Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (09:02): I rise to speak to my private senator's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. The Greens are proud to bring forward this bill because we believe that Australia's superannuation system should apply to every worker. It's time for young workers to be paid the super they deserve. Right now, workers under the age of 18 are only guaranteed super if they work more than 30 hours a week for the same employer. As we know, the vast majority do not. Ninety-three per cent of young workers do not work this much, mostly because of their school and study commitments and the casual nature of their employment. We want them at school. We want them to be studying, but we also want them, where they work, to get paid super in a fair way alongside everyone they work with.

In practice, what's going on right now is that hundreds of thousands of young Australians who are under the age of 18 are missing out. Every year, 530,000 young teenage workers are denied the astonishing sum of $411 million in super for no reason other than their age. Young workers look after us in our cafes and supermarkets and shops, in hospitality venues and on construction sites in communities across our country. They cover weekend shifts, late shifts and public holidays. They pay tax. Yet many of them are denied compulsory superannuation contributions simply because of their age. Hundreds of thousands of young workers are being held back financially before they've even had a chance to get ahead. This discriminatory rule does not impact a marginal cohort. It's the typical experience of teenage workers.

The Greens believe that young workers should receive the same financial rights as everyone else. If you earn a wage, you should earn super. It's that simple. Australia's world-leading 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. The continued exclusion of workers under 18 who work fewer than 30 hours a week is a clear case of legislated age-based discrimination that no longer has any defensible policy rationale. When compulsory superannuation was introduced in the early 1990s, this carve-out was justified on the basis that fees and insurance premiums would erode small balances. That's what people were told. That's what the discussion was about. But that justification has been overtaken by decades of reform.

Today, fee caps and protections for low-balance accounts, alongside opt-in insurance settings for young workers, mean that even small super balances are preserved and grow over time. What remains is not a targeted safeguard but a blunt, discriminatory exclusion that denies young workers the same entitlement to deferred wages as every other worker. The rule draws an arbitrary line based on age and hours despite the fact that under-18s perform the same work for the same employers as their older counterparts. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people are working, earning and contributing to the economy without receiving the superannuation that they should be legally entitled to.

Maintaining carve-outs of this kind undermines the integrity and the fairness of our system. Young workers are not immune from the rising costs of living. They are facing growing housing unaffordability challenges that are very severe across our country. They are especially insecure in their employment and they have massive and rising debt from the costs of education, which have changed so dramatically in the last few decades. Young women in particular are disproportionately affected by this age based exclusion. Women retire with substantially less super than men, and casual workers, part-time workers and workers in feminised industries—all the care sectors—are also accumulating lower retirement savings. When we deny young workers super, 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 removes this unfair, outdated and discriminatory exclusion. It removes the existing legislative exemption that allows regulations to exclude employees that are under 18 from super guarantee coverage, and it repeals the associated regulatory provisions that currently deny super to too many young workers. It will ensure that all employees under the age of 18 are entitled to compulsory employer super regardless of the number of hours they work.

There is strong public support for this change. Eighty-five per cent of Australians believe that anyone in paid work should receive super, which is a view shared across all parts of the community, and 73 per cent of Australians support changing the law so that workers get paid super at all ages. Only seven per cent oppose that. This bill supports the principle that every Australian worker should receive super contributions from the first dollar earned, irrespective of age or hours of work, and it aligns with our vision of a truly universal superannuation system.

Young workers know this is unfair. Take Sarah, who is a young worker from Western Australia. She is 18 and has been working since she was 15. She works at a discount supermarket. Sarah's super balance would've exceeded $3,000 by now if contributions had been paid while she was under 18. It's nearly three times what she's actually holding in her super balance now. When she was asked how she felt about this, she said: 'Not good. That's a lot of money not paid, and I'm doing the same work. That's just not fair.'

Right now, this exclusion entrenches a two-tier system of workplace rights, where age determines access to retirement savings and where some of the lowest paid workers are systematically left behind. This is not a rule supporting small business. It's a system that allows some of the most profitable multibillion-dollar, big corporations in our country to deny young workers their basic entitlements. It's a direct transfusion of money out of the pockets of kids under 18 into the bottom line of some of our biggest and most wealthy corporations. The question is no longer whether this is fair but who is it working for, and the answer is big businesses. This became clear earlier this year through a Greens initiated inquiry into this exclusion. This important inquiry showed that most large employers of young Australians do not provide their under-18 workers with this basic workplace entitlement, despite raking in massive profits on the back of their very cheap labour.

Through the inquiry process, the committee wrote to a large range of Australian employers, seeking information, for the first time, regarding the payment of super to employees under the age of 18. The committee wrote to 41 companies that are the biggest employers of workers under 18 and asked them to give us their data. 'Tell us how you are treating your under-18 workforce and whether you are paying them super.'

The committee received 37 responses, which are summarised in the chair's report. It makes interesting reading. Take the supermarket duopoly, for example. Coles, who employ around 12,000 workers under 18, do not pay them super regardless of the hours they work. Coles's their profits last year? $1.08 billion. Woolworths, who employ around 11,500 people under 18 in their enterprises, and another 1,150 in Big W, also do not pay super, regardless of the hours those young people work. And Woolworths' profits? $1.38 billion.

These responses reveal a simple truth at the heart of the superannuation loophole for under18 workers: most of Australia's biggest corporations are denying retirement savings to the young workers who help generate their massive profits. This is not about whether big business can afford to pay super to young workers—they can; they clearly can. The fact that some employers, such as Bunnings, Aldi, JB Hi-Fi and Priceline, choose to pay their under-18-year-old workers super, regardless of how many hours they work, shows that this is possible. It is a matter of discretion to those big corporations. And they are pocketing those profits rather than doing the right thing like those companies, like Bunnings, that are paying their young people their super entitlements and what are fair super entitlements. Instead, the vast majority of large employers use a business model that relies on insecure, low-paid, low-hour teenage labour while denying these workers the same retirement rights as everyone else, as everyone over 18 who works alongside them working more than 30 hours a week.

The biggest employers of young workers are large corporations that are making millions, and sometimes billions, in profit every year. They have no trouble finding money for executive bonuses and shareholder payouts but they are denying their youngest, most insecure, lowest paid workers their basic entitlements. So our position in the Greens is straightforward: if you're old enough to work, if you're old enough to pay tax, you're old enough to earn super. Billion-dollar corporations should not be building their massive profits on the backs of teenagers missing out on fair entitlement rights and their savings into their retirement, and the Labor government should not be letting them do it—as you well know. As multiple submissions to this inquiry made clear, there is no longer a credible policy basis for treating young workers differently.

The inquiry's majority report was very clear: support paying super on every dollar earned, including extending superannuation to workers under 18 as part of a long-term pathway to universal superannuation. However, the chair's report, the conclusion, denied those young workers the fairness of this in their earnings. It's a classic major party play: agree in principle, promise more consultation and leave vulnerable people waiting for fair treatment and for long overdue reforms. Well, Australian workers don't want another roundtable; they don't want a consultation paper. They don't need that to decide what's fair in their workplaces. They've been waiting for decades. We have the evidence. Enough delay; it's time to act.

This bill is the third time the Greens have had a go at pushing, in this chamber, to make this thing happen. We took this policy to the last election. Last year, we tried to amend the government's payday super bill to grant all young workers the right to super from their employers. Labor had a chance to back young workers then, but they decided to side with the very wealthy one per cent over ordinary young working people. And then, in July, we pushed again to partially allow this exclusion in regulations. And, again, Labor had the chance to back young workers. Instead, they partnered with the antiworker coalition over here, and One Nation, to block it. Now's their chance to make it right. It's time to stop boosting the profits of some of Australia's biggest and most profitable corporations by letting them continue ripping off young workers by taking money out of the pockets of those kids under 18 and putting it into the bottom line of some of our most wealthy corporations.

From recent attacks on our superannuation system from the Liberals and One Nation, we can see it's clear we cannot take a backward step. One Nation points to the need for cash-strapped Australians to have easier access to superannuation. We can't trust this mob, One Nation, with our super system. The solution to Australians being cash strapped isn't to let them raid their super—unless they're in dire circumstances in which they can. It's time to make sure that their real wages actually increase and that we deal structurally with the problems of the cost-of-living crisis out there—something that One Nation has voted against in this parliament over and over again.

In his Press Club speech last week, Senator Bragg called compulsory superannuation 'an illiberal experiment'. He also likened giving super to young workers to giving it to cats and dogs. Did the Liberal Party actually want to try and explain to a young person why they don't deserve super? Have a go at that. They have no argument, and young people will not be hoodwinked by that kind of rubbish.

The Greens are the only party who've been trying in this chamber over quite some time to close this unfair loophole for young workers and give them the justice they deserve in their working lives. We want super extended to under-18s, no matter how many hours they work, and this bill will do exactly that. Super should be a universal right and it should be paid fairly. Every worker deserves their super, whether they're 16 or 60.

Because of Greens pressure, Labor amended their national party platform just recently to explicitly support paying super on every dollar earned, including for workers under 18. Well, now's your chance. Don't hold back. Don't, for the third time, say 'no' to those young workers who know what's fair. I call on the Labor government to follow its own policy platform and support this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator DARMANIN (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (09:17): Thank you, Senator Barbara Pocock, for your passionate advocacy on this issue. Compulsory superannuation is one of Labor's greatest achievements and one of the most successful examples of long-term economic nation-building anywhere in the world. For more than three decades, compulsory superannuation has transformed retirement in Australia. Millions of Australians who would once have relied entirely on the age pension now retire with savings of their own. More importantly, more Australians are retiring with dignity—dignity that they deserve after their lifetime working contribution. Australians collectively own over $4 trillion in retirement savings, and, importantly, workers receive a fairer share of the wealth that they help create.

That is why Labor has always been the party of superannuation. We created compulsory superannuation and we defended it when others opposed it—and we always will. We have continued to strengthen it whenever we have had the opportunity. Since coming to government, we have delivered a significant reform agenda in this area. We legislated the objective of superannuation. We have delivered the increase in the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We have strengthened the performance test. We have embedded superannuation in the National Employment Standards. We have ensured super is paid on government funded paid parental leave, and we introduced mandatory service standards because Australians deserve not only strong investment returns but quality service from their funds. That record is important because it demonstrates a very clear principle: Labor believes Australia's superannuation system should continue to grow stronger. We do not view superannuation as something to be wound back. We do not see it as a burden. We see it for what it is—an investment in the retirement security of working Australians. Labor built Australia's superannuation system. We have defended it when others sought to undermine it, and we will continue to strengthen it for future generations of Australian workers.

Senator Barbara Pocock referred to our national conference recently. At the ALP National Conference in July, I was very proud to be the seconder, alongside Dr Mulino, the Assistant Treasurer, to continue this commitment to strengthening superannuation through equal representation, sponsor nomination and the profit-to-member model that has been central to the success of Australia's superannuation system. That reflects who we are as a party. We are never complacent about superannuation. We are always looking for opportunities to strengthen and improve retirement outcomes for working Australians.

Yes, there is always more to be done on the pathway to universal superannuation. To that point, delegates at the national conference also unanimously supported the inclusion of a commitment in Labor's national platform to extend compulsory superannuation contributions to all workers under the age of 18, regardless of how many hours they work. We should be ambitious about strengthening retirement outcomes. We should be ambitious about ensuring every worker has the opportunity to build financial security in retirement from the very beginning of their working life.

One of the most significant reforms the Albanese government has delivered in this space very recently is payday super. Payday super tackles a problem that cost Australian workers more than $6 billion in unpaid superannuation in the last financial year alone. That is $6 billion that should have gone into workers retirement savings. It is $6 billion lost from the retirement incomes of Australians, whether retirement is four years away or 40 years away.

Earlier this year, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into the payday superannuation regulations. The committee heard from superannuation funds, unions, employer groups, payroll providers and businesses across the country. One of the issues raised during that inquiry was whether compulsory superannuation coverage should be extended to all workers under the age of 18. As Chair of the committee, I note that the committee recognised extending superannuation coverage to under-18 workers as part of the long-term pathway towards universal superannuation. I was very pleased to have that recognition in our report.

The committee also recognised that payday super represents one of the biggest changes to the administration of superannuation in decades. Employers, software providers, payroll companies, superannuation funds and regulators are all currently focused on implementing those reforms. The committee therefore concluded that successfully embedding payday super should be the immediate priority. It also recognised that extending superannuation coverage to under-18 workers would require further consultation and detailed work with workers, employers, unions and the superannuation sector.

We want this policy approach to be carefully developed, which is the same approach that we have taken throughout all of our reforms in this area. Labor supports stronger retirement outcomes and a fairer superannuation system, but we believe in getting major superannuation reform right. Superannuation reform, like all reform, works best when it is comprehensive, carefully designed and supported by proper consultation and analysis. Extending coverage to workers under 18 represents one part of the long-term journey towards universal superannuation.

I'd like to thank superannuation funds and other advocates who've been working towards reform to see universal superannuation and a strong super system. Super Members Council research estimates that about half a million young workers miss out on superannuation each year because of this rule. They estimate that this amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost super contributions.

For all workers, the younger you are when you begin working, the more powerful each dollar of superannuation becomes. The benefit of superannuation in your retirement is not simply the contribution itself; it is the power and the magic of the compounding returns over time. A contribution made at a younger age has decades longer to grow than a contribution made later in life. A relatively small amount contributed during your first job can, ultimately, be worth many times that amount in retirement. Time and compounding are extraordinarily powerful forces. That issue also has an important implication for women's retirement outcomes.

I suspect that not too many younger workers are sitting at home watching the Senate today. But, if there's one thing I wish every younger worker understood about superannuation, it is the power of compounding returns. It might not sound particularly exciting when you're working in your first shifts at the supermarket, cafe or local shop, but the reality is that the earlier money goes into your super account, the longer time it has to grow. If anyone wants a straightforward explanation, the Moneysmart website has some excellent tools and examples that show exactly how compounding works. Once you understand the magic of compounding, you understand why starting early really matters.

Last week I met with Dr Gemma Killen and colleagues from the Working Women's Alliance. I appreciate the time that they took to discuss these issues and the perspectives that they bring to this debate. They highlighted that young women are more likely than young men to work part-time jobs. They highlighted that women under 18 are more likely to be affected by the current exemption, and they highlighted the long-term impacts that missing out on superannuation contributions can have throughout a working life. We know that the super gender pay gap remains one of the biggest challenges facing our retirement income system. We know women retire with significantly less superannuation than men.

Likewise, I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy of organisations such as Rest and the Super Members Council. Rest has welcomed Labor's commitment to include this reform in the national platform. Importantly, they have also stressed the need for careful consideration, consultation and staged implementation. The Super Members Council has similarly supported the objective, while recognising the importance of allowing businesses time to adjust. That is a critical point today, because supporting a policy objective is only one part of making good government policy. The other part is ensuring reforms are implemented successfully. Universal superannuation for under-18s is a principle supported across our party. As a party of government, we will take the time—Dr Mulino mentioned this in the National Press Club address that he made yesterday—to work through in consultation and through the budget processes. I very much look forward to being a part of this work within government and with all of the advocates to work through this issue.

But let's not forget the threats on compulsory superannuation that we've heard just over the last week. We can talk and we can debate very well about how we want to improve the system, and we will always continue to do that. But we also have to think about the threats, because the super wars seemingly never end in this place. It's funny or it would be funny if it weren't so dangerous or, frankly, just flat out hypocritical. One Nation had the chance here to back workers and back a pay rise for award-reliant and minimum-wage workers just mere months ago. Yet where were they? They were nowhere. They flat out rejected the idea. They talk about measures to ease the cost of living yet don't back a pay rise for workers. They want Australians to fund today's expenses by sacrificing tomorrow's retirement. This beggars belief. These are the threats that we have to deal with while we are currently trying to debate how we might advance the system. We know, of course, that One Nation has a long history of not supporting workers in this country. They voted against same job, same pay. They called cutting taxes for all Australians 'a joke' but said that tax cuts for property investors were desperately needed, and they have called to get rid of penalty rates.

Of course, the Liberals are a risk to all Australians when it comes to their retirement. At the Press Club last week—as Senator Barbara Pocock also identified—Senator Bragg referred to compulsory superannuation as 'a loss of liberty' and described super for young workers as super for cats and dogs. It's pretty easy to see whose side One Nation and the coalition are on, and it's not yours. It's clear that the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation are all the same in the end, and they will come after workers' wages, workers' rights and workers' superannuation. They all have the same agenda and are using the same tactics.

Labor takes a fundamentally different approach. We believe that superannuation should be strengthened. We believe retirement incomes should be protected, and we believe reforms should leave Australians with more security, not less. Labor supports stronger retirement outcomes. Labor supports a fairer superannuation system, which is exactly why one of the most important things this government has done is to legislate the objective of superannuation. For the first time, Australia now has in law a clear statement of what superannuation is for. The objective is simple: to preserve savings, to deliver income for a dignified retirement alongside government support in an equitable and sustainable way. That matters because superannuation should never be treated as a short-term savings account, a political football or a source of funding whenever a new idea comes along. Superannuation exists for one purpose: to help Australians retire with dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work.

By legislating that objective, Labor provided clarity to workers, certainty to superannuation sector and confidence for future generations of Australians saving for retirement. It also sends a very clear message about the future direction of superannuation policy in this country. We want to keep building and ending the super wars. As part of this, Labor supports continuing the conversation about how we expand opportunity and security for all Australian workers. But we also believe that reforms should be carefully designed, properly consulted on and implemented in the right sequence. That is why our immediate focus remains on the successful implementation of payday super. It is why we will continue engaging with unions, employers, young workers and the sector. It is why we will continue looking for opportunities to strengthen Australia's retirement income system.

Labor created superannuation, Labor has defended superannuation and Labor will continue always to strengthen superannuation because Labor is and always will be the party of superannuation. Our record shows this, and we will continue to do so carefully and methodically to ensure that we have a well-supported universal system to ensure that this great Labor legacy endures for the very, very long term.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (09:31): This morning I am proud to speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026, which was presented to the parliament by my colleague and friend Senator Barbara Pocock. This bill would ensure fair superannuation for young workers across the country, and it is a piece of legislation whose time has come.

Corporations making billion-dollar profits, stealing from young workers—that ain't it, that ain't on, that's not okay. Yet in Australia, under the law as we currently have it, if you are under the age of 18 and work fewer than 30 hours a week, you don't have to be paid super by your corporate employer. That's cooked. That's wrong. That's so wrong. Let's be really clear: 530,000 young workers who are below the age of 18 work less than 30 hours a week, so they are not entitled to super in Australia right now. What will this mean for them? What does it actually look like? It looks like about $411 million that they will not receive in their superannuation because of this law, setting them back significantly in terms of their savings and security for the rest of their lives. This makes me so angry.

We have had politicians in this debate contributing to this discussion. When asked about this issue, when young people, young workers, have said: 'This isn't fair. This isn't on. Where's our fair go?' the response of certain Liberal MPs has been to say: 'Well, if we pay workers under the age of 18 superannuation, what's next? Super for cats and dogs?' What a shameful, disgusting response to what is effectively legalised wage and retirement theft in this country.

A lot of folks in this place probably don't take a lot of time to talk to young workers, to listen to young workers, about their experience, about what it's actually like to work in the industries dominated by young workers. But we in the Greens have, and Senator Pocock has, and their voices and demands are represented in this bill. Let me tell you, it's hard work. You're doing the cleaning up. You're stacking the shelves. You're dealing with the grumpy folks. You're working between your school hours, or you're working between TAFE—that's often the case for young carers, for example—to be able to put a bit more money in the pot to pay the power bill or to pay the grocery bill, often to the very parasitic corporation—or should I actually say 'fresh food people'—that you may be working for.

These are the very corporations that proudly proclaim 'down down, prices are down' while your family is driven into the ground, because they cut your shifts unexpectedly or fire you after the holiday period is done. But you go back every time they put another ad out. You do as much as you can, for as long as you can, to contribute. You do all of this, and they don't pay your super because they aren't legally required to do so in Australia. There are some corporations that have, but the big ones don't. That's where the law should come in. That is where the government should act, because we know that if corporations are left to their own damned devices they will exploit their workers. I rather thought that a Labor government would understand that. You cannot make fairness and equality from an employer an optional extra. Yet, for so long, this government has sat idly by and let that be the case for young Australian workers.

We have seen recently, at the Labor Party conference, the passage of a resolution calling on the government, and adopted by the party, to fix this problem. This is an urgent problem, and it is urgently needed that words are translated into action. We've heard contributions from MPs on the government side supportive of the idea. Words need to be put into action. The government needs to step up and take on these big corporations because they are ripping young workers off.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Very well pointed out, Senator Pocock. We have young workers in the gallery. There are folks right up there that may well be taking their first shift, or they're a couple of days or years away from doing that, for the first time. They should be paid their superannuation—same pay for same work. This is discrimination, and it's been allowed to go on for too long. It is not like these corporations can't afford it. Let me just remind everyone in here the profits of the big three in this space.

Coles, in the last financial year, what was their bottom line—$1.08 billion? I bet they were quite disappointed that it wasn't $1.1 billion flat. It must be a tough time for the folks at Coles, for the corporate leadership. It's hard operating a monopoly that parasitically extracts wealth from the Australian public because they have an ability, at the stroke of a pen, to jack up the price of cheese whenever they want to make a quick buck. Woolworths made $1.38 billion profit in the last financial year. You're telling me they couldn't pay their young workers super? This is greed. Maccas had a global profit last year exceeding $13 billion. These are the corporations allowed by the loopholes in the law to get away with not paying young people their super. Shame!

The Greens have a bill, right now, to fix this problem. Here's one we prepared earlier. I say to the government back the bill. Back the bill. Let's get this done. Let's get young workers the pay and the super they deserve. If there are some politicians on the fence about this, I would ask you to consider two things: firstly, that these massively profitable corporations are saying to Australian workers right now, 'Sorry, we're not going to pay you super,' and the government of the day is saying, 'Sorry, you don't qualify for compulsory super, so you've got to just kind of live at the whim of the employer.' Ask yourself if that seems fair to you.

I'd ask you how you would feel, as members of parliament, if there were reform to your superannuation entitlements that meant that you didn't get paid super unless you turned up and could demonstrate that you'd done more than 30 hours a week of actual parliamentary work. I reckon you'd be a bit salty about that. I reckon you'd think that was unfair. Yet that is the situation politics has allowed to exist, and government has allowed to continue for young workers in Australia.

I would also ask you to consider what it is actually like to work these jobs. It's hard work, disproportionately done by women. It's hard work in which not you're not only often on the front line of copping the frustration of many people with the corporate practice—the abuse at the till, the discriminatory comments. You're also then asked to do the hard, lonely work—the stacking of the shelves and the sweeping of the floors. If the air conditioner is broken or something has exploded somewhere and you've got to clean it up, you're the one asked to do that work. You do that work and you are, in some ways, relieved that you can do it because you can pay the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't hard.

I was talking to an employee of Coles in WA just yesterday. He shared with me that they and their store understand very clearly why the cameras are installed in Coles nowadays. Overwhelmingly, they're not to look somebody nicking something or to generally keep an eye on people that might be buying things in the store. All the workers know the primary purpose, now, is to actually surveil the workers. There are really clear KPIs in place around how fast you've got to check things through the till, for instance—10 in a minute. If you do less than that, if the camera catches you even taking a breath, then you're pulled up. It builds this sense of anxiety of being watched constantly that is often the reason why people just cannot continue to take the work at these places anymore even though they really need the money. Many push through.

I think some in here think that, if you're under the age of 18 and working less than 30 hours a week, you must be doing an hour here and an hour there, just for a bit of pocket money. That's not the lived reality of so many young workers. They are doing hard work, wearing the same uniform—often doing even the same tasks or harder tasks than those over the age of 18—because the boss thinks they can get away with giving the hard stuff to the younger worker. Yet they're not paid the same superannuation.

I will comment and point out that still, in Australia, they're not paid the same wage either. We still have different wages in this country based on your age. The Greens want to see them eliminated. There's some work happening now to bring the minimum wage to those working in some industries from the age of 18, but we've got to wipe out age based discrimination in pay. It's just not acceptable. The government has a role to play here. The politics comes in because it is the Labor government who have decided to allow the loophole in the law to remain. The loophole must be closed. Young workers deserve the same fair pay and the same fair super.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:47): I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. Can I start at the outset by saying thank you very much to the Greens political party for introducing this bill. I do think it is an important issue that's worth discussing, and the coalition would like to, at first, put on the record that Australians should always be paid the wages and entitlements that they are owed. That includes young people. Young people should have every opportunity to be paid their entitlements, and they should also have the opportunity to get their foot in the door of the workplace in the first place.

My concern with this bill is that the intention is very good, but, if you legislate an entitlement, you might also inadvertently at the same time take away an opportunity. I do think this is worth fleshing out, though, and I would hope that the Greens political party will take this bill to a committee so that it can be fleshed out in more detail. The coalition believes that our superannuation system needs to be flexible, it needs to be fair, it needs to be transparent and, it needs to be worked out in the best interests of all Australians.

When I was minister for superannuation, one of the most important reforms that we delivered was abolishing the $450 monthly threshold. We did that with the support of the Greens, for which I was very grateful. That excluded many low-paid workers from compulsory superannuation. I want to point out what that $450 threshold was because I think it's such an arbitrary number. People don't really understand it. If you were paid less than $450 a month, your employer didn't have to pay you superannuation. It had been part of the superannuation system since the year dot—since, as Labor like to say, when they invented superannuation.

They put that in as a deliberate design feature of the superannuation system. They said, 'If you are a low-paid earner, you don't have to be paid superannuation.' They did that because they understood that small businesses in particular that had people on a casual employment basis—maybe had somebody one day a week—were going to find the complexity of paying superannuation for those low-paid workers so onerous that they wouldn't employ them in the first place. That's why it was there. Unfortunately, it sat there as part of the superannuation system for years and years, overlooked by Labor when they were in government. It took a coalition government to overturn that rule, to make sure that low-paid workers were paid the appropriate level of superannuation. That wasn't a small deal, and we fleshed that one out at committee. The reason why we fleshed it out at committee was that small businesses were rightly concerned—still concerned—that even that small change was going to push them to the brink. It didn't, and I'm very pleased and very proud of that reform. It's something that I hang my hat on. That experience taught me that when we change the rules around superannuation we need to be mindful of what the consequences might be. This is not a dissimilar reform and why we need to carefully consider the bill.

On the face of it, I agree the proposition sounds perfectly fair and reasonable. Under the Australian law at the moment, if someone is under the age of 18 and works more than 30 hours, they do receive superannuation. But, if they work fewer than 30 hours, they don't. The employer can decide whether to pay it or not. There are some very real questions about what that means in practice. Most young people under the age of 18 are paid an award. When you require an employer to pay superannuation on top of an award, that's an additional cost to the business. For large businesses, perhaps that might be manageable, and I know that Senator Steele-John mentioned some of those large businesses. But, for a small business, that can be quite an imposition. When you employ a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old in their first job, you're taking a risk. You might not be necessarily getting your value for money for those wages for many years, but you are investing in their future. So there are swings and roundabouts.

We don't want to make it harder for businesses to employ young people and to give them their first chance, their first foot in the door. We want more young people to actually have a job. Youth unemployment is now double the national unemployment rate. It's now 10.7 per cent. When Labor came to office, youth unemployment was 8.8 per cent, so it is growing at a much more rapid rate. There are now 73,000 more young people unemployed than when the coalition left office in 2022. I think that that's something that should concern all of us.

For many young Australians, their first casual job isn't about the pay packet. Of course, it makes you proud when you receive that first pay packet, and I think we can all remember it, but it is also about getting experience. It's about taking on responsibility. It's about learning to turn up on time, work in a team, deal with customers and take responsibility. It's about getting that first reference on your resume, and, importantly, it's about that first step in your career. So, when we legislate in this area, I think it's really important that we think about the incentives and disincentives that we create for employers to take on that young person. We don't want a situation where a small-business owner or a small-business manager says, 'I'd love to give this person a few shifts, but I simply can't afford that additional cost.' I think that would be a tragedy. We need to make sure that young people who want to work can actually get that job.

Let me be very clear. The coalition will always support young Australians getting the wages and the conditions that they are entitled to. That is a priority. Make no mistake. I might add that Labor talk an awful lot about super. They talk about the fact that they own super. But what they don't talk about is the fact that superannuation belongs to the individual. It doesn't belong to them. The coalition has a very strong track record on making superannuation fairer and making sure it works for the individual—not working for government, not working for unions, not working for fund managers but working for you, the person that is putting their money away, whose deferred wages it is.

When in government, we made super more flexible. We allowed Australians to catch up on the superannuation contributions that they might not have used, giving people greater control over their retirement savings. That catch-up contribution was a really important reform, particularly for women, who may have missed out on the opportunity to contribute to super when they've taken time away from the workforce. But, once they get back in, they have an opportunity to give in more, taxed effectively, helping their retirement savings and their balance at the end of their careers—a very important reform. That is a coalition legacy.

We also made it fairer. We protected low-balance accounts from unnecessary fees and ensured that young Australians in particular weren't automatically paying for insurance that they didn't need. Making sure that low-balance accounts were fee free was a really important reform, particularly for young people, because you need that critical mass in your superannuation, without it being eaten up by fees, to get the effects of compounding. It was only a coalition government that made that happen. In fact, before we came to government, young people were seeing their superannuation eaten up entirely, to the point where they couldn't even get past a zero balance. You'd have a job when you were a young person, maybe stacking shelves in a supermarket, then you'd finish school and go overseas, and, by the time you'd come back to start your career again or go into another job, there would be nothing left in your superannuation, even though you'd been putting money away. That was disgraceful, but that was a deliberate design feature of the system that's gone now, thanks to the coalition.

We also made sure that young people weren't having their balances eaten up by insurance premiums on assurances that they didn't need, that they never claimed on and that were cross-subsidising the claims of older Australians. We made sure that insurance on superannuation was opt in rather than opt out for people under 25, which was a really important reform for young people. We also gave Australians choice. You should never be told what superannuation fund you have to be in by your employer, but, again, that was the system that was invented by Labor. It was the legacy that we inherited, but we changed it. From now on, no longer can your employer or your union tell you what superannuation fund you have to invest in. That's outrageous. If you're going to mandatorily put away and defer 12 per cent of everything you earn, how dare somebody else tell you where you must invest, but that was Labor's legacy in superannuation. The coalition abandoned that.

We also made sure that you couldn't have multiple accounts. This was the ultimate dirty little secret of superannuation funds. Many of them, some of the bigger funds, actually had multiple accounts within their own fund for the same member—two sets of fees and two sets of insurances. No wonder people's retirement savings weren't growing at a pace fast enough. We in the coalition got rid of that as well. We made sure that you only had one account.

We made super much fairer through 'protecting your superannuation' reforms. Low-balance accounts—we made sure you couldn't be charged fees for switching funds. Again, that was another dirty little secret of the superannuation industry. When you changed from one fund to another, they clipped the ticket on the way through. No, that's entirely unfair.

If you're a young Australian, you have a small superannuation balance. Every dollar matters, and the coalition has the track record to demonstrate that we have been the only party that has protected your rights in superannuation—lower fees, no switching fees and making sure that you're not paying for insurances that you don't need. That's the legacy of the coalition in superannuation.

Most importantly, we also gave Australians better control over their financial future. We allowed a maximum number of members in self-managed super funds to increase from four to six. That means that self-managed super funds—people who want to control their own superannuation—have the opportunity to look after their entire family in a superannuation fund. Again, it's all about fairness and it's all about choice. It's also all about efficiency, though, because it's your money and it's your retirement.

We also took action to make sure that Australians received the superannuation that was owed. The penalties on superannuation that wasn't paid were so high we found that many employers were holding back and not paying, even when they inadvertently realised that they had messed something up. The employment system is complicated. Superannuation is complicated. They go, 'Whoops, I might have underpaid an employee.' They held back because they were so frightened of the penalties. We gave them a one-year amnesty which put thousands of dollars into people's superannuation accounts. If people intentionally withhold superannuation, throw the book at them, I agree, but, if it's inadvertent because our employment system is so complicated and if the penalties are too high, you will simply encourage bad behaviour, and that means less money at the end of the day in people's superannuation funds.

We also stopped duplicate accounts. I told you that dirty little secret of superannuation funds, but there was another thing that, I think, was really important, and that is stapling—having your fund move with you from employer to employer, rather than opening up a whole new fund every time you started a new job. Again, a dirty little secret of the superannuation industry that is no longer. Now you are stapled—it's very bad word, isn't it—to one fund, or one fund is stapled to you. When you change jobs, your new employer has an obligation to look and see what superannuation fund you already have rather than open up a new fund on your behalf, which is so much more efficient.

I'll tell you the reform that I'm most proud of. Actually, there are two. It was a performance test—making sure that those underperforming superannuation funds had to tell their members that they'd underperformed, and, if they'd underperformed two years in a row, then they weren't allowed to accept new members. We were holding those superannuation funds to account. The ones that were hiding under the radar, surviving on the fact that compulsory super means that they get more money in the door every single month. It's disgraceful.

Most of those superannuation funds have now merged with others or have exited the system. Thank goodness because Australians are richer for it. That was a very good reform. Labor want to weaken the performance test. Do not allow that to happen. We cannot go back to the dark days of superannuation where people sat in a fund that was underperforming. Most importantly, we have said that superannuation funds must act in the best financial interest of members—no more donations to political parties, no more advertising at football games that can't be justified as in the best financial interest of members. Every decision a superannuation fund makes must be in the best financial interest of members.

This is the legacy of a coalition government and its approach to superannuation. We want it to be fair, we want it to be flexible, but, most importantly, we want it to work for the member—not for the Labor Party, not for the unions and not for the fund managers but for the member. Labor want to talk about superannuation this week. I can understand that; they've had a terrible fortnight. It's a terrible fortnight for you guys. I can understand that, when you don't like what they're saying about you, you want to change the conversation, but I'm happy to take on this conversation because the coalition has a proud legacy in superannuation. We put the members first. We put the retirees first. We put young people first. We put their interests first.

Superannuation is not a national asset, as the Prime Minister said. It doesn't belong to him, it doesn't belong to the Treasurer, and it doesn't belong to the unions. It's not there for the Labor Party to use for whatever national priority it has on its agenda today. They're your retirement savings, and they should always be your retirement savings. Let me give you this guarantee: under a coalition government, we can guarantee that your superannuation will always work for you; it won't work for Labor. That's the coalition's superannuation guarantee.

Senator DOWLING (Tasmania) (10:02): I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026. I want to begin by acknowledging something important about this bill. There is a good idea at the heart of it. There is a legitimate question about whether a young Australian who works, earns a wage and contributes to their workplace should also be building superannuation from the very first stages of their working life.

It's an important question, and it's one that Labor takes seriously. In fact, only last month, at Labor's national conference, we carried a motion calling for superannuation payments for workers under 18 regardless of the number of hours that they work, so this should not be portrayed as a debate between people who care about retirement savings of young workers and people who do not.

The question before us today is whether this particular bill is a sound way of achieving that objective. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that objective without some unintended consequences. When you're dealing with something as important and as interconnected as Australia's superannuation system, it's really important to get the detail right, and Labor does understand that better than most.

We built compulsory superannuation in partnership with the union movement because we believed working Australians deserve the dignity and security of knowing that a lifetime of work would be rewarded with a more secure retirement, and we spent decades strengthening it. The superannuation guarantee has now reached 12 per cent. We've legislated the objective of superannuation. We are paying superannuation on government funded paid parental leave, we've legislated for payday super, and we've increased support through the low-income superannuation tax offset and better targeted concessions at very large balances.

Around 1.3 million Australians benefit from the changes to the low-income superannuation tax offset, including around 750,000 women and around 550,000 Australians under 30. We've legislated the survivors law, so that convicted child sexual abusers cannot simply use parts of the superannuation system to shield assets from compensation owed to victims-survivors, and we are working to strengthen the retirement phase so that Australians are supported not simply to accumulate superannuation but to use it effectively and confidently in retirement. That is a substantial reform agenda, but there is a theme running through those reforms. They have been considered. They have involved consultation. They have required engagement with workers, with unions, with employers, with super funds themselves, with regulators and with the people who actually have to make these systems work—because the superannuation system is too important to approach in any other way.

That brings me to young workers. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of co-chairing a financial capability roundtable here in Parliament House, and we brought together people from across the financial capability sector, people involved in education, regulation, consumer advocacy, financial services and the community sector. There were different views around the table, as you'd expect, but one thing came through very clearly: the earlier we can get young Australians thinking about their financial future, the better. Financial capability is not simply about teaching someone how to make a household budget when they turn 30. It's about building the knowledge, the confidence and the habits that allow people to make good financial decisions throughout their lives. And those habits are best started early. If we think about a 16-year-old getting their first job—it might be a weekend shift at a cafe in Hobart, stacking shelves after school in Launceston or working in a tourism business on Tasmania's east coast during summer—that first payslip is one of those very important occasions where a young person begins to understand the connection between work, income, tax and saving. It's an opportunity to start learning what superannuation is, to understand that money going into their super account belongs to them, to see that it is invested, to learn about compound returns and to understand why fees matter, why investment choices matter and why keeping track of your super matters. That is financial capability in practice, and there is an intergenerational element to this as well. Younger Australians are rightly asking questions about housing, the cost of living, their future tax burden and whether they will have the same opportunities as generations before them. And superannuation is part of that equation. The earlier a person begins accumulating retirement savings, the longer those savings have to grow.

So I do have considerable sympathy for the objective that this bill is pursuing. Where the government parts company with the Greens is on the legislation before us, because the bill does considerably more than simply remove the rule that currently applies to workers under 18 who work 30 hours or less a week. If it were all it did, this would be a much more straightforward debate, but it's not. As drafted, the amendments interact with the wider superannuation guarantee framework, and they risk creating uncertainty about the operation of exemptions and carve-outs which have existed for reasons entirely unrelated to the treatment of young workers. There are longstanding technical arrangements within the superannuation system, including arrangements connected with international social security agreements and other specific exemptions. The concern with this bill is that its drafting may affect the way some of those arrangements apply, where the employee happens to be under 18. That is clearly not the stated purpose of the bill, and I don't believe that is what the bill is seeking to achieve, but legislation has to be judged not just by intentions but by what its consequences are. It has to be judged by the words on the page and what they actually do. If we end up with exemptions operating one way for a 19-year-old worker but potentially operating differently for a 17-year-old worker in otherwise identical circumstances, we have actually not simplified the superannuation system. We've made it complex, we've made it more complicated, we've created uncertainty for employers, we've created uncertainty for the funds and for the regulators, and, most importantly, we've created uncertainty for the very workers this bill would be intended to help.

There's another element to this. The bill restricts the capacity for future regulations to provide exclusions applying to workers under 18. Again, that extends considerably beyond the straightforward policy proposition that young people should generally receive superannuation on their wages. There may ultimately be a strong case for reforming the treatment of under-18 workers, and Labor's own national conference recognised that case, but that makes it more important that we get the reform right. We should understand how the change interacts with the entire superannuation guarantee framework. We should understand what that means for international arrangements, for payroll systems and for small employers and the consequential amendments that may be required. We should make sure that the young worker who is meant to benefit actually receives a simpler and more reliable entitlement at the end of it. That is what responsible reform looks like.

There is also a practical question of timing. Payday super commenced on 1 July this year, and it represents a major change to the way employers meet their superannuation obligations. It moves the system from quarterly payments to contributions being made alongside wages. Employers, payroll providers, superannuation funds and regulators are undertaking substantial implementation work around this. That does not mean we stop reforming superannuation—far from it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): In accordance with standing orders, the debate is interrupted. Pursuant to order, we shall now move to government legislation.

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (10:11): I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water) (10:11): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to three of the bills and I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

NEWS JOURNALISM PAYMENTS BILL 2026

Introduction

Journalism matters.

It matters to our democracy, to the health and cohesion of our communities, and to Australians who rely on trusted reporting to understand what is happening locally, nationally and around the world.

But quality journalism does not happen on its own.

It is reliant on skilled journalists, strong newsrooms and sustainable news organisations.

In a 24-hour news cycle, people expect news to be accurate, timely and available—wherever they live.

To deliver this, Australia needs more journalists, not fewer.

Because journalists are the lifeblood of Australian news.

They tell our stories, hold governments and institutions to account and provide Australians with the information they need.

The News Bargaining Incentive is not intended to raise revenue.

Its purpose is to encourage commercial deals between digital platforms and news publishers, as was envisioned under the previous News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code.

To be clear—the government's firm preference is that platforms do deals with publishers.

News content contributes to engagement, trust and the overall value of major digital platforms.

It enriches their feeds and drives revenue. And that is why platforms should make a fair commercial contribution to sustaining it.

If they don't—they will end up paying more.

The incentive responds to the imbalance in bargaining power between large digital platforms and Australian news publishers.

That imbalance is particularly acute for smaller publishers, which do not have the same resources or commercial leverage as larger organisations.

If digital platforms decide to pay the charge instead of making commercial deals, there must be a fit-for-purpose mechanism to return that revenue to Australian journalism.

That is what this bill does.

Any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive will be used to support the sustainability of news and journalism in Australia.

The bill establishes the News Journalism Payment Scheme, which will distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations, supporting a sustainable, diverse and independent news sector.

It will use a statutory, formula-based model to provide stable, transparent and proportionate funding based on investment in public interest journalism.

Context

A high-quality and trusted journalism sector is fundamental to Australia's democracy and the way we live.

A rich and diverse media landscape keeps Australians informed, connects local communities, helps combat misinformation and disinformation, and supports social cohesion.

Local journalists report on the decisions and events that directly affect the people they serve.

They cover councils, schools, courts, businesses and neighbourhoods.

But quality journalism is costly to produce. And the economics of producing news has changed.

The commercial revenue that once supported news production is diminishing.

Advertising income has been significantly eroded by the shift to online—a market dominated by the same digital platforms that do not compensate Australian journalism.

Between 2006 and 2022, the commercial broadcasters' share of Australian advertising expenditure fell from 43 per cent to 17 per cent as advertisers moved their spending online.[]

That decline threatens Australians' access to quality public-interest journalism.

That is why the government is creating a statutory solution to support public-interest journalism and the journalists who produce it.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The News Journalism Payment Scheme will distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority administers the Register of eligible news businesses under the News Media Bargaining Code.

News businesses will need to be registered to apply for a payment under the News Journalism Payment Scheme.

There will be two payment periods following the collection of any revenue through the News Bargaining Incentive.

Payments will be allocated according to the number of journalists an organisation employs, including freelancers.

Put simply: the more journalists an organisation employs, the larger its payment will be.

Eligible roles will include journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, and editors and producers involved in producing core news content.

Using journalists as the basis for payment recognises the vital work they do investigating, analysing, compiling and reporting the stories that matter to Australians.

A 20 per cent increase will apply for journalists working in regional and remote areas, journalists employed by small-to-medium news organisations, and journalists working in news organisations that serve diverse communities.

This recognises the challenges of employing staff in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures experienced by small-to-medium publishers.

It also supports publishers serving communities that are underrepresented in Australia's media landscape.

Those communities deserve news services that understand their experiences and report on the issues that matter to them.

Payments made under the News Journalism Payment Scheme will serve a clear and valid public purpose: supporting ongoing investment in Australian news and journalism.

The bill will therefore impose obligations on payment recipients to maintain their journalists in respect of the payment received across the relevant period.

The scheme is not about providing payments without obligations.

It is about supporting journalists to remain in the jobs that are vital to the production of public interest journalism.

Additional support for small publishers and start-ups

I take this opportunity to thank the many news organisations, broadcasters, academics and other stakeholders that participated in public consultation on the News Journalism Payment Scheme.

Their feedback has informed the final design of the scheme.

One of the clearest messages from consultation was that additional support is needed for very small publishers and start-ups seeking to establish core news services online.

That need is particularly acute in areas where there is currently insufficient news coverage—often described as news deserts.

The bill therefore provides for a special allocation of five per cent of any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive for a separate grants program.

That program will focus on supporting small publishers and start-ups to build their businesses and produce news for local communities.

This support matters.

Smaller publishers often operate with limited resources and face a disadvantage when dealing with the world's largest digital platforms.

Yet they can also be the organisations closest to the communities they serve.

They report on local issues that may never make national headlines and provide a voice for people who might otherwise go unheard.

Additional support for Australian Associated Press

Australian Associated Press plays a unique and vital role in Australia's media landscape. Through its wholesale news service, AAP provides its newswire service to more than 400 Australian news publishers, with more than 300 of those located in regional areas. For many news organisations, particularly those with limited resources, AAP's reporting helps supplement local coverage and ensure Australians continue to have access to trusted news.

That work delivers benefits well beyond any single publisher. AAP supports the production and distribution of quality journalism at scale, helping to strengthen the diversity, reach and resilience of the Australian news sector.

Under the Bill, AAP will receive a dedicated allocation of five per cent of any revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive, acknowledging the essential role it plays in supporting public interest journalism and news organisations across Australia.

Conclusion

News and journalism are critical to the proper functioning of Australia's democratic system of government, the health and cohesion of our communities, and keeping Australians informed.

Australia must continue to have a free, diverse and independent news sector.

But news is costly to make.

The government's News Media Assistance Program is already providing much-needed funding to news organisations, including by supporting the ongoing employment of thousands of journalists across Australia.

We want journalists to be able to focus on providing Australians with high-quality journalism without having to worry about the stability of their jobs.

After all, it is people who produce public-interest journalism.

We need more journalists reporting from our cities, from regional and remote Australia, and from communities that have too often been underrepresented.

This bill builds on the government's commitment to Australian jobs, quality journalism and a sustainable, diverse and independent media sector.

NEWS JOURNALISM PAYMENTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2026

Introduction

This Bill accompanies the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, which will establish the News Journalism Payment Scheme to distribute any revenue raised by the News Bargaining Incentive to eligible Australian news organisations.

The News Journalism Payment Scheme will support a sustainable, diverse and independent media sector, and forms part of the broad package of Bills related to the News Bargaining Incentive.

The News Journalism Payment Scheme requires consequential amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These amendments are necessary to support the creation of the News Journalism Payment Scheme and its eligibility requirements. This Bill provides those consequential amendments.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The Bill will enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to share information with the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, as the administrator of the Scheme, regarding changes to the registration of news organisations.

Under the News Journalism Payment Scheme, news organisations will be required to register on ACMA's Register of eligible news businesses to participate in the Scheme.

The provision of timely information by ACMA regarding any changes to a news organisation's registration will support the efficient and effective administration of the News Journalism Payment Scheme.

NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 2026

The News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 forms part of the Government's commitment to support a strong, sustainable and diverse Australian news media sector.

At its core, this Bill is about a simple proposition: if large digital platforms benefit from Australian news, they should make a fair contribution to sustaining it.

Australian journalism matters to our democracy, informed public debate and local communities that rely on trusted reporting.

But the economics of journalism have changed. Advertising revenue that once helped fund Australian newsrooms has shifted substantially to large global digital platforms. At the same time, Australians continue to rely on news businesses to create quality news content that requires journalists, editors, photographers and producers.

That imbalance is not new. It was why the Parliament supported the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code in 2021.

The Code was an important reform. It helped secure commercial agreements, supported investment in public interest journalism, and recognised the bargaining power imbalance between large platforms and the news organisations whose content helps inform, engage and retain users.

But the Code has a limitation. A platform can seek to avoid bargaining obligations by withdrawing or reducing the availability of news content.

That is not good enough.

Australian journalism should not depend on whether a large digital platform chooses to carry news, and platforms should not avoid contributing by simply walking away from it.

That is why the Government is acting.

This Bill establishes the administrative framework for the News Bargaining Incentive.

The purpose of the incentive is clear. We want platforms and news businesses to do commercial deals.

That is the Government's preference, the market-based outcome this legislation is designed to encourage, and what will best support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector.

The Bill applies objective criteria to identify the largest digital platforms with significant search or social media services and substantial Australian digital advertising revenue. It is targeted at those platforms with the greatest market power and the greatest capacity to contribute.

The Bill establishes a charge and offset mechanism. In-scope digital platforms will incur a liability based on their digital advertising revenue attributable to the operation of a significant search or social media services in Australia.

But platforms can reduce, or fully extinguish, that liability through eligible expenditure under commercial agreements with Australian news businesses.

In other words, platforms have a clear choice. They can do fair commercial deals that support Australian journalism. Or, if they choose not to, they will pay the charge.

This is not about raising revenue for the Government. Any revenue raised will be returned in full to the Australian news sector through the News Journalism Payment Scheme.

The incentive is deliberately focused on encouraging deals. The offset is generous, recognises commercial agreements, and provides enhanced incentives for agreements with small and medium news businesses.

That matters because media diversity matters.

This reform is not only about major media organisations. It is also about independent publishers, regional outlets and smaller newsrooms that serve local communities and add to media diversity.

The Bill encourages support to be spread across the sector, rather than concentrated among a small number of large organisations. Platforms will need eligible agreements with at least eight different news organisations to obtain the offset.

That requirement reinforces the central purpose of the scheme: more deals, with more news organisations, supporting more Australian journalism.

The Government has consulted extensively on the design of the News Bargaining Incentive. We have listened to feedback and made targeted refinements to better align the legislation with its policy objective.

Those refinements include narrowing the charge base to Australian digital advertising revenue from significant search and social media services, strengthening the incentives for commercial agreements, and providing greater support for small and medium publishers.

The result is a practical and targeted reform.

It strengthens the News Media Bargaining Code, responds to changes in digital markets, backs Australian journalism, and ensures large digital platforms cannot avoid making a fair contribution to the news content from which they derive value.

Public interest journalism is not free to produce. It takes journalists on the ground, editors, producers, photographers, newsrooms and a sustainable commercial foundation.

Australians should be able to access trusted information about their communities, economy and democracy, told through Australian eyes and with an Australian perspective.

That is what this Bill supports.

The Government wants large digital platforms to enter into and maintain fair commercial agreements with Australian news businesses.

Where they do, they can reduce their liability. Where they do not, they will pay a charge that goes back to supporting Australian journalism.

That is fair. That is practical. And it is the right thing to do for the long-term sustainability and diversity of Australia's news media sector.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING CHARGE BILL 2026

This Bill accompanies the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill to impose the charge and establish the rate of charge that underpins the News Bargaining Incentive framework.

The charge is set at 2.75 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue generated from significant search and social media services operated in Australia.

The charge works with the offset mechanism in the Administration Bill, to create a clear incentive for commercial agreements to be made by digital platforms to support a strong and diverse Australian news ecosystem.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (NEWS MEDIA BARGAINING) (CONSEQUENTIAL) BILL 2026

This Bill accompanies the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill to make a range of consequential amendments necessary to support the operation of the News Bargaining Incentive.

These amendments provide the supporting aspects of the framework required for administration, collection and enforcement—ensuring that there is appropriate interaction with existing tax laws.

They are an important component needed to effectively deliver the policy objective to support the sustainability and diversity of Australia's news media sector.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (10:12): It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the news media bargaining incentive package of bills. I start by saying that the coalition supports a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. Quality journalism, Australian journalism, journalists telling Australian stories—that is one of the foundations of our democracy. It informs public debate. It holds governments and institutions to account. It gives voice to communities which might otherwise go unheard, and it ensures Australians have access to accurate, reliable and diverse sources of information. Of course, this is particularly important in regional Australia, where the local newspaper, radio station or digital outlet may be the only local source of detailed reporting on issues which matter to those communities.

This package of bills before the parliament establishes the news media bargaining incentive scheme, following the Albanese Labor government's decision to walk away from the coalition's world-first news media bargaining code. As we consider these bills today, it's very important to be cognisant of the work of the coalition in holding the digital platforms to account—ensuring that they could not publish Australian news content on their platforms without providing appropriate compensation. It was the coalition that first recognised this growing imbalance between the global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. It was the coalition which commissioned the ACCC to investigate the problem and to support our work to come up with a solution. When a voluntary scheme was first proposed in 2019 and the digital platforms did not cooperate, this led to the news media bargaining code. That was incredibly important in bringing Meta and Google to the table to conclude more than 30 commercial agreements reportedly worth around $250 million annually to Australian news organisations. But I have to make this very important point. In April 2024, Meta—pretty disgracefully, I might add—walked away from the news media bargaining code. It abandoned its obligations, in breach of the law. It threatened to take news off its digital platforms: Facebook and Meta.

This could have been resolved. This could have been resolved in a number of ways. The code could have been amended, and this was very much the view of former ACCC chair Rod Sims. It could have been amended by way of a deeming provision. Irrespective of whether or not an applicable or relevant digital platform published news, the code could have been amended to deem that the digital platform indeed was publishing news, to stop them playing games, pulling tricks and compromising our Australian media sector. Unfortunately, the government decided not to try and bring forward sensible amendments to the code in light of Meta's reprehensible conduct.

That was in April 2024. It's now August 2026. It's taken more than two years for this to be resolved. In those two-plus years, the Australian news media sector has really suffered because Meta walked away and abandoned its responsibilities. It breached the law. Of course, the government did nothing. So, in the case of Meta, these deals were abandoned. Then, in the case of Google—Google delivered around 70 per cent of the total number of commercial deals under the news media bargaining code—those deals continued on to a large degree, but they were allowed to wilt on the vine. That's not good enough.

If there is an issue, Australian media is so important to our democracy and to our rule of law. The viability of our Australian media organisations, our newsrooms and our journalists is critical. They are under increasing pressure as more and more advertising dollars are drained from Australian media onto digital platforms. It is deeply regrettable that it has taken so long for these bills to come into the parliament. There was so much mucking around. I don't know what the communications minister and the Assistant Treasurer were doing for more than two years, but I will say one thing: the news media organisations have paid a very heavy price. They have lost very substantial amounts of revenue, and that is simply not good enough.

We now have this package of bills: the news bargaining incentive scheme. This delivers a number of different components. I'm very pleased to say that, after a lot of advocacy from the coalition, digital platforms will face a 2.75 per cent charge based on Australian digital advertising revenue if they avoid making direct commercial agreements with Australian news media organisations. That was 2.5 per cent, and, as the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Mulino, explained, that would deliver about $200 million to $250 million in total revenue, by way of those commercial agreements, to the Australian media sector. That's a big concern because, although they're commercial and confidential, we know these deals were at least $250 million back in 2021. How could the government deliver a scheme that would take Australian news media organisations backwards?

Treasury estimated that the total amount to be captured would be between $200 million and $250 million. More than $250 million per annum was captured back in 2021. From our point of view, that was unacceptable, and there was quite a bit of cage rattling behind the scenes in relation to increasing the charge. I am pleased that an amendment went through the House yesterday, which was agreed to by the coalition, and that charge is now 2.75 per cent.

Platforms must complete at least eight commercial deals to meet the scheme's conditions and offset liabilities that would otherwise apply. I think that's been a welcome change. I do note the very positive response from the likes of Country Press Australia, which represents many small rural and regional media organisations. They were concerned about the original proposal for only four media organisations to be included in this scheme. This is an important change. When the exposure draft was first released, there was a lot of criticism, and it just again goes to show that the government did not do its homework on the consultation. The fact that it would seek to cut out bodies such as Country Press Australia, which represents so many important and vital small rural and regional media organisations and the like, was pretty regrettable. That now, of course, means that a much larger number of news organisations are potentially eligible to enter into a deal with the digital platforms.

The bills have also reinstated the pre-deal cap of 25 per cent, meaning no single publisher deal can offset more than 25 per cent of the platform's total levy obligation. If any digital platform decides to do a dirty trick, like Meta did in April 2024, they will be required to pay a charge, the charge of 2.75 per cent, which cannot be offset, so they will be required to pay more money—unless we see more fun and games, and I'm not confident that won't happen. Those funds that are collected will be distributed in accordance with a statutory formula based on the number of editorial staff at a news organisation. We would like to see the definition of editorial staff expanded to include those who primarily fulfil the roles of providing commentary or opinion because, often at news organisations, very senior journalists take on the role of opinion writers as well as reporting straight news. So we would certainly like to see that definition changed. As part of this distribution scheme, five per cent will be offset for Australian Associated Press and five per cent for small publishers by way of grants. I think the other pleasing part of the scheme is that, apart from Google and Meta—and, of course, Meta has both Instagram and Facebook—we expect that, given the threshold that applies, which is a minimum of $250 million, TikTok will be captured as will Microsoft's LinkedIn because professional social media platforms are now also captured.

It's been a pretty tawdry journey to get to this point. It's been very regrettable that these bills have taken so long to be resolved. Unfortunately, even when the exposure draft was released, it did not cut the mustard. That has now been corrected not just in the bills that came into the parliament. Again, more work was required to lift the charge, and that amendment went through the House yesterday, as I mentioned.

I do want to note we are concerned about the distribution of grants to media organisations. We raised concerns because of similar media grants programs, particularly those awarded by the Department of Home Affairs. We uncovered that a number of those grants had gone to media organisations which platformed extremists and undermined social cohesion. So I am very concerned about the track record of the government. There's also concern about journalism grants under other funding programs. The Journalism Assistance Fund made grants available to advertising agencies, events companies and, frankly, media organisations that were not in the business of news and public interest journalism. There was a lot of rubbery due diligence done by the government in relation to some of these grants. There was also a very specific decision to exclude News Corporation and News24. I think that was disappointing because they also have many important newspapers and other media outlets right across this country, so that was most regrettable. So, when it comes to trusting this government to deliver grant funding with integrity and appropriate due diligence, I certainly don't have a high degree of confidence. I would trust and hope that, in relation to any other media grants that might be distributed through this scheme, the appropriate due diligence will be completed.

Let me just reiterate that the coalition remains committed to ensuring those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We're not going to let big tech off the hook. We're simply not going to do that. That is what drove the coalition's world-first news media bargaining code. We were sick of seeing the digital platforms ripping off the news content, the hard work of Australian journalists and producers and subeditors and photographers and everyone else who worked so hard to deliver Australians their news.

This is an important step forward in remedying the very significant vacuum over the last two years. We support funding for journalism, particularly regional journalism, which is vital for our democracy. We support a framework which encourages genuine commercial agreements rather than just dependence on government funding mechanisms. We are strongly committed to supporting Australian journalism and the importance of Australian stories being told by an Australian media sector, and I do hope that this package of bills does deliver what it's intended to do.

Senator WALKER (South Australia) (10:27): I think most Australians can agree that having good journalists around is very useful. They sit through council meetings most of us would struggle to get through. They spend days digging through documents. They turn up to court. They talk to people, check claims and work out what's happening. They come into this building and ask politicians questions that we may or may not be thrilled to answer. That is their job, and our democracy is much better for it.

The problem is that doing all of that costs money, and the way journalism has traditionally paid for itself has changed a lot over the last 15 years. Advertising used to provide a huge amount of the revenue that kept newspapers and newsrooms going. Over the past couple of decades, more and more of that advertising has moved online, and a very large share of it now goes to a small number of global tech companies. At the same time, Australian news organisations have been trying to work out how to keep paying reporters, especially in smaller and regional newsrooms, where the margins can already be pretty tight. This legislation is about dealing with this reality. If large digital platforms are operating in Australia, making substantial advertising revenue here and benefiting from an online environment where Australian journalism is shared, searched for and consumed, we think it's fair that they contribute to keeping that journalism going.

Australia has actually been working on this for a while. The news media bargaining code was introduced in 2021 and was genuinely world leading at the time. It encouraged digital platforms to reach commercial agreements with Australian news publishers and brought a significant amount of money back into Australian journalism. But we've also had five years to see where that system could be improved. One of the biggest problems became pretty obvious when Meta announced that it would not renew its commercial agreements with Australian news companies, which were estimated to be worth around $70 million a year. Under the existing arrangements, platforms also have the option of responding to regulation by removing news from their services altogether. We saw Meta do that briefly in Australia in 2021, and we have since seen it happen in Canada. That gives a company with enormous market power a pretty handy bargaining tool. If the rules become inconvenient, it can threaten to stop carrying news.

The news bargaining incentive has been designed so that strategy no longer gets them out of paying their fair share. The new incentive will apply to major social media and search platforms with significant Australian audiences and more than $250 million in relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. For platforms that meet these thresholds, there will be an equal charge to 2.5 per cent of that relevant advertising revenue. But we would much rather see that money going directly into commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. That is how the scheme has been designed. If a platform enters eligible commercial agreements with Australians news organisations, that spending can be used to offset the charge. The standard offset is 150 per cent, rising to 200 per cent for agreements with small and medium news businesses. So there is a pretty strong incentive to sit down with Australian publishers and reach a deal.

There are also rules to make sure those deals are spread across the media sector. A platform needs agreements with at least eight eligible news organisations to get the offset, and no single agreement can account for more than 25 per cent of its total liability. This is important because Aussie journalism is much bigger than just the handful of big mastheads everyone knows. Some of the most important journalism in this country happens in small newsrooms. It's the journalist covering their local council every week and knowing when something does not quite add up, or a journo covering a bushfire, a local hospital, a school closure or a development proposal. It is a reporter who knows the community they're writing about and knows who to call when something happens.

When those jobs disappear, we feel the difference. There are communities around Australia that have already seen local newspapers close or shrink to a fraction of what they once were. Sometimes there is nobody left whose job is to turn up to the council meeting, follow a local issue for six months or ask why a decision was made. Those stories are probably never going to trend nationally, but they still matter a lot to the people who live there. That is why this scheme gives platforms an extra incentive to make agreements with small and medium publishers rather than concentrate all of their spending on the biggest media companies.

The same thinking carries through to what happens if a platform decides to pay the charge. Every dollar connected to the news bargaining incentive will go back into the Australian news industry through the News Journalism Payment Scheme and grants. I really like that the payment scheme has been built around the people actually producing journalism. Payments will be linked to the number of journalists an organisation employs, including freelancers. The definition also reflects what a modern newsroom looks like. It covers journalists, photojournalists, data and visual journalists, editors and producers directly involved in producing core news content, because journalism has changed. A reporter today might be writing an article, recording an interview, filming something for social media, working with data or producing a podcast. Plenty of excellent journalists freelance across organisations. This legislation recognises that.

There will also be a 20 per cent uplift for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations, journalists working in regional and remote Australia, and organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally diverse communities. Those organisations often face higher costs and smaller potential audiences, but the work they do is incredibly important. If you live in a regional town, you should be able to find out what your local council is doing. If you're part of a community that rarely sees itself reflected in mainstream coverage, there should be room in our media landscape for journalism made by and for that community. If we want those services to exist, there have to be journalists there to produce them. That is also why organisations receiving payments will have to maintain their editorial capacity over the payment period. The scheme is designed to keep journalists working.

There is separate support for really small publishers and startups as well. Five per cent of revenue raised through the incentive will go towards grants for small publishers and new organisations trying to build local news services. That is a great part of the package because we should be thinking about how new journalism grows as well as how existing organisations survive.

There are parts of Australia now being described as news deserts, where local coverage has become extremely limited or disappeared altogether. And, when you think about what that means in practice, it is pretty concerning. If there are no local journalists, who is regularly sitting in the council chamber? Who is following up when a government project is delayed? Who is covering the local court? Who knows enough about a story to realise that the explanation they are being given does not quite stack up. Social media can tell you that people in town are angry about something. A local journalist can actually find out why.

The legislation also provides a dedicated support for the Australian Associated Press, with five per cent of revenue raised going towards the AAP. AAP is one of those organisations that most Australians probably do not think about very often, even though they come across its work constantly. Its newswire provides content to more than 400 Australian publishers, including more than 300 in regional areas. It does a huge amount of the basic reporting that keeps the wider Australian media system functioning, and recognising that role makes sense.

The government has also made sure that good-faith commercial agreements entered into since 1 January 2025 can count towards offsets under the new system. The policy was announced in December 2024, so companies that responded to the announcement and reached agreement should not be disadvantaged for getting on with it.

Meta has called the policy a digital services tax. Industry groups representing major US tech companies have made similar arguments. I'm pretty sure there has never been a company in history, when told they have a new financial obligation, that has said: 'Perfect! That is just what we were asking for!' They can make their case, but we also have to look at what has happened to the Australian media market.

The advertising market has changed dramatically. Global platforms now capture a huge amount of the digital advertising revenue generated in Australia while news organisations are trying to fund the expensive work involved in producing original journalism. The government has come up with a system that encourages those platforms to negotiate commercial agreements and gives extra incentives for deals with smaller publishers. This is very reasonable and, for people my age and younger, the whole debate is happening alongside another massive change in the way we consume the news. A lot of young Australians are not buying a newspaper every morning or sitting down to watch the six o'clock news. We see a headline on Instagram; someone sends us a story in a group chat; we hear something on a podcast and we google it; we see a TikTok clip and then maybe search for the full interview. Sometimes the first hint that a major world event has happened is a meme about it or the Betoota Advocate making a joke.

There are some genuinely great things about that. We have access to more information and more voices than previous generations could have imagined. But we also have access to a crazy amount of false information. Someone can make a very confident 60-second video about an issue they learnt about that morning and by lunch it has a million views. False information moves incredibly quickly. AI-generated material is becoming easier to produce. People are seeing real reporting mixed into the same feeds as advertising, opinion, conspiracy theories and whatever their algorithm has decided will keep them scrolling for another 20 minutes. In that environment, having people whose actual job is to check things becomes really important. Journalists make phone calls. They speak to the other person involved. They check documents. They ask for evidence. They have editors who ask whether the story stacks up. They can be held accountable when they get something wrong. All of that takes time and money. We cannot spend years worrying about misinformation and declining trust in institutions while ignoring whether the people producing reliable information can afford to keep doing it.

There is also a pretty direct democratic consequence when newsrooms shrink. A journalist who loses their job does not just disappear from a payroll spreadsheet. There are stories that would have been covered that now will never be written. There are questions that will not be asked. There are meetings nobody will attend. There are discussions that will receive less scrutiny. And there are communities that will know less about what is happening around them. Governments should care about that, even when journalism is inconvenient for us—especially when it's inconvenient for us. I'm sure every politician in this building has had the experience of seeing a journalist walking over, and suddenly remembering we have a very important meeting somewhere in the opposite direction. But that is part of the job. We are supposed to be questioned.

Governments are supposed to have their decisions scrutinised. Businesses should be scrutinised too, along with courts, councils, institutions and everyone else who exercises power in this country. For that to happen, Australia needs journalists who have the time and resources to do the work properly. Australia will be better for it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (10:41): I rise to contribute to this debate today. I understand that this legislation will pass this morning. I think we need to be really clear about the state of media not just in Australia but around the world. Things have changed rapidly in the last few years. As big tech, social media companies and big AI are flooding the zone and using not just the work of others but the spread of mis- and disinformation as part of their currency, we've got to be really serious about what we do to ensure public interest journalism survives, thrives and is defended.

There are some in this place who have little regard for the work of journalists. There are some in this place who would like to pick and choose which journalists and which media companies show up to their press conferences. Those people are the same people who are trying to tear our democratic institutions down. When you look around the world, Australia is not unique in this. The rise of far-right politics is a direct threat to democracy. One of the biggest threats to democracy, and how you undermine it, is the undermining of the role, the job and the legitimacy of journalism. In order for democracy to be strong, to be trusted and to have authority to deliver what it should—which is for the people who decide, the citizens, the voters, the community—we need a strong public interest journalism sector.

It is not a coincidence that the same right-wing forces that wish to tear down our democratic institutions are also the same people who want to lock journalists out of their press conferences. It is also not a coincidence that these very same politicians also want to roll out the red carpet for big tech and the billionaires who run AI. They don't want any regulation on big tech. They want to hand Australian land over to people like Elon Musk and they want to be able to pick and choose which journalists they'll take questions from.

The main culprit that wants to tear down journalism and democracy in this country is of course Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation, and why is that? It's because they don't like people asking the tough questions. They don't want to be held to account for their lunatic policies that do more to protect the interests of big tech and billionaires than to help people who are struggling right now. When Pauline Hanson stood at the National Press Club and outlined her suite of policies, from crazy to bad, who did she attack? She didn't just attack migrants; although, she had a good swing at them. She attacked women. She attacked young people. And she attacked journalists because she doesn't like them asking the tough questions.

Fast forward a few weeks later and One Nation is locking journalists and media companies out of press conferences. This is authoritarian stuff happening on our watch from people within this parliament, which is a democratic institution that only gets to exist because of the belief that we will be held to account, not just by the public square but by those that are skilled and trained and whose job it is to hold us to account. These bills goes some way to giving media and journalists in this country a fair crack at sustainability in a world where big tech wants to hoover everything up, make massive profits and shut out the real humans doing the real work and who ask the real tough questions. But it's not a silver bullet.

If we don't defend public interest journalism, if we don't defend our public broadcasters and if we don't defend the freedom of the press to come to press conferences—whoever is hosting them—ask questions and expect that they'll be answered, then we are not doing our job. I think it is absolutely galling that somebody can be elected, come into this place, earn hundreds of thousands of dollars on the taxpayer's dime and then think they should be able to pick and choose who holds them accountable. It's arrogant, it's dangerous and it's cowardly. There's a reason that Pauline Hanson and One Nation locked journalists out of their press conferences. It's because they're running scared.

The people of Victoria deserve to know what One Nation will do if they're elected. Guess what news the majority of people who live in rural and regional Victoria and the rest of the country rely on for their public interest journalism? They rely on the ABC, and of course Pauline Hanson wants to gut them. She doesn't just want to shut them out of her press conference but wants to cut them. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation are so scared that people will know what they really want to do that they think they can ban journalists whenever they like. It is a bad, slippery slope. Public interest journalism—the pesky questions from journalists—is a fundamental foundation to our democracy, and it must be defended.

These bills are not perfect. There are elements that I think could have gone in a way that supported more independent and smaller players. But I've been pleased to help push the government to increase access for smaller players and independent players to these funds. The other problem we have in Australia is a very concentrated media landscape. The big players—News Corp, Nine, Seven West—dominate not just our television screens but the written word, the press and our radio waves. We need to find better and more important ways to support new players and media diversity in this country. I'll be keeping a very, very close eye on how this scheme rolls out.

I'm disappointed that the government has failed to put on the table a mechanism for forcing AI and big tech, who are using AI technology to hoover up the content of journalists and news organisations for their own profits—they're not paying a cent. That is not covered in these bills. AI is not tackled in this piece of legislation, and it should have been. The government is now on notice because it's not just social media companies that are taking the work of journalists, flogging it off on their own platforms and not paying a cent; AI is doing it every day. We need a mechanism to force the big-tech companies to pay Australian journalists and creators for the work that they are stealing. Big tech has become so humongous. These big-tech companies, these big AI companies, have become so humongous that it's near impossible for an Australian media company to have a fair go in any negotiation—and that is only going to continue to get worse. The Australian government has to do something about that quick smart. These companies are mostly US companies. Look at the trust deficit in the United States right now amongst their public—the trust deficit in politics, media and news. It is rock bottom. We cannot afford to allow that to happen here—it already is, arguably, and we have to stop continuing down that US path.

I urge the government: don't sit on your hands waiting for some silver bullet. You're going to have to do the hard work. It's taken years for the government to put this on the table, and it's cost journalists jobs in Australia already. If you roll over for the big AI companies, it's going to be very, very hard to get things back on track. I know the government is currently trying to work through those issues, but I am fearful that you're not strong enough to stand up to big AI. I am fearful of that. I don't think you've got the guts, but I want to be proven wrong. I want to see this government work with this parliament to stand up to AI and force them to pay for the work that they are stealing.

If we don't have public interest journalism being used, shared and distributed, then we end up with politics and media flooded with lies and rubbish, AI slop, misinformation and disinformation. Who benefits from that? The very people who sit in this corner, who want to tear democracy down. It will cost us all. It's not just about the jobs of journalists. It will cost us the strength of democracy. You've got to stand up to AI, and you've got to stand up to the right wing who sit in this very corner, in this chamber, who are doing the bidding for big tech, for the big billionaires and for themselves. They are doing nothing about helping Australians.

I move:

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

(a) acknowledges that the biggest gap in this legislation is that it neglects to address the artificial intelligence platforms that are rapidly becoming the biggest tech companies in the world;

(b) notes that artificial intelligence companies take the work of Australian journalists, news organisations and content creators to feed into their large language models without paying rights-holders for it; and

(c) calls on the Government to urgently consult on pathways to ensure artificial intelligence companies are also forced to pay for the journalistic work that they take and use".

Senator LIDDLE (South Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:56): The coalition is proud to support a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. It's important that a strong, independent, sustainable media holds government and institutions to account, gives communities voice and gives access to accurate and diverse sources of information. That's especially important in regional communities.

Media has been under attack for years. As a former professionally trained working journalist, along with my colleague Senator Henderson, I've seen that change firsthand: the sustained job cuts and the threat posed by AI and big tech. Niche media and public interest journalism are important because at the end of the communication line are the audiences—Australians—who rely on that information, and they mustn't be shortchanged.

Quality journalism is the backbone of an informed, connected Australia, and nowhere is that more true than in regional and remote communities. Local newsrooms cover everything that national outlets overlook, from local meetings to court cases and community events. In doing so, they keep local democracy accountable and communities connected. They cover the stories that are important to the people in those local communities. It is local media that Australians trust most and rely on for potentially life-saving information during disasters, floods, cyclones, fires or local emergencies, because the coverage comes from people who know the area. It is local media that understands what residents actually need to know, and they have the bandwidth to provide that critical information. As newsroom capacity across the country continues to shrink, with dozens of communities now classified as 'news deserts', we must ensure digital platforms contribute fairly to the journalism they profit from, helping sustain the regional and independent outlets that so many in Australia depend on.

But we are here today because the Albanese government abandoned the coalition's news media bargaining code unnecessarily, and it has taken years to get here. That is on Labor. These bills create a new news media bargaining incentive following the Albanese government's decision to abandon the coalition's news media bargaining code.

The coalition laid the groundwork for this original framework. In 2019, the coalition asked the ACCC to tackle the growing imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers who were having their content used without being paid as they should have been. When voluntary negotiations failed, the coalition delivered the world-leading news media bargaining code in 2021. The code recognised a simple reality: Google and Meta had become unavoidable gatekeepers between publishers and their audiences. The coalition's code delivered more than 30 commercial agreements, reportedly worth around $250 million to Australian news organisations. The problem was never that the code failed. The problem was that the government failed to use it and failed to monitor it. When Meta walked away from the negotiating table in April 2024, Labor chose to dismantle the framework rather than amending the existing code for changing circumstances. It took the government more than two years to resolve the impasse, and news media organisations and journalism, meanwhile, paid a heavy price. The government sat on its hands for far too long. There was no urgency from Labor. When it did act, what Labor did was change for change's sake. We know they're good at that: duplication of effort, wasting taxpayers' money and looking like they're actually doing something when in reality they've done very little—lots of effort, lots of money, missing on the big stuff like AI and big tech, and not much to show for the money or the effort. And, while that has gone on, those outside of Canberra are impacted, and not in a good way. If you ever wondered why Australia now has a $1 trillion debt, look no further than this Labor government and how it does its work.

These bills establish the framework for the news bargaining incentive scheme and the associated news journalists payment scheme. I'll mention just a few of the key features. There's a levy that is a 2.75 per cent charge if the users avoid making direct commercial agreements with Australian news media organisations and reinstatement of a pre-deal offset cap of 25 per cent, meaning no single publisher deal can offset more than 25 per cent of a platform's total levy obligation. On fund distribution, any charges collected where commercial deals aren't made are redistributed in full to support Australian journalism under a statutory formula tied to journalist numbers, with five per cent set aside for grants to small publishers and five per cent for the Australian Associated Press. The scheme applies to major digital platforms earning $250 million or more per year—currently, Google, Meta, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Microsoft's LinkedIn. Professional networking platforms like LinkedIn are now captured. A problem, though, that should have been obvious is that AI platforms are excluded. Labor is asleep at the wheel on AI and its impacts and implications—on everything.

The scheme depends on accurately calculating Australian digital advertising revenue. If revenue is understated, liabilities are understated and support for Australian journalism is diminished in turn. The Australian Taxation Office has the powers needed to verify revenue claims and prevent avoidance. Big techs must be held accountable, and that starts with properly measuring their revenue so Australian journalism is protected for generations to come.

The coalition remains committed to ensuring that those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We support sustainable funding for journalism, particularly for regional journalism, which is vital to our democracy, and a framework that encourages genuine commercial agreements rather than depending on government funding mechanisms. While we did not back the government's original proposal, we are pleased the coalition's work in rattling the cage has delivered a strengthened news incentive scheme with an increased charge of 2.75 per cent. The objective of these bills is clear: a strong, diverse and independent Australian media sector that can continue to serve Australians for generations to come.

Senator TYRRELL (Tasmania) (11:04): Journalism is an essential pillar of Australian democracy, helping to strengthen social cohesion and uphold democratic accountability. But quality journalism is costly to produce. While the commercial revenue that has traditionally supported news production has declined, digital advertising has shifted to a small number of global platforms like Facebook and Google. These global players now collect massive digital advertising revenue while many Aussie news businesses remain under financial pressure. That just isn't right, and it isn't fair. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, reducing media diversity, public-interest journalism and democratic accountability. Without media diversity and public-interest journalism, our democracy grinds to a halt and people can't easily find news reporting based on facts without plugging an agenda. We've seen it happen overseas. Australians can't afford to only get their news from shock jock, uninformed YouTubers instead of qualified rational journalists. That's a recipe for disaster, a disaster for our critical thinking skills, for us as individuals and for us as a democratic country.

So how do we fix the problem? We have to fix the bargaining imbalance between platforms and Australian news businesses. The News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills tackle that bargaining imbalance through a carrot-and-stick model. These bills finally crack down on the platforms and push them into doing the right thing—making commercial agreements with Australian news publishers. This means platforms like Facebook pay Aussie news publishers in return for making money off their content. It seems pretty fair, I reckon.

Essentially, digital platforms like Facebook will be charged 2.75 per cent of their digital advertising revenue attributable to Australia, but platforms can reduce this charge and offset it through eligible commercial agreements with Australian news businesses. In other words, either they do the right thing and make deals or they have to pay up. If platforms make money from Australian news, they should help sustain it either by investing directly through commercial agreements or by paying the incentive charge. These agreements are expected to deliver around $225 million to $275 million each year to support public-interest journalism and Australians' access to quality news and local reporting. Any revenue collected through this incentive charge will be returned in full to the Australian news industry, and this will help sustain a diverse news ecosystem and ensure Australians continue to have access to quality news and local reporting.

Payments to the news sector will be allocated based on the number of journalists an organisation employees, recognising that the more journalists employed, the greater the investment in public-interest journalism. But what I love about this bill is that it's also designed to help the small publishers that don't have many journos employed yet. Five per cent of the revenue will be dedicated to a separate grants program focused on supporting small publishers and start-ups to grow their businesses and produce news for local communities. It's designed to help grow our news sector so that it's more diverse.

I've spoken with many amazing organisations over the years who have pushed for changes like this—organisations like LINA. I also want to call out and celebrate that a 20 per cent uplift will apply for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations in regional and remote Australia. It'll also apply to news organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This recognises how hard it is to employ journalists in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures facing smaller and community focused publishers. It is a massive win for all our journalists and news organisations down in Tassie.

I also want to recognise that these bills are the result of a heap of work over a number of years. Public consultation occurred back in 2025 and on the exposure draft legislation earlier this year. I want to call out the amazing work of the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, and Assistant Treasurer, Dan Mulino. I also want to call out both of their respective departments and the public servants who helped navigate the complex beast and their persistence over many years to make it happen. These bills are a really good news story, helping the Australian journalism sector and our broader democracy whilst holding the international digital platforms to account.

To the digital platforms I say do the right thing and enter into commercial deals with our Aussie news publishers, and to my fellow senators I say support the bill, support commercial investment in Australian journalism and help a secure, sustainable, diverse and independent news media industry for the future.

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (11:10): I rise to speak against the News Media Bargaining Charge Bill and the consequential amendments. This is not the first time. We've been here before. In 2021, the news media bargaining code promised to rebalance the relationship between platforms and publishers and that it would sustain journalism across the country. What actually happened? The money went to the three or four biggest incumbents already dominating the market. The political establishment in this building loves the mainstream media. Whether you're from the left or you're from the right, there's a news outlet for you. What they hate are the independent platforms and podcasters because they owe nothing to no-one, as they say. This should tell everyone in this building what they need to know about this bill.

This is just a subsidy dressed up as a bargaining mechanism. There's no requirement for a single dollar to be pushed back towards public interest journalism. There's no transparency mechanism. There's no public interest test on spending. As I said, the money flows to the big incumbents not the struggling local small outfits. Smaller publishers receive fragments. Some receive nothing at all. There's no requirement that the money goes towards actual journalism. In fact, the inclination is that it just tips into general revenue where it could go for shareholder returns or executive largesse.

This also assumes that the legacy media is inherently more valuable than it demonstrably is. It's absolutely laughable to suggest that the legacy media retains some sort of unique, irreplaceable democratic value that justifies government intervention on its behalf. It's just comical to suggest that. The assumption that the legacy media provides a superior democratic value is therefore highly contestable, and the internet and the digitisation of the market have diversified the public debate, breaking the monopoly on the debate which was previously held by the old world media, leading to the emergence of new dedicated influencers and podcasters.

This bill is really nothing more than a legislative attempt to put that monopoly back together. Government should be encouraging innovation and ensuring that digital markets remain competitive based on merit rather than engineered bailouts. It rewards decline rather than adaptation. The scheme was triggered specifically because platforms concluded news content wasn't commercially worth carrying. There's no opt out for hosting less news, because the levy applies whether the news appears on the platform or not. This is nothing more than insulating an industry from a market signal that it should have responded to. This is protecting incumbent power not journalism, and the policy fits a pattern of government tendency to protect existing power structures. It's a rhetorical nod to reform while structurally protecting incumbent power, framed as being tough on big tech, who's actually preserving the incumbents's position.

I won't be supporting these bills. I ask that other colleagues also look past the rhetoric and ask the question that matters, which is who's actually getting the money and why are we protecting an industry that is demonstrably withering on the vine.

Senator DOLEGA (Tasmania) (11:13): Every day, Australian journalists do the hard work of finding facts, testing claims and telling the stories that matter. Reporters knock on doors, sit through council meetings, attend court hearings and spend weeks or months investigating issues that impact our local communities. They even sit in this place and have the hard job of making sense of what's happening and reporting back to their audiences through articles, live crosses and live blogs. Editors check the facts and photographs, and camera operators capture the moments that help us understand what's happening around us.

This work is not free. Good journalism takes skill. It takes time and resources. It requires newsrooms willing to pursue the truth, to ask difficult questions and to stand behind their reporting. While the story can appear on a social media feed in seconds, the work behind it often takes days or weeks and sometimes months. The Albanese Labor government recognises that a healthy democracy depends on that work. Australians need reliable information so they can make informed decisions, hold governments to account and understand the issues impacting their lives. Strong journalism helps strengthen our communities, shine a light on wrongdoing and provide a voice to people who might otherwise go unheard.

The news media bargaining incentive bills incentivise commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses, with platforms able to reduce their liability through eligible deals rather than pay the charge. We've introduced this because we believe Australians deserve access to news that is independent, diverse and locally produced.

Debate interrupted.

Senator GROGAN (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (11:15): At the request of Senator Sheldon, I present report no. 10 of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 10 OF 2026

20 August 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Kerrynne Liddle

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 10 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 19 August 2026 at 7.11 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Commonwealth Land (Affordable Housing) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2026,

(b) the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shackling During Childbirth) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 October 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral), and

(c) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 October 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee.

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

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025

Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics Discrimination Commissioner) Bill 2026

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026

Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024

Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025

Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023

Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026

Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025

Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026

Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021

Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025

Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023

Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026

Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025

National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026

Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018

Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026

Right to Protest Bill 2025

Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2]

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025, and

Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026.

5. The committee considered the following bills but could not reach agreement:

Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026

Housing Australia Amendment (Transparency and Reporting) Bill 2026, and

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026.

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair 19 August 2026

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Name of bill: Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting Shacking during Childbirth) Bill 2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider the circumstances, extent of and impact of shackling during childbirth and arguments for ending the practice by calling on expert witnesses and lived experience for considering detailed evidence

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Women's legal and support services

Health services

Psychologists

Correctional facilities

Law enforcement agencies

Lived experience

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legat and Constitutional Affairs (Legislation) Committee

Possible hearing date(s): September 2026

Possible reporting date: 7 October 2026

(signed)

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (National Sport Integrity Offences) Bill 2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutiny of legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legat and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): August-September

Possible reporting date: 2 October 2026

(signed)

Maria Kovacic

Senator GROGAN: I move:

That the report be adopted.

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) (11:15): I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 and the Housing Australia Amendment (Transparency and Reporting) Bill 2026 not be referred to committees".

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:15): I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 October 2026".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Duniam to the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 10 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:24): The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report No. 10 be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:26): I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2026".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:29): At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Crimes Amendment (Prohibiting the Strip Searching of Children) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2026".

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:30): A message has been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concurrence a resolution relating to the formation of a joint select committee on artificial intelligence.

The House of Representatives message read as follows—

Message no. 217, dated 20 August 2026—Proposed Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution:

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(a) the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) to lift Australia's resilience, productivity growth, economic competitiveness, and living standards;

(b) the opportunities for the benefits of AI to be spread across Australia's suburbs and regions;

(c) the opportunities of AI and robotics to drive research and innovation, new industries and business, and export opportunities, including in sectors of Australian comparative advantage such as agriculture, resources, health and medical research, advanced manufacturing, financial services and defence industry;

(d) the rate and extent of AI adoption across the Australian economy, and the barriers to adoption, faced by small and medium businesses and family businesses;

(e) the opportunities for Australian sovereign AI capability, including the measures required to build, retain and commercialise domestic capability, grow research and development, and attract and retain investment and talent;

(f) the importance of data sovereignty, and the opportunities presented by narrow, domain-specific AI models trained on Australian data in areas of Australian sectoral expertise;

(g) the workforce and skills implications of AI, including the adequacy of Australia's education system, job creation and displacement, and the effects on the quality and security of jobs;

(h) the adoption of AI by Commonwealth departments and agencies to improve services for Australians, and the transparency and accountability measures that apply to AI use;

(i) the adequacy of Australia's existing laws and regulatory frameworks as they apply to AI and whether there are any gaps that warrant reform;

(j) the interaction of AI with existing intellectual property and copyright laws, including the use of Australian creative, cultural and media content in the training of AI models;

(k) the risks and harms arising from AI, including fraud and scams, deepfakes and risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and vulnerable Australians;

(l) the national security and cyber security opportunities to protect Australians, as well as the foreign interference risks, associated with AI, including the security and resilience of supply chains and of systems supporting critical infrastructure;

(m) the implications of emerging AI capability for Australia's national security and strategic resilience, including the ability of regulators, the Australian AI Safety Institute and the intelligence and security community to identify and respond to emerging risks; and

(n) any other related matters;

(2) the committee present its final report by no later than 30 November 2026;

(3) the committee consist of twelve members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;

(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the committee's final report is presented or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(6) the committee elect:

(a) a Government member as its chair; and

(b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant;

(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(10) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and

(15) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

The Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher), by leave, moved—That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.

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) (11:30): by leave—I move:

That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.

Question agreed to.

Senator BARBARA POCOCK (South Australia) (11:32): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2027:

The role of social housing in Australia, including public and community housing, with particular reference to:

(a) the economic and social benefits of investment in social housing, including its impact on housing access, affordability, renting, homelessness and housing security;

(b) historical levels of investment in social housing, and public housing in particular, including the reasons for its decline as a share of Australia's housing stock;

(c) the case for establishing a target for social housing as a proportion of Australia's housing stock, including consideration of what an appropriate target may be;

(d) the impact of current Commonwealth and state and territory government investment in social housing, including through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Social Housing Accelerator, in view of the current scale of need;

(e) the role of modern methods of design and construction in building more social homes and creating communities with a high quality of life;

(f) the benefits of a steady pipeline of social housing investment for the development of Australia's modern construction industry;

(g) opportunities for further investment in public and community housing, including consideration of direct public spending along with different delivery and investment models in Australia and internationally;

(h) appropriate governance and administrative arrangements to deliver social housing at a scale to meet current and future need;

(i) the efficacy of rent to buy schemes; and

(j) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:32): At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2027:

The prevalence and use, or anticipated future use, of systems or technology including software, hardware and/or artificial intelligence to profile or analyse the identity, history, characteristics or habits of individuals in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the nature and extent to which individuals are, or in the future could be, subject to systems which analyse:

(i) biometrics,

(ii) facial expressions,

(iii) gait,

(iv) posture,

(v) mood,

(vi) psychological state,

(vii) behaviour,

(viii) travel habits,

(ix) spending habits,

(x) socioeconomic status,

(xi) communication habits, or

(xii) political leaning;

(b) the use or extraction by such systems of any data related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) the transmission, storage or processing of such data including:

(i) whether the transmission, storage or processing of such data is carried out in Australia or overseas,

(ii) whether the transmission, storage or processing of such data is carried out by third parties, including private entities or Australian or foreign government agencies, and

(iii) the privacy implications of the transmission, storage or processing of such data; and

(d) any other related matters.

Question negatived.

Senator BELL (New South Wales—One Nation Whip) (11:33): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 February 2027:

The operation and administration of the Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility, with particular reference to:

(a) the extent to which the facility impacts investment in fertiliser production or importation, processing, storage, transport and distribution;

(b) the facility's contribution to national food security, regional economic development and the continuity of essential services;

(c) the accountability and effectiveness of financial assistance provided for fertiliser through the facility; and

(d) any related matters.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Bell, be agreed to.

Senator HODGINS-MAY (Victoria) (11:40): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 9 am on Monday, 7 September 2026, all correspondence, meeting notes, briefing papers, minutes, agendas and other documents relating to meetings, briefings, discussions or other engagements held from 1 to 18 August 2026 between representatives of the Australian Government and Santos Ltd, including, but not limited to, any such meetings or engagements involving the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion 619, standing in the name of Senator Hodgins-May, be agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (11:43): I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes. Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026.

Question agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH: 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 DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (11:44): 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 DEAN SMITH: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Introduction

I rise to commend this bill to the Senate.

The amendments proposed in the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026 are sensible and non-controversial, but they are also meaningful improvements that will advance Australia's mission to uphold and enhance human rights -both here and around the world.

Organ trafficking is a uniquely appalling violation of the dignity of the individual, defined by the unethical removal, transfer, or commercialisation of human organs for transplantation outside of legal frameworks.

The matter of organ harvesting and trafficking has been the subject of discussion and inquiry over many years.

Features of this bill derive primarily from inquiry and recommendations made by the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism, which wastabled in November 2018.

This report recommended a mandatory reporting scheme, where medical professionals would carry an obligation to report any knowledge or suspicion of a commercial transplant taking place.

It is, however, important to balance the need to report data that can be used to counter organ trafficking practices internationally with the need to preserve an individual's right to reasonable medical privacy.

That is why this bill proposes the mandatory reporting of overseas transplants be undertaken on arrival into Australia via the Incoming Passenger Card.

What the bill does

The amendments provided for in this bill:

add a requirement to Australia's migration framework, via additional questions on the Incoming Passenger Card, that requires mandatory disclosures from all persons seeking entry to Australia of any organ transplants outside Australia within the last five years; and

where a transplant is disclosed, the individual will be required to report the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred, and the town and/or city and country of the facility.

The resulting data will then be made available to the responsible Minister, who will be required to table an annual report in the Parliament detailing:

the number of times persons entering Australia have answered that they received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years; and

the town or city and country where the organ transplant took place, and the number of times each place was specified.

These measures are purposefully designed to assist in global efforts to prevent organ trafficking.

Australia's approach thus far

In 2005, the Australian Government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and, in 2013, strengthened the Commonwealth Criminal Code by introducing four stand-alone organ trafficking offences.

Australia's organ trafficking offences criminalise the movement of people to, from, or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs. An organ does not have to be removed for an organ trafficking offence to be committed.

In addition, Australia has several non-legislative measures in place to complement the legal framework and ensure a holistic approach to address organ trafficking.

The Australian Government conducts training programs for officials in law enforcement, immigration compliance, the Fair Work Ombudsman, and diplomatic and consular positions, to increase awareness of the indicators of organ trafficking.

The Commonwealth Criminal Code also stipulates that organ transplant tourism constitutes an organ trafficking offence if a person organised or facilitated the transport, or proposed transport, of the donor to, from or within Australia.

The incidence of organ harvesting and trafficking

When organs are provided to recipients through illicit means of coercion or compulsion, the result is a tragedy in which one human life is prized more than another.

This represents an egregious attack on the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment contained within it that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

Every time a person is pressured to sell an organ to another, or when a prisoner of conscience is executed and their organs harvested, this principle of universal human equality and dignity is transgressed.

Importantly, the clandestine nature of both harvesting and trafficking makes the trade in human organs difficult to quantify.

However, concerns about the occurrence and scale of organ trafficking are justified given the significant imbalance between the number of patients globally who are awaiting an organ transplant and the limited availability of consensual, legal organs for transplantation.

Several recent events have made the need for remedies to this international crime more urgent.

In September 2021, the Australian Government responded to the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism report, describing the issue of organ trafficking and related crimes as "a complex, evolving problem, encompassing many countries".

This evidence—procured from a variety of global bodies, governments, and NGOs—coincides with increasing reports and examples of organ trafficking and harvesting across the world, with concern the scale of the activity is more widespread than previously imagined.

Importantly, the bill fulfils a number of recommendations of the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism report, including:

recommendation 2—the need to monitor transplantation practices of other countries with regard to consistency with human rights obligations, including with regard to the use of the organs of executed prisoners; and

recommendation 4—the need for suitably anonymised data regarding the participation by Australians in overseas commercial transplants.

Of relevance here is recent evidence provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by the Australian Government in response to questions raised about the Government's position on revelations regarding organ harvesting in our region.

The Australian Government's evidence cited the June 2021 report of the 12 UN Special Procedures experts, which identified "credible evidence" that ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be subject to organ harvesting in our region.

In addition, Deakin University has reported that the number of people waiting for an organ transplant globally outweighs the number of organs available for ethical and legal transplantations. This deficit is estimated to have resulted in a black market of more than 10,000 unethical transplants a year, or more than one every hour.

Consistency with international efforts

The amendments in the bill complement efforts taken internationally to respond to the growing prevalence of organ trafficking.

In May 2021, the United Kingdom House of Lords amended the Human Tissue Act 2004 following passage of the Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill and it awaits debate in the House of Commons.

The Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill prohibits citizens and residents of the United Kingdom from travelling internationally to receive material for a transplant that was obtained without the consent of a donor and a donor's next of kin.

The House of Lords bill is aimed at preventing the rising prevalence of organ tourism, characterised as the practice by which citizens of a country that has a rigorous legal framework preventing unethical transplant travel to countries with weaker legal frameworks to receive an illicitly purchased organ.

In December 2022, the Canadian Parliament amended the Canadian Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs and to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the appropriate Minister is of the opinion that they have engaged in certain activities relating to trafficking in human organs.

The penalty for breach of the Canadian organ trafficking offences is 14 years in prison.

While there are limitations regarding the extent to which we, as Australians, can prevent human rights violations abroad, Australia maintains a responsibility to do everything within our parliamentary mechanisms to uphold the inviolability of universal human dignity.

It is not enough to be a signatory to international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Genocide Convention, without doing what we can to ensure the tenets of these conventions are upheld globally.

The amendments proposed in this bill are a step forward toward that eternal and noble goal.

Conclusion

This bill is designed to implement practical and least intrusive tools to support global efforts in combatting organ trafficking.

This bill should be seen as a sensible and timely initiative that adds to the suite of measures that have already been incorporated in the law and supports other non-legislative actions being used by Australian authorities.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator DEAN SMITH: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:45): At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than Tuesday, 25 August 2026, any documents or briefing materials including emails that record or provide the total number of people who died while on the National Priority System waiting list for a Support at Home or Home Care package during the 2025-26 financial year.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:45): At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than Friday, 28 August 2026:

(a) all correspondence issued by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to heads of government and heads of state respectively concerning attendance and participation at pre-COP in Tuvalu;

(b) all correspondence returned by those to whom correspondence was sent; and

(c) a list of all civil society/non-government organisations who have been invited by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to attend pre-COP in Fiji.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business No. 635, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:49): At the request of Senator Henderson, I move general business notices of motion Nos 636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 636

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, all documents from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water that have been provided to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy over the past three months that update him on:

(a) the delivery of the social licence benefits associated with contracted Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) projects;

(b) the status of CIS projects, including the execution of CIS agreements; and

(c) the financial and fiscal impact of the CIS.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 637

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, the following documents which relate to the Cheaper Home Batteries Program:

(a) all 'Ministerial Update—Clean Energy Regulator Battery Inspection Program Action Plans' provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date;

(b) all Clean Energy Regulator battery inspection reports provided to the minister's office from 1 July 2025 to date;

(c) the latest iteration of the question time brief with the reference number QB26-000014;

(d) all correspondence received by the minister from Ms Roslyn Baker, Chief Executive Officer of Solar Accreditation Australia, concerning the operation of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program from 1 July 2025 to date;

(e) all documents produced by the Industry Advisory Implementation Committee which have been provided to the minister and documents which contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the committee's work; and

(f) all documents produced from the intergovernmental sub-group on batteries which have been provided to the minister, and documents which contain the findings, recommendations, analysis, insights, observations and notes provided to the minister concerning the sub-group's work.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 638

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Friday, 21 August 2026, the latest two iterations of a back pocket brief produced by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, titled 'Rewiring the Nation Details (EC26-000178)'.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 639

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than Friday, 28 August 2026, any modelling and accompanying or subsequent analysis undertaken by the minister's department which concerns the expansion of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme from 100 kW to 1 MW.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 640

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 7 September 2026, all email correspondence between the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, between 1 July and 31 December 2025, which concerns fires from installed batteries under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 636, 637, 638, 639 and 640 standing in the name of Senator Henderson and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (11:53): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 21 August 2026:

(a) any documents, notes, briefings and correspondence from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts to the Minister for Communications and their office, and the Prime Minister and their office, relating to the Government's proposed AdStop register;

(b) all correspondence from the department showing any evidence that AdStop would work; and

(c) all correspondence from the department showing how AdStop will function.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion 641, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:56): I rise to reaffirm my opposition to this terrible bill. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 is a deeply flawed bill. I set out my reasons when the bill was last considered by the Senate in May, and nothing since has changed other than the fact that I and, I'm sure, most of my colleagues in here have received a lot of calls and emails from people that they are here to represent, raising concerns about the overreach in this bill and raising concerns about the government, without enough justification, having extraordinary powers over Australian citizens.

I'd like to take some of the time I have left in my second reading speech to read out excerpts from some of the correspondence I've received from Canberrans. A concerned Canberran who lives in MacGregor told me, 'I object to the frightening level of overreach sought in the name of security with this bill.' A Canberran in Wanniassa said, 'Australia is not and has not and should not be violating our rights by stripping them away without oversight or access to representation if detained per due process.' A concerned Canberran in Gungahlin said, 'I do not believe powers this grotesque and dangerous should be available to any organisation within a democracy.' The views of Canberrans seem aligned with the Law Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and so many experts and advocates raising alarm at this bill. This bill, in its current form, does not have a place in our democracy. Today, I'll be voting on behalf of Canberrans and experts against this bill.

Just today, I was at a press conference where Amnesty International and the Human Rights Law Centre and other organisations tabled a petition of over 50,000 Australians calling for a human rights act in this country. I thank the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, for his tireless work on a human rights act. He has introduced three bills that would establish a human rights act in this country. His latest attempt was modelled on the government's own work in the House committee that recommended a human rights act two years ago; that was unanimously backed by the parliament. In those two years, we've seen no moves from the government.

It's when you see bills like the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 come through that you realise why the Albanese government thinks a human rights act is a great thing in opposition but not so great in government—because it'd be very hard to ram this sort of legislation through via guillotine and not have Australians not only take exception but assert their rights in law. I think this is a time where we should be saying it is time for a human rights act in this country. It's one thing having egalitarian ideals and wanting people to be judged on their character rather than on the colour of their skin, their age or their gender—but that's not in the law in this country. A human rights act would do that.

I commend all those Australians who've been pushing for a human rights act, and I say to the government: you have 94 seats in the other place and you have a Senate crossbench urging you to get to work on a human rights act. Now is the time.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:01): Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus—all are victims of radical Islamic ideology and Islamic terrorism. More Muslims die at the hands of Islamic extremists than at the hands of any other ideology. Australia, Britain, America, Africa, Asia, India, Europe and other continents and countries are targets and victims of radical Islamic ideology. Iran sees tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of radical Islamic ideology, killing the Islamic caliphate's own citizens, yet this bill fails to mention Islam anywhere—and this bill is supposedly about terrorism and security.

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, set up after the Bondi terrorist attack, recently delivered its interim report, saying on page 8 that there is no time urgency for any reforms in relation to the Bondi massacre:

No material or advice from any agency identified any gap in the existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent, or respond to, an attack of the kind that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. No Commonwealth or state intelligence or law enforcement agency has suggested that it was prevented from taking prohibitive actions before or on 14 December 2025 by the then current legislative and authorising framework. In these respects, no issue requiring urgent or immediate action has been identified.

Any attempts to tie this ASIO bill to the two Islamic extremists who perpetrated the Bondi terrorist attack should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025—this bill—originally sought to make extraordinary powers permanent, removing the sunset clause, thereby weakening important safeguards designed to protect civil liberties, accountability and parliamentary oversight. We acknowledge that Labor has agreed to restore the sunset provision as one step to making it less odious. That's a welcome first step from Labor. We acknowledge many, many constituents across our country—thank you to them—who've pleaded with us to oppose this bill, including its many powers. We hear you loud and clear. Government has three core roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Everyone agrees on the importance of keeping Australians safe, and our intelligence agencies play a critical role in that. Omitting and ignoring extremist Islamic ideology, though, means the Albanese Labor government is ignoring all three core roles—especially protecting life.

Islam is an ideology, a way of structuring society—just like communism, socialism and Nazism. It's often used to control through being extremely punitive. It uses control of thought, belief and action using fear, violence or threats. Examples of punishment include the suppression and killing of women, killing non-believers, killing homosexuals, beheading, caning, female genital mutilation and stoning. Radical Islamic ideology goes against Australian values and Western civilisation. It is not compatible with civilised Western society.

Right now, in 2026, Iranians want civilisation. They want progress. They want an end to the Islamic caliphate and its Islamic ideology. Britain, France and many other countries are experiencing high crime rates, lawlessness, mass rapes, brutality and declining living standards due to Islamic enclaves that do not assimilate and that instead seem determined to change their new country into a British caliphate. Stop calling Islam what it is not. It is not a religion of peace. In fact, Islam is an ideology of punitive control rooted in fear. Tell the truth. Stop pandering to political correctness. Call it for what it is and restrict immigration. Protect Australian values, culture, laws and lives. Parts of Britain, France and Europe are now lawless.

We need to be proactive and stop Islamic mass immigration into Australia, and we need to specifically name radical Islam in this bill as a real and existential threat to the security of Australians. I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins's words:

Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.

Kicking out the 230 terrorists who are currently in Australia would be better than supporting legislation that impinges on law-abiding Australians' freedoms. Deport those 230. Send them home now. This is about protecting life, property and freedom, which are all vital for Australians' safety and for human progress. Yet many of this government's members of parliament, including its most senior ministers, actively encourage inhuman, anti-Australian radical Islamic ideology. This shows, clearly, that this bill is not about protecting Australians against the No. 1 terrorism threat to Australia, Australians and the world. It reveals, clearly, that this bill is about giving government agencies added control over Australians.

Ironically, since the introduction of the original legislation in 2003, 23 years ago, only 20 questioning warrants have been issued. We know that ASIO did not use its full powers leading up to Bondi. We know that Liberal and Labor uniparty prime ministers Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese together removed and stole basic human rights and freedoms during COVID and in loosely worded censorship bills as recently as last year. The suite of control bills and policies in which both have had a hand include the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023; the Digital ID Act 2024 for government digital ID; the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the censorship bill; internet controls for under-16s; and the massive curtailing of cash. Did I mention the Reserve Bank's work on developing digital currency linked to a global digital currency? It was in answer to my questions at Senate estimates. Combined, these six initiatives and bills enable a social credit system to control Australians.

To return to this latest bill, which reeks of control, if the Senate agrees to pass our One Nation amendment to specifically include and name radical Islam in the bill's provisions, we could reconsider our current position to oppose this legislation. Including radical Islam will show that Labor is fair dinkum about security. If not, Labor is not serious about security. Labor's real agenda is control of law-abiding Australians.

We have concerns about many of the bill's provisions. Let me name some: forced questioning without criminal charge; no independent judicial approval process; expanded questioning powers beyond the original terrorism focused rationale, broadening the circumstances in which these powers may be used to matters involving sabotage, promotion of the broadly defined 'communal violence', defence system attacks and territory security threats; and reduced transparency and limited public accountability. The inclusion of 'communal violence', to use your term, is especially concerning because the government's definition expands this beyond violence to say:

promotion of communal violence means activities that are directed to promoting violence between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.

That definition is so vague and so open ended. Some commentators have said that One Nation's stance on immigration, being to the benefit of Australia, leads to fear and violence in the community—that we couldn't protect Australians. One Nation's amendment will remove this vague definition from the matters towards which these powers can be used.

There's another issue. Some aspects of compulsory questioning powers with minors as young as 14 have some merit, but I'll leave the last word to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who, in his second reading speech on the original ASIO bill in the House of Representatives on 27 May 2003, quoted Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich Marshal, at the Nuremberg trials:

Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Anthony Albanese continued his speech with these words:

This legislation—

referring to the original ASIO bill—

is without precedent in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians …

This was Anthony Albanese talking about the basis of today's bill. He went on:

In fact what this legislation represents, indeed, is a threat from the inside. It represents a threat to the very democratic values which we say, quite rightly, distinguishes us from authoritarian, undemocratic regimes.

Yet now, as prime minister, he wants to add harsher powers to control law-abiding Australians—to control!

This bill erodes the rights of all Australians regardless of whether individuals have a desire to commit an act of terrorism. One Nation wants to protect all Australians. That requires specifically identifying and including radical Islamic ideology that drives Islamic terrorism. Once powers like those in this bill are introduced and made permanent, they're almost never wound back; they're here to stay. That's why we oppose it. What's the point of security with no personal freedom?

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (12:13): I rise to oppose the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This bill doesn't merely fine tune existing arrangements. It breaks in new powers and makes permanent extraordinary intrusions on the liberty of Australians which were always intended to be temporary. In doing so, it flies in the face of the rule of law.

Let's be clear about what is being proposed here, about what these powers actually are and what they do. Compulsory questioning warrants allow ASIO to compel a person who may never have been charged with an offence or may never be charged with an offence to appear and answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Failure to answer in itself becomes a criminal offence. Telling your family, your friends, your wife or your husband about the situation becomes an offence. These are not ordinary investigative tools. They sit well outside the framework of the traditional criminal justice system.

The original incarnation was introduced in the shadow of 11 September 2001 as a temporary measure to fill a specific gap in our security services. Parliament since then has repeatedly extended them under successive sunset clauses precisely because they are so exceptional. As it currently stands, the bill removes that sunset clause entirely, and I understand there may be a push to return that sunset clause, which is a good thing, but it is also, in the framework of this bill, a very small thing. Powers that were meant to expire becoming a permanent feature of the legal landscape is a problem. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary. History shows that temporary emergency powers have a long and chequered history and habit of becoming permanent features.

Worse still, the bill actually expands the reach of adult questioning warrants. Currently, that framework is limited to espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference, but the definition of an adult questioning matter will now be broadened under this bill to include sabotage and, most alarmingly, the promotion of communal violence. There are other categories of attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to territorial and border integrity. Some of these new categories are concerning in their breadth and vagueness. 'Promotion of communal violence' is particularly elastic. What does it actually mean? What does it capture? Does it capture passionate political speech, advocacy that offends certain groups, legitimate protest or religious expression that crosses an often ill-defined line?

In a free society, the state shouldn't be handed an open ended power to compel citizens to answer questions about speech or association that falls short of actual criminality. Vague drafting is the enemy of the rule of law. Citizens should be able to know with reasonable certainty where the line is drawn. This bill, on any measure, blurs that line and makes it very difficult for people to understand whether they could simply be detained and questioned against their will. The bill also retains the capacity to subject children as young as 14 to these processes. On its surface, that alone should give this chamber reason to pause.

Yes, this legislation makes some amendments to prescribed authorities and reporting, but they're modest and they don't cure the fundamental problem, which is the absence of robust, independent judicial oversight. There always should be a tension between compulsory interrogation and the right to silence. That is something which underpins the very nature of our adversarial system of justice. National security is obviously vital, and I think no-one disputes that ASIO has a very difficult and a very important job. But security which is purchased at the price of permanent, expanded and coercive powers that can sweep up people who have committed no crime is a false bargain. The rule of law requires that the state's most intrusive rules remain exceptional, tightly confined, regularly scrutinised and subject to genuine sunset or renewal by the parliament, not just quietly normalised and not just quietly allowed to creep into the norm.

So I simply won't support a bill that entrenches extraordinary powers at the behest of becoming ordinary. Those powers expand the scope with vague language and treat the fundamental protections of the law as optional. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary, and I simply will not support this bill.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:19): This is extraordinary, isn't it? We're seeing the Labor Party join up with the coalition to guillotine laws and ram them through this parliament without proper scrutiny on the last day of a sitting week. They're trying to hide it behind other business. They're ramming through laws that are going to supercharge the ability of ASIO to literally pluck you off the street, hold you in secret detention for 24 hours, interrogate you and force you to answer every question with a threat of going to jail if you don't. You don't even have to be suspected of anything. You just might be someone they want to talk to. They're ramming this legislation through to expand the reasons, almost indefinitely, for which ASIO can just pluck people off the street. They're ramming it through today with a guillotine to try and get their dirty business of the security state through and their dirty business of granting ASIO whatever power it wants. They want their dirty business rammed through under a guillotine while no-one's watching.

Do you know what? Look around this chamber, and look at the speakers list, there's no-one from Labor coming in to defend this. It's indefensible. The speaking list has collapsed from Labor because they know that coming in and talking to this is like going for a bath in toxic waste with the public. The coalition, the ones who come here and trumpet about individual liberty and fighting against the state, are in it up to their necks. They agreed to the guillotine, to ramming it through. This is a demonstration, exhibit A, in what is wrong with this place. We're meant to be here protecting democracy. We're meant to be here protecting freedoms. We're meant to be here protecting people on the street from, let's be frank, this place—what Labor does in this place and what the coalition does in this place. Instead, this place is doing a job on the people of Australia and trying to do it in the dark. That's what the guillotine's about. That's why no-one from Labor will come out and speak to it. They want it to go through without anyone watching what they're doing. It's a downright bloody disgrace.

The Greens voted against this legislation when the coalition and Labor first brought it in, in 2003. We voted against it when they tried to constantly have the sunset never set, to extend the sunset time after time after time, and we're voting against it today. We are the only party that has stood in this place not to back in ASIO and secret state and secret detention. We're the only party that stood in this place every single time and said: 'We're on the side of liberty. We're on the side of the Australian public.' We're doing it again today, and Labor and the coalition are on the side of secret detention powers. They're on the side of plucking you off the street and having you interrogated in the dark.

Get this: if this extension of the power goes through, they can pluck you off the street with a warrant. They call it a warrant, but let's be clear: it's a piece of paper. And do you know who's going to sign off on ASIO's powers? People might be thinking: 'Surely, there would be a judge there, right? Maybe even a magistrate. Surely, there's someone independent of government. Surely, this couldn't be done by a politician, could it?' But, no, the person who signs the bit of paper to have you plucked off the street by ASIO and put in a dark room for 24 hours is the Attorney-General, a politician. That's what's being proposed here. Politicians can have you plucked off the street and secretly interrogated for 24 hours by ASIO or the AFP, and they want to expand the reasons why ASIO can do that. They want to expand it to include this concept of 'promotion of communal violence'. Read the definition of 'promotion of communal violence' in the bill, and do you know what it says? It says 'whatever the bloody hell ASIO thinks it is'—that's what the definition says. You could drive a bus through the definition.

When we look at other countries, at history and at how we lost democracy and freedoms, it happens with actions like this. Governments say: 'We need to do this. We need this extreme power over you to protect you. We need to be able to decide whenever we want, however we want, whoever we want. We can just monster them to protect you. Don't you worry, it won't be you. Oh no, it's that lot over there.' Maybe this month, they're coming after people seeking freedom for the Palestinian people. Maybe next month, they'll come after some First Nations activists who are demanding their land back. Maybe next month, they'll decide to go full on against our neighbours and our friends in the Islamic community here. Maybe after that, they'll come after unionists. Maybe after that, they'll come after the Greens—maybe they'll put the Greens higher up the list. That's what's at stake here because that's what history shows us: you give governments these extreme powers, and they use them. You may not think they're coming after you first, but don't you worry; you're on the list. When will we say 'no' to this? When will this parliament not back in ASIO, the secret state, the security state—whatever the hell the government of the day wants. When will we back in the right of Australians to go about their lives and not fear their own government? If this legislation gets through, Australians will have a right to fear their own government—because whenever the government chooses to it can pluck you off the street.

What happens in these secret detentions? I gave a speech a few months ago in this place about a woman who finally felt that she could talk about her experience of being pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest in the city. She had been fearing being put in jail if she told anyone about it—she'd been fearing this for over a decade. She'd been plucked off the street in 2003, and she'd been fearing that if she told anyone—her mum, her dad, her kids, her friends—she'd be put in jail. She could finally speak about it and tell me about it because she was going to take her own life, because she had terminal cancer—that's when she felt she could talk about it. She'd been keeping this fear inside of her for two decades that, if she told anyone about how she was pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest, she'd go to jail. It was the only time she could speak about it—and in her last moments on this planet what was in her mind was telling the truth about what happened to her and being able to finally talk about it. She didn't fear the consequences, not because the law had gone away but because her life was about to end. And Labor and the coalition want to extend these powers and do that to even more Australians. That woman was never suspected of anything; she was just a witness they wanted to interrogate.

What happens under this law? ASIO decide your brother or sister might have gone to a protest, might have signed a petition or might have had a chat in the pub, and they think, 'Well, we don't suspect you of anything, but you might have some information about'—what is it—'promotion of communal violence', or whatever the hell ASIO says. Maybe you're thinking about doing some disruption for a climate protest. Maybe you're thinking about protesting ASIO—I don't know. But they think that there was a discussion there about promoting communal violence. They will go to the Attorney-General and say: 'Look, this is a problem. This person doesn't like ASIO; they're going to have a go at ASIO,' or, 'This person doesn't like Woodside; they're going to go at Woodside.' And they say to the Attorney: 'We want to drag him in and find out who they know, who they talk to. We want to get their emails. We want to get their socials. We want to drag them in.'

The Attorney-General signs a piece of paper and, bang, you get a knock on your door, or you get pulled out of work or you get pulled over on the street, and they take you into a room and they can question you for 24 hours. You can bring your lawyer in at the start, if you can contact them—they don't necessarily give you any time. But if they don't like what your lawyer's doing, they just boot your lawyer out. You are there without a lawyer. You might be worried that something you say could get you in trouble, because you're not sure what the hell—there are no charges in front of you; you haven't been told what it's about. You're just being questioned. You say, 'I don't want to answer that.' They say, 'If you don't answer it, we're going to charge you and put you in jail for up to five years.'

Then, after 24 hours of this—and I think they have to give you a little bit of sleep at some point, and they have to give you some water. They give you a bit of sleep, give you a bit of water, wake you up again and question you again, and they spit you out after 24 hours. You go home. Your partner comes out and says, 'Bloody hell, where were you?' You say, 'I can't tell you.' Your kids are saying: 'Dad, Mum, where were you? What's happened? You missed the soccer. What the hell happened?' You're shaken, you haven't had any sleep and you're in the same clothes you were in. 'I can't tell you. If I tell you, I go to jail. I can't tell you and I can't tell you why I can't tell you.' That's the law you're backing in here. Who the hell does that? Those are some of the most repressive laws you could do. Who could do that to a citizen? They don't even have to be suspected of anything. You lot want to extend this by extending the sunset clause, forever. You want to increase the grounds on which ASIO can come and do this. Is there any wonder you're trying to slip it in in a guillotine?

I look at the speaking list, and there's not a bloody Labor politician on it. The only coalition member who speaks on it is one of—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to mind your language in this chamber.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I withdraw that word starting with 'b'. There's not a Labor member on the speaking list, and the only coalition member is one of them who has the actual guts to come up and say no. But the coalition machine is voting for this, and none of them are willing to even put their name to it and come and explain to the public why they're doing this. You can't explain; if you were to tell the truth, you'd say, 'We're craven, craven to the security state, and we'll do whatever the security state wants'. You've done it every time.

The Prime Minister, the great shrinking man of Australian politics who, in 2003, when this legislation first came here, said, 'Never do that', said:

This legislation is without precedent—

I'm quoting him here; it's on his website, even—

in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians.

That's why he voted against it in 2003. Those were his words. Then he went on and he said:

An ideological struggle in favour of democracy and freedom cannot be won by giving up democratic values, freedom and respect for civil liberties. This is not a new struggle. Way back in 1800, British parliamentarian Edmund Burke told parliament: 'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny'. That statement is as true today as it was when such a far-sighted legislator first uttered it.

Those were the words of the current Prime Minister, a person who has shrunk in office to a degree that he's hard to recognise. The same bloke who said that in 2003—that these laws are a threat to our civil liberties and that they are the worst of tyranny—is now leading a government that wants to supersize them. And no-one from Labor has the guts to explain how that happened; none of them.

Of course, their poodles in the coalition trot along behind them and say: 'Security state? No worries! We'll give it to you.' What's the point of you? Well, the point of you, it turns out, is to take freedoms from Australians, to take liberty from this country, to supersize the security state and to do it in the dark and under a guillotine. You haven't got the guts to actually have a committee discussion about this or to be interrogated in the parliament about your powers. You're happy to interrogate the people of Australia in secret and in the dark, but you won't even stand up in this place and answer questions in committee. That's what the guillotine does. What a disgraceful bunch of hypocrites you all are.

We will oppose this law today, like we opposed these supersized security laws in 2003, like we oppose them every time you tried to extend the sunset clause, because the Greens fundamentally believe that the people in this country deserve rights to protect them against their government. Not only do we say it; we vote that way, we vote on principle, we vote on our policies and we're going to do that today. I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate rejects the bill and is of the opinion that the compulsory questioning warrant scheme is a draconian and unjustified departure from the rule of law that should be repealed".

And I also seek leave to withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 3796.

Leave granted.

Senator HODGINS-MAY (Victoria) (12:34): First of all, I wish to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, who I think laid out exactly what is wrong with this complete power grab happening today under the cloak of darkness. Once again, this week, we are seeing Labor and the coalition team up to do a dirty deal to ram this bill, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, through the Senate today, with debate being limited to just one hour. That's one hour to debate the biggest expansion to ASIO's coercive interrogation and detention powers in more than two decades. One hour! That is not democracy. This is an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process, and people in this place, on both sides, should hang their heads in shame. I see they're not even in here to listen to this debate or to engage in this debate. If this legislation is so defensible—

Senator Green: On a point of order, the senator is reflecting on other senators' presence inside or outside of the chamber. Senator Shoebridge also made comments about people being on or off the speaking lists which were misleading the Senate. I'd ask the senator to withdraw.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): Senator Hodgins-May, can you please withdraw those comments.

Senator HODGINS-MAY:   I withdraw. Members of the coalition and the Labor Party know that these powers will alarm Australians. That is why we're not having a debate. That is why debate is being limited to one hour. That is why this bill isn't going to committee.

This overreach is exactly what parliament is supposed to prevent: governments accruing extraordinary powers without proper scrutiny or without public debate. They do it while the public's attention is elsewhere. The public are grieving the fact that 230,000 people are going to be kicked off the NDIS. The public are grieving the fact that, despite years and years of advocacy to strengthen gambling laws and gambling advertising laws in this country to keep people safe, they got a dog's breakfast that won't work. People are distracted. On the final hours of sitting, on the last day of the fortnight, the government and coalition are teaming up for another dirty deal. Shame on them.

This timing, of course, isn't incidental. They are trying to bury a deeply controversial expansion of secret state powers underneath other major political news. The substance of this bill should alarm everyone who cares about democracy and who cares about freedom of speech and the right to protest—fundamental principles to a healthy, functioning democracy. Under these laws, ASIO can detain and interrogate someone who has not been charged with a crime. They don't even need to be suspected of committing a crime. You cannot make this stuff up. You can be compelled to answer questions, and refusing to answer can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. That's five years in prison for failing to answer questions, and you haven't even been suspected of committing a crime.

As my colleague Senator Shoebridge articulated so clearly, you are prohibited from telling your family, your lawyer or anyone else about what happened—why you were plucked off the street, why you were detained. Imagine those powers being exercised against someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong. How intimidating. How terrifying. Imagine being taken away, interrogated by a secret intelligence agency, denied the opportunity to speak publicly about it and face five years in prison if you refuse to answer questions. That's not the Australia we know. That's not the Australia we're in here to protect. These are not minor administrative powers. They go directly to the relationship between the individual and the state. A 14-year-old could be detained and questioned by ASIO without a lawyer and without court oversight.

This should absolutely horrify us. The new politically motivated violence trigger makes that even more alarming. That phrase risks drawing legitimate political movements, protests and dissent into the national security apparatus. We've already seen the Palestine solidarity movement subjected to extraordinary political and national security scrutiny. Who knows where else this will go? Senator Shoebridge raised some examples, but what about welfare recipients? What about disabled people, who are the very people that this government has shown it is willing to beat down on time and time again? Well, let's see where these laws end up and who they end up interrogating.

People have a democratic right to march, to organise, to campaign, to criticise governments and to demand political change. Freedom of speech is not just the right to say things that the government likes. Freedom of speech matters most when people are saying things that governments find uncomfortable—thin skins. The right to protest matters most when people are protesting against those in power. If people start worrying about whether participation in a protest could put them on ASIO's radar, then you've already begun to chill democratic participation. If that power can be exercised secretly, with limited ability for the person affected to challenge it, of course that danger is even greater, and it is unacceptable.

This is why parliamentary scrutiny matters so much, and the fact that you've sidelined that today is an indictment. Today, Labor and the coalition have decided Australians deserve one hour of debate on this power grab. There is something deeply perverse about using the guillotine to rush through legislation that gives itself, the state, greater powers to restrict people's freedom. The government should be making the case for these powers in the sunlight, not passing them in the shadows.

There is a particular hypocrisy here. In 2003, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke against the expansion of these sorts of ASIO powers—how much changes in 23 years. The Greens are trying to remove the worst elements of this bill, and we will oppose any expansion of these dangerous powers. National security should keep Australians safe. It should not become a back doorstep for suppressing dissent. The real test of democracy is not whether the government can exercise power; it's whether they're willing to constrain their own power. Today, Labor and the coalition are dismally failing that test, and Australians will remember this political cowardice, this power grab and this dodgy deal with the coalition—one of many this week—at the next election.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:42): I rise to add my voice to the chorus of opposition to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Community members, civil society and legal experts share the Greens' opposition to the major parties' continued efforts in this legislation to undermine our democracy and our civil liberties. I want to associate myself with the excellent speeches from Senator Hodgins-May and Senator Shoebridge. These two parties, the coalition and the Labor Party, were not satisfied by screwing over millions of people this week. They want to tighten the screws even further. All you can do and all you can think about is how we can harm more and more people who live in this country. Why are you here? What is your purpose? Pack up. Get out.

What we have before us are amendments that lock in and expand the worst of the extraordinary Howard-era laws that allow ASIO to force someone who isn't accused of any crime to immediately submit to secret questioning for up to 40 hours. If you're lucky, you're allowed a lawyer during questioning. But ASIO can get approval to strip you of that very basic right too. Where are we living now? Think about what you are doing. If you do get a lawyer these powers will still hamstring them. ASIO can redact their copy of the original warrant, prevent them from asking questions or boot them from the interrogation altogether. This is the gravity of what this legislation is going to do.

How much time do we have, Senator Shoebridge? We've got one hour to debate this. The two sides are very quiet on this because they just want to push it through. All of this is without any judicial oversight of the warrant issue. It's just the rubber stamp of whichever of Australia's notoriously compliant Labor or Liberal attorneys-general happen to be in government and on the ASIO director's speed dial at that particular time.

It's clear that these powers should never have existed in the first place. That's a view I know was shared on record by many Labor members in this place before they decided that they preferred the admiration of national security hawks and warmongers over protecting the democratic rights and civil liberties of ordinary citizens. The government's quiet move to reinsert the sunset clause is a symptom of their confused approach to these powers and this legislation. The Labor Party doesn't know who they are any more. That's pretty clear. It was reckless in the extreme to attempt to bake in the worst of the existing legislation's attacks on Australians' human rights by removing the sunset clause that should have seen these laws expire long ago. It's good that it will stay in, but we maintain that these laws should still be allowed to lapse and should be subject to rigorous parliamentary oversight and regular independent review in the meantime.

In this spirit of recklessness, the bill expands the list of matters on which people can be compulsorily questioned to include the very nebulous 'promotion of communal violence' and 'protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats'. ASIO and Home Affairs told the government they didn't think the latter was necessary. We know who is going to be cracked down on by these laws. It is those fighting for justice for Palestine. It is those fighting for climate or for anything else that the government doesn't like.

The submission of the councils for civil liberties to the PJCIS inquiry puts clearly the alarming consequences of these changes, saying that they create 'an incentive for the executive to conduct fishing expeditions against individuals who could not otherwise be investigated under ordinary criminal procedure'. Given the breadth of the concept of political violence, the councils are concerned that the effect of the division is to transform ASIO from an intelligence agency into a secret police force. This is what is happening here. You are making a secret police force. The president of the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties said a few weeks ago:

The expanded scope of ASIO powers proposed in this bill could theoretically capture activities related to political protest and represents a massive overreach of emergency anti-terror laws that has long been warned against.

But you guys never pay heed to any evidence or anything the experts tell you. You just do what the hell you want to, and, nine times out of 10, it is bad. It is bad for communities, it is bad for people, it is bad for migrants, it is bad for those who want to use their democratic right to protest, and it is bad for this country.

History teaches us that the only reliable way to prevent governments from using such powers to suppress political dissent is for them not to have them in the first place. We know that suppression always comes for the marginalised and people of colour first, and it will again this time around. I am opposed to any effort to infringe on the rights of people to associate, to organise or to protest.

The lack of transparency and accountability in this legislation falls far short of the basic democratic expectations. That Labor feel they can rush it through the Senate in just one day shows how confident Labor and the Liberals are in having normalised secrecy and national security excess over the last two decades, as they've marched in lockstep to the US drums of war. The Greens don't for one second buy the major party view that what is done in the name of national security should be done without criticism or care for the path down which the country is being led. So we will be vocal and we will be loud and proud against attacks on democratic rights for communities and people that live here. We will not shy away from that.

This bill is, of course, just another example of Labor's slide to the right on democratic freedoms. We see it in their willingness to cosy up to the United States and its far-right leaders. While we say Australia should be a voice for peace and justice not a lapdog for militarism, the government are all too happy to put the imperial interests of our so-called allies ahead of the civil liberties of Australians. We see Labor's slide to the right in the culture of secrecy that results in Labor teaming up with the Liberals to evade scrutiny on AUKUS. We see it in the deals they cut—at least three we've seen it just this week in the deals that they cut. We see it in the deals that they cut, again, with their pals—who but the Liberals—to rush through legislation that is chilling political debate, protest, civil rights and people speaking up about civil rights abuses across the world, especially justice for Palestine. We saw it as Australia fell in line behind the United States and Israel as devastating wars were waged on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, killing and maiming tens of thousands, displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying entire communities. Instead of standing up instead of standing up for civil liberties at home and standing up for international law and human rights around the world, Prime Minister Albanese and his government toe the line for war-mongering countries and egomaniacal leaders. That's what the Labor Party of today is about.

What Australia's defence and intelligence organisations need is more transparency and accountability, not the impunity granted by this legislation. At their heart, these laws represent a threat—a threat to our democracy and civil liberties. I'm so proud to join my Greens colleagues in voting against these threats to communities who want to use their democratic right to protest and to speak out and in voting against this bill.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (12:53): It's been a pretty dire week here in the Senate, and I dare say many of the people impacted by the events in this chamber this week would describe it as diabolical. We have got disabled people punched down on. We've seen pathetically weak gambling laws rammed through this place, and, now, we are seeing, again under a guillotine—the third in three days—a bill that massively increases the power of the intelligence and security apparatus in this country. What's the common theme between all these three things—punching down on disabled people, passing gambling laws drafted at the behest of the big gambling corporations and creating extraordinary new powers for the security industrial complex in this country? What is the common theme? That's right—the so-called parties of government in this place.

Let me give a warning to the parties of government. Firstly, if you rise to the head of a police force, a security group or an intelligence organisation like ASIO, you are primarily concerned with things like law and order, security and safety. That is an obvious statement. But let's be very clear about what our job is here in this place. Our job is to question when we get asked whether new powers are necessary. Our job is to ask the question. When we get told by the head of ASIO or the head of the AFP or the head of any of the other myriad law and order and security organisations that exist in our country that we have to give them new powers, our job is not to say, 'Of course, here you go,' as the parties of government do every single time in this place. Our job is to question the need and to balance a genuine need that people be kept as safe as possible in this country with the fundamental rights and freedoms that we used to go to war and fight and bleed and die to protect. That is our job in this place, and that job and that responsibility is being abrogated, as it is so regularly, by the so-called parties of government in this place.

So, of course, here the Greens find ourselves yet again standing for fundamental rights and freedoms—in the complete absence, I might add, of a charter or a bill of rights in this place, in the complete absence of the rights of citizens of this country being enshrined in the Constitution, which is where they actually should be enshrined in a country like Australia. In the complete absence of those things, it is left to the Greens, as we do every single time, to run the balance argument, to run the reasonable argument. I want to associate myself with the words of Senator Shoebridge in his excellent contribution to this debate, as well as Senator Hodgins-May's and Senator Faruqi's excellent words.

We should be really scared about what these powers allow ASIO to do. You can be literally dragged off the street for secret questioning, no crime required. You don't get a lawyer of your choice and you don't get a right to silence. This can apply to children as young as 14—kids! They get dragged out when they're walking home from school and dragged into ASIO for questioning. They don't get a lawyer that they might choose or that their family might choose. In fact, they may well not be allowed to tell their family what's happened. Certainly if you're an adult you won't be able to tell your family what happened. It'll be a crime to tell your family what happened, where you were and what you were asked. These are draconian, coercive questioning powers. It is a disgrace that in a so-called liberal democracy like Australia we are even thinking about creating and extending powers like these.

Of course, the Prime Minister, back in the day, was right when he opposed these coercive questioning powers when they were first introduced and said:

Its provisions—

the provisions that underpin the provisions that we are debating today—

potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians.

He was right about that. But I'll tell you what—the office of Prime Minister empowers some people and diminishes others, and this current prime minister is someone who has been abjectly diminished by the office of Prime Minister. He has shrunk in office, as Senator Shoebridge said. He's a deeply unimpressive Prime Minister. A mediocre—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to be mindful of reflecting on other members of this parliament.

Senator McKIM: On the basis that you were directing that towards Senator McKim—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: My apologies.

Senator McKIM: I will indeed consider that.

We need to understand what some of the detail is in this legislation. Let's be clear about who can sign the warrants here. The warrants can be signed by the Attorney-General. The warrants don't have to be signed by a judge, as is overwhelmingly usual in our justice system. To make the obvious point, the Attorney-General—so that I don't fall foul of reflecting on a particular person I'll say any Attorney-General—is a political appointment. The Attorney-General is a political appointment made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's how we end up with an Attorney-General. They're not an independent person who is going to dispassionately and reasonably apply the law; they're a political appointment. And yet it's the Attorney-General who can sign warrants. The Attorney-General—give me a break!

We've seen what attorneys-general have done over the years. Without even casting my mind very far back, we can look at the case of Witness K—a prime example. We can look at the case of Mr Collaery—another example.

Senator McKIM: And, as Senator Shoebridge reminds me, more recently Mr David McBride. And what about when we bugged the Timor-Leste embassy, which of course gave rise to the circumstances that Witness K and Mr Collaery found themselves in. Australian history is literally littered with examples of attorneys-general behaving in a highly questionable ways.

Senator McKIM: Yes. As Senator Shoebridge also reminds me, they're doing the government's dirty work. Our history is littered with it. And then you bring in a bill that's going to let the Attorney-General sign a warrant.

They don't have to suspect that you did anything wrong; they could just be putting the shakes on you. Shaking you down, squeezing you for information. This is absolutely police state stuff, surveillance state stuff. And people know that they are living in a surveillance capitalist society where you get surveilled by corporations like Coles when you go to the supermarket. They've got a contract with Palantir, one of the most evil corporations that exists anywhere in the world—one of the most dangerous corporations that exists anywhere in the world. They know they're going to get surveilled, that digital recognition software will be deployed. They get you in the aisles; they get you in the check-outs. People understand that's happening in the capitalist parts of our society, the big corporate controlled parts of our society, and people need to understand it's happening with regard to the state.

Do you remember the absolute uproar when a former Labor government tried to introduce the Australia card? How far down the road to a surveillance state have we travelled since those days? Quite rightly, Australians back then were concerned about the government centralising information that the state held on individual people. There was an absolute uproar about it. Well, here we find ourselves, because of the curtailment of these debates by the so-called parties of government, where these laws are being smuggled through this parliament. There was no committee, no public inquiry and no opportunity for these laws to be scrutinised even in the committee stage of the Senate. Here we are, again, where fundamental rights and freedoms that Australians, fought, bled, killed and died to protect back in the day, including family members of mine and ancestors of mine who died in wars against totalitarian and fascist states. Here we are becoming one. It's pathetic.

It's mostly pathetic from the so-called parties of government in this place, where we have a Labor Party that has completely lost its way, captured by fossil fuel interests, captured by Zionist interests, captured by the Five Eyes security—

Senator Paterson: Really? In the middle of an antisemitism crisis?

Senator McKIM: Mate, you're captured by Zionist interests as well.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): Senator Kovacic.

Senator Kovacic: Those remarks must be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Feel free to put the point of order. My issue is the disorder—yelling across the chamber.

Senator Kovacic: My point of order is on the comments made by Senator McKim.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, will you please withdraw those comments?

Senator McKIM: I withdraw the comment I made about Senator Paterson—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I don't think that was quite the point.

Senator McKIM: Well, I don't know what the point was.

Senator Kovacic: It was both. It was in relation to what is occurring now in our country and the comments in relation to Senator Paterson.

Senator McKIM: I have withdrawn the comments made in relation to Senator Paterson.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McKim—

Senator McKIM: I'm entitled to say that Zionist interests—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are, but you are entitled to have an orderly debate within this chamber, and it is my role here to keep that order. There have been wide-ranging comments so far this morning, some of which have been offensive to others. You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to continue on this debate, but I will ask you to do it in a respectful and inoffensive fashion. If you can withdraw those comments, please.

Senator McKIM: I have withdrawn the comments I made in regards to Senator Paterson. I'll leave it there. I will make—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I feel like you are completely missing the point intentionally. Senator Paterson.

Senator Paterson: In the interest of being helpful, to assist Senator McKim so he has the time to reflect on this, we have a royal commission right now into antisemitism. Standing up in this chamber and accusing other people of being 'captured by Zionist interests' is a dangerous and reckless thing to do. I encourage him, in the spirit of good debate in this chamber, to reflect on the consequences of language like that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Paterson, this is not a further debate. I am conscious that you have time left and you have a right to continue your contribution. For the orderly conduct of this chamber, I would ask you to consider withdrawing those comments so that we can proceed.

Senator McKIM: If I might address the point of order, then, if you're going to make such a ruling. I'm not certain what standing order Senator Paterson is alleging that I've broken—

Senator Paterson: Good judgement, class, taste, decency.

Senator McKIM: Good judgement? I'm not aware of that being part of the standing orders. I'm happy to reflect on what Senator Paterson has asked me to reflect on.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That would be much appreciated.

Senator McKIM: In the very short time I have left, because of the dirty deal between the Labor Party and the coalition—by the way, I will provide the minister with two or three minutes before the 1.15 guillotine because I am genuinely curious at how the indefensible is going to be defended by this minister or at least the attempt to defend the indefensible will be rolled out. I will make the point again: these are bad laws, they're bad for the country, they're bad for the values—they offend the values—of this country, and they are bad for the people of Australia. They not only offend the values of this country now, they offend the values that we used to go to war for and fight to protect and enhance. Here we find ourselves actually becoming the very thing that we fought against for so long in this country.

The Labor Party should stand condemned for being captured by so many vested interests in this place, including the military industrial complex. The coalition should and does stand condemned for the same thing. The Australian Greens will proudly vote against these terrible provisions. We will proudly stand up for the people of Australia against a political duopoly that is determined to turn this country into a police state and a surveillance state.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:10): In the 4½ minutes left for this debate, I was hoping to address the content of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 in depth. I was hoping to also talk to the government amendments that have been moved with regard to the sunsetting clause and the PJCIS. I'm going to address the nature of the debate first, though, because we have allowed Greens members to be added to the list to speak today and we haven't closed off debate, but the commentary from that end of the chamber has been not just misleading of the Senate but wilfully misleading of the Senate. To say that there are no government speakers on the list is wrong and untrue and wilfully misleading. To say that this is the only opportunity to debate is wrong. The bill was debated in May. It's been on the list since 2025. To say there's no committee process while also taking up time to avoid a committee process is not just wrong; it is disrespectful to the Senate. And it was said that we have quietly introduced amendments. I wouldn't call providing something with notice in the Hansard, with detailed information about why we're introducing those amendments, 'quietly'.

The truth is the Greens political party seek to talk about the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the erosion of democracy while at the same time disrespecting this institution and disrespecting democratic institutions, the Public Service and our intelligence agencies in a way that erodes democracy. You cannot, on one hand, talk about the fact that democracy is being eroded while you are actually actively seeking to do that. That is what the Greens political party do every single time they come into this chamber, and they should be held accountable for that behaviour. That's why I wanted to address that debate now before moving on to the substantial notion of the bill.

There is one other political comment that I need to make before I move on, and that is the voting intention of One Nation. We have heard so much commentary from One Nation, particularly the leader, Pauline Hanson, but also other members of One Nation, about how they are so black and white when it comes to supporting national security and protecting Australians from terrorism. But today what they will do is seek to water down this bill and, if they don't get their amendments up, they will vote against a piece of legislation designed to protect our national security. That's exactly what One Nation does. They say one thing outside of this chamber, and then they come in here and do the exact opposite, every single time. And now we have them here again doing exactly the same thing.

The government will be seeking to move amendments that ensure that a sunset clause exists for these powers and to ensure that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security statutory review of operational effectiveness and the implications of the compulsory questioning powers occurs two years after the commencement of this bill. On the nature of the rest of the amendments, I won't go into them, but I will remind my colleagues that the Director-General of Security stated in his annual threat assessment in 2025:

Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats.

ASIO need the powers to ensure that they can protect Australians from the threats to security.

We heard comments about the Prime Minister from these people at the end of the chamber, and I want to put on the record that the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He is the person who has spoken and met with people who have been harmed by extremist violence in our country. He has met those victims and he has talked to them personally. The Prime Minister is committed, above all else, to protecting Australians and keeping them safe and ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers that they require to do that exact thing—keep Australians safe.

Debate interrupted.

The PRESIDENT (13:15): Pursuant to order agreed on 18 August 2026, the time allotted for consideration of 12 bills has expired. I'll now put the question on the remaining stages of the bills. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 4012, to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 and related bills, be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (13:22): I advise senators that, if further divisions are required, there will be one-minute bells. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The PRESIDENT: I'll now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's amendments on sheet 4007, to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated a mendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 —

(1) Clause 11, page 12 (line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; or (c) providing opinion or commentary on core news content.

(2) Clause 11, page 12 (line 30) to page 13 (line 4), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) However, a role is not an eligible editorial role if the role is primarily any of the following:

(a) narrator, anchor or presenter;

(b) sports commentator;

(c) actor (including actors involved in re-enactment);

(d) effects or design professional.

The PRESIDENT (13:30): I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3999, to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, and on sheet 4006, to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendment to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 —

SHEET 3999

(1) Clause 20, page 23 (line 15), omit "one-quarter", substitute "17%".

_____

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 —

SHEET 4006

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 23 to 26), omit the paragraph beginning "Also, 5% of the revenue", substitute:

‚

(2) Clause 40, page 39 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(3) Clause 44, page 43 (line 7), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(4) Clause 93, page 87 (line 5), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(5) Clause 93, page 87 (lines 8 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "5% of collected charge revenue", substitute:

‚

(6) Clause 94, page 88 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In deciding which eligible entities (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Secretary must give priority to eligible entities that are not approved participants for the payment period during the which the grant under subsection (1) would be paid.

(7) Clause 94, page 88 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of eligible entity, substitute:

annual income, for an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate, means the amount for the individual, partnership, trust or body corporate that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition.

eligible entity means an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate (other than corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies) that has an annual income of less than $20 million.

(8) Clause 95, page 88 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In deciding which eligible grant recipient corporations (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Secretary must give priority to eligible grant recipient corporations that are not eligible corporations.

Note: For eligible corporation, see section 7.

(9) Clause 95, page 89 (before line 1), before the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation, insert:

annual income, for a corporation, means the amount for the corporation that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition.

(10) Clause 95, page 89 (line 4), omit paragraph (c) of the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation entity, substitute:

(c) that has an annual income less than $20 million.

(11) Clause 100, page 90 (line 25), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters".

(12) Clause 100, page 90 (line 27), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters".

(13) Clause 100, page 91 (line 3), omit "half", substitute "one-quarter".

The PRESIDENT (13:33): I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that clauses 98 and 99 on sheet 4010 of the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 stand as printed.

Senator D avid Pocock's circulated amendment to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 202 6 —

(27) Clauses 98 and 99, page 90 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.

The PRESIDENT (13:37): The question is that the amendments on sheet 4011 and the remaining amendments on sheet 4010, as moved by Senator Pocock, be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 —

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 23 to 26), omit the paragraph beginning "Also, 5% of the revenue", substitute:

5, page 6 (after line 6), after the definition of grant recipient, insert:

Grants Administrator means the body established by the Minister under section 105A.

(3) Clause 9, page 11 (lines 11 and 12), omit "if the corporation is an eligible low-revenue corporation—the FTE number", substitute "the FTE number".

(4) Clause 11, page 13 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) To avoid doubt, a role that is an eligible editorial role under subsection (1) does not cease to be an eligible editorial role merely because the role also involves being a narrator, anchor or presenter, so long as the role is not primarily that of a narrator, anchor of presenter.

(5) Clause 16, page 16 (lines 21 and 22), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation".

(6) Clause 16, page 16 (line 32) to page 17 (line 7), omit paragraphs 16(1)(e) and (f).

(7) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 10 and 11), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation".

(8) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 15 to 22), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The rules may provide for the FTE number of an eligible volunteer to be nil for the whole of the payment period.

(9) Clause 18, page 19 (lines 23 and 24), omit "eligible low-revenue corporation", substitute "eligible corporation".

(10) Clause 40, page 39 (line 12), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(11) Clause 44, page 43 (line 7), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(12) Clause 71, page 66 (lines 26 to 30), omit paragraph (3)(e).

(13) Clause 93, page 87 (line 5), omit "10%", substitute "20%".

(14) Clause 93, page 87 (lines 8 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "5% of collected charge revenue", substitute:

‚

15% of collected charge revenue is available for making grants, under sections 94 and 95, to certain entities and corporations with an annual income of less than $20 million, with priority given to entities that are not otherwise eligible to receive payments under the scheme. Any amount unspent in a payment year is available for spending in a later payment year.

(15) Clause 94, page 88 (line 3), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(16) Clause 94, page 88 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In deciding which eligible entities (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Grants Administrator must give priority to eligible entities that are not approved participants for the payment period during the which the grant under subsection (1) would be paid.

(17) Clause 94, page 88 (line 12), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(18) Clause 94, page 88 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of eligible entity, substitute:

annual income, for an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate, means the amount for the individual, partnership, trust or body corporate that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition.

eligible entity means an individual, a partnership, a trust or a body corporate (other than a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies) that has an annual income less than $20 million.

(19) Clause 95, page 88 (line 19), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(20) Clause 95, page 88 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In deciding which eligible grant recipient corporations (if any) to make a grant of financial assistance to under subsection (1), the Grants Administrator must give priority to eligible grant recipient corporations that are not eligible corporations.

Note: For eligible corporation, see section 7.

(21) Clause 95, page 88 (line 26), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(22) Clause 95, page 89 (before line 1), before the definition of eligible grant recipient corporation, insert:

annual income, for a corporation, means the amount for the corporation that is worked out in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this definition.

(23) Clause 95, page 89 (line 4), omit paragraph (c) of the definition eligible grant recipient corporation entity, substitute:

(c) that has an annual income less than $20 million.

(24) Clause 96, page 89 (line 6), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(25) Clause 96, page 89 (line 11), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(26) Clause 97, page 89 (line 28), omit "Secretary", substitute "Grants Administrator".

(28) Clause 100, page 90 (line 25), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters".

(29) Clause 100, page 90 (line 27), omit "half", substitute "three-quarters".

(30) Clause 100, page 91 (line 3), omit "half", substitute "one-quarter".

(31) Page 92 (after line 6), at the end of Part 8, add:

Division 3 — Grants Administrator

105A Establishment of Grants Administrator

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, establish a body (the Grants Administrator) to:

(a) administer this Part; and

(b) exercise any powers and perform any functions conferred on the Grants Administrator by this Act or by the Minister under section 105B.

105B Composition, powers and functions of Grants Administrator

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify the composition of the Grants Administrator and the powers and functions of the Grants Administrator.

Note: The Grants Administrator also has any powers and functions conferred on it by this Act.

(2) In specifying the composition, powers and functions of the Grants Administrator, the Minister must ensure that:

(a) the Grants Administrator is independent of the Commonwealth and of any single news business corporate group; and

(b) the Grants Administrator's governing body includes persons with substantial experience in the Australian news industry, including in small, regional and independent news businesses.

(3) Before specifying the composition, powers and functions of the Grants Administrator, the Minister must consult news businesses or bodies representing news businesses.

Senator David Pocock's amendments to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026 —

(1) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of amount, insert:

annual income, of an entity for a financial year (the principal year), means:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent financial year (being the principal year or an earlier financial year) for which such accounts exist; or

(b) if the entity has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent alternative 12-month financial reporting period (being a period that ends at or before the start of the principal year) for which such accounts exist.

(2) Clause 6, page 7 (after line 6), after the definition of significant social media or search service, insert:

small news business corporate group, in relation to a financial year, has the meaning given by section 11A.

(3) Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 11, insert:

11A Meaning of small news business corporate group

A news business corporate group is small news business corporate groupfor a financial year if the sum of the annual income of each member of the group for the financial year is less than $20 million.

Note: For how to determine the annual income of a member of the group for a financial year if the member has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period, see paragraph (b) of the definition of annual incomein section 6.

(4) Clause 15, page 18 (lines 7 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to an offset", substitute:

‚

To be entitled to an offset, the service group must have new eligible expenditure for the financial year in relation to at least 8 different news business corporate groups, and at least 12.5% of that expenditure must be in relation to news business corporate groups with an annual income of less than $20 million.

(5) Clause 17, page 19 (line 12), omit "financial year.", substitute "financial year; and".

(6) Clause 17, page 19 (after line 12), at the end of subclause 17(1), add:

(c) the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year, in relation to groups that are small news business corporate groups for the financial year, is at least 12.5% of the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year in relation to all news business corporate groups.

(7) Clause 18, page 20 (line 12), after "directly", insert "or indirectly".

(8) Clause 30, page 32 (after line 6), after subclause 30(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the operation and effect of the condition in paragraph 17(1)(c), including:

(a) whether the 12.5% figure mentioned in that paragraph remains appropriate; and

(b) whether the $20 million combined annual income threshold in relation to small news business corporate groups (see section 11A) remains appropriate.

[charge offset — small news business corporate groups]

The PRESIDENT (13:38): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

The PRESIDENT (13:39): I will now deal with the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. When the bill was last considered, the votes on the amendments moved by Senator Shorebridge and Senator Bell were deferred. I will put those questions first before dealing with the remaining amendments. I will begin with the amendments moved by Senator Shoebridge.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 7), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (line 10), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 20), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 24), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(6) Schedule 1, item 23, page 9 (line 6), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(7) Schedule 1, item 28, page 10 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments on sheet 3790 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (13:42): I will now deal with the amendments moved by Senator Bell.

One Nation's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 22 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Meaning of hors de combat

Criminal Code Act 1995

9 Dictionary in the Criminal Code (definition of hors de combat )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

hors de combat: a person is hors de combat if:

(a) the person is in the power of an adverse party; and

(b) the person:

(i) clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or

(ii) has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and is therefore incapable of defending himself or herself; and

(c) the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

10 Application provision

(1) The definition of hors de combat in the Dictionary in the Criminal Code, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) any conduct engaged in on or after 26 September 2002; and

(b) any legal proceedings that are commenced on or after that day, if the proceedings have not been finally determined before the commencement of this item.

(2) In this item, legal proceedings include any proceedings before a court or tribunal, and include proceedings that are pending.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments on 3897 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (13:48): I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 3791. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

The Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 2, page 16 (line 1) to page 22 (line 12), to be opposed.

The PRESIDENT (13:49): As that matter was resolved in the affirmative, the consequential amendment on sheet 3791 will not be put. The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

The PRESIDENT (13:53): I further remind senators that the order which was passed in the chamber earlier in the week allows for question time to start at a later time. I'll begin with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Canavan to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3969 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The PRESIDENT: I will now deal with the committee-of-the-whole amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 on sheet 3967 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Page 164 (after line 4), after Subdivision A, insert:

Subdivision AA — Protections for employees

162A Powers must not be exercised to lessen employee entitlements

The Reserve Bank must not take action in accordance with this Part in relation to a designated entity if:

(a) the action would result in the entitlements of an employee of the designated entity being less beneficial than they were immediately before the action was taken; or

(b) each of the following are satisfied:

(i) there is an employee (the current employee) of the designated entity immediately before the action is taken;

(ii) the action would result in the engagement of a person (the new employee) to perform the same, or substantially the same, work as that performed by the current employee;

(iii) the entitlements of the new employee would be less beneficial than the entitlements of the current employee.

The PRESIDENT (14:00): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

The PRESIDENT (14:00): I'll now deal with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 1) 2026. I'll begin with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3919 be agreed to.

One Nation 's circulated amendments—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the Australian timber market is becoming a dumping ground for inferior timber, often from China and containing Russian timber,

(ii) the timber industry is Australia's sixth largest manufacturing sector,

(iii) Australian timber jobs and businesses, primarily located in regional areas, are at risk from this dumping of inferior imported timber, and

(iv) Australia is in the middle of a housing crisis and COVID-19 showed that we cannot rely on imported timber, demonstrating the need for Australia to become self-sufficient in timber and wood products; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) protect the Australian timber industry from dumped imports; and

(ii) introduce country of origin labelling so Australians can make an informed choice about where their timber comes from".

The PRESIDENT (14:05): The question now is that the bill be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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) (14:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The PRESIDENT: I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3860 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

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

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

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

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

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

(b) calls on the Government to:

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

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

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

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

(v) return tobacco excise to a more sensible level once organised crime has been controlled".

The PRESIDENT (14:10): The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time

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) (14:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The PRESIDENT (14:11): I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.

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) (14:11): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment on sheet AD128 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendment—

(1) Page 40 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:

Division 5 — Foreign research projects

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020

95 After Division 6 of Part 5

Insert:

Division 6A — Foreign research projects

55A Requirement in relation to foreign research projects

(1) An Australian university must maintain policies and procedures for:

(a) identifying research projects conducted by researchers employed or engaged by the Australian university with researchers employed or engaged by foreign entities; and

(b) assessing whether such research projects:

(i) adversely affect, or are likely to adversely affect, Australia's national interest; or

(ii) are, or are likely to be, inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy; and

(c) managing risks identified through those assessments.

(2) The Australian university must take reasonable steps to implement the policies and procedures.

(3) In this section:

Australian university means a university that is a State/Territory entity under paragraph 7(e).

The PRESIDENT (14:15): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

The PRESIDENT (14:16): I will now deal with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. I'll begin with the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3789 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (14:19): The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (14:22): I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table.

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) (14:22): I table a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to this bill.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments on sheet SV144 be agreed to.

Government' s circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 34JF

Omit "7 March 2027", substitute "the third anniversary of the commencement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 8), omit "third", substitute "second".

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 10), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that part 2 of schedule 1 and item 1 of schedule 2 on sheet 3815 stand as printed.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 19), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (lines 4 to 7), to be opposed.

The PRESIDENT (14:27): The question now is that the amendments on sheets 3795, 3798, 3799, 3800 and 3816 be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—

SHEET 3795

(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add "and additional reporting".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 34JF

Repeal the section, substitute:

34JF Periodic review of this Division

Inspector-General to conduct reviews

(1) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must conduct periodic reviews of the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Division.

Timing of reviews

(2) The first review must be completed before the end of 3 years after the commencement of this section.

(3) Each later review must be completed before the end of 3 years after the completion of the previous review.

Attorney to be given report of review

(4) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must give the Attorney-General a written report of the review.

Attorney to table report

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

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986

1A After subsection 35(2C)

Insert:

(2CA) The Inspector-General must include in a report referred to in subsection (2) the Inspector-General's comments on any activity of the Inspector-General, during the period to which the report relates, relating to Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

_____

SHEET 3798

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 22), after Part 3, insert:

Part 3A — Appointment of judges as a prescribed authority to be preferred

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

4A After subsection 34 AD( 1)

Insert:

(1A) In making appointments under subsection (1), the Attorney-General must prioritise and give preference to the appointment of persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.

_____

SHEET 3799

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5A — Warnings before removal of lawyers

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

6A Subsection 34 FF( 6)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Removal of lawyer for disrupting questioning

(5A) If the prescribed authority considers the lawyer's conduct is unduly disrupting the questioning of the subject, the prescribed authority may give the lawyer a warning in relation to the conduct.

(6) If:

(a) after giving the lawyer a warning under subsection (5A), the prescribed authority considers the lawyer's conduct continues to unduly disrupt the questioning of the subject; and

(b) the prescribing authority is satisfied that removing the lawyer is the best way to deal with the disruption to the questioning;

the prescribed authority may direct a person exercising authority under the warrant to remove the lawyer from the place where the questioning is occurring.

_____

SHEET 3800

(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 24), after Part 4, insert:

Part 4A — Lawyer to be given copy of warrant

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

5A Section 34FE (heading)

Omit "may request", substitute "to be given".

5B Subsection 34 FE( 2)

Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,".

5C Subsection 34 FE( 3)

Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,".

_____

SHEET 3816

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5A — Lawyers cannot be removed

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

6A Paragraph 34FA(2)(b)

Omit "or subparagraph 34FF(7)(c)(iii)".

6B Subsections 34 FF( 6) and (7)

Repeal the subsections.

The PRESIDENT (14:28): I will now deal with amendments circulated by the United Australia Party. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3788, circulated by the United Australia Party, be agreed to.

United Australia Party 's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 34JF

Omit "7 March 2027", substitute "1 May 2028".

The PRESIDENT (14:32): I will now deal with amendments circulated by One Nation. They are on sheets 3807 and 3809. I have been asked to consider them separately. If it suits the chamber, I will deal with the amendment on sheet 3807 first. The question is that One Nation's amendment on sheet 3807 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 13), omit subparagraph (a)(iv) of the definition of adult questioning matter in section 34A.

The PRESIDENT (14:35): I will now deal with the last One Nation amendment, on sheet 3809. The question is that One Nation's amendment on sheet 3809 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 15), after subparagraph (a)(vi) of the definition of adult questioning matter in section 34A, insert:

(vii) serious threats from radical Islamic extremism;

The PRESIDENT (14:39): I will now deal with the amendments on sheet 3787, circulated by Senator David Pocock. The first question is that items 7 and 9 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 4 and 5), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (lines 17 to 19), to be opposed.

The PRESIDENT (14:41): The question now is that the remaining amendment on sheet 3787 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment—

(3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 7 — Legal representation and repeal of minor questioning warrants

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

12 Section 34A

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of minor questioning matter;

(b) definition of minor questioning warrant;

(c) definition of minor's representative.

13 Section 34A (definition of questioning warrant )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

questioning warrant means an adult questioning warrant.

14 Section 34AA

Repeal the section.

15 Subsection 34 B( 1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Request for warrant

(1) The Director-General may request the Attorney-General to issue, in relation to a person, an adult questioning warrant.

16 Paragraph 34B(4)(e)

Omit "person; and", substitute "person.".

17 Paragraph 34B(4)(f)

Repeal the paragraph.

18 Sections 34BB and 34BC

Repeal the sections, substitute:

34BC Warrant has no effect if person under 18

A questioning warrant has no effect if the subject of the warrant is under 18 years old.

19 Paragraph 34BD(1)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) subject to subsection (3A), authorise the Organisation to question the subject of the warrant before a prescribed authority by requesting the subject to give information, or produce a record or other thing, that is, or may be, relevant to intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter; and

20 Subsections 34 BD( 2) and (3)

Repeal the subsections.

21 Paragraph 34BE(3)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) a record or other thing is found during the search that the officer reasonably believes is relevant to the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter;

22 Subsection 34 BE( 4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Warrant may request production of records or things

(4) Subject to subsection (4A), a questioning warrant may request the subject of the warrant to produce, before a prescribed authority:

(a) a specified record or other thing; or

(b) a specified class of record or other thing;

if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the record or thing, or class of record or thing, is, or may be, relevant to intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter.

23 Paragraph 34BH(2)(e)

Repeal the paragraph.

24 Subparagraph 34CB(2)(a)(ii)

Repeal the subparagraph.

25 Section 34CB (note)

Omit "and, if the warrant is a minor questioning warrant, to also contact a minor's representative".

26 Paragraph 34CC(5)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) the police officer conducting the search reasonably believes that the record or other thing is relevant to the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter; and

27 Section 34DD

Repeal the section.

28 Paragraph 34DE(1)(c)

Omit ", 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)".

29 Section 34DG

Repeal the section, substitute:

34DG Direction that persons under 18 not be questioned

If:

(a) the subject of a questioning warrant appears before a prescribed authority for questioning under the warrant; and

(b) the prescribed authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the subject is under 18 years old;

the prescribed authority must, as soon as practicable, give a direction that the person is not to be questioned.

30 Paragraph 34DJ(6)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

31 Paragraph 34DJ(7)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the extension will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter.

32 Paragraph 34DK(6)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

33 Paragraph 34DK(7)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the extension will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to an adult questioning matter.

34 Paragraph 34DL(a)

Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD".

35 Subparagraph 34DL(b)(v)

Omit "or 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)".

36 Paragraph 34DN(3)(a)

Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD".

37 Paragraph 34DO(4)(a)

Omit "and, if applicable, section 34DD".

38 Paragraph 34DO(5)(b)

Omit "or 34DD".

39 Subdivision F (heading)

Omit "and minor's representatives".

40 Section 34F (heading)

Omit "or minor's representative".

41 Subsection 34 F( 1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Right to contact lawyer

(1) At any time after the subject of a questioning warrant is given notice of the warrant in accordance with subsection 34BH(2) or (3), the subject may contact a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the warrant.

42 Paragraph 34F(2)(c)

Omit "or 34FC(2)(a) or (3)(b)".

43 Subsection 34 FA( 1)

Repeal the subsection.

44 Paragraph 34FA(2)(b)

Omit "or subparagraph 34FF(7)(c)(iii)".

45 Sections 34FC and 34FD

Repeal the sections.

46 Section 34FE (heading)

Omit "may request copy of warrant", substitute "to be given copy of warrant etc.".

47 Subsection 34 FE( 2)

Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,".

48 Subsection 34 FE( 3)

Omit ", if requested to do so by the lawyer,".

49 After subsection 34 FE( 3)

Insert:

(3A) Subject to subsection (4), a person exercising authority under the warrant must give the lawyer such other information as is requested by the lawyer and is sufficient to allow the lawyer to advise the subject on the legality of the warrant or anything done in exercise, or purported exercise, of authority under the warrant.

50 Subsection 34 FE( 4)

Omit "subsections (2) and (3)", substitute "subsections (2), (3) and (3A)".

51 Subsection 34 FE( 4)

After "subsection (5)", insert ", or refuse to give so much of any information requested under subsection (3A),"

52 Subsection 34 FF( 3)

Repeal the subsection.

53 Subsection 34 FF( 5)

Omit "subsection (3) or (4)", substitute "subsection (4)".

54 Subsections 34 FF( 6) and (7)

Repeal the subsections.

55 Subsection 34 FF( 8)

Repeal the subsection.

56 Section 34FG

Repeal the section.

57 Subparagraph 34GE(3)(a)( i )

Repeal the subparagraph.

58 Subsection 34 GF( 5) (paragraph (f) of the definition of permitted disclosure )

Repeal the paragraph.

59 Paragraph 34GF(6)(b)

Omit "or".

60 Paragraph 34GF(6)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

The PRESIDENT (14:46): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to, and the bill be now passed.