The PRESIDENT (12:01): If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:01): by leave—I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for this week may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (12:02): Given that the government wants to ram this through without debate, I seek leave to make a short two-minute statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Well, the fix is in, isn't it? Look at this. You've got the Labor Party captured by industry, and you've got the weak opposition over here rolling over. Angus Taylor and the Prime Minister have done a deal where Angus Taylor has simply rolled over like a lapdog. From here on in, Angus Taylor will be known as Toto—the Prime Minister's own Toto. That is how weak this opposition really is. The fix is in. The hours are done—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. I remind you that those in the other place need to be referred to by their correct titles. Senator Scarr?

Senator Scarr: Personal reflection—'roll over like a lapdog', and calling a member of the other place 'Toto', a dog.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, I will ask Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw that comment, and I remind you that I would prefer that offensive comments not be repeated by those calling points of order. Senator Hanson-Young, could you withdraw that comment, please.

Senator Hanson-Young: Which bit?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, could you withdraw that comment.

Senator Hanson-Young: I'm happy to withdraw, President, but I'd like you to take away and reflect whether the word 'lapdog' is indeed now not—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I don't need to reflect. You have—

Senator Hanson-Young: I'll write to you. I withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please continue.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It is so clear that the opposition has rolled over, and the Prime Minister is ramming through legislation that satisfies the gambling industry. The people on the backbench of the Labor Party must be appalled. They must be shamed by this. How terrible to see Peta Murphy's legacy thrown out the door because the Prime Minister wants to deliver for the gambling lobby. And what have we got from the Leader of the Opposition? We've got: 'Oh, okay, Prime Minister. Whatever you say, Prime Minister.' How pathetic. What an absolute stitch-up. Today, we're going to get an hour's motion rammed through this place with a long list of bills where the Prime Minister and Angus Taylor, the Leader of the Opposition, have had to try and—they just want it rammed through here. Where is the backbone of the Liberal Party in all of this? Where is the leadership from Mr Angus Taylor? From where I sit, Mr Angus Taylor looks more like Toto than he does the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (12:05): I seek leave to make a two-minute statement.

Leave granted.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: I haven't had time to look through the details of the guillotine, but I assume it will mean that there will be very few contributions on the gambling bill. On behalf of Canberrans that I've heard from over the last three years on this and particularly over the last month or so with what we heard in the Senate inquiry, I'd like to place on the record how disappointing it is to see this deal between the major parties which says to the Australian people that we care more about the gambling industry than your children—that we care more about the gambling industry than your brothers, your sisters, your sons and your daughters who are being preyed on by a predatory industry. People see straight through Prime Minister Albanese's rhetoric about 'getting the balance right with three ads an hour' and this nonsense in trying to tell Australians that you're protecting children when we'll be seeing gambling ads during programs like Lego Masters.

This speaks to a bigger issue that we're seeing in this country with the declining trust in politicians, in politics and in government, and this is no surprise when, three years ago, we had a parliamentary inquiry that said, 'This is how we turn things around when it comes to gambling,' and we have the Labor Party tie itself in knots for three years trying not to do what Peta Murphy and that committee said we should do. Then they get Angus Taylor to negotiate one on one with the PM and come to some sort of gentleman's agreement where you're going to shaft the Australian public and back in the gambling companies. (Time expired)

Senator BELL (New South Wales—One Nation Whip) (12:07): I seek leave to make two-minute statement.

Leave not granted.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the closure motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:13): The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:13): I move:

That—

(1) On Tuesday, 18 August 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be midday till adjournment;

(b) the question on the second reading of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 be put immediately;

(c) following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until 8 pm, after which the questions on all remaining stages be put;

(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bill; and

(e) the question that the Senate adjourn be proposed at 7.30 pm or at the conclusion of consideration of the bill, whichever is later.

(2) On Wednesday, 19 August 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 2) Bill 2026 be called on immediately after the authorisation of committee meetings and have precedence over all other business until 10.10 am, after which the questions on all remaining stages be put;

(c) the routine of business following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75 be consideration of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and related bills and the time allotted for the remaining stages of the bills be:

(i) second reading—immediately after the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75, and

(ii) all remaining stages—at 9 pm;

(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills; and

(e) the question that the Senate adjourn be proposed at the conclusion of consideration of the bills.

(3) On Thursday, 20 August 2026:

(a) the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills be called on at

10.10 am and have precedence over all other business till 11.15 am;

(b) the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 be called on at the conclusion of formal motions, or at 12.15 pm, whichever is earlier and have precedence over all other business till

1.15 pm;

(c) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at

1.15 pm:

(i) News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Administration) Bill 2026 News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026,

(ii) Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026,

(iii) Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026

Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026,

(iv) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026,

(v) Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026,

(vi) Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements)

Amendment Bill 2026, and

(vii) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025,

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

(4) Paragraphs 1(b) and (c), 2(b) and (c), and 3(c) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.

Senator David Pocock: I ask that 2(a) and (b) be put separately.

The PRESIDENT: I'm going to put the rest of the motion, and then I'm going to put 2(a) and (b). The question is that the substantive motion, minus 2(a) and (b), be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:17): The question is that parts 2(a) and (b) of that motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator GROGAN (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:30): I rise this afternoon to congratulate Cooper Mann on receiving the South Australian Skills Commission Outstanding Apprentice Award of 2026. At just 22, Cooper has demonstrated leadership that is so impressive, and he really will be part of that group of people shaping the future of manufacturing across South Australia. Cooper is a third-year mechanical fitter apprentice at ASC in Osborne. He's working on the Australian Collins class submarines. Cooper has always had an interest in engineering and the maritime industry but says it was a tour through the Australian Collins class submarine that really inspired him to take on an apprenticeship at ASC.

Since starting, his contribution has extended well beyond just developing his own technical skills. Only months into his apprenticeship, he identified a serious problem in terms of safety onsite. Rather than thinking that he would just let it go, because he'd only been there a couple of months, he stood up, he spoke to the relevant people, and he saw the issue through and got it resolved. That sort of persistence and leadership is what had him named as the ASC's Safety Leader of the Year back in 2024. He doesn't assume for a moment that being young or being an apprentice means that his voice carries any less weight or that he has any less responsibility onsite.

Through his union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, Cooper has become a passionate advocate for the next generation of skilled workers. He's standing up and making sure that our trade training system and our apprenticeship system are fit for purpose and provide what is needed for the apprentices of the future and for that robustness in our manufacturing system. Well done, Cooper.

Senator SHARMA (New South Wales) (13:32): Yesterday marked the 81st anniversary of Indonesia's declaration of independence, and I wanted to wish all Indonesians in Indonesia and the many who also live here in Australia a happy independence day. Selamat Hari Kemerdekaan, Indonesia.

From the front porch of a humble house in Jakarta, the declaration at the time, 81 years ago, helped found a nation of 70 million people, gave them the right to self-determination and spread joy across some 17,000 islands and some 5,000 kilometres distance from Jakarta. And, 81 years later, Indonesia has grown into a nation of over 280 million people. It is the world's third-largest democracy, and the economy is predicted to be in the top 10 within a decade. But, importantly, Indonesia has grown to be a close partner and friend of Australia. It is a pluralistic and tolerant society. It is one of the destinations that Australians travel to and visit and are most intimately familiar with. It's our close friend, our close neighbour and, in so many respects, with the global challenges we face today, our close partner.

Australia, of course, was one of the earliest and strongest supporters of Indonesian self-determination. Three years after our de facto recognition of the Indonesian government in 1947, it was Australia that had the honour of formally co-sponsoring Indonesia's admission to the United Nations in 1950. Our relationship with Indonesia, although it has had its ups and downs, has continued to strengthen and grow, especially over the last two decades, starting with our response to the horrible Boxing Day tsunami but building through counterterrorism cooperation, maritime cooperation and security cooperation. Today, I'm proud to represent a state that is home to Australia's largest Indonesian community, and I wish them all a happy independence day.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:34): In the past week, another woman has been killed by a former partner in Queensland. In New South Wales, three private school boys have been charged with raping a 14-year-old girl. In Victoria, AFL players are being investigated for an alleged sexual assault. In the same week, an average of 225 women and children have been turned away from crisis accommodation. Hundreds of calls to support services have not been answered, because staff cannot keep up with demand. Sexual assault survivors have been told that it will be months before they can see a specialist counsellor.

The government is preparing a second action plan to end violence against women and their children after years of consultations and inquiries and advisory groups. Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon sums it up:

Our conclusion from these efforts is straightforward: the greatest barrier to effectively addressing violence against women and children is the failure to implement—and adequately fund—the solutions already identified.

The Greens strongly support this plea to government from the coalition of women's safety services in this building today:

We call on all governments to urgently and drastically scale up their investment in action to address gender-based violence across all four pillars of the National Plan—prevention, early intervention, response, and healing and recovery—and increase investment in self-determined and grassroots solutions for First Nations women through the Our Ways, Strong Ways, Our Voices Plan.

That means a major, long-term increase to resourcing for specialist, accessible, community-led and culturally-safe services—so that every woman impacted by domestic, family, or sexual violence can access the specialist support she needs—where she needs it, and when she needs it.

Frontline services are doing the hard work every day. Their calls for support cannot be ignored. Fund them now.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (13:36): It's of no great shock to the Australian people that the—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Blyth ): It is an informal list, and I will give the call to Senator Bragg.

Senator BRAGG: I make the point that I don't think the Australian people are shocked that this housing crisis is getting worse, because I think people knew, when they saw this dreadful budget, that having more taxes was going to result in fewer houses. What we've seen this week in Canberra is the government covering up their terrible five per cent deposit scheme modelling so we can't see all the assumptions and how they buggered that up. Now what we see is a cover-up job from Dr Chalmers, protecting the modelling they did on the $2 a week modelling rent increases. That is already wrong. The government said that there would be $2 a week rent increases as a result of their high taxes. What we've seen, in some cases, is $250 a week in places like Sydney as a result of these new taxes. It is extraordinary that the government would come into this place and use this as a protection racket when they should just be giving over the modelling so we can all see how they've buggered up this tax policy and given Australians higher rents and a bungled five per cent deposit scheme.

The other thing we've seen is fewer houses. We've seen 35,000 fewer houses. We've seen a complete collapse in confidence from this government, and so what we've now seen is a housing system in complete disarray as a result of these taxes, higher rents, lower levels of supply and a complete loss of confidence in a housing system which is central to the Australian quality of life.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria) (13:38): Today is National Forestry Day, and it's a day to recognise an industry that is very important to the lives of Australians. I'm very proud to be the Co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products, and I want to acknowledge the people and the communities that keep this industry moving. Forestry is all around us quite literally here in the Australian Senate, with the Australian blackwood and black bean and the Tasmanian myrtle which you can see in this wonderful chamber and across this building. It's also in the homes that we all live in, the products that we use every day and the regional communities and businesses that depend and rely on this important industry. Around 80 per cent of Australian homes use timber framing. Timber is the ultimate renewable, reliable and practical source, and it has been trusted by Australians for many generations.

Australian forests, native and plantation, also make a very important contribution when it comes to our environment, storing around 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and removing around 16 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year. The forestry industry is about jobs, and it's about opportunities that contribute more than $24 billion to our economy each year, supporting around 80,000 direct jobs and around 100,000 indirect jobs. There's also a strong case for investing more in local production, and we should be producing all the timber and forest products that we have here in our homes, supporting workers, businesses and many communities, rather than relying on overseas imports with less stringent standards.

Today, I want to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge those who plant, manage, harvest, transport and process our forests and timber. As our sixth-largest manufacturing sector, the forest products industry supports our environment, our economy and regional communities. Happy National Forestry Day everyone!

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (13:40): This week is National Science Week. It's a chance to celebrate the people who quietly make this country a better place. As we all know, Australians have punched well above their weight for many, many decades. The wi-fi we use in this building traces back to CSIRO researchers working on radio astronomy. The cochlear implant has changed the lives of millions. The cervical cancer vaccine has us on track for elimination. These innovations were the product of decades of investment in science, and unfortunately we are living off the past. We're living off our inheritance rather than actually investing in the future.

As a country, we invest a piddling 1.69 per cent of GDP in R&D. The OECD average is 2.72 per cent. We rank 40th out of 44 OECD nations for STEM graduates as a share of tertiary graduates. The R&D gap in this country is roughly $30 billion a year—if we are to be serious about science. Australians want action. They want more long-term thinking in this place; they want investment in our future. Over 22,000 people have signed my petition to save the CSIRO, and more than 35,000 have emailed their MP through the Academy of Science's Restore Science campaign. Nine in 10 Australians say that science makes their lives better. But we can't keep asking researchers to do more with less. The Albanese government needs to step up and actually implement the SERD review and fund research in this country like it matters.

Senator LIDDLE (South Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:42): Labor is pitching young people against older Australians—those people who have contributed to our country. They do it for so-called inter-generational equity, which is a nonsense statement when you look at what the tax reforms they've just passed will do for the future of young people. It's an economic bomb.

An ABC Four Corners investigation revealed what Australians already know. The Albanese government is letting them down and, worse still, is also targeting them. On 2 July, I stood here and called for an end to Labor's 'computer says no' approach for aged care assessment. It was true then. It was true last year, and it is true today. Labor must return human override to its untested, unreliable, rigid and flawed algorithms. Everyone in this chamber was in agreement, just not the Albanese government. Still, Labor says no—no to common sense, painful stories of older Australians and evidence from experts that was overwhelming. Labor's own independent Inspector-General warned in July that the government was on the wrong path in aged care. The coalition tried again last week to bring legislation before parliament to restore professional human judgement. Labor again shut down debate.

The ABC exposé revealed how this Labor government, which promised accountability and transparency, changed how it calculated the waiting list after the reforms, excluding people receiving interim funding. More than 150,000 people are waiting for a fully approved level of care. That's not good enough. The PM is on record saying that Labor will look after older Australians and that no-one will be held back or left behind. None of that is true here, not for any older Australian and not for Australians.

Senator DARMANIN (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:44): To earn the same amount as a man in a year, the average woman would need to work 48 extra days. Thinking of the wonderful women in my life, I am not sure how any of them would fit in those extra days between school drop-offs, basketball pick-ups and attending school plays and all of the rehearsals that go with it. Ironically, it is these additional caring responsibilities, among other factors, which drive the gender pay gap. We treasure them, but we don't get paid for them.

Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, which marked 48 days into the new financial year. Australia's gender pay gap has fallen to 11.3 per cent, the lowest level since records began. That is worth celebrating. But, if Equal Pay Day reminds us how inequality affects women today, the gender super pay gap shows how those inequalities can follow women for decades. By their early 60s, the median superannuation balance is around $51,000 lower than it is for men. Women continue to do more unpaid caring work, are more likely to step away from paid employment after having children and often face lower lifetime earnings as a result.

The Albanese government's introduction of superannuation on paid parental leave is making a difference. Twelve months on, we are already seeing the impact. Around 200,000 parents have received superannuation contributions on paid parental leave, delivering an estimated additional $285.5 million into their retirement savings—$285 million extra retirement savings into their accounts. A woman on parental leave today will be around $5,400 better off at retirement. There is more work to do to close both the gender pay gap and the super pay gap, but superannuation on paid parental leave is already making a difference 12 months on, helping to ensure that starting a family no longer means falling further behind in retirement.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (13:46): Politicians love to tell you that getting money from the government that you need to survive has to be difficult. But, as a politician, I know this: getting money from the government is not hard for politicians. When we travel to Canberra for work, we get over 300 bucks a night with no friction. It's not hard for us. It's easy. No-one sends us to private providers to prove we deserve it. No-one threatens our income if we miss a call to discuss our claims. But that is not how it is for most Australians dealing with the government. There's an entire employment services system that hounds people looking for work with pointless tasks and constant threats of destitution. It's where the disability support system is headed under Labor's changes. Parents face a bureaucratic nightmare just to access the childcare subsidy. And who can forget robodebt—a cruel, illegal system that literally destroyed lives?

So next time a politician tries to convince you that it has to be hard to receive government payments, remember this. They don't design their own entitlements systems to be hard. They design them to be easy. The government knows how to make claiming public benefits straightforward, fast and easy, because the government does it for politicians. They should do the same for people whose survival literally depends on public payments.

Senator THORPE (Victoria—Independent VIC Whip) (13:48): I recently heard from members of the Kurdish community about the persecution and violence Kurdish people are facing in Iran and elsewhere. They spoke about the need for the world to pay attention to families living with displacement, surveillance and fear and the suppression of Kurdish language and culture. They told me about two brothers, activists who helped establish a library and programs for teaching Kurdish language. They took part in protests against the regime and faced persecution from security forces, so they went into hiding. In May this year, they were killed when IRGC forces surrounded their house and opened fire. Their families are now facing ongoing surveillance and financial hardship.

We can't ignore the wider context. The illegal US and Israeli war against Iran, backed by the Albanese government, has brought further death, displacement and instability. It's given the Iranian regime cover to intensify its own repression, persecuting protesters, minorities and those who stand against the regime. This country has a responsibility to people seeking safety. Successive Labor and Liberal governments have enacted cruel, failed asylum policies, harming many, including Kurdish people, by funnelling them into brutal offshore detention.

I've raised with Minister Burke the need for clearer humanitarian pathways for people facing persecution and fleeing danger, including the Kurdish people. As First Peoples, we know why culture, language and self-determination matter. I stand with all peoples who continue to fight for freedom, dignity and the right to live without fear.

Senator STEWART (Victoria) (13:50): I rise to congratulate the mighty Transport Workers' Union on a historic world-first win for gig workers. Think about the worker who brings your dinner to your door. They ride through traffic, rain and cold from the restaurant to your home. Until yesterday, they had no minimum rate, no insurance and no guarantee they would even earn minimum wage; an algorithm decided what their work was worth. People said it couldn't be done. Yesterday, the algorithm was in charge. Today, workers are in charge. That is what the TWU have fought to change and what they have won.

From yesterday, food delivery workers at companies like Uber, DoorDash and HungryPanda gained world-first rights and protections: minimum rates of more than $31 an hour for active work; payment for waiting time and travel time—because that's work too; insurance, so that workers injured on the job are not left with nothing; transparency about how delivery fees are calculated; and union delegate rights and paid delegate leave, because workers need a voice at work and wins like this do not happen without strong union representation. These are rights that workers in other industries have long taken for granted. Now, gig workers have them too.

For too long, gig workers were told they had to choose between flexibility and security. This victory proves that they can have both. TWU delegates made this happen. They organised. They campaigned. They came to Canberra and they told their stories. The Albanese Labor government listened, and together we delivered. If you do the work, you deserve to get paid properly for it. Congratulations to the TWU, Michael Kaine and Emily McMillan, and every delegate who helped to make this historic victory.

Senator WHITTEN (Western Australia) (13:52): The Productivity Commission have handed down their interim report on the GST carve-up. They are coming after WA's GST again. The Productivity Commission recommend returning to the pre-2018 system that gave WA 30c in the dollar—but, this time, they recommend that the Treasurer be able to direct the Commonwealth Grants Commission to address 'dominant state effects', whatever that means.

The report states that the CGC has not formally defined the dominant state effect. Maybe we can get Senator Ayres to give us another tutorial, with his bag of Maltesers, to please explain! It seems to be a recommendation that the Treasurer should routinely dictate the carve-up of the GST. In communist circles, this is called 'politburo'. That is typical of this Labor government—centralising control in the hands of their ministers so they can play politics with money used to deliver vital services in the states. States that are killing industry through net zero Temu power systems are being propped up by states that have embraced their natural resources.

One Nation wants a system that rewards states for making decisions that support industry and jobs. The system being pushed by this report hurts states that are productive while rewarding states that cripple their own economies. We won't stand by and let that happen. WA is full of hardworking men and women who leave their families to work the well-paying FIFO jobs in the Pilbara—people that have worked to build the state and have seen the fruits of their labour siphoned off to other states who are shutting down their power plants and blocking their own mines. WA are not asking for more than we put in; we are asking for the 75c floor to stay in place. Senator Whiteaker, if your colleagues destroy WA's GST share, you'd better bust out the stuffed animals again, because you've got some explaining to do.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:54): On 29 August we get to decide what kind of future we want to build for WA. In Secret Harbour, Rhi Davies and her Greens campaign team are putting forward a clear set of priorities. First is making the gas exporters and billionaires pay what they owe so that we can properly invest in the services people rely on: health, education, disability services. Next is making housing more affordable and building more homes so that every Australian can have a safe and secure place to live. Next is untying our military from the US war machine by opposing AUKUS so that Australia can take a peaceful, independent and cooperative place among nations in this world. Next is taking real action on the climate crisis and protecting our natural environment, because we are already seeing the consequences of denial and delay. Next is making public transport cheaper while delivering the infrastructure our growing community needs, including the Karnup train station.

The election will have real consequences. It is about whether people in this community can afford homes. It's about whether they can access the services that they need, whether kids can cross the road safely to get to school, whether the environment is protected and whether Australia makes its own decisions about our future. It's no secret that governments will continue to take people for granted if they can, but we as a community can send them a message with our votes. To my WA community: if you live in Golden Bay, Madora Bay, Port Kennedy, Secret Harbour or Singleton, vote 1 Greens on 29 August.

Senator McDONALD (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:56): Today, on Vietnam Veterans' Day, we honour 60,000 Australians who served our nation in the Vietnam War. We remember the 524 Australians who gave their lives and the thousands more who came home wounded in body or mind long after the guns fell silent.

The Anzac spirit is real. It is in the poppies of Flanders Fields. It's in the desolate hills of Gallipoli. It's in the snowy mountains of Korea and it's in the jungles of Vietnam. It's in the mud of New Guinea and the sands of the Middle East. It's in our one Australian flag, and it's in all of us who benefit from the sacrifices of so many. It's in the spirit of standing beside your mates when every instinct tells you to run and of doing your duty whatever the cost.

Today we remember that spirit, which was present at battles like Long Tan, Coral-Balmoral and Binh Ba and in countless other patrols and operations. Many veterans came home carrying wounds, memories and burdens that lasted a lifetime, often to a nation that failed to properly recognise what they had endured. We cannot undo that, but we can ensure that they know today that Australia remembers. I want to particularly call out Peter, Peter and Ken, friends of mine in North Queensland, who gave their sacrifice in Vietnam.

It is extraordinary to discover that Minister Keogh seeks to deny and cap veterans' allied health needs. This will lead to suicides. This will lead to loss. The least he could do would be to meet with them respectfully, shake their hands and not deny them. We remember our Vietnam veterans' courage. We honour their mateship. We are proud of their service, and we will never forget their sacrifice. Lest we forget.

Senator TYRRELL (Tasmania) (13:58): In the last few weeks we've got some amazing new data about how bulk billing is way more available across the country thanks to the government's investment in health. The data has told us that we're making great progress in our target to reach a bulk-billing rate of 90 per cent by the end of this decade. Bulk billing for pensioners and concession card holders is now over 93 per cent, which is great for those Australians and Tasmanians on a low or fixed income. I'm really proud to see that bulk billing for Australians who don't have a concession card has also climbed sharply, by more than 10 per cent since last October.

In our amazing Tasmania we're seeing great bulk-billing progress. In the June 2026 quarter, Tassie's bulk-billing rate went up by almost six per cent. In northern Tassie, bulk-billing rates are up by more than 20 per cent—woo hoo! That's 20 per cent more northern Tasmanians getting free health care from their GP—thanks to this government, not the state Liberal government.

It really is that simple. Before Labor came to government, bulk-billing was falling off a cliff. It was reduced by more than 10 per cent in just one year because of a Medicare rebate freeze that had been in place for six years. Our record investments are seeing that turn around. Turning around bulk-billing is not just a cost-of-living measure because it means people aren't shelling out that money; it's leading to better health and building a healthier Australia.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. We're going to move to question time now.

The PRESIDENT (15:03): I wish to inform the Senate that on Wednesday 19 August 2026 I will be temporarily absent from the Senate on account of parliamentary business. In accordance with the standing orders, the Deputy President, Senator Brockman, will take the chair.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (15:04): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the integrated assessment tool, as circulated in my name.

Leave not granted.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the integrated assessment tool.

This suspension is urgent because the Four Corners program last night revealed the shocking impact of the government's flawed and untested Integrated Assessment Tool on older Australians. It is urgent that we suspend to consider this issue because the answers given by the minister in last night's Four Corners program indicated that the minister showed himself to be utterly ignorant of the severe and ongoing impacts that this flawed tool is having on older Australians.

It is urgent that we suspend standing orders because the answers given by Senator Wong to the questions raised by Senator Colbeck further indicate that the government does not understand the incredible hardship that is being placed on older people and their families who cannot get the care that they need in a timely way. This matter is urgent, and we should suspend standing orders because we know that the Integrated Assessment Tool algorithm is flawed. We know that the Integrated Assessment Tool is consistently underassessing older people's care needs, and we know, from the answers that the minister continues to give, that the government is not fully alive to this issue.

It is urgent that we suspend standing orders to debate this motion because we know that tiny differences in this flawed algorithm are seeing some people having their care support halved. We know that it is urgent, and we should suspend standing orders to debate this because people like Sean Dorney—who's had motor neurone disease for a decade, who has sought a reassessment and who is not eligible for the fast-track mechanism that the minister says has been implemented, because he already has a care package—is still waiting eight months later for an assessment when he has a neurodegenerative disease.

It is urgent that we discuss the need for the government to scrap the flawed Integrated Assessment Tool because we heard clearly in evidence given by the department that it was never tested and verified externally and independently by clinicians. We know that this is urgent and, therefore, warrants a suspension of standing orders to debate because we know that the minister's view that there are a tolerable number of requests for review is flawed. We know that hundreds of people are not bothering to challenge the algorithm, because they are worried that they will be worse off. We know that the burden to challenge an algorithm that is flawed and to fix a problem that the government was told was foreseeable should not be placed on older people and their families. It is urgent that we debate this because people like 96-year-old Audrey don't have time to wait for the government to scrap a tool that is saying that, despite her last assessment being 12 years ago, her care needs have not increased.

It is urgent that we suspend standing orders to debate this issue because we know that the minister is out of his depth, does not understand his brief and has failed categorically to listen to the concerns that have been raised in the hearings that we have had in the Support at Home inquiry and in the questions that we have raised at estimates. When clinicians, when providers, when older people, when their families and when the people who work in the sector are all telling the government that this tool is flawed and is underassessing the care needs of older people, it is urgent that the government acts. That is why it is urgent that this motion be put before the Senate. I urge every senator to support the government scrapping this integrated assessment tool, going back to the beginning, consulting with clinicians and restoring human override so that no older person in this country is subject to a computer program deciding their care.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:10): I stand also to support the urgency of the issue that has been put forward by Senator Allman-Payne because the evidence before us is absolutely damning. The integrated assessment tool is not working, and there is not one piece of evidence to suggest that it is. This is no longer about a few teething problems. This is a systematic structural flaw in the algorithm that is put in charge of making decisions about the care needs and the urgency of those care needs of older Australians—older Australians like Audrey.

For any of you who saw the Four Corners program—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I remind you this is a suspension debate, not a debate about the substantive motion.

Senator RUSTON: Thank you very much, President. I can't think of anything that is more urgent than older Australians dying because they're being misassessed by an algorithm that's been put in place by this government. People are dying. There is nothing more urgent than putting in place in this chamber and in this parliament measures to prevent people from dying. So I don't think anybody in here would disagree that there is nothing more urgent than making sure that people are not dying unnecessarily, because legislation and, quite frankly, a computer are making decisions that leave their care needs so underfunded and under-resourced that they're dying while they're waiting for the care that they have been assessed as needing.

I don't believe I need to stress the urgency of this motion any more, but, quite frankly, the fact that the government, since the introduction of the new reforms into aged care in November last year, have failed—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I remind you once again that your comments need to focus on why this suspension order ought to be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON: I'd ask the people of Australia: do you think it is urgent that we should make changes to a computer algorithm that is making decisions about older Australians that is causing them to die while they wait for the care that they need? I don't believe that there is any more urgent thing that we should be doing in this place or the other place. The fact is that this place has already passed legislation. The will of this chamber is that the algorithm requires human override. What we're seeing today, though, is the urgency has been escalated because of the Four Corners program last night—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I'm going to remind you once again you need to focus on the debate at hand, which is whether or not a suspension ought to be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON: I believe the suspension needs to be agreed to, and the reason for its urgency is that unless something is done about the failed computer algorithm that this government has in place and its continued refusal to address the fundamental and structural flaws older Australians will die. I don't know if anybody in this chamber would like to disagree with me and argue that older Australians dying unnecessarily because of a piece of legislation and an algorithm that has been legislated through this place is not urgent. I would be pleased for you to come forward and make that case, because I believe my case is very strong. As I said, please come forward if you disagree with me.

It's not just me. I absolutely agree about the urgency of this and the fact that older Australians are dying, but the experts also agree about the urgency of this motion. The experts are people like the former inspector-general of aged care Ian Yates, the recently resigned inspector-general of aged care Natalie Siegel-Brown and one of the most pre-eminent experts when it comes to making assessments about the care needs of older Australians Professor Kathy Eagar, the architect of the AN-ACC system.    Nobody in Australia knows better than Professor Eagar about how you go about assessing the needs of older Australians. This government—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, I'm going to remind you once again that we are debating a suspension motion.

Senator RUSTON: The suspension motion, President, is about a piece of legislation that this government refuses to address and is causing Australians—older, vulnerable Australians like Audrey—to die. I don't believe that there is anything more urgent than trying to remedy a situation where people are dying as a result of a decision of the government that has been put through this chamber, through rules that were not made evident or obvious when the legislation was put through. They were subsequently revealed in a series of rules that were opaquely put through this chamber. I can't think of anything that's more important than the will of this chamber being recognised, such as the will of this chamber when the aged-care assessment tool private senators' bill was put through this place. I commend Senator Allman-Payne for raising attention on the urgency of the fact that a cruel tool this government refuses to acknowledge is causing older Australians to die unnecessarily.

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) (15:15): The government will not be supporting this suspension motion today. I imagine it's not going to be the last one for the week. There is a range of urgent matters before the Senate. I accept that there are so many things this chamber could be debating this week, but there are also a number of very critical pieces of legislation—including the NDIS, our reforms to gambling law, implementing new arrangements for the news media bargaining incentive and dealing with the Treasury laws amendment bills—that this chamber has sought to debate as well.

On the point of urgency, there is no shortage of urgent matters before the Senate this week. Indeed, the Senate has just resolved, earlier today, to put in place arrangements to have those matters dealt with. Notwithstanding the important issue that's being raised by the motion and the fact that the government has already been clear about work that is being done around the integrated assessment tool, we should be allowed to get on to the program that the Senate resolved earlier today to deal with. I note there have been people raising concerns about the amount of time for debate on certain pieces of legislation. These suspension motions will eat into that time. So, again, the government doesn't support this.

I know the chamber has had a lot of debate in relation to the aged-care reforms—important reforms that were supported, I should say, by this chamber last year—to make the aged-care system more sustainable. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate said during question time, we have invested billions of dollars into aged care since coming to government to make sure that we are able to deal with the demand that we're seeing in aged care in both in-home care and residential care, and also in the workers who provide care to elderly Australians. Our commitment is very clear, but we do need to make sure it's on a sustainable footing. The Minister for Aged Care and Seniors is working through a whole range of issues, some of which have been raised in this chamber, and will continue to do so.

But we need the Senate to get on with what is before it this week, which is the other pieces of legislation that are equally urgent and require the attention of the Senate. Those have been listed in the program today. Last week, the Senate did not pass a single bill—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: Well, those opposite have woken up. I wasn't going to point the finger, but I would say a lot of time was spent last week not debating legislation. People send us here to debate legislation. I accept that there's a whole range of other forms and customs and practice of this place.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator GALLAGHER: It would be great if we didn't need to put in place time management motions if the Senate actually got through legislation in a way that was manageable, but it doesn't seem to be able to do that. That's the problem that time management has to deal with. Because, ultimately, if you waste an entire week not passing a single piece of legislation—and it wasn't government senators who were chewing up the time; let's be clear about that—then pressure will build, and you will have to put time management motions in place.

On the suspension that Senator Allman-Payne seeks to move today, notwithstanding the very real issues facing aged care in this country, the reform work that's underway and the investment that we're making, the demand for aged care continues to grow. It is an important issue that this chamber should debate. But there have been debates specifically on this issue in this chamber in recent weeks, and this week we have important reforms that the Australian people would like us to act on. The gambling and NDIS reforms are two of them, and I think our media friends are very keen on settling the news media bargaining incentive. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: I remind the chamber that Senator Allman-Payne was heard in silence. Senator Ruston was heard in silence. For some reason, people seem to think that the disrespect shown when Minister Gallagher got up is okay. It is not okay. Every senator in this place deserves to be heard in silence whether they are agreed with or not.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:21): It is urgent that we get a better deal for older Australians and work to bring some humanity back into our aged-care system. I thank my colleague Senator Allman-Payne for seeking to suspend standing orders today to deal with this issue. Labor's continued use of the untested and structurally flawed integrated assessment tool is failing older Australians, and it is urgent because they are running out of time. The integrated assessment tool was developed to assist practitioners to make clinical judgements about the level of support that aged-care recipients needed. It was supposed to support human decision-making. It was never supposed to become a tick and flick that would let a computer decide whether someone like Audrey Staniland, who we all saw and loved last night on telly, requires no increased support despite being blind and living alone. On last night's Four Corners we learned how—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I'm going to draw you back to the suspension motion. It's not for substantive debate.

Senator WATERS: This matter is urgent, because, as Four Corners revealed last night, this is exactly how this tool is used, and it's the outcomes for older Australians like Audrey that are both devastating and urgent. This is precisely the sort of issue that this chamber should be fixing on an urgent basis. With no additional support, Audrey and her family are worried that she'll have to leave her home and move into residential aged care instead. And we know how that ends: tragically. Even getting an assessment from this terrible tool comes with a wait time—

The PRESIDENT: Once again, Senator Waters, you are talking about the substantive motion and not the reason that we need to suspend.

Senator WATERS: I think that people's lives matter and that this is urgent for older Australians. It is urgent for us and it should be a matter that this chamber is debating. Instead, they've got a median wait time of 36 days to even get an assessment from this terrible tool. This is urgent because there are 98,606 Australians waiting to be assessed and hoping for support that will allow them to stay at home longer, with or close to their loved ones, rather than being forced into residential aged care. What's particularly galling and what also makes this matter urgent is that at-home care is not only what most older Australians prefer; it costs less. On average, the cost to subsidise a person in resi aged care is more than $117,000 while care at home is about $30,000. I'm sure, President, you would agree that judicious use of public money to support people is a question that is both important and urgent.

In its drive to save money off the backs of everyday Australians, rather than making big corporations pay their fair share, Labor has streamlined decisions—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, you are well off topic. It is about why you need to suspend standing orders.

Senator WATERS: We should suspend standing orders, because algorithms and machines should not be in charge of the fate of older Australians. Human beings should be. I've just laid out that it's actually cheaper and more humane to do that. Instead, we've seen Labor partly privatise the assessment system, as well as employing the robots to make decisions, which they were never designed to do. They handed contracts for more than $1½ billion—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters—on the suspension motion.

Senator WATERS: I think older Australians think this matter is urgent, and I think it will not reflect well on this chamber that the government of the day is asserting that it is not, and I will continue to assert that this is both urgent and important. This could be fixed today. It's exactly why my colleague Senator Allman-Payne has put this motion. It is exactly why it is urgent to debate this motion. These are people's lives that are at stake, and this chamber could fix this today, and, instead, the government is choosing not to. It's likely about to vote against this motion to provide older people with the dignity and support that the Greens think that they urgently need. Have you learnt nothing from robodebt and from the devastating human toll of that inhumane policy?

The urgency goes to what the values of this place are, and it's about whether we value human beings and whether we're prepared to invest in the security and the dignity of older Australians or whether this government will continue to do favours for the likes of Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies and the gambling companies and leave Australians tossed aside—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, the suspension motion is what you need to be talking about.

Senator WATERS: saying that they are not urgent. It's more urgent for this government to do favours to the gambling companies. It's more urgent for them to do favours to Donald Trump. Where is your sense of priority here? Imagine if we actually properly funded at-home-care packages. Imagine if we actually treated older Australians with the dignity that they deserve. Imagine if this chamber didn't have to debate whether that was urgent and important and if we just got on with doing the job of working for Australians. Imagine that! That's what the Greens are working for. I'm proud my colleague has pushed for this, and I strongly support this.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH (Victoria) (15:26): Thank you to Senator Ruston and Senator Allman-Payne. I've worked with both of these colleagues on the community affairs committee and on the Support at Home program, and all three of us are committed to improving the care and dignity of older Australians, particularly those Australians—and there are many of them, thousands and thousands—who want to age at home. This motion is important, but it is not urgent. It is not urgent for the reason that the government is aware of the problems with the Integrated Assessment Tool, which is at the heart of the controversy with regard to Support at Home, and is working methodically through these issues.

As you know, Minister Rae has announced a rapid review into the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, I'm also going to remind you that you need to focus on the motion at hand, which is to suspend the business of the Senate.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: As you know, we are methodically working in the background on the issues that have been raised by the Greens political party and the coalition with regard to this urgency motion. We do not believe that an urgency is required, mainly because we are working to amend and rectify the issues with the Integrated Assessment Tool, which have been ventilated in many fora in this place, both in hearings at the committee level and in this very chamber today.

Minister Rae has instigated a rapid review into—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, once again, you are getting on to the substantive motion and not speaking to the reason to oppose or agree to the motion to suspend.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: President, I'm trying to just relay the fact that it is not urgent, because we are working in the background to rectify the problems. I speak to those steps that we are actually taking to try and address the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues as well as members of the community with respect to the Integrated Assessment Tool. This tool was initially developed many years ago, about six years ago, and it has been clinically validated. It had a lot of clinical and technical and statistical input. We know it's been rolled out now, mainly because the previous system, when we first came to government—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, you were again going to the substance of the motion and not the reason to suspend.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: We are attempting to iron out the problems with this tool in consultation with the sector. We do not believe that it requires an urgency motion, because the work is currently going on in the background methodically, carefully and in consultation with the sector and with stakeholders and with aged-care providers and, indeed, with families. We also know that the care of older Australians is at the heart of this government, and this is why we brought in generational reform with the Aged Care Act.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, I'm going to remind you once again to confine your remarks to the suspension before the Senate.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I accept that those opposite feel that an emergency motion is required. I don't accept that at all because I have been part of the process trying to delve into the issues raised by the coalition and the Greens political party with respect to this act and the integrated assessment tool. We know that the parliament is working through these issues in a hearing, and the minister is also working through these issues. This is why I don't believe it requires an urgency motion.

We know that the care of Australians is an issue close to the heart of families all around this country. Does it require an urgency motion to elevate it? It has already been elevated in the national consciousness and in the national debate over many, many months since the rollout of the new Aged Care Act in November last year. We know that the rollout, while it is generational reform, has had some issues, and they have been brought to light by families and by members of parliament, the coalition and the Greens political party. Does it warrant an urgency motion? I don't believe it does because we are working methodically through these issues in the background. When those issues are done in a careful, consultive way, I'm confident that we will have resolution of this and do not require taking this further in this chamber through an urgency motion. I don't see how it's going to, in any way, advance improvement to the fundamental problems that have been raised by families, cited by those in the coalition and the Greens and aired in the ABC Four Corners report last night.

I do believe that the only way to resolve these problems is to do it in a consultive, careful, methodical way, which is how we are approaching this problem. That's why I am not in support of this urgency motion; I do not believe it is required.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (15:32): I rise to support the motion and the urgency of the motion moved by Senator Allman-Payne. I thank her for bringing this to the chamber. It is urgent that this government gets the message about what's happening to senior Australians. It is urgent that this government actually acts rather than talks about the problem.

It is urgent. The situation for senior Australians waiting for a home-care package and the number of people waiting for a home-care package is the worst that it has ever been. It is urgent that this chamber delivers that message to this government so that they act rather than just talk about the problem. It's clearly urgent, when you have people like Professor Kathy Eagar AM saying that the algorithm is fundamentally and completely flawed, that the government actually acts.

I think it's quite reasonable that this chamber reinforces the message urgently that it sent to the government when they passed legislation to allow a qualified assessor to override the algorithm. It's urgent that this chamber actually has the opportunity to reinforce that. It's urgent that they actually get on with doing the job that they promised to do before the 2022 election.

Because of the fact that the situation for people waiting for a home-care package and the number of people on the waiting list is worse than its ever been, it's urgent that this chamber has the opportunity to send that message. The more than 5,000 families of people who died in the last 12 months alone waiting for a home care package would think that it's urgent too. The more than 5,000 families who lost a loved one while they were waiting for a home-care package just in the last year, I think, would think it's urgent that this chamber deal with this as well. It's extraordinary that the minister gets up and says that this is not as urgent as the media bargaining code, and it says a lot about the government's priorities that it thinks that the media bargaining code is more important than the 5,000 people who died while they were waiting for a home-care package in the last 12 months. It's disgraceful.

Interestingly, if we go back to the 1979 IBM training manual, it says:

A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.

And I think we should urgently apply that principle to this issue in the context of this debate. (Time expired)

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

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (15:41): I move:

That a motion relating to the integrated assessment tool may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Question agreed to.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (15:42): I move:

That—the Senate:

(a) notes that the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) is untested, structurally flawed and systematically under-assessing the care needs of older Australians, especially those living with mental health conditions, cognitive issues and frailty; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) take immediate action to abolish the IAT,

(ii) replace the IAT with a tested assessment system that is designed with clinical experts,

(iii) ensure this new assessment system has guaranteeing the rights of older people as its first priority, and

(iv) restore the role of clinical professionals in the assessment process and reinstate the ability for human override.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:43): With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips.

Senator LIDDLE (South Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:43): I move:

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

I start by addressing Senator Wong's answer, which failed on every transparency and accountability level and measure on aged care. In our home state of South Australia—the great state of South Australia that we both call home—record ramping, mostly for old people, is through the roof. Bed blocking is a crisis due to aged-care shortages. There's the cancelling by Labor of the private health rebate for older Australians. The latest data from this month in South Australia says waiting an average of 317 days is someone's mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, brother, uncle or grandfather. They're waiting for non-specialist support-at-home services. That's the aged-care system under a Labor government—poor, inadequate, unresponsive.

Now, let's talk about the Four Corners expose. It's not a surprise to anybody trying to navigate the aged-care system under Labor. It confirmed exactly what the coalition has been warning for months: that the algorithm for aged care that was developed under Labor, that was pushed through under Labor, is hurting vulnerable older Australians. A leading expert on that program showed that changing the answer to a single question can make a difference of tens of thousands of dollars in someone's funding. That's not a sophisticated tool; that's actually a lottery in the life of older Australians who have contributed to our great country. They are then subjected to an algorithm that says no. A bit like Labor: no to the evidence in front of them that this is flawed; no to the alarmed experts that say, 'There is a problem with your algorithm'; no to the painful stories of older Australians—true stories, honest stories, raw stories; and no to their families, who just want a better deal for older Australians.

Labor designed the system, legislated it and implemented it. Every failure we are seeing has happened under their watch. Labor must return human override to its untested, unreliable, rigid and flawed algorithm assessment tool. It's hard to believe that's a difficult concept to grasp. We're not talking about a tool; we're actually talking about humans and the tool you introduced to assess their needs.

In South Australia, we've got a particularly big problem with aged care. We should be caring better for our older people. It is simply not acceptable that more than 5,000 people have died waiting for a package. That's not acceptable by any measure. The coalition's position is simple: if an older Australian has been assessed as needing care, they should receive the care they have been assessed as needing. Not a fraction of it, not a portion of it, not after months of waiting and certainly not after they have died! That's not acceptable. (Time expired)

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:47): I rise to respond to that contribution and to talk about the reality of aged care and the fact that we do, proudly, have a larger number of ageing Australians in our country. That presents a particular challenge to all governments. And I do know that in previous governments, under leadership not of the Labor kind, this challenge went unmet for a very long period of time. In fact, it was so unmet that there was the necessity for a royal commission into aged care. And the interim report for that commission was shorthanded in its very title, which was the term Neglect. And that can happen in governments, when people don't pay attention to things, but what we're talking about here is a range of questions that are accusatory, inflammatory, instituted to create drama, offence and anxiety. That doesn't help anything or anyone.

The commissioner, in response to the challenge of what was left by the coalition's failure to see the problem and do anything about it, described it as 'an underpaid, undervalued and insufficiently trained workforce'. Commissioner Lynelle Briggs found that the former government's main consideration was what was the minimum commitment they could get away with. Well, we are in a vastly different place to that.

But that doesn't mean that everything's hunky dory. We are not shying away from the fact that there is a massive policy challenge for Australia to face to meet the needs of our ageing Australians. I put on the record again Senator Wong's words: 'It is a matter of sadness that people in this country, under both governments, have not been able to receive care in time.' But Senator Wong made it very clear that the minister and the government are working hard to ensure that we provide more places, that we reduce wait times and that we respond to that reality of our ageing population. We understand it's about people—it's not about politics; it's about people—and that is why the Labor government is investing $3.7 billion in the package that we've put in to make home care more affordable for Australians. We're also investing $47 billion in aged care this year, which is the largest investment in the nation's history.

The challenge of making a system work perfectly for the Australian people is a challenge that every government faces, and no government gets it a hundred per cent right all of the time. But we are not neglecting ageing Australians. We are working hard, investing Australians' money for ageing Australians to make sure that they can get the services that they need to live in their retirement and in their final years with a dignity that we believe they absolutely deserve.

We're rebuilding this new system. We had to introduce a new act. We had to strengthen the home-care system. We've delivered record pay rises so that there are people to come and give support to people who receive these packages, and we're investing in record infrastructure all across this country. We support care at home. We are working to make sure that Australians who want to live their life and get on with it, who want to be able to do that at home, get the care that they need when they need it. (Time expired)

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (15:51): It's fascinating to see members of the government rewriting history in respect of this matter. Senator O'Neill made reference to the royal commission. I think we all should acknowledge that was an extremely difficult time. Clearly there were a lot of problems with the aged-care system, and the government of the day had the courage to actually call a royal commission to properly have a look at the system and the way that it was working. It tabled its final report in March 2021, and the then government responded in the budget in May of that year with $17.1 billion of additional funding for the aged-care system, including about $7.2 billion into the home-care system.

The problem that we have right now, with the way that the home-care system is working, is that the failures that we are seeing in the system are of this government's making. In 2019 there were 128,000 people on the waiting list for a home-care package, and the waiting time was way too long. It was well over 12 months—in some cases, two years—for a level 4 package. By September of 2022, 100,000 people had been taken off that waiting list; it was down to 28,000 people. Those stats are from the department's system. The waiting time for a package at any level was 30 to 90 days. If you'd been assessed as having high-level needs, it was less than 30 days. Those are the actual numbers that this government desperately doesn't want to acknowledge.

When the new system was brought in, that number just skyrocketed. There have been more than 150,000 people waiting for a home-care package in the last 12 months alone. Tragically—we suffered this when we were in government—in the last 12 months, alone, 5,000 people have died waiting for their home-care package. I agree with Senator O'Neill: none of us want to see that.

All of this is of the government's making. So what did have they done about it? They've rejected a bill that was passed by this chamber to put human decision-making over the top of the assessment tool. The government rejected it. It pushed back on that. Experts like Professor Kathy Eagar AM said that the assessment tool is fundamentally and completely flawed—yet this government clings to it. They say it was tested. It wasn't tested publicly.

What are senior Australians to think? This is the government that has also cut the private health insurance rebate for senior Australians. Effectively, if you're a full pensioner, it is a $5-a-week cut in your pension. If you're a couple, it is a $15-a-week cut in your pension. That is the action of this government. Why is it that senior Australians are concerned about attitudes towards them with respect to this?

The royal commission said—and I'll go back to the point that Senator O'Neill made, and I acknowledge the work of the royal commission and their 148 recommendations—in respect of the home-care system that it was a cruel lottery and that this cruel lottery must end. The government promised to put the 'care' back into 'home care'. The only thing they've put back is the waiting list and the waiting times.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH (Victoria) (15:56): In our first term of government, the Albanese government acted on a promise made to older Australians to fix a system that had utterly failed them. This was a system that we inherited after nine years of stewardship—or lack thereof—under the coalition. When we came to government, we picked up the royal commission findings. The interim report, which was released in 2019, was entitled Neglect—and it basically said it all. This was an aged-care system that had been chronically underfunded and characterised by chronic underinvestment over the nine years under the coalition. For three of those years, mind you, my colleague Senator Colbeck was the aged-care minister. Senator Colbeck, I remember when you were at the cricket and declined to attend a COVID committee. I remember this because I was in PPE, caring for those aged-care patients who were coming through hospital at the time—and I've never forgotten it. I remind you of that. I find your interest now in aged care a tad disingenuous.

Nevertheless, we as a federal government took those 148 recommendations from the aged-care royal commission, and we are working methodically through them. At the heart of the controversy is the integrated aged-care assessment tool. This tool started development in 2020. There were advisory groups—clinical, technical and statistical—and in 2022 Flinders University ran a living lab trial. These included mock scenarios with actors and clients. In 2023 there was a live trial in over 22,000 people, and it was clinically validated on this cohort. It then went on to be further validated on another cohort of nearly 300,000 people in datasets that were held by the department of health. We heard this testimony in one of the Senate hearings.

We know this tool has now been rolled out, and there is a 0.5 per cent rate of review—so around 400,000 Australians have received home-care packages as of June this year, with 0.5 per cent going on to require a review. That is a very small number. But behind every one of those statistics are people and families under stress. My own experience caring for older Australians over a very long period of time in acute-care hospitals right around the country is that people tend to leave these assessments till quite late because it takes a lot of time before families, and, indeed, people, are ready to take that next step towards even acknowledging that they might require help from someone else. It's a very big deal to say that you need care from someone else and to allow them into your home. By the time these assessments are made, people are often pre-crisis, if not in crisis. It's tragic.

Our government is now undertaking a rapid review into the integrated assessment tool, and we have committed to legislating a escalation pathway to ensure that those older Australians who are falling through the cracks, or feel like they are falling through the cracks, have a pathway where their needs can be prioritised and attended to. But this does not detract from the $47 billion we have committed to reforming this aged-care system and the nearly $4 billion this year towards building more aged-care residential beds and providing additional care to older Australians in aged care.

Senator BLYTH (South Australia) (16:00): I just want to pick up a little bit of what Senator Ananda-Rajah started off with in her contribution. The Albanese government did make a promise to the older Australians here in Australia. He made a promise that he would look after them. What is happening is an absolute disgrace for older Australians. It is unacceptable that we have older Australians who are dying before they get the care that they need. These are older Australians who have contributed to the Australian taxation system their entire lives. When they need help, this government is nowhere to be seen.

Let's talk about the facts a little bit there. Rather than making personal attacks towards Senator Colbeck, perhaps it would be better to actually look at the facts. The waiting list is now 150,000 older Australians. That number has increased exponentially. That is nearly five times the number that was inherited from the coalition. So I think perhaps we should be looking at the facts here before we start making personal attacks on people on this side of the chamber.

Five thousand people have died just in the last 12 months. These are older Australians. They have families. The answer from this Labor government is, 'Apply for your home care package earlier.' The system doesn't let them if they don't qualify, so they can't. So they are stuck on a wait list for over 12 months, desperate for the care that they need because of the system that has been set up by this Labor government. This is a problem that this Labor government has created, and now they're trying to blame older Australians and say they're the reason that they're not getting the care they need. It is disgraceful. This Labor government doesn't care about older Australians. They're more interested in spinning their own tales about how this is playing out. People will continue to die until they are able to actually tell the truth to the Australian people. We need a prime minister who is going to stop making promises that he can't keep.

Then we move to the Coalition of Veterans' Voices. I was very privileged to meet this group of veterans here in Parliament House this week. These veterans are desperate. They have come to Canberra for help because the Labor government is going to put a cap on the funded allied health services that veterans in Australia are going to be able to access. So not only is this Labor government failing older Australians; they're now failing veterans in this country as well.

These are brave men and women who have worn the uniform, who have gone out there, prepared to put their life on the line for Australia. When they need help, when they are broken, when they come back from war and need help, this Labor government said, 'You can only have $5,000 worth of help a year.' This is going to cost veterans their lives. These brave men and women deserve the support that they need from a country that they were willing to go and fight for and defend.

This Labor government is at war with everyone in this country, and it seems that the veterans are just the tip of the iceberg. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs didn't want to meet with the Coalition of Veterans' Voices yesterday; he was forced into it. What we've been told is that when he did finally take that meeting, he refused to shake hands. He crossed his hands and wouldn't engage in any kind of decent conversation. This is a government who is turning its back on old people in Australia and turning its back on veterans. It is an absolute disgrace.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (16:04): I move:

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

I want to put it on the record very clearly that there was a refusal from the government to even take the question that I asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. The government has been so cowardly on this current push for gambling legislation.

My question was about the recommendations put forward by the Murphy review. The Murphy review called for a ban on gambling advertising. The government has failed to deliver that. The Murphy review called for an immediate and complete ban on inducements. The government has failed on that. The Murphy review called for a national regulator, and the government has failed to implement that.

When I asked what the Leader of the Government in the Senate thought the late Peta Murphy would say, the government had no answer—crickets. It's an uncomfortable question, yes, but it's a very, very important one. They were too cowardly to even take the question, let alone answer it. The Labor Party was too cowardly to take the question but has taken millions of dollars in donations from the gambling lobby in recent years, not counting the free dinners and the free tickets to sporting events and corporate boxes. It is time that the Labor Party put themselves on the Do Not Call Register and stopped taking inducements from gambling company and industry. The Labor Party should rule themselves out of further inducements.

Senator HODGINS-MAY (Victoria) (16:06): We have seen today another Labor-Liberal corporate party stitch-up. Instead of the Murphy report, we are seeing an incredibly expensive opt-out register that will not work. We will see more gambling ads on our televisions. This is not reform; this is nonsense. It is an insult to the families, to the experts and to all of those individuals who took part in inquiry after inquiry, mapping out what true gambling reform looked like and mapping out what needed to happen to keep families safe and disconnect this evil gambling industry from sport and from the pervasive impact that it has on our children.

The Australian people aren't the winners today. The gambling industry, the vested interests, are the winners, as they so often are in this place. Eighty per cent of Australians want gambling reform. At the same time, trust in politicians and in democracy is at an all-time low, and you wonder why. You wonder why when this mob come in here and, instead of voting like the people who elected them into this place expect them to vote, time and time again, vote in favour of their donors and in favour of the industries that they're meant to be protecting us from.

The Prime Minister has ignored the Peta Murphy report, ignored the experts and ignored Australians who are expecting this government to show some leadership and protect them from the gambling industry. Whether it's gambling reform, whether it's taxing our gas or whether it's doing something about plastic pollution, it is issue after issue after issue where the Australian public are demanding leadership and these corporate parties are teaming up and saying, 'Nah, not today.' I urge you, Australia, remember this when you go to vote. Remember the cowardice of the Albanese Labor government, who do not represent you.

Question agreed to.

Senator WHITTEN (Western Australia) (16:09): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to veterans.

Today, on Vietnam Veterans' Day, we honour Australians who put their lives on the line for our freedom. One Nation, our families and our followers say thank you for your service. Yet, while we honour their sacrifice, Labor is making veterans fight another battle: accessing the care they need. The 2026-27 budget caps allied health services at just $5,000 a year. For veterans in regional and remote Australia, that cap can be swallowed up by simply getting to their treatment. Money spent on travel is money they cannot spend on healing.

Yesterday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs refused to reconsider. We asked these men and women to put their lives, health and futures on the line for our country. Yet, when they come home carrying the wounds of service, Labor puts a price on their recovery. This is a disgrace. Labor must scrap this cap and stand by our veterans.

Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (16:11): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to freedom of information.

When Prime Minister Albanese was in opposition, he was all for our freedom of information laws and said:

We don't need a culture of secrecy. We need a culture of disclosure.

But, since he got into the Lodge, he's kept the culture of secrecy going. It's just another lie from the Labor Party. In 2025, the government tried to push through changes to our FOI laws. Luckily, this Senate crossbench managed to knock them off in March 2026. Because this attack on our FOI laws went down, Prime Minister Albanese and his attorney-general are now trying to intimidate Australians so they don't put in FOI requests in the first place.

This is how it works, Aussies. There was an FOI request put in to find out what areas in Australia the government was looking at for AUKUS nuclear waste. The first round was won, the second round was won and we won the third round as well. That means Australians can now see those documents. But the government have appealed this FOI request, and they attached a condition. If this great Australian turns up to fight this appeal and loses, he will be liable for his and the government's costs, which could add up to over thousands of dollars for him. This is quite clearly a message to all Australians: do not challenge the FOI claims, because, even if you win, you could lose thousands, and you could lose big.

The Prime Minister is starting to behave like a king. Over the past few weeks, the PM's office has sent out an email telling all MPs that, if they want to write to the Prime Minister, they can't use his email anymore. Now we have to use a portal. He's also taking control of the parliamentary friends groups. These groups are crossparty platforms that are designed to raise awareness about issues affecting Australians. They are supposed to be nonpartisan. That means you're supposed to leave politics at the door. If an MP wants to start a new group, it must have a Labor co-chair. If the PM doesn't want a parliamentary friends group, he can stop it. I'd remind the Prime Minister: Australia is a democracy. The Prime Minister needs to remember this and start letting the sunshine into democracy for transparency to shine. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (16:14): Can I take note of the answers from Minister Ayres. My understanding is that it was—

The PRESIDENT: You need to seek leave, Senator Pocock. As I informed the chamber when Senator Lambie stood up, I did not have Senator Lambie's name; I had your name. I did inform the chamber of that.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: My understanding is that it was Whitten, Lambie and Pocock today.

The PRESIDENT: No, that's not correct, Senator Pocock. You can seek leave because we are now done with take note.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: I seek leave to take note of the answer from Minister Ayres.

Leave not granted.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (16:16): by leave—I move:

That Senator Lambie be granted leave of absence for the period 12 August 2026 to 17 August 2026 inclusive, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Senator WALSH (Victoria—Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth) (16:44): I move: