Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (10:02): At least in relation to OPD 27, on least half a dozen occasions now, the government has explained as carefully and as slowly and as clearly as we can imagine would assist the shadow minister—for housing, is it?—to understand what has been provided and how the government has well-established grounds for making the public interest immunity claims over some documents within the scope of OPD 27. I don't believe that after those half-a-dozen or so explanations it's possible to conceive that the proponents for this continued campaign around the OPD don't understand what is going on here. I can only believe that it is a wilful and puerile use of the Senate processes in a way that shows that there is no respect for this institution and no understanding of the value of ministerial appearances. Sit down, son—honestly!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Hodgins-May ): Senator Bragg.

Senator McKenzie: Did you just say sit down?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please. Senator Bragg was on his feet first, so I'll go to Senator Bragg.

Senator Bragg: I'd just like to raise a point of order with you, Acting Deputy President. Somehow, the minister has been able to concoct a scheme where the clock hasn't actually been timed, so he may actually go on for many hours.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, Senator Bragg.

Senator AYRES: In 20 November 2025, the minister wrote to the Senate and explained very clearly that disclosure of some documents in the scope of this order would be excluded where they disclosed the deliberations of cabinet or prejudiced Commonwealth-state relations. Those are utterly reasonable and completely normal bases for public interest immunity claims. The government has made clear to you what the outcome of this modelling was—a home price impact of around half a per cent over six years. Over the course of the last 10 years, house prices have continued to increase. They go up and they go down, but the trajectory is up. The impact on that would be half a per cent over six years.

You're all very confused about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. He said something, some of you have said other things—they are in complete contradiction to each other. They may not fit what passes for a political campaign on the other side—what remains of the other side of this chamber. It may not suit what whoever's going on about this thinks is a successful campaign, but what I can tell you is that 270,000 Australians—mostly young Australians—have accessed this scheme, and you want to take it away from them. It has been life-changing for more than a quarter of a million young Australians. It's life-changing for young Australians, and you want to take those homes out of their hands. You want to rip the security of homeownership away from young Australians. You want to rip down homes that have been built. You want to denigrate participants in the housing industry who are doing their best to deliver homes for young Australians. A campaign run by spivs in sections of our capital cities who don't understand how important it is for young Australians to have a home—ordinary people who want a home. That shows why you are so remote from where ordinary Australians are on these questions and why there is no hope for you.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (10:07): I note that no-one's ordinary, in taking note of the Minister's statement, which is a complete failure to provide the documents the Senate has asked for. It's not just the coalition; it's also the crossbench who have sought access to the modelling. The key here is that the government commissioned modelling into their five per cent policy only after the election. They announced that they would remove all the means testing and all the place caps from the scheme during an election as an attempt to cravenly buy votes, and then they thought, 'Maybe we should actually model this after the election.' They went down to the Treasury, they asked for some modelling, and Treasury came back and apparently said '0.6 per cent over six years', which was wiped out because we saw price increases of six per cent in six months at the entry level house point in relation to apartments and housing. The question is why won't they give us the parameters? Why won't they give us the detailed modelling? The answer is because they're embarrassed, because they want to cover up the warnings that were given by the Treasurer. All the things the Treasury would have written into the model, the warnings about their failure to build the houses—these are the documents, the pieces of paper they don't want to give the Australian people. The reason this Senate is insistent upon this is because our job here is to get to the bottom of things. That is our basic function as a house of review: to expose wrongdoing, expose malfeasance, expose maladministration inside the executive.

What we've seen with the five per cent deposit scheme is a massive failure. It is the abolition of means testing, which meant that last week we saw in the papers that someone earning over 600 grand was using the five per cent deposit scheme. Someone earning 600 grand is now using a government program. Government benefits are needed for people who really need them. It's supposed to be a safety net for people who are needing help. It is not supposed to be underwriting people who have significant means. There's nothing wrong with people who have significant means, but you don't need government underwriting. You don't need it. And so what we also saw was over 20 per cent of the people now in the scheme since 1 October earning more than $200,000.

This has become a grotesque scheme. It has pumped prime prices at the entry level now since it was uncapped in October last year. This is the wrong policy for Australia. Even the way that the prudential regulator APRA prices these mortgages, which creates an arbitrage between the government product and the LMI, is horrendous because it prioritises a government scheme over the other schemes when it may be the case that the other schemes are fine. So their policy is to ensure that almost any Australian can use a government mortgage insurance scheme which was initially about helping people who are of lower incomes.

This is a scheme that is going to need more scrutiny as we head to the next elections. The purpose of this motion is to get access to the modelling that was produced by the Treasury. It's not good enough for the government ministers to come in here and say, 'Treasury came back and said there was 0.6 per cent price growth over six years.' Everyone knows that's wrong. It is wrong. No-one agrees with it, whether it's Cotality, any other private sector data provider or any punter, basically. They will tell you that that is wrong. So we want to see the parameters. We want to see the design features of the modelling so that we can properly understand where this has gone wrong.

We all need to devise alternative policies for the next elections. I would say that it's probably a reasonable assumption that almost every party would agree that there is some role for government intervention here at the bottom end, but we need to get access to this information. It really shows a disdain for this chamber that the executive believe that they can walk over us as if we are just a bug in their shoe, when we have been well remunerated to come to this place, to get access to information and to inform public debate and policy formulation. The fact that the government stymies our ability to get access to these documents does make a much greater case for us to have a debate about whether the Senate's power can be properly deployed, because, as it stands, this chamber is being neutered by the executive, and we're allowing it to happen.

So I'd say to the crossbench that I think, if this is to continue on, it's going to undermine our democracy and we need to consider whether it should change.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (10:12): I also rise to take note of Minister Ayres's response on behalf of the Minister for Housing. The measure that Minister Ayres has responded to is seeking documents which lay out the methodology behind a very significant program in a massive housing crisis that is affecting millions of Australians across our country—in our country towns, in our regional areas, in every city. To this OPD, No. 27, the minister points to the fact that he has given us the answer, an answer which has been proven to be entirely wrong out of the model. A change of 0.6 per cent, half a per cent, over six years in the price of housing—we need to know how that model was arrived at, to make sense of a figure which has so clearly misjudged the actual circumstance here.

But it's not just about the details of the model here; it is about a principle of respecting the Senate and giving the Senate the information it needs to make sense of this crisis and to make sense of the programs that this government is offering. The five per cent deposit scheme is uncapped. It is being used by people, clearly—we now have evidence—to purchase investment properties. There are real problems with this scheme, and this Senate should be treated with—the minister himself used the words—respect and understanding. Well, we want to understand, and we do respect the data. We do want to see the modelling, and we want to see its detail to make sense of a policy in a crisis that deserves the highest level of action by this Labor government.

Minister Ayres ended his comments by saying that this is all arising from 'a campaign run by spivs in our capital cities'. I find that offensive. I spent last week in Perth.

I spent last week in Perth and I can tell you there are hundreds of Western Australians who are homeless. They are in their cars. They are under bridges. They are sleeping rough across the city and in our regional towns in Western Australia. They came to us, to our Senate select committee, to give evidence about what this does to them as individuals, as families—how it affects communities. We took evidence from someone who lost their home at 11 years old, who was homeless at 11 years old. Another person had been homeless from her early 20s. She had been homeless for 11 years. The crisis that is underway for young people, for older women, for people across the country that is exemplified by what we're seeing in Perth is an emergency. And this Senate deserves respect, to use the minister's own word. It deserves the information and it deserves full disclosure about the policies and their background.

In Perth, we heard about 1,300 families evicted from public housing without grounds in the past eight years. That is incredible. It is the disarray, the disaster that is represented by our public housing across our country. Come to South Australia. It is a disaster. We have not been replacing public housing. We've been knocking it down and we've been casting people out of rentals, with no public housing opportunity available to them, into their cars and into their tents across our parklands. So many people in Western Australia asked me last week, 'How have we arrived at this circumstance in our wealthy country?' And I walked around the streets of Perth, those tall buildings sparkling in the sun, a city that exudes wealth. It has enormous opportunity and resources and it is part of a country, one of the wealthiest in the OECD area, where we have hundreds—indeed, thousands—of people homeless because of the failure of this policy.

So I want the minister to come here and be honest and respectful to the chamber. Give us the data. Give us the breakdown of the modelling not just on the five per cent scheme but on other schemes as sought by this Senate. We've seen youth homelessness increase by rapid figures in the past decade—32 per cent in Perth in the past decade—and rent is up by 50 per cent just since 2020. So we need action and we need data and we need modelling about what's going on for the third of Australians, many of them young people, who are now renting for decades. It's not a short, temporary, transitional period of renting as you accumulate your first home deposit; it takes twice as long in this year to accumulate your deposit as it did 10 years ago. So we have a lot of work to do here and we need a respectful response from the minister on the modelling, on the actual details of the modelling and on the background to any policy which the government brings forward to help us deal with a massive crisis that Labor's policies at present are not touching the sides of.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (10:17): I also rise to take note of the minister's pathetic answer to an order of the Australian Senate. In listening to Senator Pocock and Senator Bragg and as a former minister of the Crown who had to attend this chamber when required to provide answers that this chamber requested, when institutions such as the Australian Senate are disrespected and disregarded to such an effect as is currently occurring under orders for the production of documents, freedom of information requests—right across the desire for the parliament and the people to get answers from executive government about the decisions they're making on our behalf—this government fails time and time again. It says a lot about the culture of secrecy and control that the Australian Labor Party is conducting itself with. If you thought the ALP conference was an example of command and control, they are using that exact type of behaviour here in the Australian Senate.

It is not very often that the National Party, the Greens, the Liberal Party and the entire crossbench all agree, but we did, and we asked the government to come forward with the modelling that they continually quote from, that somehow the five per cent deposit scheme was going to see a tiny, infinitesimal decrease in property prices over a large period of time. And what have we seen? We've seen the exact group of Australians—this policy was set up under the former, coalition government. This policy was set up to help first home buyers—low incomes, restricted access—so that it wouldn't have the negative impact across the housing supply chain that this policy has under Labor. We need to get to the bottom of it and understand the modelling, because government minister after government minister saying, 'We're relying on Treasury modelling, but we're not going to show you the details,' doesn't allow us to prosecute the issues within the assumptions made et cetera that the government has based their decision on.

As Senator Bragg pointed out, the Labor Party made the election promise to do this without actually having done the technical work and the impact assessment prior to coming to government. It's almost as if Treasury have had to retrofit their advice to suit the Labor Party's election commitments. That's not how that's supposed to work. That's not how the Public Service is meant to work, so we are absolutely seeking that detail. Treasury warned that the five per cent deposit scheme led to riskier loans and a surge in high loan-to-value lending because buyers have small buffers and are more likely to end up in negative equity. The Labor Party ministers don't seem to know what negative equity means, as we saw from Matt Thistlethwaite's embarrassing comments and their litany of economic failures and incompetence—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Hodgins-May ): Senator McKenzie, please take your seat. Minister?

Senator McAllister: The senator knows that she should refer to people in the other place by their correct title.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please refer to people in the other place by their correct title.

Senator McKENZIE: His name is Matt Thistlethwaite, and he lives in Maroubra, in New South Wales. But, if he's now going under another name, I do apologise to the member.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, please take your seat. Minister?

Senator McAllister: Senator Mckenzie has, in fact, just wilfully done it again. She knows that he ought to be referred to as the member for Kingsford Smith or Mr Thistlethwaite.

Senator McKENZIE: Member for Kingsford Smith. As both Treasury and the RBA have warned, loan-to-value ratios have increased at 90 per cent to 95 per cent LVR range over the past six months—and, as a result, the five per cent deposit scheme's expansion since 1 October 2025. Under the HGS, the Australian government provides a guarantee covering part of the lender's risk, in theory allowing borrowers to purchase homes with a smaller deposit without having to pay LMI. We've been trying to get this advice from Treasury since July last year, and this government continues to ignore not just the opposition but the entire Australian Senate. They removed the means cap, which means that a couple earning in excess of $674,000 can access this scheme and that it is driving up the price of those entry-level houses and apartments which this policy was set up to help. The Labor Party's failure on housing continues, and it is the low-to-middle income earners in this country that are paying the price.

Question agreed to.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:23): I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury laws amendment Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025. When I introduced this bill in November last year, Australia's housing market was already under pressure. At that time, the national average auction clearance rate was around 65 per cent and the RBA's cash rate was 3.6 per cent. Today it's a very different situation. The national auction clearance rate is around 55 per cent, which is actually its highest level in 11 weeks, and the cash rate is at 4.35 per cent. Just yesterday, the ANZ bank warned that property prices could fall by as much as 15 per cent. That's the difference that 10 months and a Labor budget can make to the Australian housing market.

Confidence has clearly fallen. It's clearly tanked. Borrowing costs are higher and buyers are under immense pressure. In a market like this, we should be asking a very simple question: why would anyone want to downsize? But that's precisely why this bill is needed right now. We should be making it easier, not harder, for Australians to make sensible decisions about their own homes. This is a very practical, sensible and simple reform that addresses two problems at once. It can help improve the supply of family sized homes available to younger Australians while giving older Australians greater flexibility to make housing and retirement decisions that suit their circumstances.

The bill builds on the coalition's original downsizer contribution policy which was introduced in 2017-18. The principle behind that policy was very straightforward, indeed. If an older Australian wants to move from a large family home into a home that better suits their needs as they get older, we shouldn't put unnecessary financial or administrative barriers in their way. In fact, we should be making that path easier for them. When that large home that they've had is available to the market, another Australian family has the opportunity to move into it. So that's the economic logic behind this bill—increasing the flow of homes that are available to all Australians. We need more homes in Australia, most importantly, but we also need to make better use of the homes that we already have.

The Australian housing market is under enormous strain right now. Younger Australians are working extremely hard. They're saving diligently. They're doing everything that's expected of them, and yet increasingly they can't find homes that meet their needs and meet their budgets. The dream of owning your own home, particularly owning a family home, has never felt so far out of reach for young Australians.

I've previously spoken in this place about a woman named Julia, a 27-year-old lawyer from Melbourne who wrote to me about the difficulty that she and her husband were having finding a home where they can raise their family. They're both in good jobs. They're both doing all the right things. Her husband's an electrician. She's a lawyer, as I said. They're not asking for anything extravagant. They want a three-bedroom home, a backyard, a shed and somewhere that they can raise their children. I don't think that's unreasonable. But, despite their two incomes, they're being priced out of the kind of home that they need. This is a story that's being repeated right across the country.

At the same time, there are older Australians who are living in homes that are larger than they need and no longer suitable for their lifestyle or mobility needs. In this current market, when confidence is so weak and property values are so uncertain, there is even less incentive to make a major housing move. That's why we should be looking at every possible practical lever available to keep housing stock flowing, and this bill does exactly that. It makes three very straightforward changes to the existing downsizer contribution rules. Firstly, it lowers the minimum age of eligibility from 55 to 50. Secondly, it extends the period in which downsizer contributions can be made after a settlement from 90 days to one year. Thirdly, it increases the maximum contribution into superannuation from $300,000 to $500,000 per person. That means that an eligible couple could potentially, on the sale of their home, contribute $1 million from the sale of that home into their superannuation without penalties. The existing requirement to have owned their own home for 10 years before they do that remains. This is not a wholesale rewrite of the system; it's simply keeping up with modern markets. It's a targeted improvement to a policy that is already working.

Since 2018-19, almost 100,000 Australians have made downsizer contributions on the sale of their homes into their superannuation. So that's almost 100,000 Australians that have used a policy that was designed by the former coalition government to make a housing transition whilst strengthening their retirement savings, both of which are good things. The coalition is proposing to make that policy work for more Australians. The current age threshold can discourage Australians that are in their 50s from making a housing decision that may be completely appropriate for their circumstances. Downsizing is not something that becomes relevant the moment you turn 55. It can happen when your children have left home. It can happen when a property that you have right now becomes too expensive or difficult to maintain. It can happen when mobility issues arise or it can simply happen because people decide that they no longer need or want to maintain a large family home or a large garden. The decision is very, very personal. The government should not be telling Australians to wait until an arbitrary age before they can access an incentive that may help them make decisions for themselves. Lowering the age to 50 gives Australians greater flexibility to make that decision when the time is right for them.

The existing $300,000 limit was set at a time when housing values were very different to what they are today. Family homes have increased substantially in value over those years. A $300,000 contribution may no longer provide the same meaningful incentive that it once did. Increasing the limit to $500,000 better reflects the values of housing assets that Australians have accumulated over decades. For a couple, it means that there's the potential to put up to $1 million of the proceeds of the sale of their family home into their superannuation for their retirement income. Importantly, this is not a tax deduction. The money is coming from an existing asset: the family home. The reform simply gives Australians more flexibility to move those proceeds into their retirement savings.

The current 90-day period can create unnecessary pressure, and selling a family home and finding the right replacement property is not always something that can be done within a period of three months, particularly in a market facing the uncertainty that we're facing now. Someone may sell their home and then discover that the smaller or more accessible property that they had in mind simply isn't available. They should not then be forced into making a rushed housing decision, something that they might want to live with for the rest of their lives, simply to meet an arbitrary administrative deadline. So extending the contribution window to 12 months allows people to sell first and take their time to find the right home before making that contribution. That's common sense.

It's important to note that this bill is entirely voluntary. It doesn't force anybody to downsize. It doesn't interfere with the family home. It doesn't tell older Australians how they should live or where they should live. It simply removes some of the financial and administrative barriers that can make downsizing your home less attractive. Older Australians get greater choice, younger Australians get the potential benefit of a more family sized home coming onto the market, and the housing market gets yet another mechanism for making better use of the housing stock that we already have. That's why this is an intergenerational housing measure.

Labor likes to talk a lot about intergenerational fairness. Well, here is an opportunity to actually deliver it with the mechanisms that we already have. Younger Australians need more opportunities to access those family sized homes, and older Australians deserve greater choice over how and where they choose to live. These objectives are not in conflict. In fact, they can reinforce each other. When an older couple moves from that four-bedroom family home into a smaller home that better suits their needs, that family home does not disappear; it becomes available to another Australian family. That could be a young couple trying to enter the market, a family with young children that need more space or a family moving from an apartment into a home with a backyard. But it's about keeping that housing stock moving rather than seeing these artificial blockages in the arteries of the housing market.

That matters because Labor's housing policies have failed to deliver the homes that Australians need. Let's not forget Labor promised 1.2 million new homes, but Australia is struggling to build at the pace that is required. The government have presided over an historic housing construction collapse, and at the same time they've also overseen an incredible rise in the number of new migrants to Australia. Our population growth has surged because of Labor's out-of-control migration policy. Under Labor, Australia is building around 170,000 homes per year. That compares to the 200,000 per year that were built under the coalition government. Labor has spent tens of billions of dollars —billions, not millions—on housing, and at the same time it's making it more difficult and more expensive to build houses. The government's own tax changes are expected to mean that 35,000 fewer homes are built over the next decade. That should be a warning bell to everybody—the idea that you would make tax changes that would build fewer homes and have that written in black and white in your own budget papers. Fewer homes and higher rents—how can that be a policy for intergenerational fairness? We know that this is true because mortgage applications have fallen so sharply just since May's budget. The economists are now warning that weaker demand will flow through to fewer transactions, less construction and tighter housing supply. You cannot solve a housing shortage by taxing investment, by smashing confidence and by making it harder to build.

Australians need more homes, not fewer homes. We need to make it cheaper and easier to build new homes, but we also need to make better use of the homes that we already have, and that's why the coalition has a comprehensive housing agenda.

We would scrap Labor's housing taxes—those terrible taxes that are discouraging investment and discouraging new builds and that are taxing those that are doing the saving to buy their first home. We would cut red tape, and we would cut the green tape that is making it so much more difficult and more expensive to build a new home. We would simplify the National Construction Code while preserving core safety standards, and that would have the potential to cut the cost of building a new home by up to $70,000. That National Construction Code used to be 200 pages. It used to be a document that would fit in the glove box of a tradie's ute. Now you need the ute to carry around the 2,000 pages of the National Construction Code. We will also establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to help unlock the 400,000 new homes by investing in the essential infrastructure that allows housing developments to proceed, and we would also remove the ineffective and inefficient housing programs and bureaucracies that have failed to deliver the homes that Australians were promised by Labor.

But not every housing reform needs to involve billions of dollars of government spending. Sometimes the best thing you can do is simply remove a barrier. Government can just get out of the way. And that's exactly what this bill does. It takes a policy that was introduced by the former coalition government, makes it more flexible, more contemporary and more relevant to the housing market and the problems that Australians are facing today. It recognises that there are thousands of Australians who may want to make a different housing choice but need greater flexibility to do so, and it recognises that retirement security and housing supply can be two parts of the same policy solution. It recognises, too, that we need to make better use of the housing stock that we have right now, not just build new houses. That's on top of building new houses. We need to give Australians greater freedom and greater choice to make decisions that suit their circumstances, not be dictated to by government edict, and we need to stop putting unnecessary barriers in the way.

The coalition believes that homeownership is a foundation to strong families, to strong communities and to a strong society. Family homes and families should be at the centre of every policy decision that is made. Young Australians should be able to work hard. They should be able to save, and they should be able to aspire to buy a home. That's not unreasonable. Older Australians should have the freedom to make decisions about housing and retirement that work for them. This bill brings those two interests together. It won't solve Australia's housing crisis on its own—we know that; we're not saying that it will—but it is one part of the policy solution, the policy agenda, the policy suite that will actually deliver for Australians what everybody wants.

There's no excuse for Labor to oppose a practical reform that can help. When the housing market is under pressure, we should be using every sensible lever that's available to us. We should be making it easier for homes to change hands, not harder, and certainly not more expensive. We should be giving older Australians more choice, not fewer options, and we should be doing everything that we can to give young Australians a better chance of finding a home in which they can build their future. Australia needs more homes—of that, we are in complete agreement—and we need to make better use of the homes that we already have. This bill helps to do both, so I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator BLYTH (South Australia) (10:38): I think it's fair to say that, under this Labor government, the dream that Australians have of owning their own home has never been further from reach. Australia has a serious housing supply problem, and younger Australians are increasingly struggling to find homes that meet their needs but, more importantly, fit within their budgets. For many young Australians, getting into a family home now means moving kilometres away from where they grew up, which means moving away from the communities that they grew up in, their friends, their families and the lifestyle that they have grown accustomed to. There are older Australians who are living in homes that are larger than they need or no longer suited to their lifestyle or mobility needs. That's why this bill matters. It's about making downsizing easier, not harder, while helping more family homes come back onto the market.

When this bill was first introduced in November, national auction clearance rates were around 65 per cent and the RBA cash rate was at 3.6 per cent. Now, the national clearance rates of auctions are around 55 per cent, the cash rate is 4.35 per cent and the ANZ is warning that property prices could fall by almost 15 per cent. That is the difference that 10 months and a terrible Labor budget has made to the Australian housing market. In that environment, the case for making it easier for older Australians to downsize and free up family homes has only become stronger.

This bill is simple, practical reform that helps address two problems at once: housing supply for younger Australians and retirement security for older Australians. It builds on the coalition's original downsizer contribution policy introduced back in 2017-18. The principle is straightforward: make it easier for older Australians to move into homes that better suit their needs while freeing up larger homes for young families looking to get into the market. At a time when housing supply is under enormous pressure, we should be looking at every single practical way that we can get more existing homes moving through the market.

The existing downsizer contribution policy already provides an incentive to people to make that move. Expanding it means that more Australians can access that incentive earlier, and it allows them greater flexibility. When a larger home comes onto the market, it can provide an opportunity for a young family to enter the market or move into a home that better suits their growing family. This is all about making better use of the housing stock that we already have.

So what does this bill do? Well, this bill makes three straightforward changes to the existing downsizer contribution rules. It will lower the eligibility age from 55 to 50. It will extend the contribution window from 90 days to one year after settlement. And it will increase the contribution limit from $300,000 to $500,000 per person. That means that a couple could potentially contribute up to $1 million from the sale of their family home. The existing requirement to have owned the home for at least 10 years remains. Other existing eligibility requirements also remain in place. The contribution remains a non-concessional contribution and does not count towards the annual contribution caps.

Why lower the age? The current age threshold can discourage people from making appropriate housing decisions in their 50s simply because they are not yet eligible for the incentive. Downsizing decisions are highly personal and can happen well before the age of retirement. Let's be honest; under this Labor government, Australians are going to have to work longer and harder to be able to afford their retirement. For example, when children have left the home, circumstances change or a larger property becomes more expensive or more difficult to maintain. Lowering the age to 50 gives Australians greater flexibility to make that decision when it is right for them rather than making them wait until they meet an arbitrary age threshold.

Why the $500,000 limit? The value of family homes has increased significantly since the existing $300,000 limit was established. A higher contribution limit better reflects the value of housing assets Australians have accumulated over decades. For a couple, the ability to contribute up to $1 million provides a meaningful incentive to consider downsizing while allowing more of the proceeds of the family home to be directed towards retirement savings.

The reform does not give people a tax deduction. It simply gives them greater flexibility to move the proceeds of an existing asset into their superannuation. Selling a family home and finding the right replacement property doesn't always happen within 90 days. The current 90-day window can create unnecessary pressure on people to make a major housing decision in a very short timeframe.

Extending the window to 12 months gives older Australians greater flexibility to sell first, find the right home and then decide whether they'd like to make a contribution to their super. This is particularly important in a tight housing market, where finding an appropriate, smaller or more accessible home can take time. Importantly, this bill does not force anyone to make the decision to downsize. It does not interfere with the family home. It simply removes some of the financial and administrative barriers that can make downsizing less attractive. Older Australians get greater choice and flexibility over how they use the proceeds of the sale of their home, and younger Australians get the potential benefit of more family-sized homes coming onto the market.

Labor talks a big game on intergenerational fairness. It was the justification for their housing taxes after all. If Labor really cares about intergenerational fairness, they should support this bill. This is an intergenerational housing measure. Younger Australians need more opportunities to access family-sized homes. Older Australians deserve greater choice over where and how they live and how they want to manage their retirement. Helping an older couple move from a four-bedroom family home into one that better suits their needs can create an opportunity for another family to move into that larger home.

This bill makes that transition easier. It gives the older Australians more flexibility while helping more established homes to move back through the market. That is good for housing mobility, good for younger families trying to find a suitable home and good for older Australians who want to take control of the next stage of their lives. And unlike so much of Labor's housing agenda, this does not depend on another government fund, another bureaucracy or another promise that occurs years into the future. These homes already exist. The bill simply makes it easier for them to come back onto the market. That is exactly the kind of practical reform we should be supporting when Australia is already facing a serious housing shortage.

The coalition believes homeownership is foundational to strong families, strong communities and a strong society. Young Australians should be able to work hard, save and aspire to own their own home. Older Australians should also have the freedom to make decisions about their housing and retirement that suit their circumstances. This bill works on supporting the interests of both older and younger Australians.

Labor has delivered a trifecta of failure on housing. They're delivering fewer homes and higher rents, and confidence in the housing market has been smashed. Westpac mortgage applications have plunged 20 per cent since Labor's May budget, a clear warning that buyers and investors are losing confidence in the housing market. Labor's own budget forecast its tax changes would mean 35,000 fewer homes, and economists are warning weaker mortgage demand will flow through to fewer transactions, less construction and even tighter housing supply. You cannot solve a housing crisis and shortage by taxing housing investment, smashing confidence and making it harder, not easier, to build new homes.

Labor promised 1.2 million homes by 2029, but the government is struggling to deliver on that ambition. Labor has failed on housing supply, spending $80 billion to build 30,000 fewer homes a year than under the coalition. Under Labor, Australia is building around 170,000 homes a year, compared with around 200,000 homes a year under the coalition. And let's not forget the migration numbers that they are bringing into Australia, which place further strain on the housing market. The Albanese government has made it harder and more expensive to build new homes. There are higher taxes on tradies and thousands of pages of new regulations, and a great, big, new government bureaucracy has turned the Australian dream of homeownership into a nightmare.

We want Australia to be the best place in the world to live and raise a family. The coalition will make it cheaper and easier to build new homes by axing all of Labor's taxes on families and tradies. We'll slash red and green tape, and we will get rid of Labor's failed housing bureaucracy. We'll establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to help unlock 400,000 new homes, including in regional Australia, by funding essential last-mile infrastructure such as water, sewerage, power and access roads. We'll reserve the first home buyers five per cent deposit scheme for Australian citizens only, and we'll simplify the National Construction Code while preserving core safety standards. This will cut the cost of building a new home by up to $70,000. We will abolish Labor's ineffective Housing Australia Future Fund, as well as their build-to-rent tax breaks for multinationals. We'll axe Labor's housing taxes, increasing the number of homes by 35,000.

Australia needs more homes, and we need to make better use of the homes that we already have. We should be removing barriers to people making housing decisions to suit their circumstances, not putting more barriers in the way. This bill gives older Australians more choice, strengthens retirement security and can help free up larger homes for younger families. It is voluntary, it's targeted and it's practical. Of course, it won't solve Australia's housing crisis all on its own, but that is no excuse for Labor to oppose a measure that can make a real difference today. I support this bill.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (10:51): I commend my colleague Senator Blyth for her comments and Senator Hume for bringing forward this bill, the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025. We have a housing crisis in our country. This isn't something that we can pretend isn't happening. We have to have tangible measures in place that help us solve that crisis, and this is an example of that. This is core to who we are and what our values are. We believe that homeownership is foundational to strong families, to strong communities and to a strong society. We believe that every single person that hopes to have their own home, to buy their own home, should be able to do that. We believe that government should get out of their way so that they can do that, and we are very concerned about the way this government is managing our economy and the impacts that that is having on everyday Australians.

This government has delivered an absolute trifecta of failure on housing. We have fewer homes, we have higher rents, and confidence in our country and in our housing market has completely collapsed. I was working in financial services during the GFC in 2008, in the home loan sector, and we had about 48 hours to pivot the entire lending policy of one of Australia's major banks. That was a really tough time and a really tough period globally and for our country. In the last couple of weeks, I've had conversations with some colleagues who I worked with at that time. They have told me that it is worse today. It is worse now, under this Albanese Labor government, than it was in 2008 with the GFC. We need to let that sink in for a minute and think about what the actions of this government and the policies of this government are doing to create that, compound it and make it worse. I think the budgetary measures in relation to the CGT, negative gearing and SMSF borrowing have clearly impacted that. They have impacted confidence and they will impact housing supply.

What this bill does is turn it back the other way. It actually unlocks the supply of housing, and it is aptly named the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025. We have people who are in homes that are too large for them. They have more space than they need, but there are barriers that are preventing them from exiting those homes. They will be financially worse off if they do that. So it makes complete sense to put measures in place to change that.

To give you some historical context, when Senator Hume introduced this bill in November 2025, the national average for auction clearance rates was around 65 per cent, and the RBA's cash rate was 3.6 per cent. Now, today, after this government has had more time to trash our economy, the clearance rates have dropped to 55 per cent, and the cash rate is 4.35 per cent, noting we've had 13 interest rate rises under this Albanese Labor government. The ANZ bank is warning that property prices could slump by 15 per cent. This is a crashing of our economy. This is a serious concern. That's the difference of 10 months and an Albanese Labor budget that has caused a crisis in our housing market.

But, for a moment, don't just think about the headlines that some in this chamber have been speaking of. 'It's great. This is what we want, so more young people can enter the market.' Think for a moment that this is a crash in economic confidence, but also for a moment think about all of the young people who, last year, those opposite said were getting their first opportunity to enter the market with the five per cent deposit scheme—that that was a great signal and a great opportunity for them to own their own home. 'Look at what the Albanese government has done for you.'

Those are the very same people that will be first impacted by negative equity, based on what this government did next. You have drawn in these people who have used all of their life savings to enter the market, and, once you've got them, you've basically pushed them and drowned them. That's not something that I'm making up. That's a reality. That is what negative equity is. It is when you owe more on your home than it's worth. Negative equity isn't whether you're ahead on your repayments or not; it's when your asset is worth less than what you paid for it. That is what has happened and will continue to happen to many of those people who entered that scheme if this continues.

Then the question is: Why would anybody want to downsize in this market? Why would they bother? Why would they take that risk? They would just stay where they are because there are costs and risks with downsizing. You have costs to pay to sell your property, and you don't know what you're going to be able to buy. You don't know what's going to be out there, because, like you, others are hanging onto properties. That's why we need to make downsizing easier, not harder.

This bill provides a simple, practical reform that helps address two problems at one time: housing supply for younger Australians and retirement security for older Australians. It builds on the coalition's original downsizer contribution policy, which was introduced in 2017-18. The principle is pretty straightforward. It makes it easier for older Australians to move into homes that better suit their needs, while freeing up larger family homes for young families to buy. At a time when housing supply is under extremely intense pressure, we should be looking at every practical way to get more existing homes into the market.

What problem are we trying to solve? It's an access problem and a supply problem. The dream of owning your own home has absolutely never been further out of reach. We have young Australians who are struggling to find homes that meet their needs and are within their budgets, and then we have older Australians who are living in homes that are too large and not suitable for their lifestyle or for their mobility needs. So we have this double whammy, at both ends, and we're not doing anything to enable one to flow into the other. Expanding this policy means more Australians can access that incentive earlier and with greater flexibility. When a larger family home comes into the market, it can provide an opportunity for a younger family to enter the market or move into a home that better suits their growing family.

This bill is going to do three very straightforward things to change the existing downsizer contribution rules. No. 1, it will lower the eligibility age from 55 to 50. That's a pretty simple mechanism, and it would be quite effective. No. 2, it extends the contribution window from 90 days to one year after settlement. Why is this important? It is because you can't always get things done in 90 days. Three months is a very short window. If you're allowed to have that extra window that takes you to 12 months, it provides people with greater options but it also gives them time to plan what they're going to do, particularly in a volatile market like what we are starting to see now, where they actually might not know what they're going to get for their own home until they sell it. You actually can't make those plans until you know what your tangible outcomes are going to be. This is something that the people that have created the current set of rules and the budget changes that we've seen from this government haven't thought about.

The government, with the assistance of Treasury, has taken the approach of looking at these things in a very black-and-white fashion without having a look at how people actually have to make decisions in their own lives, which is very different from a spreadsheet and a formula, and we've seen that now unfold publicly. A great example of that is the widows tax, which, shamefully, those on the other side and, I'm sad to say, also the Australian Greens voted for, knowing the impact it would have, knowing the harm that it would cause but still choosing to legislate it, still choosing to pass it, because it provided a public opportunity to wave a win in the air instead of doing the job that we're asked to do here, which is to make Australian laws robust and the best that they can possibly be. It is not saying, 'We'll just get it across the line so we can say we won, and we'll fix it later.' Australians deserve better than that. They deserve a government that is better than that. They deserve treatment that reflects the enormity of the challenges that they're facing, not greater confusion when things are already hard enough. That's why we've seen this collapse in confidence.

The third thing that this bill does is increase the contribution limit from $300,000 to $500,000 per person. This means a couple could potentially contribute up to $1 million from the sale of their family home. The existing requirement is that you have to have owned your home for 10 years, and that would remain unchanged. All the other existing eligibility requirements would remain in place, and the contribution would remain a non-concessional contribution and wouldn't count towards the annual contribution caps. With three very simple changes—lowering the age from 55 to 50, extending the window from 90 days to a year after settlement and increasing the contribution limit from $300,000 to $500,000. I don't know why anybody would object to that at any point in time, but I especially don't know why anybody would object to that in the current environment in which we find ourselves, which I remind everyone is the complete crushing of confidence by this government in the housing market, where Australians do not feel confident to buy. We talk about why the auction clearance rates have dropped. They've dropped because there is no confidence in the market and they have dropped because there have been 13 interest rate rises under this government. How do we not remember that? How can we forget 13 rate rises under this government in four years?

And then, at the budget, we have them deciding to tax all classes of assets at a minimum 30 per cent of CGT, including small businesses, including shares, including ETFs, including the savings that young people squirrel away in order to save for their first home because it is so unattainable. The reason they claim they did that is to make housing cheaper. I still fail to understand how taxing someone's small business makes a house over here cheaper. I fail to understand it, because it doesn't. It's not because I lack the comprehension; it's because it actually has no relatability to it.

The next thing this government have done, with the assistance of the Greens, is blindsided people with self-managed super funds by taking away or banning limited recourse borrowing for property. Explain to me why an industry super fund can own housing in this country but Australians that have an SMSF cannot. Why do we have two sets of rules? Why are we only allowing institutional investors to invest in housing in our country?

The problem—let's step away from the inequity of that—is that this is again going to reduce supply in our housing market at a time when we cannot afford to lose any supply at all. SMSFs often purchase, off the plan, properties that go into the rental market, because someone who owns an SMSF can't live in those properties. They have to be arm's-length transactions. So the houses that they are purchasing go into the rental market, and this government has taken that away as well.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:06): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Senator Hume's private senator's bill, the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025, which is the opposition's perspective on yet another suggestion to a Labor government bereft of solutions to Australia's housing crisis. There are no holds barred. If you want to solve the housing crisis, we are here to help. Yes, it is a supply issue. This bill addresses the supply issue. We're happy to help if you want to turn it into government legislation, and we can pass that today.

But it's also a demand issue. A couple of weeks ago, in the productivity inquiry that the Senate's currently holding, we heard from Mike Pezzullo, the former secretary of Home Affairs, that we have a record high number of temporary visa holders in this country right now. There are three million temporary visa holders in a population that's not even 30 million yet, so more than 10 per cent of our current population are temporary visa holders, all needing somewhere to live on a temporary basis. If Australians are wondering why rents are skyrocketing out of control, it's because there is increased demand on rental properties, particularly at that lower end of the market, and similarly with houses.

We've put a lot of suggestions on the table on how the government could seek to solve this issue, or at least put some downward pressure on demand, by getting their out-of-control immigration program under control and also by getting red tape out of the construction sector. We know that, when the housing construction code was put in place, it was a document of about yea thickness. Now, I wouldn't even be able to fit the folders on my desk, with the amount of red tape that builders need to comply with in order to construct a home in this country. We know that in excess of 40 per cent of the cost of a new house and land build is local, state and federal government taxes. That's a fact.

If you want to know why young people can't get in to homes, it's because we've made it really hard. We've also got an economy where their take-home pay is either headed to state governments or Canberra, in terms of taxes, or out the door at the grocery aisle because of increased inflation. So their take-home pay is buying less and less each and every week.

GDP per capita under this government is in the toilet. That really just means that your pay packet isn't buying what it used to. Why? It's because inflation is so high—and that's not because of the Middle East. The Reserve Bank governor has made clear time and time again that this government's spending profile is what is making it harder and harder to get inflation under control, and that's why you've seen 13 rate rises under Labor. They're not fixing the economy. They're not stopping their runaway spending. So the only lever that the Reserve Bank governor has in her kit is ratcheting up rates to try to dampen demand.

Thankfully, we didn't see another rate rise, but inflation remains too high. We are top of the league table when it comes to international comparisons with countries like Australia. So, rightfully, young people in particular, who are trying to get into their own homes, are unable to save as much as they would have once, because more of their take-home pay is being spent on buying everyday goods. Electricity has gone up by in excess of 30 per cent. I could go on, but we are here to talk about housing supply.

One of the other suggestions that the Labor Party has taken on board is a suggestion that the coalition took to the last election, which was to invest in enabling infrastructure. We have $5 billion on the table particularly to help local councils, as well as other entities, to get the last-mile infrastructure needed to open up new blocks, whether that is your kerbing or access roads or power, water and electricity. When we go out and talk to local councils and we say, 'Why haven't you got that development up and going?' what we hear is, 'Well, Shadow Minister McKenzie, we haven't been able to afford the sewerage costs,' or, 'We can't afford the additional power connections,' or, 'It's taking two years for state-owned power corporations to actually get the power on.'

Government can actually do some of those suggestions. So we are putting that amount of money on the table, and it's good to see the Labor government has taken up part of that. We know that there's in excess of $5 billion worth of projects around the country to get these blocks opened up. The government hasn't put $5 billion into it. We would encourage them to match our commitment, because our assessment is that that will raise in excess of 400,000 new homes, particularly those house and land packages that are for young people in those lower first-entry markets. Unlocking the door of their new home and getting on with paying it off is one of the great joys of life over time. We need to get construction and productivity back on track, and that is something that the Senate is looking at. I know Senator Bragg will be talking a lot about that in the National Press Club today.

When Senator Hume introduced this bill back in November, the national average for auction clearance rates was around 65 per cent and the RBA's cash rate was 3.6 per cent. Now national clearance rates are at 55 per cent, and I note that in news in just now we are seeing the CBA sounding the alarm, having seen a 15 per cent drop in bank loan applications since the budget tax crackdown. Whilst the Labor Party are talking a big game on increasing supply, they're doing nothing on demand. Their taxes are seeing the housing market crash and, as Senator Kovacic said earlier, that is leading to a significant drop in confidence across the country. We need to get confidence back in this country, as well as a belief that we can solve these complex problems together. There are no simple solutions. They are complicated and require parties of government to be working in the national interest, not in their own political interest, to get the job done.

So why would anyone want to downsize in this kind of market? If you're an older Australian, you're sitting in the family home, it's just you and the missus rattling around in your four-bedroom home in a lovely leafy suburb, you're thinking you don't want to keep mowing this lawn and you'd rather be playing pickleball or golf and seeing the grandkids a bit more, why would you downsize in a market where you've just seen 10, 12 or 15 per cent drop off the price of the asset that you and your wife have literally spent the last 30 years paying off? Nobody would be wanting to downsize in this market. That's why we need to make downsizing easier, not harder. So this is a very simple, practical reform increasing the supply of homes to younger Australians and giving retirement security for older Australians. As we know and as other contributors have made clear, the dream of owning your own home has never been further out of reach than ever before in our country's history. The average median income multiple that is required is in excess of 13 times what it was 20 years ago to be able to purchase a home. That is simply locking people out, and they are losing hope.

We want to actually make sure that we're increasing supply of homes not just in the outer suburbs in those house-and-land package situations but also in some of the suburbs that are closer to capital cities and, importantly, in regional capitals. I think of my own home state, Bendigo, a regional capital in excess of 110,000 people now—we'd like more—and it is a wonderful place to live, to have a great globally focused career and to raise a family. But, in making sure that housing remains affordable in places like Bendigo, we want to also see downsizing as an option.

So the bill provides for flexibility to do three things: it lowers the minimum age of eligibility from 55 years to 50 years; it extends the period of time to make downsizer contributions after settlements from 90 days to a year; and the maximum amount of contribution has increased from $300,000 to $500,000, which is good news for those who are seeking to downsize. Why did we lower the age on this particular bill? Because—I know, now that I am in my late 50s—retirement has snuck up on us. We've got to get all our ducks in order, shall we say. So having those conversations with your partner, your children and your workplace, making those plans earlier rather than later, will actually mean a better outcome for your retirement and gives Australians a lot more flexibility. Why did we limit the contributions to $500,000? That's a simple recognition that the value of the family home, despite the recent downturn under Labor, has increased since the limit was established many, many years ago. I think, for a couple, the ability to contribute up to $1 million provides a meaningful incentive to consider downsizing while allowing more of the proceeds of the family home to be directed towards retirement savings. As we know, the greatest asset that most Australians have when they retire is when they've managed after a lot of hard work and a lot of sacrifice to own their own home.

As more and more Australians have considerable superannuation savings in order to fund their retirement, making that transition between asset classes easier is much, much more important. I think this has been made clear in others' contributions. This bill doesn't force anyone to downsize. It is just another opportunity for Australians to look at their assets, their retirement and their lifestyle choices and make decisions about their future rather than have a government dictate what they think Australians should be doing, what asset classes they think Australians should be investing in.

As we have seen, Labor ruled out 50 times that they would be touching negative gearing, a key investment particularly for teachers, nurses and coppers. That's who are using negative gearing in this country to actually help fund their retirement—working-class Australians. Instead of telling that group of Australians that they were coming after their retirement savings before the last election, so that Australians could make an informed decision about where to cast their vote, the Labor Party lied. The Prime Minister lied. Every time he was asked, 'Are you going to be making changes to negative gearing?' he said, 'No, no, no.' Australians believed him, and that is why the rage in communities, in Labor Party suburbs, is so palpable. They feel the last budget has been foisted upon them. It's forcing them to make decisions about their own retirement, their home and their investment properties that they were assured prior to the last election wouldn't happen. Labor talks a lot about intergenerational fairness and then does exactly the opposite.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:21): I also rise to speak to the Treasury laws amendment Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025. I want to thank Senator Hume for bringing this very practical, excellent bill forward. It's a sensible bit of policy and at the right time in response, of course, to Labor's disastrous budget that we have seen has absolutely decimated our housing market at a time when it really didn't need it. What we see in this bill is a measure trying to increase supply, which is what our housing market needs right now. It's a brilliant piece. It introduces flexibility and incentives to free up some of those family homes.

This reform complements the coalition's original downsizer contribution, which was introduced in 2017-18 and allowed over-55s to contribute part of the sale of their home to superannuation. With all of the brouhaha that we've had from Labor's worst budget ever, those opposite forget that we are actually in the midst of a housing crisis. When they handed down their budget, the housing market crashed. Confidence crashed, and it did absolutely nothing to lift supply. I speak to young adults all the time, and you know what they're saying to me? They're moving back in to the family home with mum and dad because they can't afford to save for a deposit and they can't afford to rent.

In my home state of New South Wales and in Sydney city, we have record rents at the moment. The average rent in Sydney is $850 a week. If you are in a unit, the median price is between $800 and $1,000.50 every week—just for a unit. That's an extraordinary amount of money when your wages aren't necessarily going up, but the prices are going up around you—your rents are going up, and you can't get milk and bread. For my family, I go every day to the supermarket to get three litres of milk and a loaf of bread. You can't get that for under $10. They are just the very essentials for my family. Prices are going up; everything's going up, which makes it harder and harder for young people and young adults to save for their first home and get into the housing market. Of course, right now, that housing market is crashing. The other effect that's having is that these young adults are putting off having children because they can't afford save up for a family home and get their family started, or they're moving further and further away from their family, from their roots and the places where they grew up. I don't think that's intergenerational fairness; I think that's wrong. I think we need to do something about it.

This bill is a step in the direction of providing more supply. We know that supply is key to solving this problem in the housing market. Labor has provided no real supply measures. Billions of dollars, yes. More houses, no. Regulation is up. Compliance is up. Construction costs are absolutely through the roof, up about 45 per cent under Labor. There are labour constraints. Approvals processes are years behind, and there's a public sector that is crowding out the private sector. All those sole and small tradies that are trying to start a business, build a business, so they can build homes for families, young people, are all getting squeezed out by the public sector.

Taxes and Labor's budget are sucking up supply. They've completely crashed the market, and they've wiped out wealth right across the country. We know, at the same time, that they're not building up supply. They've got a mass migration agenda. Demand is still high. There are a lot of people here in Australia that have just arrived in Australia that are looking for somewhere to live on top of everybody else that's already here in Australia that is looking for somewhere to live. It should be all shoulders to the wheel on boosting supply, not raising taxes and not taxing capital wealth.

Let's just take a little look at the numbers for today's position. Thanks to Labor's catapult launch into the dreams of Australian families, national clearance rates are at 55 per cent. It's the highest it's been in 11 weeks, but it's been declining over the year. The cash rate is at 4.35 per cent, and ANZ is warning that property prices could decline by almost 15 per cent, wiping out the property values right across Australia. Families and young people that have just bought into the market are going into negative equity. We heard from Senator Pocock before about the homelessness crisis that is being driven by the market at the moment, by the economy, and all of this is going to take years to recover from.

The numbers are actually also looking worse than were originally forecast. The speed of the slump is unprecedented, and it's causing experts to review their forecasts sooner than expected. The June quarter saw the largest quarterly decline, at the start of the downturn, in more than 30 years of data. It was bad, and it's going to get worse. And, of course, this is all the shock from Labor's disastrous budget. And yet they stand there and they back it in. They say it's good for first home buyers. But what about everyone else? What about the hard work and sweat and tears—everything that went into buying those houses, only to find everything crash underneath them? Families right across Australia are experiencing mortgage stress. Great job, Labor! You are hitting the socialist nail on the head with your wealth distribution agenda.

This bill is a simple and practical reform that helps address two problems at once: housing supply for younger Australians and retirement security for older Australians. It builds on the coalition's original downsizer contribution policy, which was reduced a few years ago. It makes it easier for older Australians to move into homes that better suit their needs but also frees up larger family homes for younger families. This is giving incentive and flexibility into the market. It will really help young Australians achieve that great Australian dream of owning their own home. So how does it work? The bill will lower the eligibility rate to access a downsizer contribution from 55 to 50 years of age, and it will also allow contributions into superannuation to take place one year after settlement—currently it's 90 days.

It also increases the superannuation contribution amount from $300,000 to $500,000 per person. Doing quick maths on that, that's a million bucks per couple. It's a good incentive. It's not just an innovative reform; it's a sensible one too. For those of us who live in major Australian cities, capital cities, where the average cost of a home is well into the millions, it makes complete sense to increase the amount that can be contributed to superannuation after a sale.

Increasing the contribution window makes sense too. Three months is a long time, but it can put unnecessary pressure on some couples to make a huge decision in an uncomfortable timeframe. As we heard from Senator Kovacic before, there are complications in trying to get that settlement out quickly. Pushing it to a year gives flexibility and peace of mind to comfortably make that decision too.

We are the party of choice, and this bill is in time and step with this. We wouldn't force anyone to downsize. They have that choice. That opportunity and option would be there. Giving couples a choice to do so where they wouldn't find themselves otherwise in the lurch is what Liberal thinking is all about. We want to make the idea of downsizing more attractive and more accessible. It boosts supply. It gets those big houses out to young people.

In my home state of New South Wales, the state Labor government is hell-bent on building more apartments, squeezing all these new families in Australia into apartments along train lines. I don't think that's the great Australian dream. I don't think that's what we all signed up for. I don't think we're all going out every single day, working our guts out, to end up in a little apartment on the train line. It suits some but not everybody. Freeing up these family homes is a good thing to do. The benefits will be more room for the kids and more babies for the extra rooms. That's also why I love this policy. It's pro family. What I hear from a lot of young people is that they're having fewer children because of the housing crisis. It's too hard to get bigger homes these days to fit your kids in. So we've got to do something about that.

This bill is about intergenerational housing. I invite my Labor colleagues to support Senator Hume's bill because they've got to do something about housing supply and the next generation that's looking for stability. The coalition will make it cheaper and easier to build new homes by axing Labor's taxes on families and tradies and by slashing red tape and green tape, and we will be getting rid of Labor's failed housing bureaucracy. There's $10 billion that's been poured into housing, and what have we seen from it? They said the Housing Australia Future Fund—

Senator Green: It's for women fleeing domestic violence.

Senator COLLINS: Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you for the interjection, Assistant Minister Nita Green. Yes, 4,000 homes are meant to go to vulnerable women and children. Every single estimates, I ask how many of those houses have been built and how many are going to vulnerable women and children. If you have the numbers on that I will take the interjection right now.

Senator Green: I've seen it with my own eyes.

Senator COLLINS: No numbers on that? They cannot tell me how many homes are actually being built and delivered to vulnerable women and children through the Housing Australia Future Fund as they promised. They're not tracking it because they don't really care. That's the issue.

The coalition will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to help unlock up to 400,000 new homes, especially in regional Australia.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sharma ): It now being 11.34, the time for this debate has expired. Senator Collins, you will be in continuation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sharma ) (11:39): The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3825, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Shoebridge: I seek leave for the question to be recommitted.

Leave granted.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3825 be agreed to.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:45): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3803 together:

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

(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of amendments made by Schedule 4

(1) The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:

(a) begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act, and any other related matters, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning on the day the Schedule commences; and

(b) report the Committee's recommendations to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the inquiry.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the inquiry must consider:

(a) the operational effect of restricting the execution of arrest warrants issued under the Extradition Act 1988 and the Crimes Act 1914 to certain hours, noting that search warrants issued under the Crimes Act 1914 and search and seizure warrants issued under the Extradition Act 1988 are not subject to the same restrictions; and

(b) any unintended consequences of the amendments.

I indicated in my second reading speech that I had one or two questions in relation to schedule 3 of the bill, which inserts a new section, section 31A, into the DPP Act 1983 to provide an ability for the Attorney-General to authorise a senior person to exercise all powers and functions ordinarily exercised by the CDPP director when the director is unable to exercise those powers and functions 'due to an actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest'. In relation to the CDPP, has this legislation—and this particular part of the legislation in particular—been created to address a specific conflict of interest?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:46): I didn't get a chance to make a very long contribution yesterday, so I want to put on record my thanks to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for their report and engagement on this piece of legislation. Thank you also to those opposite for the constructive way we've approached this bill. Your questions go to the changes around the DPP and the conflict of interest, and I'll respond to those in a minute. I want to put on record the response in relation to the amendment that Senator Cash has moved. Just so it's clear for the chamber, I'll deal with that first and then I'll deal with the question around the DPP.

Firstly, in relation to the amendment, the government supports a post-implementation review of the amendments made by schedule 4 of the bill to arrest powers in the Extradition Act. The government will move an amendment clarifying the scope of this inquiry by only requiring it to consider amendments by schedule 4 of the bill. Our amendment is consistent with the recommendation of the opposition senators in additional comments to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's report on the bill. The postimplementation review will complement ongoing oversight of these powers which occurs through established judicial, operational, legislative and accountability frameworks. Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Extradition Act to introduce powers enabling police to enter premises for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant. The powers would broadly align the extradition provisions with the comparable arrest warrants of the Crimes Act 1914. That's just to put on the record that, while we support the review, the government will be seeking to amend the opposition's amendment to reduce the scope of that inquiry to schedule 4 of the bill.

Regarding the DPP—I've just sought advice. This bill has not been drafted in response to a particular conflict. It is a response, I think, to ensuring that there's a workable solution going forward. Currently, where an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest arises, the director must take leave of absence from their duties entirely to allow an acting director to be appointed to perform or exercise the functions of powers, and that request of leave must be approved by the Attorney-General. The measure that's in this bill—as you know very well, Senator Cash—creates a process where the functions or powers affected by the conflict of interest can be undertaken by a sufficiently senior person, and the director appropriately carries out performing duties or duties that are not so affected. It establishes a precedent where they don't have to take leave from their entire role or position, but those powers or duties or a particular proceeding that is affected by that conflict could be carried out by another senior member.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:49): If I could just make some comments in relation to the government's amendment on sheet TK115, the coalition's amendment that I have moved would specifically require the inquiry to examine the operational effect of restricting the execution of arrest warrants issued under the Extradition Act and the Crimes Act to certain hours, while search warrants issued under those acts are not subject to the same restrictions. The amendment on TK115 has now moved by the government removed that specific reference from the terms of reference we had proposed in our amendment. The coalition's preference is to retain the detail, but we do not think that its removal, pursuant to the amendment moved by the government on TK115, will limit the committee's ability to examine those issues, and on that basis we won't be opposing the government's amendment.

In relation to the answer that was given to my previous question, and the bill itself that has passed on the second reading, why is there now a pressing need to resolve conflict-of-interest issues with the director of the CDPP?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Sharma ): Senator Green, you may also wish to move the amendment TK115.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:51): As foreshadowed, I move the government amendment on sheet TK115:

(1) Amendment (2), repeal subsection 4(2), substitute:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the inquiry must consider any unintended consequences of the amendments made by Schedule 4.

This is an amendment to the opposition's amendment. I also table the supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendment moved to this bill.

Senator Cash, you've used the language 'pressing need'; I don't think that's the language that the government would use to reflect the change. We think that this change streamlines the process of managing an actual perceived or potential conflict of interest that might be identified by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It certainly ensures that the Attorney-General can authorise a sufficiently senior person to perform the powers and functions ordinarily, and it ensures that that process that I spoke to you about is not currently required. At the moment, it is administratively burdensome and inefficient for the director of the CDPP, the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department to be involved in that process. This measure creates a process whereby the functions or powers affected by the conflict of interest can be undertaken by a sufficiently senior person while the director appropriately carries out performing functions or duties that are so affected. That ensures that the CDPP can continue to operate as required by the parliament and its establishing legislation, and that where the Attorney-General makes an authorisation for those powers the conflict of interest is adequately managed. I think you would agree that, if there were a conflict of interest for the Director of Public Prosecutions, that should be managed in an appropriate way and that it would not be appropriate for the director to use their power of delegation to delegate the performance of the relevant function or exercise of the relevant power in circumstances where they've identified a conflict of interest. I wouldn't mirror the language that you've used of 'pressing need'. There are other provisions in this legislation that do have a more urgency for the government, but this is something that establishes a very good practice that we should be implementing as a parliament.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:53): Is it not the case that the director of the CDPP worked as counsel assisting the special investigator to investigate war crimes, and that she is now in charge of prosecuting war crimes?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:54): I don't have that information with me. I can certainly take it on notice and try to get back to you. That is not the reason that this provision has been included in this bill, but we will certainly endeavour to get as much information for you as possible.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:54):  Does anybody who is advising you have the information as to whether or not it is the case that the director of the CDPP worked as counsel assisting the Special Investigator to investigate war crimes and that, in her position, she's now in charge of prosecuting the war crimes? I would have thought that that was some basic information—given the nature of the bill, including the nature of schedule 3, and the fact that this is about a conflict of interest which we are going to pursue—and that that information might be ready. Could I ask you just to check.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:55): I did check, Senator Cash. I know that you were speaking while I was making some directions to the staff that are here. They don't necessarily have that information with them. They'll seek to find out. I'm sure that we can do that quickly. As I said, though, this is not about a particular conflict of interest. I understand the direction of your questions and your concern about that conflict or that particular proceeding, I won't go into that proceeding here in any detail, given that it is on foot and it's very important that any court proceedings of any kind are not dealt with in this chamber and that we are careful in the way that we speak about particular proceedings. But, on the matter of a conflict of interest, I will seek to find out for you any more information. Of course, the CDPP is subject to Senate estimates questions and other measures that you could employ to find out that information directly, but we'll seek to get it for you.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:56): Well, the last time I checked, Senate estimates is not for a number of months, and we currently are being asked to vote on a bill, potentially today. So I would have thought that the questions were actually relevant.

The bill gives the impression when it's presented—and certainly in the way the government has spoken about it—of implementing technical amendments. But, since the bill was first introduced, Ben Roberts-Smith has been arrested, and the CDPP appears to have been involved in the investigation over the war crimes she is now charged with prosecuting. Was this legislation created in anticipation of this potential conflict?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:57): No.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:57): Again I ask: is the potential conflict of interest in the case of the current CDPP the reason for the legislation?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:57): No, Senator Cash, that's not the case. I think this legislation covers a wide, varied area of criminal law in particular. There are a lot of changes that are being proposed. I wouldn't suggest that it's necessarily only technical matters. There have been a number of reviews that have led to some schedules in the legislation, and we are responding to that. Of course, as I've said, we'll seek to get some more information about your particular question.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:58): Could you please point me to the evidence in the reviews that you referred to that specifically recommended the change that we are currently discussing in relation to schedule 3 of the bill and the insertion of new section 31A into the DPP Act.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:58): Senator Cash, respectfully, that's not what I said, and perhaps you didn't understand what I was suggesting to you. My reference to reviews was not to the schedule that we are discussing, and I would appreciate it if you don't verbal my answers. I'm being very upfront and direct with you about the changes that we're making, and that is not what I was suggesting. What I said to you that was that this was not in response to a particular conflict, but I've endeavoured to get some information for you. I can confirm the director's employment history has been disclosed. The Attorney-General authorised the prosecution of offences involving this particular case and war crimes. Ms Sharp has previously disclosed her employment as counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:59): Okay. So I can just confirm, then, the CDPP was involved in the investigation of the war crimes she is now in charge of prosecuting—is that correct?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:59): Senator Cash, as you would be fully aware, the AFP investigate a matter of this kind and then the Director of Public Prosecutions takes the lead on prosecuting the crime. That is the normal course of action. That is what is being undertaken in this matter. As I said, the director's employment history has been disclosed.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:00): Sorry, I'm literally just trying to confirm something. The evidence that you have given is, 'Yes, the employment history has been disclosed.' Is it, therefore, the evidence that the director of the CDPP was involved in the investigation over the war crimes and she is now in charge of prosecuting? Because—you are right—that is a conflict of interest. So is it your evidence that, yes, she was involved in the investigation over the war crimes and she is now in charge of prosecuting? It's a very simple question!

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:00): I think the distinction that I am seeking to make that you can argue about—I've made it clear that the AFP investigates these matters and has investigated this particular matter. I have also said to you I am trying to be very courteous to the courts and to any defendants in any particular criminal proceedings by not talking about particular cases, but there is a process where, if I could talk in general terms, the AFP is the investigating agency and then the CDPP prosecutes. I think you are referring to a separate investigation.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:01): What protocols are currently in place to ensure that the director of the CDPP is quarantined from any matters she was involved in in prior roles?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:02): Senator Cash, I know that you are seeking really deliberate and direct information on this matter, and I don't want to mislead the committee. I would only have general information about the process that the CDPP undertakes, which is an internal process, if there is a conflict. I think whether there is a matter of conflict might be a debating point in here, but it's not the view of the government that there is a current conflict of interest.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:02): That wasn't my question, with all due respect. I asked a very simple question. This is a bill that is changing a piece of legislation to put in place, as I'll read again, a new section, section 31A, into the DPP Act—you've already read it out yourself in terms of what this does—to allow the Attorney-General to authorise a senior person to exercise all powers and functions ordinarily exercised by the CDPP director when the director is unable to exercise those powers and functions due to an actual, perceived or potential conflict. That's if the bill passes. I would like to understand what protocols are currently in place to ensure that the director of the CDPP is quarantined from any matters she was involved in. I'm not referring to a particular matter but any matter she was involved in in prior roles.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:03): Senator Cash, I have answered your question. I know that you're seeking a more definitive answer, but that's the information I have in front of me. There would be internal processes in place if there was a conflict of interest that had been identified. The process which is currently in place would be implemented. After this bill passes, hopefully with the support of the Senate, there will be a new process. But it all, I guess, hinges on whether there is a conflict of interest. As I've said to you, the government's view is that there is no current conflict of interest.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:04): So is it your evidence, therefore, that at this present point in time there are no protocols in place? I'm not asking if there is a conflict of interest. One would assume that, given there is always the potential for a conflict of interest given who these people are and what they have previously done, there would be protocols in place. Are you saying that there are currently no protocols in place?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:05): Thank you for checking, Senator Cash, because that was not my evidence. What I said to you is that there would be internal processes in place, but I cannot confirm today what those processes might be. We can seek to undertake to get you more information about what those processes might be, if there is any. But what I have said to you is that there is a possibility that there are internal processes in place, but you are referring to a conflict of interest. If there's a conflict of interest, there's a current process under the legislation which is undertaken. Hopefully, if this legislation is passed, there will be a new process, but that relates to where there is a conflict of interest.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:05): Can you confirm that the current CDPP will be subject to this new legislation despite the Ben Roberts-Smith prosecution commencing before this legislation was passed?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:06): This legislation doesn't establish a process of dealing with a conflict of interest where there is none already. There is a current process for dealing with that. This legislation changes what that process would be. The Director of Public Prosecutions is subject to the current provisions and would be subject to the future provisions.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:06): I think I understand your evidence. There's a current process in place. You're unable to give me evidence, but, hopefully, you've undertaken to take that on notice in terms of internal protocols. So, despite the Ben Roberts-Smith prosecution commencing before this legislation passes the parliament, the current CDPP is still going to be subject to the new process in the event that a conflict arises.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:07): Correct.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:07): I have a couple of questions of clarification. I think Senator Cash asked you questions about actual conflicts of interest. Of course, the requirement is 'perceived or potential' conflicts of interest. I am double-checking whether your responses would for that broader class would be the same or different.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:07): Yes, thank you for explaining that to me. I understand that conflict of interest relates to 'perceived and potential', and my answers would not have changed if that definition were in my mind. I'm referring to all of the range of conflict of interest.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:08): Well, they're different because they actually raise different subject matters—actual rather than potential and potential rather than perceived. Many people might recognise that there's a perceived conflict of interest even if they don't recognise there as an actual one. Let me see if I can think of any random individual who might adopt that approach. Major General Brereton would be a case in point.

My second question is just a matter of clarification. It's my party's assumption that these amendments to schedule 3 only operate prospectively, not retrospectively. Therefore, if there had been any defect to date, it wouldn't be cured by this. But can we just be clear?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:09): I think the provisions will apply prospectively. There is a—

Senator GREEN: Senator Cash, thank you for the eye roll, but what I was saying what I was saying in my previous answer was that there are current provisions in place to deal with conflict of interest. They apply now and they would apply to a current perceived or potential conflict of interest. These provisions will apply prospectively. On the reading of the provisions that I have, this changes the administrative approach to how a conflict of interest would be dealt with, not if or when a conflict of interest can be managed. I know that there would be a lot of interest in how that might apply to the particular proceeding that Senator Cash is concerned with. The advice that I've been given is that, if a conflict arises in relation to a future proceeding—because I don't want to talk about particular proceedings—even if that proceeding was on foot before these provisions commenced, the new provisions would apply.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:10): I understand that. So this is an amended administrative arrangement. This arrangement only applies prospectively, but of course it could apply to conduct or activity that had happened before, and it could be applied to proceedings that had been commenced before—which is, I understand, the position. But these arrangements, even though they almost inevitably will apply to conduct that happened before, will only operate prospectively, and they're not designed to cure any previous defect or address any previous defect. Is that correct, Minister?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:11): That's correct. I gave that evidence earlier. I'm not sure if you were in the chamber, but these provisions—

Senator Shoebridge: I was.

Senator GREEN: I apologise. The provisions are not intended to cure a particular defect. They've been proposed as a new way of efficiently dealing with a situation where a conflict of interest would require a leave of absence to be considered by the Attorney-General.

The CHAIR: And, Senator Shoebridge, if you could refrain from standing up well before the minister is finished, that would be appreciated.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:12): We've got to get our steps up somehow!

The CHAIR: I'm not sure that qualifies, Senator Shoebridge!

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I know this discussion has been somewhat oblique to the amendment that's currently before the Senate, but I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the government's amendment to the opposition's proposed amendment, and the Greens will be supporting the amended amendment—assuming we get to that point—in relation to the Senate committee review of extradition. I just want to be clear.

I note one of the concerns in the opposition's amendment was that there is a restriction on the time within which arrest warrants or search warrants can be issued. We're talking about extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings almost always—in fact, I think, pretty much on every occasion—involve the person who is the subject of an extradition proceeding having a lot of prior notice of it because proceedings have commenced in another country and those proceedings have then been communicated to Australia. On almost every occasion that I'm aware of, when extradition proceedings happen, the person who is the subject of them in this country has a substantial amount of prior notice of it.

So this isn't a case of needing arrest warrants where you come sneaking in at night or they're happening outside of business hours. I note the concerns of the opposition. But I think the reality is that having these warrants executed during fairly standard hours should in no way limit their capacity to be effective, but we don't mind them being reviewed. And the idea of reviewing them for any unintended consequences is something we actually support.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:14): Could I confirm, just for the Hansard record, that the government is categorically denying that this legislation is there to address a potential conflict of interest for the current CDPP and her previous roles?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:14): Thank you, Senator Cash, and thank you for checking and allowing me to put it on the Hansard. No, that's not the case. This legislation is not motivated by a particular proceeding.

The CHAIR: Senator Cash, you've only got 13 seconds.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:14): How many times has this issue arisen in the past five years?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:14): I'll have to take that on notice for you, Senator, but I will get back to you.

Progress reported.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It being 12.15, we shall now proceed to senators' statements.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:43): I move:

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

Department of Defence—Facilities to support AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile Defence Command and Control (Package 1)—RAAF Base Darwin, Northern Territory.

Senator GALLAGHER: I table a statement in relation to the work.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Department of Defence — Facilities to Support AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile, Defence Command and Control (Package 1), RAAF Base Darwin, Northern Territory

The Department of Defence is proposing to deliver new facilities and infrastructure at RAAF Base Darwin in support of the AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile Defence Command and Control project.

The scope of works will encompass a new operations support facility to enable the storage, maintenance and operation (including training) of AIR 6500 capabilities, new vehicle shelters and associated external works to provide infrastructure and security support.

The total estimated capital delivery cost of the project is $299.1 million (excluding GST).

The works must be referred to, considered by, and reported on to both Houses of the Parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence.

Subject to Parliamentary approval construction is expected to commence by mid-2027 for completion by late 2029 over a projected 30-month construction program.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (15:44): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK: 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.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (15:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

It's time to pay young workers the superannuation that they deserve.

The Greens stand with workers.

We have secured huge wins for workers' rights, including the right to disconnect, the criminalisation of superannuation theft, and protections for workers' pay and conditions.

Now we're taking action to make sure that young workers are paid the superannuation that they've earned.

Australia's superannuation system exists because generations of workers and unions fought for the simple proposition that people deserve dignity in retirement.

It was built on the foundation of universality.

But it's not universal.

For too long, Australia's superannuation system has failed young workers.

Right now, most Australians under 18 miss out on superannuation, even when they're doing the same work as older employees.

Currently, young workers only receive compulsory superannuation if they work more than 30 hours a week.

The vast majority of young workers—93%—do not work this much, mostly due to school and study commitments and the casual nature of youth employment.

In practice, this means that hundreds of thousands of young Australians who are under the age of 18 miss out.

Right now, 530,000 teenage workers are denied $411 million in superannuation every year, for no reason other than their age.

It means that young workers in cafes, supermarkets, retail stores, hospitality venues, construction sector and communities across our country miss out.

They cover weekend shifts, late nights and public holidays. They pay tax. Yet many of them are denied compulsory superannuation contributions simply because of their age.

This Bill removes that unfair exclusion.

There is strong public support for this change.

73% of Australians support changing the law, and only 7% oppose it.

This is an important reform.

This Bill will ensure that all employees under the age of 18 are entitled to compulsory employer superannuation contributions, regardless of the number of hours they work.

It removes the existing legislative exemption that allows regulations to exclude employees under 18 from superannuation guarantee coverage and repeals the associated regulatory provisions that currently deny superannuation to many young workers.

The initial rationale for excluding young workers doesn't stack up anymore. While there used to be legitimate concerns that fees and costs could quickly erode small super balances, recent reforms have ensured that even small balances are preserved and grow over time.

Maintaining carve-outs of this kind undermines the integrity and fairness of the system.

It's a matter of fairness that all workers under the age of 18 should get superannuation, regardless of how many hours they work.

Young workers are not immune from rising cost of living challenges. They are facing growing housing unaffordability, insecure employment, and costly education.

Young women in particular are disproportionately affected by this aged-based exclusion. Women retire with substantially less superannuation than men, and casual workers, part-time workers and workers in feminised industries also accumulate lower retirement savings.

When we deny young workers superannuation, we reinforce inequalities that follow people throughout their working lives.

The consequence of the current exclusion extends far beyond a teenager's first pay packet.

Superannuation works best when contributions start early. It's essential that young workers receive super on every dollar earned from the moment they start work.

Modelling shows that young workers could be $11,000 better off by retirement through the power of compound returns.

This Bill is a strong response that has been sorely lacking from this Government.

Right now, big corporations are effectively stealing from young workers to pump up their own profits.

This is not a rule supporting small business. It is a system that allows some of the most profitable employers in the country to deny young workers their basic entitlements. The question is no longer whether this rule is fair, but who is it working for.

Big corporations like Coles, Woolworths and McDonald's earn billions of dollars in profit and can afford to pay young workers super. They just don't want to.

Companies like Coles, Woolworths, Kmart, Target, Chemist Warehouse, Hungry Jack's and McDonald's employ tens of thousands of teenagers, yet still refuse to pay super unless those workers meet outdated minimum-hours thresholds.

This isn't about whether big business can afford to pay super, it's about whether this Labor government is willing to make them.

In summary, this Bill will support young workers by allowing them to get superannuation on every dollar earned.

The Greens are proud to bring forward this Bill because we believe that Australia's superannuation system should include every worker.

If you are old enough to work, you are old enough to earn super.

This discriminatory rule does not impact a marginal cohort, it's the typical experience of teenage workers.

Labor had a chance to support young workers in the last sitting fortnight, but they teamed up with the anti-worker Coalition to defend this unfairly discriminatory provision.

While our push was unsuccessful, it built pressure on Labor to act.

They amended their national party platform to explicitly support paying super on every dollar earned, including for workers under 18.

I call on the Labor Government to follow its own policy platform and support this Bill.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (15:45): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than midday on 7 September 2026, the following reports, documents and PowerPoint presentations relating to the consultation conducted by the Department of Social Services on ending compulsory income management:

(a) Income management reform—consultation report, December 2022 to June 2023;

(b) Income management programs thematic analysis report;

(c) Income management community profiles;

(d) Community profiles—description of analysis approach;

(e) ETM Perspectives—Department of Social Services—income management reform final thematic report, June 2024;

(f) Stage three future of income management consultation report, October 2024 to December 2024;

(g) Income management programs: thematic report and community profiles—executive pack; and

(h) Income management programs: thematic report and community profiles—executive pack—speaking notes.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (15:46): At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 19 August 2026, the review of the forecasts of Air Force flying hours referred to by Air Marshal Chappell at the Budget estimates hearing of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 3 June 2026 (Proof Committee Hansard, page 71).

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of One Nation) (15:46): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to protect the Australian community from foreign terrorist fighters by amending legislation relating to counter-terrorism and the criminal law, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON: 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.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of One Nation) (15:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026.

The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Australians rightfully expect this Parliament to put their safety and our national security above all else.

The Albanese Labor government has failed to meet this expectation.

Since this Government took office, 15 women linked to the listed terrorist organisation Islamic State, or ISIS, have returned to Australia. Two face terrorism and slavery charges and have been released into the community on bail.

The government says it offered no assistance to bring these people home.

But we know the government met with lobbyists campaigning for their return. Records and handwritten notes of that meeting indicate the Minister discussed how a return could be achieved without a "formal government undertaking". They indicate he thanked those lobbyists for "keeping the matter out of the media". They indicate a departmental official was asked to leave the room so there could be a "frank discussion".

We do not know what was said after that official walked out. We do not know what was promised. We do not know whether a pathway was agreed for the return of others.

What we do know is this: the Minister blocked the last of these women on national security grounds. A short time later, he issued her a permit to return. His explanation was that the law gave him no choice.

That is not good enough. Australians know that isn't good enough. If the Minister genuinely believes the law stops him from keeping Australians safe, his job is not to shrug and accept it. His job, and the Parliament's job, is to come into this place and change it.

Labor has not acted to keep Australians safe, so it has fallen on One Nation to change the law.

This Bill does exactly that.

One Nation is acting where Labor has failed to act.

Let us not lose sight of what we are dealing with here.

Islamic State horrified the world. It enslaved thousands of people. It burned captives alive and filmed it.

Individuals who left Australia to join this organisation celebrated these acts and actively took part in them.

Thirteen of them are reported to be held in prison in Baghdad. They include Tareq Kamleh—otherwise known as "Dr Jihad"—who appeared in ISIS propaganda videos urging others to travel to ISIS-held territory or to wage jihad elsewhere.

It is reported that Dr Jihad and others who served ISIS may soon be released from custody and may seek to return to Australia.

This Bill gives Australia stronger, lawful tools to protect the community.

Schedule 1 creates a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. The Minister for Home Affairs may apply to the Federal Court for one. The Court may make the order only if it is satisfied of three things:

that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily served with, participated in the activities of, or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation;

that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Australian community if allowed to enter; and

that no less restrictive measure would be effective to protect the community from that risk.

The protection of the Australian community is the paramount consideration. Entering Australia in breach of one of these orders carries 10 years imprisonment.

While that case is being prepared and run, the Minister's obligation to issue a return permit is suspended. That suspension is capped at 90 days unless the application is actually filed with the Court, and it cannot be recycled on the same material.

Schedule 2 deals with bail. Where a person is charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence, the protection of the community and national security become the paramount considerations. A bail authority cannot find exceptional circumstances unless it is also satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of the person committing a terrorism offence. Childcare, family circumstances, the offer of somewhere to live, or an ankle bracelet will not, on their own, get an alleged terrorist out on bail.

Schedule 3 deals with passports. The Minister will be able to refuse, cancel or suspend an Australian travel document where an exclusion order is in force, where a determination to apply for one is in force, or where the person has been charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. Those four grounds are written into the Act. They cannot be added to by regulation.

Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate bringing a foreign terrorist fighter into Australia without the prior written permission of the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. The penalty is imprisonment for 10 years. Schedule 4 also extends the declared areas offence, which is due to sunset in September next year, through to 2030.

Let me deal directly with the objection I expect to hear, which is that this hands too much power to a Minister.

It does not.

The Minister cannot make one of these orders. Only the Federal Court can. The Minister must prove their case on evidence, before a judge, and the Court decides.

An order runs for a maximum of two years. There is no administrative renewal. If the Minister wants it longer, the Minister goes back to the Court and proves every element again on current evidence.

The person can apply to the Court at any time to have the order varied or revoked. If the Court finds that a controlled return under strict permit conditions would protect the community, that is the path that must be taken. Where a person is being deported, extradited or transferred home as a prisoner, the order gives way.

The order only reaches people who acted voluntarily. Someone who was coerced, held under duress, or trafficked is not caught by it. Where the person is under 18, the Court must treat their best interests as a primary consideration.

Decisions are made on current advice from our national security agencies, sensitive material is handled under the established national security information framework, and the Minister must report the operation of the scheme to this Parliament every year.

This is a protective scheme. It is directed at the risk a person presents today, not at what they deserve.

These are measures the Minister could have legislated himself while he was secretly meeting with lobbyists who wanted these terrorists back on Australian soil.

So I say this to the government. If the law truly tied your hands, here is the Bill that unties them.

The Minister has said this Bill is unconstitutional. This is just another excuse. The Minister had not seen the Bill when he made those comments. The Minister has refused to release his 'supposed' legal advice. Commentary from prominent legal experts and others, including the former Secretary of the Department, indicate this Bill addresses prior constitutional concerns.

At the end of the day, only the High Court, not the Minister or this Labor Government, can determine if laws are unconstitutional.

Australians are sick of the excuses of this government. They are sick of this government passing the buck on protecting the community from terrorism.

I say this to every senator in this chamber. When a person leaves this country to serve an organisation that enslaved thousands and burned prisoners alive, and then decides they would like to come home, someone has to be put first. Either it is them, or it is the Australians who never left.

One Nation puts Australians first.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator HANSON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (15:47): At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 10 am on 18 August 2026, the following documents regarding allegations of criminal or unlawful behaviour on land transport infrastructure projects funded under the Federation Funding Agreement on land transport infrastructure projects:

(a) reports from the Victorian Government received by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, dated from 1 April to 31 July 2026;

(b) reports from the Victorian Government received by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, dated from 1 April to 31 July 2026; and

(c) notes of meetings held between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Victorian Government in relation to the reports.

Question agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:48): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than 4.30 pm on 14 August 2026, all internal documents, consultation notes, briefings, meeting notes, correspondence, or emails held by the Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing relating to the corrections made to the impact analysis on the National Disability Insurance Scheme reforms on 9 June and 1 July 2026.

Question agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (15:49): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 569.

Leave granted.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, copies of:

(a) all documents referenced in Auditor-General's report no. 37 of 2024-25, Administration of the Future Fit Program (FFP), including:

(i) all versions of the Mid-Point Check (MPC) report, including the version stating 'the Meals Marketplace Pty Ltd will take responsibility for and manage the design and development of FUTURE FIT technology and will own the IP in FUTURE FIT technology',

(ii) all correspondence (and attachments) discussing the MPC reports,

(iii) the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software tool proposal that informed Official Order 2, and

(iv) budget phasing documents for Official Order 2;

(b) the document titled 'Official Order—Miles Morgan Australia Pty Ltd MMA edits 08 JULY 2022.docx';

(c) any communications, papers, proposals regarding the Information Technology (IT) CRM tool being proposed, including any requests for funding this tool prior to Official Order 2;

(d) the document titled 'Official Order—Miles Morgan Australia Pty Ltd—FUTURE FIT—MMA—29 September 2022.docx' and all other drafts of that Official Order;

(e) any document titled 'Future Fit—Key Deliverables.pdf';

(f) all documents itemising the deliverables and acceptance of deliverables related to Official Order 2;

(g) all documents discussing a variation to contract notice CN4036947, in relation to 'Transitioning the Whitehorse Meals on Wheels operations to Newcastle Meals on Wheels' including any advice sought and any documents recording Miles Morgan Australia's refusal to agree to the proposed revised terms;

(h) all internal briefing papers, documents and status updates that were produced as a result of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's (the Department) contract management of the FFP, prepared between 1 December 2021 and 30 June 2024 inclusive;

(i) all internal audits, reviews, and investigations, conducted by the Department, relating to intellectual property in the customised software used by the FFP, from 1 November 2023 until the date of this order inclusive;

(j) all correspondence discussing the customised software used by the FFP and intellectual property related to that software during December 2023;

(k) all correspondence between the Department and representatives of the Future Fit Collective Ltd in relation to the sale or transfer of intellectual property in the customised software used by the FFP to the Future Fit Collective Ltd for the sum of $1;

(l) all correspondence recording or describing the Department's intention for the customised software used by the FFP to be provided to a suitable Meals on Wheels entity that would assume ownership and responsibility for the customised software (including its hosting and ongoing maintenance);

(m) all correspondence, agreements and file notes recording the Department's agreement to transfer or assign the customised software used by the FFP to any organisation;

(n) all documents, including correspondence, communications, legal advice and risk assessments relating to the publication of the source code of the customised software used by the FFP on GitHub, or to any other public repository, including any assessment of intellectual property ownership, confidentiality implications or third-party rights conducted before or after publication; and

(o) the list of lessons learned in administering the FFP across the following themes: procurement and contract management; intellectual property; risk management; deliverables; and communications and relationships, as provided to the Australian National Audit Office.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (15:50): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 14 August 2026, all correspondence, emails or other forms of written communication produced since 1 October 2025, including any attachments, sent to, by or within the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in relation to the impact of the Government's 5% deposit scheme on the prudential assessment of high loan-to-value ratio lending risk.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 573, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:57): I move:

That—

(a) the Community Affairs Legislation Committee table an interim report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 on 14 August 2026; and

(b) the committee table a final report on 13 November 2026.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 580, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.