OPD No. 546 seeks 'documents setting out the total number of first home guarantees issued by Housing Australia for the 2025-26 financial year to the end of May 2026, broken down by the top 10 suburbs in each state and territory'. In relation to that order, senators will be aware that the Minister for Housing wrote to the Senate to provide an interim response, advising that more time would be required to satisfactorily comply with the order.

I'm advised that this process continues. The government expects to be able to respond to the order in due course, so we will, as a government, responsibly, to the extent that it is possible, comply with the order of the Senate. That's what we do as a government when it is possible to do so. It is not the same response that I offered earlier this week in relation to another order for the production of documents which was captured by the cabinet confidentiality protections that are there to protect responsible Westminster-style governments in a way that has been the practice of the Australian government and this Senate not just for the last four years, not just for the last four decades, but for the period of existence of responsible democratic government in Australia.

This of course occurs in the context of a record number of orders for the production of documents agreed in this parliament with particular emphasis on this mechanism in the housing portfolio. It's become absolutely clear that Senator Bragg and his colleagues, on this question, as their wheels are spinning in policy terms, are bogged with an incapacity to be able to develop real policy that would build homes. They have substituted a capacity for policy development with a capacity for OPD drafting—abusing and traducing the processes of the parliament and this Senate in a kind of frenzied effort to distract Australians from the fact that this party, which used to be in the mainstream, used to be in the centre-right of Australian politics, has become completely unmoored.

Nothing would symbolise that more than this fact: we now have as many OPDs in this Senate—a record number—as public houses built by the coalition in a decade. There are more orders for production of documents than houses built for Australians, who needed them, by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments combined. That really should start to bring home to what's left of the sensible centre over there—not much—and to reasonable observers of Australian political life that this is a party that has completely lost its way. They're trying to confect a transparency crisis because they don't have anything to say about the policy issues. Let me give you a tip. OPDs are designed to be used in a sparing way when you're actually onto something. We used them in relation to some of Senator McKenzie's abuses of power and some of the other abuses over the Morrison period that were serious and sustained failures of governance during that sordid period of government. You ought to be a little bit more strategic and treat the Public Service with respect— (Time expired)

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Very sadly we see, on this last day of this session, another day when the government is unprepared, and I move to take note of the minister's non-explanation of why the government has failed to provide documents again. The reason that the Senate has ordered the production of these documents and insists on their production is because they are of great public interest. The government has spent millions of dollars on this five per cent deposit scheme. It has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising it across the country in very many different languages. More than 100,000 people have used it in the last year, many of whom will now be in negative equity as a result of the government deciding to encourage people to take 95 per cent mortgages out and then smashing them with new taxes, which pushes the value of their houses down and puts them into negative equity. That's how much this government cares about the Australian people.

The reason that we are determined to use the powers of this chamber in this democracy is that these documents belong to the Australian people and they deserve to see what they say. They deserve to be presented with them. This is the question at hand: how many people are actually in negative equity today? Let's not forget that, in October last year, the government abolished the means testing and said, 'We're happy to give these deposits to people who are earning more than 600 grand.' Apparently, those people need free insurance from the government. They abolished the place caps because, of course, there's no limit on taxpayer funds; we can just shell it out like monopoly money. Then, after they've shelled out all these 95 per cent mortgages, they came along and broke their promise and dumped $80 billion of new taxes onto the housing system. What that has done is push down the prices in hundreds of suburbs across the country.

In Sydney and Melbourne, almost 500 suburbs alone have seen prices go down by more than five per cent since 1 October. If you have a 95 per cent mortgage that you took out sometime between October last year and now and you live in one of those 500 suburbs in Melbourne or Sydney, you're in negative equity. The reason we're asking for this information about a suburb breakdown is that we want to know what exactly the government is doing to help these people that they have ensnared in this ridiculous scheme. What we now see is the government refusing to provide information that it has. We asked for it back in June. They came back in July and wrote us a stupid letter saying: 'We're trying to scratch around in the Treasury. We've got the pick and shovel out. We've got the excavator out down the back of Langton Crescent. We're trying to find the documents and the pieces of paper and the Dead Sea Scrolls. We haven't quite got there yet, but we'll try and come back next time.'

We hear today from Minister Ayres in his non-explanation that the pick and shovel are still out and the excavation is still going on down at Langton Crescent. In fact, they've decided to enhance the landscape down there and they're going to tip the Treasury building into Lake Burley Griffin because they can't find the documents. So they're going to try and float it away down to the other end of Canberra, down to the Molonglo. That's going to be their plan for giving us documents that they've lost, apparently. There you go.

The curious thing about all this is that on 1 October our good friend Mr Albanese and the housing minister put out a statement. They said they knew exactly how many people had taken out these guarantees in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. They knew it exactly, down to the last number—102,594. They knew which state and territory they lived in, so I would have thought that they'd also have the information about where they actually reside because that's how the scheme works. When Housing Australia gives out their guarantee, the person has to have a house.

We know you have the information. We know you treat this institution like garbage. We know that you think that the Australian people are idiots. We know that you think that your patronising approach in this chamber and your patronising approach on social media make you look good, but that doesn't actually solve any of the problems which the Australian people want you to work on. The reason the Australian people are so agitated and angry is that they're tired of being treated like this.

This is a basic request for information about how many people have these guarantees in which suburbs. You have the information. You're pretending that you don't. We want the information. You're happy to make your stupid press statements, bragging about your terrible achievements, including how many people you're probably putting into negative equity. Give us the documents. It is just not good enough for you to say you haven't got them. You know you've got them. (Time expired)

I'd like to take note of the comments already made, particularly those by Senator Ayres, in response to this matter. I agree with Senator Bragg about one thing: Australians aren't idiots. What I disagree with is what we should be focusing on here in this chamber. We should be focusing on building more housing for Australians. That is what this government is absolutely focused on. Senator Ayres, I think, rightly pointed out the government's response to this matter but also the record number of OPDs in this place to try and deflect and play politics with an issue that is very serious and important to the Australian people. It is about delivering more housing for Australians and delivering more housing that is affordable, and that is what we care about. We care about getting Australians into affordable housing.

We know Australians aren't idiots, and we know also that Australians don't want us to be playing politics with getting them into housing. We heard some entertaining words from Senator Bragg just then—something strange about Lake Burley Griffin and the like—but let's focus on what we really need to be focusing on, and that is the housing pressures that Australians are facing, which of course didn't emerge overnight. There's no single solution and there's no single fix. On this side, we know this and we want to work on this rather than play political games with the matter. Because of this, the government has taken a comprehensive approach to tackling the housing challenge. We are getting on with the job, not playing politics.

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has transformed the role of the Commonwealth in housing from a passive observer to implementer of the most ambitious national housing agenda that we've seen since the postwar era. We've commenced the largest housing build in Australia's history, with a goal of building 1.2 million homes, including 55,000 new social and affordable homes for the Australians who need them most. But increasing supply is only one part of the solution, and we're also making homeownership more accessible. Since coming to office, more than 260,000 Australians have purchased their first home through the government's five per cent deposit scheme. That has allowed eligible buyers to purchase with a five per cent deposit without paying lenders mortgage insurance. For many Australians, these changes will cut years off the time required to save a deposit while saving tens of thousands of dollars in lenders mortgage insurance. That is getting on with the job; that is not playing politics with people who want to get into housing.

We've also launched Help to Buy, our shared equity program enabling Australians who are eligible to purchase a home with as little as a two per cent deposit and a smaller mortgage. And, of course, parliament has passed our housing tax reform package. These reforms have a number of objectives. One of them is to create a fairer balance between the taxation of income earned through work and that of income earned through capital gains. The second is, importantly, to help more Australians achieve homeownership—again, delivering on housing rather than playing politics. The third is to improve productivity by directing investment toward more productive uses across the economy. On this, we know that the negative gearing aspects for residential property will change from 2027-28 to be limited to newly built homes, encouraging investment where Australians need it most, into—you guessed it—increasing more housing supply. The current 50 per cent capital gains tax will also be replaced with the inflation indexation from 1 July 2027, which ensures that tax concessions apply to genuine capital gains rather than inflationary increases. These reforms are expected to help around 75,000 additional first home buyers enter the market over the next decade while also helping to fund further tax relief for working Australians, because we on this side know that housing is important, we know it is a challenge, and we are absolutely focused on delivering more housing and getting more people into housing.

Alongside these reforms, we are investing a further $2 billion in enabling infrastructure, accelerating planning approvals, reducing red tape, expanding the skilled construction workforce and extending the ban on foreign investors purchasing existing homes until mid-2029. This is a comprehensive housing agenda—addressing supply and addressing affordability, homeownership and rental pressures simultaneously. The contrast with those opposite could not be clearer. We've heard that this morning, and I'm sure we'll continue to hear it—their policy solution, to tie this place up in arguments and debate about politics rather than actually deliver for Australians.

I rise to also take note of the nonanswer given by the minister. Once again, Labor ministers enter the Senate chamber and refuse to be transparent with orders that the whole Senate has agreed they should comply with. The order that we're debating here is for a request for information from June. It's now mid-October. You'd think they could find the documents. In order to access the five per cent deposit scheme, you actually have to have a house. You actually have to put that on your application. The support is given to you so the government knows exactly where these people reside. The only reason they are refusing to comply with the order of the Senate is that they're embarrassed. They're absolutely embarrassed about another failed housing policy, a housing policy that has seen over 51,000 noncitizens access the scheme. We heard Minister Ayres and previous speakers stand up and talk about how they 'want more Australians to own a home'. Well, stop giving taxpayer money to non-Australians—51,000, in fact.

When we think about getting young Australians in particular into homes, we want to make sure that those that are earning the median income in this country can help get them into their first home. But what does Labor do? They're supporting the fat cats. If you earn $600,000, you can access this scheme—taxpayer support competing against tradies and hairdressers trying to get into their first home. So it is no wonder the Labor Party is ashamed to come in and actually put on the public record the failure of this housing policy. They should hang their heads in shame.

I'll tell you what—they've been hanging their heads in shame all week. We've got the Treasurer and the PM at war with each other. Poor Chalmers! The PM just keeps driving that bus over him, reversing back over—

Senator McKenzie, could you please refer to people by their correct title?

Roadkill?

Roadkill? No, sorry—I'll take that interjection but then reject it!

No, no. If that's directed at a person, I'll ask you to withdraw.

It's not. Treasurer Chalmers and Prime Minister Albanese are at war with each other. We've seen that the Prime Minister had to backflip—to override his Treasurer, time and time again. Now the backbench are in revolt because they're sick and tired of having to defend the indefensible from this government. Here we have Labor senator after Labor senator come in and try to say they shouldn't have to comply with an order of the Australian Senate. Well, sorry, that's the great privilege of being in government. When the Senate orders the production of documents, you may not like it, but you need to comply because that's what a democracy is about.

The Australian people deserve to know where these first home buyer grants have gone to and whether those individuals are now in negative equity because the other policies you put in place around the housing industry have meant that prices have plunged. These first home buyers are now in negative equity. When this was first raised, the Labor Party didn't know what negative equity was. Remember that ABC interview where poor old Matt Thistlethwaite struggled to explain what negative equity is? That's where the Labor Party's economic agenda on housing leaves first home buyers.

This government's lack of compliance with the Senate's order for the production of documents is staggering. And what do they do? Minister after minister and senator after senator come in and complain about needing transparency. It is the Australian Senate that has required this on behalf of the Australian people, and you are beholden to comply with it. It shouldn't be up to us to have to use freedom of information processes to back up the order for the production of documents. Stop being ashamed of your policy. We know it's failed. We know that people are in negative equity. We know that non-Australians are accessing the schemes. We know that fat cats are able to access your schemes because you are a failure at economic management and at getting Australians into homes. That's okay. Why don't you be men and women of conviction and responsibility—leaders? Own your failure and get on about fixing it instead of pretending it's not happening.

I also rise to take note of the contribution from the Minister representing the Minister for Housing this morning. This OPD was passed in June, and we're still waiting. From what the minister said this morning, we understand that the 'process continues'—those were his words—and that the government expects to respond 'in due course'! Well, who knows when that will be? It's certainly not this week. And yet this is really important information. We want to know who has access to the scheme, which the Labor government has taken the lid off to allow people on unlimited incomes to get access. We need to know this. It's important that we find out. We're asking for it to be broken down by the top 10 suburbs. That information is important. We need it, and we need it soon. 'In due course' is no date at all. Here we are, still waiting.

One of the really consistent characteristics of this government around housing is its failure to actually meet its targets and, most importantly, its failure to give us timely, accurate information about all the ways in which housing is affecting Australians. One of the most important issues—the biggest crisis, and a most important element of the cost-of-living crisis—is the housing crisis, and yet here we are begging for data, here in the Senate, to understand what's going on.

We have governance arrangements around housing, put in place by this Labor government, that are completely inadequate. Where is the data on so many aspects of this crisis? We need it to make sense of what we're doing—to evaluate policy, to work out what's going right and what's going wrong, and to see who's being left behind. We know millions of people are being left behind. The governance on data and information and all of these programs is utterly inadequate, and it's one of the reasons why, in this recently tabled report on the housing crisis in Australia, particularly focusing on how it's impacting on young people, we have made a recommendation that it's time for a department of housing. We need real structures in there so that we don't have to chase data through OPDs and all these other little devices and crevices that are available to us to try and work out what's going on. We need regular data.

The day before yesterday, I had a meeting with the ATO: 'Tell us what's going on with tax.' There is so much information available to us publicly and privately, directly from the ATO. Where is the equivalent information on housing? The Minister for Housing is failing us in terms of timely data, so we use OPDs. Yes, we use a lot of them sometimes to try and get to information that is basic decision-making data in a crisis on housing, and Labor is failing us. They need to be dealing with this data and our requests in a much more timely way, and we should not be waiting on reports from the ANAO to know what's going on. That's what we're currently relying on. We've got reasonable information from the ANAO.

The day before yesterday, we heard the Minister representing the Minister for Housing in this place attacking his opponents for using the figure of 1,432 homes so far created through the HAFF, the jewel in the crown of Labor's policy. There are 1,432 homes of the 40,000 promised, two years into a five-year program. The ANAO are saying they're very sceptical that we're going to get to 20,000 homes in two years time and then to the target of another 20,000 homes a year later. We are so far from realistic assessment about what's going on here. The ANAO are one of the few sources of information available to us, and they say that this program and its transparency are insufficient. That's the ANAO saying it's insufficient.

So we in the Senate are joining in a complaint that the transparency of information available to us to judge this policy, in a massive housing crisis, is utterly inadequate, and we are going to continue to come here and ask for information because Australians want to know what's going on here. We heard data yesterday that nearly 80 per cent of Australians are really worried about the unlimited rent increases and want a regulation system around renting. Where are the government's proposals on this? Where is the data on what's going on out there for renters? Average rent is now over $700 a week. No-one on minimum wage can deal with that and put milk in the fridge. That is a massive crisis, and the government is not giving us the governance we want. Its systems are failing, and we need action. (Time expired)

Never has the contrast been more stark between those of us on this side of the chamber and the Liberals and the Greens, who are again teaming up to tie up this chamber's time in endless OPDs, stand in the way of budget savings and tackling intergenerational inequality and stand in the way of us fixing the integrated assessment tool that older Australians are asking for. It's the same pattern, day after day, in this place. Certainly, we're seeing it very clearly this week.

I wonder what the 102,000 Australians who've entered the housing market just in the past year since Labor expanded the five per cent home deposit scheme would say to Senator McKenzie's and Senator Bragg's claims that our housing policy has failed. That's 102,000 Australians who are living in their own home. Do Senator McKenzie and Senator Bragg and the Greens want them to just stay in rentals? Senator McKenzie and Senator Bragg want to tie Australians up in paying rent to their property investor mates instead of living in a home that they own. I know that my generation don't want to be paying rent for the rest of their lives to the Liberal and National parties' property investor mates. They want to be in a home of their own, and I am proud of our Labor government's agenda and of our action to help young Australians get into their own home. A hundred and two thousand Australians have been able to buy their very first home with only a five per cent deposit. And it's not just those Australians who've benefited. Over the life of our five per cent home deposit scheme, it's 280,000 Australians since 2022, since we came to government. That's nearly 300,000 Australians who I'm fairly confident don't believe the scheme is a failure of government policy. I think it's exactly what young people want to see from their government, and that's why we are committed to continuing to do that work.

I welcome the day when the Liberal Party come into this place with their housing plan. We know that for most of their time in government they didn't have a housing minister. They barely built a home for Australians to live in. Perhaps one day they might walk into this place—the National Party might too—with a plan to get young people into a home of their own. I'm all ears. I'd love to hear it. Young Australians would love to hear your plan to get Aussies into their first home, but you don't have one. Instead, you come in here and you call our scheme a failure. You tie us up in OPDs. You complain. You stand in the way of our agenda. That's all a way of hiding the fact that you don't have a plan. Young Australians know it. It's why they're not interested in voting for the Liberal and National parties at the moment: they know you're not interested in listening to them about what they want from government, about what they need from us in these times, which are challenging. Saving for a home deposit is not easy, and we don't want—

Exactly! I'm going to take that interjection from Senator Allman-Payne. Rents are high, and that's why we don't want young Australians to have to keep renting and paying rent to the Liberal and National's property investor mates. That's what this entire scheme is about. This entire scheme is about making it more affordable for young Australians to get into their own home.

Australians have saved more than $2.5 billion in LMI under our home deposit scheme. That's money that could have been going to the banks; that's money that, if the Liberals and Nationals had their way, would have been going to the banks in LMI. Instead, hundreds of thousands of Australians can be proud of the fact that they have a home of their own. The average first home buyer purchasing a national median priced home with a five per cent deposit are saving just over $23,000 in LMI. That is not a failure. Our government is proud of the work that we have done to help Australians get into their own home, and we will continue to do it day after day.

In speaking to this motion for attendance by the minister, I want to remind the chamber that this is actually about two issues, both equally important, and they are the issues of transparency and accountability. It is the role of this chamber to be the house of review, through the committee process, through how the chamber is elected with senators from each state. It is not designed to be a partisan rubberstamp for decisions of the executive. It is the role of this chamber to hold the executive to account, and part of that role is through a mechanism called the order of the production of documents. That allows this chamber, on behalf of Australians—the taxpayers and the voters but all Australians—to actually find out what the government is up to. The opposition and the crossbench use this on regular occasions, and the government doesn't like it. The government doesn't like it when this Senate passes orders for the production of documents. My considered position I put to the government and to those who wish the veil of secrecy to be held over government is that, if you have nothing to hide, you should not be concerned or worried about the release of documents. They often go to how the policies of the government of the time—at this point, it's the Labor Party—are being enacted in practice. If the governing party, the Labor Party, are so proud of the policies put into practice through the government, then they should not be worried about releasing the relevant documents concerning that policy, which is why we in the opposition—I don't want to speak for the crossbench—are bemused at best as to why the Labor Party are kicking up such a stink about releasing documents that have been ordered through the processes of the Senate.

An order for the production of documents isn't 'we would like you to do this'. It is an order of this elected chamber to the executive. What we are seeing increasingly with this Labor government is that they are refusing to submit to the will of the people and submit to the will of this chamber. I remind this chamber that the Prime Minister, before the 2022 election, said he would lead 'the most transparent and accountable government ever'. It was one of those core election promises. He went around the country saying how transparent and accountable he would be as prime minister. But, ironically, Prime Minister Albanese is leading the least transparent and least accountable government since Federation, and that has been shown this week with the number of orders for the production of documents that have passed through the Senate chamber that have not been complied with by the Labor government and that have subsequently resulted in the responsible minister being forced to attend this chamber to give an account as to why the Labor government are refusing to comply with the order. Yesterday we saw very ugly scenes in this chamber, where Labor Party senators, with wilful intent, attacked opposition senators rather than giving a factual account as to why those particular documents had not been provided.

The particular OPD that Senator Bragg has put through this chamber goes back to June of this year. It was four months ago that this order was put in; it wasn't put in last week. The government have had four months in which to comply with this order for the production of documents. It's not to do with some obscure policy or some particularly detailed and complex policy. It is to do with a key policy of the Labor Party concerning housing, and housing is an important issue in Australia. What we're seeing from this government, sadly, is a refusal to admit that they have made a mistake and a refusal to admit that their policies are actually hurting Australians.

Question agreed to.

In 2026, people can be shackled while giving birth and children can have their clothes removed by adults to examine their bodies—legally. Today, by passing my two private senator's bills, this could change. The people sitting in this room have the power to end these barbaric, inhumane, traumatic and totally unnecessary practices.

I want to share the stories of two people who gave evidence to the inquiries into my bills. Proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman Heather Calgaret was a mother to four beautiful children whom she loved dearly. She was the rock of her family. In 2019, while on remand, Heather gave birth to her baby whilst shackled to the hospital bed. In November 2021, Heather died in custody after being given a high dose of buprenorphine, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, even though she had no history of opiate use. She was found in critical condition by her sister, Suzzane. She was 30 years old. Speaking at the hearing into my bill, Suzzane said, and I quote:

Heather was my sister. She was a mother and a deeply loved member of our family. When in custody and giving birth, she was treated with cruelty that no human being should ever have to endure. She was shackled and restrained while bringing life into the world.

My sister was not just restrained while giving birth; she was also shackled when holding my niece for the first time. She only got to hold her with one arm. It definitely made a big psychological, emotional wreck of her when she came back into custody because she was only allowed two more hours with baby after giving birth and then sent back to prison.

That just ruined her. I sat with her while she cried for the next two months, and she continued to cry, but it didn't help at all. No woman should ever have their most vulnerable and sacred moments turned into a scene of torture. Life is precious. Given the circumstances of everything she went through and now her passing away, her story needs to be told. It needs to be heard. And there definitely need to be changes in how they deal with their workplace.

She's not here anymore, and it's really hard to cope and to deal with not having her presence here anymore and with everything that she went through. I feel I've taken on a lot of the load now; I'm her voice and I need to speak for her, because if I don't, then who will? No-one.

They need to understand the severity of shackling during childbirth. As I said, it's inhumane. I don't even know how it came about as something that should be done. The most precious moments in life are when a mother gives birth to their child, and they should not ever have to be like that. And now that my sister's not around, it just makes it even harder. There was all the stress and torment that she went through—psychological, emotional and mental—with everything that happened. Then losing her—no-one will ever know. But it is a very dangerous thing that they still have occurring, and it needs to be gone.

And this is not just for Indigenous but non-Indigenous too—for all women. We bring life into this world, and it should not ever be brought in in the way it had been for my sister. I couldn't imagine giving birth while being shackled by one leg and one hand to the railing while giving birth. It's insane. There are no words for it.

And what about strip searching? Let me tell you just a little bit more about what it's really like in practice. This is what Sharon, an Aboriginal woman, experienced as a girl, and I quote:

A male cop entered with the Sergeant, the door was closed behind them and I was told to remove my belt, jewellery and shoes and place them on the desk. I was asked if I was wearing a bra and I answered that I was. Sergeant told me to remove it and also place it on the desk.

I started to panic inside, my heart was beating and I started to shake in fear because I seriously believed these two men were intending to rape me as I had no knowledge of the way the system worked and I didn't know about strip searches or any of that stuff. But I did know about rape due to having been a victim of it only months beforehand.

I reluctantly took my bra off by undoing it at the back and pulling the straps down through the armholes of my shirt and then pulling my arms back up through those armholes leaving my shirt still on but only hanging by the neck hole. I stepped forward to put my bra on the desk and was told to move back against the wall and to lift my shirt to expose my breasts one side at a time. I was also instructed that once my breast was uncovered, I had to lift them up with my hand so they could see I was not hiding anything under them.

That done, I was allowed to put my shirt back down and was told to take my skirt off and the Sergeant motioned to place that on the desk along with the other items. I couldn't contain my feelings any longer and burst into tears saying that I didn't want to take it off.

He said that if I didn't, he would have to remove it himself. And he took a step forward so I unzipped it from the back and slid it downwards, knelt down with my back still against the wall, picked it up and placed it on the desk.

I was then standing in only a t-shirt and a tiny pair of knickers feeling very exposed, vulnerable, afraid and confused. The Sergeant told me to pull my knickers down to mid-thigh and to part my legs slightly.

I was still afraid and now even more embarrassed because I was also bleeding and had a tampon in which had leaked onto my underwear as I had no means of changing it.

He made a derogatory comment in regards to my knickers being dirty and asked when I had last bothered to change them. They both stared at my pubic area for a few seconds before he told me to stand on one leg and lift the other one and then the same on the other side.

Finally, I was told to turn around to face the wall, take a step backwards from it and bend forward and lift each leg again. I was then allowed to turn back around, pull my knickers back up and put my skirt back on. I was not allowed to put my bra back on though.

The Sergeant took me out of the room and down to the cells where the adult female prisoners were kept. By now I believe I was in a bit of shock. I had stopped crying, relieved that I hadn't been raped, but feeling like I had been.

If that's not sexual assault, what is it?

The inquiries into these two bills received overwhelming support from medical organisations, legal organisations, oversight and ombudsman bodies, human rights organisations and so many people who wrote in about their own experience of these practices and what these experiences did to them. Medical organisations have been writing to the Labor Party and the coalition to ask for change as late as yesterday. So each of you in this chamber has a choice. I know that many of you are horrified by these practices from the many conversations I've had with senators across all parties. You can vote to have these barbaric abuses continue, or you can vote today to end them.

The committee reports into both these bills said that these are state and territory matters—that it's not up to this Labor government to legislate on these matters. But this government has the external affairs power to legislate on this. This is backed by the evidence received by this inquiry from a range of legal bodies and others. We shouldn't expect state and territory governments to ban the abuse they are themselves causing, when this government won't do anything themselves. That will just ensure the abuse continues.

The committee reports also raise a number of specific issues—asking for an offence to be added to the bill, prohibiting shackling, asking for monitoring and recordkeeping, asking for definitions to be clarified. I've introduced amendments addressing all of those issues, and I'm more than happy to strengthen these bills. Tabitha Lean, organising member of the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, said it best at the hearings into these bills:

… governments across this country are getting elected off the backs of their strong law and order stance.

… … …

We are always left out of the conversation, but we're always the ones at the sharper end of the policies that the government comes out with.

… … …

… criminalised, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people are disposable in this community. We're very rarely around the table to discuss these issues, and, when we are, we get a short amount of time to do it. I would love to see politicians, more broadly, reframe this debate. But it's not about that. It's about abolishing it ... I don't know how you can actually shave off any of the grotesque flourishes of sexually assaulting children and make that more palatable … to people. You just have to be brave and actually make the decision. If you suffer consequences … then that's what you do to protect the children in our community.

So I ask all senators who have any decency in their hearts, who have the decency to protect women and children in this country and who have any legal knowledge—because there are a lot of lawyers in here, and you know that legally we have the power in this place to change and to stop this demonic abuse of women and children—to think about the real consequences of your vote: more babies dying, more women dying, more abuse, more paedophilia and more rapes. That's what you're voting for. So think about that consequence before you jump up and shut it down and join forces with each other. Think about people like Tabitha, people like Sharon and people like Heather Calgaret, who should still be with us today. Just do the right thing by them. It's all we're asking. Do the right thing with the power that this place has. We signed up to end torture through OPCAT. This is torture. We signed up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This breaches that. So give your party a conscience vote, because I've seen the shock horror of the women in your parties. Even One Nation are shocked. Just do the right thing. Stop the torture.

I will first address Senator Thorpe's bill relating to the shackling of women during pregnancy, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. The coalition understands the intent of this bill and respects Senator Thorpe for her passionate and sincere advocacy on the issue but will not be supporting the bill in its current form. The Senate referred the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and held public hearings into this proposed legislation. While I was not personally on that committee, I speak on behalf of the coalition senators who were. This matter received many submissions from numerous stakeholders. Ultimately, the committee found that it is not the right legislation, as the committee found that it contains deficiencies that risk creating further uncertainty, without ensuring the ban would in fact be effectively implemented. Corrective services are a state and territory responsibility, as the committee found. These issues are best addressed at that level. The committee did not recommend that the bill be passed.

The better path to effectively address the problem identified by Senator Thorpe is for the Commonwealth to work with the states and territories, as the committee recommended. At present, corrective services are run by the states and territories, which are responsible for laws and policies on the use of restraints. The policies of each state and territory are different from each other. This bill would insert a new section 87A into the Crimes Act 1914, banning the restraint of a person who is detained in prison, detained in a hospital or otherwise in custody at any time during the childbirth process. That covers labour, giving birth and the periods immediately before entering labour and immediately after giving birth. The prohibition covers physical, chemical, environmental and mechanical restraint. It contains no general exception for risks to safety or of escape, although the definitions exclude limited therapeutic measures and hands-on actions to redirect someone away from harm. It would override any state or territory law that is inconsistent with the ban and commence the day after royal assent. In practical terms, officers could not use restraint covered by the bill during childbirth merely because a risk assessment identified danger to the woman or to others.

The committee heard that stakeholders who oppose the shackling of women during birth still raised concerns about the provisions of this bill. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists asked that the bill be clarified to protect clinicians who provide pain relief, epidurals and other medication during emergencies. The college also asked that the safety of staff and other patients be given consideration. The Institute of Gender Law & International Justice said that the definition of chemical restraint does not cover treatment of a mental illness or acute psychiatric condition, which could conflict with clinically indicated mental health care. The Justice and Equity Centre said that terms 'immediately before entering labour' and 'immediately after giving birth' are ambiguous. Sisters Inside noted that the bill does not establish a reporting scheme, remedies or an investigation pathway.

So the committee did not recommend that the bill be passed. It found that the evidence about shackling in childbirth was concerning. It noted that reliable national data doesn't exist on how widespread the practice is, and it was concerned that the bill created no offence for contravention and has no reporting or remedies provisions. It also found that the bill as drafted contains deficiencies, including uncertainty around key definitions, which results in further confusion and inconsistencies. It considered that these issues are most appropriately addressed by the states and territories through their corrective services legislation and their policies and accountability frameworks. It recommended that the Commonwealth consider pathways to engage with the states and territories and work with them and with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to collect data on pregnancy and childbirth in custody. I acknowledge the deeply emotional stories that have been told today by Senator Thorpe, but, for these reasons, the coalition will not be supporting the bill.

I now turn to the bill proposing a banning of the stripsearching of children, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026. This bill has also been reviewed by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. Again, the coalition understands the intent of this bill and acknowledges those who have shared their experiences with the committee. At present, under the Crimes Act of 1914, a child under 10 cannot be stripsearched at all. Under that act, a young person aged 10 to 17 can only be stripsearched if they have been arrested and charged or a magistrate has ordered it. A parent, guardian or other acceptable support person must be present.

This bill would ban strip searches, including partial strip searches of anyone under 18 who is suspected of an offence, under arrest, detained or otherwise in custody or who is visiting or otherwise associated with such a person, with no exceptions. It would override any state or territory law that is inconsistent with the ban, and it would commence on the day after royal assent. In practical terms, an officer who believed a 17-year-old in custody was concealing a weapon or an item to self-harm would have no lawful power to conduct a strip search.

The AFP told the committee that a prohibition would have negative impact on its ability to promptly locate and recover weapons, evidential material and other seizable items. That includes items that may present a danger to the person detained, other people that are in custody or officers and items that could be used to escape from lawful custody. The AFP also pointed to the safeguards already in section 3ZI of the Crimes Act, including the additional safeguards for young people aged 10 to 17. ACT Policing recorded only one strip search of a young person aged 10 to 17 in the past five years. That search was conducted in 2026 to ensure the safety of a young person who was attempting self-harm in custody. Under this bill, that search would not have been lawful.

The committee found that the existing protections in the Commonwealth legislation are sufficient to preserve the rights of the child. It heard that there is already a sufficiently high threshold for stripsearching a child under the Crimes Act and would agree that there should be a high threshold. The committee also heard that there are circumstances where a strip search is necessary, particularly where there are concerns for the safety of the child or for others.

The committee found that commencing the day after royal assent would not allow enough time for the policies, the training and alternative search methods needed for effective policing and safe detention centres. It noted that the incidences of strip searches of children in detention are declining as alternatives such as body scanners are introduced, and that is a good thing. It is recommended that the government consider pathways to engage with states and territories on these issues and work with them on data and on training.

Again, the coalition appreciates the intent of this bill and the passionate advocacy of Senator Thorpe in this issue, but it won't be supporting the bill in its current form. This is not the right legislation, because a blanket ban with no exemptions removes the power to stripsearch even when a young person's safety is at risk. The Australian Federal Police have warned that the bill would have a negative impact on its ability to recover weapons and dangerous items in custody. The Crimes Act already sets a high threshold with strong safeguards, and the committee found that those protections are sufficient.

I rise to speak on the two bills before the chamber at the moment, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, and I'll deal with them in that order.

The government acknowledges the concerns raised about stripsearching persons under the age of 18, and the government also acknowledges the important issues that are raised by the bill, including recognising the rights of children and young people. Responsibility for the criminal justice system predominantly rests with states and territories. Searching powers for state and territory police are regulated by states and territories. These powers are used sparingly. For example, ACT police have only performed a search on a child once in the last five years.

No, that's incorrect. You've got the old report. That report was corrected.

Order! The minister has a right to be heard in silence, as you were.

That's wrong information. She's telling lies.

I am asking you to come to order so that we can proceed.

They did not record strip searches for the past 25 years. It's incorrect information.

Order! Senator Thorpe, these are your bills. Everyone has a right to be heard in silence. You had your opportunity—

I get your point. Move on.

to speak. Allow other senators to make their contribution.

I'm not going to be told by you.

If you can't sit and listen, then I invite you to leave the chamber.

The government notes the inquiry into the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The government acknowledges the evidence provided to the committee through submissions and public hearing, including the impact that stripsearching has on children and young people. The committee found that existing protections in Commonwealth legislation are sufficient to preserve the rights of the child and recommended the government engage with states and territories to address the concerns identified in the report, including training, accountability and transparency.

The government acknowledges the important issues raised in the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill. This includes the harm suffered by the mother and child when subjected to such restraints. We are concerned by the appalling stories raised about the practice of shackling pregnant women who give birth under custodial sentences. The government recognises the importance of strong safeguards and oversight in relation to the exercise of restrictive practices, including those used on vulnerable individuals, such as those in labour.

This bill seeks to ban the shackling of pregnant women who give birth while under custodial sentences. The bill does this by inserting a section 87A into the Crimes Act to prohibit restraint of people while they are giving birth. The bill includes a broad definition as to what is considered a restraint, which includes physical, mechanical, environmental and chemical restraints. As the bill states, the proposed section applies to a person who is detained in prison or a hospital or is otherwise in custody. Laws and policies related to this fall within the remit of the criminal justice system of the state or territory in which this person is held. The responsibility of the criminal justice system is one that predominantly sits with state and territory governments. It's on this basis that the government does not support the bill.

The government notes the inquiry into the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The committee considered two main questions in relation to the bill: firstly, whether the use of restraints during childbirth is a serious concern; and, secondly, when the bill provides an appropriate, effective and legally sound means of addressing that concern across states and territories. The government acknowledges the evidence provided to the committee through submissions and through public hearings. This evidence raised serious concerns about the practice of restraining women while giving birth in custody. Anecdotal evidence demonstrated the use of this practice in different jurisdictions and the personal impact it has on the health of a mother and a child. Several submitters highlighted the specific impact the practice of shackling during childbirth has on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women.

The committee also heard about the lack of reliable statistical data on the use of shackles during childbirth in Australian correctional facilities. It was highlighted that the lack of uniform data collection has resulted in a gap in understanding about how often this practice is used and how it applies across different jurisdictions. When assessing whether the bill is the appropriate vehicle to address what is a very serious issue, the committee concluded that these issues are most appropriately addressed by states and territories through their corrective services legislation, policies and accountability frameworks. The committee ultimately made two recommendations: first, that the Commonwealth consider appropriate pathways to engage with states and territories to address issues raised by the bill, and, second, that the Australian government work with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the states and territories to collect data around how many women are pregnant and give birth while in custody in Australia each year. The government will consider these recommendations in detail.

In November 2023, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing commissioned the Nous Group to undertake the National review of First Nations healthcare in prisons on behalf of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Collaboration, which comprised Commonwealth, state and territory government health officials and First Nations health sector representatives. The review noted the shackling of women during childbirth for the safety of health staff as an example of where interactions with custodial staff and security requirements can inhibit access, quality or delivery of health care. In December 2024, Commonwealth state and territory health ministers jointly endorsed this review. They committed to developing a national approach to implementation of its six recommendations for reform. This included a recommendation for health and justice ministers to investigate evidence and take steps to cease any practices that violate prisoners' rights. The development of—

The deaths in custody royal commission, 1991, has the answers. It was 35 years ago!

Order! I will remind you, Senator, that you have the right to reply when the debate is coming to an end. So I invite you to make some notes and you can respond in your comments rather than interjecting now.

I was indicating that the Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers have jointly endorsed that review. They have committed to developing a national approach to implement the six recommendations for reform. This included a recommendation for health and justice ministers to investigate evidence and to take steps to cease any practices that violate prisoners' rights. The development of this national approach has been led by the health collaboration in partnership with governments and First Nations stakeholders from the health and justice sectors.

On 3 September, the health collaboration provided their advice to health ministers at the 2026 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health roundtable. This advice is now being considered by governments. At the health roundtable, ministers reaffirmed their commitment to continue to work together to achieve improvements to the health and wellbeing of First Nations people in places of detention and upon their release. The government believes that all Australians are entitled to safety and dignity, including those in custody.

I rise to echo the words of Senator Thorpe and stand in solidarity with her for bringing these two very important bills, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, before the Senate. I want to begin by asking all my fellow colleagues to picture something—a woman in labour in excruciating pain. She's frightened. Her heart's palpitating. She's about to bring a baby into the world. But she has a cuff around her wrist and a chain on her leg attached to a hospital bed. Tell me what safety that serves and who that is protecting. That mother is fighting for her life and trying to bring another life into the world. I surely can't answer that, and, from listening to the evidence, I see that neither could the people who gave it. They're absolutely shocked at this government's denial of how barbaric this practice is. It has no place in Australia, and it should have ended a very long time ago.

The fact that we're still debating this is outrageous. The bill is so simple that you would sit and wonder why on earth something isn't being done about it. It prohibits restraints during labour, during childbirth, immediately before labour and immediately after birth. Tell me, after going through all that pain, what strength you have to then deal with having shackles around you. This would simply be achieved by inserting a new section, 87A, into the Crimes Act 1914. It's not asking for some revolutionary change but rather a floor beneath which no woman in this country should be treated. It's basic human rights and dignity, and it's also forward looking. It commences the day after royal assent and applies to conduct from that day.

It wasn't long ago that I went through my own experience of childbirth, four and a half months ago. The lead-up to the actual date was just fear inducing because I had to go through this whole induction process. I was exhausted. I was tired. There were all these complications, and the doctors were so focused on trying to provide that care in that moment. Then came the actual birth process, where I was induced. Through that induction, there was pain, excruciating pain. I'm telling you, if you haven't been through it or if you haven't seen someone go through it, you won't understand. I thought I understood—until I went through it myself. It's hours and hours of waiting and of going through pain. It is akin to having all your ribs mushed together. The amount of anxiety and stress that you're going through in that moment is just unfathomable.

I was lucky that in those moments I had the support of my family and I was surrounded by people whose only job was to help me—midwives, nurses, consultants, specialists. Imagine the same room with a guard, a lock and a chain. How is that conducive to any productive experience? A birth with every support around me left me with so much trauma. I think about a hospital and I get PTSD. The whole process, yes, the midwives were there, and they were wonderful. They tried to help. But I go through induction and then realise that I had to have an emergency caesarean. Seven layers get cut open. The baby is taken out. I am literally numb waist down, and they wheel me into the ward. They dismiss and excuse my husband to go back home, and they say, 'Alright, off you go dad.' I'm left with this newborn baby. I can hardly lift, let alone feed. And you're just expected to continue doing that. So, no, I didn't have the golden hour of skin to skin straight after having the baby, because they were too busy trying to stitch me up. All the blood loss—you're absolutely exhausted after the experience, and then in the days to come afterwards. And, yes, I had to go back into hospital after being discharged, because I had an infection. And sometimes those infections can be deadly.

We completely forget—if I had a birth where, yes, I had all the supports around me and people who were there to make sure that it was as smooth of a process as it was, and I'm still feeling that trauma, what does it do to a woman who's restrained in chains, shackled, who barely has any moment of joy with their baby? This practice has no benefit for the mother, and no baby benefits from this. The medical risks are real. Restraints limit movement. We've heard from medical experts who say that it interferes with the health care and delays emergency response. If I was in shackles, for example, and they had to take me in for an emergency caesarean, I can't imagine how long that process would have taken. And labour is unpredictable. You can have the best labour and birth plan, and then in that moment things can just turn upside down. And when something goes wrong, clinicians do need to move really fast. Before the birth, restraints can shift a pregnant woman's centre of gravity, and if her wrists are restrained, it just—I can't believe we're having this debate. I just can't, because the flashbacks that I'm having and now adding the extra layer of imagining a woman all chained up—and there's the psychological harm that lasts from an experience like this. Women who have been restrained during childbirth report severe mental distress, depression, anguish and trauma.

So what do we get in exchange for all this harm? Senator Thorpe pointed out there is no evidence that shackling prevents escape or reduces risk, and there are no reports of any unrestrained person trying to escape during childbirth. Like, are we serious? And we've got the government, who's deflecting responsibility and shirking it off and saying: 'Well, it's states' and territories'. It's up to the states and territories to do something about this.' We know that the states and territories had an opportunity. Many have policies, but those policies contain exemptions and loopholes, and those exemptions often mean that shackling happens anyway. The committee itself recommended collecting data on how many women give birth in custody each year. That means the Commonwealth doesn't even know the scale of what it says is someone else's responsibility. Do your homework, people. Come on—you're in government. This is your second term. We heard about Heather Calgaret as Senator Thorpe was recounting and sharing her story. The severity of this barbaric practice is beyond measure. And how, when this 30-year-old proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman died in custody, the coroner's report came out, and he said that her death was preventable. It came not long after she gave birth to her fourth child. She only had one arm, two hours—and that's all they gave her.

We know that the trauma of being restrained while giving birth compounds for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are overrepresented in our criminal legal system and carry the weight of intergenerational trauma. This is not just an abstract rights question. It lands hardest on First Nations women and their babies. When we stand here, and we ask that this government do better and stop pointing fingers, we know that it is within your remit. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee who conducted the inquiry—yes, they recommended against this bill saying that it's a responsibility of states and territories—acknowledged that there's need for reform. Who's going to do the reform? Who's going to make it happen? Are we just going to sit here twiddling our thumbs while women in shackles are forced to be giving birth in such barbaric ways?

Senator Thorpe rightfully argued that the Commonwealth can legislate national minimum standards and give effect in law to the human rights agreements Australia has ratified, and that can be possible by a power that the Constitution gives this parliament—the external affairs power in paragraph 51. We've signed these treaties. We have stood before the world and said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment must be prohibited, that detainees must be treated humanely and that the interests of the child comes first. In the explanatory memorandum, it actually lists all these conventions and treaties such as the convention against torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we ratify these obligations and then say it's someone else's job to keep them, then we haven't really made them. We really shouldn't be passing the buck. We're not being asked to lead the world, like the government boasts about leading the world with the social media ban. We're not being asked to lead the world here. We're being asked to catch up. The United Nations Bangkok rules state:

Instruments of restraint shall never be used on women during labour, during birth and immediately after birth.

The UN Committee against Torture has criticised the United States for breaching the convention against torture over this practice. And you know what? As of July 2022, 39 states in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have passed legislation banning restraints in labour and delivery, with some also banning it at other points in the pregnancy and postpartum period. If that reform can be signed by a Republican president, then we know this is not a partisan issue. I implore the Liberals and the Nationals in this place to please support this bill.

This is a real opportunity for us all. Giving birth is the most vulnerable moment in a woman's life. A just society does not chain her to a bed. A just society does not deprive her from that beautiful, joyous moment with her child while she's tied up, chained up. I urge every senator in this place to support this bill. If there are concerns about its drafting, then amend it. Senator Thorpe has said she has amendments ready. But please do not use the structure of our federation as an excuse to look away. Every child deserves to be born in a room of care, not a room of chains. (Time expired)

I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to give our clear and unambiguous support to these two pieces of legislation brought by Senator Thorpe: the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. The first piece of legislation is to prohibit the stripsearching of children. Basically, it's a piece of legislation that says children should not be tortured, humiliated or subjected to, effectively, state sanctioned sexual assault. That's what this bill says. The fact that we're even having this debate about whether it would get to a committee process to make sure that this becomes law, I think, is an indictment on politics. I want to be clear on behalf of my party, the Greens. Children should not be stripsearched by the state. That's it. Children should not be stripsearched by force by the state.

The second piece of legislation is the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, which says that, when women are giving birth, they must not be shackled. Let's just sit with that for a minute. We have to pass legislation in this country to say women should not be shackled to their beds when they're giving birth, and the reason we have to pass that legislation in this country is that right now that is the experience of women across this country—overwhelmingly First Nations women, but not just First Nations women. We know the women who are being shackled to their beds while they're giving birth to their kids. They're First Nations women and they're poor women. That's who it's happening to, and maybe that's why the Labor Party, the coalition and One Nation don't see it and don't care, because it's First Nations women and poor women that have been shackled to their beds while they're giving birth to their children.

For anyone who's a father or a mother and has been there at that moment when new life is given and your daughter or your son comes into this world, this is an extraordinary moment—a mixture of fear, hope, love and passion. It is an extraordinary moment in anyone's life—mum, dad or grandparents. Ask yourself—anyone in this chamber who's been in that space as new life is being given—what you would have thought or said if either you, your partner or your daughter was shackled to the bed. Ask yourself what you would think about a country that permitted that to happen. I'll tell you what I think: I think it's a disgrace.

We have the Labor Party and the coalition come in here and say, 'No, we're not going to stop this practice.' It happens in the NT, in Queensland and in New South Wales. It happens across the country. The Labor Party and the coalition come in and say: 'No, that's a matter for states and territories. If they want to shackle women to the bed while they're giving birth, we'll just let them do that. All of you have been given unambiguous legal advice from two of the most senior lawyers you could get in this space—a senior counsel and a highly experienced solicitor—who have clearly said the external affairs power under the Constitution says that the Commonwealth can come in and prohibit this torture of women giving birth, and you all say, 'No, it's a matter for the states and territories if they want to continue shackling women while they're giving birth.' You're going to let them do it, or you're going to ask for some more consistent collection and reporting of data on it. That's what you're doing. It is unbelievable that that's your defence and that that's your opposition to Senator Thorpe's legislation.

When it comes to stripsearching kids, when I was a state MP my office resourced Sniff Off, and my current office continues to do so. The reason we've resourced Sniff Off, which identifies where police are engaging in drug dog operations, is that we have seen time and time again how traumatising the search—including, so often, a strip search—is for young women at music festivals and people just walking their way down the streets—that humiliation when you're being taken and stripsearched. When it happens in detention centres or on the streets, overwhelmingly nothing is found, and overwhelmingly it's First Nations kids that are being stripsearched. But let me be clear. Every single time the state stripsearches a child, it's a violent, violent assault on that child and a humiliation. And we say it should be unlawful and illegal.

Pass this bill. If you want to amend it, let it get into committee and amend it. Don't torture women giving birth and don't stripsearch children.

I rise to speak in support of both of these bills, the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026. I thank Senator Thorpe for putting these important issues before parliament, for her work in bringing these bills to the Senate.

These bills are about our values as a country. Simply put, they say that we shouldn't stripsearch children in Australia and we shouldn't shackle women giving birth in this country. Clearly, those two things are not radical propositions. In fact, I think if you spoke to most Australians about that, they would be shocked that those two things are happening in our country and they would be urging the parliament to ensure that they don't. And here we have an opportunity to do exactly that. Yes, there is a lack of comprehensive public data about how many Australian children are stripsearched each year, but we know that it happens. And it shouldn't happen. We know it's happened to children as young as 10 years old. Think about that: a ten-year-old being stripsearched in this country. We know that at one point it was happening as regularly as one child every four days—one Australian child every four days being stripsearched.

We also know that, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, First Nations children are disproportionately affected. New South Wales police data for 2023-24 shows that 29 per cent of stripsearches were done on Aboriginal children—almost one in three. That is beyond tragic when you look at the percentage of Aboriginal children in the population.

Here in the ACT we have stronger protections than many other jurisdictions, but we need children to be better protected right across this country. And sadly, on a number of other indicators, the ACT falls well behind. Our youth detention rate in the ACT is, shockingly, approximately double the national rate and the highest of any jurisdiction. Our youngest First Nations children are too far behind, across all five indicators, when starting school, and the number of First Nations children in out-of-home care remains far too high. These are all things that we must work harder to change. It seems that even here in the ACT, where there supposedly is political will—there's certainly will from the public to address these things—we haven't been able to do that. I think that points to something far deeper and to some big challenges that we need to face up to as a country, to actually do what is necessary.

In talking about the safety of our children in this country, the other thing I'd like to touch on is the hugely distressing research released yesterday from the University of Sydney about the rates of child sexual assault. Research has found that over the last decade there has been a 51 per cent increase in sexual assault on girls aged 10 to 17 and a 60 per cent increase in sexual assault on boys. This should concern all of us and be a call to action for all of us. This is nothing short of devastating and something that we don't talk about enough in parliament. Protecting our children and future generations surely must be one of our top priorities in this place.

This data is hard to digest. It's confronting, but that's not a reason for staying silent. Researchers and advocates are calling for the government to urgently implement in full the recommendations handed down in the August 2024 rapid review of prevention approaches. There is much work to do in this space. Unfortunately, it seems, when a bill is brought forward in good faith by crossbenchers, the government has a policy of not supporting any bill other than their own bills. I don't think it speaks to a healthy democracy. It doesn't speak to a democracy where there is a true contest of ideas, where ideas can be put forward in good faith that address challenges that clearly need to be dealt with in this country. We have a government that say either 'don't worry, it's the states' responsibility; someone else will fix that,' or 'because that's not our bill, we will not support it'. I urge the government to rethink this approach, to embrace a more collaborative approach to our democracy and to actually do the sorts of things that protect women, that protect children and that rebuild trust in our democracy and make Australia a better country.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put on the second reading of the bills.

Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Lidia Thorpe Michelle Ananda-Rajah Leah Blyth Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister Deborah O'Neill James Paterson Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

I rise to continue speaking to the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, both of which the coalition and Labor just refused to allow to go to a vote. Shame on you! You don't even have the courage to put on the record that you support stripsearching children and shackling women. If you didn't, you'd be on this side of the chamber. Shame!

I'll say two things from the outset. I note that the Labor Party and the coalition have said they're going to vote against the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026 and the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026, so the result that is going to occur is obvious. Having said that, I have considerable sympathy in relation to this legislation and the issues it's seeking to address.

I had a discussion with Senator Thorpe yesterday—I must confess I wasn't across these bills perhaps as much as I should have been in the lead-up to this debate—and what I heard deeply concerns me. The first point I'd make is that I hope that this vote isn't an end to this matter. We've got to do better than this, and we've got to look at ways in which this issue can be addressed, whether it's through raising it at the highest level, in National Cabinet, or whether it's through meetings with the federal and the state attorneys-general. I'm not sure that some of the state attorneys-general would even be aware of this issue. I'll certainly be raising it with the Queensland Attorney-General because some of what I've now read in the report, including a passage from ATSILS on my home state of Queensland which I'll read into the record, deeply concerns me.

The first thing I want to read though is what's referred to as the Bangkok Rules. The Bangkok Rules were adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Council some 10 years ago now. Australia voted for what's referred to as the Bangkok Rules, and the Bangkok Rules contain this rule, which is pretty clear:

Instruments of restraint shall never be used on women during labour, during birth and immediately after birth.

It's very, very clear. In fact, Australia voted—as did all the members of the UN General Assembly—in favour of that rule. In terms of the reasoning for that rule, if one goes to the commentary on the United Nations rules, rule 24 states:

Rules 33 and 34 of the SMR place strict restrictions on the use of body restraints on prisoners. Firstly restraints may never be used as punishment, secondly they may be used in cases where there is genuine justification to believe that the prisoner may attempt escape during transfers and thirdly, following instruction from a medical officer, due to the imminent danger of harm or self-harm by the prisoner concerned.

And his is what's relevant for the immediate discussion—

Nevertheless, in some countries body restraints, such as shackles, are used on pregnant women during transfers to hospitals, gynaecological examinations and birth. This practice violates international standards. Moreover, shackling during labour may cause complications during delivery such as haemorrhage or decreased foetal heart rate. If a caesarean section is needed, a delay of even five minutes may result in permanent brain damage to the baby. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has stated that "[…] from time to time, the CPT encounters examples of pregnant women being shackled or otherwise restrained to beds or other items of furniture during gynaecological examinations and/or delivery. Such an approach is completely unacceptable, and could certainly be qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment. Other means of meeting security needs can and should be found."

So, the Bangkok Rules, which Australia signed up to, unequivocally state that shackling should not occur during childbirth—unequivocally—and the explanation to rule 24 of the Bangkok rules provides evidence with respect to why.

Debate interrupted.

I wish to make some comments regarding the process that has followed the Greens political party and the coalition thwarting passage of an improvement to our generational aged-care reforms. As you know, this government is committed to improving standards, quality, accessibility and affordability of aged care, and we had to do it, because when we came to office in 2022 we inherited an aged-care system that was in crisis. It was the royal commission that demanded we draw a line under a coalition era that they titled as 'neglect'. With that, we began the hard work of generational reform.

It was in November of last year that the new Aged Care Act kicked off. This was a complete overhaul of the system. It was recommendation 28 of the royal commission that demanded we introduce a more streamlined assessment system for older Australians. Until then, there had been way too much duplication, inefficiency and undue complexity. In other words, it was onerous and burdensome on Australians, and, frankly, it was expensive for taxpayers. That's what happens when you have inefficiencies and duplication. And so, over a number of years, starting in 2020, the department started to craft an assessment tool that is now called the IAT, the integrated assessment tool, which has received a lot of press, not all positive, and there has also been a lot of mischaracterisation of this tool and the rationale behind having it.

We introduced this tool because we realised that there was imperfect decision-making happening by humans. Some people were getting too much in their home packages; others were not getting enough. If you were a man and you spoke perfect English, the chances are you were going to get a pretty good package, maybe overcompensated for your needs. If, on the other hand, you were a non-English-speaking migrant—a bit like my family, my dad—the chances are you were probably going to miss out and not have your needs met. In fact, that's what the data showed. We had $4 billion in unallocated funds that were sitting in accounts not being used. So something had to be done to deliver consistency and standardisation.

The IAT was developed over a number of years using very large datasets, using expert input. I won't go through all of that. It is in the Hansard from 1 April 2026, which lays out very clearly how this was developed. It basically then used about 13 different sections, including social supports, health issues and the home environment, to classify an older Australian into one of eight categories, No. 8 being the most severe category. With that, we also applied a prioritisation mechanism. We know the process is not perfect, and that was recognised by this minister very early on. And so we instigated what was called a rapid review into the prioritisation mechanism.

I'm going through this because the detail matters. It was a prioritisation mechanism that underwent a rapid review. The report is currently being considered by the government, but changes were made, and you have to be agile when you're introducing generational reform. Things never go smoothly. There are always roadblocks. There are always points of friction. We have tried to be adaptive as a government. And so it became clear very early on that patients with, for example, motor neurone disease needed to be escalated up in the categories. So they now have a categorisation of 'urgent', which means they get their care packages, their Support at Home care packages, within a month, as do other people in that urgent category. But we know that the prioritisation mechanism does need to be adjusted, and that is being considered right now.

What is disappointing, after weeks and weeks and weeks of testimony and hearings that I've sat through in the committee with my colleagues from the Greens political party and the coalition, is that, now, five minutes to midnight, as we are trying to fix this system and make it more responsive to the needs of older Australians, they basically have banded together to completely thwart this. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The point of contention is the escalation pathway. They are blocking passage of an escalation pathway that we want to introduce so that older Australians get the care that they need, the packages that they need, in a much faster, more streamlined fashion. Why? They want us to go back to the drawing board and tear up the IAT, the integrated assessment tool, because they say that it is an algorithm. God forbid we use an algorithm to deliver efficiency, consistency and standardisation! Humans are the best decision-makers! That is absolutely false. In medicine, humans are not the best decision-makers. Humans are assisted by similar clinical decision tools. We have a plethora of them in health care because we recognise that humans are biased decision-makers. And so, when we're dealing with thousands upon thousands of older Australians who need aged care, we must deliver consistency across what is a very diverse population terms of income status, ethnicity, language and values, as well. But we have to deliver equity and standardisation. And so it is beyond disappointing that this has been blocked by the coalition and the Greens political party.

In addition, I want to also mention that this goes contrary to several peak groups who provided testimony. Mr Craig Gear of OPAN described this escalation pathway as, I quote, 'an important interim reform' and argued:

Older people need an accessible correction mechanism while longer-term reform goes on.

And that's what they're blocking. They're not happy. They want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 'Get rid of the IAT,' they say, but in doing so they are stopping us from actually improving the system, stopping government the from being agile and responsive to the needs of older Australians. They're going contrary to these peak bodies, who are actually saying: 'Get on with it. We know that it's not perfect, but get on with it.' Then we have Mr Irlam of COTA Australia, who said that further work on the assessment process, quote, 'should not delay fixing the immediate problem affecting older people'. Ageing Australia similarly supported the escalation pathway proceeding while broader work on the process continued. Mr Symondson from Ageing Australia said:

If we go right back to the drawing board now, how many people are going to fall through the already gaping cracks that we have in the system while we get that right? Which is why we do support the amendment …

We have a range of stakeholders—peak groups—urging this parliament to get on with it and deliver on this significant reform, which is an escalation pathway, which does put in the human so that we have a practical safeguard that is designed to improve the prioritisation mechanism for Australians who feel like they haven't been heard or haven't been properly assessed by the IAT. We think that number, based on data from earlier this year during estimates, is about 0.5 per cent. But, over a large number of people, that's a lot of people. We recognise that it's not perfect, and we are trying to fix it by introducing an escalation pathway with a qualified assessor. They're making that judgement, responding to the issues raised by older Australians and their families.

But the Greens, in their wisdom, and the coalition have said, 'No can do.' Start again, government. To all those years of work in trying to come up with a more efficient, standardised, better process in response to recommendation 28 of the royal commission, they say: 'It's not good enough for us. We want to go back to the old system—' because the old system was perfect. What nonsense. It was not perfect; $4 billion tells us of unallocated funds—unallocated meaning not being used—because the assessments were wrong. It tells us that the old system was not perfect. We are trying to improve this system, and you are standing in the way as usual. The Greens political party put the perfect in front of the good. They are not pragmatists. They do not have the interests of older Australians in mind.

This reform also introduces the Aboriginal aged care commissioner. This is not a point of contention, but it is urgent that we deliver on this reform, because older Australians, particularly those of Indigenous background, have woeful health outcomes. ABS data from 2022 put the life expectancy gap at nine years for men and eight years for women. However, if you live in a remote or very remote community, life expectancy is 67 years for men and 71 for women. It is much, much worse.

We know that older Indigenous Australians have a much harder time gaining access to aged care, for a range of reasons. Of course, the tyranny of distance is one of them, but they find the system hostile. They lack trust in the system. This is the legacy of colonisation. So recommendation 49 from the royal commission said that we should consider appointing an Aboriginal aged-care commissioner in order to be responsive to the cultural needs of Indigenous Australians right around this country, because they don't feel like they have cultural safety in the current system. They need an advocate. They lack the self-efficacy and the ability to advocate for themselves. So an interim commissioner was installed by us in 2024, and we now want this enshrined in legislation going forward.

Very good idea. We support that.

I'm glad you support it, Senator Ruston. I do accept that.

And so do you, Senator Allman-Payne. However, I am disappointed that we are being thwarted in delivering what are much-needed and urgent improvements to the assessment system. We know that generational reform is never easy. We're going through it right now with the NDIS. That's going to be a bumpy road. No-one's pretending that delivering generational reform in aged care is going to be simple. We all accept that there are going to be bumps on the road. But what we don't need, as a government and on behalf of the Australian people, are parliamentarians turning the needs of older Australians into a political football. We've got to rise above this, folks. There's too much at stake. There are people out there suffering.

I have some lived experience with that, with my 86-year-old father, who didn't actually wait that long to get his IAT done—but it was on us. We as a family probably did not make that decision to actually seek help early enough. So to older Australians out there: I urge you to not leave it too late. If you think you need an assessment, get the assessment done, while we bat it out in here and try to deliver on this escalation pathway so that we can, in those instances where you feel like you have not received a satisfactory assessment, escalate it, get it amended and ensure that you are heard through a proper process. Instead, we sit here wasting time instead of serving the nation, playing politics with the needs of older Australians. It's disgraceful. The Greens political party should hang its head in shame. There is no point crying tears on committees. Get in here and actually act. (Time expired)

I think I've got Senator Stewart.

Thank you.

I haven't even called you, Senator Ruston. It's not question time, where you can just interrupt. Yes, Senator Ruston?

I just want to raise an issue in relation to the convention in this chamber that normally, after one party has spoken, the call is rotated around the chamber, and I would—

Senator—

Could I finish? Would that be possible?

No, I understand the rotation. I've heard enough. I have just taken over the chair. I was informed by the previous chair that the next speaker was Senator Stewart. That is why I called Senator Stewart. I haven't been in here. I don't know what the rotation has been. I'm simply acting on the advice of the previous chair. I've called Senator Stewart, so I'm going to give Senator Stewart the call.

Thank you, President.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Lambie, resume your seat. I haven't been in here. I was instructed by the previous chair that the next speaker was Senator Stewart.

How would you know? There's no list.

Order! Come to order, Senator Allman-Payne! Senator Stewart, please continue.

I rise to talk about the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026. Given that the substantive part of this piece of legislation is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged-care commissioner, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak, if that's okay.

So would we, so share it around!

Let the Indigenous senator speak about Indigenous affairs.

Order! Order!

It's actually a really important matter that I want to speak on.

Senator Stewart, address your comments to the chair.

Senator Allman-Payne, come to order or leave the chamber.

As a Mutthi Mutthi Wamba Wamba woman, this bill speaks to something that's really important for our community, and it goes to the importance of elders, and the respect for elders and the place that we hold elders in, in our community. For so many of our community members, the burden of taking care of our elders has been mostly borne by our families, like so many families. That is for a number of reasons, and certainly a big one is that the institutions and the mainstream services that are out there, that are supposed to take care of our elders, are not seen as safe places for our community members. That is because of past practices and policies in this country, where our elders have been institutionalised. So the idea of going into another institution in your older years can actually be really triggering for our elders.

So having a role such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is really important. It will be a position, a person, an opportunity, for our elders, when they are having challenges with the systems or the services—somewhere where they can raise their voices and be confident that the person on the other end understands their circumstances and has the understanding of their lived experience of being an Aboriginal person in this country that really only comes from having a shared experience of growing up black in this country. I think it's really important that we get the opportunity to have this conversation in the Senate and put the case for why it's important and why we should not play politics with something like this in this place.

Our elders are our teachers, our storytellers and our knowledge holders. They are the people who hold all of the information about the generations that came before us. It is one of the many reasons they are so esteemed in our community. They carry language. They carry culture. They carry our family history. I've certainly got people in my family who are like walking family trees. I'm not one of those people! But certainly our elders carry the responsibility of holding that knowledge for us and of handing it down.

Aged-care services aren't just about services. They are about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders the dignity, the care and the respect that they deserve. There are so many services that our community access that don't treat them in the way that the rest of Australians get treated, and aged care is another one of those places where you can see the impact that that has on our elders. I know that dignity and respect look different depending on who you are, and that is right. If you are from a different multicultural background or from the broader Australian community, your idea of what good care looks like—at what dignified care looks like—is going to be different to what the care for an Aboriginal elder might look like. For us, it means being close to your family. It means staying connected to country and being around people who understand you and how you've grown up and that shared experience.

It's important that you get cared for by people who understand you. Especially as you get older, you might end up with something like dementia. It means there may be a whole bunch of things in your environment that trigger you, that bring back some trauma and some memories and make a place feel really unsafe for you. The stakes are even higher for elders when they go into services, and they should have the opportunity to feel safe and loved and understood and cared for. As they age and become more vulnerable, it's really important that we look after them in a way that they deserve. That's for a multitude of reasons. Our elders are people who have contributed to their families and to the community. They've contributed to our national economy over their lifetime too. They've been taxpayers. They deserve to have dignity in care as they get older. This bill really does take an important step towards delivering that for our elders. It's an important step that we're taking in the parliament today.

The other part of this is that it was an important recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The case for it is really clear. We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to need this type of care earlier. I could rattle off all the statistics on all the ways that we are struggling in health outcomes and determinants. All those things mean that we're more likely to need the services that aged care has the ability to deliver earlier in our lives. So it is important that we do this.

When people aren't engaging in aged-care services, it's not necessarily because they don't need to. It's because they don't feel like it's safe. That means that the delaying of care, treatment or the services they need actually makes their health worse. It costs the system more. Not that it's all about dollars—this is about actually caring about the human at the other end of the service—but the putting off or the delaying of care because you're worried about how you might be treated or about someone's ability to understand you and your needs should be concerning for all of us. Too many elders have been asked to leave their communities to receive that care and to be separate from their families, isolated from culture and receive services from people who don't speak their language.

I think it is really important that we have a position like this aged-care commission position, one that can hear the concerns that people have and advocate for them in the kinds of places that can be really intimidating—places like this or broader forums of aged-care services. There's also, of course, all the intricacies of all the different bits and pieces of legislation, regulations, policies or funding that people might not know about. It's important that there is a role that people feel they can go to, to have their voices heard in a way that's safe and that sees them.

A position like this is an important marker, too; it acknowledges the history of our country in terms of some of the reasons people might not feel safe in the aged-care system. This position takes a step in acknowledging that really harmful history we've had in this country by saying that we need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and that the services and the engagement that we might need to undertake or deliver for Aboriginal elders might look a bit different. The advocacy might look a bit different, and that requires a role, in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner, so that we can deliver for our communities. It recognises that cultural safety isn't just a box-ticking exercise; it's something that we need to be able to do and deliver. It's really fundamental to delivering good care. It's not just—

Thank you, Senator Stewart. You'll be in continuation. It being 11.15, the debate is interrupted.

President, I would just seek that you review the decision you made at 11 o'clock about how you awarded the call, because I believe that it wasn't in the normal practice or convention of this place. I'd like you to review that and come back to us, please.

Senator Hanson-Young, as I explained to the chamber, I take the advice that I'm given by the previous chair. The previous chair indicated to me that Senator Stewart was speaking. Therefore I made that decision. I am well aware of conventions. As you know, I wasn't in the chamber. I didn't know who had spoken or hadn't spoken. It is important for me to back in the temporary chairs, and that's what I did.

by leave—I move:

That—

(1) Today:

(a) the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 be called on at 12.15 pm and considered for not longer than 30 minutes each, after which the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put:

(i) Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026

(ii) Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026

(iii) Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026

(iv) Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026

(v) Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025

(vi) National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026

(vii) Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026

(viii) Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; and

(b) divisions may take place after 1.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142, except that questions may be put on any amendments circulated prior to the expiration of time for the consideration of the bills.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition, which has been circulated, concerning a battery energy storage project in a small rural community on the Rubicon in Victoria. We're on your side.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition with more than 10,500 signatures demanding the government fully fund the Children's Ground proven First Nations approach.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the following bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to ban the livestreaming and broadcast of capital punishment, and for related purposes. Capital Punishment (Barbaric Broadcast Blocking) Bill 2026.

I present the 13th report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 13 OF 2026

15 October 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Kerrynne Liddle

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 13 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 October 2026 at 7.08 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026, Domestic Gas Reservation Levy Bill 2026, and Domestic Gas Reservation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral),

(b) the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral), and

(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral).

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

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

15 October 2026

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Safe Staffing Guarantee) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee".

():  I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment (Safe Staffing Guarantee) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2026".

What we have found in this parliament, under the current Labor government, is that the Prime Minister determines the staffing numbers for whichever political party or Independent, right across this whole chamber. I think it's terribly wrong, what is happening here. The Prime Minister's office should not determine who gets staffing and how many staff they have.

The number of personal advisers that One Nation has is five. That's for six members of parliament. The Labor Party has 507. The Prime Minister personally has 59 staff. If you look at the Liberal Party, Angus Taylor has 35 personal staff. If you look at Senator Payman—I'll speak on her behalf as well—she's got none. Why? It's because she dared to walk away from the Labor Party. So those people who do not support the Labor Party are getting punished through not having the staffing.

What we have requested is an inquiry into this. Who's going to block it? The Liberal Party. The Liberal and National parties want to block this. Why? Are we all treated fairly, across the range of political parties? No. Basically, it is: 'Let's hurt the ones who do not support us. Let's hurt the ones who are not led like sheep in this place and who have a voice for the Australian people. Let's hurt them by denying them the staff that they need to run their offices.' It is quite clear.

What I find amazing is that, although the government has also damaged the coalition—a loss to their staff—the coalition says, 'We don't want to have an inquiry into this.' They're shutting down the inquiry. So it's the uniparty again. I want the public to know this. It is the uniparty again colluding to cause as much damage as they can to the independent ones who were elected to the parliament. And I think it's wrong.

There have been some comments, including from, just off the top of my head, Senator McGrath. He said in a comment that it is 'vindictive'. Senator McGrath said that, but he's not standing up to support an inquiry. Isn't it funny! You just say these things to suit you at the time, but, when push comes to shove as far as putting it to an inquiry, you don't want to. Why doesn't the Liberal Party want to put it before an inquiry?

As far as I'm concerned, the Prime Minister should have no right to determine what staff levels are given out to crossbenchers or members of any party, whether they're in the lower house or the upper house. If we have a separate board that determines the wages, then why don't we have a separate board that determines the staffing levels—right across the board—for future parliaments? That's where it's important.

This is collusion by the major political parties now to do as much damage as they can to One Nation. Do you know why? You're scared of the rise of One Nation. You think you've had this tied up your way for all this time, and you are now getting challenged—but not by One Nation. You're being challenged by the people of this nation who are fed up with what you've been dishing out to them. They want change. They see that change with One Nation. That's why we won seven seats in South Australia and why we won the seat of Farrer, previously held by the Liberals for 77 years. That's why we won Secret Harbour, held by the Labor Party since 1989. That's why we look like we're going to pick up some seats in Victoria, and Labor will be gone. New South Wales—the same. And this is just a dirty trick again by the major political parties because of One Nation's rise.

All I'm asking for is what is fair. All I'm asking for is staff—two in my office; two advisers for a minor party. We are a parliamentary party. We are a parliamentary party, and you can't give us the number of staff that is equivalent. The Labor Party have approximately 4.7. We have 0.83 per cent, the lowest in this chamber. All I want is fairness.

I'll just reiterate some of the points Senator Hanson made, because I think we need to be very clear about what's about to occur. Senator Hanson has a bill. It's gone before the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills. Consideration of that bill was proposed to be deferred, and now the Labor Party is moving an amendment to not refer the bill, which is very, very unusual.

I know a lot of what goes on here in the chamber is quite unusual to people watching, but to move an amendment to this particular report to block a bill from being referred to a committee, for the government to do that—I promise you it's very, very strange. What's also odd is to not see more support for this inquiry from the coalition, because much of what is in the bill that Senator Hanson has put forward actually mirrors things that the coalition have put forward in their own legislation. So I really would hope that the coalition actually show up to vote. I suspect what may happen is that the Greens and Labor block Senator Hanson's bill going to committee, and perhaps we might see others absent from the chamber. But I can tell you what is going on right now is an absolutely classic 'uniparty' stitch-up. That is what is occurring, because people in the coalition have been working with people in Labor to make sure that Senator Hanson's bill doesn't get to go to committee so we can't have that scrutiny.

Why would the coalition want to work to help protect Anthony Albanese? Isn't that fascinating? You quite often hear the coalition say: 'Well, we are here to defeat this bad Labor government. We are here to defeat the socialists.' Yet, when it suits them, they will work with the bad Labor government, with the socialists, to hurt One Nation. I can tell you this: when it comes to defeating a bad Labor government, One Nation is the one you can trust to make sure that strange deals and games aren't played. So much of what people see in this chamber doesn't make sense, and quite often that's intentional. You'll see games played, and things get said. But I can tell you right now it is very, very unusual for the Labor government to move a motion to block another party's bill from being referred.

Maybe you should attend the chamber on Thursday mornings more often.

Order!

It happens every Thursday!

Order!

That's alright. I'm more than happy to have conversations with my colleagues in the chamber.

I've called order about four times. Senator Bell has the right to be heard in silence.

As you can see, members of the coalition are deeply upset that their little game is being exposed. They're deeply upset. But that will never stop us working on behalf of the people to hold this terrible Labor government to account. And I think Senator Payman has something to say about this too. Pay attention because there are games afoot. When people say that they are here to stop the Albanese Labor government—I know I trust that lady.

I rise to express my support for the staffing bill that One Nation have put forward. I think it is outrageous—we are calling on the Prime Minister to stop playing his petty games and to treat us all with the same respect and dignity that we deserve. We were elected by the Australian people. You can hate our politics, you can hate what we do, and you can be annoyed by the fact that I put through so many OPDs and annoy the hell out of your ministers. But I'm holding you to account. You came into government in 2022 talking about transparency, promising the Australian people that you'd be transparent with them, that you'd be upfront and honest. And here we are, as mostly women parliamentarians, asking you—and at times it feels like we're begging you—to get off your high horse and to stop using your discretionary powers to exploit the system.

The additional staff that crossbench senators get is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. For the Australian people who actually don't know about this, the Prime Minister gets to choose how many staff members we get to have. For a parliamentarian, that's one of the most important resources, because we can then service our states and our constituents appropriately. By depriving us of that, he is doing a disservice to the entire state, because of his petty politics. A lot of people I've spoken to—everyday Australians—ask: 'How is that even allowed? How does the Prime Minister have that kind of power to punish the women he disagrees with?' We've heard his comments around melons, about what he thinks about Grace Tame being difficult and about what he thinks he would do to Kylie Minogue. We know how he would treat women, and that's why you have all these female parliamentarians, both in the Senate and in the House of Reps, being starved of the resources that the major parties get to enjoy for themselves—or at least the government have reserved for themselves.

I'm a new mum with a four-and-a-half-month-old and I'm trying to service the biggest state in this country. The people of Western Australia deserve better. The Prime Minister, who claims to be supporting Western Aussies, is actually depriving its only independent senator from doing her job. You're also putting the wellbeing and welfare of my staff at the frontline at risk. My office has just five full-timers, and they're expected to do similar levels of work as other offices who have seven staffers. How is that fair? You talk a big game, Labor, about 'same job, same pay'. My chief of staff does the same job as the chief of staff of, say, Senator Thorpe or Senator Pocock, and yet she gets paid less. But she has to do a lot more work. They come in early. They leave late. Why? Because the Prime Minister is so bloody petty. Shame on you! Shame on you for doing this to Western Australians.

How dare you claim to stand for women's rights and their welfare and to boast about your female majority caucus when you are stopping women in this place from actually doing their job right. You've got a fat mandate from the Australian people by winning the 2025 election: do bloody better. I hope you're listening, Prime Minister, because I've had it. We've written to your office. We've written to the Special Minister of State, Don Farrell, and we've even FOI'd to see where these documents are going. We follow the bloody processes, and we don't get anything back. You don't even acknowledge that we've sent you these emails and letters.

I can't believe we're still having this conversation. If you are annoyed by the fact that I crossed the floor on a matter of principle, well, you know what, 15 months later you did that same thing. You recognised the State of Palestine, so grow up and just adult, okay? Stop being so petty.

I'm going to remind you, Senator Payman, the matter that you should have been discussing was a bill going to a committee. I remind you for future speeches—

Yes, that's why it's so important.

You're not in a debate with me. I'm just reminding you of the standing orders. The question is the amendment as moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

Ralph Babet Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Ralph Babet Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten BUSINESS Rearrangement

I move:

That general business notice of motion No. 812 be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee; Reporting Date

If there's no objection, the business is postponed.

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Direction to Committee

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has resolved not to hold a public hearing as part of its inquiry into the continued use and regulation of paraquat, and

(ii) this decision denies the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), scientific and medical experts, industry representatives, farmers and people living with Parkinson's disease the opportunity to give evidence publicly, share their experiences and be questioned by senators on matters relevant to the inquiry; and

(b) directs the committee to:

(i) conduct at least one public hearing as part of its inquiry into the continued use and regulation of paraquat, with a total duration of not less than 5 hours,

(ii) require the attendance of representatives of the APVMA to give evidence and answer questions concerning the regulation, safety assessment and continued use of paraquat in Australia, and

(iii) take all reasonable steps to identify, invite and facilitate the participation of people living with Parkinson's disease who have been exposed to paraquat, including farmers and agricultural workers, to ensure they have a meaningful opportunity to give evidence and answer questions at the public hearing.

The question is that general business notice of motion 790 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Ralph Babet Sean Bell Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Ross Cadell Anthony Chisholm Richard Mansell Colbeck Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker BILLS Water Amendment (Ending Further Murray-Darling Basin Water Buybacks) Bill 2026; First Reading Water Amendment (Ending Further Murray-Darling Basin Water Buybacks) Bill 2026

At the request of Senator Canavan, I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Water Act 2007, and for related purposes.

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.

Water Amendment (Ending Further Murray-Darling Basin Water Buybacks) Bill 2026; Second Reading Water Amendment (Ending Further Murray-Darling Basin Water Buybacks) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and the devastating impact of Labor's water buybacks on the Murray-Darling Basin.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Water Amendment (Ending Further Murray-Darling Basin Water Buybacks) Bill 2026 aims to stop further water buybacks. It stops the Commonwealth from buying more permanent Basin surface water if that purchase would grow the Commonwealth's total share.

It responds to the Government's renewed reliance on permanent water purchases to recover water under the Basin Plan.

And most importantly, it protects irrigators, farmers, and communities from more devastating Commonwealth buybacks destroying the fabric of regional Australia.

Every permanent purchase takes water entitlements out of productive use. Every purchase by the Commonwealth of water distorts the water market and pushes more people who grow our world-class food and fibre out of production. Irrigation communities are already at the end of their tether. They cannot survive another round of Government buybacks.

The need for this Bill has become even more urgent following the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's draft reconciliation of the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism and only 22 of the 39 notified projects are expected to be operational by the deadline. Those projects are estimated to deliver around 340 gigalitres of the original 605 gigalitre adjustment, leaving a shortfall of 265 gigalitres.

Basin communities should not be forced to surrender more productive water because governments failed to deliver the infrastructure and environmental projects they promised. The Albanese Government has refused to rule out using further buybacks to make up that shortfall.

Farmers and regional businesses cannot plan, invest or employ people with the constant threat of another round of Commonwealth buybacks hanging over them. This Bill gives them certainty because a failure by government must not become yet another demand for water from farmers.

Buybacks hit the confidence of irrigators, processors and the regional businesses that depend on reliable access to water. They push the price of water up, so that businesses cannot compete in the market for water they need to run their operations.

Productive water underpins food and fibre production and the economic resilience of Basin communities. Most importantly, the loss of productive water to the Commonwealth to meet lofty environmental goals, jeopardises our food security and our national security.

Australians want to eat food grown here, and share what we grow with the rest of the world. We cannot be in a situation where we are importing food from overseas, when we have the best farms and farmers in the world.

This bill amends the Water Act 2007 to prohibit new Commonwealth contracts for permanent or ongoing Basin surface water entitlements where the purchase would increase the Commonwealth's total share.

The Commonwealth already has 72 per cent of the water in the Murray Darling Basin.

The Commonwealth can still manage and rebalance its existing portfolio of water, but it cannot buy more water simply to make up a shortfall.

This will apply to contracts entered into from the day after Royal Assent. Existing contracts are untouched.

It also means that the Commonwealth purchasing water for the Environment Special Account for the 450 gigalitre target becomes expressly subject to the prohibition.

This Bill does not stop any farmer selling an entitlement to another buyer on the market.

Nor does it compel anyone to sell, create any offence or penalty, or reduce any entitlement holder's existing rights.

It also does not alter any right to fair compensation where government action compulsorily acquires, cancels or reduces an entitlement.

It also adds some much needed and important reporting requirements on what water the Commonwealth owns.

The Secretary must report each year on every Commonwealth contract to buy permanent Basin surface water, whether or not it increased the Commonwealth's share.

This report goes to the Minister by 30 September and must be tabled in each House within 15 sitting days.

Reporting covers the full 2026-27 financial year, so Parliament gets a complete account of purchasing this year, including contracts signed before the bill commences.

This Bill aims to regulate how the Commonwealth deals with water. Irrigators and farmers must be completely transparent with their water purchases and water usage. The Commonwealth must meet that same standard.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

DOCUMENTS Minister for Communications; Order for the Production of Documents

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to produce documents ordered to be laid on the table relating to the Minister for Communications' travel to New York in September 2025;

(b) further notes that, in response to order for the production of documents no. 321, the Minister for Communications chose to interpret the wording of the order differently from the way previous orders were interpreted and subsequently did not produce documents that would otherwise have been produced;

(c) rejects the claims made in the explanation provided to the Senate on 9 September 2026 in relation to this matter as unacceptable and, at points, factually incorrect; and

(d) orders the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to table documents between any 2 of the entities listed in the order that are otherwise within the scope of the order, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 26 October 2026.

Question agreed to.

Senate Estimates: Questions on Notice; Order for the Production of Documents

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 671, agreed to on 9 September 2026, relating to outstanding answers to questions on notice for the month of September 2026; and

(b) requires the Leader of the Government in the Senate to table the statements required by the order for September 2026, by no later than midday on 16 October 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 806, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Ralph Babet Sean Bell Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Richard Mansell Colbeck Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Minister for Indigenous Australians; Order for the Production of Documents

At the request of Senator O'Sullivan, I move general business notices of motion Nos 807, 808, 809 and 810 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 807

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 October 2026, the following documents held by the minister's office, the National Indigenous Australians Agency or any other Commonwealth department or agency relating to briefings provided to the minister by the National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People, Sue-Anne Hunter, or her office, concerning findings and concerns arising from the Commissioner's visit to Port Hedland and South Hedland in response to reports of child neglect:

(a) all written briefing materials, reports, advice, recommendations and attachments provided in connection with those briefings;

(b) diary and calendar entries, meeting invitations, agendas, minutes, meeting notes, file notes and records of conversation relating to those briefings;

(c) all correspondence, including emails, text messages and other electronic messages, between the Commissioner or her office and the minister or her office arranging, conveying or following up those briefings;

(d) records showing when the briefings and associated materials were received by, or brought to the attention of, the minister or her office; and

(e) ministerial submissions, departmental advice and records of decisions or actions responding directly to matters raised in those briefings.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 808

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 October 2026, the following documents held by the minister's office, the National Indigenous Australians Agency or any other Commonwealth department or agency relating to the minister's visit to Port Hedland and South Hedland in October 2026:

(a) relevant diary and calendar entries, meeting invitations, itineraries and visit programs;

(b) briefing materials, meeting agendas, minutes, notes, records of discussion and action items relating to meetings and site visits undertaken during the visit;

(c) all correspondence, including emails, text messages and other electronic messages, and other records relating to the proposal, initiation, planning, approval and scheduling of the visit, including invitations, requests for meetings, proposed attendees and changes to the visit program;

(d) travel requests, approvals, booking confirmations, ticket issue records and records of booking amendments or cancellations showing when flights for the minister and accompanying ministerial staff were requested, booked, ticketed or changed; and

(e) post-visit reports, briefing materials and correspondence recording findings, commitments, referrals, proposed actions or follow-up arising from the visit.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 809

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 October 2026, documents held by the minister's office, the National Indigenous Australians Agency or any other Commonwealth department or agency recording the earliest request for a briefing, the earliest written and oral briefings provided to the minister or their office, and any resulting decisions or actions, concerning Jamelia, Arnda and Kelvin Hawke, their deaths in Port Hedland and any prior involvement of child protection authorities, including briefing materials and attachments, correspondence, file notes and records showing when those briefings were requested, provided or received.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 810

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 October 2026, any briefings or other documents created by, or provided to, the National Indigenous Australians Agency relating to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy's Safety and Wellbeing Programme funding in Port Hedland and South Hedland since 12 May 2026.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 807, 808, 809 and 810 be agreed to.

Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Andrew Bragg Ross Cadell Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Pauline Lee Hanson Maria Kovacic Jacqui Lambie Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Slade Brockman Raff Ciccone Matthew Canavan Tim Ayres Michaelia Cash Penny Ying Yen Wong Claire Chandler Don Farrell Jonathon Duniam Dorinda Cox Chris Gatenby David Shoebridge Sarah Henderson Tammy Tyrrell Jane Hume Jordon Steele-John Kerrynne Liddle Lisa Darmanin James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Andrew McLachlan Murray Watt Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Larissa Waters Dave Sharma Nita Green Dean Smith Jana Stewart

At the request of Senator O'Sullivan, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Thursday, 22 October 2026, the final version of each question time brief or any other written material relied upon by the Minister for Indigenous Australians during question time in the Senate between 15 September and 15 October 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 811, as moved by Senator Kovacic and standing in the name of Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Vanessa Bleyer Leah Blyth Andrew Bragg Ross Cadell Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Maria Kovacic Jacqui Lambie Susan McDonald Nick McKim Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Tyron Whitten Anthony Chisholm Richard Dowling Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Deborah O'Neill Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Slade Brockman Tammy Tyrrell Matthew Canavan Raff Ciccone Michaelia Cash Penny Ying Yen Wong Claire Chandler Don Farrell Jonathon Duniam Dorinda Cox Chris Gatenby Carol Louise Brown Sarah Henderson Glenn Sterle Jane Hume Josh Dolega Kerrynne Liddle Jana Stewart James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Andrew McLachlan Katy Gallagher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Nita Green David Shoebridge Malarndirri McCarthy Dean Smith Michelle Ananda-Rajah Jordon Steele-John Tim Ayres Larissa Waters Lisa Darmanin Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty; Order for the Production of Documents

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than midday on Friday, 30 October 2026, the revised Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, referenced in the government response, tabled on 25 June 2026, to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's efforts to advocate for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

Question agreed to.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority; Order for the Production of Documents

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 12 August 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 573, relating to the impact of the Government's 5% deposit scheme on lending risk, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply by midday on Friday, 14 August 2026,

(ii) on 16 September 2026, the Senate agreed to a further order noting that the order had not been complied with and requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply by midday on Thursday, 17 September 2026, and

(iii) the order has still not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on Thursday, 19 November 2026 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

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

Question agreed to.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; Order for the Production of Documents

If it suits the chamber, I am happy to move general business notices of motion Nos 815 to 818 together.

I ask that 815, 816 and 817 be moved together and that 818 be moved separately.

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move general business notices of motion Nos 815, 816 and 817 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 815

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 26 October 2026, all meeting notes, briefs, agendas, speaking notes, back pocket briefs, biographies, talking points, handling advice, maps, instructions, submissions, spreadsheets, workbooks, presentations, attachments, decks, instant messages, emails and correspondence provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to the office of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to support his attendance at the pre-COP31 meetings in Fiji and Tuvalu.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 816

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 26 October 2026, all modelling and accompanying analysis used by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in formulating the expansion of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme to include mid-scale solar photovoltaic systems.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 817

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 26 October 2026, all meeting notes, briefs, agendas, speaking notes, back pocket briefs, biographies, talking points, handling advice, maps, instructions, submissions, spreadsheets, workbooks, presentations, decks, instant messages, emails and correspondence provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to the office of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to support his visits to India and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in September 2026.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 815, 816 and 817 standing in the name of Senator Henderson and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Ross Cadell Jessica Collins Pauline Lee Hanson Jane Hume Maria Kovacic Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Andrew Bragg David Shoebridge Slade Brockman Glenn Sterle Matthew Canavan Tammy Tyrrell Michaelia Cash Penny Ying Yen Wong Claire Chandler Don Farrell Richard Mansell Colbeck Jana Stewart Jonathon Duniam Nita Green Chris Gatenby Jordon Steele-John Sarah Henderson Corinne Mulholland James McGrath Dorinda Cox Andrew McLachlan Raff Ciccone Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Larissa Waters Dave Sharma Lisa Darmanin BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Direction to Committee Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026

It being past 12.15 pm, pursuant to the order agreed to earlier, there will be a 30-minute debate. The Senate will now proceed to further consideration of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 and the motion of Senator Allman-Payne for an instruction to the Committee of the Whole.

I seek leave to speak again on the contingency motion that's before the chair.

Leave is granted for 15 minutes.

I stand here today because we will support the government in the bill that is before the chamber, because older Australians cannot wait any longer—not because the problem is fixed, because it is not. Make no mistake about what this is. This is an admission by the government that its assessment system is failing older Australians. For almost 12 months, older Australians and their families, assessors and providers have been telling the government that the computer generated algorithm that has no human override is getting it wrong time and time again. They told the Senate inquiry. They've been telling our electorate offices. They were telling anybody who would listen. And, for almost 12 months, this government told them the system was working. Now, under the weight of sheer evidence, the government has finally capitulated. It has agreed to an independent review of the very algorithm it spent a year defending.

I'll remind the Senate what that evidence looks like. In the full year before the algorithm was put in place, 170 people asked for their assessments to be reviewed. In just the first five months after the algorithm was in place, 834 people asked for a review, and we heard of many more that would have asked for a review but were just so tired of fighting the system.

Australia's peak bodies for geriatric medicine called the tool a clinical safety risk, the Commonwealth Ombudsman launched an investigation, and documents released under freedom of information show the human override was stripped out from the top down, with the department's own staff finding out just days before the system went live.

Then there are the people. A man living with motor neurone disease was told by a computer he needed less help, not more—a cruel progressive terminal illness, and the computer said no. The government has since had to change the rules to recognise motor neurone disease as warranting urgent priority. That is not a refinement; that is an admission the system is getting it wrong. So why support these changes? It's because we've listened. We've listened to stakeholders, to advocates and to older Australians who live with this system every single day. And what they've told us is clear. The system is so bad right now we cannot afford to walk away from even the most modest of improvements. But they told us something else as well. Any improvement of the nature that is being put forward by schedule 4 of this bill must only be interim. It cannot become this government's excuse to stop this process from being fixed. We were not prepared to leave older Australians stuck with the current system while this government takes its time producing a perfect bill that we know will never come. So we've done what stakeholders asked of us. We have supported this improvement, but we've made sure it is interim.

In return for our support, the coalition have received two things. As I said, the first is an independent review of the aged-care assessment tool—a clinically informed review backed by experts in geriatric medicine, dementia care and allied health—examining how the algorithm classifies older Australians and who gets priority. That review must inform the rebuilding of any assessment tool. We're pleased that the government has agreed to it and agreed to publish the results of that review in full so it's there for everybody to see. But a review is not worth the paper it is written on unless its results are turned into action.

Older Australians have had enough waiting under this government, and that is why the second thing we secured matters so much: a sunset clause. These provisions will sunset after 12 months. So the government has 12 months to fix the problems that have been identified by so many people. If it does, older Australians will be better off and we will herald that as a welcome advancement. But if it doesn't, these provisions will lapse and the government will have to come back into this place and explain why it has continued to fail older Australians, why it has failed to give them the care that this government has assessed them as needing. That's our mechanism, and we will force the government to act.

Let me be very clear about one more thing. The coalition is not stepping away from our fight for human override. A computer, and a computer alone, cannot be left to make the decisions about the care needs and care priorities of older Australians. I know the Greens have moved an amendment on human override, and, in principle, we support the Greens. We do not believe that what the government have put forward today is adequate when it comes to human override. What they're putting forward today is an escalation pathway run by the department for people in exceptional circumstances. It is a step—it is an improvement on what we have now—but it is not the same thing as letting a qualified assessor, sitting across the table from an older Australian, correct the computer when it gets it wrong. And we know it is getting it wrong time and time again.

The Senate has already passed the coalition's bill to restore human override, with the support of the Greens and the crossbench, and I acknowledge the incredible support of the crossbench, particularly the Greens and Senator Allman-Payne, on forcing this issue. Earlier this year, a senior minister in the Albanese government told the parliament:

… in every case there needs to be human oversight of any use of AI. We don't just hand over decision-making to abstract computer programs…

Well, guess what. We agree with you, Minister. We are simply asking this government to apply that standard to older Australians when it's assessing their care needs and their care need priorities. The government has now said it will review the algorithm, and that is what we expect it to deliver.

We're giving the government the opportunity to go away and do that work. Get it done. But, if it does not, we will be back, and I'm confident that the Greens and the crossbench will be back with us. Together, we have the power to force the government to do the right thing. Remember when Prime Minister Albanese was the opposition leader prior to the 2022 election and told Australians he was going to come in here and put 'the care back into aged care'. Nothing could be further from the reality that older Australians are facing right now. So, today, we're putting the government on notice. The clock is ticking. The coalition will never step away from older Australians. We will never step away from supporting older Australians getting the care they need when they need it. We will keep pushing for a permanent fix, and what we're doing today is telling the government 'you have the chance to come back with a permanent fix, so you'd better do it'.

We will always back a human being able to override a decision when the computer, quite frankly, has made a botch of it. No algorithm has ever grown old. Older Australians deserve a system that sees them as people and not as data. We know, as we stand here today, that 250,000 older Australians are currently waiting to either be assessed or get the package that they've been assessed as needing. We know that, last year, over 6,400 older Australians died while they were waiting to get the home-care package they had been assessed as needing. And we know that right now in excess of 3½ thousand older Australians have been assessed as clinically able to be discharged from our hospitals, yet they languish in hospital beds because this government has rationed care when it comes to aged-care packages. It has failed the sector and the sector's viability with its actions—other actions apart from in this bill—so we're not seeing aged-care beds being built. They need 10½ thousand aged-care beds every year for the next 10 years. Last year, the government's incentives managed to deliver, through the private sector, 802. The government is a long way short of delivering for older Australians, and we believe older Australians need better. That's why we are asking the government to make good on its promise. Fix this absolutely disastrous system. Fix this algorithm that is producing terrible results for older Australians. Quite frankly, older Australians deserve more from their government than they're currently getting.

by leave—There's been a lot said in the last 24 hours about the Greens' approach to the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I sat here in the chamber yesterday and listened to numbers of people on the government side accusing the Greens of playing politics with older people.

Let me reassure every older Australian in this country that the Greens will never play politics with older Australians. We have come into this chamber in good faith, seeking to do what advocates are telling us needs to be done and what older people are telling us needs to be done, and that is to try and reinstate human override into the aged-care assessment tool. We came into this chamber in good faith, seeking to split the bill so that the First Nations components of the bill, schedules 1 to 3, could pass through quickly and swiftly, and so that we could have a little bit more time to debate schedule 4 and to seek to reinstate human override—to at least take the fight up to the government to try and get human override back in.

Many government senators spoke yesterday, and many have spoken this morning; they have spoken at great length and quoted many of the advocacy groups that have spoken about this bill. But they have selectively omitted the statement that what people would prefer is that human override be reinstated in aged-care assessments. That is the preference of advocates, carers and providers and of older people themselves. So the Greens have tried to use every lever at our disposal to try and reinstate human override into aged-care assessments. Many government senators have stood in this place, yesterday and this morning, and said that this is 'urgent', and yet have filibustered, delaying us coming to the question of whether we should split the bill and getting on with the committee stage.

I heard many phrases being used by government senators, saying that we only need an escalation pathway because we only need humans to get involved in 'exceptional circumstances'; that we need the algorithm because we need 'consistent, rules based decision-making', or that we need 'a standardised assessment tool'. I kept hearing people talking about 'standardisation'. Senator Ananda-Rajah said that computers are the best decision-makers. Well, I'm sorry, the Greens disagree. People, clinicians, should be the final arbiters of the care that an older person needs to receive—and the government has effectively admitted that by saying that, in some exceptional circumstances, people will have the benefit of a person, a human, a clinician, having the final say. The Greens say that every older person is entitled to have a person make the final decision on the support and the care that they need and should receive.

I put to the government: if you are so concerned about too many clinicians overriding the outcome of the algorithm, then I think that tells you that the algorithm is not working, because if the algorithm were making decisions that accurately reflected the standard and level of care that older people need to receive then there would be very little need to override it. The escalation pathway is an admission that the algorithm is not working, and it is providing human oversight for a small number of people in the aged-care system. Government senators said that we need the algorithm because we need efficient and standardised testing or assessment of older people. Well, again, I put it to you: if the algorithm is so efficient, why do we now have a waitlist of a quarter of a million people waiting either for an assessment or to get the care that they've been assessed as needing? This is efficiency for efficiency's sake.

Senator Whiteaker said that we can't have human override because it would be too expensive. That is precisely why the government is wedded to a computer making these decisions, because this is not a measure to improve the care and support that older people need; this is not a measure to hasten the ability to assess those older people, because we are seeing that assessments are taking longer than ever before. This is a budget measure; it is a measure to cut the cost of care for older Australians. We know this because the government senators said it themselves. As Senator Ruston said, the Greens and the coalition and the remaining members of the crossbench have already voted to reinstate human override into the integrated assessment tool. The Greens have come into this place in good faith seeking to try and get human override back into this bill. We have sought to do it without holding up the First Nations commissioner components of this bill, and we have sought to have a debate in good faith on that question. We have been denied the ability to do that by government senators, who have filibustered for two days so that we could not get to that question. So please don't accuse the Greens of playing politics with older people.

We know that the decisions that are made in this place, as they relate to aged care, are life and death decisions for so many thousands of people. Over 6,000 people in this country died last year waiting for an assessment. That is shameful. And, right the way through this process, we have simply sought to get a better deal for older people—older people who are telling us computers should not be making decisions about their care; older people who are telling us in their thousands that it is unacceptable that, when they finally get assessed, they only get part of their package; and older people who have told us that they are too scared to get an assessment because they know of so many other people who have come back with underassessments from the algorithm and that they're choosing to remain on the Commonwealth Home Support Program because they're terrified that, if they get an assessment, they will be assessed as having a lower level of need than they need. We know this because they have told us. They have told us when they have contacted our offices. They have told us when they have given lived experience evidence at two of our inquiries that have gone right around the country.

I fail to understand how the department and the government can continue to be so wedded to the idea that a computer is the best decision-maker for the care needs of older people. We know their needs are complex. No two older people are the same. No two older people's houses and the way they're laid out are the same. No two older people's support systems, whether they have family and who has what amount of time, are the same. None of us would want to go into a hospital and have a doctor tell us that they're just going to punch our condition or our symptoms into a computer and that it'll tell us what they're going to do, and, if we don't agree with it, too bad, wait for a review that could take 90 days. Older people don't have time to wait. In so many instances, they don't want to ask for help until they absolutely need it. Providers and carers and their families tell us that. When an older person reaches out to seek help and support in aged care, it's because they really need it—and they need it now. Not in six months time, when they might be able to get an assessment; not in another 12 months time, when they might be able to get a package—they need it now.

These reforms are failing older people. You cannot say that the reforms are on the right track when waitlists are blowing out, when people are telling us that they are not getting the care that they need and when they can't even get a full package when it's finally assigned. That is not a system that works well. Older people saying that they can't afford co-payments and that they're going without care is not a system that is working well. The Greens have said that we won't stand in the way of this bill going through to appoint the First Nations commissioner, and we won't stand in the way of the bill going through if our amendments aren't successful. We know that older people need as many avenues as possible to access the right type of care at the time that they need it.

But I can't help reflect that this is a missed opportunity. As Senator Ruston said, the Greens, the coalition and the crossbench have worked together to pressure the government. We had an opportunity here to try again to reinsert human override into this bill, to force the government to take another look at it and to keep the pressure on them. Saying that you're going to do a review that was needed 12 months ago, because it was obvious from the beginning that this algorithm is not working, is such a small step forward. It just makes more older people wait. Everything that happens around older people is just about waiting. 'Wait for us to do another review. Wait for us to see whether it makes the algorithm any better. Wait to see if we need to tinker around the edges a little bit more.' All the while, a quarter-of-a-million people are waiting for care and dying while they wait. I am incredibly disappointed that we were not able to work with other members of this chamber to keep the pressure on, to force them to at least reject putting human override in again, because that is what is needed here.

Every older person in this country deserves to have a person have the final say on the care that they need. And families should not have to be in a situation where they see their older parent or their grandparent die waiting for care. I know what that feels like. I watched my mum die of MND like so many other people do in this country, knowing how rejected they felt that the government did not care enough to give them the care that they needed when they desperately needed it. I watched my father, a man in his late 70s, trying to do his very best to care for her without any package support at all. And I know that the MND community welcomes the rapid access, but I want to put on the record again that it is still far too little. When it costs $300,000 a year to care for somebody in the late stages of MND, and the most they can get is $70,000, if the algorithm gets it right, that is not okay. No family in this country should have to be trying to fight their way through a system that is so complex and so complicated, only to find themselves in a situation where they feel like they have to fight for their older parent or family member to get the care they need because a computer is making those decisions and getting them wrong. It's already hard enough to navigate the system.

My plea to everyone in this chamber is this. We have lost an opportunity on this bill to put humans back in charge of making the decisions for older people's care. But I hope the next time we have a piece of legislation before us that gives us the opportunity to do that, we can get it done, because older people do not have time to wait.

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner) and Other Measures Bill 2026. The coalition welcomes the commissioner, and I have said so in this place earlier this week. Today I want to speak about the government's changes to aged-care assessment and why the coalition will support them. Let me be clear at the outset. We are supporting the changes in this bill because older Australians cannot afford to wait any longer. They can't afford to wait any longer. They're telling us that right around the country, when you listen to them and you listen to their families. The problem is not fixed. It is absolutely not fixed. Make no mistake about what this is: an admission by the government that its assessment system is failing older Australians. For almost 12 months, older Australians, their families, assessors and providers have been telling this government that the algorithm is getting it wrong. They told the Senate inquiry. They told our electorate offices. They told anyone who would listen. For almost 12 months, this government told them the system was working.

Now, under the sheer weight of evidence, the government, which talks about caring for vulnerable people, has finally capitulated. It has agreed to an independent review of the very algorithm it spent a year defending. I'm not sure how you could defend it with the weight of evidence that said the algorithm was just the wrong thing to do. It wasn't assessing people appropriately. It was unfair. It was making mistakes. There was the removal of human override. How much more wrong can you get it?

We are giving the government the opportunity to go away, do that work and get it done, but if it does not, we will be back, and I'm confident the Greens and the crossbench will be with us. Together, we will force this government to do the right thing. The coalition won't step away from this fight for human override. That's because we have heard it time and time again. Senator Ruston and I have been speaking to people in communities across South Australia and everywhere else in this country, and we're hearing exactly the same message. The only people that don't seem to be hearing that are on the opposite side. We won't move one inch from pushing for this to happen.

I know the Greens have moved an amendment on human override. We do not believe what the government has put forward is adequate when it comes to human override. An escalation pathway run by the department for people in exceptional circumstances is a step, but it is not the same as letting a qualified assessor sit across the table from an older Australian and correct the computer when it gets it wrong. This Senate has already passed the coalition's bill to restore human override with the support of the Greens and the crossbench. Earlier this year, a senior minister in this government told the parliament:

… in every case there needs to be human oversight of any use of AI. We don't just hand over decision-making to abstract computer programs …

Of course the coalition agrees; it's common sense. Today, we are putting this government on notice. The clock is ticking. The coalition will never step away from older Australians. We will keep pushing for a permanent fix, and we will always back human override, because no algorithm has ever grown old. Every Australian is different, and older Australians deserve a system that sees them as people, not as data. They deserve nothing less.

The time for consideration of this bill has expired.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026; Second Reading Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026

I move:

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

(a) affirms that reliable and affordable mobile coverage is an essential service for regional, rural and remote Australians, underpinning personal safety, business productivity and participation in the digital economy; and

(b) is of the opinion that the bill:

(i) does not provide sufficient certainty that universal outdoor mobile connectivity for voice and SMS services will be delivered to all Australians within the requisite timeframe, particularly for those living in regional, rural and remote Australia,

(ii) places a vague and uncertain obligation on carriers and carriage service providers to provide 'reasonable access' to outdoor mobile connectivity on an 'equitable basis',

(iii) legislates the use of technologies such as voice to satellite before it either exists at scale or is commercially available, fuelling uncertainty and raising false hope, particularly for Australians living or working in regional Australia,

(iv) does not account for the fact that many handset devices in the Australian market will not be compatible with the technology required to access universal outdoor mobile connectivity, and

(v) does not include express obligations in relation to universal access to triple zero emergency voice calls and SMS messages which is crucial for the health and safety of all Australians; and

(c) notes that:

(i) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission commenced an inquiry on 5 August 2026 into regional mobile coverage across Australia, including whether one or more wholesale mobile services, including domestic roaming, should be declared, and that this inquiry provides the appropriate forum to assess the feasibility of a regional mobile roaming service, and

(ii) the Universal Service Obligation, which was designed to ensure reasonable and equitable access to a standard telephone service and payphones, is no longer fit for purpose and should be modernised to establish stronger expectations on carriers and carriage service providers to deliver reliable mobile and internet services, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia".

The coalition supports the objective of improving connectivity for regional Australians, but aspirations are no substitute for implementation. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 is big on motherhood statements but, regrettably, has very little substance. And let's not forget the context. This so-called Labor promise to deliver universal outdoor mobile communications was made in February 2025 in the lead-up to the last federal election. This was all about the politics devised by the office of the previous minister for communications, Ms Rowland, to cover up the fact that Labor was planning to axe vital funding for regional communications.

That is exactly what happened in the May budget this year, to the great shame of the Albanese government. This government has turned its back on the regions by slashing vital programs to support regional connectivity, including the Mobile Black Spot Program. The communications minister even made the heartless decision to axe the Regional Tech Hub, another coalition initiative which has played such a valuable role in supporting regional Australians with their internet and phone connectivity challenges.

While the intent of the bill is broadly supported by the mobile network operators and key stakeholders, the government has very significantly failed to address how universal mobile coverage for text messages and voice calls can possibly be delivered by the commencement date of 1 December 2027. That is because the technology does not currently exist. The satellites are not in the sky, satellite compatible devices are not available at scale, and the mobile satellite spectrum has not been allocated. While Telstra may have a deal in place with SpaceX to, by the end of next year, deliver text and voice mobile communications via Starlink's low Earth orbit satellite, Optus and TPG have made clear that this is not achievable in the timeframe available. In fact, it may not be possible for TPG and Optus to deliver this technology until maybe 2029 or even 2030 and beyond. This is a bill that is big on promises and very short on delivery.

But, as they say, never let the facts get in the way of the story. Despite this bill being riddled with uncertainty, Minister Wells, when it was introduced into the House and passed in the House, posted a video on social media saying that 'the legislation delivers better service wherever you can see the sky'. It's completely wrong—completely misleading; we didn't hear from the Ooshies, but we've had another social media video from the minister which is just utter nonsense. The problem is that the government has put up the 'open for business' sign before the shop has even been built. Australians can look to the sky all they like; until the direct-to-device satellites are in place, the technology is proven and the commercial agreements with Australia's mobile network operators are done, there is no universal service to deliver. A slogan is not coverage, a promise is not a mobile service, and looking at the sky will not make your phone work. As I say, this bill is big on promises, big on talk and very, very small on delivery.

I will go through some of the components of the bill. But we have, of course, proposed a number of amendments, and I am hoping that the Senate will support those amendments. These will try and fill in some of the very significant gaps with this bill. The first one relates to temporary disaster roaming, which currently is only a voluntary scheme. We don't believe that that is good enough. The government has talked about temporary disaster roaming for a number of years. The technology has been tested, the need is obvious, yet there is only a voluntary scheme in place. We're told that it commenced as of 1 October. This amendment draws a line in the sand. It makes it clear that, to the extent that the voluntary scheme is not in place or it falters, the minister must act and establish a framework commencing no later than 1 December. We believe that it's unacceptable—when lives depend on access to communications during a bushfire, flood or cyclone or other disasters and Australians need access to disaster roaming—and a very significant misstep that the minister put in place a voluntary scheme rather than legislating for temporary disaster roaming. So we are very hopeful that this important amendment will be supported by the Senate.

We have also proposed an amendment relating to the minister being required to make standards for the performance and reliability of mobile networks. The government has talked endlessly about coverage, but coverage means nothing if the service is unreliable, congested or simply does not work. This bill, unfortunately, just gives the minister discretion to set standards, and we think that that is insufficient. Australians need accountability from mobile networks, which are becoming more and more crucial. So this amendment requires the minister to establish minimum standards for terrestrial mobile networks, informed by the ACCC's current inquiry and developed with regulators, carriers and consumers. Australians should not have to accept dropped calls, unusable data and persistent black spots as normal.

This is also in the context of the fact that, despite the recommendation in the Bean review that the triple zero regulatory framework should be reviewed and updated—because we've seen some catastrophic outages, including, of course, in relation to the vital triple zero service—the government sat on its hands for two years. That is simply not good enough, so we believe that there must be a requirement for these standards to be made. What is very significant as part of this work is the ACCC's inquiry, and I'll come to that in a moment.

The other amendment relates to mobile roaming. The government has turned its back on mobile roaming, and there is very good cause to consider how we can improve connectivity in the regions, including through mobile roaming. Since our bill inquiry, which we conducted through the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, what has been very significant is the announcement by the ACCC of an inquiry to examine regional mobile coverage across Australia and whether regulating wholesale access to some mobile services could improve consumer outcomes. This inquiry will examine a lot of these issues, including mobile roaming. There have been a number of different inquiries. Back in 2017, the ACCC decided against mobile roaming, but in recent years we have seen investment by the telcos in the regions decline, and that is also the observation of the ACCC. So this is very significant, and this work cannot be ignored. That is why, as part of making the performance and reliability standards, the minister needs to take this very substantial inquiry and its findings into account.

This inquiry, I think, is a game changer, and the telcos are on notice because, of course, the ACCC has the ability to compel the production of documents that we can't access because they are commercial-in-confidence. We have sought, for instance, the investment pipeline of the telcos to understand what their investment plans are for regional Australia, and those documents have been denied. So the ACCC's work in this respect is very significant, and it will also, I think, play a very important role in the fact that there is just not enough regulation surrounding mobile networks in this country, which have become completely vital to every Australian. More and more Australians are dropping off their landline and relying on their mobile phone and on connectivity. So, as I say, we cannot overstate the importance of the ACCC inquiry, which I think will hold the government to account for its failure to take these issues seriously enough.

I want to address a couple of specific issues with this bill in more detail. As I say, it is incredibly alarming that the government has slashed and burned regional connectivity funding as if the regions don't matter anymore, because mobile roaming is not going to work if there is no connectivity at all. There are still many parts of this country where large regional communities either have access to deficient connectivity or have no mobile connectivity, and that has been made worse by the government's botched 3G shutdown, which has actually reduced coverage in some parts of regional Australia.

So the fact that the minister is bringing forward a bill, which has got big aspirations but very little meat on the bones, and is pretending that almost everything's fine because we now have this whole new world of satellite connectivity where we can hold our phone, look to the sky and think everything's going to be great is complete rubbish, as I've set out, because the technology is not yet available. What's made this even more deceptive is that the government has heavily promoted the commencement date of 1 December 2027 when it knows—and it is on notice—that two of the three telcos will not be able to deliver within that timeframe because the technology simply does not exist.

Another concern I want to raise is that there are a lot of 'get out of jail' clauses here. The bill leaves far too much to be decided later by the minister, by way of a general power to make determinations, and critical concepts such as 'reasonably available' and 'equitable basis' are left undefined. There are very uncertain obligations on providing mobile connectivity that's reasonably available on an equitable basis. This means that the parliament is being asked to pass the framework now and trust the minister to write much of the substance down the track. That is also very concerning.

The other really concerning issue with this bill is spectrum. Direct-to-device satellite services depend on access to a suitable radio frequency spectrum, yet the bill has not resolved how that spectrum will be secured, allocated or managed alongside existing terrestrial mobile services. The Senate inquiry heard all sorts of serious warnings from industry. Optus said satellite services could require carriers to cannibalise spectrum currently used for terrestrial mobile networks. This, of course, is a matter currently with ACMA, but how can a bill be put forward with such definitive requirements while really critical issues such as spectrum are still not determined?

The other major problem, of course, is that this connectivity proposed to be in place by 1 December next year depends on device compatibility. We heard in our inquiry that many existing handsets will not support the full direct-to-device satellite service compatibility that is required. That is a real issue, of course, when Australians are being told that everything will be fine by the end of next year but they are then required to upgrade their phones.

The amendments that we have brought forward, which we hope will be supported by the Senate, expose essential weakness with this bill. We support the intent of the bill, but the government has got to do much better. I say shame on the government for their disgraceful cuts to regional connectivity. (Time expired)

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 today. I want to put it clearly on the record from the beginning that this is a missed opportunity for the government to work with the parliament to fix Australia's broken telecommunications laws. They are simply not up to scratch. They are not working and they are failing millions and millions of Australians. Australia's telecommunications laws are virtually silent on the need for mobile service to be reliable, to be guaranteed and to have some basic elements of standards. Unlike landline services—you see those old phones plugged into the wall which of course have had, for many, many years, rules and regulations about how reliable those services should be—there is virtually nothing in law that says mobile phone companies must provide a reliable and working service to their customers. And yet Australians across the board now use mobile phones far more than they use landlines. There are millions of households across Australia that don't even have a landline anymore and use their mobile phone service as their only form of telecommunication.

Our laws are not up to scratch. They're not fit for purpose, they're out of date, and they need to be fixed. There would have been an opportunity, in this piece of legislation—with proper negotiations, talk and a willingness across all sides of this chamber—to actually do something to improve the level of standard and reliability for Australians. But that's not what we've got here. We've got a bill that is really the bare basics and goes nowhere near lifting the level of standards and guaranteed reliability that Australians should expect and do deserve from their mobile phone carriers.

Why is it that we're debating a bill today that doesn't give proper regulations for working mobile phone services? It's because the mobile phone companies don't want these rules. The mobile phone companies, the big telcos— Telstra, Optus and TPG—are very happy not to have rules and regulations that say they must provide a service to their customers so that when somebody signs up for a mobile phone contract that it might actually work and that, if it doesn't work, customers should be entitled to some compensation. If you've bought a product, if you've signed a contract and then it doesn't work, if it costs your business money and it costs you time, and if you've suffered as a result of your mobile phone not working, you should be able to seek compensation. But there's nothing like that in Australian law.

The Greens are moving amendments today that would put that type of compensation in law so that Australians can rely on having a working mobile phone and the companies are held to account if indeed the phone service goes down. We have seen hundreds—in fact, there have been thousands—of outages of the mobile phone network in the last year. We know millions and millions of Australians have been impacted in the last year because their mobile phone didn't work. This has been because the big telcos have been too busy looking after themselves, putting their profits first and not investing in reliable infrastructure. Because there are no laws that require them to offer some guarantees about the reliability of their service, they get away with it. Because there are no laws that say they should pay if their service goes down and it costs their customers money, they get away with it. The big outage that happened in July—when millions of Australians were left in the cold with dead mobile phones, locked out of public transport, locked out of trading in their small businesses, not able to use their emergency distress buttons and not able to call triple zero—was because Telstra's system went down. Do you know how much that cost the Australian economy? It cost $552 million. Australians are paying the price because the big telcos think they can keep getting away with a dodgy service.

I must say I'm a bit frustrated that we're in here today. We're about to ram through this bill, and it doesn't actually go to the heart of the problem. It doesn't matter how much spin the big telcos, the minister's office, the government or anybody else puts on it, this bill is going to pass and Australians have no more protection or guarantees that their mobile phone service will work. I guarantee there will continue to be outages. There will continue to be failures of triple zero calls. The worst thing of all is what happens if you can't call triple zero. What happens? Well, we know. Sadly, we've seen people lose their lives because the mobile phone companies were too busy putting their profits ahead of people's safety. We had an opportunity to fix that in here today. This bill doesn't do it.

I'll be moving a series of amendments that go to this point, saying that it should be a law that, if you provide a mobile phone service, it should work. It should be the law that, if your mobile phone service—Telstra, Optus, TPG, Vodafone—fails, you should pay for that. The Australian people and taxpayers shouldn't be covering the cost. We'll put in place an amendment in this chamber soon and put to this chamber the opportunity for the government and the opposition to vote for domestic roaming. Why is it that, in other countries around the world, people can swap from mobile phone company to mobile phone company based on being able to access a working service, yet, in Australia, Australians are locked out of that. It is just not right. The big telcos are laughing all the way to the bank. They're clocking up their profits, yet the service that they provide is crap. It's unreliable, it's dangerous, and it's costing people their businesses and lives. We should have fixed it. It should have been done in this bill. I think it is appalling that the pressure that the big telcos have put on both the Labor Party and the coalition means they've failed to do it in this bill—gutless, gutless, gutless.

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026. Connectivity is critical infrastructure. We take it for granted, but, when it breaks down, it can have devastating consequences. This was best seen during the fires that affected Victoria in January, which were amongst the worst natural disasters in Victoria's history. These summer fires burned through 440,000 hectares, including more than 144,000 hectares in the Longwood region, a region that I had the privilege and opportunity to visit. This event had the largest agricultural impact from fire in Victoria's history. There were 451 homes lost, with over 1,110 outhouses lost and 45,000 livestock losses. The shire of Murrindindi, in particular, was worst affected, but it also affected the shires of Mitchell, Mansfield and Strathbogie. It took the life of one Mansfield resident, cattle farmer Mr Max Hobson.

I want to describe the losses in Murrindindi because they speak to what this community had to go through and how they had to respond and recover when communications collapsed. That is the backdrop against the significance of having universal outdoor mobile coverage. This bill will enable communication, initially by text messaging, to happen anywhere you can see the sky. I can't tell you how critical that is, but you need to understand the losses this community experienced. In Murrindindi, nearly 200 homes were destroyed along with over 400 sheds and outhouses. There were 1,157 properties impacted. There were nearly 7,800 livestock losses, constituting $20 million in losses—5,600 sheep, over 1,500 cattle and nearly 500 beehives as well as poultry, goats, three horses, one pig and 40 other animals. Over 4,800 kilometres of fencing was destroyed, costing over $120 million to replace. I note that many farms were underinsured for fencing, plants and other infrastructure. And, of course, there were impacts on the natural environment. An estimated 1,200 to 1,400 tree hollows were lost, affecting and impacting threatened species, like gang-gang cockatoos, powerful owls and yellow-tailed black cockatoos, which I see frequently when I travel to that region.

During these catastrophic conditions, comms failed entirely, hampering the response and recovery of this community. According to Telstra—and this came from the Victorian state government inquiry that happened shortly after—270 fixed and mobile sites went offline. With the fire starting on 7 January, some four days later, as many as 25 communities were identified as being at risk of losing all mobile and broadband services. Imagine that. Courageous local emergency services were forced to relocate from their state-of-the-art relatively new facility in Alexandra to Seymour because the comms failed. They had to keep fighting without mobile connection. Can you imagine that? Crews lost communication. Even digital radios that were relatively new on the CFA trucks failed because they did not work in black spots, leaving these crews vulnerable and unable to contact each other and unable to communicate with their incident controllers. I can't imagine the circumstances of this.

In the recovery phase, I spoke to one farmer who described what it was like. In searing heat, he had to bury carcases of his stock. In the midst of this, he had to get approval, and he had to use physical runners to send forms to the local state authorities to get permission to bury his stock, in searing heat, because the comms failed. Under this law, as I said before, you will be able to get outdoor coverage via text messaging initially nearly anywhere if you can look up to see the sky. It could be a game changer, if we have another terrible fire season, as is being predicted. It will be enabled by LEO satellites. From as early as 1 December 2027, this law requires Telstra, Optus and TPG to provide baseline outdoor coverage across Australia where reasonably possible, using their towers together with these low-Earth-orbit, or LEO, satellites.

As of the beginning of this month, Telstra, Optus and TPG will activate temporary disaster roaming so that, when one network goes down during a severe weather event, customers can automatically be camped onto another network without losing service. Combined with UOMO, this provides options; it provides layers of safeguards so that, when the chips are down, if comms fails, people have options. I hope we never again have to go through the kind of catastrophe and stress and anxiety that the community of Victoria, particularly in Murrindindi, experienced.

I'd like to thank those firefighters, the CFA volunteers, the emergency personnel, the local leaders and the community members who welcomed me and share their stories and who have enabled this bill to come to pass. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Pursuant to the order agreed this morning, the time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill—and eight other bills—has expired.

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026

I'll now put the questions on the remaining stages of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I will first deal with the motion moved by Senator Allman-Payne proposing an instruction to the Committee of the Whole to divide the bill. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

I'll now deal with the committee of the whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

The question is that the amendments on sheet PJ127 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Schedule 4, item 8, page 63 (line 27), omit paragraph 90B(4)(a), substitute:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the period prescribed in the rules;

(3) Schedule 4, item 8, page 65 (line 15), after "must", insert ", within the period prescribed in the rules,".

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that amendments on sheet 4179 be agreed to.

(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 61 (line 13), after "category", insert ", if made on or before 31 December 2027,".

(2) Schedule 4, item 8, page 62 (after line 16), after subsection 90A(1), insert:

(1A) However, despite subsection (1), a decision made by the System Governor after 31 December 2027 is not a prescribed entry decision.

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments and the request for an amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. In accordance with the usual practice, the statements accompanying the request circulated for this bill will be incorporated in Hansard. As the motion proposing an instruction to the committee to divide the bills into two bills was negated, the question will not be put on the amendment sheet to give effect to that division; that is sheet 4178.

The question is that the amendments on sheets 4169, 4170, 4171, 4172 and 4183 and the request for an amendment on sheet 3947 be agreed to.

SHEET 4169

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 11 (after line 8), after paragraph 361G(2)(a), insert:

(aa) must be of an administrative nature only; and

_____

SHEET 4170

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (after line 16), after section 361E, insert:

361EA Inquiries into matters relating to functions

(1) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may inquire into matters relating to, or for the purposes of, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions.

Recommendations

(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may, in writing, make recommendations after inquiring into matters under this section, including recommending that a person or body take a specified course of action.

(3) If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner recommends that a Commonwealth agency take a specified course of action, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may, by written notice, request the Commonwealth agency to give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner a response to the recommendation before taking the action.

Publication

(4) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may publish a report on inquiries conducted under this section.

_____

SHEET 4171

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 16), at the end of the item, add:

Australian government entity or official means:

(a) a Commonwealth entity; or

(b) an official (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013); or

(c) a State or Territory government entity; or

(d) an official of a State or Territory government entity.

(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (lines 17 to 28), omit subsection 361F, substitute:

361F Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may require information or documents

(1) This section applies if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner reasonably believes that a person has, or could take reasonable steps to obtain, information or documents relevant to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions.

(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may give the person a written notice that requires the person to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection 361FA(1) (give specified information, produce specified documents or appear to answer questions).

Note: Failing to comply with a notice given to a person may result in a civil penalty: see section 361FB.

Notice does not authorise government entity or official to provide personal information

(3) A notice given to an Australian government entity or official does not authorise the provision of personal information about an individual, other than if the individual has consented to the use or disclosure of the information for that purpose.

Note: If the notice requires the production of a document containing personal information, the person complies with the notice by producing a copy of the document with that information deleted.

361FA Contents of notice

(1) A notice given under section 361F may require a person to do the following:

(a) give information specified in the notice to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner within the period and in the manner specified in the notice;

(b) produce copies of documents specified in the notice to theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner within the period and in the manner specified in the notice;

(c) if the person is an individual—appear before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner to answer questions at the time and in the manner specified in the notice;

(d) if the person is not an individual—cause a competent officer of the person to appear before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner to answer questions at the time and in the manner specified in the notice.

Note: For paragraphs (c) and (d), the notice may, for example, specify that the person is to appear before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner to answer questions:

(a) by attending in person at a specified physical location; or

(b) by using a specified technology.

(2) The notice must set out the effect of the following provisions:

(a) section 361FA;

(b) section 137.1 of the Criminal Code (about an offence for giving false or misleading information);

(c) section 137.2 of the Criminal Code (about an offence for producing false or misleading documents).

Minimum period for complying with notice

(3) A period specified under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) must end at least 14 days after the day the notice is given.

(4) A time specified under paragraph (1)(c) or (d) must be on a day that is at least 14 days after the day the notice is given.

361FB Failing to comply with notice

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person is given a notice under section 361F; and

(b) the person is not an Australian government entity or official; and

(c) the person fails to comply with a requirement of the notice.

Civil penalty: 30 penalty units.

Exception reasonable excuse

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

361FC Inspection and retention of documents

(1) This section applies if a person produces a physical document under section 361F.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may inspect and copy documents

(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may:

(a) inspect the document; and

(b) make and retain copies of the whole or a part of the document.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may retain documents

(3) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may take possession of the document and retain it for as long as is reasonably necessary.

Certified copy of documents

(4) The person otherwise entitled to possession of the document is entitled to be supplied, as soon as practicable, with a copy certified by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner to be a true copy.

(5) The certified copy must be received in all courts and tribunals as evidence as if it were the original.

(6) Until a certified copy is supplied, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner must provide the person otherwise entitled to possession of the document, or a person authorised by that person, reasonable access to the document for the purposes of inspecting and making copies of the whole or a part of the document.

361FD Answering questions in accordance with notice

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner has given a notice under section 361F; and

(b) the notice requires a person to appear before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner in accordance with a requirement mentioned in paragraph 361FA(1)(c) or (d).

(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may require the person to answer questions orally or in writing.

Civil penalty

(3) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person appears before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner in accordance with the requirement; and

(b) the recipient of the notice is not an Australian government entity or official; and

(c) the person refuses or fails to answer a question put by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner.

Civil penalty: 30 penalty units.

Exception reasonable excuse

(4) However, subsection (3) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

361FE Self-incrimination etc.

(1) An individual is not excused from giving information, producing a document or answering a question under this Division on the ground that doing so might tend to incriminate the individual in relation to an offence.

Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-incrimination.

(2) However:

(a) the information given, document produced or answer given; and

(b) the giving of the information, the production of the document or the answering of the question; and

(c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the information, the production of the document or the answering of the question;

are not admissible in evidence against the individual in criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence against section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code (about false or misleading information or documents) that relates to this Division.

(3) If, at general law, an individual would otherwise be able to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty (other than a penalty for an offence) in relation to giving information, producing a document or answering a question under this Division, the individual is not excused from doing so under this Division on that ground.

Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty.

(3) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 26), after item 17, insert:

17A Section 396

After "available to the Commissioner, Complaints Commissioner", insert ", Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner".

17B After section 400

Insert:

400A Authorised applicant, authorised person and relevant chief executive — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner functions

For the purposes of Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as that Part applies in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection 397(1) and the information mentioned in subsection 397(2) of this Act that relate to a function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner:

(a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is an authorised applicant; and

(b) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is an authorised person; and

(c) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is the relevant chief executive.

17C After section 415

Insert

415A Authorised applicant, authorised person and relevant chief executive — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner functions

For the purposes of Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as that Part applies in relation to evidential material that relates to a provision mentioned in section 412 of this Act that relates to a function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner:

(a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is an authorised applicant; and

(b) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is an authorised person; and

(c) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is the relevant chief executive.

17D After section 442

Insert:

442A Authorised applicant — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner functions

For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is an authorised applicant in relation to the civil penalty provisions of this Act that relate to a function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner.

_____

SHEET 4172

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (after line 3), after section 361C, insert:

361CA Principles for performing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care commissioner functions

Best interests of older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons

(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner performs the functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner in a manner that promotes the best interests of older Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural identity and safety

(2) It is the intention of the Parliament that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner performs the functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner in a manner that recognises the need to protect and promote the cultural identity and safety of older Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons through maintaining and building their connections to their family and community.

International human rights

(3) It is the intention of the Parliament that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner performs the functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner in a manner consistent with the promotion of the following:

(a) the principles set out in:

(i) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, being the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007; and

(ii) the United Nations Principles for Older People, being the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1991; and

(b) Australia's obligation under:

(i) the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006; and

(ii) any other relevant international instrument (within the meaning of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986); and

(iii) any other international agreement relating to human rights that Australia is a party to.

Note 1: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2026 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).

Note 2: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is in Australian Treaty Series 2008 No. 12 ([2008] ATS 12) and could in 2026 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

_____

SHEET 4183

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

(2) Page 37 (after line 14), after Schedule 2, insert:

Schedule 2A — Restoring human override for aged care needs assessments and classification assessments

Part 1 — Amendments

Aged Care Act 2024

1 After subsection 62(1)

Insert:

(1A) However, the approved needs assessor's discretion in undertaking the aged care needs assessment must not be limited by the assessment tool or any other requirements prescribed by the rules.

Note: The assessment tool is intended to support (not displace) an approved needs assessor's discretion in undertaking aged care needs assessments.

2 After subsection 76(1)

Insert:

(1A) However, for the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) and (b)(i), the approved needs assessor's discretion in undertaking the classification assessment must not be limited by the assessment tool or any other requirements prescribed by the rules.

Note: The assessment tool is intended to support (not displace) an approved needs assessor's discretion in undertaking classification assessments.

3 Paragraph 79(2)(c)

Omit "decision.", substitute "decision; and".

4 After paragraph 79(2)(c)

Insert:

(d) details of the System Governor's process for making the decision, including the following details in relation to any classification assessment undertaken for the decision:

(i) how any assessment tool prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) was used;

(ii) how any other requirements prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) were satisfied.

Part 2 — Transitional provisions

5 Application of amendments

The amendments of the Aged Care Act 2024 made by this Schedule apply in relation to aged care needs assessments and classification assessments undertaken on or after the commencement of this item (whether the assessments began to be undertaken before, on or after that commencement).

6 Transitional — reassessment of aged care needs

(1) An individual may request a reassessment of the individual's need for funded aged care services if:

(a) there is an eligibility determination for an aged care needs assessment in effect for the individual; and

(b) an aged care needs assessment (the existing assessment) for the individual was undertaken before the commencement of this item; and

(c) the individual believes the existing assessment is incorrect or inaccurate because of an assessment tool or requirement prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subsection 62(1) of the Aged Care Act 2024.

(2) If an individual makes such a request, the System Governor is taken, for the purposes of applying subsection 61(1) of that Act, to have made a decision that a reassessment of the individual's need for funded aged care services is required to be undertaken by an approved needs assessor in accordance with paragraph 64(2)(a) of that Act.

7 Transitional — reassessment of classification

(1) An individual may request a classification assessment for the individual if:

(a) a classification level for a classification type for a service group for the individual is in effect because of a classification assessment (the existing assessment) that was undertaken before the commencement of this item; and

(b) the individual believes the existing assessment is incorrect or inaccurate because of an assessment tool or requirement prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) of the Aged Care Act 2024.

(2) If an individual makes such a request, the individual is taken, for the purposes of applying subsection 75(1) of that Act, to have made an application for a classification reassessment for the classification type for the service group under section 82 of that Act.

_____

SHEET 3947

(1) Page 55 (after line 24), after Part 10 of Schedule 3, insert:

Part 10A — Stolen Generations redress payments

Aged Care Rules 2025

43A At the end of section 314-10

Add:

Individuals who have received Stolen Generations redress payments

(13) The percentage for the individual contribution rate for each means testing category is 0% for an individual who has received a payment under one or more of the following:

(a) the scheme known as the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme;

(b) the scheme known as the NSW Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme;

(c) the package known as the Stolen Generations Reparations Package of Victoria;

(d) the scheme known as the WA Stolen Generations Redress Scheme;

(e) the scheme known as the Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme of South Australia;

(f) the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Act 2006 (Tas.).

(14) For the purposes of subsection (13), an individual is taken to have received a payment if another person acting on behalf of the individual received the payment.

43B Application

The amendment to section 314-10 of the Aged Care Rules 2025 made by this Part applies in relation to an individual contribution rate for an individual at a time that is before, on or after the commencement of this item, whether a payment mentioned in subsection 314-10(13) of the Aged Care Rules 2025, as added by this Part, was paid before, on or after that commencement.

_____

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

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to provide that the individual contribution rate for an individual who has received Stolen Generations redress payments is deemed to be 0% for each means testing category within the Aged Care Act 2024. As a result, Commonwealth contributions for funded aged care services in a home or community setting will increase in respect of affected individuals. This will increase expenditure under section 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024.

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

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Jacinta Nampijinpa Price David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

():  Please note my support for 4170, 4172 and 4183.

I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by One Nation. The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Sarah Henderson Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten

I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that amendments on sheets 4150 and 4151 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 4150

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 23), after subsection 361A(2), insert:

(2A) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner holds office on a full-time basis.

(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (line 21), at the end of subsection 361B(4), add:

; and (c) act in a manner that recognises the need to protect and promote the cultural identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons; and

(d) act in accordance with:

(i) articles 21.1 and 22.1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, being the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007; and

(ii) the United Nations Principles for Older People, being the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1991.

Note: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2026 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).

(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (after line 5), after section 361D, insert:

361DA Arrangements relating to the staff of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner

(1) The staff assisting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner are to be the staff of the Commission whose services are made available to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, by the Commissioner, in connection with the performance of any of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions.

(2) When performing services for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, the persons are subject to the directions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner.

(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (line 29) to page 11 (line 20), omit section 361G, substitute:

361G Independence of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner

(1) Subject to this Act and to other laws of the Commonwealth, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, in performing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions:

(a) has complete discretion; and

(b) is not subject to direction from anyone.

(2) To avoid doubt, subject to this Act and to other laws of the Commonwealth, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may, in performing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions, publish any matter that relates to those functions in any manner that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner considers appropriate.

(5) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 20), after item 15, insert:

15A At the end of section 368

Add:

(3) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner if the Minister is satisfied that there is a demonstrated loss of confidence by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner.

_____

SHEET 4151

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (after line 11), after subsection 361D(2), insert:

(2A) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner must consult older Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities and representative organisations in preparing a work plan for a financial year.

(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (line 13), omit "must consult the Minister", substitute "may consult the Minister".

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Ralph Babet Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

I will now deal with amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. The question is that the amendments on sheets 4181 and 4182 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

SHEET 4181

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (lines 22 to 28), omit subsection 361B(5), substitute:

(5) In performing the functions mentioned in subsection (1), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may consult with any person or body the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner considers appropriate.

_____

SHEET 4182

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 10 (lines 17 to 28), omit section 361F, substitute:

361F Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may require information or documents from persons

(1) If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner reasonably believes that a person has information or documents relevant to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner's functions, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner may, by written notice, require the person to give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner any such information or documents (or copies of any such documents).

(2) The notice must:

(a) be signed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner; and

(b) be served on the person required to give the information or documents; and

(c) specify the period within which the person must comply with the notice.

(3) A time specified in a notice must be at least 14 days after the notice is served on the person.

Offence failure to comply with notice

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is served with a notice under subsection (1) to give information or a document, specified in the notice; and

(b) the person fails to comply with the notice.

Penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

Reasonable excuse

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Ralph Babet Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Limitation of Debate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025

I will first deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments and requests for amendment, starting with the requests circulated by the government. In accordance with the usual practices, the statements accompanying the requests will be incorporated in Hansard. I understand the Minister has a document to table.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's request for amendments to be moved to this bill.

The question is that the request for amendments on sheet AU137 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 11, column 1), omit "Schedule 9", substitute "Schedules 8A and 9".

(2) Page 76 (after line 26), after Schedule 8, insert:

Schedule 8A — Stolen Generations redress and reparations payments

Social Security Act 1991

1 After paragraph 8(8)(jc)

Insert:

(jca) a payment under a scheme (however described) established by a State to provide redress or reparations in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons from the Stolen Generations;

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

2 After paragraph 5H(8)(mb)

Insert:

(mba) a payment under a scheme (however described) established by a State to provide redress or reparations in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons from the Stolen Generations;

3 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a payment made on or after the commencement of this item.

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments and requests for amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3964 and 4034, and the requests for the amendments on sheet 3936 be agreed to.

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Ralph Babet Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Chris Gatenby Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to subject to a request.

Question agreed to.

Because the bill has been agreed to subject to a request, it will not be read a third time. A message will be sent to the House requesting that the House make that amendment.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026

I will now deal with the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment as moved by the opposition on sheet 4145 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

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

(a) affirms that reliable and affordable mobile coverage is an essential service for regional, rural and remote Australians, underpinning personal safety, business productivity and participation in the digital economy; and

(b) is of the opinion that the bill:

(i) does not provide sufficient certainty that universal outdoor mobile connectivity for voice and SMS services will be delivered to all Australians within the requisite timeframe, particularly for those living in regional, rural and remote Australia,

(ii) places a vague and uncertain obligation on carriers and carriage service providers to provide 'reasonable access' to outdoor mobile connectivity on an 'equitable basis',

(iii) legislates the use of technologies such as voice to satellite before it either exists at scale or is commercially available, fuelling uncertainty and raising false hope, particularly for Australians living or working in regional Australia,

(iv) does not account for the fact that many handset devices in the Australian market will not be compatible with the technology required to access universal outdoor mobile connectivity, and

(v) does not include express obligations in relation to universal access to triple zero emergency voice calls and SMS messages which is crucial for the health and safety of all Australians; and

(c) notes that:

(i) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission commenced an inquiry on 5 August 2026 into regional mobile coverage across Australia, including whether one or more wholesale mobile services, including domestic roaming, should be declared, and that this inquiry provides the appropriate forum to assess the feasibility of a regional mobile roaming service, and

(ii) the Universal Service Obligation, which was designed to ensure reasonable and equitable access to a standard telephone service and payphones, is no longer fit for purpose and should be modernised to establish stronger expectations on carriers and carriage service providers to deliver reliable mobile and internet services, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia".

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Andrew Bragg Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Henderson Maria Kovacic Jacqui Lambie Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong Slade Brockman Dorinda Cox Claire Chandler Jana Stewart Chris Gatenby Nita Green Jane Hume Jess Walsh Andrew McLachlan Corinne Mulholland

by leave—Can I just give my apologies to the chamber. I missed that division. It was a one-minute bell. I've recently had surgery, and, notwithstanding the fact I ran, I couldn't quite make it.

Thank you, Senator Scarr. I don't think we want you running, but thank you for the explanation. The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I shall now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition.

Could I ask that 4127 be put separately, please.

We'll do 4127 first. The question is that the amendment on sheet 4127 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 23 (after line 29), after subsection 125B(1), insert:

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine standards to be complied with by carriers and carriage service providers in relation to the performance and reliability of mobile telecommunications services supplied using terrestrial mobile networks.

(1B) In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the findings of the mobile service inquiry, including any findings in relation to coverage gaps, service reliability, competition and investment in regional mobile networks.

(1C) Before making the determination, the Minister must consult the ACCC, ACMA, carriers, carriage service providers and consumer and regional representatives.

(1D) The determination must be made within three months after publication of the ACCC's final report for the mobile services inquiry.

(1E) In this section, mobile services inquiry means the inquiry held by the ACCC under Part 25 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 about proposals to declare domestic roaming and radio access network services under Division 2 of Part XIC the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that commenced on 5 August 2026.

Note: Notice of the mobile services inquiry could in 2026 be viewed on the ACCC's website (www.accc.gov.au).

Question agreed to.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 4126 and 4128 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 4126

(1) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 24), after Part 1, insert:

Part 1A — Temporary disaster roaming

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999

19A After Part 9

Insert:

Part 9A — Temporary disaster roaming

158A Temporary disaster roaming

(1) If, by 31 October 2026, the Minister is of the opinion that sufficient industry arrangements are not in place for the provision of temporary disaster roaming in Australia, the Minister must, by legislative instrument, make a determination establishing a temporary disaster roaming framework.

(2) The determination must provide for the temporary disaster roaming framework to commence no later than 1 December 2026.

(3) The determination must provide for specified carriers or carriage service providers to enable end-users to access the carrier or provider's mobile telecommunications network during a natural disaster where the telecommunications network ordinarily used for the end-users' service is unavailable, so far as reasonably practicable and consistent with the safe, secure and reliable operation of a mobile telecommunications network.

(4) If the Minister does not make a determination in accordance with subsection (1), the Minister must table in both houses of Parliament a statement by 31 October 2026 setting out the industry arrangements which are in place for the provision of temporary disaster roaming.

_____

SHEET 4128

(1) Page 28 (after line 20), at the end of Schedule 1, add:

Part 3 — Domestic mobile roaming

Telecommunications Act 1997

22 At the end of Division 3 of Part 25

Add:

506A Conduct of the mobile services inquiry

(1) The Minister must request, in writing, that in conducting the mobile services inquiry, the ACCC, consistent with section 152AB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, considers the benefits to consumers, and impacts on investment and competition of declaring a domestic mobile roaming service.

(2) Subsection (1) is not intended to alter the statutory test applied by the ACCC under section 152AB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

(3) In this section, mobile services inquiry means the inquiry held by the ACCC under this Part about proposals to declare domestic roaming and radio access network services under Division 2 of Part XIC the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that commenced on 5 August 2026.

Note: Notice of the mobile services inquiry could in 2026 be viewed on the ACCC's website (www.accc.gov.au).

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 4030 and 4122 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

SHEET 4030

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 23 (lines 4 to 29), omit subsection 125B(1), substitute:

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine standards to be complied with by carriers and carriage service providers in relation to any or all of the following matters relating to mobile telecommunications service supplied, or proposed to be supplied, by the carriers and providers:

(a) the terms and conditions (whether or not relating to price or a method of ascertaining price) of the supply of a mobile telecommunications service;

(b) the reliability of a mobile telecommunications service;

(c) the quality and performance of a mobile telecommunications service;

(d) the accessibility of a mobile telecommunications service;

(e) the availability of a telecommunications service;

(f) the resiliency and redundancy of a mobile telecommunications service;

(g) the maximum period within which a carrier or carriage service provider must rectify a fault or service difficulty relating to a mobile telecommunications service after it is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of a fault or service difficulty;

(h) the frequency, duration, or restoration of network outages that affect the supply of a mobile telecommunications service;

(i) action which a carrier or carriage service provider must take to address congestion affecting a telecommunications network the provider uses to supply a mobile telecommunications service;

(j) information or a carrier or carriage service provider must give to a customer of a designated mobile telecommunications service;

(k) any other matter concerning the supply or proposed supply of a mobile telecommunications service.

Note: See also section 589 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (instruments under this Act may provide for matters by reference to other instruments).

(2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 24 (after line 6), after subsection 125B(5), insert:

Standards may be declared designated compensable standards

(5A) A determination under subsection (1) may declare that a specified standard set out in the determination is a designated compensable standard for the purposes of this Part.

(5B) A determination under subsection (1) may declare that a specified number of days is the relevant number of days for the purposes of the application of section 125BA to a specified designated compensable standard.

Designated compensable standards

(5C) The Minister may, in writing, direct the ACMA to determine a standard under subsection (1) that:

(a) applies to participants in a specific section of the telecommunications industry; and

(b) deals with one or more specified matters relating to the telecommunications activities of those participants; and

(c) specifies the period within which the standard must be in force.

A standard determined by the ACMA under this subsection is a designated compensable standard.

(5D) A direction under subsection (5C) must be given within 6 months after the commencement of this section.

(5E) If no direction has been made at the end of the period specified in subsection (5D), the ACMA must determine standards under subsection (1) relating to matters mentioned in:

(a) paragraph (1)(b); and

(b) paragraph (1)(c); and

(c) paragraph (1)(g); and

(d) paragraph (1)(h).

(5F) Standards made under subsection (5E) must be in force within 18 months after the commencement of this section.

(3) Schedule 1, item 21, page 24 (after line 15), after section 125B, insert:

125BA Damages for breach of designated compensable standard

(1) If:

(a) a carrier or carriage service provider contravenes a designated compensable standard; and

(b) the standard is determined under subsection 125B(1); and

(c) the contravention relates to a particular customer;

the carrier or carriage service provider is liable to pay damages to the customer for the contravention.

(2) If:

(a) a carrier or carriage service provider contravenes a designated compensable rule; and

(b) the rule is determined under subsection 125B(1); and

(c) the contravention relates to a particular customer;

the carrier or carriage service provider is liable to pay damages to the customer for the contravention.

(3) The amount of damages payable under subsections (1) or (2) for a particular contravention is to be ascertained in accordance with the compensation rules.

(4) If:

(a) the carrier or carriage service provider;

(i) credits an amount to an account that the customer has with the provider; or

(ii) pays an amount to the customer; and

(b) the credit or payment was made as a result of a right or remedy that:

(i) was available to the customer otherwise than under this Part; and

(ii) arose out of the same event or transaction as the contravention;

the amount of damages payable for the contravention is to be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of the credit or payment.

(5) The customer may recover the amount of the damages by action against the carrier or carriage service provider in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) The liability of the carrier or carriage service provider under this section may be discharged:

(a) by giving the customer a credit in an account the customer has with the carrier or carriage service provider; or

(b) in any other manner set out in the compensation rules; or

(c) in any other manner agreed between the carrier or carriage service provider and the customer; or

(d) in any other manner agreed between the carrier or carriage service provider and the customer.

(7) An action under this section must commence within 2 years after:

(a) in the case of a contravention that continued throughout a period—the time when the contravention began; or

(b) in any other case—the time when the contravention occurred.

125BB Time for payment of damages

A carrier or carriage service provider must discharge liability under section 125BA within a period of 4 weeks after the day the carrier or carriage service provider first becomes aware of a breach of a designated compensable standard or designated compensable rule.

125BC Compensation rules

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the compensation rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Division to be prescribed by the compensation rules.

(2) The Minister may specify an amount or scale of damages for contraventions of a designated compensable standard that is prescribed in the compensation rules.

(3) An amount or scale of damages under subsection (2) must be indexed:

(a) annually, with effect from 1 July each year; and

(b) by reference to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published by the Australian Statistician for the most recent four quarters for which figures are available before that 1 July; and

(c) rounded to the nearest dollar amount.

(4) In determining an amount or scale of damages under subsection (2), the Minister must have regard to the following matters:

(a) the severity of the type of contravention concerned, including:

(i) any tiered classification of contravention, including duration and degree of service degradation; and

(ii) any adverse impact on the end-user's access to the emergency call service; and

(iii) whether the affected end-users are located in regional, rural or remote areas, having regard to:

(A) the reduced availability of alternative or substitute carriage services in such areas; and

(B) the longer restoration timeframes typically associated with network infrastructure servicing such areas;

(b) the deterrent effect of the amount on the carrier or carriage service provider's compliance behaviour, relative to the cost to the provider of preventing the contravention;

(c) the likely economic and non-economic impact on end-users;

(d) any other matter the Minister considers appropriate.

(5) Rules made under subsection (1) may declare circumstances in which a carrier or carriage service provider is not liable under this Division.

_____

SHEET 4122

(1) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Domestic mobile roaming

Competition and Consumer Act 2010

22 After section 152AG

Insert:

152AGA Domestic mobile roaming

For the purposes of this Part, domestic mobile roaming means access to a mobile telecommunications network other than the network ordinarily used for an end-user's service to enable voice calls, data and short message service communications.

23 After subsection 152AL(3B)

Insert:

Mandatory declaration—domestic mobile roaming service

(3C) As soon as practicable, and no longer than 6 months after the commencement of this subsection, the Commission must, by written instrument, declare that a domestic mobile roaming service is a declared service.

Note: For definition of domestic mobile roaming, see section 152AGA.

(3D) A declaration mentioned in subsection (3C) has no effect except to the extent (if any) to which the domestic mobile roaming service is supplied.

(3E) Subsection (3) does not apply to a declaration mentioned in subsection (3C).

(3F) A declaration made under subsection (3C) does not, by implication, prevent the Commission from making a declaration under subsection (3) in relation to another eligible service.

(3G) If the domestic mobile roaming service is declared as mentioned in subsection (3C), that subsection does not, by implication, prevent the Commission from making another declaration under subsection (3) in relation to the same service.

(3H) For the avoidance of doubt, in making its declaration, the Commission is to give primary consideration to the delivery of any-to-any connectivity in order to advance the long-term interests of end users by providing the greatest possible access to mobile roaming services.

24 Subsection 152AL(4)

After "subsection (3)", insert "or (3C)".

25 After subsection 152ALA(5)

Insert:

(5A) Subsections (1) and (5) do not apply to a declaration mentioned in subsection 152AL(3C).

(5B) A declaration mentioned in subsection 152AL(3C) remains in force indefinitely.

(5C) Notwithstanding that the declaration is in place indefinitely, the Commission may review the terms of a declaration mentioned in subsection 152AL(3C) every 5 years from the time the declaration is made.

26 At the end of section 152AO

Add:

(4) The Commission must not vary or revoke a declaration mentioned in subsection 152AL(3C), unless directed so by the Minister.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Sean Bell Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Tyron Whitten Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Richard Mansell Colbeck Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Helen Beatrice Polley Paul Scarr Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. The question is that the amendments on sheet 4184 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 15), after the definition of designated mobile telecommunications service, insert:

equitable basis, in relation to the availability of mobile coverage or a designated mobile telecommunications service, includes:

(a) the affordability of the service for end-users; and

(b) the ability of end-users to obtain and use the service, including the availability of compatible devices and service plans.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 6), after the definition of primary universal outdoor mobile provider, insert:

temporary disaster roaming means temporary access to a mobile telecommunications network other than the network ordinarily used for an end-user's service, provided to the end-user in an affected area during an emergency period to enable voice calls and short message service communications.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 31 to 33), omit subsection 12H(2), substitute:

(2) A designated mobile telecommunications service is available outdoors at a location if the service is available in a manner that enables end-users to access and use the service in practice, including:

(a) the technical capability of the service to be used at a location; and

(b) the affordability of the service for end-users; and

(c) the accessibility of the service, including the availability of compatible devices and service plans necessary to use the service.

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 16 (after line 18), after paragraph 12Q(1)(a), insert:

(aa) the affordability of designated mobile telecommunications services for end-users, including the availability of service plans and compatible devices necessary to use the services in practice;

(5) Schedule 1, item 16, page 17 (after line 29), after subsection 12R(1), insert:

(1A) In making a determination under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to the need to ensure that designated mobile telecommunications services supplied in fulfilment of the universal outdoor mobile obligation are supported by fault rectification timeframes that are reasonable having regard to the location of the service, including in regional, rural and remote areas.

(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 18 (after line 10), after section 12R, insert:

12RA Temporary disaster roaming

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules requiring a primary universal outdoor mobile provider to provide temporary disaster roaming to end-users in an affected area during an emergency period.

(2) Rules under subsection (1) may prescribe any or all of the following:

(a) the definition of affected area and emergency period, including by reference to an instrument made under any other Act;

(b) timeframes for temporary disaster roaming;

(c) minimum service performance requirements for designated mobile telecommunications services supplied by means of temporary disaster roaming;

(d) information-sharing and operational coordination between carriers and carriage service providers reasonably necessary to implement temporary disaster roaming;

(e) wholesale arrangements reasonably necessary to implement temporary disaster roaming, including terms as to price, technical interfaces and dispute resolution;

(f) record-keeping and reporting requirements.

(3) Rules made under subsection (1) may confer a power on the ACMA to make a legislative instrument in relation to technical, operational or performance matters for the purposes of this section.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Sean Bell Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Tyron Whitten Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Richard Mansell Colbeck Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025; Limitation of Debate Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025

I'll now deal with the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026

I will now deal with the National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026 and a related bill. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator Bell, you can't be on your mobile phone in the chamber.

Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026

I'll now deal with the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 4187 be agreed to.

One Nation 's circulated amendment

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

(a) notes that:

(i) organised crime now accounts for up to 80% of sales of tobacco products,

(ii) law enforcement is overwhelmed by the scale of the industry leading to widespread violence and property damage,

(iii) law-abiding citizens and small businesses in proximity to illicit tobacco outlets are in physical and financial danger,

(iv) organised crime is facilitating cigarette sales to children, and

(v) the very high rate of tobacco excise has broken the compact between government and the public to each treat the other fairly; and

(b) calls on the Albanese Government to:

(i) reduce the excise rate of tobacco products by 75%, effective immediately,

(ii) maintain the lower rate until organised crime has been controlled,

(iii) cancel indexation of the excise rate for three years,

(iv) direct the eSafety Commissioner to use their existing powers to take down websites offering direct sales of illicit tobacco products, and

(v) once organised crime has been controlled, return tobacco excise to a more sensible level as provided under recommendation 2 of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's report of its inquiry into the illegal tobacco crisis in Australia".

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Fatima Payman Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 4142 be agreed to.

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 and 2), omit "Customs Act 1901and theProceeds of Crimes Act 2002", substitute "law relating to tobacco and the proceeds of crime".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 6", substitute "Schedules 6 and 7".

(3) Page 50 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Reduction of tobacco customs and excise duties

Customs Tariff Act 1995

1 After section 19ACA

Insert:

19ACD Reduction of tobacco duty rates

(1) Despite anything else in this Act, each tobacco duty rate is taken, on the day (the commencement day) on which this section commences, to be replaced with a rate that is 20% of the tobacco duty rate on the day before the commencement day.

Treatment of indexation

(2) To avoid doubt:

(a) in working out, for the purposes of subsection (1), a particular tobacco duty rate on the day before the commencement day, take into account any replacement of that rate that occurs before the commencement day under section 19AB; and

(b) for the purposes of applying section 19AB in relation to the first indexation day that occurs after the commencement day, subsection (1) of this section applies when working out the tobacco duty rate on the day before that indexation day.

(3) If the commencement day would, apart from this subsection, be an indexation day under section 19AB then, for the purposes of applying section 19AB, the commencement day is not to be treated as an indexation day.

Effect on other rates for tobacco

(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) of this section applies for the purposes of determining an applicable rate under section 19ACA.

Which goods?

(5) This section applies in relation to goods that are entered for home consumption on or after the commencement day.

Definitions

(6) In this section:

commencement day has the meaning given by subsection (1).

tobacco duty rate means a rate of duty that is a tobacco duty rate for the purposes of section 19AB (see section 19AC).

Excise Tariff Act 1921

2 After section 6AAC

Insert:

6AAD Reduction of duties of excise on tobacco

(1) Despite anything else in this Act, the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule is taken, on the day (the commencement day) on which this section commences, to be replaced with a rate that is 20% of the rate of duty applicable under that item on the day before the commencement day.

Treatment of indexation

(2) To avoid doubt:

(a) in working out, for the purposes of subsection (1), the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule on the day before the commencement day, take into account any replacement of that rate that occurs before the commencement day under section 6AA of this Act; and

(b) for the purposes of applying section 6AA of this Act in relation the first indexation day that occurs after the commencement day, subsection (1) of this section applies when working out the tobacco duty rate (within the meaning of section 6AA) on the day before that indexation day.

(3) If the commencement day would, apart from this subsection, be an indexation day under section 6AA then, for the purposes of applying section 6AA in relation subitem 5.1 of the Schedule, the commencement day is not to be treated as an indexation day.

Effect on other rates for tobacco

(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) of this section applies when determining the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule for the purposes of applying sections 6AAB and 6AAC.

Which goods?

(5) This section applies in relation to goods that are entered for home consumption on or after the commencement day.

(6) In this section:

commencement day has the meaning given by subsection (1).

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Alex Antic Sean Bell Leah Blyth Andrew Bragg Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Chris Gatenby Sarah Henderson Jane Hume Maria Kovacic Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong Slade Brockman Dorinda Cox Claire Chandler Corinne Mulholland Andrew McLachlan Nita Green

The question is that the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 4173 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 6", substitute "Schedules 6 and 8".

(2) Page 50 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — Mandatory track and trace scheme for tobacco products

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Regulations 2024

1 Subsection 50(2)

Repeal the subsection.

2 Sections 54 and 55

Repeal the sections.

3 After paragraph 87(2)(i)

Insert:

(j) a primary packaging track and trace identifier (see section 96A);

(k) a secondary packaging track and trace identifier (see section 96B).

4 At the end of Part 3.8

Add:

96A Mandatory marking — primary packaging track and trace identifiers

Cigarette packs

(1) A primary packaging track and trace identifier on a cigarette pack must:

(a) appear only once on the cigarette pack; and

(b) appear on only one of the following surfaces:

(i) the side outer surface of the pack on which a health warning is not displayed;

(ii) the bottom outer surface of the pack;

(iii) the top outer surface of the pack; and

(c) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is an alphanumeric code—be printed:

(i) in an English sans serif typeface; and

(ii) in normal weighted regular font; and

(iii) in black, white or grey; and

(d) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is a machine-readable code—be printed in black, white or grey; and

(e) be printed on a background that is the colour known as Pantone 448C.

Primary packaging of tobacco products other than cigarette packs

(2) A primary packaging track and trace identifier on the primary packaging of a tobacco product other than a cigarette pack:

(a) must appear only once on the packaging; and

(b) must either:

(i) be included on an adhesive label attached firmly to the packaging so as not to be easily removable; or

(ii) be printed on the packaging; and

(c) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is an alphanumeric code—must be printed:

(i) in an English sans serif typeface; and

(ii) in normal weighted regular font; and

(iii) in black, white or grey; and

(d) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is a machine-readable code—must be printed in black, white or grey; and

(e) if subparagraph (b)(ii) applies—must be printed on a background that is the colour known as Pantone 448C; and

(f) may appear on the outer surface of the packaging on which a health warning is displayed.

Adhesive labels

(3) An adhesive label mentioned in subparagraph (2)(b)(i) must:

(a) be transparent and not coloured; or

(b) be the colour known as Pantone 448C.

96B Mandatory marking — secondary packaging track and trace identifiers

Cigarette cartons

(1) A secondary packaging track and trace identifier on a cigarette carton must:

(a) appear only once on the carton; and

(b) appear only on a single side outer surface of the carton on which a health warning is not displayed; and

(c) either:

(i) be included on an adhesive label attached firmly to the carton so as not to be easily removable; or

(ii) be printed on the carton; and

(d) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is an alphanumeric code—be printed:

(i) in an English sans serif typeface; and

(ii) in normal weighted regular font; and

(iii) in black, white or grey; and

(e) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is a machine-readable code—be printed in black, white or grey; and

(f) be printed on a background that is the colour known as Pantone 448C.

Secondary packaging of tobacco products other than cigarette cartons

(2) A secondary packaging track and trace identifier on the secondary packaging of a tobacco product other than a cigarette carton:

(a) must appear only once on the packaging; and

(b) must either:

(i) be included on an adhesive label attached firmly to the packaging so as not to be easily removable; or

(ii) be printed on the packaging; and

(c) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is an alphanumeric code—must be printed:

(i) in an English sans serif typeface; and

(ii) in normal weighted regular font; and

(iii) in black, white or grey; and

(d) to the extent that the track and trace identifier is a machine-readable code—must be printed in black, white or grey; and

(e) if subparagraph (b)(ii) applies—must be printed on a background that is the colour known as Pantone 448C; and

(f) may appear on the outer surface of the packaging on which a health warning is displayed.

Adhesive labels

(3) An adhesive label mentioned in subparagraph (1)(c)(i) or (2)(b)(i) must:

(a) be transparent and not coloured; or

(b) be the colour known as Pantone 448C.

5 Paragraph 103(a)

Omit "Part 3.5", substitute "Part 3.8".

6 Application

The amendments of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Regulations 2024 made by this Schedule apply on or after commencement.

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Vanessa Bleyer Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Shoebridge Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Ralph Babet Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Maria Kovacic Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Deborah O'Neill Matt O'Sullivan David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Brisbane small-business owner David Kelly, who employs nearly 40 Australians through his cleaning company, warned of Labor's tax changes.

They're not looking at taxing big business or large corporations, they're coming after the little guy.

With Mr Albanese pressing ahead with his 30 per cent minimum tax trust, why is the Prime Minister making it more expensive for hardworking small-business owners like Mr Kelly to operate, invest and just employ Australians?

I thank the senator for the question, and I would say to her that we disagree with the suggestion that the tax changes are about not helping the little guy, because, in fact, this is about better aligning the tax treatment of income from assets and income from work and helps fund tax cuts for working people. I would make the point—I know those opposite may may not wish for these facts to be on the table—that the number of discretionary trusts in this country has doubled over the past 20 years to over 800,000, exceeding the growth in companies. The majority of trust income flows to the top-earning 10 per cent of families. About 90 per cent of total private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. So let us get the facts here about who is actually utilising trusts.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

No; people are entitled to arrange their financial affairs as they see fit. But we are also, as a government, entitled to say that, actually, it is fairer to ensure a reasonable taxation of income from assets in order to fund a tax cut for working Australians. And that is what we are doing. That is what we are doing.

I'd also make the point—as Senator Gallagher, I think, has pointed out—that there have been numerous reviews of the tax system which have pointed out the challenges arising out of trust arrangements. Going back to 1975, there have been multiple reviews recommending reform in the area of trusts, and that is what we are doing.

Senator Blyth, first supplementary.

I'm sure Mr Kelly will be really delighted with that response from you, Senator Wong! Fernwood licensee Larni Mailer, who employs 50 Australians, warned of the Prime Minister's tax changes:

… what this legislation is doing is making me rethink where every single cent is spent.

Why is the Prime Minister pursuing tax changes that leave small-business owners reconsidering every dollar they spend rather than investing in their businesses and their employees? (Time expired)

I'm not sure if that continues to be a question about trust income, but, if it is, I again refer you to what I already—

Pursuing tax changes, yes.

Hang on. I was asked about trust. I'm not sure if that supplementary relates to other aspects of tax changes, Senator Blyth. But what I would say to you is this: we are reforming the tax system to better align income from assets and income from work. It is a very simple proposition. I accept that there are people who don't believe that that is the right thing to do. We do. And we have enabled, as a result of that reform, the delivery of tax cuts for the vast majority of the Australian population, which means that all working Australians who pay tax will get a tax cut.

Because Larni doesn't work?

I'll take the interjection. No-one is suggesting that people do not work. What we are saying— (Time expired)

Senator Blyth, second supplementary?

Master Builders Australia have warned that Labor's tax trust will hurt small builders, stating, 'They followed the rules, they acted on professional advice and they built their businesses accordingly, and now they're being punished for it.' Why is the Prime Minister imposing further costs on small builders at a time when Australians are struggling through a housing crisis?

I think I was asked the same question yesterday, and I made a few points. One is that more than 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected in any given year. I'm going to say that again—more than 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected in any given year. I know that those opposite want to focus on some who will be affected by this change without talking about the overwhelming majority who will not be affected by this change.

What those opposite are effectively saying to Australians is they think income from assets should be protected far more than income from work. Why don't you just come out and say, 'Actually, we reckon if you get your income because you own assets you should get more tax breaks than people who earn their income from labour.' Why don't you just say that because the reality is that that is what you are arguing. (Time expired)

Fiscal Policy

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. When we came to government, there was almost a trillion dollars of debt left by the coalition. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has been repairing the budget, including finding $178 billion in savings and reprioritisations—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Whiteaker, please resume your seat. Would you put your question again, and let's restart the clock.

It seems that those opposite don't like it when we talk about their record. My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Whiteaker, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, I thought that, perhaps, if I stopped saying 'order' over and over again and just sat here silently you might get the message—but, even then, you didn't. This is opposition time that is being wasted because you are being disorderly. On my right, they're also being disorderly. Senator Whiteaker, start your question again, and I will restart the clock.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. When we came to government, there was almost a trillion dollars of debt left by the coalition. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has been repairing the budget, including finding $178 billion in savings and reprioritisations while still investing in the essential services Australians rely on, like Medicare, aged care and the NDIS. Why is responsible budget management important, and how is the Albanese Labor government delivering the services Australians deserve while repairing the budget?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for waking the chamber up and for that question. I appreciate it being on our approach to managing the budget responsibly, to paying down debt, to lowering the interest payments on that debt, to making sure that we're delivering services that the Australian community need and expect, and to finding savings at the same time. I must say that those opposite don't like it when they have to engage with the facts.

I can hear Senator Hume. We are not going to take lectures from the coalition on fiscal management. We're not going to do that when, just a day after they discharged and therefore opposed the private health insurance save, they have an additional $3 billion that they will need to find in addition to all of the other commitments they have already made in the last 12 months that they will have to fund and that they will have to find. We know they went to the last election promising bigger deficits, higher taxes and more debt. We know that that was the signature move of Mr Taylor and Senator Hume—bigger deficits, higher debt and increased taxes. It was an unusual policy for a Liberal Party to take to an election, but that's what they did. And that's where they're heading this time, because that's what they did yesterday when they discharged the private health insurance bill, which was proposing a sensible save for a reinvestment in aged care that is needed as well.

We will continue to take the responsible approach, finding those savings those opposite were never able to do, delivering those improved budget bottom lines that, again, those opposite were never able to do and ensuring that the services that Australians need are delivered. (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

In the budget, the Albanese Labor government proposed a reinvestment that would provide $3 billion into aged care to meet the growing needs of our ageing population. Can the minister advise why this measure is important and what impact efforts to block it would have on Australians?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for that supplementary. Yesterday we saw that resurrection of the 'no-alition', the grouping of parties—the Greens and the coalition—working together, as they did previously when they blocked housing from progressing through this chamber, to continue to oppose sensible savings. We hear the calls from those opposite about finding savings. But, when we do find them, they say no. They discharge the legislation and they attach it to their costings—

Honourable senators interjecting—

in addition to all of the other spending that they have committed in the last 12 months.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators Wong and Hume, come to order!

I'm not sure those opposite understand what is going on here. But when you look at the commitments that those over there are making—reversing our tax changes, abolishing the save that we have on PHI—the invoice that they are going to have to manage when they go to the next election is extremely substantial.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

Minister, why is it important that sensible savings measures are supported? Are there any risks to the Albanese Labor government's responsible management of the budget?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for that supplementary. By our calculations, the coalition has made nearly $580 billion worth of commitments since the election with absolutely no explanation of how they are going to pay for it. Their decision to delay the NDIS savings cost the budget hundreds of millions of dollars, just for those delays. They talk big on fiscal conservatism. But when it comes to actually voting, they take a completely different approach and vote with the Greens. They've got the same fiscal policy as the Greens, which is to spend more and worry about how you pay for it later. That is the approach of the conservatives. We will continue to bring sensible savings to this chamber, we will continue to find savings in the budget, and we will continue to manage the budget responsibly.

Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Minister, the Federal Court has now cleared the way for further consideration and progress on the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. Will your government allow the mine to proceed?

Thank you, Senator Cadell, for that question. You are correct. The Federal Court has handed down its judgement in this matter, and the minister has directed his department to work with all parties to move this forward.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I think he's sitting behind me, mate, so you could do that. I'll say what I can. I'm advised directly that that work has begun and that the minister will be seeking to resolve this matter as quickly as possible—obviously, in line with the law. I would make that point again—there have been previous calls in this chamber in relation to particular matters which are before the minister. A minister is required to resolve—

Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie, come to order.

A minister is required to consider applications before them in accordance with the law, and I have no doubt that that is what the minister will do. I know there have been a lot of—

Senator McKenzie, no. Come to order. Minister, please continue.

As you know, this is a matter which has been before the courts for some time, and we think the handing down of the judgement is an important step. The government recognises the need to give certainty both for industry and for First Nations communities.

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Given that the minister's got the department working on it, does that mean we have ruled out an appeal on this decision? Can we reveal now how much taxpayers have wasted defending the decision in the High Court, where they found that the minister acted outside the law?

In relation to that last point, I haven't read the judgement, but I think what was actually found was natural justice had not been provided. That was the basis of it. I think it was a reasonably narrow basis in relation to that procedural fairness. But, as I said, I haven't read the judgement and others will have studied it much more carefully.

In relation to your first question, the government is examining the judgement and engaging with relevant parties, and I'm not in a position to give any further indication.

Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

Given the Orange Land Council wants to mine it, the industry wants it, the community wants it, and even the New South Wales Labor government wants it, will this government back this project or will it continue the war on investment, development and regional jobs?

I appreciate all of the rhetoric, but I think you've seen from the work—particularly in Senator Ayres' portfolio but also more broadly—the importance we attach to regional communities and regional jobs. However, what I would say in relation to this is that there are applications that are being dealt with under the statutory framework and in accordance with the law. They are not political or policy decisions in the way that you have urged us to consider them.

Gas Industry: Taxation

My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Gallagher. According to the recent report into income support mortality outcomes, at least 3,000 more unemployed Australians die each year than would have had your government not kept them in poverty. That means that over the four years of your government 12,000 Australians have died from preventable, poverty induced deaths because Labor has deliberately kept social security payments below the poverty line.

Meanwhile, the Prosper Australia Research Institute just released a report showing that Australia could rake in $45 billion more each year if we adequately valued and taxed our resources. Minister, why is Labor choosing to protect a handful of giant gas exporters instead of raising the revenue that would provide a genuine safety net and end poverty deaths in Australia?

I thank Senator Allman-Payne for the question. I haven't read the report that Senator Allman-Payne refers to, so I can't comment on the numbers that she cites in her question. What I can say is that, under this government, we have created 1.3 million jobs across the economy. We believe, in the Labor Party, that a job is more than just an income; it's about dignity, a sense of connection to the community, and self-esteem. We are the party of job creation, and we have focused investments and resources into ensuring that jobs—and good, secure jobs—are created and that those good, secure jobs are paid well. In fact, when those opposite complain about spending, a significant amount of spending and new investment this government has made has been into increasing wages of the lowest paid in this economy. Twenty-five billion dollars are going into increasing the wages of those workers who have been undervalued and underpaid for way too long.

In relation to your question on JobSeeker, since coming to government, the rate of JobSeeker has risen by more than $4,700 a year for a single, no dependent, individual. That means it has increased by $182 per fortnight, from $651 per fortnight to $833 per fortnight. We have also increased the rates of youth allowance, Austudy, Commonwealth rent assistance, and single parenting payment—for those, to extend it to children of higher ages. We have also provided significant support to the community sector and organisations who support— (Time expired)

Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary?

If this Labor government simply chose to tax gas exports at 25 per cent, we could raise $17 billion a year to go towards public housing, affordable groceries and social security. Minister, knowing that your government could choose to end poverty if it chose to, how is it acceptable that you continue to allow income support recipients to die from government-induced poverty?

I don't accept the last proposition that Senator Allman-Payne put in her question. Also, I know it's convenient for the Greens to link taxes on resources with a whole range of other commitments they want to make in a whole range of other areas—including, seemingly, a commitment to end public funding of the private health insurance rebate, until a piece of legislation came here that Senator Allman-Payne decided they didn't support anymore. Our position—we will deal with those issues separately; we don't conflate the two. And, as I said in my last answer, we have increased significantly, over and above indexation, a range of payments for those on income support.

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

Minister, the Reserve Bank governor has admitted that the Australian economy requires a level of unemployment to keep downward pressure on inflation. Given that unemployment is baked into the economy, how can the government defend letting people on poverty-level welfare payments die at almost 10 times the rate of everyone else?

I think the issues around—I don't agree with the assertion in Senator Allman-Payne's question; that's the first point. The second point is that we have significantly increased pensions and payments in our time in government, but not only that; we have also focused on job creation to ensure that there is opportunity for people to move into work. We are reforming the employment support program in recognition of some of the issues there. We have increased funding—directly intervened to increase funding—for workers on the lowest paid wages, whether it be the minimum wage or those in the care economy. We have had a range of other measures in place, like in the childcare system, to support those on low incomes to access child care. We got rid of the activity test. We've done a range of things, Senator Allman-Payne. So I don't accept your question at all.

Health Care

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing and the minister for disability, Senator McAllister. After a decade of neglect, the Albanese Labor government was elected to deliver critical health and care services to Australians when they need it. As the population grows and the population ages, Australians deserve a government that manages the budget responsibly while investing in the health and care services Australians require. How is the government responsibly delivering the critical care services Australians rely on?

Senator Brown is asking exactly the right question. The Albanese government takes seriously our responsibility to deliver the care that Australians need while managing the budget responsibly. We invest in Medicare because we know that primary care makes a real difference. It means seeing a bulk-billed GP to catch health problems early before a chronic condition becomes a more serious condition. It means that an older Australian who's had a bad fall can get care at a Medicare urgent care clinic rather than spending hours in an emergency department, and it means Australians can access critical medicines for no more than $25 a script through the PBS.

But delivering that essential care also requires responsible decisions about public money. That is why we are putting the NDIS on a more sustainable footing—so it can support Australians with permanent and significant disability for the long term. We are investing in quality care for older Australians while ensuring that the system remains sustainable for future generations. That is responsible budget management—investing in the care that Australians need today while planning for tomorrow.

Those opposite want to lecture Australians about spending restraint without explaining what they would cut. Mr Wilson let the cat out of the bag the other day. He specifically pointed to home aged-care packages, saying that they needed to be controlled. Now, Senator Ruston is blocking changes which would fund more aged-care places by making the private health insurance rebate fairer. Those opposite demand fiscal restraint while, at the same time, committing fiscal vandalism in the same breath. You cannot claim to care about aged care while blocking measures to fund more of it.

Senator Brown, first supplementary?

Australians are living longer and healthier lives, and we know this requires making careful decisions about how public money is used to ensure our aged-care system is equipped to meet their needs. After years of underinvestment by the coalition government, how is the Albanese Labor government responsibly funding aged care and delivering the reforms older Australians deserve?

When we came to government, the aged-care system wasn't built for the population that we have today, let alone the one that we will have in 10 or 20 years. There is a reason that the royal commission named their interim report Neglect. Those opposite neglected that system, and the Albanese government is delivering generational reform in the space of just a few years. We are putting older Australians' needs front and centre in a new rights based act. Since we came to government, aged-care funding has increased by over 80 per cent. But we do know that we need to manage the budget and that this requires responsible choices. We get a lot of lectures from those opposite about the need for strong fiscal management, yet, every time a responsible decision is brought to this chamber, politics takes over for the coalition. We should be very clear that this is all about self-interest. Nothing about it relates to the national interest.

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Senator Ruston, I have called you out over and over. The minute Senator Brown stood up, you started interjecting again. Please be quiet. Senator Brown?

Australians deserve a health and care system they can rely on. They deserve confidence that, when they get sick or grow older, the essential care they need will be there. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitments to essential health and care services and why it is important to have a clear and consistent plan for Australians.

Our government does have a clear plan to deliver the health and care that Australians need now and into the future, and that is the plan we were elected to deliver. I'm not sure that the same can be said of those down the other end of the chamber. Of course, the Greens political party are divided all over the place on the approach to Ukraine. By Wednesday, they walked away from a key election commitment. For years, the Greens political party promised to abolish the private health insurance rebate and redirect that funding into public services. But, yesterday, they voted to discharge a bill to invest in aged-care services—in public services—without actually even debating it. That must have come as quite a shock to the members and supporters—the people who went out and campaigned for the Greens political party at the election—who presumably took at face value their commitment to public services. These guys have a different policy for every day of the week, they promise everything, they've spent that gas tax five times over. Australians deserve a lot better than the proposition they are bringing to them.

Taxation

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, how much of the $4.4 billion a year in revenue from the trust tax comes from small business, including farming businesses?

As I indicated to your colleagues in earlier questions, first, farm income is exempted. That's the first point. I know that Senator McKenzie wants to sigh loudly, but that is the reality. Secondly, the majority of small businesses—about 90 per cent—will not be affected in any given year. I would also make the point that I made in an earlier answer that the number of trusts has more than doubled in the last 20 years. The majority of trust income flows to the top earning 10 per cent of families.

I have a point of order on direct relevance. It was a very tight question. I wanted to know how much of the $4.4 billion revenue comes from small businesses, including farm businesses.

I think the minister is being relevant to your question. I'll continue to listen carefully.

As I said, more than 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected in any given year. I appreciate your focus on the 10 per cent that are; you're entitled to focus on that, just as the government is entitled to ensure that we bring reforms that better align the treatment of income from assets with the treatment of income from labour and provide a wage a tax break—

Senator Cash.

Again, President, it is relevance. This question is specifically drafted in relation to those who are affected by the change.

I'll continue to listen carefully, but the minister is being relevant to the question.

In terms of those who are affected, about 95 per cent of tax filers do not receive discretionary trust distributions; five per cent do. It is about 810,000 people, I think, in 2022-23. On average, families with discretionary trusts in that year face an average tax rate about four percentage points lower compared with similar families. What I would say to you, Senator, is that I'm sure you can, through estimates, unpack where the revenue is coming from. I would make the point that this change does not start till 2028. Let's remember that they are arguing for the 10 per cent; we are arguing for the 90 per cent. That is the truth of this discussion. They are arguing for the 10 per cent, and we are ensuring that, by doing this, we deliver a tax cut for Australians everywhere. (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

Minister, yesterday, you repeatedly said that farm income is exempt from the government's new taxes on business. Can you confirm whether that exemption covers farming businesses that receive income from contracting services, say, to shear sheep, muster cattle, spray crops or bale hay?

First, I'd make the point that that is the government's position and that is what is outlined in the budget. Farm income will be exempt from the changes we will introduce for the tax arrangements for discretionary trusts. I cannot give advice on everybody's tax position or tax arrangements, but I can indicate to you that the overwhelming majority of small businesses and families do not have the tax advantages that you are defending.

Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?

Minister, can you confirm that there are more than 37,000 trusts operating across agriculture, fisheries and forestry? How many farm businesses with trusts have diversified income not covered by the exemptions?

Great question.

Senator Mckenzie, you are being really unhelpful, and I would ask you to be quiet.

():  I would make the point that there are 2.7 million small businesses in Australia. The overwhelming majority of them—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! My goodness! I feel like I'm playing a game of whack-a-mole. I get one senator quiet and another one pipes up. Senator Colbeck?

Again, it's on direct relevance. My question was very—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sorry, Senator Colbeck. I'm going to ask for silence across the chamber. Order! Order across the chamber!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I thought perhaps, again, the silence might remind you that we're in question time. If you want to chat, go outside. Senator Colbeck was on a point of order, and I had to sit him down because of the disruptions. I'm very sorry, Senator Colbeck. Your point of order?

The words 'small business' were not in my question anywhere. It was about farm businesses. On direct relevance—

Senator Colbeck, as you as you well know—my goodness! Senators Watt and McKenzie, I invite you to take your interjections out of the chamber. Senator Colbeck, the minister is being relevant to your question, and also I have reminded you previously—perhaps not you but the chamber—that a point of order is not an opportunity to make a statement. Please continue, Minister.

It is really interesting, isn't it, that the Liberal Party don't want to talk about small business. I thought you were the champions of small business—and he's doing it again.

Senator Colbeck?

It's a point of order on direct relevance. My question was about farm businesses. I wasn't asking about anybody else. I was asking about farm businesses.

The minister had just risen to her feet. I'm not going to rule a point of order at this point. Minister Wong, please continue.

I have already explained to you that farming income is exempt from the changes which are introduced. But I would say about the political approach of those opposite—they are for the small minority of businesses who will be affected by this change, and they are against the millions of working Australians who will get a tax break. That's the reality. That is the reality of the political position that those opposite are taking.

Trade with the European Union

Happy Thursday, President. I've got a great question before me today, and I'd love to ask my question to my very good friend the Minister for Trade and Tourism, the wonderful Senator Farrell. In March, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese—

Trying to sell the EU agreement?

listen up, Senator McKenzie—and the President of the European Union announced—

Senator Ciccone—

through you—

please resume your seat. Senator Mckenzie, I've tried a number of different strategies today, including humour, which clearly have all failed. If you can't be quiet, leave the chamber. But seriously, I will name you if you can't be quiet. I've tried many different ways, and I'm sure the chamber would agree with me. Senator Ciccone, please continue.

As I was saying: Minister, in March, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and the President of the European Union announced that Australia and the EU had concluded negotiations on a new free trade agreement. Well done! What does this deal mean for Australia, and what benefits does it bring to all those thousands of small and large Australian businesses?

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for the question and the great work that you do for the people of Victoria. This is a good deal for Australia—for our exporters, our workers and our industries. It will give Australian businesses access to hundreds of millions of consumers across 27 countries and to an economy worth trillions of dollars. In practical terms, it's not just one market; it's 27 new markets, each with different tastes and opportunities for Australian producers. From its entry into force, nearly 98 per cent of Australian exports to the EU will enter tariff free, delivering benefits worth billions of dollars in the first year alone. By removing prohibitive trade barriers, the agreement will create major opportunities for South Australian fishers, Queensland pineapple growers, New South Wales sheep farmers, Victorian prosecco producers and many, many more. Australian families will also benefit from cheaper European products at the checkout, helping to put downward pressure on prices and ease cost-of-living pressures. When this agreement comes before the parliament next year, there will be no rational reason to stand in its way.

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

I'm sure we could all do with a bit of Australian sparkling prosecco right now! But anyway—Minister, what are the benefits of free and fair trade to Australia, and how do Australian workers, exporters and businesses benefit from more trading relationships? And can I also ask: who supports delivering more trade for Australia?

I thank Senator Ciccone for his first supplementary question. Australian industry is lining up to welcome what this agreement will deliver. Almondco said the FTA 'will allow us to be more price competitive in Europe'. The Minerals Council called it 'a major boost for Australia's minerals sector—especially critical minerals supply'. The Business Council of Australia said that the agreement 'gives Australian companies better access to one of the world's largest markets and puts them on a more level playing field with global competitors'. If those opposite will not take the word of Australian industry, perhaps they will listen to Senator Cash, who said, 'Free trade equals jobs, growth, opportunity, and wealth generation,' or to Senator Hume, who infamously said she's 'too fond of good coffee and free markets to join the Nationals'.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

Thanks for that insightful answer, Minister. In fact, I wanted to ask you, given your response just then, what could possibly jeopardise the implementation of the free trade agreement with the EU, and what would be at stake for those thousands of Australian businesses, and workers, and Australia's reputation as a reliable international partner?

I thank Senator Ciccone for his second supplementary question. Some of those opposite would deny Australians the opportunities in this deal, and our approach to free trade more broadly, by imposing more tariffs and erecting new barriers to trade. Senator Canavan, for instance, is trying to lead the Liberal Party away from free trade and straight into an economic dead end. He is promising an economy that exists only in their imagination, all to try and save his own political skin. That approach would mean higher costs for families, fewer opportunities for exporters and an Australia increasingly closed off from the rest of the world. Thankfully, many senators, including some of those opposite, understand that more trade means more opportunity for Australia, especially in the regions. I look forward to working with anyone—

Thank you, Minister Farrell. Minister Wong?

Senator McKenzie interjected at the top of her voice.

That is a good idea. That is an excellent idea!

Thank you, Minister Wong. As you would be aware, I have been trying in many different ways to get the chamber to come to order. I have been creative—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Thank you, whoever said that. It did not work. She was not the only person. Senator Canavan also ran pretty much a monologue the whole time. But we are moving on now.

Cybersafety

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. At the National Press Club today, Minister Wells insisted Labor's new digital duty of care bill would not be used for surveillance to restrict free speech or target political opinions. When challenged on whether the legislation would enable censorship and propaganda, she declared it cannot, yet Labor's own legislation gives the eSafety Commissioner power to create sock puppet social media accounts to observe, download and record online materials. Minister, if those powers cannot be used for surveillance or political censorship, why hasn't Labor explicitly prohibited those uses in the legislation?

I thank Senator Bell for his question. Our digital duty of care will set basic safety standards for the digital services that we use every day, just like we have for food, for cars and for kids toys. It will provide Australians over the age of 16 with agency over their algorithms. Social media companies will have to offer genuine choice and respect that choice or face significant competition. Our laws will let Australians decide for themselves what they see. So, I think, in fundamental terms, Senator Bell, we would disagree with your characterisation of what the government is doing here. Right now, foreign companies make those choices for you, and they make them without asking. People will still be able to see recommended content if they want to, but they'll also have the option to just see friends and creators that they choose. Parliament should support giving more choice and more control, and I would encourage One Nation to do exactly that.

Senator bell, first supplementary?

Minister, why is Labor giving the eSafety Commissioner these covert powers without requiring detailed independent oversight of what information is collected, and how is it used? What is the government trying to cover up?

Nothing.

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Minister, this bill does give the eSafety Commissioner power to use fake social media accounts, accounts Minister Wells calls 'mystery shoppers'. If that is all they are, why hasn't Labor limited the legislation to checking compliance? Why won't Labor explicitly legislate against these accounts' monitoring lawful political discussion, or is 'mystery shopper' just Labor's spin for spying on Australians?

I thank Senator Bell for his second supplementary question. No.

Indigenous Business

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. October is Indigenous Business Month, a month to celebrate, showcase and, most importantly, purchase from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses. Can the minister outline the importance of First Nations businesses to the economy and how the Albanese Labor government is supporting them to grow?

I thank Senator Stewart for the question. I know she's a fierce advocate for Indigenous businesses. Every time I'm in Victoria, Senator Stewart takes me to a new business, and I certainly look forward to next week, where we will visit some more.

October is the month to get shopping at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses, and you aren't short of options. I can tell the Senate there are more than 13,000 First Nations businesses around the country. They're generating more than $16 billion in revenue. They're paying $4.2 billion in wages and employing over 116,000 people in the economy, and I can tell you the Albanese Labor government is supporting them every step of the way. It's this government that has strengthened the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is driving government purchasing towards First Nations businesses and supporting economic empowerment for individuals, families and communities.

And we're backing First Nations women in business, too. Our new business coaching program, delivered by Indigenous Business Australia, is providing tailored coaching, mentoring and business capability development opportunities for First Nations women. This program is supporting First Nations women to turn business ideas into successful new enterprises. And there's more. We've made a $20.5 million investment in Indigenous business and employment hubs, and these hubs are located in Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin and Alice Springs. The hubs offer First Nations businesses and entrepreneurs tailored support to help them and their businesses thrive. October might be Indigenous Business Month, but the Albanese Labor government backs Indigenous businesses all year round.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. The Albanese Labor government's Indigenous business hubs are providing on-the-ground assistance for Indigenous businesses to thrive. What has been the feedback about the experiences of businesses who are using those hubs?

Our Indigenous business and employment hubs are already having a real impact. They've supported 3,000 First Nations businesses on their journeys with coaching and mentoring, connections to financial services, links to industry and access to workshops and networking opportunities. One of those businesses is Allpro Plumbing Solutions, which I visited in Western Sydney. Tyson Hubbard, who owns the business, has been actively supported by the Yarpa Indigenous business hub, where he's completed multiple business training and development workshops. We've funded the Larrakia Cultural Centre in Darwin, too, which is fast becoming a hive of Indigenous business success. It was good to take Senator Gallagher there last month for Black Coffee's Indigenous business networking event. We're a government that certainly supports First Nations businesses.

Not if they're in trusts.

Order! Do you think we could just have one set of questions and answers without the constant interjection? Let's try really hard. Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is achieving results with business hubs and the Indigenous Procurement Policy. Are there any obstacles standing in the way of the government's approach to economic empowerment for First Nations people?

Thank you, Senator. Yes, there certainly are. The Albanese Labor government will always celebrate the achievements of First Nations people and work with them, whether it's in business, in the arts or in education, and we'll back that success with investment and support, like our women-in-business program, our strengthening of the Indigenous Procurement Policy and our business hubs. These are investments that are having a real impact on the lives of First Nations people. Those opposite are very good at identifying a problem, and we never hear a solution from them. In fact, we've been accused of being too ambitious and not having enough ambition. Their entire policy offering for First Nations people at the last election was about whether they would stand in front of an Aboriginal flag: One flag? Three flags? That was their policy. While they try to out 'One Nation' One Nation, we're getting on with improving the lives of First Nations people in this country.

Small Business

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. First, small businesses had to deal with out-of-control inflation, and then they had to deal with increasing electricity bills, when you told them they would cost less. Now, the Labor government has decided to continue its war on small business, introducing a small-business tax on trusts that could cost small and family businesses over $10 billion in restructuring fees. Would you agree with one of your own colleagues, who said, 'Small business is doing it very tough, and we aren't doing enough for them'?

Firstly, the senator reminds us about energy costs, and I would remind her that she voted against energy bill relief. Let's remember that. Senator Ruston and others voted against energy bill relief. Secondly, I remind the senator that 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected by these changes. I would also remind the senator that the government has provided more than $3.8 billion in new practical measures to ensure that businesses do have support in these challenging times, and they include a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off tax, a permanent two-year loss carry-back and introducing loss refundability for start-ups. I would also note that sole traders—the 1.5 million sole traders—would be amongst those many Australians eligible for the working Australians tax offset.

But I tell you what Senator Ruston is not being up front about with small businesses with farmers and certainly not with her colleagues, and that is the extent to which she is racking up the bill that they are going to have to pay before the next election with either higher deficits, higher taxes or more spending cuts. I wonder: where are the fiscal conservatives when Senator Ruston, as we've heard, says: 'We should do what the Greens do. We should make sure that there's another $3 billion savings which is not able to be reinvested in aged care'? And I wonder: where are the fiscal conservatives inside the Liberal Party, as the moderates put you into an unsustainable fiscal position?

You have seen this movie before. You have seen this movie before with Senator Hume. You've seen this movie before with Senator— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

I stand with Australia's pensioners. Senator, one Labor MP has told journalists that your government's trust tax has made small-business owners, like tradies, feel like the government is coming after them. When will your government decide to stop coming after small businesses and axe your new tax on trusts that small businesses rely on?

(—) (): I'll take the comment at the beginning of the question, because Senator Ruston is now trying to run a political line. What she has to explain to her colleagues is where she is going to find the $3 billion that she is saying should not be invested in aged care. What is she going to do in the shadow ERC when she comes forward and says, 'We need more funding for aged care, but we didn't want that savings because we had to line up with Senator Allman-Payne from the Greens'? For the life of me, I do not understand where the fiscal conservatives are on the other side. I do not understand why the drys over there are allowing the moderates to completely eviscerate your economic and fiscal credentials. Where do you think this ends? This ends with Senator Hume at the last election: higher taxes, higher deficits. (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, when you asked your question, it was in almost silence. There was a little bit of noise from your side, but others in the chamber were completely silent. The minute Senator Wong got to her feet there was disorder, particularly on the left, but it was not only the left but on the right as well. Let's see, for this last question, if you can ask it in silence and we can have an answer in silence. Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Is your government deciding to attack small businesses because, as one of your own colleagues has said, 'we have a small business minister who knows nothing about small business'?

Senator Ruston, if the question goes to what has occurred in relation to small business under this government, as I said yesterday, there are more small businesses today than when we came to government. There are more. There are more active small businesses since we came to government, and there was an increase in the number of small businesses in the last financial year. I know that is your rhetoric, and I know you want to engage in some personal attacks, but the reality is the majority of small businesses do not utilise trust structures. The majority of small businesses are not affected by this change in any given year, and many small businesses, including sole traders, will benefit from the tax cuts. But what I'd say to you, Senator Ruston, is that you, along with Senator Hume, are leading the coalition into the same trap that you fell into at the last election—higher taxes or high deficits—and I do not know why your colleagues allow you to— (Time expired)

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Western Australia: Infrastructure

In question time yesterday, I indicated I'd provide further information in response to questions asked of me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence regarding Westport. I've written to Senator Payman to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of the Senate.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Taxation, Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips.

I move:

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

In doing so, can I say: what a terrible way for me to end my Senate career—to hear these terrible answers about how out of touch this government is with real people, small businesses and farmers. Apparently this government doesn't know what a farmer is, by the way. We sort of had to stumble through question time there, trying to figure out how this government felt.

Hey, hey, hey, my grandfather's a farmer.

Oh, well, the grandfather of Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is a farmer, so we'll take that. But, of course, when the question was asked, 'Where does food come from?' they all said Uber Eats.

What really did astound me out of that set of questions and the answers given was, of course, the response to the question about McPhillamys goldmine. In the last term, I was the shadow environment minister, and, on this issue, the finding of the government—the former environment minister Ms Plibersek—was to rule against the capacity for this billion-dollar goldmine to proceed—a mine, I might say, that met every state and federal planning and environment approval and had gone through millions of dollars of assessments and years of work. It had done the work with the traditional owner group, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, only to be stopped by Minister Plibersek, the minister who also gave it environmental approval. The same minister, after all of those approvals had been given, then took in a bit of evidence from a group who didn't actually represent the traditional owners of that part of the country around Orange, Bathurst and Blayney, which the McPhillamys goldmine was located in. After all of that work, the minister said, 'No, it cannot proceed,' because of evidence we have never seen—evidence that was provided in secret by a group of people who, again did not represent the traditional owners, evidence that has never been tendered to the proponents of the mine to analyse, and evidence that was perhaps given orally. It's not even required under the act that governs this that it be given in written form.

So how is this piece of legislation, which is, in fact, as old as me, still fit for purpose? This government has an opportunity to reform it, and I believe a test that the new legislation should pass is: would this mine survive under the new laws? If the answer is yes then pass the laws. If the answer is no then go back to the drawing board. It's pretty simple.

The fact is that we have people who want to invest in this country and this government's mantra is: 'We want a future made in Australia. We want to create more jobs. We want to get the economy ticking over.' Well, how do you do that when you have a government that allows someone, whether they're a domestic investor or a foreign investor who has come to this country, to sink money into multiple approval processes over a long period of time, only to say, at the very last hurdle: 'You know what? We're not going to let you go through with this. We're not going to tell you why. Good luck. Hope you do well'?

The court, of course, found, just yesterday—and it was a great gift for me, on the day of my valedictory speech to this Senate, which I'm now going past and now talking again, to have the court recognise this—that this government made a terrible decision by denying procedural fairness to the proponents by hiding the evidence they relied on from the proponents of the mine. So I hope this government takes this opportunity to reflect on how terrible this decision was and how, if they are really interested in a future made in Australia, they'll get these laws right. In saying that, it's been a real delight to sit through my last question time as a senator for Tasmania, and I thank my colleagues again for their good humour and forbearance with me as I fill in that five-minute slot.

Senator Duniam, may I say, that was a very fitting conclusion to your time in the chamber, although we will have you for estimates. So I look forward to your continuing contribution in the Senate.

I also congratulate Senator Duniam on his last contribution in this place. Our changes at its core are about making the system fairer for working Australians. At the core of our reforms to trusts is aligning the treatment of income from assets and income from work and helping fund our tax cuts to Australian workers. It is true that the flexibility provided by trusts can also allow some Australians to plan their tax affairs in ways that aren't available to most workers and their families. To make Australia a fairer country, we need to make sure that tax obligations are distributed evenly throughout our society.

Those in this chamber know that numerous reviews have raised concerns with tax arrangements for discretionary trusts over many years. The first instance of this was a report in 1975. There was the Ralph review in 1999. There was the Henry review. And there was the coalition's own tax discussion paper in 2015, which I know is a pretty inconvenient truth for those opposite. The settings are becoming more unsustainable with the number of discretionary trusts doubling over the past 20 years to over 800,000. There are legitimate reasons to use trusts, and anyone operating through discretionary trusts can continue to do so. There is a substantial period for anyone using a trust to prepare before the 1 July 2028 start date, and we're providing expanded options to limit or eliminate restructuring costs as well. That includes expanded rollover relief from 2027 and options for trusts to elect to be exempt without requiring a restructure or paying a wage to beneficiaries employed in the trust.

The majority of trust income flows to the top earning 10 per cent of Australian families. About 90 per cent of the total private trust wealth is held by 10 per cent of households. The vast majority of Australians do not receive a discretionary trust income, and the vast majority of small businesses also do not operate using a trust. Less than 10 per cent of small businesses will be affected in any given year. This change is about improving the fairness, integrity and sustainability of the tax system. We're focused on taking the pressure off Australians with permanent cost-of-living relief, including tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer that started on 1 July this year. Those opposite are determined to present these fairer tax changes as an attack on business. We in the Labor Party see it for what it is: a smoke screen that they can hide behind while trying to protect their ability to minimise their tax and increase the divide.

Like I've already touched on, our reforms are about better aligning the tax treatment of incomes from assets and income from work and to help fund tax cuts for Australian workers. It's also worth noting that primary production income is exempt from the minimum tax on trusts, which we announced on budget night. It's also important that we note that this week the National Farmers' Federation said:

We strongly welcome the Government's decision to legislate the exemption for primary production income, providing critical certainty for farming families.

Do you know an inconvenient truth? I'll tell you an inconvenient truth. This government has trashed the economy, this government has crushed Australian households and this government has brought Australian small businesses to their knees. That's the inconvenient truth. The answers, or the lack of answers, that we got to the questions asked about trusts are very telling. The suggestion that this is a niche group of businesses at the top end of the town is absolutely false. This is the everyday tradie. This is a builder, someone in the construction industry. It also crosses into other service industries like hairdressers and doctors and dentists—you name it. Do you know what they all have in common? They're all small businesses. They're not large businesses. They're not multinationals. They're Australian small businesses that have been targeted by this Albanese Labor government with even more tax.

One of the answers that Minister Wong gave was in relation to it just being about a small group of businesses or individuals that receive their income via a trust. I'll take a step back. We are in a housing crisis. We don't have enough houses. That's a given. In the budget in May, instead of making it easier for young Australians to get into a home, this government decided to increase taxes across a whole spectrum of mechanisms under the shield of intergenerational equity. We all know that to be false. They said that these taxes would make it easier for young Australians to own their own home. What they refuse to admit publicly is that they are taxing young Australians even more as they save to afford those homes. This trust tax has now impacted the companies, the organisations, the tradies, the Australian small businesses and the Australian family businesses that build those homes.

HIA's managing director, Jocelyn Martin, in a press release, said the proposal would have consequences far beyond taxation, affecting how many small businesses are structured and operated. She also said:

Around three in five HIA members operate through a family trust.

Do you know what HIA members primarily are? They are builders, the people who build the homes that Australians need to live in, which we currently do not have enough of.

This takes me to what I believe is the agenda of this government, and it's becoming very clear. We've spoken about this over and over. We would like Australians to be able to own their own homes. Those opposite would like your super fund to own your own home and for you to be a perpetual renter of that home. That's what they want. That's what the agenda is. Guess what? Your super fund can invest in property, but you can't via your own super or via your SMSF any more, because this government has said that you can't. This is just another layer in that same agenda to make homeownership less accessible for the everyday Australian. It is totally lacking any foresight to think that taxing Australian tradies and taxing Australian builders even more will actually make housing more accessible for people in this country. (Time expired)

On the topic of trusts, over the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion in discretionary trusts. We now have over 800,000 of them, and they are heavily used by wealthy households. As the former member for Higgins, I represented one of the wealthiest electorates in this country. Trusts were widely used by my constituents. It was driven largely by the top marginal tax rate, which, as you know, is 45 per cent. With the Medicare levy, which is two per cent, it is 47 per cent. People on those incomes are paying a lot of money to the tax man. I'm speaking about the constituents I used to represent. That top 10 per cent shoulder a high tax burden. They account for nearly half of the tax take—around 46 to 50 per cent. So they pay a lot of tax, which pays for all the services and the infrastructure and the things Australians need. They also work really hard.

It's not surprising that, over that time, this top marginal tax rate, which Paul Keating himself described as punitive, has driven a whole series of perverse behaviour, including the use of discretionary trusts as tax shelters—entirely legitimate over this period of time, entirely legal and lawful. The problem now is that we're seeing such leakage of tax and such rising demands on our economy from aged care, from disability, from paying interest on debt, from defence and national security and from climate change—let's not forget climate change. All of these kinds of pressures are intensifying on us, and there is a need for government to raise revenue and to deal with tax leakage, which is something we are boldly trying to do, knowing full well that it's unpopular. But we are a responsible government and we have to deal with these kinds of issues.

What is of concern, however, is the impacts on small businesses. There are 2.7 million small businesses in Australia. They are the backbone of our economy. We think around 210,000 small businesses will be affected by this change. The government has made some concessions to try and help small businesses restructure without incurring high costs, which COSBOA have said could be in the order of $50,000. We also accept that small businesses use these sorts of trusts for asset protection, for succession planning, for continuity, all of which are entirely important and legitimate, and we are consulting deeply with them right now, particularly with industry, with small business as represented by COSBOA and, of course, farmers.

This change in taxation arrangements for discretionary trusts tax is something that we need to be very careful of in this current economic environment. Small businesses are doing it tough. There is weak demand. Costs are high and, unfortunately, at the moment, rising. We've done our level best to help small business with the $20,000 instant asset write-off and the loss carry-back, which they also advocated for and which I'm pleased we could deliver. We are listening and consulting.

I rise to take note of Minister Wong's answers to questions from Senators Blyth, Colbeck and Ruston on tax on trusts. The Albanese Labor government has once again shown how little it really understands about small businesses and the pressures that they're facing. I, like a multitude of many small-business owners out there at the moment, have seen the tin ear that the Labor Party and the Labor government have shown towards small businesses in recent times. Let's take trusts for the moment. Labor's approach to discretionary trust taxation is causing serious concerns across small businesses, farmers, tradies and many others. Even Labor state governments are now scrambling to protect small businesses from Jim Chalmers latest tax grab. That tells you just how badly this has been handled to date.

Small businesses, including franchises and even small builders, are being given three bad choices: pay more tax, pay accountants and lawyers to restructure or give up the flexibility they've relied on for generations. The NFF says there are more than 37,000 trusts operating in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, but it's still not clear what sorts of farming activities are covered under primary production income. They're asking for certainty, sensible rules and a government that understands the realities of running a business. I know those opposite don't understand this, but for a small-business owner cashflow is everything. It determines whether suppliers are paid, whether rent is met and whether another employee can be hired. I've worked in small business, including our own former family business, and I know the pressures they face. Unlike this government, small-business owners cannot simply spend more money when the numbers don't add up. Yet Labor keeps adding costs, uncertainty and frustration.

Take the recent changes to card surcharges. Banning a surcharge doesn't just eliminate the cost of accepting a card. Just fancy the facepalm when the Prime Minister claimed that the changes would make everyday purchases like your coffee cheaper. One female owner of a Tasmanian hospitality business has told me this week that across two venues her business has now absorbed just under $3,000 in 10 days, including some new fees. This is up from $129 in the corresponding period last year. It forecasts an annual impact of over $120,000, factoring in seasonality—a $120,000 impact!—unless it passes those costs on by increasing prices. Yet Labor thinks the surcharge has simply vanished. It hasn't. Someone pays.

In my short time here, I've heard of so many small businesses saying the same thing under the weight of this government's reforms. If Minister Wong is not hearing those concerns in her office, she should ask herself why. We're listening; the question is whether this government is also listening.

Then came the ATO's plan to stop accepting direct credit card payments for tax. For businesses waiting on overdue invoices, a credit card can provide vital short-term cashflow flexibility. The government was left scrambling on its position. Then there was the hypocrisy. While small businesses were essentially being told to absorb their card processing costs, the ATO wanted to walk away from its own. Small businesses deserve respect, not another round of Labor's moving goalposts and tax grabs on trusts. They don't deserve your higher taxes and energy bills. Labor should back, not break, small businesses.

Question agreed to.

Gas Industry: Taxation

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today.

I note with some dismay that this government seems utterly ignorant of its role in creating and perpetuating poverty in Australia. You would think that during Anti-Poverty Week, when advocates and people living in poverty are here in Canberra, lobbying the government to do more than just mouth platitudes about doing what they can, Labor would have something significant to offer people who are struggling for survival. Instead, we got the social services minister announcing meagre funding for emergency relief charities amounting to a dollar per welfare recipient—one dollar.

Poverty isn't an accident. It isn't some surprising by-product of policy. It's the result of deliberate choices made by successive governments over decades, and Labor has made the deliberate choice to keep all social security payments below the poverty line. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's latest report on mortality outcomes showed that people accessing the JobSeeker payment are up to 10 times more likely to die than people not on any income support payment. Almost three in five people aged 22 to 64 who passed away over 2012 to 2022 were accessing income support.

More and more Australians are hungry, homeless and desperate, and they are running out of places to turn. We see this every day in my electorate office in Gladstone. Every week, we hear from dozens of constituents who contact us looking for help: help getting into public housing, help navigating Centrelink, help with emergency hampers because they're escaping domestic violence and they haven't eaten in days. With every month that goes by, we hear from more and more people.

The minister, in her answer, said that Labor is the party of job creation. That's all well and good, but unemployment is literally baked into our economy. Unemployment is a tool used by the Reserve Bank to control inflation. We know this. Just last month, RBA governor Michele Bullock said an unemployment rate of 4.5 to five per cent would take the heat out of inflation. What does Labor have to say to the people who, through no fault of their own, are forced into unemployment so that the RBA can make a number on a computer screen go down? Not very much, it seems.

Meanwhile, life is pretty sweet for the gas companies and the billionaires who get richer and richer off the back of Australian workers and Australia's resources. Prosper Australia Research Institute released a report just this week showing that Australia could rake in $45 billion more each year if we properly valued and taxed our resources. We know that if the government simply chose to tax gas exports at 25 per cent, a measure that has massive national support, we could raise $17 billion a year to go towards public housing, affordable groceries and raising the rate of welfare payments.

The social security system is supposed to help people, but it's increasingly complex, highly conditional and riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. Poverty payments, dodgy debt recovery, punitive compulsory activities, income control regimes—the social security system under Labor resembles Squid Game more than it does a safety net. Choosing to keep people in poverty when you have the tools at your disposal to lift them out of it is indefensible. But it's a choice that this government, a Labor government, continues to make time and time again. I note that the minister said that they have raised income support. Well, it's currently a meagre $400-or-so a week, and I challenge the minister to find a single rental property in this country that someone on income support can afford, let alone put food on the table, pay their bills and keep themself healthy and well.

Question agreed to.

Cybersafety

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to cybersafety.

I will give this to Senator Farrell. He gave a very succinct answer to my question, which is quite interesting, frankly, because Senator Farrell often gives very long and detailed answers. While his answer to my question was succinct, I would have preferred a more useful one. But you cannot have everything. I asked why Labor won't put its assurances about free speech into the digital duty of care legislation it has put before this parliament. The minister had the chance today to commit to that answer. He had the chance to explain why Labor would not put stronger protections in the legislation. He did not. Apparently, we are supposed to be satisfied because Minister Wells says that there's nothing to worry about. Well, we're passing a law; we're not asking for a character reference here, and there are reasons to be concerned. Experts are concerned.

A gentleman named Michael Shellenberger has been in Australia warning Australians about governments giving themselves more power over what people can and can't say online—governments giving themselves the power to monitor you and restrict your speech. You don't have to agree with everything he's saying to ask why those in power want their power to be so broad. If the government says that we've misunderstood it, it has a fairly straightforward remedy for that: tighten up the wording. Instead, we get this business about mystery shoppers. That is how the government described these sock puppet accounts; it called them 'mystery shoppers'. Labor wants to give government officials fake identities online. It tries to wave that away, saying they are mystery shoppers. But then it can't explain why we need them and, more importantly, why it won't accept clear limits on their use.

Frankly, I don't understand why Labor won't expressly rule out using those accounts on lawful political discussion explicitly in the legislation. It's all well and good to say it, but I would like—and I think many Australians would like—to see it carved in stone in the bill. People are entitled to go online and have their say, have their criticisms of us, all of us. They're entitled to say the Prime Minister is doing a rotten job. They're entitled to argue about immigration or energy policy without wondering whether someone in a government office is acting like a mystery shopper or using a sock puppet account and taking notes or whether a government agency is putting material into that debate as well, because that is in the legislation too. The government can create material and put it online. Australians ought to know if the things that they are reading are coming from the government. They ought to know where it's coming from. Put the department's name on it. There's no need to invent a bloke named Barry who happens to agree with ministers.

I'd ask Labor senators to think more seriously about this. Would you be happy if we had those powers or if the Greens had those powers? I suspect you would want to read the fine print very closely. They certainly wouldn't settle for: 'Don't worry. It'll be alright.' I think they'd be treating it a lot more seriously. I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, because it works both ways. The law has to protect people regardless of who wins the next election. That means clear restrictions and independent scrutiny, not an annual summary after the event. That is what is in the legislation. They say that the actual information that they have agreed to provide occurs as a sort of annual summary. There's no detailed itemised audit of the information these 'mystery shoppers', as they call them, will be collecting.

No-one is asking Labor to abandon the protection of children or the prosecution of criminals. What we're asking is just to take greater steps to protect lawful speech as well—more scrutiny, more clarity in the legislation. Don't try and wave things away and dismiss them. 'Mystery shoppers' and 'sock puppets' are really silly sounding terms, but they're really serious issues that should be treated seriously by this government. If it is already the government's intention not to do those things, then there should be no argument. Put it in the bill.

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS Leave of Absence

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Cox from 12 to 15 October 2026, on account of parliamentary business; and

(b) Senator Green for today, on account of ministerial business.

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF URGENCY Taxation

We now turn to a deferred vote from yesterday evening. I remind senators that, yesterday evening after 6.30 pm, a division was called on the urgency motion moved by Senator McGrath relating to the taxation of trusts. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator McGrath yesterday evening at 6:30 pm be agreed to.

Alex Antic Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Andrew Bragg Ross Cadell Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Chris Gatenby Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Matt O'Sullivan Malcolm Roberts Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Vanessa Bleyer Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Deborah O'Neill Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Matthew Canavan Corinne Mulholland Michaelia Cash Penny Ying Yen Wong Claire Chandler Don Farrell Sarah Henderson Tim Ayres Jane Hume Jordon Steele-John Maria Kovacic Dorinda Cox Bridget McKenzie Malarndirri McCarthy Andrew McLachlan Katy Gallagher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Larissa Waters James Paterson Murray Watt Anne Ruston Nita Green Dean Smith Sue Lines COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee; Report

I present the 518th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, on the committee's inquiry into the 2023-24 and 2024-25 major projects reports.

Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Additional Information

At the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present additional information received by various committees as shown at item 19 of today's Order of Business.

Human Rights Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report: report 11 of 2026.

Finance and Public Administration References Committee; Report

At the request of Senator Sharma, I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on financial support for state and territory infrastructure projects, together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Treaties Joint Committee; Report

At the request of Senator Collins, I present the 236th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Economics Legislation Committee; Government Response to Report

I present the government response to the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on its inquiry into provisions of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report:

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

July 2026

Introduction

The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 February 2024.

On 29 February 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee (Committee) for inquiry and report by 22 March 2024.

The committee recommended that the Bill be passed.

The Bill passed the Senate on 16 May 2024 with Government amendments that removed Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Bill and clarified that contractors are included in the protection against discrimination provisions. The Bill passed the House of Representatives on 28 May 2024.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 11 June 2024 and became the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Act 2024. The last provisions of the Act commenced on 12 June 2025.

Recommendations

In the report, the Committee recommended that the Bill be passed. The three additional dissenting reports from the Australian Greens, Senator David Pocock and Senator Lidia Thorpe each recommended that Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Bill be removed or the Bill be opposed. Recommendations that the Bill be passed/not passed are not addressed in this Government response.

There are two additional recommendations from the Australian Greens and ten additional recommendations from Senator Lidia Thorpe. The Government's response to each dissenting recommendation is provided below.

Australian Greens' dissenting report—March 2024

Recommendation 2: That the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage legislative framework be amended to ensure that:

The Government notes this recommendation.

In the 2023-24 Budget, the Government committed $12 million over three years to a review of the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas activities to ensure it is fit for purpose for a decarbonising economy. The review will also consider opportunities to provide regulatory and administrative certainty for carbon capture and storage activities.

Consultation with affected stakeholders and communities is an important aspect of Australia's offshore regulatory regime for petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. The Offshore Environment Management Review includes a focus on clarifying existing consultation requirements for offshore activities, including with First Nations people and communities, to ensure consultation is targeted and effective.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is considering an approach to First Nations engagement in the context of reforms to Commonwealth environmental and cultural heritage protection laws that is inclusive and respectful of cultural authority.

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) provides procedural requirements for 'future acts' which have the potential to impact native title rights and interests, including in offshore places (per s 24NA(8) of the NTA). While this does not provide a power of veto to native title holders or claimants, it provides procedural rights at a minimum. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) completed its review of the NTA's future acts regime and provided its Final Report to the Attorney-General in March 2026. The report was tabled in Parliament on 24 June 2026.

Recommendation 3: That the Government amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) to ensure that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is considered within The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights included in the Explanatory Memorandum, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent, and that the sponsors of bills are required to provide the relevant information to prove that our obligations are being met.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

The reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Australia's Human Rights Framework and the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia have both made recommendations that the Government amend the definition of 'human rights' in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Government is carefully considering these reports.

Senator Lidia Thorpe's dissenting report—March 2024

Recommendation 2: Implement the UNDRIP into domestic law to have full domestic effect and enshrine in law First Peoples' rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Refer to the Government's response to the Australian Greens' recommendation 2.

Recommendation 3: Implement all recommendations from the 2023 Inquiry into the application of UNDRIP in Australia.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Refer to the Government's response to the Australian Greens' recommendation 2.

Recommendation 4: Amend the Parliamentary Scrutiny (Human Rights) Act 2011 to include consideration of UNDRIP, so that no legislation is passed before proper consideration of its engagement and compatibility with the rights of First Peoples.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Refer to the Government's response to the Australian Greens' recommendation 3.

Recommendation 5: The Albanese Government must fulfil its election commitments to reform national environmental laws, including a National Standard for First Peoples Engagement and Participation in Decision-Making, in this term of government.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Recommendation 6: The federal government must commence Treaty negotiations with First Peoples as a matter of urgency.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Recommendation 7: Australia cannot pursue any more new coal and gas projects if we are to meet our emissions reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

Australia has national emissions reduction targets of 43% by 2030 on 2005 levels, 62-70% by 2035, and Net Zero by 2050. These targets apply to all parts of the economy, and all greenhouse gases. Australia's Net Zero Plan articulates how Australia will transition to a net zero economy, consistent with our international and domestic commitments. The Net Zero Plan is underpinned by six sectoral plans covering all major sectors of the economy, including the resources sector. The resources sector plan will identify opportunities to reduce emissions from all activities in scope, including coal and gas projects.

The Safeguard Mechanism plays a key role in incentivising long-term investment in emissions reduction for the country's largest industrial facilities, including coal mines and gas projects. All covered facilities are required to steadily reduce their emissions through declining emissions limits, or baselines, on a trajectory consistent with achieving Australia's emission reduction targets of 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Any new facilities have their baselines determined using emissions intensity values set using international best practice levels, recognising the opportunity to build world's best practice emissions performance into their design.

The Government's Future Gas Strategy, echoed in the Net Zero Plan and Resources Sector Plan, establishes that the role of gas will change as we move towards net zero in Australia by 2050. Australian gas will play an important role in an orderly global and domestic energy transformation. Even in net zero scenarios, Australia and the world will need gas through to 2050 and beyond.

Our trading partners have indicated Australia will play a vital role in supplying the resources needed to ensure their energy and economic security as they follow their own path to meet their net zero commitments. The international demand for low emissions fuels and materials underpins our Future Made in Australia ambitions. The Government is investing in the establishment of new industries such as critical minerals processing and low carbon liquid fuels to lower our emissions, attract investment and grow the economy.

Recommendation 8: State and federal governments must grant greater protections and declare critical habitats for cetaceans, including Koontapool/Southern Right Whale.

The Government notes the recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

The Southern Right Whale is listed as endangered and migratory under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In September 2023, the Government publicly released updated Biologically Important Areas for the Southern Right Whale. This includes areas used by the species that are important for migration and areas designated as critical for reproduction. The National Recovery Plan for the Southern Right Whale was finalised in 2024 in consultation with state agencies and species experts and includes current scientific information on the species, habitat, identified threats and a range of conservation and management actions required to mitigate potential impacts to the species.

Recommendation 9: Governments must ban seismic blasting and refuse any further fossil fuel projects impacting Sea Country.

The Government does not support this recommendation.

On 9 December 2025, the Government published the revised Offshore Exploration Work Bid Guidelines which included a requirement to apply a technology-neutral approach to seismic acquisition and to minimise seismic surveying, where possible, to align with the Government's Future Gas Strategy.

The Government is committed to protecting our marine environment and enforcing safe and environmentally responsible practices by the offshore resources sector. Offshore exploration and development activities, including seismic surveying, are subject to a robust environmental approvals regime, regulated by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). NOPSEMA employs qualified technical experts with experience in offshore environmental impact and risk management, marine ecology and environmental science.

Environment plans for proposed seismic surveys must demonstrate that any impacts and risks associated with the activity have been evaluated, and that controls have been adopted to reduce those impacts and risks to as low as reasonably practicable and to acceptable levels. If the environmental impacts of a proposed seismic survey cannot be managed, NOPSEMA will not allow the activity to proceed.

The Government's Future Gas Strategy outlines a pathway for Australia to manage its evolving role as a trusted gas producer and as a responsible climate actor which acts with transparency, integrity, and from a strong evidence base. As the Future Gas Strategy states, gas will continue to play an important role in Australia's transition to net zero.

The Government recognises the importance of First Nations people's connection to country and is committed to improving social and economic outcomes through future energy projects. Offshore titleholders must consult with relevant persons under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023, which may include Traditional Owners and other cultural knowledge holders, during the preparation of an environment plan, and demonstrate how impacts and risks will be mitigated.

Recommendation 10: The government must implement in full all recommendations from the 2021 A Way Forward Report into the destruction of Juukan Gorge.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

The Government is continuing to implement the recommendations agreed under A Way Forward, as outlined in the 2022 Government response to the destruction of Juukan Gorge.

Recommendation 11: Political donations from fossil fuel companies and other harmful industries should be banned.

The Government notes this recommendation.

This recommendation is not within the scope of the Bill.

The Government has clear commitments to improve transparency and accountability across our electoral system.

Following the 2022 election, the Government asked the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) to inquire into and report on various matters, including political donations.

JSCEM did not recommend banning donations from specific donors. It did, however, recommend the Government consider ways to provide greater transparency of political donations.

In February 2025, the Government's historic reforms to the electoral system to improve public transparency and impose limits on political donations were passed by the Parliament. These new laws will come into effect 1 January 2027.

The Government believes electoral reform should be undertaken in a consultative and multipartisan manner and looks forward to continued engagement with colleagues across the Parliament on electoral reforms.

Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee; Government Response to Report

I rise to take note of the government response to the report on financial abuse undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's a title that has a little tag at the end that says it's an 'insidious form of domestic violence'. There are a few people here in the chamber, but there are also people who might be listening online. I want to give you confidence that the democratic project, as much as it's maligned in the public place, is actually working.

The impact of financial abuse being perpetrated on people in Australia is worth $5.7 billion. It does happen to some men, but predominantly this is an issue that affects women. We all know about scams. We know how bad they are. We know how they hurt people that we love. They take money away from people who need it—illegally. That costs $3 billion. Think about that. Nearly twice as much damage to the Australian population from financial abuse is often done by somebody's partner.

Great Australians—and champions, advocates and lobbyists for those Australians—came into this place and told their stories. We went to Perth, and we heard stories about a woman who was coerced into taking on debt for her partner to buy a car that she didn't want to buy. He coerced her physically and emotionally into doing that and then, not too long after, beat her to such a pulp that she suffered a permanent brain injury. She spent time in a coma, for six months, and woke up with a debt that had escalated and escalated—and she could not get any relief from the provider of that financial instrument.

This is the scale of what's going on. The government has been listening to much of this evidence and other evidence about the problem with financial products and also with the weaponising of the instruments of government, such as the ATO. In this government, we are really committed to support. This was a unanimous report. I know the headlines are all about people who hate one another here, but, every now and then, we really get it together—Labor, Greens and the Liberal-National coalition. There were 61 recommendations, with 58 of them accepted. We are committed to preventing perpetrators of family abuse from receiving victim's superannuation and death benefits. How wrong is it that that has been able to occur? We're fixing that. Coerced directorships are where people's names and signatures are just copied by their partners for 10, 12, 20 different companies, and they don't even realise that they're acquiring debt in their own name because their partners are so deceptive. We can't allow these things to continue. You won't see the director identification number in a headline; there won't be a whole lot of noise and fireworks about that, but this is real government with really good senators and members working properly in our democracy to give the things that we need to function properly as a harmonious society to the Australian people—where we pick out issues and go: 'That is not okay, that is not fair, and that is not the Australian way. We are going to do something about it, and we're legislating for change.'

The ATO is often the instrument that sees where these debts have been accrued, and many, many women talked abut the ATO arriving at their door and saying, 'Well, look, you've got all this debt'—hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions of dollars!—'the only way you can get out of it, love, is by signing this form, and you will become a bankrupt.' Women who didn't even know they were directors have been saddled with this incredible debt. The malice of some of the people who are perpetrating this in our economy and in our society is truly shocking. We had evidence from one woman whose husband pulled apart the family finances, loaded it up with as much debt as possible on his way out the door, sold his house—sold their house—to his mate at a reduced price and made sure that his wife and their three children were out of that house two weeks before the daughter turned 18 because he didn't want them to have a party there.

There are awful people who need the law to be a barrier to prevent them from doing what they are doing. This committee has documented this shameful practice. It's no longer in the dark; we brought it out into the light. This government now has five ministers involved in advancing change to improve the outcomes—$5.7 billion ripped off by one Australian against their intimate partners and their own children. Then, the whole of the public purse has to try and help hold that together. We are talking about women who are suffering debt for decades after they leave a terrible situation. I encourage you: be confident that our democracy is working, read the report, and watch this government get it done. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Northern Australia Joint Committee; Report

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak on the tabling of this important report by the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. At its heart is a simple question: if northern Australia is so important to our prosperity, energy security and national defence, why do we continue to govern it as if it were simply an extension of southern Australia? For decades, governments have produced plans and programs for the north, yet the same barriers remain: distance, high costs, inadequate infrastructure, workforce shortages, fragmented approvals and governments operating in silos. This report argues that it's a time for a reset. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Western Australia's far north-west. The Pilbara is one of Australia's great economic engine rooms. Its iron ore, gas and resources industries generate enormous export wealth and underpin national prosperity. Further north, the Kimberley holds enormous untapped potential in resources, agriculture, energy and tourism.

But we will never realise that potential if we treat the north simply as somewhere people fly in, extract wealth and fly out again. Northern development must mean building permanent communities—places where people can live, raise families and build businesses. That requires roads, ports and airports as well as housing, reliable energy, water, telecommunications, schools and health services. We also need to confront one of the great weaknesses in the way the government has approached the north. One-size-fits-all regulation is not the answer. Too much regulation is designed around the circumstances of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra and then applied uniformly across the continent. Why should a regulatory model designed for a large metropolitan market or population centre automatically be right for Kununurra, Derby or the Pilbara? The distances are greater, markets are thinner, workforces are smaller, infrastructure is limited and costs are higher. A regulation that is a minor impost in Melbourne could kill an investment in the Kimberley. Uniformity is not fairness. National standards do not require identical regulation everywhere. That is why it's time again to think seriously about designated accelerated development areas across northern Australia. We should identify places of national economic and strategic importance and deliberately create the conditions for investment, development and permanent population growth. A designated development accelerated area could bring together regulatory relief, accelerated coordinated approvals, infrastructure planning and targeted incentives. Instead of proponents navigating multiple agencies, governments and approval processes, give them a coordinated pathway with clear requirements and firm timeframes. This is not a regulatory free-for-all. Standard should remain high, environmental protection should remain robust, and native title and cultural heritage obligations must be respected. But the process can be faster, clearer and better coordinated.

Tax policy must also be at the heart of this discussion. The zone tax offset has not been indexed for more than two decades. The fringe benefits tax can penalise employers for providing the housing, transport and assistance needed to attract and retain workers in remote communities. Capital gains tax settings can discourage investment in exploration and emerging industries. We cannot say we want people in investment in northern Australia while maintaining settings that make that harder, nor can infrastructure remain an afterthought. We should identify now the roads, ports, power, water and communications needed to unlock the next generation of development across the Pilbara and the Kimberley. Infrastructure should not simply follow development. Done properly, it creates development. The Pilbara has already shown what northern Western Australia can deliver for the whole nation. The Kimberley shows how much more remains possible.

Our ambition should be a stronger, more populated and more productive north-west, supporting new industries, strengthening our sovereign capability and carrying a greater share of Australia's future prosperity. Accelerated development zones should be part of this ambition. Build the infrastructure, tailor regulation to northern conditions, get the tax settings right, give investors certainty and give more Australians a reason to make the north their permanent home. Developing the Pilbara and unlocking the Kimberley is not regional assistance; it's nation building. We know the opportunity. This report provides some direction. Now, we need the determination to deliver on this ambition.

Question agreed to.

DOCUMENTS Fuel Security, Climate Change Authority, Safeguard Mechanism, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme; Order for the Production of Documents

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Fuel Supply Taskforce coordinator, Climate Change Authority contracts, the National Roads and Motorists Association and an extended producer responsibility scheme.

COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee; Membership

The President has received a letter requesting changes to the membership of a committee.

by leave—I move:

Economics Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 and related bills

Participating member: Senator McKim

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS Artificial Intelligence

I move:

That the Senate—

a. acknowledges the growing threat posed by artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes, voice cloning and other emerging technologies, which are increasingly being exploited to impersonate individuals and organisations, spread disinformation, manipulate the public and facilitate sophisticated scams and fraud;

b. expresses serious concern regarding the lack of protection from AI-generated political advertising which undermines electoral integrity, democratic accountability and public trust; and

c. calls on the Government to urgently strengthen Australia's legislative and regulatory framework to address the misuse of AI, deepfakes and voice cloning and prevent their malicious use in scams, fraud and impersonation, including in political advertising.

Before the last election, the ABC asked me to take part in an AI experiment. They asked if I could clone my voice using cheap AI tools. They wanted to see if people in Burnie, in my own backyard, would know my voice from an 'AI fake Jacqui', as they called it. Well, that was scary enough. But here we are two years later, and the deepfake technology is even scarier. A deepfake video of Angus Taylor and me having an argument on ABC TV's Insiders show has been doing the rounds on social media for months. My office has done all the right things. We got straight out on the socials, warning people, but it's still popping up. Just for the record, Australians, I don't endorse any companies, especially not insurance companies. I work for the people of Tasmania, full stop—no endorsing.

In the last sitting, an AI deepfake video of me popped up, and it's doing the rounds again. It's an even nastier one. It's a video of a fake AI Jacqui telling One Nation supporters they are vile and disgusting. And who is sharing this nasty AI slop? Well, you wouldn't guess. After our investigation—a One Nation supporter, of course. We have also alerted the AFP. This is the sort of vile political advertising that just causes more division. I would like to ask every One Nation senator in this place if you support this sort of rubbish. Is this what you call free speech, is it? When we reported it to Facebook Meta, you wouldn't guess what they said. They told us that this video didn't breach their community standards. You know why they said that? Because, let's face it, when it comes to Meta and Facebook, they have no standards, full stop.

I'm looking forward to seeing the government's duty of care bill. This kind of fake, hideous content causes hatred and division, so I get why One Nation likes it; hatred and division are all they've got up their sleeve. As I've said before, I don't care about me, but I do care about my staff who have to deal with the One Nation troll army almost every day—every day! And I care about Australians who are seeing this and might think that it's real.

Australia has strong laws to protect consumers from false claims made in advertisements. Pharmaceutical companies can't claim to have a cure for cancer, food companies can't claim that sugary foods are good for our children, and lawyers cannot guarantee they will win every personal injury case. But it's still okay in this country and legal to lie in political ads. But we can change that. South Australia has had truth-in-political-advertising laws since the 1980s. In 2020, the ACT Legislative Assembly unanimously passed truth-in-political-advertising laws that came into effect in July 2021. Parties and candidates in Australia get a lot of taxpayer money with very few strings attached. What if some of that money gets turned into political ads that are misleading or deceptive? Truth-in-political-advertising laws are extremely popular. There's been a lot of polling on this, and nine out of 10 Australians want truth-in-political-advertising rules, full stop.

Professor Terry Flew is the coordinator of the centre for artificial intelligence at Sydney university. The professor told the Joint Select Committee on AI that his one immediate recommendation is 'that the current political advertising laws be changed to prohibit the use of AI generated deepfakes in election campaigns'—in other words, truth-in-political-advertising laws. Professor Flew told the committee that political deepfakes go way beyond 'the legitimate bounds of public campaigning and prove to be genuinely threatening to the individuals and groups who are the targets of them'.

AI is completely out of control. We know that because the big tech bros are the ones warning the world that there needs to be more regulation and guardrails. It's coming from them. Now, it would appear that our government has finally woken up—well, maybe. I'm hoping. In February this year, when I asked the minister why we weren't investing in our own Australian made AI, all the minister could say was that Australia was a great place to invest, and he pointed to the AI Safety Institute, which has no actual powers, Australians—just another little bunch of people up there getting paid some cash. By the way, this was just days after Labor got rid of the independent AI advisory group. Go figure. So the only place they were getting their information from was big tech.

Last weekend's TheSaturday Paper had a very interesting story about the number of top-level staffers with close ties to the Labor Party who have left the Labor Party and are now working with big tech. The article spoke to insiders who pointed to big tech using the same tactics as big tobacco. Aren't you disgusting little people? That involves hiring multiple former Labor staff. And Ed Husic, the former industry minister who led the government's initial response to AI, said:

What we're witnessing is nothing more than a shock and awe lobbying approach by US tech, designed to swamp government decision-making.

An AI strategist who has worked inside and outside government made a similar point:

The amount of power these people have is incomprehensible … This isn't just a product that's being sold. This is dual-use capability. This is the equivalent of a private company developing nuclear weapons.

This government and the last Liberal government let social media get out of control. Well, you're on notice now. Australia is watching. We need controls on AI now, and we need to ban political deepfake ads. There is already a huge problem with trust in our politicians and this place up here. Having strong truth in political advertising laws and banning political deepfakes would go a long way to having a very good start. I have to ask: what are you waiting for? What I see as the form of policing out there is that you're actually putting the lives of all these parliamentarians and their staff in danger. You are doing that.

Until you bring in some rules and regulations, this is going to continue to uplift. You are setting a very dangerous precedent for one of us to be hurt. God help us if someone goes at me and one of my staff gets hurt. It's gone too far! You have to do something about this, for God's sake, for at least the safety and welfare of our own staff in our offices who travel with us all the time. We are not the PM. We don't have security around us. It is getting that vicious out there. It might be okay for a backbencher who is not known out there, and that is no disrespect to you. But, for an Independent like myself who's been up here for over 10 years and whose face is out there everywhere, and everyone knows who I am, I am extremely worried about my staff being around me. That is a problem. I am really worried. So, please, before one of us or one of our staff actually gets hurt, before it is too late, I'm begging you to do something about this.

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Glenorchy Medicare Mental Health Centre

Tonight I rise to recognise the important new service for the people of Glenorchy and surrounding communities, the Glenorchy Medicare Mental Health Centre. Earlier this month, I was proud to join the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, Emma McBride; the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and member for Lyons, Rebecca White; and centre staff and members of the local community to officially open this new service in the heart of Glenorchy.

The centre is located in the former Snows Dry Cleaning building, a familiar local landmark designed by the renowned Tasmanian architect Esmond Dorney in the late 1950s. Esmond's son, architect Paddy Dorney, was present and spoke at the opening, reflecting on the building's enduring place in the hearts of local people and its renewal for a new chapter of community service. It is fitting that a building with such a strong place in Glenorchy's history has been thoughtfully renewed to serve the community for many years to come. Its architectural character has been preserved by creating a warm, safe and welcoming environment.

The Glenorchy Medicare Mental Health Centre provides free and confidential mental health care with no appointment or referral required. It's open Monday to Friday. People can simply walk through the door and speak with qualified mental health professionals and peer workers with lived experience. They can receive immediate assistance, short- and medium-term support and help connecting with other health, housing, employment and social services. The centre also offers information and advice to carers, families and friends. That simple walk-in model matters.

Reaching out for help can be difficult, and the mental health system can be hard to navigate, particularly when someone is already in distress. Cost, waiting times, referrals and uncertainty about where to go can all be barriers. This centre removes many of those barriers. It gives people a clear local front door and the reassurance that support is available close to home when they need it. We know that one in five adults experience mental health challenges each year. Behind that statistic are individuals, family, friends and colleagues. Nobody should feel they have to struggle alone, and no-one should miss out on care because they cannot afford it or do not have a referral.

The Glenorchy centre is fully funded by the Australian government, commissioned by Primary Health Tasmania and operated by Stride mental health. Its multidisciplinary team includes mental health clinicians, counsellors, social workers and peer workers. The contribution of peer workers is especially important. Lived experience brings understanding, trust and human connection to care. As one of the peer workers said at the opening, recovery does not always happen in a straight line. Sometimes the most important thing we can offer is to listen without judgement, treat people with respect and remind them that there can always be a way forward.

The Glenorchy Centre is the 57th Medicare mental health centre to open nationally. In Tasmania, it joins existing services in Launceston, Devonport and Burnie which have already delivered more than 22,000 free walk-in appointments across Tasmania. Nationally, the network has provided more than half a million free walk-in appointments. These numbers demonstrate both the demand for accessible mental health care and the difference these centres are already making. The Albanese Labor government is investing $1.1 billion in mental health and wellbeing to strengthen services, grow the workforce and deliver care wherever Australians live. The national network of Medicare mental health centres will expand to 92 by mid-2030, including a new full centre at Brighton. This is a practical investment in universal community care.

I thank everyone who has helped bring this centre to life. I acknowledge Primary Health Tasmania, Stride mental health, the centre's clinical and non-clinical staff, peer workers, community organisations, Glenorchy City Council and the local health and support services and their work in helping to build a coordinated local network so that people can find the right support at the right time.

This centre represents the best of Medicare: free, high-quality care available to everyone. I'm proud of our government and particularly Assistant Minister Emma McBride for making mental healthcare easier to access closer to home and free at the point of care. The Glenorchy Medicare Mental Health Centre will make a real difference, and I look forward to seeing it become a trusted and valued part of the community.

Australian Gujarati Community, Nepal Festival Perth

I rise this afternoon to recognise the Brabham Gujarati community and the wonderful Garba night recently held in Beechboro. It was a night filled with colour, music, dance, food and, above all, a tremendous sense of community. Garba is one of the great traditions of Gujarati culture, bringing people together through music and dance in celebration of faith, family and community. What was particularly striking was the energy in the room and the number of families and young people taking part in the celebration.

Events such as this play an important role in keeping cultural traditions alive and in passing them from one from one generation to the next. They also give the wider Western Australian community an opportunity to experience and enjoy the extraordinary cultural diversity that has become such an important part of Western Australia. WA's Indian community continues to make an enormous contribution to our economic, professional, cultural and community life.

Hear, hear!

Senator Ghosh is cheering from the sidelines. The Gujarati community is an important part of that story. Community events on this scale do not happen by themselves; they require months of preparation and the commitment of people willing to give their time freely for the benefit of others. I particularly acknowledge and congratulate the organisers and the many volunteers whose hard work made the evening possible. I also congratulate the many thousands of people who came together on that night to celebrate. It was a privilege to share in such a vibrant celebration of Gujarati culture and community in Western Australia. Jai Mata Di.

I'd like to recognise this evening Nepal Festival Perth 2026 and the contribution of the Nepalese community to Western Australia. Since beginning in 2014, the festival has grown into an important celebration of Nepalese culture, bringing thousands of people together to experience Nepal's music, dance, food, heritage and traditions. This year's celebration carries particular significance following the devastating floods across Nepal and the Himalayan region. Lives have been lost, homes and livelihoods have been destroyed and many Western Australian families have faced the anguish of watching events unfold thousands of kilometres away. Yet, from tragedy, we have again seen the strength, generosity and resilience of the Nepalese community. That same spirit was evident at Nepal Festival Perth—people coming together, supporting one another and proudly sharing their heritage with the wider Western Australian community.

Australia and Nepal share more than six decades of diplomatic relations, but the strongest foundation of that friendship has been and will continue to be our people-to-people ties. In Western Australia, the Nepalese community makes an important contribution across business, education, professions and community organisations. The festival represents multiculturalism at its best: Australians proud of where they've come from, proud of the country they now call home and eager to share their traditions with others. I especially congratulate the Non-Resident Nepali Association Western Australia and the organisers, volunteers, performers, sponsors and community organisations who made the festival possible. I extend my warmest and best wishes again to the Nepalese community of Western Australia and to the people of Nepal.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament, Housing

I'm honoured to deliver a speech this evening that was written by Kade, a 16-year-old South Australian, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. It's a delight to welcome Kade and his mum, Brooke, all the way from Port Pirie and from the school St Mark's College. It's a long way to travel to bring your words to this place. Kade says:

A significant issue shaping my future and others, is housing affordability.

Young Australians are being asked to work harder than ever before for opportunities that are further away.

My parent's generation could work and save to realise the great Australian Dream of buying a home, start a family, and build a secure and safe future.

In 2026, young people are not sure if these opportunities will exist. With rising house costs, increasing expenses, and job uncertainties challenging the way my generation is thinking about life and their futures.

This speech isn't about 'getting money'. It's about gaining hope and security for our futures. It's about believing that hard work is going to translate to securing economic stability.

I propose that parliament consider long term decisions that put our futures, and future generations at the centre of policy making. Investing in affordable housing, strengthening education systems, and providing more training and learning opportunities will support young people to believe they have a genuine chance at realising the great Australian Dream.

My generation is left wondering, are we working hard enough?

We are.

My question is, "Will the opportunities that built Australia still be available to future generations?".

Thank you, Kade, for your speech, for your thoughtfulness and for bringing to this Senate today the wishes and thoughts of you and your generation—year 11 at St Mark's College in Port Pirie. They are very important sentiments to bring here. As someone who has recently completed a tour of the whole of our country—talking to young people, to organisations and to academics about what's going on in our housing market—I can tell you that your sentiments are spot-on. We need a long-term plan. We need both major parties—everyone in the Senate and this parliament—to look to the future of our 16-year-olds. Will they be able to afford a home, when their wages now are so much less than the house prices they confront? Will they be able to save a deposit, when the average rent in our country now is over $700 a week?

As we talked about today, there is so little rental accommodation in a place like Port Pirie. House prices across our regional towns, like Port Pirie, are really through the roof. It didn't used to be like this. It used to be that you could find a house in country towns across our nation. I know that, in Lameroo, the little town I grew up in, there were always vacant properties, and you could afford the rent, and you could afford to get into them if you saved your money. That is not possible now across our country.

House prices are up by 400 per cent since 1999, driving a stake into the aspirations and hopes of so many young people like Kade, and causing great worry and concern for people like Brooke, his mum. We want to see our kids into secure housing because secure housing is the foundation for a decent life. It's the basis of finding a job. You need a good home to be able to put yourself through uni and education. You need the stability of rental accommodation if you're going to get a qualification. We know that, if you're going to hold down a job, have a career and start a family, the building block, the foundation for it, is a home. For too many Australians—for the third of Australians who are renters—accumulating a deposit, which used to take around six years on average across our country, now takes 12 years. It's incredibly hard for young people, often with accumulating HECS debts, to look optimistically out from their lives and have a confident hope that they will have a home from which to start their families.

So I say to Kade and his generation: don't stop hoping. Don't stop asking this parliament to respond to your wishes, which are just the same as the wishes that my generation and many generations before had: the chance for a secure household, the chance to accumulate a deposit and get into a home, the chance to be able to afford a mortgage and the chance not to have an overwhelming HECS debt which means running into further debt makes life very, very stressful.

Best of luck with your law degree, Kade. We look forward to seeing you back here in the future.

Education, Employment

We begin our lives by participating in a kind of cosmic lottery. None of us chooses where we start life or where we are born. We do not choose our parents or our postcode or the skills or opportunities that are available to us when we are young. As a society, we must recognise that people begin their lives from different starting points, and, as a parliament, we must use that to inform our decision-making. We cannot make all things equal, but, if we make sure that all Australians have the same opportunity to realise their potential and contribute to our society and our economy, we'll be making a good start. The opportunity to access a high-quality education; to hold a secure job with decent pay and conditions; to own a home; to spend time with loved ones, family and friends; and to retire with dignity—we must endeavour to create a nation where opportunity is shared, progress is embraced, hard work is compensated and economic success is abundant and shared.

Education is at the heart of opportunity. Education expands opportunity and reduces inequality in a way that is fundamental and transformative. Education transforms lives. We must invest in early education, properly fund our primary and high schools, empower people to get a trade or a vocational qualification at TAFE and ensure our universities remain the best in the world. We must focus on improving infrastructure in our regional and remote communities across the country when it comes to education and making sure that people who live in our regions have the same educational opportunities as those who live in our cities. It is our responsibility to provide every Australian the chance to be a good student, a good worker and a good employer.

The benefits of education are not just vocational, of course. A good education, whatever form that takes, adds meaning to life and fosters human flourishing.

We must also be committed to secure and well-paid jobs. A commitment to securing a better deal for workers in this country is a core objective of the Australian Labor Party and of the trade union movement. Human labour must never be treated as just a commodity. Workers are not economic inputs. Their lives are not just units to be added up on a balance sheet. Employment provides workers with more than just income; it provides dignity, security, purpose and opportunity. Every worker deserves respect. Every worker deserves to be paid fairly. Every worker deserves to return home safely at the end of the day.

Outside of a person's love and their friendship, the most sacred thing that they can give is their labour. Those who share their labour, who give their labour in that way, deserve to be paid liveable wages and deserve to share in the economic success of our country. As a barrister, I acted on behalf of trade unions and individuals in a range of cases involving underpayment, wrongful termination and the proliferation of sham enterprise agreements. I've seen the lengths people will go to pay workers less and to undermine our industrial relations system, and I am familiar with the cost, the time and the work required to expose and prove that wrongdoing and to rectify those faults.

Individual workers often do not have the power to represent themselves on an equal footing with their employers, and it is the role of trade unions and the industrial relations system to serve as a counterweight to that inherent inequality. We must have strong safety nets in place for workers, and there must be robust mechanisms so workers can negotiate their pay and conditions and are able to stand up for their rights without fear of reprisal from their employers.

I have a great sense of optimism about Australia and the bright future that awaits our wonderful country. I believe in an Australia where people can build a prosperous and happy future for themselves and their families. I believe we can have a strong economy which shares its growth with those who participate in it. I believe in an Australia where fairness is a core national endeavour. And I believe in an Australia where opportunity, progress and fairness are delivered through education; through economic growth; through strong, secure and well-paid jobs; and through productive work. I believe in Australia. I believe in our future and that our best days are ahead of us.

Raise Our Voice in Parliament, Energy, Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project

I'm delighted to share these thoughts from Chase, who lives in the electorate of Spence in Adelaide's northern suburbs. I'll now read their submission which was part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Chase has rightly identified the energy decisions you make today will shape the Australia and future generations tomorrow. Chase says:

We need reliable, low-emission electricity for decades to come, yet we continue to prohibit one of our greatest opportunities: nuclear energy.

Australia holds around one-third of the world's economic uranium resources, roughly twice the share of Kazakhstan, which ranks second.

We mine it.

We export it.

Yet we refuse to seriously consider using it ourselves.

Renewables are important, but nuclear offers something different.

Wind turbines typically last 20 to 25 years, while modern nuclear plants can operate for 60 years or more.

Nuclear produces electricity day and night, regardless of weather with a comparative footprint of less land.

Nuclear should also be judged by modern technology, not Chernobyl.

Modern reactors operate under vastly different safety standards.

Nuclear requires investment and responsible waste management, but these are challenges to solve, not reasons for prohibition.

At 16 years old, Chase is asking parliament to remove the nuclear power prohibitions contained in the EPBC Act and the ARPANS Act. Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954. It is the largest known uranium resource in the world, at almost a third of the global total. Australia has the capability. Australia needs the courage to use it. Chase, you have thought deeply about this. Thank you for recognising the importance of an energy mix that includes nuclear to power Australia and reduce emissions.

I'd like to continue on the theme of resources and the energy mix, because we do need energy from sources that make sure that we can keep the lights on and prices low. I'm talking about the energy mix: Chase talked about nuclear; I'm talking about coal; I'm talking about renewables; I'm talking about gas; and wind—it's all in there. It's all necessary to keep our prices low and the lights on.

Earlier today, I heard the Labor Party talk about economic development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A little fact that people often forget is that one of the biggest employers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is actually the energy sector—bigger than the Commonwealth government. How's that! And they've been doing it for years. People are employed across a range of industries—not just in the industry itself, but also in supplying and providing services to the industry.

We need to make sure we support those industries that support the local communities that live around them. Economic participation and opportunity are critical and they ensure that people can participate in society in the way that they wish to.

We met, this week, here at Parliament House, with the Australian Energy Producers, and hosted a group of people who are benefiting from the industry itself. They were telling us they worked in contracting; they worked in engineering; they worked in aviation; they worked in cultural heritage. They were all committed, and supportive of the jobs that are created by the energy sector. It was really terrific to hear their stories.

This week we also heard about the big fail that was the decision of a Commonwealth minister in the McPhillamys goldmine. A Federal Court judge has found an Aboriginal protection order that halted an approved goldmine was invalid. Who'd have known! A local traditional owner said they didn't know about that bumblebee, but, no, the government went ahead and declared it invalid. Well, that's what the Federal Court just did. But in that time there's been a lost opportunity for jobs and employment. I heard from people who were ramping up the opportunity to take up those businesses, all the time while this project was delayed by the stroke of a pen by a minister who got caught up in ideology rather than common sense.

Western Australia: Child Care, Raise Our Voice in Parliament

It was through Instagram that the then Labor candidate for Durack Karen Wheatland brought glad tidings to her followers in WA's Wheatbelt. Stuffed animal in hand, Ms Wheatland beamed as she announced that a re-elected Labor government would invest $5 million for a new childcare centre in Mukinbudin. Excellent! There's a shortage of quality early childhood education centres in regional WA, and, while the Albanese government doesn't always honour its election commitments, if we've learned anything from the recent grants rorts saga, it's that this government honours its pork-barrelling commitments, right? Could it be that, like Ms Wheatland's Instagram account, this commitment was abandoned immediately after the election?

I tried to use Labor's broken FOI system to see if there was anything more I could learn about the progress on this commitment. The only new document they'd released was a brief to the minister from May. The single line dedicated to Mukinbudin read, 'The department last met with the Shire of Mukinbudin in October 2025.' Then, in a meeting yesterday, the government told the shire that the election promise will not be honoured, due to a lack of demonstrated demand. This is despite the minister describing the commitment, at estimates in February, as 'part of our building early childhood education fund that is building services in underserved areas'. So there's a lack of demand, but they're also 'underserved'. Make it make sense! The Shire of Mukinbudin is being made an example of: 'You didn't elect our candidate, so you're not going to get to build the childcare centre.' I wonder if the PM's Marrickville Golf Club had any issues with getting their taxpayer funded non-competitive grant. This is just another example of this government's east coast bias. When it comes to election promises, they get the pork; we get the barrel.

I want to now finish off the speeches from young West Australians as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Nineteen-year-old Jamie writes: 'I've always believed in optimism, but this is becoming harder by the day. Despite the scientific consensus and increasingly severe natural disasters, Australia continues to drag its feet on climate change. The cost of inaction won't be measured in dollars but in lives. In an already volatile world, climate change acts as a threat multiplier. Modelling shows that over the next century we'll see tens of millions of premature deaths. We are at the brink of the greatest tragedy in human history. The good news is that we already have the core technologies to address it. We just need the political will. Decarbonisation won't be easy, so it's vital to seize the low-hanging fruit. An essential first step is to halt the approval of new fossil fuel projects. The IPCC, the IEA and the WHO could not have been clearer on this, but Australia hasn't got the memo. I would like parliament to stop sitting on two chairs. It's time to legislate a nationwide ban on new coal and gas extraction projects. Australia has a legacy of baked-in fossil fuels, but now we have a chance to rewrite it. We can prove to the world that this fight can be won.'

Twenty-one-year-old Amelia writes: 'I know my life expectancy is only 79 years old, six years less than the average in Western Australia. I know I'm four times more likely to die in a car crash, three times more likely to die a medically avoidable death, two times more likely to die of heart failure. My future is fundamentally different, all because I grew up in and will return to regional Western Australia. There is a divide between the regions and the cities, and this divide is only growing, swallowing the future of regional Australians. The common solution for this issue is, "Just relocate to the city." It isn't that simple. Regional areas of Australia are the backbone of this country. We should have services which are on par with metropolitan areas. We shouldn't have to decide between living in a place we love or basic services. I ask parliament to consider regional Australia not just as an afterthought. I ask you to invest in our infrastructure, support our education, our health care and our access to essential services. Our lives shouldn't be worth less simply because of where we live. I ask this parliament to invest in regional Australia and change our future.'

I thank Jamie, Amelia and all the other young Western Australians for their dedication and their ideas and for sending those speeches to us, and I wish them all the very best.

I remind honourable senators that legislation committees will meet to consider estimates commencing on Monday 26 October 2026 at 9 am.

Senate adjourned at 16:52