pretty simple proposition.

I know that the Greens political party in this place love to fuel outrage. That is the fuel that the Greens are most interested in in this place—fuelling outrage. It is not delivering. The Greens are not interested in delivering for Australians, and we are. On this side of the chamber, we are proudly investing $20 billion into our public schools. We are fully funding every single public school student.

Senator Allman-Payne, I should not have to call you to order twice.

Senator Allman-Payne, do not speak back to me. I am requiring you to sit there in silence. That is an order.

For the first time, the Albanese Labor government is fully funding every single public school student in every single public school around the country. It is a $20 billion commitment. It is the first time it's ever been done.

A point of order on relevance. My question was around fossil fuel infiltration of schools, not funding of public schools.

Thank you, Senator Hodgins-May. The minister is being relevant to your question.

Senator, you did link your question to the funding that is available to public schools, and we are making historic investments in those schools.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, of Australian first home buyers who entered the market under Labor's expanded five per cent deposit scheme, how many have fallen into negative equity since Labor handed down its May budget?

Thank you for the question. I think I did get this question from the Liberal Party yesterday, but I'm very happy to answer it again. I say to you that the five per cent deposit scheme has helped many thousands of Australians into the market who would not otherwise have entered the market. The advice I have is, firstly, that most people come into the scheme with more than a five per cent deposit; and, secondly, about 70 per cent are ahead on their repayments and 29 per cent are on time. So that obviously tells you that a very small number are in arrears. In fact, the advice I have is that out of more than 200,000 guarantees issued, only 13 have been paid out. In fact, I did look at this after the discussion previously. The evidence from CBA and Westpac is that the performance of that cohort over the last few years is actually better than the average when it comes to where repayments are. I note that the RBA governor in June, last month, said that at the moment practically no-one is in negative equity. It's absolutely minuscule, and it has actually declined over the last year or so.

So I would say to you, Senator, that your coalition parties have so little that you can agree on other than that you don't want change and that it's in your interest to frighten people. I would actually say to you that I don't think it is in your political interest, because the more pessimistic people are, I suspect, the more they look to Ms Hanson and not Mr Canavan. But that's a strategic decision for you—sorry, Matt. (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Minister, if the government doesn't actually know how many first home buyers are now in negative equity, how can you possibly claim that Labor's housing policy has been a success?

I don't think that the figures I outlined to you match your question. In fact, what the figures I outlined suggest or indicate is actually that this is a very successful policy that has enabled Australians to get into the housing market to own their first home. We think that's a good thing. I've also spoken about where people are in terms of arrears and in fact that this cohort, these Australians who have had the opportunity to get into the housing market, are actually performing slightly better than average when it comes to their repayments. So I find your question unnecessarily alarmist, and I think it really displays a philosophical position that you don't actually think government should be helping people enter the housing market.

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Minister, does the Prime Minister accept that Australians who relied on Labor's promises to buy their first home are now paying the price through negative equity, understanding that you don't seem to understand that being ahead on your repayments is not negative equity? Negative equity is when your house is worth less than what you owe on it.

I would start by saying this: when in doubt, try and manufacture a scare campaign. That's what happens when you don't do the work on your policies, when you don't do the work on tax policy, on wages policy and on economic policy, and that is what you have been doing. What has been interesting this week has been to observe the way in which those opposite have not actually been able to engage with the centre of the tax policies. What you've been trying to do is engage in scare campaigns which have no foundation, and, Senator, they have no foundation, as I have outlined in my primary answer to you. The difference between us and you is that we actually want more Australians to own their own home. We want more people to own their own home. I know that you on that side find that a very difficult proposition, but I actually think it's a motivation most Australians share. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Minister for Science and the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. Minister, this week, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, NCRIS, celebrated 20 years. It's one of the most successful and longest running government programs, yet for the first time, in this year's budget, there was no detailed funding profile for NCRIS over the forward estimates. Why is this, and can the government guarantee that NCRIS funding will continue in full post the 2028-29 funding cliff it currently faces?

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I can tell you, in relation to NCRIS, to our broader research infrastructure requirements, in relation to our science institutions, that this Albanese government, in every year that we've been in office—but I can tell you that in particular over the last year—has put in more than any previous government to deliver sustainability and focused effort across our research infrastructure. We will, of course, as part of our normal budget processes in the lead-up to every budget, in the normal way, make an assessment of the short- and long-term requirements for research infrastructure funding.

I have been very happy to be able to be part of a government that, in relation to the CSIRO, which in terms of research infrastructure and its assets around Australia has a very substantial research footprint, in this budget added, in addition to the around $1 billion that the government provides to the CSIRO, an additional $387.4 million, in addition to the more than $200 million that the government provided in MYEFO last year. This is a government that is serious about the role of science and serious about the role of the full research and development sector, including our incredible universities. I saw Senator Hanson, in one of the three right-wing parties over here, bagging the university sector earlier today. Our fantastic universities are doing fantastic research work. All of the Australian research infrastructure is pointing in the right direction. (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I think we might need to fact-check your assertion that your government has done more than any government on research, because, as I understand it, our total R&D spend as a percentage of GDP continues to slide.

We had the Strategic Examination of Research and Development final report in March. We've only seen one of the six core recommendations progressed. Why is there a delay in implementing an ambitious Australia?

What we are delivering, in a substantial and serious way, as a government that actually does things—we commissioned that report. There's a substantial part of that report dealt with in the budget. Don't be offended, but I'm not really going to take your report card on our achievements in this area. What is certain is that governments deliver; Independents talk. We have delivered substantial funding for the CSIRO. You haven't built a roundabout. We have delivered—

Senator Scarr?

On a point of order on personal reflections, I'm mindful of the fact that Senator Pocock is an Independent—

It's not a personal reflection, but I will remind the minister to address the chair when answering the question.

What we are doing is grappling with the real challenges of the Australian research and development system, not complaining and not seeking to find a new set of Instagram posts. We are about delivering substantially for Australian science and research. That is what governments do. That is what an adult, serious government does in a real, substantial way.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister Ayres. I think we'll all make our minds up about the way you interact in this place. When will the national innovation council—

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Pocock, please continue.

What was wrong with that?

Senator Pocock, I've invited you to ask your question.

When will the national innovation council be established?

In the budget, the National Resilience and Science Council was established, and it will be legislated. It will direct the work of Australia's research and development, our commercialisation capability and our industrial policy. We will deliver legislation to the parliament in the normal way. It is a mobilisation effort to harness our national research and development capacity in the Commonwealth, in the states and in the university sector and point them at Australia's big challenges.

Senator, you might find it offensive to have somebody say to you that what you do is complain and not deliver, but you find it perfectly fine, including in your contributions earlier today—

Senator Ayres, address your comments through the chair.

to cast inferences, President, and are shocked when people respond. We announced in the budget a bigger and bolder initiative than the one that you talked about just then. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Delivering cost-of-living relief and quality health care is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. Today the government is delivering more investments to make our health system more affordable and more accessible for all Australians. Minister, can you outline how these investments will deliver real change for Australians and ensure that Australian families get the health that they deserve?

Senator Polley, I thank you for drawing attention to what is happening today. Today is a good day for Australia's families, and it's a great day for our health system because the Albanese Labor government is delivering a record $220 billion to our public health system. In your home state, Senator Polley, Tasmanians will receive $5.1 billion in total hospital funding over the next five years. Across the country, there is three times more additional funding for public hospitals than under the Morrison government's last five-year agreement.

Why are we making these investments? Because there is a lot to do. The previous Liberal government spent nearly a decade neglecting the health system that Australians depend on. Well, that was their choice. This government makes a very different choice. We are choosing to give nurses and doctors the resources that they need to do their jobs. We are choosing to ensure that Australians, wherever they live and wherever they come from, can better access the care that they need.

We are choosing to make that care available before Australians even reach the hospital door, with 137 Medicare urgent care clinics open across this country, providing bulk-billed care. From today, they are a permanent feature of Medicare. There are eight Medicare urgent care clinics in your home state of Tasmania, Senator—all permanent. We hear from families, workers and hospital staff about just how important these clinics are. They are taking pressure off our emergency departments.

We saw how those opposite ridiculed Medicare urgent care clinics and called it 'wasteful spending'. The three million Australians who have walked through the doors of these clinics have gotten free urgent care, and they disagree. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for answering the question and highlighting the importance of what we're delivering. Today the Albanese Labor government is expanding access to life-changing treatments for more Australians, from vaccines to medicines. Can the minister outline how the government is continuing to invest in more treatments for Australians?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering more affordable treatments for more Australians, and today we are doing exactly that. From today, the pneumococcal vaccine program will be expanded for older Australians over 65 through the National Immunisation Program. That means more Australians will have access to the best and most comprehensive protection against pneumococcal for free. This is on top of the new, cheaper medicines we are adding to the PBS: long-acting insulin that will support people with type 2 diabetes, a nasal spray for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis and treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, all now available for no more than $25.

If the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation had had their way, Australians would have been paying more than $50 for a PBS script in 2026. That is $2.7 billion in savings delivered since 2022 that the coalition of chaos opposed.

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has worked to protect and strengthen Medicare for every Australian. Minister, can you outline why the government is making these investments, and what are the threats to these investments?

You are absolutely right that we are making these investments because Labor governments will always protect and strengthen Medicare. Since coming to government, we have put money back into hospitals, made more medicines cheaper and gotten bulk-billing rates up again after a decade of freefall.

But we should be clear eyed about the risks. They are all over there, because the coalition's record is there for everyone to see: cuts to Medicare and cuts to public hospitals. They are all about cuts except once. When it comes to voting for tax cuts, then they're not interested. But they are interested in cuts to public health, and sitting right next to them on many occasions, although not right now, is One Nation, a party whose biggest contribution to health policy is a commitment to abolish the TGA, the very body that keeps medicines safe for Australians. The coalition of chaos—all of those opposite—have never valued public health and they never will. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In the four years since Labor was elected, according to the ABS, inflation has gone up by around 23.9 per cent for working households. That means that people have paid more at the checkout, more in their energy bills, more on rents and more in taxes. According to your own budget, tax as a percentage of GDP is forecast to increase this financial year. How many Australians will pay more in taxes this financial year than they did in the previous financial year?

I thank Senator Hume for the question, particularly on a day that the second of our five tax cuts have come in—the second of the five income tax cuts that we are bringing in and that those opposite voted against. They come in here and they raise concerns around the amount of tax that might be being collected, and yet, when we have sought to cut income tax, they have voted against it. They went to a campaign saying they were going to raise income taxes. They went through an election campaign promising to raise income taxes, and since then they have voted against the tax cuts that are coming in today, and the tax cuts that will come in at the end of this financial year, and the working Australian tax offset—all of that.

So forgive me for not taking your question seriously, Senator Hume. Forgive me for not believing that you are genuinely concerned about the tax that is being paid by Australians when, on this side of the chamber, when we've sought to increase wages, you've voted against it. When we've sought to reduce the pressure on people's cost of living, whether it be through medicines, whether it be through energy bill relief or whether it be through our investments in Medicare, those opposite have voted against it. They've voted against our increases to wages. They've seen as wasteful spending our investments in early education and care and aged care. So forgive me for not taking your question seriously. How you vote in here matters because that's actually where you make the difference—and you vote no to everything. Everything that we have tried to do to ease the pressure on households and to reduce inflation you have voted against, and then you come in here and you say you're concerned about it all. Well, forgive me, Senator Hume. I don't believe you.

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Let's put aside your egregious tax hikes on housing, investment, saving, innovation and entrepreneurs and your egregious tax hike on widows. After your cup of coffee tax cut, how many days will it take before the average income earner is paying more in taxes because of bracket creep, based on your budget's own inflation forecasts?

I thank Senator Hume for the question. Again, this government has shown our appetite to not only return bracket creep but actually deliver it—actually do it. We did it in 2024 when we changed the stage 3 tax cuts that were only going to give certain income earners tax cuts and made sure that they were fairer. We're doing it today and we'll do it next year and we'll do it with our instant tax deduction. And we'll do it with the working Australian tax offset. This is all designed to reduce the tax burden on working Australians.

When we have sought to do so, Senator Hume, you have sought to protect the status quo. You have sought to protect the status quo through the way you voted when you voted against a better and fairer approach to our tax system. Those opposite voted against it and we are returning it to working Australians.

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Minister, can you look up into the gallery and tell those Australians whether they will pay more for groceries, petrol, energy and rents this year than they did last year because of the way your government is managing the economy and letting inflation remain too high for too long?

The message I would give those in the gallery is the message I would give all Australians. This government is 100 per cent focused on easing the cost-of-living burden on Australians. It’s about a better and fairer tax system that reduces the burden on 13 million Australian workers, about getting wages again, about repairing the budget and about lowering the debt and lowering the interest on that debt. That is the approach we take, and we've taken it since we came to government. We will continue that, and where we can afford it, we will give tax back through tax cuts that you voted against. The people in the gallery and around should judge your voting record and the way that you have said no—every single time we have brought reform into this chamber to make life easier for working Australians, you have voted against it.

Your budget says you will be poorer next year!

Senator Hume, I did call you to order. You completely ignored me. Minister Wong.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

In question time today, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Shoebridge in my capacity as the minister representing the Prime Minister relating to defence procurement. I have written to the senator to provide additional information. I table my letter for the information of all senators.

by leave—as acting Nationals Senate leader, I advise the Senate that, due to my personal leave, Senator Canavan will be acting Nationals Senate leader tomorrow, Thursday 2 June.

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to 27 questions on notice asked during the 2024-25 additional estimates hearings, the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates hearings and the 2025-26 additional estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Senator Shoebridge has asked for an explanation about a relatively small number of questions on notice that have not been answered. This has been a point that has come up numerous times at Senate estimates in the Home Affairs portfolio. When I have been asked as the representing minister to explain outstanding questions on notice, I have pointed out the incredible explosion we have seen in the numbers of questions on notice asked in Senate estimates for the Home Affairs portfolio, particularly in this parliament. This has been a combined effort of the Greens political party, along with the Liberal Party and other representatives in the Senate.

To give you some perspective on that, the number of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents all skyrocketed in the previous parliament, and this trend is continuing in the 48th Parliament. Twelve thousand two hundred and ninety-four Senate estimates questions on notice were submitted for the October 2025 estimates round. That was the highest figure in a single round since the database of Senate estimates questions on notice was established. Despite this, many of the same questions were submitted again in December 2025, taking the total number of questions answered in October and December estimates to 24,374. By February 2026, less than a year into the 48th Parliament, the total number of questions on notice asked in Senate estimates was already over 50 per cent of the total asked in the three years of the 47th Parliament.

As I've pointed out in previous Senate estimates sessions, if senators were to be a little bit more judicious around the number of Senate estimates questions on notice that they ask, then it would be more possible for ministers and their departments to answer those questions. Senator Hume has been a particular offender in asking, frankly, a ridiculous number of Senate estimates questions on notice. In the last parliament alone, Senator Hume asked nearly 35,000 Senate estimates questions on notice. That included more than 500 questions concerning paper use by departments, nearly 100 questions concerning working on the King's Birthday holiday and nearly 100 questions concerning who might be the longest serving member of any particular agency. Over 24,000 questions on notice were submitted for the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates round, and, of those 24,000, Senator Hume submitted 17,793 of those questions. That was over 72 per cent of the questions submitted for that round.

This government, and the minister I represent in the Senate, will always do their very best, as will their departments, to respond to the questions on notice that they receive. But, when we receive that sheer number, it will take time, and people are more likely to get faster answers if they are more selective and judicious about the sheer number of questions that they ask.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

It's a pretty extraordinary proposition. We have 27 questions here that we asked and that we gave notice of to the government. We are seeking an explanation for why they haven't been answered. The answer we get is that another senator, Senator Hume, asked too many questions. I'm not asking about Senator Hume's questions; I'm asking about the questions that we have put.

I hear the Labor cheer squad over there. No doubt, they've listened to the minister, and they want to back him in what he says.

One of the key things about the bulk of the questions we've asked for an explanation for today is that they have been questions we've asked in the course of engagement with officials in Senate estimates, in budget estimates, in committee hearings. We ask them questions. They sit there. Sometimes, in Home Affairs, you've got a room full of like 100 people—secretaries; deputy secretaries; assistant secretaries; first, second, third and fourth assistant secretaries; ministers; and advisers. It's a room full of 100 people. We ask the questions, and they take them on notice.

This room is full of people who you think would come with some basic answers, but the ministers and the bureaucrats sit there and, time after time after time, under Labor's watch, take what should be straightforward questions—that there should be an answer to—on notice. We then have had the minister come in here and say: 'Oh, it's terrible. We have so many questions on notice.' I'll tell you one great way of getting rid of that backlog of questions on notice—answer the damn questions in the course of the actual committee hearing. Answer the questions in the course of Senate estimates.

I'll take you to the first question in this list of 27 for Home Affairs, which are just from my office. In the first one, we were asking about how and why approvals happen for payments under this contract with MTC, which Labor wants to keep secret, in relation to the Nauru facilities that Australia pays for. There are billions and billions of dollars going off to Nauru, and we wanted to find out, in relation to those contracts, what kind of approvals happen for about $1 billion of public money. Often, they're approvals that are given for MTC to pay subcontractors in Nauru. We want to know what the threshold is, and when the threshold changed, for approvals to give money to Nauru—often to corporations connected with the Adeangs and the like in Nauru. We're asking: what's the threshold? We're told the threshold is $50,000. We've asked what the approval processes are and when that threshold changed from $100,000 to $50,000. For a question like that, on a major project like that, with $1 billion or so of Australian public money at stake—we asked the officials in the room when it changed from $100,000 to $50,000, and we got, from Mr Thomas, 'I'll take that on notice.'

Maybe one of the reasons that's been taken on notice—I'll be frank—is because we asked for some further answers. We asked if the department could provide, on notice, the number of subcontracts that have been signed under this new assurance assessment and the number of occasions where conflicts of interest, or exposures or links to politically-exposed persons or government entities have been raised. And most particularly, we wanted to know if those conflicts of interest or exposures included members of the Nauru government, members of the Nauru cabinet and David Adeang. We asked for that on 10 February. There's still no answer.

I get that the government doesn't want to identify how many subcontracts they've signed with companies associated with Nauru's president and his family. I get that might be embarrassing. But you're obliged to answer the question, and you didn't; you took it on notice.

We also asked on 10 February about an update on the facility in Iran for testing people's biometrics that has been closed since February of this year, because, without that one facility operating, no-one from Iran can get a visa to come to Australia. We had some engagement in the course of that. Mr Willard, who, I find, tries to assist, gave evidence that there have been periods where the biometric centre has been closed and it's a matter that they're considering. And then I said: 'It's urgent to get it reopened.' I was asking for the details, and we were told they'd give us the details:

We will follow up, given what you're saying, to find out its status as of this week.

That's what we got. We asked that on 10 February. It's not the same week, just to be clear. We're now in July. Why can't we get an update on the biometric facility in Iran?

We asked, on 10 February, again, about the promise the government has made to provide additional supports and additional places people can go to for support—particularly people on the PALM scheme, who might be being exploited or oppressed by their employers. There's a handful of contacts in the regulations that people on the PALM scheme can contact to ask questions, to try and get some legal advice or some industrial advice. There's only a handful of organisations. There was the tragic incident where someone on the PALM scheme died after appalling conditions in their employment, and they couldn't get help; they couldn't get assistance. The government has promised to expand the numbers. So we simply asked: 'If you're going to put those additional measures in, when are they going to happen? If you're going to put in the additional supports for vulnerable workers, when are you going to publish them? When are you going to put them in the regulations?' And do you know what? We got told on 10 February they'd take that on notice. It's July! Doesn't the government know? Despite the announcement that you made, is there no plan to provide those additional places for support for PALM workers? They bloody well need them. On 10 February, we asked; it's now July, and we're still waiting for an answer.

Also on 10 February we were asking some questions about what criteria Home Affairs use to stop and search people and to demand access to and go through their mobile phones when they come through the borders. In the context of this, there were a series of people who had been over on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla who had got monstered—treated appallingly—by the Israeli government; they had then come back in and had got stopped by Border Force, when they'd returned to their own country, and got questioned like they were criminals and had their phones taken off and searched. And they want to know: 'Well, what's the criteria that Border Force use to do that—to stop and search people? Is it just that you've been advocating for Palestine? Is that why you get stopped and searched? Is that why you're put on an alert?' We got told, 'Oh, you know, this is all classified; it's classified.' I said, 'Well, I just want to know the criteria. I want to know what the identifiers are, what the criteria are, that have you stopping Australian citizens as they're trying to come home. Instead of welcoming them home, you're taking them off to a closed room, grabbing their phone off them and stripping all the data off their phone with Israeli software.' That's what I wanted to know. That's what the public wants to know. We asked that on 10 February. There is still no answer. We asked that, like all of the ones I've raised, not on notice. The reason these are now on notice is the bureaucrats didn't answer them and the ministers didn't answer them in the course of the hearing. That's why we're asking for answers.

One we did put on notice—to which you'd think there'd be a pretty simple answer—on 19 February, to the Department of Home Affairs was: how many of the NZYQ affected people have been deported to Nauru? That's what we asked: how many of them have been deported to Nauru? You would have thought the government would know how many of the NZYQ cohort have been deported to Nauru. It's quite a process to do that really cruel thing to somebody—to actually strip them out of this country against their will; deport them to a third country that they have no connections with; put them in a place where they have no cultural, personal, family, economic connections; put them into that deliberately as a form of punishment. You would have thought that the government would have a list of people, that they'd know the number and that it wouldn't take six months for them to not answer. You would have thought, as at 19 February, they would have just said: 'Well, it's X number. That's how many people we have cruelly deported from the NZYQ cohort to Nauru.' But here it is, in July, and we're still waiting for an answer. Like so much of the Nauru deal, this government knows it's cooked, it knows it's cruel and it knows it's wrong, and it hides behind secrecy and nonanswers.

On 20 February we asked 'how many individuals have been transferred to a regional processing country since 31 August 2025, when we got the last data?' We're not asking to repeat data. We have data effective 31 July. We wanted to know an update as at 20 February. We're still waiting. Again, this information should be at the press of a button; this information should be able to be provided at the press of a button. We asked it on 20 February and we are still waiting for it.

Again, the Nauru secrecy comes out. On 20 February we asked 'how many people seeking asylum are currently residing in Nauru having been transferred there by Australia?' How many people who have come to Australia or sought Australia's protection have instead been sent off and are living in Nauru? Again, you would have thought a vaguely competent government would have that figure to hand. We asked it on 20 February. It is July, and we are still waiting for an answer.

One of the other issues that is raised regularly with my office is concern about unregistered migration agents operating out there and taking people's money. They're taking people's money in illegal operations, pretending to be migration agents. Instead, they're not filing visa applications—because they're not entitled to. They're taking the money and buggering off. This is a real issue for the community. We wanted to know how many unregistered migration agents have been referred to the ABF each year. The answer might be none because nobody knows how to refer to the ABF. The answer might be 'actually, no, it goes to the Australian Federal Police'. The answer might be 'well, actually we don't care about unregistered migration agents'. I don't know what the answer is from the Labor government because they haven't told us, and we've been waiting since 20 February. Is the Labor government comfortable with having unregistered migration agents? Is that the actual answer—that you don't have any scheme in place to track, prosecute and bring to account unregistered migration agents? If that's the answer, just tell us. I heard the minister say he was worried that there were questions about stationery or questions about this. I want to demonstrate here that these are substantial questions about public administration of the Home Affairs portfolio. The complete refusal of this government to answer what should be front and centre of the minister's knowledge and the bureaucrats' knowledge either in the hearing or very soon after is now getting to an extraordinary level.

On 20 February we asked some questions about the status of people in PNG. Australia has cruelly abandoned 40 people in PNG, some of whom are living in the most extreme circumstances and whose lives are seriously at risk. We asked questions about what arrangements are in place to look after those people. Some of their families have been contacting me and, I assume, other members of parliament, concerned that one of these men might die in the next few days. We've been waiting since 20 February to get some answers on that and to get some transparency on what, if any, supports the Albanese government is giving to people who came to Australia seeking protection and were then sent to PNG initially in the failed project with Manus Island and now in Port Moresby. Since 20 February we've been waiting for answers. We are deeply concerned that someone might die, and we can't even get an answer from the government. So you ask: are we satisfied with the minister's response? Well, the answer is no. (Time expired)

Given that there's been a very lengthy debate on this, I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of a matter. Has it been circulated?

It is in line for you to explain the motion.

The motion I would move is that business of the Senate order of the day No. 1 be called on immediately and debated for no more than 30 minutes, after which the question be put.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow business of the Senate order of the day no. 1 to be called on immediately and be debated for no more than 30 minutes, after which the question be put.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is that Senator Gallagher's motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

I will just note that I will allow a longer division if there is a change in voting positions as indicated by the whips. But it's one-minute divisions otherwise.

I move:

That the business of the Senate order of the day no. 1 to be called on immediately and debated for not more than 30 minutes after which the question be put.

I also move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

The question is the that procedural motion, as moved by Minister Gallagher, be agreed to.

What we've just seen is the Labor Party, supposedly the party of the worker, teaming up with the coalition to block young people under the age of 18, who show up and do the same work as an adult, from getting super. Well done, Labor. Shame on you. The Greens support payday super. We believe that workers should be paid at the same time as their wages; that is not in question here. What is clear is that Labor has chosen, today, to leave a huge injustice in place for people under the age of 18. Labor had the opportunity today to make sure that young people get the super that they deserve.

Thousands upon thousands of Australians are retiring with not enough super. Heaven knows they need it, because the reforms that the government's put in place in relation to aged care means they're going to need money to look after themselves in their old age. Yet, under these regulations, 515,000 young workers—workers who are stacking shelves in our supermarkets; workers who are making fast food, in places like McDonald's, and making coffees and cleaning tables—are going to be denied superannuation simply because they're under 18 and they work fewer than 30 hours a week, and because Labor has decided to side with the coalition to stop them from getting what they deserve.

Last year alone, $415 million in super contributions were denied to the young people of this country. This is the Labor Party that tells us that they care about intergenerational inequity. Well, put your money where your mouth is. If you really care about generational inequality, here's a really simple thing you can do: let people under the age of 18 get the super that they deserve.

People who are under 17 can work hard; they can be asked to pay tax; they contribute to their workplaces and they contribute to their economy; but, when it comes to retirement savings, Labor is saying, 'That doesn't count.' That is such a double standard—500,000 young Australians missing out on super because Labor has decided to team up with the coalition to stop them. That's pretty much every young person in this country under the age of 18 who works, because 93 per cent of young people who work do less than 30 hours a week, so they are going to be caught by this provision. It's not a small carve-out and it's not a technical anomaly; it's the rule, that Labor has just done a deal with the coalition to keep, for virtually every young person in the country.

I think we need to be really clear about who is going to benefit from this: not young people, but the big corporations who employ them—big corporations like Coles, who made just over $1 billion in profit; companies like Woolworths, that banked $1.38 billion in profit. There was $600 million in profit for Chemist Warehouse, and $2.9 billion for Wesfarmers, which owns Kmart and Target. And McDonald's global profits exceeded $13 billion.

So, once again, Labor talks the talk out there—says that it cares about intergenerational inequality; says that it cares about helping workers—and then sides with big corporations to let them get away scot-free from paying their fair share of super to young people under the age of 18. Shame on you!

These are some of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the country. They can afford to pay super to young people. Yet, for some reason—who knows why—Labor has decided to let them off the hook. The reason that many companies choose not to follow the law and pay super is because Labor lets them off the hook. We know that some are already paying: Bunnings, Aldi, JB Hi-Fi, Priceline—they are doing the right thing and paying super to young people under the age of 18. But there are many who are not: Hungry Jack's; McDonald's; Coles; Woolworths; Chemist Warehouse. Labor could have fixed that today, but, instead, it has sided with the coalition and done a deal to deny young people under the age of 30 payment of their super. This is the party that says it cares about intergenerational inequality and says it cares about the worker—well, only some workers, and not if they're under 18.

The SDA's submission provided testimony from young workers around this pay discrimination. For example, they said:

Sarah is 18 and has been working since she was 15. She works at a discount department. $3,000 is what Sarah's super balance could have exceeded by now if contributions had been paid while she was under 18, nearly three times what she has now.

When she was asked how she felt about that, Sarah said: 'Not good.' She said:

That is a lot of money [unpaid] and I'm doing the same work That's just not fair.

Well, everyone, Labor—the supposed party of fairness, the supposed party of the fair go, the supposed party of the worker, the party who supposedly want to deal with intergenerational inequality—just stopped young people under 18 getting super in their pay. Shame on you.

The coalition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. The current arrangements strike, in our view, an appropriate balance between supporting young workers and limiting additional costs for employers.

This motion would require compulsory superannuation contributions for employees under 18 regardless of the number of hours they work. Businesses are already preparing for the implementation from 1 July, today, of payday super. That means updating payroll systems, changing payment processes and adapting to a significant new compliance requirement. Many small businesses are focused on managing those changes alongside broader cost pressures. We could talk about those all day, but we've already traversed much of that ground in this chamber over the last couple of weeks. This motion would add further employment costs at the same time as small businesses are dealing with all of this.

Now, the Greens argue that this change is designed to benefit young workers, but I think it is important to consider the impact that the changes they have proposed could have on youth employment opportunities. Increasing the cost of employing younger workers might make it harder for some businesses to offer entry-level jobs and additional shifts. First jobs provide valuable experience and allow young Australians to build skills and confidence for the future. We know that youth unemployment remains well above the national average. In that environment, policymakers should be careful not to introduce measures that could discourage the employment of younger Australians, and it is our fear that this measure being proposed here today by the Australian Greens has the potential to do that. The coalition believes the priority should be supporting both opportunities for young people and the viability of small business, and for those reasons we will be opposing this motion.

I think we need to be very clear about what is going on here. What is going on is that a Labor government has introduced payday superannuation regulations—and I should be clear that the Greens absolutely support payday super because we believe that workers should be paid their super at the time they are paid their wages, and that is why we supported the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. But these regulations introduce, among other things, an exclusion for workers who are under 18 years old, working less than 30 hours a week, from being entitled to the superannuation guarantee.

Let's be clear. People under 18 who are working pay taxes on their income. People who are under 18 and are working contribute to our society and contribute to our economy. So why should they, just because they are under the age of 18, not receive superannuation payments? That is the question that the Labor Party needs to answer.

There's a reason that the Labor Party is colluding with those great friends of the Australian working people, the opposition—the coalition, who have consistently trampled workers' rights and actively suppressed wages for working people at every single opportunity they've had. The Labor Party is now joining with them to bring on a Greens disallowance motion that is moved in order to protect people who are under 18 and ensure that they get superannuation payments. Now, why is Labor doing that? I'll tell you why Labor is doing it: because it doesn't want this issue to be a running sore for it. What have we got coming up soon? That's right. The ALP National Conference. What are they facing? A revolt from large parts of the union movement, who want to see superannuation paid to people under 18.

It's fair to say the Greens, including me, have had our differences with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, in the past, but I've got to say the SDA have been strong. They have been staunch, they have been steadfast and they have campaigned strongly and admirably for people under 18 to be paid superannuation regardless of how many hours in a week they work. But we have a Labor Party running scared of the union movement and running scared of the SDA. They don't want the platform of this disallowance to be there to assist that campaign on behalf of working Australians who are under 18.

It is instructive, I might say, that four senators who are extremely closely aligned with the SDA just voted against the interests of the SDA. Senator Polley, Senator Farrell, Senator Ciccone and Senator O'Neill, shame on you all. You are in this place in large part because of the factional arrangements inside the Labor Party and because of the deals between unions and the Labor machine, and now you turn around and you vote against a campaign that your union, the SDA, is so admirably running. The Labor Party is running scared of the unions. They are running scared of the Greens. They are running scared of the SDA. That is what is going on here.

Do you know who the big losers are going to be? People under 18 who work less than 30 hours a week, most of whom will not get super because they are not entitled to the superannuation guarantee in this country. That is devastating for young people. It is devastating for fairness. It is devastating for equity. If you're old enough to go to work, you're old enough to get superannuation and qualify under the superannuation guarantee no matter how many hours a week you work. That is the principle being put forward by the SDA and large chunks of the union movement and the Australian Greens, and that is the principle that is not supported by the Australian Labor Party, a political party that was founded on the basis of working people and advocating for the interests of working people.

The light on the hill has been flickering for years, growing ever more dim since the start of neoliberalism in Australia under a Labor government in the 1980s. I'll tell you what—it is so dim and flickering so much you can barely make it out when you look towards the top of the hill these days. The light on the hill was all about inspiring, protecting and enhancing the conditions for working Australians, and here is a moment in time for the Labor Party—an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are here for working people and that their rhetoric is not just hollow spin but actually has some substance. What have they done? They have squibbed it.

Not only have they squibbed it; they've squibbed it using the numbers of the antiworker parties in this place—the Liberal Party, the National Party, the One Nation party, the far right in this place. Labor has no morals. Labor doesn't mind who it gets into bed with if it suits their political agenda and if it ensures that people under 18 are not going to get access to the superannuation guarantee. This is a shameful day.

I want to say this to everyone who has worked so hard. I acknowledge the tireless and inspiring efforts of my friend and colleague Senator Barbara Pocock on this issue. I acknowledge the SDA, who has run a magnificent campaign on this. I acknowledge all the working people who've been in touch with so many of us and all the young people who just want a fair go in life and want to get superannuation payments so they can have some hope of a dignified retirement when they leave the workforce. I thank all those people and I say to them—and I'll close on this: thank you for your tireless advocacy. Thank you for your staunch campaigning. Do not give up. This fight is not over. The Greens will keep fighting. I have no doubt the SDA and large sections of the union movement will keep fighting, and civil society, which wants to see fairness and wants to see an end to this age discrimination, will keep fighting. I say to the Labor Party: you could have done it the easy way, but you know what? You will end up doing it; it'll just be done the hard way.

I associate myself with the work of my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock and the words just then of my colleague Senator McKim. It's extraordinary, isn't it? The Labor Party now have a choice: they can either pick the pockets of teenagers who go to work and put money in the pockets and the profits of megacorporations like Coles and Woolworths, or they can stand up today and say, 'You know what; teenagers are entitled to super when they go to work.' Today, Labor is choosing to pick the pockets of teenagers and put money in the profits of Coles and Woolworths. What a disgrace Labor is!

The basic principle here is, no matter your age, if you go to work and do a day's work or three or four hours work, you're entitled to your wages and fair conditions—and the Greens believe you're entitled to your superannuation. But when it comes to teenage workers, 16- and 17-year-old workers, Labor say, 'Actually, you know what; they don't need superannuation.' They'd rather that the money go to Labor's corporate donors, whether it's Coles or Woolworths or McDonald's. That's where they want the money to go.

What really gets me about this—and I credit the work of the SDA and the work of those young people who have been crunching some of the numbers here—is it can make a difference of thousands of dollars. At the end of two years of working without super, under Labor's plan, young workers are getting maybe $2,000 or $3,000 in their super when they turn 18. That $3,000 in their super will then multiply with compound interest over the course of their working life and can make a really significant difference. That's what Labor's cheating young workers out of.

Bringing on my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock's disallowance motion today in order to vote it down, with the handmaidens of corporate Australia in the coalition and One Nation—that's what the government are doing. The Greens are moving a motion here saying that when 16- and 17-year-olds go to work, they should get paid their super and the profits shouldn't go to the likes of Coles and Woollies, and Labor are working with the coalition and One Nation to pump up the profits of Coles and Woolworths—only this time they're doing it at the expense of 16- and 17-year-olds' superannuation accounts and payments. Shame on Labor!

I note Senator Chandler has already indicated our position on this matter. In adding to her remarks, I make the point that this parliament is supposed to be for the people. We are not here for the SDA or the Rest Super fund or whatever else these people think we're here for. At the end of the day, younger people are not thinking about superannuation. The idea that superannuation is the only way to have a safe or good retirement is such paternalistic thinking. Australians are not stupid, and Australians have a range of ways that they make their financial arrangements to prepare for their future and their family's future. The idea that you've got to shoehorn every single dollar into superannuation to suit the fat cats at Cbus and HESTA, and all the other people that the Labor Party and the Greens want to help out most of the time, is lazy rust-bucket thinking.

I caution the Labor government again on their preparedness to go along with ideas that come from the super lobby which haven't been thought through. There's no other industry in Australia which opens the door and where all the money just falls in like the super funds. The healthy scepticism that many people on this side have is that the super lobby is so rich that it's been able to commission thousands of different reports where it can find ways where it should get more money that it can manage, in the case of 18-year-olds, for 42 years. Of course they want more money, so they can charge high fees on it and send distributions back to their mates in the unions which own the funds. Of course they want that. I just think that we've got to be able to look at the vested interests here, and I think we've got to be very careful—

It's the Labor Party!

All the speakers have been heard in silence, and that is exactly what will happen with Senator Bragg.

Senator McKim, you are not in a debate with me.

I'll just make the point that I think the government ought to be very careful about adopting holus-bolus the ideas that come out of the super industry, because their formulation of policy will always be more money for them. It's like Dracula and the blood bank. They never have enough money. They never have enough blood. And the reality is that the Australian people are not stupid. There are many ways that people can prepare for their financial future.

The parliament can go out of its way and abolish ways, as it did last week, for Australians to prepare for their futures. And last week the parliament adopted an idea, which I think is going to come back to haunt it, from the super funds about banning self-managed funds from being able to invest in property. The extension of this policy is that now these funds are not able to invest in new properties off the shelf. They're not able—

Order! Senator Bragg, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, I ensured you were heard in silence. You will give the same respect to Senator Bragg, or I invite you to leave the chamber.

I make the point that, if a self-managed super fund wants to invest in an off-the-plan development, then it is adding to housing stock. By definition, the trustees are not able to live in that dwelling. It seems very strange to me that a government that says it wants to increase housing supply has adopted a policy which was written by the super funds to stop SMSFs from investing in property because they're worried about their market share.

I find very grating the amount of time this Senate spends working through the laundry list of issues from the super lobby. Everything is about how they can get more money, akin to Dracula and the blood bank, whether it is trying to give 16-year-olds more superannuation or trying to ban self-managed funds from doing things to ensure the market position of the major funds, which obviously are worried about haemorrhaging members to SMSFs.

The idea that people are too stupid to manage their own financial affairs is, frankly, offensive. People are not stupid. People are better informed than they ever have been. People are able to go deep on a number of technical issues that may not have been possible in years gone by because of the different technologies people now have in the palm of their hand. There's the idea that this parliament will work through the laundry list of issues from the big super funds, who are desperate to have more money. Their solution to every problem is more money for them to manage and charge high fees on, so they can send distributions back to their mates. I make the point that the government should be very careful about adopting more and more policies every week that have been written by vested interests. They should be smarter than that and be able to see it for what it is.

I didn't intend to speak on this, but I will momentarily. I'm struck by the comments from the Greens. I don't know if you've forgotten, but a matter of days ago—

Senator Kovacic, please direct your comments to the chair.

Yes—via you, President. I'm not sure if the chamber remembers, but a number of days ago, the Greens struck a deal with the government in relation to CGT and negative gearing. The thing is, you could have, as a part of that deal, included young people in superannuation. You chose not to. You traded them away.

Honourable senators interjecting—

To the chair.

Through the chair—they traded away young people and superannuation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

It appears that they decided that they would prefer—

We could have supported crocheting!

Order! I have called Senator Shoebridge and Senator McKim to order several times.

Guilty by association!

You are wilfully disrespecting me, and I will name the both of you.

The reality is, the Greens chose to trade away superannuation for young Australians under 18 to instead tax widows. They thought that would be a better choice. In reality, where we are today with this circumstance is because you made a decision about what was more important to you, and you are now pretending that you care about people under 18.

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

I seek leave to move a motion that would provide an opportunity for even one Labor senator to explain why they're voting with the antiworkers in the Liberal Party to do young Australians—

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Leave is not granted.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the UN's Universal Periodic Review as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, 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 Universal Periodic Review.

It is quite extraordinary that the Albanese Labor government's response to the UN periodic review about Australia's human rights record, which recommended some 332 changes to Australia's human rights laws, was to reject 204 recommendations. And we only found out about this because the response was published on a fairly hard-to-identify part of the UN's website.

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you've moved a suspension motion, so that's what you need to address—why the matter is so urgent that the parliament needs to suspend.

This is urgent because it has only just been found out today; we only found out today that the Albanese Labor government have said to the world that they do not support raising the age for criminal prosecutions. We only found out today that the Albanese Labor government have said to the world that they want to keep putting ten-year-old kids into jail, kids who still have their milk teeth. We only found that out today. We only found out today that there are more than 200 recommendations to fix Australia's human rights record that the Albanese Labor government have said no to. Do you know what one of them is? One of them is to introduce a human rights act—a human rights act that would protect the human rights of all Australians. It may not be to the flavour of Gina Rinehart. It may not be to the flavour of Labor's corporate donors to a human rights act in place, but it sure as heck—

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you again you need to address why the matter is urgent that you need to suspend standing orders.

It is urgent because currently Australia is one of the only longstanding liberal democracies on the planet not to have a human rights act. Every day we don't have a human rights act is because of a deliberate choice of the Albanese Labor government. A recommendation to adopt a human rights act was adopted by this parliament's Human Rights Joint Committee. Every single member of that committee, from all political parties, including the Greens, including Labor and including the coalition, recommended a human rights act. Every day we don't have a human rights act is laid at the feet of the Albanese Labor government. There is a guaranteed pathway through this parliament, with the Greens in the Senate, to ensure that we have a human rights act.

Senator Shoebridge!

And it's urgent, President—

Thank you.

It is urgent because, unlike Labor and those who control Labor and pay for and donate to Labor, millions of Australians actually think they should have human rights and those rights should be protected in legislation. Do you know another reason why it's urgent? In the Northern Territory right now, pretty much every kid in jail aged 10 years and up is a First Nations kid. The UN periodic review said that that is a stain on this nation's human rights record. Labor may not think that's urgent to address, but I can bloody well tell you this: the Greens think it's urgent that we address it.

Senator Shoebridge, withdraw.

I withdraw it. The Greens think it's urgent we get a human rights act. But instead there is complete cowardice from Labor to actually stand up and do something principled. You'd have to stand up to a bunch of hardcore right-wing racists to say that First Nations kids shouldn't be in jail, but we're willing to do it. Why isn't Labor willing to do it? We're willing to stand up to those hardcore right-wing racists and say that First Nations kids should have rights.

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you once again this is a suspension motion. You need to say why you think it's so important that the parliament suspend its standing orders.

Do you know why I think it's important, President? I think it's urgent to stand up to hardcore right-wing racists—and our party thinks that, and we can't believe the Labor Party doesn't. If those watching this debate or ruling on this debate don't see it's important and urgent to stand up to hardcore right-wing racists who think it's okay to put 10-year-old First Nations kids in jail, then there's a problem in this chamber and there's a problem in politics. And do you know what? There is—and I'll name the problem: the Australian Labor Party, the place where progressive thoughts, hopes and principles go to die. That is why the Labor Party responded to the UN's periodic review by rejecting 200 recommendations to reform our human rights record. It is urgent we have a human rights act. But do you know what's probably even more urgent? It's urgent we have a government with principle and ticker that's willing to take on these issues, and unfortunately we don't. We've got this mob. We've got Labor.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Shoebridge, 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.

In my family, we have something called word of the day. I run the word of the day for our family chat. The word of the day today in the Senate chamber is 'egregious'. I think it's really important that we understand what that means. It means remarkably bad. That's what Senator Hume was talking about when she referenced the tax changes that face Australians now.

I think what's really important for us to focus on are the questions that were asked around the widow's tax. Senator Duniam asked those of Minister Wong. This is important because the Albanese Labor government and the Australian Greens—from whom we've just seen quite a performance—chose to pass legislation that they knew was flawed. They chose to pass legislation that they knew had problems with it. They chose to pass legislation that had unintended consequences. When Senator Duniam asked the minister why the government had failed to introduce legislation to abolish it, the answer was: 'We have plenty of time. We've got until 1 July 2027, so there's no hurry.'

Then the question is: if you have so much time, why didn't you just wait and get it right before you rammed it through? It goes to two things that must be of great concern to Australians. Number 1 is this government and their associates, the Greens, do not care whether the legislation they pass in this chamber is fit for purpose. They care about the theatre of it which was just very clearly demonstrated by Senator Shoebridge. Number 2 is they do not care that it sits there uncorrected. We have to ask: why is that, and will they actually even correct it? Are they being genuine that they will fix it, or will it be the case that if an Australian has this kind of tax treatment, and their spouse or partner passes away, they will in fact be charged the widow's tax, a quasi-death tax, designed by the Albanese Labor government and the Australian Greens.

I couldn't bear the hypocrisy of them talking about young Australians and superannuation, when, in fact, the Greens traded that away. That could have been part of their package that they traded, but they didn't. But they want to sit here and pretend like they care about it. If they cared about it, they would have fought for it. But they did care about a widow's tax, so they fought for that. They did care about taking away the rights of SMSFs to invest how they see fit, so they took that away as well.

What Senator Bragg said before was correct. They do want to ensure the primacy of big super funds in our country. They want to stop Australians from being able to make decisions about their own lives, particularly as it comes to SMSF, because guess what. A big industry fund can invest in property, but, a mum and dad, the average Australian who has an SMSF, can't. Talk to me about the intergenerational equity of that because it doesn't exist. That is in fact egregious. I agree with Senator Hume in relation to that. It is absolutely egregious.

Just, very quickly, in relation to the housing completions, Senator Wong couldn't answer that question effectively. She said how many completions, or purchases, there had been in New South Wales under the first homebuyers' scheme, but there was no answer about the fact that the Albanese Labor government have built fewer homes than the previous coalition government.

I'd like to thank Senator Bragg for bringing up housing, and I'd like to talk about that. We love housing. We want more housing. We're putting money out there for the whole of Australia to get more homes.

But still there are no houses.

But, in our first term, we took the Commonwealth from being a negligent bystander, Senator Kovacic, to being the boldest and most ambitious Commonwealth government since the World War II with an ambitious $47 billion plan and the vast majority going towards building more homes. I love myself a good home, and this budget builds on that plan.

Home building is turning around. Home starts are up 26 per cent on this time last year, and construction cost inflation has fallen from 17 per cent under the coalition, a half-century high, to 2.5 per cent. 660,000 homes have been built since we were elected. I might even say that again. 660,000 homes have been built since Labor was elected. Our targets are ambitious. That's the whole point of it, though. It's designed to drive national change to our housing system. The right response here is not to lower the national ambition or indeed to have none at all, as unfortunately we saw from the coalition in their last term. We need a bit of guts and courage. You saw this from our government in our first term, and you'll see it all the way through our second term. To unlock these homes in our cities, suburbs and regions, we're training more tradies, building more infrastructure, investing in innovation and cutting red tape.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Loreto Community Housing in my home state of Tasmania. They took me through a tour in Newnham the other day of 49 homes, single bedroom all the way up to four bedroom, that are going to be low socio and give people the opportunity to have a place to call their own and to raise their children. They're available for people with disabilities and those that are struggling, and they're going to be well supported. Loreto, you're legends. The tradies that were there on the day, working in the rain and showing us around in the mud—you too are legends. Building homes is going to actually increase the tradies that we have in our communities because we need more tradies to do what we need to do, which is build homes and keep people in our home states.

Speaking of the states, Labor is working with the states and territories to implement substantial planning reforms and scale up modern methods of construction. We're also directly investing in building new social and affordable homes, like the ones I mentioned at Loreto in Newnham. What matters is the longer term trend. Building approvals have increased three years in a row. Approvals are higher than when the coalition left office, when they were going backwards by 21.7 per cent. Starts and completions are also higher than when the coalition left office. There seems to be a trend where we are lifting the game, we are aiming high and we are going to achieve. You know what? If we're not going to aim high, we shouldn't be here. We should aspire to do better. We should collaborate, cooperate and do what the people of Australia did when they elected us—have an expectation that we will do better. That's something that I hope that everybody in this place aspires to.

In the last term, those opposite stood in the path of more housing at every opportunity, and it feels like they keep on talking negatively about what we can and can't do. But they had an opportunity to do a lot, and they chose not to do a lot. So, in our second term and maybe our third and fourth, we're going to aspire and inspire the people of Australia to aim high, dream big and achieve great things.

'Dream big', 'dream big'—dream big, Australian people, because guess what? Labor is going to tax your dreams. There will be $77 billion coming straight from your blood, sweat and tears when you build up and turn your dreams into reality—$77 billion of new taxes. They call it tax cuts, but it's $77 billion of new taxes. What else did we hear? 'Guts and courage'. How about more freedom for the Australian people? How about less government for the Australian people? How about lower taxes for the Australian people so they can get on with their lives and dream big and turn that into a reality for them and their families and their households?

The problem with this government is that they spend an awful lot of money. It's a big government. It's a very big government. They spend a lot of money. What does that do? That pushes up inflation. They stand there and talk about tax cuts for workers, but what's really happening with your wages? Your real wages are going down. You earn more; you get taxed more. And we have heard about this widows tax. We asked about the widows tax today. We asked for the government to explain why the Prime Minister voted for a widows tax but has failed to introduce legislation to abolish it. Actually, all we want to understand is whether this government is completely incompetent and didn't realise that they had a widows tax in their legislation or whether they knew that there was a widows tax and yet voted for it anyway. That's what we want to know—incompetent or egregious? What's the answer, Labor? Well, we don't know, because they don't give us the answer.

We also want to know whether the widows tax staying in the legislation is part of the dirty deal with the Greens. Is this the Greens tax that they want to put in? We don't know. We heard this week that Labor's budget wasn't ambitious enough, didn't go far enough and didn't tax the Australian people enough. And here we are. They've rushed through legislation and now they're scrambling to fix it up. They're scrambling to do consultations because the Australian people took one look at it and said, 'That's not okay.' Now they're trying to work out how they're going to make it better. Of course, our position is to scrap the whole thing altogether and start again.

Let's talk a little bit more about this widows tax, because it's not just a tax on widows—

Don't forget about widowers.

of course—or widowers. Thank you, Labor. Don't forget the widowers.

It's taken you a couple of weeks to remember.

I will take that interjection. Did you remember it? Did you know about it? Did you remember it afterwards? What is it, Labor? There are the widows and the widowers, but what about the divorcees? What about them? Is there any kind of consideration for the tax slugs that you're putting on these people? It's absolutely disgraceful. What about the women that are escaping violence? If you want to quickly talk about houses, where are the houses for the vulnerable women and children? Four thousand houses were meant to go to vulnerable women and children. Have they? Nobody can give me the answer on that. And you tut!

I didn't tut.

You did. I heard you when I was talking about vulnerable women and children. How dare you, Senator Tyrell!

It's amazing to see how much this place can change in 12 months since the last federal election. The opposition have now gone through two leaders. Now with Mr Taylor we've seen an opposition in complete freefall because not only he but all his colleagues both here in the Senate and in the other place have an obsession with One Nation and outdoing One Nation. You can see that they are very spooked by the contributions that we have just heard and the contributions that we continue to hear in this place.

Instead of focusing on delivering real cost-of-living measures to help Australians with what they need and want, we have an opposition that is in denial. They are absolutely in denial. They come into this place and say that the government of the day, the Labor government, has not been standing up for workers, ignoring the fact that they have a track record of voting consistently against tax cuts for Australian workers. That is the greatest shame that you are bringing to the Liberal Party brand, if I can give you some free advice. The fact is that they continue to vote against tax cuts, and you do not hear them utter an actual word about that. The fact is the Liberal Party has voted more times against tax cuts in this parliament and in the last than in their entire existence since Menzies formed that great party.

Then we heard words from Senator Hume about being egregious. Well, I'll tell you what is egregious: the Liberal Party is now pandering to the far right. Every single member of the Liberal Party that stands up for preselection and re-election will have to be thinking, 'Jeez, I wish I get the No. 1 spot, because if I'm No. 2 or No. 3, I won't be here in this place any longer.' You can absolutely see that right now.

That's because the Liberal Party—I want to focus on the Liberal Party—have voted, again, against these tax cuts for 13 million Australians. What do you say to those people, like those people in the gallery that you tell us to look at? You are voting against tax cuts for nurses, for retail workers and for hospitality workers—we could keep going on. There are all those workers that we relied on during COVID, the essential workers, the construction workers, and the workers in this building like the cleaners, the security guards and the people who do the Hansard. You're saying, 'No, we don't think you're worthy of having a tax cut.'

Not only that; you went to the last election saying that you would repeal those tax cuts. You said you would repeal those tax cuts, Senator Henderson, and that is a fact—you and all your colleagues, through you, Deputy President. It is on the record that you have an awful track record when it comes to defending Australian workers and actually being on the side of Australian workers. This government has to work in this place, acknowledging that we just don't have the numbers and we have to work with the crossbench to get the best deal that we can for the Australian workers.

You work with the Greens.

Yes, and the Greens are happily backing Australian workers. You should be ashamed of yourselves. The party that used to be the party of aspiration are now the party on the side who are anti worker, anti the economy, anti productivity.

Senator Ciccone, it would be helpful if you directed your remarks through the chair.

I will come back to you, through you, Deputy President. What we are seeing now is a collaboration of the three conservative parties in this place and outside. They should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up for— (Time expired)

I will come back to the question before the chair, which is taking note of answers given by government ministers to questions asked by the coalition during question time, which I didn't hear much of in the last contribution; you should have been taking notice during question time of what the questions were, Senator. Quite frankly, we don't need advice from Labor, the most dishonest government in living memory, about how we might operate on this side. We're not interested in being a dishonest government like the Labor Party is. No person in this country can believe their words, even when they're conducting their take note responses to the debate on the question before the chair.

We saw the tactics of avoidance again during question time today, when we asked questions about the widows, widowers and divorcee tax—some simple questions about what process the government was going through to mitigate the mess that they've created with something that they didn't know was in the legislation. That has to be the conclusion that we take—that they don't know what they're talking about, what they're legislating or what they're voting for when they come into this chamber.

We've seen it before. We've seen it in other measures. On the firearms legislation, they didn't understand the legislation that they were voting on, which is a real concern because they truncate committee processes. They try to ram things through the chamber without proper scrutiny, and they find things that, understandably, they didn't know were in there because they haven't done the work properly in the consultation for the development of the legislation. They are all about getting the vote done rather than doing the job properly, and therefore they don't properly scrutinise the legislation, and then they vote for things that they don't know about.

When it comes to housing, I've not seen Senator Wong twist herself more than when trying to avoid answering some very simple questions in relation to the number of housing completions, as I saw today. The simple question was: how many houses were completed under the coalition, and how many a year have been completed under the current government? The answer is simple. About 200,000 houses a year were being built under the coalition. Under the wrecking that this government has done to the Australian economy, it's down to 170,000. It's all very well for them to say they have these wonderful aspirations, but only the Labor Party could spend $47 billion on houses and build fewer of them. There's $47 billion more being spent on housing by the Labor Party, and they're building 30,000 fewer houses per year. What an extraordinary record!

Of course, this goes with all their other broken promises. They promised lower housing costs. Well, we know how that's going and how much more people are paying on their mortgages because of Labor's high cost of living and inflation. They promised a lower cost of living. They promised to reduce energy prices by $275. They promised they wouldn't change the tax on superannuation, and then they legislated to do it. They promised they wouldn't change capital gains tax, and then they legislated to do it. They promised they wouldn't change negative gearing, and then they did it. You cannot believe a thing this government says at any point in time because they just don't tell the truth. They deserve the ignominy that the Australian people are directing in their direction.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Today, the Greens asked the government what it will do about fossil fuel companies gaining access to Australian school kids because a new report from Comms Declare identifies more than 260 fossil fuel linked industry programs, partnerships and sponsorships reaching children and young people right across the country. This is a concerted effort by coal and gas corporations to embed themselves in trusted institutions, funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. They're trying to brainwash kids into buying their spin about the climate and their poisonous industry.

Having been a teacher for more than two decades, I find that appalling. Schools should be places where young people learn to think critically, ask questions and follow the evidence. But massive corporations have been allowed to enter Australian classrooms and use them as a platform for their propaganda. Coal and gas are cooking our planet and wrecking our kids' futures, and any honest account of the science would communicate that. It should outrage every parent to learn that there are lesson plans and educational programs being written not by educators and experts but by vested interests and big corporations.

Despite what Senator Walsh would have you believe, Labor has not fully funded public schools. Every single public school outside of the ACT receives less than its share of school funding, and that's 98 per cent of schools across the country. That's why teachers are stretched and are looking for help. But they shouldn't have to rely on corporations with sinister agendas to fill the gap left by Labor's underfunding.

Across regional Australia, communities know this pattern well. Fossil fuel companies put money into local sporting clubs and events in schools and then expect that sponsorship to buy social licence while they pollute, damage First Nations heritage and send enormous profits offshore. We cannot keep letting them get away with it. The Greens are calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship and a parliamentary inquiry into fossil fuel industry influence in schools and other child centred settings. Students deserve facts, not fossil fuel spin.

Flip a coin. Heads—they win. Tails—you lose. That is the story about you and some of Australia's biggest, most profitable mining corporations. While you are paying more for fuel, multibillion-dollar mining companies are not. They are getting a completely free ride with completely tax-free fuel, and that special deal is not available to you. Your government takes your taxes and hands over more and more of your money every year to massively profitable mining corporations to help them burn fossil fuels that are causing climate collapse. Heads—they win. Tails—you lose. Your money goes to big corporations to burn cheap fuel that you don't get access to, which causes climate change, which is pushing up your food costs, which is pushing up your insurance costs and which is increasing the cost of cleaning up after floods and bushfires that are made worse by this entire scam.

Australia's most profitable corporation, BHP, was paid $627 million of your money in just one year. Rio Tinto got $416 million of your money in just one year. They can burn cheaper fuel than you get access to—tax-free fuel that you don't get. This corporate welfare has to end. The billions of dollars that Labor is giving these massively profitable mining corporations should be put into allowing us all to have more of the things that we used to be able to afford. Vote Greens. Heads—you win. Tails—they lose.

I rise to take note of the Minister for Early Childhood Education's answers to my questions. The minister spoke about the government's leadership in education, but that leadership does not seem to extend to ensuring Australian children are receiving evidence based resources about climate change. Fossil fuel companies are literally embedding themselves in schools, early learning centres, museums and community organisations, seeking to shape how their role in the climate crisis is understood by the very generation that will have to live through it. You can't make this stuff up. We would never let Sportsbet teach financial literacy—although God only knows in this place! We would never—I hope—let Philip Morris write the health curriculum. So why are we letting fossil fuel corporations teach children about climate change? They are not there to educate; they are there to protect and to build their social licence. My message to these companies is simple: get out of our classrooms, get out of our communities. Our children are not your advertising space.

Santos' community grants ask applicants, 'Does this program create awareness and positivity for the Santos brand and recognise Santos' support?' That is not philanthropy; that is PR spin. Through Woodside's sponsorship of the Nippers, children become walking billboards for a fossil fuel company seeking to industrialise Scott Reef. Some uniforms carry Woodside's logo; at the last count, we saw six Woodside logos on one uniform. A child turns up to learn about water safety to build confidence and serve their community, but instead they become part of the fossil fuel companies' marketing strategy. Our children are not their advertising space.

To the government: do not let our children be that advertising space. These corporations are going to do whatever they can to make profits, to conserve their social licence and to stop paying taxes, but it's up to you to stop them. That is the role of government. Woodside does not get to seek public goodwill through children's sport while arguing against measures like a gas export tax that would ensure Australians receive a fair return from our resources. The minister accused me of manufacturing outrage. Parents do not need to manufacture outrage on this, I assure you; they will do that themselves when their child comes home with fossil fuel funded teaching materials. There has to be a hard line, and our children are that hard line. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Science (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

I asked the Hon. Minister Ayres what I thought was quite a serious question—why, for the first time in history, NCRIS doesn't have funding over the forward estimates in the budget. Regrettably, as is the case for some in politics, he pivoted to a personal attack and also went on to say that his government has invested more in science than any other government, which is flat-out wrong. I know Labor doesn't like to talk about the troubled Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, but that Labor government invested billions more in science and innovation than this one has—and they talked about it a lot more too. They had a whole range of investments, including $3 billion of additional investment in CSIRO—not $300 million, but $3 billion. Former senator Kim Carr was awarded the prestigious Academy Medal by the Australian Academy of Science in 2022—only the second politician to be awarded that medal; the first one was Bob Hawke.

I think Minister Ayres also sold Independents short in his answer today. Yes, we push and make things uncomfortable—as we see in the Senate during question time. And he's correct; I have not delivered a roundabout for Canberra, but I've also never had a single Canberran ask me for another roundabout in Canberra. What I have had asked for is action on things like lobbying, where we now have the government moving; funding for CSIRO, which, to the government's credit, we now have from the government; and looking at legislation. My team pored over the government's tax changes and identified the widow tax, which we're now having a debate about. We've seen changes to things like funding for the Upper Murrumbidgee, additional money for investment in social and affordable housing, and more investment in the ACT when it comes to bulk-billing. That is what the community wants, not necessarily more roundabouts. I hope that, in future question times, we will also get answers to our questions.

Question agreed to.

I give notice that, on 12 August, in the next sitting week, I will move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the payment of superannuation to workers under the age of 18, and for related purposes.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator McKenzie from 29 June to 2 July for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act relating to free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties, to establish the Trade Advisory Group, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia is a trading nation and the Albanese Government understands its importance to our economy, communities, businesses and local jobs.

We know that more trade creates more well-paid, secure jobs—particularly for the agricultural sector.

In 2023-24, trade supported almost 3.4 million full-time equivalent jobs, or more than one in four jobs. Trade-related activities contributed to almost 30 per cent of Australia's GDP during this period.

Trade delivers higher living standards for Australians by increasing their income and purchasing power.

While prices for consumer goods and services increased 70 per cent in the two decades to 2024, prices for trade-exposed goods and services increased only 37 per cent.

Trade also drives productivity through competitive innovation, spurred by global competition, and enhances Australia's economic resilience by diversifying markets and supply chains.

Australia's trading relationships underpin key sectors of the economy, from agriculture and resources to advanced manufacturing and services, ensuring that Australian businesses remain competitive in a rapidly changing global environment.

For all of these reasons, shaping global and regional trade architecture is a key priority for the Government. This includes negotiating trade and investment agreements that safeguard Australia's interests, benefit the Australian community, and reflect Australian values.

Our Government recognises the valuable contributions that every part of the Australian community can make in shaping the Government's approach to trade. We have strengthened consultation processes in trade negotiations—but more can and should be done.

In this time of global uncertainty, Australian businesses, unions and experts seek reassurance that their perspectives are being considered when it comes to how Australia trades.

To inform the Government's response to this issue, I asked the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth to inquire into the Australian Government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.

The inquiry made recommendations to reform transparency, impact assessment and stakeholder engagement during the negotiation of trade and investment agreements. Most notably, it recommended that the Government establish a legislative framework for the negotiation of Australia's trade and investment agreements.

This Bill directly responds to these recommendations.

The Bill creates a new Trade Advisory Group to advise the Government on free trade agreements as well as other international trade issues. The Group will include representatives from academia, agricultural industries, business associations, non-governmental organisations, small businesses and trade unions. This is designed to ensure that all future governments consult with representatives from across the economy.

Free trade agreements cover a range of trade and investment issues, and the Bill introduces new requirements largely directed at them.

The Government must meet these requirements when negotiating new covered free trade agreements or significant amendments to these agreements. Some of the requirements extend to bilateral investment treaties or to FTAs that only recently entered into force. These include requirements to:

These requirements will apply to free trade agreements covered by the Bill, which include both bilateral and plurilateral agreements. Covered agreements are those that liberalise all—or substantially all—of Australia's trade in goods and services with a partner economy.

They will also apply to comprehensive upgrades of those free trade agreements.

The requirements will not apply to:

Australia's accession to agreements that already exist, or accessions by other economies to agreements to which Australia is already a party, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Some requirements in the Bill would also apply to bilateral investment treaties.

While the requirement for free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties to include, or not to include, certain outcomes before signature only pertains to future agreements, it should be the aspiration of all governments to meet these requirements wherever possible.

Trade policy matters, including during free trade agreement negotiations, often involve sensitive and commercial-in-confidence information that must be respected to protect international relations, Australia's negotiating positions, and the interests of Australian businesses.

Members of the Trade Advisory Group will enter into arrangements with the Government, under which the responsible Minister can authorise confidential information to be shared with them, or appropriate persons supporting them, that is reasonably necessary for them to carry out their functions and duties.

This approach will enable the Government to support Trade Advisory Group members to better understand the opportunities and risks at stake on a given matter, and to provide more informed advice. Penalties will apply for use or disclosure of information by members contrary to these arrangements.

Trade is a key contributor to Australia's economic success and the views of Australians need to sit at the heart of Australia's trade policy.

To this end, the Australian Government is committed to genuine consultation—ensuring that the Government's approach reflects community expectations by strengthening consultation and transparency.

It also gives the Australian public confidence that future trade and investment agreements remain focused on protecting Australia's interests, benefiting the Australian community, and reflecting Australian values.

In the face of increasingly complex and challenging global trade environment, it is vital that Australia pursues economic prosperity in a way that reflects the Australian community. This Bill will ensure that the Australian Government does just that.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move general business notices of motion Nos 548 and 549 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 548

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, a copy of all documents received by the minister from the Victorian Government that provide assurances of there being no corruption on infrastructure projects that receive Commonwealth funding.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 549

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, a copy of all documents received by the Prime Minister from the Victorian Government that provide assurances of there being no corruption on infrastructure projects that receive Commonwealth funding.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Watt, I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

by leave—I move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber:

Omit all words after "That" and insert

"the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 be referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 August 2026. "

by leave—I move an amendment to Senator Henderson's amendment:

That Senator Henderson's amendment to Government Business Notice of Motion no. 2 be amended as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add:

"and the provisions of any bill amending the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 introduced to the House of Representatives on 1 July or 2 July 2026 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2026".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Hanson-Young to Senator Henderson's amendment be agreed to.

The question is that Senator Henderson's amendment, as amended by Senator Hanson-Young's amendment, be agreed to.

The question is that government business No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Watt and moved by Senator Walsh, as amended, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

President, I seek leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

The question is that the bill be introduced.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

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

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

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

The need for the Albanese Labor Government's to address its failure to fix the cost-of-living crisis, under which the price of basic staples like milk and bread, everyday groceries, petrol at the bowser, gas for heating and electricity to keep the lights on continues to rise, forcing working families, pensioners and small business owners across Australia to cut back on essentials, skip meals and choose between paying for food, fuel or power, and the need to deliver immediate relief for Australians just trying to meet their most basic needs.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need for the Albanese Labor Government's to address its failure to fix the cost-of-living crisis, under which the price of basic staples like milk and bread, everyday groceries, petrol at the bowser, gas for heating and electricity to keep the lights on continues to rise, forcing working families, pensioners and small business owners across Australia to cut back on essentials, skip meals and choose between paying for food, fuel or power, and the need to deliver immediate relief for Australians just trying to meet their most basic needs.

The bad Albanese Labor budget passed this week. Australian families are not sitting around the kitchen table and celebrating it. They are looking at the bills in front of them, the grocery receipt and the petrol gauge. They are looking at the power bills, the rent notice, the mortgage repayment and the insurance renewal, and they know the truth: Labor's tax and spend policies are making our country poorer and are making our families poorer. Across this country people are paying more just to keep a household running.

A generic brand two-litre bottle of milk is listed at $3.55. A two-litre bottle of Norco full cream milk is more than $5. A loaf of Tip Top or Wonder White, the bread millions of families actually buy every week, is now $4.70. The cost of basics goes up while Labor raises taxes, punishes businesses and spends more. Aussies know that this is driving inflation. After years of rising bills, rising rents, rising power prices, rising grocery costs and rising mortgage pressure, the Albanese Labor government want a victory lap when they should be doing a walk of shame. Labor has lost touch with the cost of everyday life.

Increasingly, everyday life for millions of hardworking Australians looks like this: a mum putting things back on the supermarket shelf, a worker filling the car with just enough to get through the week, a pensioner leaving the heater off for longer than they should. It's a small-business owner opening another bill and wondering which staff member to cut or even if they can afford to go on. Food is up three per cent, dairy is up five per cent, electricity is up 21 per cent, petrol is up eight per cent and will go up again from today as Labor pulls the plug on fuel excise, rents are up 3.6 per cent, insurance is up 5.5 per cent and housing costs are up 6.5 per cent over the year. For mortgage holders, the comparison is even more brutal. Just one more rate rise would add $114 a month to the average mortgage. Is there any doubt that Labor spends more and more of taxpayers money, and is it any wonder that they need to raise another $77 billion in tax from this bad budget?

Australians are angry because they can see what Labor is doing and they are watching their bank accounts getting drained while Labor wants credit for a big new tax grab. Working families are doing what they have always done: They are working hard, paying tax, raising children and doing the right thing. But they now feel they are running faster just to fall further behind.

Pensioners face a particularly cruel version of this crisis. A pensioner can't simply pick up another shift because the gas bill has jumped. They have spent their lives working, paying taxes, raising families and contributing to this country, and now many are being forced to make choices no Australian pensioner should have to make.

Small business owners are being squeezed from both directions. They are being hit by the same household bills as everyone else, and then they are hit again through their business. Power, rent, insurance, transport, stock, wages, compliance and borrowing costs all feed into the pressure. At the same time, customers have less money to spend. And then, one day, the door closes and a community loses a shop, a cafe, a service, a sponsor and an employer—precisely what happened yesterday, in South Bowenfels, to the Triple 8 Cafe and to Yancoal, in the Hunter, which axed 60 jobs.

Australians need a government that puts Australians first. They need a government that puts Australian households ahead of global agendas and woke ideology, a government that will address the heart of what's driving inflation and scrap net zero—the obsession that is driving up power prices. Australians are not asking for luxury; they are asking to be able to afford the ordinary essentials of life—food, fuel and power in the home. All they ask is that they are left with enough money to spend so they have the ability to live with dignity.

That should be the first responsibility of government, to be patriotic enough to say Australians come first. Our resources should power Australian homes. Our farmland should feed Australian families before it's locked up because of climate regulations to satisfy international bureaucrats. Our economy should serve Australian workers, families and small businesses not the interests of foreign climate targets, activist causes and political fashions. That is what building an Australia for Australians means—a country where young people can afford a home, families can afford the weekly shop, pensioners can turn on their heaters without fear and small businesses can keep their doors open. It means putting the national interest back at the centre of every decision. One Nation stands up for working Australians, pensioners, small-business owners, and those who are sick of the lies, sick of the spend and sick of the arrogance of this Prime Minister and this Labor government. One Nation says Australian households deserve a government that puts them first.

Anyone who spends any time engaging with the community, talking to real people—not just the people here, not just talking to the bureaucrats, not just talking to the economists, but actually talking to real mums and dads, people across Australia—knows that Australians are doing it tough. While Australian parents are tightening their belts, this Labor government continues their class act in this place on their so-called generational tax reform.

But everyday mums and dads won't be fooled. They know the truth. They know the truth because they are living it every single day. Every payday, parents are sitting around the kitchen table making impossible decisions—decisions about what bills can wait, whether they can afford child care, whether their last rent increase will be the one that forces them to have to move. Australian families will not be sold the dream by this Labor government that everything is getting better, because they know the truth. They know that it is not the fact. Yet we hear it, time and again, whether it's in question time or whether it's in contributions to speeches. No doubt, whoever gets up after me on the Labor side will try to give the impression that everything's okay and that their prudent management of the Australian economy is actually assisting Australians make ends meet. But Australians know that they're not able to make ends meet because of the poor economic decisions that this government is making.

The reality is that the cost of raising a family has gone up under this government. It's a sad day when Australians are forced to do double-takes at the supermarket, when their electricity bill arrives and every time they pull up at the fuel bowser. They know that the stats are there, because they feel it every day. The latest ABS data shows that, from May 2025 to May 2026, meat and seafood prices increased by 5.4 per cent. How do Australians know that? Because they're paying it all the time, every time they go to the supermarket. Dairy products rose by 5.2 per cent, fruit and vegetable prices increased by two per cent and clothing and footwear costs have risen by five per cent.

Before the election, Australians were promised $275 in lower power prices, a promise the Prime Minister repeated 97 times. Instead, electricity prices have increased 21.1 per cent over the last year alone. The reality is that Australians are no longer just cutting back on discretionary spending, like their weekly coffee run. Many are struggling to afford those very basic household necessities. This is what Australians are facing.

As one SBS Insight participant, Chris, simply put it, 'I have never earned more but felt so broke.' We keep hearing that wages have gone up. Well, not real wages. Real wages are the difference between what it actually costs you to live and the money you're earning—the amount of discretionary fund power that you've got with your salary that you're earning. We know that Australians are not actually, in real terms, earning more, because they're struggling to make ends meet.

If you think it's bad, don't get me started on child care, my favourite little area of policy at the moment. Australians are paying more. Over the last 12 months, costs have gone up 9.4 per cent. Since this government came into power and said that it's going to promise cheaper child care, guess how much it's gone up? Acting Deputy President Cox, do you know? I can tell you: costs have gone up 27 per cent. Yet they promised cheaper child care, this lot over here.

Australians are feeling it every day. Many people are having to engage with child care because it's necessary to get back into work. Two people have to work in a household now, just to pay the bills, just to pay the mortgage, just to pay the rent, just to put food on the table. Yet it's costing more now to go to child care than it would to put your kids in one of the top-end schools in any capital city in this country. It's actually cheaper when your kid's in year 1 in primary school at a high-fee-paying school than it is in many childcare centres across the country. Their poor management of this economy is hurting Australians, and Australians deserve so much better than this Labor government.

I might just start by saying it's pretty ironic that Senator Bell has brought forth this urgency motion today on the cost of living. It's sheer audacity from those who are doing the bidding of a billionaire that showers them in cash and gifts. Seriously! They're talking about cost of living! Senator Bell speaks about this government's failure to address cost-of-living pressures and the need for urgent action, yet his own party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, always votes against measures designed to support everyday, hardworking Australians.

Time and time again, when legislation has come before this parliament to provide relief—whether it's to lift workers' wages, reduce the cost of medicines, expand bulk-billing and access to health care, increase housing supply or lower energy bills—One Nation has chosen to oppose it. They have repeatedly voted against policies aimed at helping families keep up with rising prices. They have refused to back measures that would put real dollars back into people's pockets, and they have turned away from opportunities to support Australians that are doing it tough. While the words we hear today may sound concerned, the record tells a very different story. Australians aren't interested in rhetoric or political point scoring. They are interested in results that make their lives easier, and that's exactly what we are delivering.

These are some examples from today. The Albanese Labor government is taking practical steps to ease pressure on households. We're giving every taxpayer another tax cut as part of our plan to deliver a series of five tax cuts and, ultimately, save a worker up to $2,800 a year. We're expanding paid parental leave to a full six months and helping new parents spend more time at home with their newest family member during those important early months. We're backing in minimum wage and award wage increases to boost the pay of three million workers. We are permanently extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses, giving them confidence to invest and to grow.

We're also strengthening our healthcare system by making Medicare urgent care clinics a permanent part of Australia's health system to help deliver patients the best care and to take pressure off households and hospitals. We're injecting an additional $25 billion into public hospitals to help states deliver care. We're expanding services at endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics to include menopause and perimenopause. We're improving patient outcomes by requiring pathology image providers to upload tests to My Health Record so Australians can access their information more easily and securely.

Beyond this, we're opening the new National Environmental Protection Agency—the very first in Australia's history—and establishing the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency to improve outcomes, access and wellbeing. We have legislated payday super so workers start earning returns sooner and to reduce the risks of unpaid entitlements. Whilst some in the Liberals and the Nationals are fighting the temptation to bend the knee to One Nation, Labor is fighting the big supermarkets by banning supermarket price gouging with the new, mandatory food and grocery code that prohibits very large retailers from charging excessively high prices.

We are focused on practical, targeted action to ease the cost-of-living pressures. By contrast, what do we see from One Nation? More cuts, more chaos and more division. This is not the change that Australia needs. They propose a complete overhaul of our workplace laws that are delivering higher wages for workers. We know their policymaker and donor-in-chief wants to pay workers $2 an hour. Shame. They say it's too hard to sack workers at a time when Australians need job security to pay their bills. They opposed our same job, same pay laws that are literally delivering tens of thousands of dollars to workers who were employed through sham, shoddy, dodgy labour-hire arrangements. They've even called for massive cuts to health spending when families are already struggling with rising costs. We know Senator Hanson went on the record. She made her views on paid parental leave very clear. They want to get rid of it. They can't stand it. One Nation voted against it. It's one thing to voice their approval in public, but their actual actions in parliament are what matter.

One Nation is very good at making complaints. They are really good at it. But they're very bad at putting forward real solutions. Every time—every single time—they have an opportunity to make life easier for Australians, they vote with the Liberals and Nationals to make it harder. Shame!

The Labor government is letting this cost-of-living crisis happen. Every time you're gouged at the supermarket or have to skip a meal, remember that Labor could make price gouging illegal. If your landlord raises your rent, remember that Labor could have frozen it. If you're living on welfare payments that are below the poverty line, remember that Labor could raise the rate at any time.

Every time there is a choice to be made between investor returns and ordinary people, the Labor Party chooses the corporations and the landlords—every single time. That's because students, pensioners and working-class renters don't give massive donations to the Labor Party like their corporate masters do. But the irony is that this motion was introduced by One Nation, who take the same money and serve the same interests. One Nation would like us to think of them as outsiders, but they will continue the same corporate friendly policies as Labor and the Liberals. When the Greens put forward our policy for a rent freeze, One Nation didn't think about the needs of renters. They instead worried about the rights of property investors.

One Nation couldn't even be bothered to turn up to vote for a bill to ban supermarket price gouging, because, when it comes to cost of living, One Nation are just more of the same. They're blaming migrants and diverse communities for this crisis when the truth is that it's their friends at the big end of town who are the ones to blame. This cost-of-living crisis is just a convenient time for One Nation to push the same backwards-looking rubbish they've been pushing for decades. One Nation can dress it up however they like, but that's what they care about, not you and whether you can put food on your table. The big corporations know the Australian people have realised that the Labor and Liberal parties are old news, so they're putting their money behind their new mouthpiece, One Nation. Don't buy the spin.

There's no doubt that the cost of living is a real issue. There's pressure on families, which is why it's been front and centre on everything we've done since coming to office. But it's frankly absurd to see One Nation bringing forward a cost-of-living motion of urgency in light of their record. Of course, they gave no policy announcement in this urgency motion. They gave no solution. They just turned around and carried on defending the status quo, because, when you vote for the status quo, you are defending the status quo.

One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals, better known as the uniparty of the right, have never supported any of our cost-of-living measures, let alone treated them as urgent. The only urgency the uniparty of the right has ever shown on cost of living is when they've rushed to oppose our measures to help working Australians. It's always interesting to see them get worked up when their uniparty gets called out. But, when three parties keep voting the same way and pushing the same old policy issues and the same old ideas, be it smashing workers' rights or voting against cost-of-living relief, it's hard to know what else to call it.

Take a look at the voting record in parliament. In December 2023, we put forward laws to protect same jobs, same pay, to make sure that wage theft is also illegal and to make sure that labour hire workers aren't getting ripped off, and of course the uniparty voted no. In February 2024, we made it easier for millions of working casuals to convert to permanent work and introduced a right to disconnect and minimum standards for the gig economy, and the uniparty voted no. In March 2025, we voted on our Free TAFE Bill to help hundreds of thousands of Australians train for jobs in nursing, construction and aged care. The uniparty voted no. Just last week, once again, we put forward reforms to deliver a tax cut for every taxpayer, and the uniparty—guess what?—voted no.

If their voting record weren't enough to show that One Nation, the Liberals and Nationals are in the same group together, the same far-right group, they love using the word 'uniparty' because they like describing everyone else, but the fact is that the Right—the coalition and One Nation—are happy to turn around and vote against all the sorts of arrangements that have dealt with the cost of living that have made Australia a little bit easier whilst we're taking the challenges on across the economy.

Last month, at the National Press Club, the One Nation leader called for a complete overhaul of Australia's industrial relations system. She went on to describe workers as lazy and complained that you can't sack people these days. If it weren't enough, the One Nation leader also argued against paying women on maternity leave. She said: 'Fair enough. Why should businesses pay them?' Of course, she's flipped that before she flops back. Now compare that with the shadow treasurer, Tim Wilson. When asked about Senator Hanson's take on workplace laws in an ABC interview, his response was simple: 'I agree with that.' He went on to say, 'Before she said it, I said it first.' The coalition against cost-of-living relief are the people sitting over there—the mates in One Nation, the Nationals and the Liberal Party. We've now reached the point where senior leaders of the uniparty are competing over who thought of their policy to smash workers first and to make it harder on cost of living.

Last week, independent research reported in theAustralian found that One Nation's workplace measures would leave health workers up to $34,000 a year worse off. That's $34,000 less for some of the most essential workers in our communities. The Health Services Union national president, Gerard Hayes, said that One Nation's measures were like dropping a cluster bomb on wages and conditions. That's what the uniparty of the Right actually believes should be happening. Low wages are a deliberate design feature of their economic policy, because, for the last 20 years, they've voted for it. Low wages are a deliberate design, all while turbocharging cost-of-living pressures. That's what their answer is.

Unlike the uniparty, our focus has always been on cost of living. That's why, starting today, the Albanese government is giving every taxpayer another tax cut. These are some of the measures, along with Medicare and with three million workers getting wage increases, that will make a difference.

The cost-of-living crisis is the daily reality facing millions of Australians. The Albanese government talks about economic success, yet Australians are living through an affordability crisis that is getting worse, not better. The government tells Australians that inflation is under control and that the economy is turning a corner. But Australians don't judge the economy by the Prime Minister's press releases. They feel it every time they walk into a supermarket to feed their families, fill up their car, open an electricity bill or try to balance their budget.

The simple truth is that Australians are working harder than ever, but they're still falling further behind. Families are buying less food at the checkout because they can't afford it. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Pensioners are turning off the heater because they're frightened of the next electricity bill—electricity bills that keep climbing because of the Labor government's obsession with building wind turbines. Small businesses are watching their costs climb, while Aussies have less money to spend. Our office phones are ringing constantly with Aussies that are homeless and going hungry. Parents are saying their kids have gone to school hungry or missed school because they can't afford fuel to get them there.

Labor promised Australians relief. Instead, Australians received higher grocery bills. Labor promised lower power prices. Instead, Australians received climbing electricity bills. Labor promised to make life easier. Instead, life has become more expensive at every turn. Is it any wonder that our Fire the Liar campaign is doing so well? Everyday Aussies are donating what they can to help One Nation get control of their country back.

The Labor government continues to tell Australians that wind turbines lower the wholesale price of electricity. The issue with that is that we don't pay the wholesale price of electricity; we pay the retail price in our bills. The retail price includes the endless government subsidies and confidential contracts that continue to add $30 billion every year to our power bills. And these billions in subsidies are landing in the pockets of foreign shell companies. That is hardly comforting to someone deciding whether they can afford groceries this week or whether they can fill their car with petrol.

Then there is the backhand of the federal budget. The government congratulates itself on spending billions of dollars, while Australians ask a much simpler question: why am I still hungry? Why do I get a cup of coffee a week? Aussies are wondering when they will finally catch a break. Australians understand a simple principle: governments cannot continue spending borrowed money without consequences. Every dollar wasted by the Labor government is eventually paid for by Australians through higher taxes, higher inflation or more debt for the future generations.

The retail price of electricity affects everything. When electricity becomes more expensive, hospitals pay more, manufacturers pay more, farmers pay more, schools pay more, transport companies pay more and small businesses pay more. These costs are passed directly onto Australian families through higher prices on everyday purchases. Australians were promised cheaper electricity. They deserve to know why that promise has not been kept. The cost of building houses continues to rise. Insurance continues to rise. Council rates continue to rise. Yet Labor continues to insist that its plan is working. Working for whom? Is it working for Labor voters? I can tell you who it isn't working for. It isn't working for the pensioners counting every dollar before they go to buy food. It isn't working for families struggling to pay the rent. It isn't working for homeowners struggling to pay the mortgage repayments. And it isn't working for business owners wondering whether they can pay wages.

The Prime Minister promised to lower power bills by $275. Instead, we have seen the increase every time we open our bills. The 78,000 Aussies that have donated to our Fire the Liar campaign have something to say about being continuously deceived. They are asking how long it is until we have a vote of no confidence in this government. One Nation will deliver lower retail electricity costs, sensible management of government spending, a stronger resources sector, more support for Australian farmers and producers, help for small business and policies that put Australian families ahead of ideology.

Australians are resilient. They are prepared to work hard. What they should not have to do is work harder every year because of the Labor government's financial incompetence. Senator Bell's matter of urgency deserves the support of every senator because it reflects what Australians are saying every single day: life has become too expensive and too hard. This government has created generational debt for our children and grandchildren, and Australians deserve better. One Nation has a vision for building a stronger Australia.

One Nation want you looking down instead of looking up. They want you blaming migrants while the billionaires and the big corporations who have been price-gouging and profiteering laugh all the way to the bank. I tell you what: you won't find the perpetrators of the cost-of-living crisis in migrant communities. I'll tell you where you will find them; you'll find them in their harbourfront mansions, in corporate boardrooms and in gated luxury estates. You'll find them on private planes flying to Mar-a-Lago, like Senator Pauline Hanson did. And you know what; these people will donate to political parties. They donate to One Nation. They buy influence, they hire lobbyists and they make obscene fortunes, while ordinary Australians wonder how they're ever going to get ahead. And who runs cover for them? Who runs cover by blaming migrants for all the ills of our society? One Nation, because One Nation are here for the billionaires and the big corporations who donate so massively to them.

One Nation knows that every minute Australians spend arguing with each other about migrants and migration is another minute the billionaires and the big corporations get to keep ripping us all off—and that is exactly how One Nation's corporate and billionaire puppet masters like it. If you want to bring the cost of living down, take on the people driving up the cost of living. Break up the supermarket duopoly. Stop corporate price-gouging. Tax billionaires. Tax excess profits of big corporations. Make the gas corporations pay their fair share of tax instead of robbing Australians of our own resources, and then use the revenue to help Australians afford the things they used to be able to afford. Tax the one per cent and fund a better life for everyone. Stop blaming migrants for things they are not at fault for.

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

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

Labor's failure to fix its unfair widow tax, instead voting to punish widows, divorcees and families who have worked hard, saved and planned for their future.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

Senator Collins has raised this matter of public importance, and it is such a matter of public importance, because so many times this government has said they need to move laws and guidelines because dealing with other people's money is so important. They've got the banking know-your-client report. The other day, I had an NAB account—I didn't know I had it anymore—and they phoned up and said they're going to shut it down unless I show up in person and throw 3,400 points of ID across the table to prove I am actually who I am. You have to know your client in financial services. We moved a whole lot of stuff about financial services, where all accountants and financial advisers have to go into great detail about who they are, any disclosures and knowing their people.

But it doesn't appear to carry over to this government when dealing with other people's money, because they didn't even know the effect of their own legislation when it came to people getting divorced, widows or widowers, and what happened to the capital gains tax. For everyone else out there in the community, every other person that deals with financial things, it is very important that you know everything, in and out, about what happens with the money, but not for this government. What we found out is that the laws as proposed, as rushed through in a two-day sitting, meant that, if you had an accident where you had a partner pass away or if you had a divorce and there was a settlement, you triggered a capital gains tax event. Something that was previously grandfathered under the legislation would reset in the eyes of the capital gains tax, and suddenly you'd have a tax-liable asset. That's not good enough. It's not good enough that they discovered just days before this, when they've been building this legislation up for a while, what it is. It's not good enough.

Imagine this. Imagine you have shares, jointly owned with a partner, and you divorce. Let's just say the split is fifty-fifty. One partner gets 50 per cent of the shares; the other person gets 50 per cent of the shares. If they are in one person's name and they don't change the title of those shares, that person will receive theirs tax free, with no capital gains tax, but the person whose shares are transferred triggers the CGT. One person will be taxed higher than the other and treated differently under the CGT. That is just unfair. Imagine creating a law where two people getting the same thing are treated differently. We're not even going to someone mourning the death of a partner, the death of a loved one, where suddenly something they've owned forever—shares, investments, a house—triggers the CGT. That's why competency has to matter. That's why knowing what your legislation does has to matter. And this doesn't do this.

I know the defences we'll hear today. They won't be about this matter. They'll deflect. They'll be talking about the tax cuts. That's what will happen here. They'll say, 'This side didn't vote for the tax cuts.' Well, the Labor Party wouldn't separate it. They wanted it kept together. They wanted both because they wanted a wedge. But I will say this: the Labor Party that says we didn't vote for these $5-a-week tax cuts because they were linked also were the party that voted against tax cuts every year by indexing bracket creep. Everyone getting their $5 a week this year would have got far more had the Labor Party supported the amendment to index bracket creep and get a tax cut every year. That wasn't on the table. What we saw was legislation designed to divide Australia, not bring it together, and legislation that was not clearly worked through about the effects on people.

And we have the promise: 'Don't worry, we'll fix it. We'll fix it down the track. We'll fix it eventually.' It's like some scene from Australia You're Standing In It, back in the day, with the Dodgey Brothers: 'Oh, don't worry, we fix. We fix.' It needs to be fixed when you pass it. If you can't come through with legislation that is actually competent and works and is fit for purpose, don't bring it. Delay it. Have this all come through when you are right on this. It's not that much to ask. If you are prepared to go and ask other financial institutions—

Minister Ayres, on a point of order?

I know there's no standing order that properly applies to this, but a few more references to the Dodgey Brothers would be very appreciated by all of us over here.

I don't believe there's a point of order there.

I'll try my best! This is where we say, 'On this stuff, if you expect others to do it, do it yourself.' Don't bring legislation through that has consequences for people at their lowest. When they are getting divorced or when they have lost a loved one, have some compassion and get that right. Don't say, 'At an unknown time in the future, we will fix it,' because we don't know it will be fixed. We don't know it will be right. If you don't know what the effects are going to be this time, how will you know what the effects will be of what you bring forward next time? How do we know there won't be a deal between now and then, like we saw with the deal on superannuation with the Greens, that doesn't bring this forward?

It is not good enough to hurt people by omission. I know it wasn't the intention, but, when it was pointed out, it shouldn't have taken long to fix. An amendment could have been drafted. We heard today in question time that there is no time. They weren't able to name a time when a brief went out for the amendments. Don't hurt people. If you do the right thing at the get-go, we won't have this problem and this won't hurt people.

You have to admire the coalition's timing. On the very day that Australians wake up to another tax cut, paid parental leave expands to six months, payday super begins, Medicare gets stronger, hospitals receive more funding and workers keep more of what they earn, the Liberal Party decide that the most important thing facing the country is a political slogan they've cooked up. It's not about housing, wages, the cost of living or the fact that young Australians have been locked out of homeownership for too long. Instead, we get another weird political stunt. I suppose, when you're an opposition that's still moving backwards in the polls, that's probably all you've got left.

Let's be clear about what's happened here: the Treasurer has already said the government will address the arrangements around jointly held assets in circumstances like death and divorce, in subsequent legislation. We've said we'll fix it. We've said that there are technical issues to work through, and we've been upfront that significant tax reform is being legislated in stages, as governments of both political persuasions have done for decades. This is hardly revolutionary. The GST wasn't legislated in one hit. Most major reforms haven't been. When you're rewriting parts of the tax system, you need to take the time to get the details right. What Australians deserve is a tax system that's fair, workable and durable, not one that's rushed together for a press release.

While the coalition wants to spend today manufacturing outrage, Labor is getting on with delivering reform. From today, more than 13 million Australians receive another tax cut, workers will now pay thousands less tax than they would have under the system we inherited, small businesses get certainty through the permanent instant asset write-off, parents get six months of paid parental leave and workers start earning super from payday instead of waiting months and hoping their employer pays up. These are real reforms, and they make a real difference.

Let's compare this to the alternative. The same Liberal Party criticising this package voted against tax cuts for 13 million workers. They went to the last election promising to repeal those tax cuts. Senator Hume called them 'egregious'. Apparently, letting ordinary Australians keep more of their own money is controversial. It's an interesting set of priorities. And, while they're busy running scare campaigns, they're still defending a housing system that rewards speculation while too many young Australians can't even get their foot in the door.

That's why our reforms matter. They're about helping first home buyers and backing workers. They're about making sure the income earned from hard work isn't treated less favourably than income earned from owning assets. They're about creating a tax system that reflects the Australia we are trying to build, not the one that's left too many people behind. If we're serious about aspiration, then aspiration can't only be for people who already own everything. It has to include the young couple trying to buy their first home, a nurse saving for a deposit, the apprentice putting away money each week and the teacher wondering whether homeownership is drifting further away every year. Those Australians deserve a government willing to tackle difficult reforms, and, yes, difficult reforms involve detail. They involve consultation to make sure unintended consequences are properly addressed. That's exactly what we're doing. Meanwhile, the coalition seems determined to oppose every measure that helps working Australians while pretending they are the champions of fairness, and Australians can see through it. They know the difference between governing and grandstanding.

Today is a good day for millions of Australians: another tax cut, more support for families, more help for workers, more investment in hospitals and Medicare, a stronger superannuation system—all measures that improve productivity, support businesses and help more Australians get ahead. That's what this government is focused on. The coalition can keep chirping nonsense if they like; we'll keep delivering reforms that actually improve people's lives. That's what Australians elected us to do and that's exactly what we will continue to do.

We thank Senator Collins for this motion. One Nation supports it. The 'widow tax' in the budget relates to the grandfathering of negative gearing on existing homes. Under this government's budget, passed with Greens support, if a couple own a negatively geared home and one partner dies, or they divorce, the home loses grandfathered status and starts attracting capital gains tax at the new, higher rate.

Senator David Pocock first raised this in Senate estimates on 16 June so the government has had plenty of time to get this fixed. I wonder: Was this measure typical of this government's history? A failure to think things through? Or an attempt to sneak the measure through? The budget's dishonest theme is 'intergenerational wealth'. So a widow tax fits the supposed agenda of taking wealth from older Australians into government coffers and supposedly giving some of that back to young Australians—their own money that they would have inherited anyway—and then the government expects the young to vote Labor for this fake generosity. What deceit.

Another measure that fits this dishonest sales pitch to young people is scrapping the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. This is a system to reduce healthcare premiums for older Australians, to keep them in the private health system, and minimise public healthcare costs the young pay. Currently, this rate is 24.6 per cent for over 65s, rising to 32.8 per cent for over 70s. The Albanese government reduced this figure to 24.1 per cent for all ages. Another example of ideology over sense—not intended to be sensible or fair; intended to demonise older Australians and falsely serve them up to young people as the reason they can't get ahead. It's the politics of deceit and division that Labor's budget promoted.

This discount exists because older Australians have paid into the system their whole lives. They consume more health services and if, on their retirement, they can't afford health insurance anymore they'll give it up and return to the public system, which the government's own modelling says will happen, increasing costs for the young. It's even worse in the bush. Industry reviews warn that regional private hospitals, where up to 70 per cent of patients who are insured are over 65, face sudden financial unviability and forcing health system closures and pushing entire communities exclusively into the public system.

This is a disaster for those Australians who grow your food, grow the cotton and wool in your clothes, and mine the minerals in your computers, phones and your expensive, damaging solar panels, wind turbines and renewables. The city lives off the wealth created in the bush—that is a fact—and yet this government declares war on the bush through this healthcare change, through arbitrary environmental regulations and through water mismanagement, stealing farmers irrigation water, and much more. All Labor and the Greens do is set Australians against Australians. No wonder so many people are saying 'Fire the liar'! (Time expired)

Labor had a really simple test this week, a really simple opportunity to do the right thing, and that was to protect widows, to protect divorcees and to protect Australian families during some of the hardest moments in their lives. But they failed miserably. Instead, Labor voted for higher taxes. That tells Australians everything they need to know about this government. They say they're the party of compassion and yet their actions tell a completely different story. They promised lower taxes but they delivered yet another tax grab. They call it reform, but Australians know exactly what it is. It's another toxic tax, another broken promise. They're pretty good at those, too—over 50 times from our Prime Minister—because Labor can't manage money. So they come after yours. Australians, they come after yours. They tax your work, they tax your savings, they tax your investment, and, of course, they tax aspiration. When a husband loses his wife, Labor sees another tax bill. When a wife loses her husband, Labor sees another tax bill. When a marriage breaks down, Labor sees another opportunity for a tax bill.

These aren't loopholes; they are life events. There is nothing sophisticated about losing the person you love, and there is nothing aggressive about trying to settle a family estate. There's nothing unfair about wanting to pass on what you've worked hard for. Australians shouldn't be treated like tax minimisers simply because of tragedy, and that has ended their lives. No Australian chooses to become a widow or widower. No Australian plans for their marriage to end. These aren't tax avoidance schemes. They're moments of grief. They're moments of uncertainty, when families are trying to rebuild their lives. Those are the moments when government should show compassion, not send another tax bill. Government should stand beside Australians in their darkest moments, not stand there with its hand out seeking money. Grief should never become a revenue stream.

That is why this tax is so profoundly callous. It punishes Australians who have already been dealt one of life's toughest hands. And why? This government cannot control its own spending. It is hurtling towards $1 trillion in debt. Governments that run out of money always come after your money. That is the story of this government. Every problem has the same answer: another tax, another excuse to punish Australians who have worked hard and another way for Labor to cover up its own failures. Today it's widows; tomorrow it will be family businesses. One by one, Labor is coming after Australians who have done the right thing. The day after that—well, who knows, with the uncertainty and deceit? This is bigger than one bad law. It is a pattern. It's a government that taxes work, that taxes savings, that taxes investment and that taxes aspiration. And, when it runs out of places to tax, it comes along and it taxes grief.

Labor says it will fix this later. Well, that's simply not good enough. Australians don't expect parliament to pass bad laws and promise to clean up afterwards. They expect us to get it right before that law becomes law. That is the standard Australians deserve. If you know legislation hurts widows and divorcees, don't pass it. You stop it. The legislation should never have been introduced. It should never have been passed. It should never remain on the statute books.

Labor taxes hardship. The coalition rewards hard work, and that's exactly what we'll do. That's why we'll scrap Labor's toxic taxes and reward aspiration instead of punishing it—because no Australian should ever receive a tax bill simply because they've lost the person they love. No government should profit from grief. Labor has run out of places to tax, so now they're taxing misery.

Australians deserve to have an honest debate about tax. Instead, they are getting a scare campaign courtesy of the coalition that is, true to form, based on slogans. There they are—the coalition, inventing a new tax when they really should be spending more time developing substantive policies. And that is being reflected. This negligent void around policy development is being reflected in their plummeting fortunes in the polls. Australians have cottoned on. They have clued on to the fact that the coalition have nothing to offer them.

We genuinely understand the concerns that Australians have around these jointly held assets, and the Treasurer has been explicit in saying that we will introduce subsequent legislation to address these concerns. I might remind everyone that the last time landmark generational reform was done in this country was in 1999, around the GST, and the then Howard government had to introduce over 100 amendments across 16 pieces of legislation to tidy up these grey legal areas. It is not unusual for this sort of thing to happen with generational reform.

Today is a day where Australians are going to be receiving some critical adjustments to their personal finances. This Labor government is responding to the sustained cost-of-living pressure Australians have been feeling, and we are responding with tax cuts. Starting from today, Australians will receive a tax cut which will put an additional $270, roughly, into their pocket this year, and then around $540 from next year. With all five tax cuts that we have delivered, we expect the average worker to receive an additional $2,800 in their pocket, starting in the next 12 months. This is also on top of the working Australian tax offset we introduced in the budget—architecture that is designed to put an additional $250 into people's pockets, starting from next year.

On this day, we're seeing an increase to the minimum wage. It's only Labor governments that back in increases to things like the minimum wage. For the first time, the minimum wage will crack $1,000 per week, and that will benefit young people, people who work part time, women, casuals, people who work in retail and hospo, people on our farms and people in the services industries. It'll make a significant difference to their finances.

We're also introducing payday super today. This means workers will have their super paid alongside their wages, and they will benefit from that gift of compounding interest that super delivers. It means an average 25-year-old worker will retire with an additional $5,000, roughly, in their retirement savings. It is significant.

We are introducing a $1,000 tax deduction, with no receipts needed for workers. This should help a bit over six million workers—around half of all taxpayers. We're making it easy for working Australians to claim back their tax.

In addition to this, we're also boosting paid parental leave by another 10 days, taking it up to 26 weeks. It means families will receive an additional $30,000 over this period, and it will enable them to spend more time with their newborn child.

In addition to this, we are making permanent our Medicare urgent care clinics, which have been visited by over three million Australians. We have cheaper meds, costing $25 per script. And today, in parts of Australia, in New South Wales, South-East Queensland and South Australia, eligible households will be able to apply for three hours of free electricity between the hours of 11 and two, through the solar sharer program; Victorians will kick off on 1 October.

All this adds up to substantive cost-of-living relief, and it builds upon a very exciting bill that we introduced today which is cracking down on unfair trading practices—things that drive consumers crazy, like drip pricing and subscription traps that you can never seem to escape. This is how this Labor government is responding in kind to the cost-of-living pressures that Australians feel. (Time expired)

There are only one or two ways to have a look at or to understand the budget papers. One way is to regard the government as totally incompetent. Why else would the government have introduced a grief tax? Why else would the government have introduced a donations tax? Why else would the government have increased taxes on mum-and-dad investors around mineral exploration? If you think the government doesn't know what it's doing, you might come to the conclusion that the government is just incompetent.

The other conclusion you can come to is that the government is deceitful—that the government knows exactly what it is doing and it has chosen to tax widowers and widows, and was hoping to get away with it; that they consciously knew that their taxes would hurt charitable giving, would hurt community and not-for-profit organisations and would hurt philanthropy, and that they hoped to get away with it. Well, in fact, they have actually got away with it, because Labor senators from Western Australia are not raising any concerns whatsoever about Labor's plans to tax mum-and-dad investors in mineral exploration.

So, if we are to have an honest debate about the government's budget, there are only one or two pathways you can choose: that the government is acting incompetently, or that the government is acting deceitfully—that it knows exactly what it is doing. I'm someone who thinks, who believes, that the government knows what it's doing, the government was hoping to get away with it, and, thanks to the outrage of many ordinary Australians, it has been caught with its hand in the till.

There can be no tax cuts, no cost-of-living relief and no minimum-wage benefit if the government does not tackle this—and this is inflation. Inflation eats away at any benefits workers might get through minimum-wage increases. Inflation eats away at any cost-of-living relief that the government might give people through the budget. That is the demon that the government has been unable to control—inflation. And, when inflation remains uncontrolled in the economy, guess who pays for that? Pensioners pay for that. Families pay for that. Small businesses pay for that. The government doesn't pay for it; the government actually is a beneficiary of heightened levels of inflation in the economy.

So, when the government talks about cost-of-living relief, it's because it doesn't want to talk about inflation. And why doesn't it want to talk about inflation? Because inflation is fuelled primarily through government spending. We know that this government—the Labor government under Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers, supported by Labor senators—is the highest-spending government in 40 years, outside of the pandemic and outside of a recession. Think about that: it's the highest-spending government in 40 years. That is fuelling inflation in the economy, because the government lacks the discipline, the government lacks the economic guts, to make hard decisions. When inflation is too high, the RBA is forced to put interest rates up. And who pays for that? Families—especially young families; families with mortgages.

So this is a conscious decision by this Labor government to make life harder for Australians, not to make life easier, and what's really remarkable about that is that, in May 2022, when Anthony Albanese, then the opposition leader, was working hard to try and become the Prime Minister, he gave people a commitment. He said that life would be easier under Labor. He said it in Perth, Western Australia: that life would be easier under Labor.

Australians know there is only one truth, and that is that life has got considerably more difficult for Australians under Labor. Living standards are falling. Productivity growth is slipping. Australians know our country is getting poorer under Labor. Unfortunately, this is a budget of deceit and a budget of broken promises.

We have about two minutes left, if anyone else wants to make a contribution; otherwise, we'll move on. No? The time for discussion of that item has now expired.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The Vanuatu-Australia Nakamal Agreement is a very important one. I think we all know that the Pacific family is important to us. We are part of the Pacific family, and it is important that we get this right. The Australian government has finally got this very important deal across the line, and I do commend them for that. We should respect the longstanding tradition of being bipartisan in the Pacific. It is a significant agreement, and we should be stepping up our relations. But I will take the opportunity to also put on the record the coalition's track record in the Pacific, because we heard from the government this week some pretty outrageous claims, some hyperpartisan claims—quite frankly, claims that I think can damage our relationship in the Pacific. In just 18 months it could be that Labor's no longer in government and the coalition is. If our government is going around the Pacific being salacious about the coalition, that does not help our future relations at all. So I'm going to take the opportunity to put some of our initiatives on the table.

The coalition introduced the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific—one of the world's worst acronyms, AIFFP. That is a really important financing facility for the region, with billions of dollars in grants and loans to help get important infrastructure projects off the ground. We also expanded Export Finance Australia's funding in the Pacific, another important source of funding for the region.

The Seasonal Worker Program, which eventually was replaced by the PALM scheme, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, is one of the most important pieces of foreign policy that we have in the region—

It is—workers!

workers for Australian farms, aged care, meatworks. We've got important money flowing back into the region, providing economic sustainability to many of these islands where economic diversification is a very difficult thing to achieve. Currently, we have 33,160 people employed in Australia through the PALM scheme, sending remittances home. Let me put it into perspective for you. In a country like Tonga, at a minimum, 50 per cent of its GDP comes from money sent home from—

Remittances.

remittances, from Australia, New Zealand and the US. And who is the lead country in remittances to Tonga? Australia. Tongans in Australia send their money home. They keep communities afloat. That money allows them to build churches, build homes, get their kids into school, take their kids to the doctor. It is an incredibly important source of income for communities and families in the Pacific, and this is something that the coalition set up.

In 2016 to 2022, we introduced the Pacific Step-up. This was a hugely significant moment in our foreign policy here in Australia in terms of our relationships in the Pacific. It launched a new chapter in relations with our Pacific family. It provided education and employment opportunities, defence and border security measures, disaster assistance and impact mitigation infrastructure and technology.

We also launched the Australia Pacific Training Coalition. We opened new diplomatic missions right across the region and have representation in every single member of the Pacific Islands Forum. We established the Office of the Pacific within DFAT. That was a huge, momentous occasion. And we developed the Pacific Maritime Security Program. So I'm pleased to defend the honour. The list goes on and on. I have pages and pages here.

But your time has expired.

It has expired. I'd like leave to continue my remarks.

At the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Regulations 2026.

I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 7 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee, and I move:

that the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of that report, the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee's Delegated Legislation, Monitor No. 7 of 2026. This monitor, as you well know, Acting Deputy Chair—

I do well know!

reports on the committee's consideration of 35 legislative instruments registered between 2 May and 11 May 2026. In this monitor, the committee has concluded its examination of the Electoral and Referendum Regulations 2026. This instrument prescribes who can access and use electoral roll information and for what purpose. The instrument also provides for several matters regarding electronically assisted voting for sight impaired persons and Antarctic electors.

In Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 5 of 2026, the committee sought the minister's advice regarding the inclusion of criminal offences in delegated legislation, privacy, the availability of review under the instrument and the consultation on the instrument. In Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 6 of 2026, the committee concluded its consideration of some of these issues based on the initial advice received from the minister but sought the minister's further advice regarding the inclusion of offence-specific defences that reverse the evidential burden of proof, as well as consultation with persons likely to be affected by the instrument. In response, the minister explained the factors that support the reversal of evidential burden of proof in each of the relevant provisions by referencing the Attorney-General's Department Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers.

In particular, the minister noted that the prohibited conduct, which relates to interference with the electronically assisted voting process and electronic voting hardware and software, may erode trust in democratic processes and thereby pose a grave danger to public health or safety. The minister also noted the relatively low penalties that apply to contraventions of these offences, which are a factor that supports the appropriateness of reversing the evidential burden of proof. The committee welcomes the minister's undertaking to amend the explanatory statement to include this additional information.

The minister also provided further detail about the consultation undertaken in relation to the instrument. The minister advised that the department consulted extensively with the Australian Electoral Commission and was informed by their experience as the service provider for electronically assisted voting, particularly in relation to the experience of sight impaired voters and Antarctic electors. The minister undertook to amend the explanatory statement to the instrument to include this information and the information provided in the Minister's initial response of 27 May 2026. On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister for his engagement with the committee and undertakings to amend the explanatory statement to the instrument.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations outlined in Senate standing order 23. Having previously discussed scrutiny principles A to I, today I would like to discuss principle J. Under this principle, the committee assesses whether legislative instruments contain matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment through primary legislation. The committee's view is that significant matters should be included in primary legislation, which is subject to a greater level of parliamentary oversight than delegated legislation. The committee is particularly concerned with instruments that impose significant penalties, impose taxes or levies, or establish significant elements of a program of national significance or of a regulatory scheme.

In its examination of instruments that impose significant penalties, the committee is particularly concerned about the inclusion in delegated legislation of custodial penalties, as well as penalties over 50 penalty units for individuals and over 250 penalty units for corporations. The committee expects explanatory statements to instruments that contain custodial or significant penalties to justify the inclusion of these penalties by reference to the Attorney-General's Department's A guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers. The committee also expects the explanatory statement to explain the legislative authority to impose the penalties, why the penalties are appropriate to the relevant offences and why it is considered necessary and appropriate to include the penalties in delegated legislation.

The committee considers that the levying of taxation is a fundamental function of the parliament, and therefore considers that taxes should generally be imposed by primary legislation. If an instrument imposes a tax or levy, the committee expects that the instrument deal solely with that matter and be accompanied by an explanatory statement that sets out key details such as the legislative authority for the tax or levy, and any limits that apply.

When scrutinising instruments that set out elements of a significant program or scheme, the committee will look closely at whether the instrument provides for significant expenditure for programs of national significance. The committee will also scrutinise whether the instrument contains key definitions or contains provisions that set out significant elements governing the operation of a regulatory program or scheme that may be more appropriate for inclusion in primary law. In these cases, the committee expects explanatory statements to instruments that contain significant matters to include a detailed explanation as to why it's considered necessary and appropriate to include these matters in delegated, rather than primary, legislation. The committee generally does not consider operational flexibility or urgency, on their own, to constitute a sufficient justification for including significant matters in delegated legislation. Noting that including significant matters in delegated legislation reduces the limits of parliamentary scrutiny over important programs and schemes, I draw senators' attention to the committee's longstanding views on this issue, which are set out in the committee's published guidelines.

Finally, I report on the status of undertakings made to the committee by departments and ministers. The committee continues to monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings, and I am pleased to advise that four undertakings have been implemented in the most recent reporting period, while seven remain outstanding for more than 90 days. The committee is particularly pleased to report to the Senate that no undertakings currently remain outstanding for more than 12 months. The committee has observed a sustained improvement in the timely implementation of undertakings, noting that undertakings to amend instruments and explanatory materials are the key mechanism the committee employs to address scrutiny concerns. The committee encourages departments and agencies to continue to progress undertakings in a timely manner and as a priority.

I thank you for your valuable contribution to that committee, Acting Deputy President Scarr. It's a pleasure to work with you and other senators who are dedicated to the proper service of the nation, making sure that people who need to access these pieces of legislation, should they seek to defend themselves in a case of law, can find materials that they need at that point when they investigate the delegated legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 7 of 2026 to the Senate.

Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, and I acknowledge your leadership of that very important committee and your service.

Question agreed to.

I present Scrutiny digest 8 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee and the committee's annual report for 2025, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak on the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2026 and the committee's annual report for 2025.

The digest contains the committee's consideration of 13 bills introduced and amendments agreed for the period 22 to 25 June 2026. The committee has also concluded its consideration of one previously introduced bill.

I wish to draw senators' attention to a longstanding scrutiny concern raised by the committee where bills provide for legislative instruments to be exempt from disallowance. The committee has recently observed an increase in the frequency with which it has had cause to comment on exemption from disallowance matters.

The committee draws attention to this matter under Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(iv), which requires the committee to scrutinise whether the clauses of bills inappropriately delegate legislative power. Exemption from disallowance is also relevant to the Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(v), under which the committee considers whether bills insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny.

The Constitution establishes a system of responsible and representative government which vests legislative power in the parliament. Disallowance is the primary means by which the parliament exercises control over legislative power delegated to the executive. It is, of course, the process by which either house of the parliament may consider and veto the making of a legislative instrument by the executive, normally within 15 sitting days of it being tabled in that house.

Bills that provide for exemptions from disallowance therefore interfere with the parliament exercising its role as the constitutionally designated law-making body of the Commonwealth. In June 2021, the Senate resolved that delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance unless exceptional circumstances can be shown.

Further, the Senate resolved that any claim that circumstances warrant exemption will be subject to rigorous scrutiny and rarely justified.

The Senate's position is consistent with expectations set out by the committee in its review of the Biosecurity Act 2021 (addressed in Scrutiny digest 7 of 2021). They also reflect the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight, as tabled in March 2021.

In light of this, the committee's longstanding expectation is for explanatory memoranda to clearly identify the exceptional circumstances said to justify inhibiting parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

The digest tabled this evening contains an example. The Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 would exempt from disallowance ministerial determinations setting the number of Commonwealth supported places and international student places that may be allocated by the Australian Tertiary Education Commission over a specified period. The committee has noted that commercial certainty and visa processing implications alone do not amount to the exceptional circumstances necessary to merit exemption from disallowance and has requested further information.

Annual report

I also draw the Senate's attention to the committee's annual report of 2025, which provides an overview of the committee's work for the 2025 calendar year.

This report sets out the significant volume of work the committee undertakes each year, with the assistance of its secretariat and legal adviser. In 2025, the committee considered 170 bills and raised scrutiny concerns in relation to 27 per cent of those bills. The committee also commented on 22 per cent of a total of 37 amendments. These numbers are lower than in previous years, reflecting the dissolution of parliament ahead of the 2025 federal election and the restoration of bills from the 47th Parliament that had not attracted committee comment.

The scrutiny principle raised most frequently by the committee related to whether bills unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties, with 40 per cent of the committee's comments relating to this principle, consistent with previous years.

The annual report also includes case studies illustrating the value of the committee's work. For example, the committee provided the only committee based scrutiny of substantive amendments made to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. This demonstrates the committee's capacity to scrutinise significant or contentious amendments, even where opportunities for scrutiny are constrained.

The annual report also highlights the committee's work in relation to the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. The committee met out of session to consider its analysis of the bill in Scrutiny digest 8 of 2025 so that its commentary would be available ahead of committee hearings. Amendments addressing concerns raised by the committee as to the threshold for consistency with national environmental standards were also agreed by the parliament.

These case studies attest to the committee's vital role in supporting the effective parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and the maintenance of the rule of law.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 8 of 2026 and the committee's annual report of 2025 to the Senate and, in doing so, extend my compliments for the professionalism and diligence of the committee secretariat and secretary.

Question agreed to.

I present the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2025 federal election, together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

At the outset in my comments, I take the opportunity to make some comment with respect to my colleague Senator Askew, who thinks that she's escaping this place without anybody, particularly from Tassie, acknowledging her service. I want to not only express my thanks to Wendy for her service to the Liberal Party Tasmania and the country but also congratulate her on all of the things that she's achieved as a part of her time here in the parliament. She is highly respected not only for the work that she does on committees, and that's relevant to what we're going to talk about here tonight, but also as our whip, the relationships that she has around and across the chamber. We all rely on our whips to be able to get things done in this place, to make this place work. I just want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation for having had the opportunity to share some time in this place, which is a very special place for us all, with Senator Askew as a colleague. And that really does segue nicely into what I would like to say with respect to this inquiry into the conduct of the 2025 election.

Senator Ayres?

I sense Senator Colbeck is about to move into another subject area. I just wanted to, on the reflections that he made about the retirement of Senator Askew, associate the government with his remarks and wish her the very best. This chamber is not a majority chamber, and the more that we do in here to establish modes of cooperation and behaviour that support this Senate discharging its function is in the interests of all of us and Australia's democracy. I wanted to make that point before I sense Senator Colbeck moves to a more partisan set of comments that would make it more difficult for me. So thank you for that indulgence. Senator Askew thinks she's dodged people saying nice things about her. I just wanted to make sure she didn't.

Well, thank you, Senator Ayres. I listened very closely to your contribution. It wasn't a point of order but it was on indulgence. Certainly, I think the Senate chamber is grateful for those comments. Senator Colbeck.

And can I say, Senator Ayres, I would prefer that we had more comments like that across the chamber rather than some of the things that I feel the need to say today, because I'm really disappointed that I have to make the comments that I'm going to make today with respect to the conduct of this inquiry. You are right that we need to work together more across this chamber, particularly with respect to the work of this committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which holds as its responsibility the way that we manage and conduct elections in this place.

We are a very lucky country. We have a fantastic electoral system. We have a very highly regarded electoral commission. Everything that we do should be in terms of maintaining a congenial election process. We know that they're hard fought. We have those battles across the chamber. But there have been a couple of what I think are unfortunate and disappointing circumstances that have occurred so far in the conduct of this inquiry. I look forward to the rest of it. There are some important matters that we have to consider in this inquiry that go to the way that we conduct our elections and the confidence that the Australian people have in that process. It is extremely important that we do that.

The first point that I want to make, and it's a key area of consideration for the interim report, is about behaviour at polling booths. I have to say that I was really disappointed in the way that some parts of this inquiry were run. From my perspective, there has been an agenda against a particular faith in this country. I think it's extraordinary that a committee of this parliament conducting an inquiry into the election would basically be run as a vendetta against a particular faith. We've got a royal commission into antisemitism going on in Sydney right now. We don't need to add those sorts of things into our party-political process. I don't think it's appropriate that I should be put in a situation where somebody might say to me that I need to understand the faith of somebody who's supporting me as a volunteer in an election. That's the way that some of this has occurred.

I was very distressed last week when I felt the need to put out a press release rebuking a comment from the committee that two groups, the Plymouth Brethren and Advance, might be subpoenaed to appear before the committee when neither of those organisations had shown any indication that they didn't want to come. In fact, they had said they wanted to come. It was a very unfortunate circumstance, and some of that came through in the conduct of the hearing. In fact, in one circumstance, during what was purported to be a public participation element of the committee, one member of parliament had his entire staff come to give evidence. That member is also a member of the committee. I think it's just really unfortunate that what was purported to be a public comment section was used in the wrong way, in my view. I won't put any names on it. I don't need to. I want to be able to work my way through the rest of this inquiry in a congenial manner, in the way that Senator Ayres described just a moment ago.

Clearly, the standard of behaviour at polling booths is important. It's important for all of us and, quite frankly, it's a reflection on us. I know that, when I go to a polling booth, I make a point of going to everybody who's a poll booth worker and saying hello, shaking their hand, introducing myself and engaging with them in a friendly and polite way. To be frank, when everybody's happy on the polling booth, it's a way more enjoyable experience. Do we have political differences? Of course we do. But we want elections to be conducted in a congenial way. That's the way I enjoy election day.

What's being proposed by the majority report is a process of registering volunteers and a whole series of bureaucratic processes that go off that, like creating additional zones around polling booths and prohibiting or limiting the number of people or number of signs. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think it actually properly reflects the way that our Constitution supports political freedoms in this country. I think it's a really retrograde step that's being proposed. That's why the coalition doesn't support those measures. It doesn't take away in any way from my thought process around us taking responsibility as members of parliament and political parties, including third parties, for the way that our volunteers behave. I think that's a vitally important part of what we do. But I don't think creating a whole new bureaucracy and then asking the Electoral Commission to oversee it is an appropriate thing to do, and I don't think it's what the Electoral Commission want either. As I've said before, the Electoral Commission is highly regarded, and we should be thankful for that. I don't think we should be making them judge, jury and executioner on things that become political because, in my view, that will taint that independence and reputation that they have.

There are some other things in the report that I think are really important. The access to public access terminals by some parties is, I think, a real problem and is being used for things that aren't right. It's a concern of the Electoral Commission too. So we support the recommendation in relation to that.

The accessibility of polling places is very important for everybody. There's been a lot of commentary around that, and I think that's important. So are authorisations. The first recommendation of the report talks about the transparency of who's participating in the electoral process. We don't necessarily completely support that recommendation as it's written, but we're very happy to work with the government and all other parties to make sure that people understand properly who's participating in the electoral process. It is extremely important that it's open, that it's transparent and that people understand who's saying what.

In that context, there's one other matter that's noted in the dissenting report that the committee needs to deal with. At the beginning of the process, we, by agreement, pass a couple of resolutions with respect to the management of submissions to the committee. The first we pass is fine. It's about dealing with certain matters perhaps even internal to parties. But the one that I think is problematic for us all at this point in time and must be fixed by the committee is the one that relates to the way that redactions are made to submissions. We had a ridiculous situation where the Liberal Party submission to JSCEM had the Liberal Party name redacted from it because of the resolution that we passed. We have to fix that. We had members of parliament who had their names redacted from their own submissions. We need to fix that because it is actually chilling the process of the committee investigating the inquiry properly. We need to fix that as part of the work of the committee going forward so that submissions can be properly published openly and transparently and the Australian people can understand properly the very important work that this committee is doing on their behalf.

(Quorum formed)

I see the Liberal Party's pushback about some of the moves that have been taken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to actually look behind what happened with the Exclusive Brethren in the last federal election. I see the resistance and I see the pushback suggesting that somehow this is about a religion. Well, it's actually about protecting politics. No-one should be dragged into politics because of their religion, but no-one can use their religion or politically organise through their religion to avoid scrutiny—to avoid coming and saying what their role was in the last federal election or in other electoral engagements.

To be clear, I recall going to the Parramatta polling booth on polling day in the last federal election. I turned up at the main booth in the centre of Parramatta, and there were maybe 50—or maybe more—Liberal Party volunteers all dressed in the same brand-new shirts and brand-new shorts. All bar a handful were men in brand-new construction boots they'd just bought and all were aged about 30. They were all being very aggressive on the polling booth. I've never seen anything quite like it. There were a group of Labor volunteers, and they were their usual mix, and there was a group of Greens volunteers and some Independents, but there was this cohort all dressed in the same, basically brand-new outfits and all basically of the same age. They were overwhelmingly male and being incredibly aggressive. I wondered what the hell was going on. We found out later, when it became clear that they were sent in there by the Exclusive Brethren to push for one political candidate, for the Liberal Party. And it turned out it was happening across the board.

I know that the Liberal Party don't want this investigated, and maybe they don't want investigated the funds that go from organisations like that to the Liberal Party. And do you want to know what I think the Liberal Party also don't want investigated? They are desperately unhappy, no doubt, that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption has just begun a fresh investigation into funds that were sent to the New South Wales Liberal Party from Catholic schools in breach of disclosure obligations and in breach of electoral laws in New South Wales. There's a pattern developing here, and running cover on the basis that this is about religion totally misses the point. This is about ensuring our democracies are not undermined by activities that are not out in the open, by funding that's not lawful and by this kind of undermining and attacks and third-party attacks. Another reason, no doubt, that the Exclusive Brethren don't want to turn up to JSCEM, and why the Liberal Party is running cover for them, is the $700,000 they gave to Advance in the last election campaign to run the Liberal Party's dirty business for them. No wonder the Liberal Party wants to protect that flow of money. No wonder they don't want the scrutiny. No doubt they're going to desperately do what they can to hide from the New South Wales ICAC inquiry.

I want to be clear: no-one should be dragged into politics because of their religion, but anyone who uses their religion to push their political barrow to feed money to a political party needs to come under scrutiny—and no-one should hide from it.

I've been in this place for coming on nine years, and I spent 7½ years before that as a political staffer involved in helping to write many, many reports, and I have never seen—and I use that word again to those opposite—such an egregious use of the committee process as this one. The attack upon Australians who are seeking to exercise their legitimate rights is an absolute disgrace. Let me give you a couple of examples of why.

I've been around for a while. Sadly, I can remember sitting on a polling booth as a five-year-old with my dad handing out how to vote cards, and I hate to think of the hundreds and hundreds of polling booths I have attended since that time. Australians are generally very good. They're very well behaved. There have been a few incidents over those years, and I'll tell you what: the incidents that have stuck with me and the ones that that made me feel uncomfortable were engendered either by the microparties—the fringe parties who, quite frankly, sit at that end of the chamber—or by union thugs. They are the only times that I have felt threatened or disrespected at a polling place in 50 years of sitting on polling booths.

The other point I want to make is this: part of the recommendations of this report—which Senator Colbeck went through in more detail; I won't go through it all, and I didn't sit on the inquiry itself—is that you have to register to be a polling booth worker, a volunteer. Let's think about that for a moment. I'll take you back a couple of years to the Voice referendum. I was at a small Western Australian primary school handing out proudly for the 'No' campaign, and a Noongar man, a father at that school, came up to me and said, 'Give me some of those; I want to hand those out as well.' He stood there with me for an hour, handing out. Do you think there is any reason why perhaps he would feel uncomfortable about registering that position before he decided to take that stance? Of course there would be. People should not have to register their position to exercise their democratic freedoms in this country. This is a despicable, disgraceful report.

I'm also pretty disgusted with the process that we've seen here, a one-eyed process. I think we've heard it described as hyperpartisan. Even just reading the chair's foreword on this, I saw the words, 'Democracy was under assault.' We had people show up in droves to participate in our democratic election. It was under assault! The foreword continues:

… the growing threat of aggressive third party involvement has shaken the foundations of the voting process … assault on democracy … institutionalised intimidation.

Well, do you know what I feel about this report that's been handed down by the chair, Jerome Laxale? I feel like this is intimidation to people in our society. I feel like this is intimidating for this institution, the Brethren. How is that okay? When it comes to the next election, how do you think they're going to feel about coming and participating in our democracy now that this witch-hunt—

They don't vote.

Well, that is an absolute lie. I will take that interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson.

Okay, we'll have some order, thank you. I will—

I spoke to some. That is a lie.

Senator Collins, resume your seat. We will continue this debate in an orderly fashion, and hurling abuse and names at each other across the chamber is really not helping. Senator Collins, please continue.

I want to bring it back to another statement that we have in here:

… we shouldn't fear applying remedy when needed.

Well, that just sounds like a government that wants more control over the democratic process.

We heard from Senator Shoebridge that the Brethren didn't want to appear. Well, five times they offered to appear, so I just want to put that on the record.

Including today.

Including today. There were no progressive-leaning entities that were at this inquiry, and it only leads us to the conclusion that this was a religiously motivated witch-hunt.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Well, how else do you see it? Why don't we have the unions come forward? Why is it just one particular—okay, I will give you an example. I spent two weeks on Jerome Laxale's prepoll—the MP for Bennelong. His Labor volunteers, with Labor shirts on, were haranguing me: 'What religion are they? Tell me.' I said, 'What business is it of yours?' They asked, 'What religion?' I said, 'It is absolutely not your right to ask that.' And they persevered, 'They're Brethren, aren't they?' What does it matter? They're there to participate in a democratic process.

And I will say that, in my two weeks, yes, tensions were high—in a two-week prepoll where you have hundreds upon hundreds of people turning up, frustrated with the government, to cast their vote. It was like election day every day. If you want to sort that problem out, shorten prepoll. It's a very easy fix. There's no need to have election day every day for two weeks in a row.

We had a person turn up to our booth who was wielding a knife. They went to three booths in the area wielding a knife, coming at volunteers there to participate in democracy and people there to cast their vote. I'll tell you who it was that protected all of us, all of the constituents. It was the Brethren. And my experience over those two weeks was that they were respectful, and I will take the opportunity to put on the record—it's very interesting that the Greens aren't bothering to listen to this, because this is my evidence and my contribution.

My experience on Jerome Laxale's booth was that there were videos taken that were set up. There was a person who threw themselves in front of a car. I thought that person had fainted. I went to help her. The Brethren came to help—give her food, water, a chair. She tried to blame it on us.

There are other instances that I will not go into today, because I just don't think that's helpful. But I want to put on the record that this inquiry was totally one sided. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 16 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 Finance and Public Administration References Committee report:

Inquiry into the operation and appropriateness of the superannuation and pension schemes for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)

26 June 2026

Introduction

The national superannuation arrangements are provided to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. The ADF superannuation and pension schemes are designed to provide commensurate arrangements for ADF personnel, with special consideration to the unique nature of military service.

The superannuation and pension schemes for current and former ADF members are set out by legislative instruments. As noted by the Committee, there have been five ADF superannuation and pension schemes since 1948. The date a member joined the Permanent Forces, or continuous full time service, determines their superannuation scheme:

The Government notes that ADF superannuation schemes have evolved over time in recognition of the unique nature of military service, as well as changing social and economic conditions. The closure of individual schemes and the subsequent introduction of new superannuation arrangements were decisions of government, informed by recommendations from independent reviews. Successive ADF superannuation schemes were introduced to contemporise the superannuation offering, or to address structural limitations or deficiencies in earlier schemes that could not be adequately resolved through legislative amendment.

The fundamental design of the ADF superannuation schemes has been preserved to ensure the protection of accrued and promised retirement benefits, a longstanding practice and treatment that is consistent with other statutory defined benefit superannuation schemes. From time to time, minor legislative amendments have been made to address administrative or technical matters and to ensure ongoing compliance with relevant Commonwealth legislative requirements.

The operation and day-to-day administration of the ADF superannuation schemes is the responsibility of Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC), while the policy responsibility rests with Defence. Defence and CSC maintain a strong collaborative working relationship focussed on providing quality, empathetic and consistent support to ADF members, veterans and their families.

The Committee made four recommendations. Through a submission of additional comments, a further 10 recommendations were made by Senator Jacqui Lambie. The Government has prepared a formal response to both the Committee's four recommendations and

Senator Lambie's additional 10 recommendations.

The Government thanks the Committee for its work on this Inquiry, as well as those who provided submissions and appeared at the hearing.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.98 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider whether the current settings of Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit (DFRDB) pensions are fair and equitable for all members.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The settings of DFRDB pensions, including the use of static life expectancy tables and the permanency of a commutation election, have been reviewed on several occasions. This included an independent Commonwealth Ombudsman review in December 2019, the Investigation into the administration of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme. The Ombudsman observed that any changes made to the law governing DFRDB would have a potential unfair impact on those members who have already made an election. This observation was also made by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (FADT) References Committee in an inquiry into the accuracy of information provided to DFRDB members, in July 2021.

The Government notes that the Committee concurred with the Ombudsman and FADT Committee conclusion, that changes to the DFRDB scheme would potentially create other unfair outcomes for those who did not commute or only partially commuted.

The Government notes that the DFRDB pension settings have not changed since the Commonwealth Ombudsman completed his 2019 report and is satisfied that the scheme is operating as intended.

Recommendation 2

3.35 The Committee recommends the Australian Government consider reviewing indexation methodology for all defined benefit military pension schemes, with a view to achieving consistency and equity.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Defined benefit scheme design generally considers the benefits as a whole, while pension indexation is one component of the benefit design, the value of the pension itself, including service based benefit multiple and final salary or final average salary, are an important consideration. Changing one component of the benefit design without consideration of the overall basis and level of benefits provided would be inconsistent with the intentions of the scheme when the design was initially set.

The Government notes that the indexation methodology applying to defined benefit military pension schemes broadly aligns with the indexation standard applied nationally. The principal exception is the DFRDB and DFRB schemes, where from 1 July 2014, a different indexation methodology applied for members over the age of 55.

Both DFRDB and DFRB are closed, unfunded defined benefit schemes, not subject to the superannuation regulatory regime, and reflect the unique conditions of historical military service, which includes early compulsory retirement ages and limited benefit payment options. The Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Act 2014 amended the indexation methodology for the DFRDB and DFRB schemes to more closely align with Age Pension indexation arrangements. This was a discrete and targeted amendment, deliberately limited to these two schemes in recognition of their special characteristics.

The Government considers that the 2014 Fair Indexation Bill delivered a reasonable, proportionate and carefully scoped reform, and is satisfied that these arrangements appropriately recognise the distinct nature of the DFRDB and DFRB schemes. Accordingly, the Government does not consider that these arrangements should be extended to other military schemes, including the MSBS and ADF Cover, which should continue to closely align with national indexation arrangements.

Recommendation 3

4.123 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider whether current definitions are adequate, particularly those of 'spouse' and 'mutually dependent', to accommodate couples living apart due to experience of PTSD, other service-related mental illnesses, and domestic and family violence.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government agrees to review the current definitions that determine eligibility for reversionary spouse benefits under the ADF defined benefit schemes, having regard to their alignment with broader Government superannuation arrangements for death benefits, and to ensure that relevant terminology is clear and easily interpreted.

The Government notes that Defence remains committed to preventing and responding to family and domestic violence through the Defence Strategy for Preventing and Responding to Family and Domestic Violence 2023-2028 and the associated Action Plan released in December 2024. These initiatives set out practical measures to improve safety, support and system-wide responses for Defence members and their families.

As part of this commitment, Defence is working to strengthen its understanding and response to systems abuse, which can include misuse of organisational processes to further control or harm others. This work is being informed by both lived experience and recommendations from inquiries such as the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which recognised the strong link between family and domestic violence and broader wellbeing risks, including suicidality.

Recommendation 4

4.127 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider allowing Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme members to roll over their Employee Benefit to another superannuation fund of their choice.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The MSBS employee benefit is portable and the Government notes that portability of the employee benefit is an important feature of the MSBS and agrees that the extant provisions are fit for purpose.

The Government agrees to ensure that clear information around portability of MSBS employee benefits is available to members so they can easily understand their options.

Additional Recommendations from Senator Jacqui Lambie

Recommendation 1

1.17 The Australian Government undertake a targeted review of the commutation provisions contained in the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to rectify the deficiencies and ensure it aligns with the messaging provided to service personnel at the time of its introduction.

Response:

The Government disagrees with this recommendation.

This recommendation is substantively addressed under Committee Recommendation 1 and accordingly refers to its response to that recommendation.

Recommendation 2

1.18 Where evidence demonstrates that defective administration materially influenced retirement decisions resulting in financial detriment, the Australian Government provide appropriate remedial actions for affected DFRDB members, including Act of Grace payments or other compensation measures.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes there is a current mechanism under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) Scheme where DFRDB complainants have access to this particular service.

The Government notes that following a recommendation from the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Trade References Committee in their 2021 inquiry, Defence implemented a more tailored approach for DFRDB CDDA claims. This increased assistance in navigating the claim process and addressed particular issues raised during the Inquiry.

Recommendation 3

1.23 The Australian Government update the life expectancy tables relied on by the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973.

Response:

The Government disagrees with this recommendation.

This recommendation is substantively addressed under Committee Recommendation 1 and accordingly refers to its response to that recommendation.

Recommendation 4

1.29 The Australian Government commission an independent review of military pension indexation arrangements to determine if reliance on Consumer Price Index-based indexation remains appropriate and whether alternative benchmarks, such as wage growth measures, should be utilised instead to ensure equitable retirement outcomes.

Response:

The Government disagrees with this recommendation.

This recommendation is substantively addressed under Committee Recommendation 2 and accordingly refers to its response to that recommendation.

Recommendation 5

1.34 The Australian Government implement a coordinated whole of government education and awareness strategy to provide former and current ADF members with accessible information about military superannuation and pension arrangements.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes that defined benefit schemes can be complex, particularly where they interact with non-superannuation benefits available to veterans and their families.

The Government notes that Defence has made significant changes and improvements to support veterans through their transition from the ADF, and there is ongoing work to build on these changes through implementing recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

The new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency is set to open on 1 July 2026 and will expand on current services. The agency will support serving ADF personnel, veterans and their families to prepare for transition to civilian life and navigate the veteran support ecosystem. The agency will provide alternate referral pathways for ex-serving members that support the integration between Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and third party providers such as CSC.

The Government notes that Defence also supports improved financial literacy through tailored education and resources provided by the ADF Financial Services Consumer Centre (www.adfconsumer.gov.au), with a focus on encouraging personnel to understand their overall financial wellbeing, of which superannuation is one component.

Recommendation 6

1.35 The Australian Government should strengthen coordination between the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to ensure that information provided to members is consistent, accessible and easy to understand.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges the importance of strengthened coordination between Defence, DVA and CSC to ensure information provided to members is consistent, accessible and easy to understand.

The Veteran Transition Action Plan sets out the actions that key Australian Government agencies aim to achieve to improve transition outcomes. The plan includes a range of priorities and success factors including financial wellbeing actions across key agencies.

The Government notes there is ongoing work between Defence, DVA and CSC, including implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Recommendation 7

1.36 The Department of Defence provide professional financial advice to all ADF members at key career points such as recruitment, mid-career service and transition to civilian life to ensure an accurate understanding of applicable military superannuation or pension schemes.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges that there are key milestones throughout an individual's career at which important financial decisions are required, and that ADF members should be equipped to make those decisions.

The Government notes that Defence provides a financial benefit to support ADF personnel to access independent financial advice, within 24 months of the date of transition. This benefit is designed to reduce the cost of obtaining advice and in turn ensure that professional financial advice is accessible for eligible ADF personnel.

The Government notes that Defence also supports improved financial literacy through tailored education and resources provided by the ADF Financial Services Consumer Centre (www.adfconsumer.gov.au), with a focus on encouraging personnel to understand their overall financial wellbeing, of which superannuation is one component.

Recommendation 8

The Australian Government review section 37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 for relevance and necessity, with the aim of ensuring all applications are referred to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation for independent assessment, without requiring the opinion of the Chief of the Defence Force.

Response:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government agrees to review section 37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, with an aim to streamline the retrospective invalidity application process for DFRDB members.

With a view to improving consistency across the ADF superannuation schemes, and timeliness of claims processing, the Government will expand the review of section 37 of the DFRDB Act to include section 51(6) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948.

Recommendation 9

1.48 The Australian Government revise reversionary pension arrangements across military superannuation and pension schemes to ensure that surviving spouses and dependants retain eligibility when they are living apart from a member due to illness or safety concerns.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes that this recommendation is substantively addressed under Committee Recommendation 3 and accordingly refers to its response to that recommendation.

Recommendation 10

1.51 The Australian Government provide sufficient resourcing for the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to ensure its claim management team is appropriately staffed to process claims in a timely manner, consistent with the needs of serving and former ADF members.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes Defence and CSC will continue to work together on prioritising resources to improve claims processing times and the overall standard of service provided to veterans, consistent with the needs of serving and former serving ADF members.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:

Review of the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Criminal Code

June2026

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Government consider whether sufficient resources have been allocated to law enforcement and security agencies to enable them to appropriately respond to information about Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activities in Australia, including in relation to financial flows, the display of prohibited symbols and intimidation and harassment by the IRGC of Australian residents who are critical of the Islamic Republic regime.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation and will continue to consider appropriate resource allocation for law enforcement and security agencies to respond to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps activity in Australia.

The Australian Federal Police remains agile and flexible in the use and reprioritisation of resources. Australian Federal Police resources are focused on protecting the community and disrupting threats and crimes that undermine Australia's sovereignty, social cohesion, democracy, financial systems and future prosperity. The Australian Federal Police prioritises high value, high impact targets with a national security connection. Investigations into terrorism financing, prohibited symbols and intimidation and harassment of Australian residents by state sponsors of terrorism are taken very seriously by the Australian Federal Police. These investigations are complex and are underpinned by specialist capability such as intelligence, forensics and financial analysis.

The Government also maintains a list of prohibited state sponsor of terrorism symbols, including those of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which are publicly available on the Australian National Security website (www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/).

Recommendation 2

To promote continued reporting by community of information about Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activities in Australia, the Committee recommends that the Government consider how communication can be improved, including in relevant languages other than English, to provide assurance to the community that reports to the National Security Hotline are acted upon by relevant authorities.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation and will continue to consider any communication enhancements to promote community reporting of potential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps activity in Australia through relevant channels.

Australia's National Security Hotline is the central point of contact to report concerns about possible signs of terrorism and foreign interference in our community. The Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and a Translating and Interpreting Service is available to callers. Callers can remain anonymous, and every piece of information is treated seriously. Operators know what to do with information provided. Where necessary and permitted by law, they pass information on to law enforcement and security agencies for further analysis. The Hotline provides a reporting function and cannot provide advice or information on specific operational or intelligence matters, including the status or outcome of a caller's report.

The National Security Hotline Online Report is also available for individuals to complete an online form to report possible threats to national security, including possible terrorist and foreign interference activities. Individuals can choose to remain anonymous, and while it is currently only available in English, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) is working on offering this service in more languages. The webform can be found on the Australian National Security website (https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-can-i-do/report-suspicious-behaviour/national-security-hotline-online-report).

More information on the National Security Hotline is available on the Department of Home Affairs website (www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/security-coordination/national-security-hotline) or the Australian National Security website (www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-can-i-do/report-suspicious-behaviour).

The Department manages a network of Regional Directors, Counter Foreign Interference Partnerships officers and and Community Liaison Officers who engage with a wide range of multicultural community stakeholders in all states and territories in Australia, providing a mechanism for information exchange.

The Department has also established an online Counter Foreign Interference Community Support Hub (Support Hub) available at www.cfi.gov.au. The Support Hub includes resources to assist communities to identify what activities constitute foreign interference and how to report foreign interference.

The Support Hub is a key Government initiative to combat foreign interference in Australia, including by encouraging communities to report suspected foreign interference.

The Support Hub includes a page on how to report foreign interference to the National Security Hotline and what happens after you make a report, including explaining National Security Hotline processes (www.cfi.gov.au/report). This page details that reports made to the National Security Hotline can be made anonymously and are passed to law enforcement and security agencies for consideration. The page also details that while individuals will not receive feedback or updates after making a report to protect the security of investigations, all information provided, no matter how small, may assist investigations.

The Department has worked with the community to codesign the Support Hub, tailoring it to the needs of everyday Australians seeking support when foreign interference presents a threat to their lives.

The Support Hub will expand in 2026 to include content tailored to various diaspora communities, including 23 language translations.

The Support Hub complements the Government's publication Countering Foreign Interference in Australia: Working together towards a more secure Australia, published in January 2025. The publication spells out the threat to Australia from foreign interference, how individuals and organisations can protect themselves, and how to report. This document has been published at homeaffairs.gov.au in 23 different languages.

The Department's work complements broader, ongoing community engagement across government, including through the Australian Federal Police.

The Australian Federal Police is focused on early identification of harm, working with community and partners to empower and inform crime prevention, social cohesion and resilience efforts. The Australian Federal Police is committed to continuously learning from and building on community partnerships to ensure communities are safe, resilient and empowered, being aware and protected from threats before they occur.

Through its Community Liaison Teams, the Australian Federal Police continues to maintain a strong engagement with the community to help Australians by:

The Community Liaison Teams deliver information sessions and crime prevention education on serious issues that affect our culturally and linguistically diverse communities and diaspora. These engagements also focus on early identification of emerging global and national threats that may impact our social cohesion and prosperity.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that, in enforcing criminal offences and implementing any migration decisions related to the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a state sponsor of terrorism, Australian Government agencies distinguish between genuine members and supporters of the IRGC and persons who were involuntarily conscripted into the IRGC as part of compulsory service in Iran.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation and will continue to support agencies in distinguishing between genuine members and supporters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and persons who were involuntarily conscripted into the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for compulsory service in Iran.

Protections currently exist in the Criminal Code and, in enforcing any criminal offence, the Australian Federal Police (in consultation with Commonwealth and State partners) considers each case on its merits with regard to procedural and general fairness when deciding on appropriate treatments and investigative strategies, including whether to initiate a prosecution.

In enforcing criminal offences, the application of the offence will depend on the particular factual circumstances, and defences may also be available under the relevant legislation. For example, a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if they carry out the conduct under duress. In some instances, this may be applicable to conscription to an entity.

In relation to migration decisions, all non-citizens who wish to enter or remain in Australia must satisfy the character requirements of section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. A person can fail the character test for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

Prior compulsory service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does not automatically result in visa refusal. All visa decisions are case by case, based on conduct, associations and security risk. Any visa refusal consideration on this basis would be subject to natural justice provisions.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Snowy Hydro Limited, Australia's Carbon Leakage Review, funding for Northern Territory remote housing, and employment services reform.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Snowy 2.0, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Carbon Leakage Review, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Northern Territory Remote Housing Federation Funding Agreement, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Workforce Australia, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.

The question is that the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately. A division having been called, given the hour, the division will be deferred until tomorrow.

I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed on the Notice Paper as indicated on today's Order of Business. 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—

MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS (INDICIA AND IMAGES) PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2026

INTRODUCTION

This Bill amends the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 to modernise Australia's framework for protecting the commercial rights associated with major sporting events.

Major sporting events create 'where-were-you-when' moments.

They create 'hug a stranger' moments.

They get us up, and get us together, often in the dark of night or at the crack of dawn to cheer, to chant and to cherish those heart-stopping moments as chapters in our nation's history are written in real time.

Seventy years ago, on a warm November day, more than 107,000 people packed into the Melbourne Cricket Ground for the opening ceremony of the 1956 Olympic Games.

Thousands of others watched on brand new television sets, a few at home, but mostly in community halls and in shopfront windows, as the ABC, TCN9 and HS7 were launched, bringing TV to Australians for the first time.

The Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games wrote new chapters.

Cathy, Thorpey, Louise, Gazey, the Oarsome Foursome.

Through Sydney 2000, our athletes galvanised the country in such a way they are known simply by first names, or in great Australian tradition, by nicknames.

FUTURE MSEs & SUPPORT FOR ATHLETES

On June 17, our Government announced a commitment of $513 million dollars over two years from the Albanese Government to support Australia's athletes in the lead up to the LA 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This funding lays the foundation and provides stability ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, where new chapters will be written.

It goes without saying the Games will look different to Melbourne and Sydney—the Brisbane 2032 stories will be of a modern Australia, in the growing, cosmopolitan city and state.

Hosting major sporting events offers so much more than feel-good moments and real-life dramas.

They are an important part of Australia's cultural, social and economic landscape.

Major sporting events provide opportunities to showcase Australia to the world, drive tourism and trade, connect us to our Pacific neighbours and beyond.

They inspire participation in sport and physical activity across our communities, through inspiring moments, grassroots legacy programs, and talent identification programs.

BILL DETAIL

A critical element in securing and successfully hosting these events is ensuring event owners and their commercial partners can protect the emblems and images that are associated with events; the event intellectual property rights.

This Bill introduces a more flexible and efficient approach for Australia's hosting of major sporting events.

The current Act provides important protections but relies on Schedules within the legislation to prescribe individual events. This requires amendments to primary legislation every time protections are to be extended to a new event.

This Bill establishes a rules-based framework that enables major sporting events and associated protections to be prescribed by legislative instrument by the Minister, rather than through amendments to primary legislation.

The Minister must be satisfied the event is:

A central element of this framework is the introduction of clear statutory criteria to guide the declaration of major sporting events.

These criteria ensure protections are applied in a transparent, consistent and targeted way.

This includes protection against what is known as "ambush marketing by association", where a business seeks to promote itself by creating a misleading impression of an association with a major sporting event, without authorisation.

When fans pay good money to pull on jerseys, T-shirts, scarves or hats to support a major event, they need to know they are wearing the real deal.

Ambush marketing also undermines the value of official sponsorship arrangements, reduces private investment in major events, and can increase the financial burden on governments to support the delivery of those events.

Under this framework, key elements of protections—including the declaration of major sporting events, the identification of authorising and event bodies, the specification of protected indicia and images, and applicable protection periods—will be set out in rules made under the Act.

Clarifying that unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images in these contexts can constitute advertising for the purposes of the Act and will help ensure the legislation remains effective and fit for purpose.

INVESTMENT IN MAJOR EVENTS

Since 2022, more than $189 million has been delivered by the Albanese Government in support of major sporting events here in Australia.

The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup brought Sam, and Courtnee, Mackenzie and Mary onto our pitches, and into our living rooms and pubs.

"Tillies" is the most recognisable national team nickname in our sporting lexicon and the fields of dreams they played on in 2023 have genuinely inspired a new generation of Australians to play the round ball game—so many of them girls and women.

Along with event delivery partners and international sporting bodies, we are working to ensure future events are supported by the highest standards of integrity.

This Bill will improve responsiveness to an evolving major event calendar, reduce the need for repeated legislative amendments, and ensure protections can be implemented in a timely and proportionate manner.

Importantly, appropriate safeguards will remain in place.

Rules made under the Act will be legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny, including disallowance, and the declaration of major sporting events will be guided by clear statutory criteria set out in the Act.

In addition, the Bill removes outdated provisions relating to historical events.

The framework maintains a balanced approach to the protection of rights. Restrictions will apply only to unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images.

Existing exemptions will continue to apply, including for the purposes of reporting, criticism, review and the provision of information.

COMMUNITY IMPACT OF HOSTING MSEs

In the past four years, the Albanese Government has committed to support more than 15 major sporting events here in Australia.

Australians can be proud of the impact these events have had so far.

Not only did the 2022 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup inspire the legendary Lauren Jackson to return to the court, but it prompted the expansion and reach of the 'She Hoops' initiative for women and girls; created and fostered by Lauren herself, along with some of her incredible Opals team-mates.

The community legacy of other recent events includes:

I touched earlier on the power of the 2023 FIFA Women's World cup and the numbers don't lie. With legacy support from our Government, there has been:

Driven by this growing demand, the Albanese Government invested $200 million in the historic Play Our Way program. There are almost 300 community projects as part of Play our Way that are improving facilities, creating programs and enabling the purchase of equipment to help more girls and women play, and stay in sport.

UNITING FORCE OF MAJOR EVENTS

Recently, 4.78 million Australians tuned in to SBS, our national multicultural broadcaster to watch the Socceroos defeat Turkiye. Thousands more gathered in city squares, community football clubs and pubs around the country; These are Australians from all walks of life. Different backgrounds, different languages, different lives, yet united. Not divided. And not seeking to divide.

The fans—just like the Socceroos themselves—are all of us.

They're Aussie-born.

They're immigrants.

They're refugees.

Hugging strangers.

This is the power of sport.

CONCLUSION

Next month we'll celebrate six years to go until the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

And, following the passage of this Bill, rules will be developed to support that, and other upcoming major sporting events.

This Bill ensures our legislative framework remains fit for purpose, efficient and adaptable to future needs.

It reflects the Albanese Government's commitment to deliver incredible major sporting events and the chance for every Australian to benefit from their legacy, and to unearth their own 'where-were-you-when moments'.

ONLINE SAFETY AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT FOR THE SOCIAL MEDIA MINIMUM AGE) BILL 2026

It's been just over six months since Australia's world-leading law creating a minimum age for social media began.

A law that passed this Parliament with bipartisan support.

In that short period of time, more than 5 million underage accounts have been deactivated, restricted or removed.

And we're seeing green shoots of cultural change start to emerge.

According to a recent YouGov survey, 30% of young Australians aged between 13 to 15 are spending more time playing sport.

27% report better sleep.

Online bullying is down 9%.

And exposure to inappropriate and violent content has fallen by 18%.

Inspired by Australia's leadership, more than 20 countries have created or committed to creating their own legislation to delay access to social media.

Indonesia, Malaysia, France, Brazil, Norway, the United Kingdom, Gabon [guh-bon], the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Greece, Germany, Poland, Finland, the European Union, Belgium, Mexico, Austria, Italy, India, Kazakhstan, and Japan.

And big tech companies are beginning to compete on online safety, with Apple introducing new parental controls, in part inspired by Australia's action.

Australia has created a global movement that we can all be proud of.

Despite our immense progress, am not satisfied that tech companies are doing everything they can to keep under-16s off their platforms.

The eSafety Commissioner is actively investigating non-compliance by 5 major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

The Commissioner has found these companies adopting a number of dirty tricks to undermine Australia's law that are straight out of the big tech playbook.

It is clear, not just to the government, but parents, kids and teachers around the country that social media companies are deliberately failing to comply with the law.

Today Australia is sending a message to these companies.

We see what you're doing.

We are not here to play games.

If you want to do business in Australia, you must obey Australian laws.

And if you don't, you will face the consequences.

This Bill responds to these challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework underpinning the social media minimum age requirements.

Measures

Social media companies are among the richest and most influential companies in the world.

We know they have the capability and resources to comply with our law.

Today, we're giving eSafety more tools in their belt to take on these billion-dollar social media companies and hold them to account.

The Bill increases the maximum civil penalty for non-compliance with the law from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units—bringing the maximum penalty up to $99 million.

This aligns with recent amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and reflects the scale and resources of multinational platforms operating in Australia.

The Bill also strengthens the eSafety Commissioner's ability to obtain the information needed to assess compliance.

The amendments enable the Commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the Commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum age framework.

These changes will provide the Commissioner with more detailed evidence on what platforms are doing—or not doing—to comply with the social media minimum age.

They will also allow the Commissioner to verify what platforms are doing against what they say they are doing.

We are also doubling the penalties for failure to comply with information-gathering notices from the eSafety Commissioner.

Conclusion

Today, we are also sending a message to Australian parents.

Parents like, Tanya, who wrote to me overnight with the subject line "social media ban—keep going."

Tanya said—

I am a parent of a 12-year-old that started high school this year.

I am writing to express my thanks to the government for implementing the social media ban and to urge it to keep going.

There have been many critics and those eager to point out any failings to date. But not immediately achieving the desired success rate is not a reason to give up.

My daughter reports many of her friends still access social media and this is a source of frustration for her. So I support further strengthening of laws to force tech companies to act to reduce the number of kids still achieving access.

Please keep up the good work. Lots of parents are counting on it.

Tanya—the Albanese Government is on your side, and we will keep fighting for you and your daughter.

And to the parents who have been with us all along the way—Mia, Emma, Wayne... your courage gives us strength.

I call on all members of Parliament to join us in supporting the urgent passage of this Bill so that eSafety holds social media platforms to account as soon as possible.

Delaying or blocking passage means delaying or blocking accountability.

In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 is now adjourned until 11 August. In accordance with standing order 1153, further consideration of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 is now adjourned until 25 August 2026.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2026:

Fossil fuel industry engagement with children and young people, with particular reference to:

(a) the scale, nature and extent of fossil fuel industry engagement with children and young people, including through sponsorships, partnerships, educational resources, curriculum, programs, scholarships, mentoring initiatives and other activities undertaken directly or through industry associations, foundations and third-party organisations;

(b) the extent to which such activities influence children's and young people's attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and understanding of climate change, energy, environmental issues and the fossil fuel industry itself;

(c) the adequacy of existing transparency, disclosure, governance and oversight arrangements relating to fossil fuel industry engagement with children and young people;

(d) options to strengthen transparency, disclosure, accountability and protections for children and young people; and

(e) any other related matters.

This issue should concern every parent in the country. When a child walks into a classroom, they expect to receive an education. Their parents expect their children to receive an education, not brainwashing by multinational corporations with one objective: to make profit for as long as they possibly can. They want to brainwash our kids and buy social licence so they can pollute and plunder for as long as they possibly can and so they can make profits for their shareholders for as long as they possibly can, with no regard for these very children who are going to inhabit a future filled with extreme weather events and filled with uncertainty around crops, food security and climate insecurity.

It is devastating to know that this is going on for children as young as six months old. They're being dressed up in Santos vests or Woodside vests. They're being brainwashed about the climate crisis and being told that everyone has a responsibility. But of course they're not being told that it is those carbon majors who are pumping out pollution and destroying their futures. They're learning through vegemite on bread about the oil industry. They're plucking raisins out of cake to learn about mining and the benefits of mining. It is simply unacceptable that this is going on under the watch of state and federal education ministers. It is simply unacceptable.

Have you ever played Minecraft before? I don't want to trigger you.

Senator Canavan, I know your connections to the coal industry, and I know you have young children, so it frankly bamboozles me every time you speak about this.

Okay—

He's interjecting, so I took the interjection.

No, resume your seat, Senator Hodgins-May. We go to a pretty low place if we're casting aspersions on people's families in this place.

I'm casting aspersions on Senator Canavan.

Please continue your commentary, but I will ask you to—

Let's leave my kids out of it.

Senator Canavan, thank you, that's enough.

Parents across the country—

Senator Hodgins-May, can you please just take a moment and then resume—

Calm down.

No, Senator Canavan, you're not helping. Senator Canavan, that is not helping at all. We have different opinions in this chamber, and people are entitled to express them without casting aspersions on other people or their families.

A point of order, Acting Deputy President. Are you asking Senator Hodgins-May to withdraw that comment? Because otherwise you made a subjective value judgement as the chair of this Senate about something she said, which I don't think is appropriate. So I'd like for you to clarify that position, please.

Certainly. I was, as I would always do, providing some caution. But if you believe it should be withdrawn, then I will ask Senator Hodgins-May to withdraw it.

I'm not asking for it to be withdrawn, and nor do I believe it should be withdrawn. I think it's in order. I was asking you to clarify if you were making that point of order.

There is no point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson. As I am always prone to do if I start to see a conversation heading in a direction that I think will bring this place into disrepute or a disorderly environment, I will, at the first point, offer a suggestion of people to maintain the order. So no, I don't believe that we have gone that far. It was a caution, which I think is the appropriate level of response based on the commentary. If you have an issue with that, I'm happy to take that under advisement. Senator Hodgins-May, would you like to resume? I would just ask people to listen to the contribution in silence or leave the chamber.

Thank you. I am in this place, and my Greens colleagues are in this place, to protect children from corporate influence and to fight for this place to represent everyday people, not those corporate giants who purely exist to make profits. This is about making sure that our children are taught evidence and that they are taught by teachers with education and science based principles, not by industries trying to protect their reputations.

Our message to the fossil fuel industry is to get your dirty hands off our kids. Our message to the government, our urging to the government, is to please step up and take some responsibility here. We shouldn't have to be having this debate. We would not allow tobacco producers and the tobacco industry to teach our kids about health education. Why on earth are we letting the fossil fuel industry brainwash our kids? I say to the fossil fuel industry: leave your kids out of our marketing strategies and pay the tax on gas exports that this country is owed on our resources. There has to be a line in the sand. Surely all of us in this place can agree that our children deserve a fair and evidence informed education.

Debate interrupted.

I rise today to speak about the opening of the upgraded maternity facilities at Calvary Lenah Valley Hospital in Hobart. I was pleased to attend the official opening with the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and member for Lyons, Rebecca White MP. For any family having a baby, it's one of life's biggest moments. It is joyful but it can also be anxious, especially when parents are thinking about the care they will need during pregnancy, birth and those first days with a newborn. Families need to know that, when the time comes, reliable care is available close to home. That is why the Albanese Labor government committed $6 million to support maternity services in Hobart after Healthscope made the decision to stop providing private maternity services. That decision caused real concern for expecting parents in southern Tasmania. It raised questions about capacity, choice and whether Hobart families would continue to have the access to maternity care they needed. It's also a reminder that, when services in one part of the health system change, families still need certainty. They want to know where to go, who will care for them and that the system has planned for their needs. That is what this investment has helped deliver in Hobart and across southern Tasmania.

At Calvary Lenah Valley, it has helped deliver important improvements, including the renovation of an existing birthing suite, the refurbishment of the step-down nursery and new special care nursery equipment, including cots, incubators and monitoring and ultrasound equipment. These are the rooms where babies will be born. They are the nurseries where newborns who need extra support will be cared for and they give families reassurance at one of the most important times in their lives. The broader Hobart maternity service project also includes improvements in the public system. This includes a new four-bed intensive residential parenting unit at the Health and Wellbeing Precinct at St John's Park in New Town. It also includes a transition-to-home model at the Royal Hobart Hospital, with three additional en suite rooms, a shared lounge and a kitchenette. Some need help with feeding, settling, recovery, mental health or simply adjusting to life with a newborn. Having that support available can make a difficult time easier and can help families feel more confident as they head home.

I want to particularly acknowledge the staff at Calvary Lenah Valley. Buildings and equipment are important, but it is the people who make a health service work. It's the midwifes who provide calm and reassurance. It's the nurses who notice when something is not quite right. It's the doctors, allied health staff, administrators, support teams and cleaners who all contribute to safe care. Every one of them plays a part in supporting mothers, babies and families.

This upgrade is also a reminder of why this government is investing in health. From 1 July, the Albanese Labor government is making Medicare urgent care clinics permanent. We're also boosting funding for public hospitals, including with an additional $625 million for Tasmania over the next five years, and expanding endo and pelvic pain clinics to include menopause and perimenopause services. These measures are about making care easier to access, close to home and better suited to the needs of the community. For families in Hobart, this investment means stronger maternity capacity at Calvary Lenah Valley, it means the public system is also being supported and it means that, when services change, governments can work with local providers to make sure families are not left behind.

Health care is personal. It is the reassurance a family feels when they know the birthing suite is ready. It's the comfort of having skilled midwives and nurses close by. It is the confidence of knowing that, if a baby needs extra care, the right equipment and the right people are there. I congratulate Calvary Lenah Valley on the completion of these upgrades. I thank every staff member who contributed to this work and who continues to care for Tasmanian families every day. This is a good outcome for southern Tasmania, it's a good outcome for parents and, most importantly, it's a good outcome for the babies who will begin their lives in these upgraded facilities.

Just under three years ago, the majority of Australians in the majority of states rejected the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The verdict was blunt, unambiguous and secured in a democratic process: 61 per cent of Australians said no; 64 per cent of people in my home state of South Australia said no.

Journalist Janet Albrechtsen, of the Australian, has correctly reported a submission by the ACTU, the peak body for unions. Let me share what it says—and I share it because every single Labor person in this parliament represents a union. They said, 'A Voice is a fundamental structural antiracism mechanism.' I call it rubbish. Where is the evidence that supports that? That's just a statement. There's no evidence to back that up. In South Australia, where Labor has a legislated voice, eligible voters didn't even vote in 2026, with 3,308, of more than 30,000 who could have voted, not even bothering to cast a vote. Well, the ACTU submission also says, 'Let's talk about Australia Day.' But where economic and social exclusion is at its worst, those people just want practical action and for this government to hold accountable those with responsibility for taxpayers money to change their lives for the better.

This time last week, I was visiting a remote community—one I have visited many times over many years. I didn't get asked about Australia Day when I was there. There was no talk about a voice to parliament. What they did say was, 'We're burying more of our people and we're burying them more often.' They are sick to death of funerals. Closing the Gap targets are going backwards. Those four that are going backwards have been going backwards under Labor's watch. That's why I say, 'Ignore your union masters,' because out there, in those communities, they're not talking about Australia Day, they are not talking about Voice to Parliament, they are talking about improving their lives. That's what they want you to be focused on. And they want you to be only focused on that because that matters to them every single day.

I want to talk also about young South Australians who took up the expanded five per cent deposit scheme. Today, Labor could not even tell us how many of those people, who took up that scheme that you sold them, have a house worth less than the value of the loan that financed it. Even Cotality research director, Tim Lawless, described Labor's approach in expanding the five per cent deposit scheme to encourage more homebuyers into the market before introducing tax changes designed to dampen prices as 'in some ways counterintuitive'. In his words, 'Well, maybe that wasn't thought through.' Something else not well thought through.

In South Australia, we've seen the value of property fall almost instantly in response to that so-called tax reform. In Adelaide, in June, house and unit prices fell 0.2 per cent and auction clearance rates plummeted to 55 per cent in the week ending 27 June, down from 77 per cent a year earlier. Labor, you were warned. You chose to ignore the warnings, you chose to ignore the evidence and you didn't seek out the information you needed to make better decisions about your so-called tax reform. Australians will suffer as a consequence. What you did was prove that you don't represent ordinary Australians, hardworking Australians or aspiring Australians. What you proved instead is that you choose to listen to your paymasters—the unions.

It has been curious to watch the outpouring of support for multiculturalism from Labor and the Liberals since Senator Hanson unveiled her sad, bleak vision of a monocultural Australia, where she decreed that we must all live under the same so-called cultural umbrella—the same food, the same dress, the same ideas.

This is the iconic Paul Hogan's assessment of Senator Hanson:

She's a pelican, yeah. Outrageous, so racist. It sounds very much like this stupid boofhead over here, Trump.

I knew there was a reason I loved Crocodile Dundee. The fact is nothing that comes from her surprises me. One Nation has been pulling the same racist con job for the last 30 years. Around the time I came into this parliament, Senator Hanson was publicly describing my religion as a disease we need to be vaccinated against, so I'm not surprised when she descends further down the pole of human decency to farm outrage and generate clickbait.

Here is the part that should really sting. Labor and the Liberals don't get to pat themselves on the back. The reality is their vision of multiculturalism leaves a lot to be desired. If Pauline Hanson's monoculture is a nightmare, then the Labor and Liberal version is no dream either. It's still assimilation, just with more colourful clothes, better garam masala and a few more brown and black people in parliament. They still reduce multicultural communities to observers in the political process—where we are to be seen and not heard, where we are the cause of every problem in this society, where we are too successful and taking too many jobs or not successful enough and sitting on welfare, where we are taking up all the housing but you stay silent about property barons holding homes and the hundreds of thousands of dwellings that remain vacant.

The real question is: why have Senator Hanson's repugnant views—which, to her credit and to the detriment of everyone else, have been remarkably consistent—found a home after 30 years of her beating the same drum? Sure, we can point to the bot farms pumping out ridiculous, AI-generated One Nation slop. We could point to the billionaire patronage of people like Gina Rinehart, who told a summit recently that we should hand over free land in Queensland to Israeli weapons manufacturers to build their child-killing drones. But the deeper reason is successive governments, Labor and Liberal, have made our place—a migrant's place—in Australia conditional. A good migrant, apparently, is one who shuts up, smiles into photo opportunities and invites politicians to their cultural events with no expectations of being treated equally.

I know this makes those believers in fairytale land over here uncomfortable, but let's look at the evidence. This Labor government has decided that international students will be the scapegoat for the housing crisis that they did not cause. You have passed some of the most draconian antirefugee and antimigrant laws in this country's history—worse even than John Howard's laws. You gaslight communities of colour which oppose genocide and oppose their homelands being bombed and their families being killed by your ally Israel. You put ten-year-old First Nations kids behind bars without any qualms. You refuse to even respond to the National Anti-Racism Framework, let alone implement it. So don't you swan around here telling multicultural communities that you are the ones saving them from One Nation when you are the very ones who have created the conditions that have allowed One Nation and its particular brand of racist, far-right hate and division to thrive.

Multicultural Australia has become very skin-deep. While politicians are quick to point out the advantages of multiculturalism through cherrypicked cultural celebrations and economic contributions of migrant communities and have been quick to quote us as voting blocs, they have completely ignored the deeper issues of equality, racism, discrimination, lack of support and exploitation. We want an antiracist country where there is a true sense of belonging for everyone who lives here. This is about embracing true multiculturalism, not one that is assimilation disguised as such.

I think it's fair to say that most people would agree with me when I say: being an adult can be hard. But this government is doing the work to turn it around and make real change that actually helps Australians and Tasmanians. I think it's worthwhile cutting through the noise and pointing out just some of the big things that have recently happened and the key things that come into effect today, now that it's 1 July.

From today, employers under law will have to pay employee superannuation contributions at the same time as their wages rather than quarterly. This is a massive change that will reduce unpaid and delayed super and make retirement savings easier to track. People work hard for their wages but also for their super contributions. I'm really proud to champion Payday Super and how it will help workers be paid the super that they are owed. Superannuation payments owed to workers aren't the company's money. It's just like wages; it belongs to the workers. It's legally theirs. It shouldn't be used to manage cash flow.

I also want to point out another really big win for workers that happened recently which is worth celebrating. With the Labor government's support, the Fair Work Commission ruled to abolish junior pay rates for 18-to-20-year-olds for retail, fast food and pharmacy workers. This was a huge win for young retail workers and the SDA union, who have been advocating for workplace fairness for some time now through their Adult Age = Adult Wage campaign.

On Monday last week I met young people like Brayden and Olivia, two young Tasmanians who played a part in advocating for workplace fairness for young people. And, gee, that gives me hope for our future. We need to keep listening to our young people and keep fighting to fix the system and make it fairer. I believe that the community wins the most when the government actually talks to those impacted by the laws we consider here in Canberra and genuinely listens to their advice. We have to keep listening to the experts, workers, unions, businesses and vulnerable people in the community.

By sitting down, having these conversations and truly listening to these people, I've heard that there is more to be done. I've heard loud and clear how important superannuation is to all workers of all ages. I've heard about how workers under 18 are only guaranteed super if they work more than 30 hours a week for one employer. I've heard how most teenage workers, especially young women working part time, don't get super on their wages because of this rule. I've spoken to some of the 515,000 part-time workers under 18 years of age who are missing out to them. To them I say: I hear you. I understand that women already retire with about 25 per cent less super than men, and that gap can start from their very first job. Sure, some employers do the right thing and pay it anyway—which is great. But fairness shouldn't depend on how generous your boss is.

But, in order to get there, we need to make sure we have the foundations right. That's why we've worked so hard to secure payday super—so that employers can no longer toy with your superannuation. We had to first set the foundations to ensure the majority of workers are protected. Now that we have payday super kicking in today, we've set that foundation, locking in a huge win for workers' retirements. But, just like all good changes, we need to make sure we get it right. We must first help the majority, then plug the gaps and help the rest—just like our part-time workers aged under 18.

Superannuation is one of the best things Australia has ever done. It means ordinary workers can retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. But, like any system, it has to keep evolving to stay fair. Again, let's celebrate payday super. But let's also acknowledge that we are the party that believes there is always more to be done. We have to keep pushing not just for better pay and superannuation but also for better working conditions. We need to make sure that when people rock up for work they're treated with respect and dignity, because nobody deserves a serve, no matter their age or job description. Everyone should get the penalty rates and public holiday rates that they deserve, no matter which state they live in. We must keep listening to the workers and the unions that represent them, because, after all, we are the workers' party.

Senate adjourned at 19:49