2026-05-14 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 14 May 2026

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 1

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I welcome the opportunity to continue our work to get big money out of politics. I acknowledge the work done on this issue over so many years by my colleagues Larissa Waters as well as former senators Lee Rhiannon and Richard Di Natale, alongside academics, integrity experts and civil society organisations, who have consistently pushed for strong political donation reform. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026 is pretty straightforward. It bans political donations from industries with a clear history of using money to buy influence and get privileged access to decision-makers. It also places a $3,000 cap on individual political donations per election term to reduce the outsized influence by wealthy donors in this place. The industries covered by this bill include fossil fuel companies, gambling corporations, banks, tobacco companies, liquor interests, defence contractors and pharmaceutical corporations. These are the industries that have repeatedly used political donations and lobbying to shape outcomes in their favour and against the Australian people. Last year's electoral reforms simply didn't go far enough. The government's deal with the coalition kept disclosure thresholds far too high and failed to deal with donations from industries that pose the greatest risks to political integrity, industries that simply should not have a say in politics. The tobacco industry don't have a seat at the table anymore because they're dangerous, and neither should these other corporate interests have that sort of influence. Australians are increasingly frustrated by political parties who seem more accountable to their corporate donors than to the Australian people—whether it's delays on climate action, watering down gambling reforms or our gas giants continuing to receive favourable tax treatment. While people struggle with cost-of-living expenses, keeping a roof over their heads, buying fresh groceries every week and affording their medicine, multinational gas corporations get the royal treatment. This bill is about restoring some balance in the system. It is about making it harder for wealthy industries and individuals to buy influence in this place and ensuring that communities and individuals are not drowned out by corporate money. Let's air some of the corporate parties' dirty laundry, shall we? Here are just some of the receipts for the last decade: Woodside gave $1.2 million to Labor while they get their climate-wrecking projects rubber stamped again and again. Santos slipped Labor over $800,000 while racking up a decade of paying zero corporate tax. A decade of zero corporate tax cost Santos just $800,000. Chevron handed over more than $600,000 to Labor, who recently gifted them $300 billion worth of Australian gas for free—I mean, a pretty good business for these corporates. And Sportsbet funnelled almost half a million dollars to Labor while gambling reform sits on the sidelines. Families are being ripped apart, suicides are increasing every year and the government refuse to act because they have their hands out for those corporate donations from Sportsbet, and what a great shame. Do you know what? Those sitting on the other side of the chamber are not off the hook either. Hancock Prospecting handed around 750,000 grand to the Libs while they greenwashed their fossil fuel expansion. Adani Mining—another $750,000 to the Liberal Party while successive governments swept the coal company's scandals under the carpet. And Tabcorp—a neat $650,000 to the Liberal Party while gambling adverts target our children. The receipts go on and on and on. One Nation with their shiny, new private jet—I will have plenty more to say about them later, about just how deep in the trough their noses actually are, so don't get too comfortable. You do not have to dig deep to see the pattern: big dirty money funnelled in, terrible policies coming out. These are not donations; these are investments in the major political parties in this country and, frankly, they are excellent business for the big corporates. A few hundred thousand dollars here and there to the old parties and you practically get to write the policy for yourself. The reality is, though, someone sitting at home will never have that kind of influence. They will never have that kind of influence over the government elected to represent them unless they have huge piles of cash ready to go. What a week, budget week, a week that exposed the whole ecosystem of corporate influence in all of its polished, glossy, champagne-soaked glory, a budget that reads less like an economic plan and more like a thank you card to corporate donors, and a breakup letter to everyday Australians, who are being absolutely slogged at the check-out and at the petrol bowser. Labor had the opportunity of a decade, of a generation with the community backing the expert evidence, the political mandate and with the public appetite to finally stand up to the gas cartels and tax our gas. But what did they do? They folded—of course they did. Instead, we got a gas reservation policy so confusing that even their own ministers cannot explain it. Contracted gas, uncontracted gas—it is governing by press release. The only thing clear is the bottom line. With zero meaningful revenue, this will not raise a cent and that suits the gas corporations just fine—of course it does. I know this pressure is real, Labor. You can feel the mood shifting across this nation, across communities, across political lines. People have had an absolute gutful. They are saying 'enough is enough'. They want a fair return on their resources. They want a budget that works for them, not just for big gas and big corporate interests and the one per cent, because that is what this budget delivers for them—one per cent. They want a budget that properly funds universal child care, that does not rip off people living with disabilities, that delivers real cost-of-living relief right now, not scraps down the track, and that accelerates a transition away from the fossil fuels that are driving the climate and energy crises we are all experiencing. You do not get to say you have listened to the polling, the experts, the economists and the community when you then deliver a budget that so squarely lands on the side of the same corporate interests bankrolling this political system. This budget has shown us exactly who Labor works for: big gas and one per cent. It's not you, not me, not the people who voted them in—the people who funded them to get in. Remember this: while the dirty money keeps on flowing, they will keep doing this time and time again. This week, I thought I would attend one of the infamous, exclusive budget-fundraising events hosted by the Labor Party mere minutes after they deliver the budget. If you haven't heard about them, these are exclusive parties where CEOs, corporate representatives and lobbyists rub shoulders with the Prime Minister and senior ministers, sip champagne and quietly celebrate another year of selling Australians out and selling our gas for nothing while no doubt offering a few helpful suggestions about next year's budget, which might improve their bottom line. If you want to get into this event, it's 5½ thousand dollars a pop, thank you very much. I turned up at Hotel Realm to discover that I wasn't invited. Apparently, you need 5½ thousand dollars to get in the door. It seems not being a multinational corporation with a proven track record of splashing cash around parliament worked against me, and it works against you too. I'm sure that the Australian energy producers were in there, though. You can imagine—the same gas lobbyists who, when asked at the gas tax inquiry whether they would shout the Prime Minister around if they could avoid a new tax in the budget, just shrugged their shoulders. But a round of beers or even 5½ thousand dollars for a ticket to that all-exclusive event is so bloody cheap when you consider what these dirty donations buy these companies. Their members chipped in a million dollars a pop to run a campaign to kill a gas tax; 5½ thousand bucks is peanuts to them. A round of beers is nothing when you think about the $17 billion that they along with their ALP minister mates, former and present, saved their multinational mates. For those who missed the ALP's night of nights or want to back it up, they can head along tonight to the shadow Treasurer's fundraiser for the bargain price of $2,000 a pop. What an absolute steal. These engagements aren't just about influence; they are practically job interviews for life after parliament. Since 2001, nearly every single resources minister has gone to work for the fossil fuel industry. Ministers, MPs and senior advisers leave parliament and walk straight into high-paying jobs in the industries they used to regulate—Shame!—like Mike Kelly, Labor's former defence minister, who quit parliament and immediately took up a job with American weapons and data-mining giant Palantir; and Thomas Duke, former director of policy for Minister Clare O'Neil, who went straight from writing Labor's five per cent housing deposit policy to working for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The architect of a policy that was always designed to work better for the big banks than for young people now works for one of the big banks. You cannot make this stuff up. Right now, the Minerals Council of Australia is deciding who will be its next chair. It's two lead candidates are two former Labor politicians: former member for Hunter Joel Fitzgibbon, cofounder of the parliamentary friends of coal; and Mark McGowan, a renowned defender of fossil fuel interests. Who will be the next to follow Stephen Conroy into the gambling lobby after he helped to bury the Murphy report? I wonder if Madeleine King—the minister for Woodside or Japan or resources, whatever it is today—will flip a coin in deciding who she goes to work for next out of these interests. And look, there's one elephant in the room that I haven't addressed yet: a party that was just gifted a private aeroplane worth millions of dollars bought by some of Australia's richest people. Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the so-called party of the people, now has a shiny new jet to fly between corporate dinners and million-dollar fundraisers. But the public are not fooled. Australians know that a gift worth more than most family homes comes with strings attached. One Nation is turbocharging its billionaire cavalry before donation reforms tighten up at the end of the year. They are rushing that money in before scrutiny ramps up, because they know that it will not pass the pub test. The far right in Australia is the fossil fuel industry in a trench coat. One Nation is a voice for battlers but a vote for the billionaires. Lining up with mining billionaires, with gas corporations and wealthy elites and partying at Mar-a-Lago with the mad king Donald Trump. That is how One Nation rolls, folks. It is repulsive, and Australians have had an absolute gutful. They wanted an end to it, and that is exactly what this bill will do. It will stop the corrupting influence of dirty donations in this country. It will go some way towards restoring the public's trust that they elect politicians to represent them, not the cashed-up donors crawling the halls of this parliament. As a Greens senator, I find the idea of charging for access for a policy discussion completely unfathomable. After this government's budget, which rips money away from people with disabilities and funnels billions of dollars into weapons and subsidies for fossil fuels, the Australian people are, rightly, asking, 'Who does this government work for?' Let's be clear: the major parties and One Nation do not want to change the status quo that has benefitted them for decades. They will fight this kicking and screaming, but the only thing that terrifies them more than losing these funding streams is losing seats at the next election. Together, we need to work to get dirty donations out of politics. We need proper donation caps. We need to close those loopholes that funnel dark money through our political system. We need to ban donations from harmful industries that should never have a voice in this place. Until we achieve these things, we will never, never have a parliament that truly serves the people. To those of you out there watching, appalled that this continues to happen in 2026, we need to organise. The next federal election is not too far away, but it is going to take public pressure right across this country to break this two-party system that has depended on corporate fossil fuel interests and gambling interests for far too long, and to turn this around and have a parliament that genuinely represents you, not the political and elite class in this country. 09:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In February last year our government passed once-in-a-generation reforms to our electoral system to get big money out of politics. We've just had another lecture from the Greens party, despite the fact that they voted against the electoral reform that we managed to pass through this parliament last year. If parties, including the Greens, were serious about tackling donation reforms, they would have voted for our legislation. This was the biggest package of electoral reform in 40 years. It has substantially improved transparency, including public reporting of political donations within days rather than months, and it has slashed the threshold of what is disclosed from almost $17,000 to $5,000. It included capping political donations, limiting campaign spending, restricting big donors and various other reforms to the electoral process in Australia that were badly needed. That is what the Greens voted against—the biggest package of electoral reform in 40 years. Through Labor's initiatives, we will put down pressure on the money that trades hands in elections and make sure that Australians know more about who is donating to parties and candidates before they go to the ballot box. These important changes will limit the disproportionate influence of big donors and stop the arms race of endless fundraising and spending. We are now delivering on Labor's commitments to improve transparency and accountability across our electoral system. Our reforms focus on disclosure, transparency, caps and limits for everyone, regardless of who you are. If the Greens were serious about improving our electoral system, they would have voted for our electoral reform last year. But, of course, the Greens party would rather lecture the parliament about their moral superiority on donations reform and gambling reform while being bankrolled by gambling interests. 09:18 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I've often remarked that the hypocrisy that comes from down that corner of the chamber is almost in infinite supply. It's such a shame we couldn't capture the Greens' hypocrisy, or have some technology to capture it and convert it into electricity, because we would never have a blackout again. There is an infinite supply of hypocrisy that comes from down that end of the chamber, exceeded only by their moral superiority. They are our betters, of course. They are the moral guardians of the universe, according to them—just ask them—and everybody else is terrible. Everybody else is corrupt. Everybody else is in hock to some dark-money friends. I'll get to the receipts. Senator Hodgins-May 310860 Looking forward to it. Senator CANAVAN 245212 There are plenty of those. In truth, there is no moral high ground that the Greens sit on. It's quite the reverse with these kinds of debates. I'm actually surprised that the Greens come in here and raise these issues when there is no party in this place—there is no movement in this country right now—that has become more influenced by corporate donations and is following more the nose of big business than the Greens political movement. The Greens political movement did begin as a genuine attempt to improve the environment in this country—to stop certain projects that they viewed as environmentally damaging. I've often disagreed with the Greens, but I take the point. I respect the fact that their founders, the origins of their party, came from a genuine place of wanting to protect the environment. Today the Greens political movement is just a shadow of those pioneers, because they simply follow the big green money, the green cash, that comes from the solar and wind industry that is destroying the very environment that the Greens purport to protect. I see it all over this great country of ours and all over my area of the country in Central Queensland where mountain tops are being literally blasted off—areas of pristine environment that have become the biodiverse areas of koala habitats and sugar gliders. These areas are just being blown to smithereens, all in the interests of the corporate green industry that the Greens support and just follow the nose of. These are all largely foreign investors, all big businesses. This is big business. Small businesses don't have enough nitroglycerine to blow up 20 metres of a mountain top. It's big deals, right? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 You're talking about coalmines. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Well, I don't want a coalmine there either—through you, Mr Deputy President. I don't support a coalmine in these areas. I don't support coalmining on prime agricultural land. I don't support coal seam gas in these areas. But you guys do. You support large industrial activity that destroys our natural environment. And they're doing it just to—guess what?—make money. That's why they're doing it. These guys aren't protecting the environment. They want to make money by destroying our environment. Good people who used to be in your movement, like Steve Nowakowski, who stood for election twice for your party in North Queensland—he is aghast at it. I disagree with Steve on lots of things, but we do share a view of wanting to protect our beautiful and pristine natural environment. But the Greens have sold out to these interests. You can tell that because this bill doesn't tackle those donations. They come in here with this moral pomposity and want to ban all these corporate donations. But guess what? They don't want to ban the corporate donations that go to the Greens. This is a massive industry. There is no industry that gets more welfare, more money, from this place than the renewable energy industries—the biggest protection racket in this country now. The budget that the Labor Party delivered this week gives another $18 billion to its failing net zero agenda. Senator Hodgins-May 310860 How much in fossil fuel subsidies? How much in fuel tax credits? Senator CANAVAN 245212 Through you, Mr Deputy President. The fossil fuel industry, as you like to call it, or the resources sector, as the stats say, is the least supported industry in this country. Go and look at the Productivity Commission figures. The Productivity Commission does a report on this every year, and the mining industry in this country receives less support than any other industry in this country. It basically receives R&D assistance in those stats. That's about it—because, unlike the renewable energy industry, the mining industry pays tax; it pays bills. It employs thousands of people. It creates money for our country in terms of trade. We know it does because these guys want to tax it. They want to shut it down, but they also want to tax it. I don't know how that works long term. But the renewable energy industry in this country has become addicted to surviving on taxpayer subsidies, not on creating wealth. While doing so, it is destroying large parts of our environment. Let's just have a look. The Greens are completely closed to this issue, but some work done by the Page Research Centre last year has found $170 million to a variety of environmental groups—all on the public record. The facts are there. It's all on the public record. Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator CANAVAN 245212 $170 million. Senator Watt 245759 Who funds that research? Senator CANAVAN 245212 The facts are there. This is all on the public record. These are all publicly disclosed financial reports. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 More disinformation—peer reviewed research? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, resume your seat. Senator CANAVAN 245212 $170 million. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, resume your seat! Senator Hodgins-May and the minister were heard in silence. Senator Canavan, you have the call. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the rowdy interruptions because they don't like transparency. They don't like this. They don't like the idea that in the 2023-24 financial year—these are all disclosures to the charities regulator—$170 million went to these green groups pushing this environmentally destructive renewable energy agenda. Some of those groups are getting funding from the CFMEU. I think the Greens still take money from the CFMEU. So how dare you come into this place and lecture the rest of us about how terrible these donations are, when you take donations from a discredited organisation that has been implicated in some of the worst corruption in this country for decades? Where do you get off? Even the Labor Party has decided not to take donations from the CFMEU. They won't give back the money that they took, but they have at least stopped current donations from the CFMEU. So where do you guys get off? Where do you get off when even the Labor Party—which I wouldn't necessarily hold up as a bastion of moral probity when it comes to trade union funding—have had to turn their noses up at the CFMEU? But you guys keep taking money from them, and you come in here and want to lecture us about donation reform! Why doesn't your bill ban CFMEU donations? If you really wanted to ban dirty donations—that's what the name of this bill is, 'banning dirty donations'—where is the CFMEU? You've all shut up now, haven't you? You've got no response to that. Where are your interjections now? You take money from the corrupt CFMEU, and you have the temerity to come in here and lecture us. Give me a break! Give me a total break. What's worse about the donations to these green groups that just want to make more money off the backs of Australian taxpayers is that a big chunk of them come from foreign sources. This is harder. It is much harder to find. The $170 million is available through the charities regulator. Unfortunately, there is a lot less transparency on foreign donations. You often have to go through annual reports overseas, and different countries have different disclosure requirements. But, over the last decade, at least $100 million has come from foreign groups. They often call themselves philanthropic groups, but they have a real agenda. They have an agenda to pursue this industrial solar and wind power. Often communities are trying to fight against this, to protect their own land and their own environment, and they're facing this massive tsunami of political donations from foreign sources that we should just really not allow in this country. We've tried to introduce foreign transparency requirements, but it's very difficult. It's obviously still happening. Again, with this bill, if the Greens were serious about so-called dirty donations, why are they happy to continue to allow so much foreign money to come in and influence our political system, our country, often against the interests of local people who just want to protect their local environment? But the Greens are happy to sign up and stand next to the sorts of groups doing this. These donations from foreign countries should be examined with much greater scrutiny. We have seen concern in other countries—there has been concern expressed by the European Union—that money flows from countries like Russia, who clearly have an interest in seeing Europe close down its gas industry, which it naively and stupidly has done, or largely done. They've become more dependent on Russia because of that. There probably has been some influence from the Russian government on European politics. We need to stand against that; that's what we should be standing against. What is very clear this year, or has become very clear this year, is that we need to become more self-sufficient as a country—more independent. The Greens' political priorities here, which seek to shut down the use of our resources, would make Australia more dependent on other countries and less able to respond to crises, as we've seen in the last few months. Denigrating the resources industry that underpins our security, wealth, prosperity and national security would weaken our country. We shouldn't seek to denigrate particular industries. I am not proposing that we should ban donations from renewable energy companies. I think any business that legally participates in this country deserves to be able to participate in the political process, unless they're conducting illegal activities. We haven't even banned donations from the CFMEU, but maybe that should be considered. But, if you are legally participating in this country, you should be able to participate in the political process. The laws we pass do affect your business, your industry, and they deserve a voice, just like any other Australian. What is most unfortunate about this debate is the constant questioning of each other's motives, particularly from a platform where no-one has clean hands. You take donations. We do. We all do. I'm upfront about it. You guys never are. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 There's a little bit of a difference, mate! Senator CANAVAN 245212 You throw the mud without saying, 'We do too.' How about we just debate the issues? How about we just do that? All the donations are public. All the donations are fine. All the donations are publicly listed. Why don't we just debate the issues, instead of questioning each other's motives constantly? The reason the Greens movement has often had to increasingly resort to this kind of rhetoric is it's actually losing the debate on the issues. Your vote is declining. Your support is going down because people are no longer buying the rubbish that has clearly been shown to be wrong. You made a lot of promises: that clean energy would lower power prices and bring manufacturing to this country, that we'd have a critical minerals industry, that we'd have hydrogen and that we'd clean up our environment. None of those things have come true, and that's why people are walking away from this agenda. Instead of trying to debate those issues and reflect on what you might have got wrong, you instead are lashing out now and saying, 'It's not because we have got things wrong; it's because other people are corrupt or are involved with certain businesses or industries in this country.' You can see you're losing the debate, guys, because even the government has flown up the white flag on this. This week, in the budget, the Treasurer mentioned the words 'net zero' just once, and it was a lame, fleeting reference in relation to the world going to net zero. It's not, but, anyway, he said it. The Minister for Finance is saying, 'We're not going to spend much money on net zero anymore; we're going to slow it down,' but the fine print says otherwise. The government is clearly walking away from this agenda as fast as it can because the Australian people know it's failed. It has failed as an idea. It has failed around the world. The pursuit of net zero has only made our country weaker and more dependent on other countries. It has hollowed out our manufacturing industries, pushed our energy prices to record levels, crushed the living standards of the Australian people and forced real wages back 15 years. They're back to 2011 levels under these policies. They have failed on every level. Most of all, they have also failed to protect our natural environment. Our bushland is being destroyed by large-scale solar and wind projects. Our farmlands are being bought up by overseas interests trying to produce carbon credits. There's a beautiful farm in north-east Tasmania that's being bought up right now by a rich UK business in order to stop farming and start creating these ridiculous things called carbon credits. How is that any benefit to our natural environment? How is that any benefit to this country? Why are we allowing foreign interests to come in here and shut down Australian farming in the pursuit of this ridiculous idea of net zero? It has to be scrapped. Let's fight the issues, get off this rubbish and instead start dealing with the issues that the Australian people face and lower their cost of living. 09:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It's a shame that Senator Canavan is fleeing the chamber and is not going to listen to my response to his diatribe, but I'll send him the link, and he can watch it on TV. Over the last 20 years, since I started in politics, the major-party vote in this country has fallen every year and every election. It used to be that only 10 to 15 per cent of Australians would vote outside the two major parties. It's now more than a third of Australians who do, and if you look at the Farrer by-election—and there are messages in that by-election and protest vote for all of us—it is clear that people do not think this political system represents their interests, and we need to ask ourselves why. What is a key reason that people are turning away from politics and registering protest votes, and what is causing it? This bill today, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026, goes to the heart of that. I would say to Senator Canavan, after his recent contribution, it is all about questioning the motives of donors to political parties. Why do big companies, big fossil fuel companies, big gambling companies, big real estate companies—I could go on—donate to political parties? That's the question. I'm sure there are going to be different responses around here, but the truth is those companies do not do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because they want something from a political party. That is just clear as daylight—one hundred per cent a fact. It's called pay for play. It's been happening since the Roman Republic, and it's still happening today, but it's got to such a calamitous level globally. We seem to have had this mass political psychosis descend on our systems in the Western world, especially in US politics, where it feels like a small bunch of wealthy, psychotic billionaires and politicians have got us by the short and curlies because of money and influence in politics. Senator Canavan spent most of his contribution talking about third-party donations, or donations or money going through third parties. That has nothing to do with this bill by the way, but it is definitely worth addressing, and I will get to that towards the end of my contribution. There's no more of an expert in how dark money influences politics and outcomes on policy than the National Party and the Liberal Party, who have been backed by billions of dollars of dirty money for years, through think tanks, third-party organisations, PR companies—you name it. It's all part of the denial machine, and I will get to that before I finish. I'm grateful this Senate had a very important inquiry into this exact issue, as to who is paying for the disinformation and misinformation. But it's good there have been some moves. Senator Watt, in his brief contribution, talked about the government's new legislation to cap donations, but the truth is it doesn't go anywhere near far enough and it is tinkering around the edges. This bill will work alongside the new federal election finance reforms that were passed last year and is designed to commence after those new donation transparency and cap laws begin. This bill goes significantly further than those reforms by outright banning donations from certain sectors rather than just regulating or disclosing them. Those sectors include industries that have an undue influence over government decisions, which is the whole reason they pump millions of dollars into our political system. It's property developers, gambling and liquor companies, banks, tobacco and vaping companies, pharmaceutical companies, mining and fossil fuel companies, defence companies and industry lobby groups representing those sectors. This bill introduces a strict overall donation limit for everyone else, capping political donations at $3,000 per election term for any individual, business or organisation. This is much lower than the caps introduced in the 2025 reforms, which were $50,000. But also—and this is the thing—you can ban political donations or cap them, but money will find a way to flow to political parties. That happens through, for example, gifts that corporations love to give to the major political parties. This bill will close loopholes that parties and associated entities have used to avoid disclosure rules. Senator Hodgins-May talked about going to the Treasurer's special dinner the other night, the $5,000-a-head dinner, which is a classic example of how you raise a lot of money without having to disclose it. Subscription fees, affiliation fees, discounted services, fundraising tickets and interest-free loans would all count as donations in the circumstances covered by this bill. Membership fees under $1,000 would remain exempt in limited situations, but larger membership or affiliation payments credited to federal accounts would now be treated as political donations and be subject to caps and disclosure laws. This bill also expands the aggregation rules so that donations to state branches, local branches and associated entities are counted together towards the federal cap, preventing donors from splitting contributions across different arms of the party, which is another way that the 2025 laws can be circumvented. Industry peak bodies and representative organisations would also be banned from donating if most of their members are prohibited donors. This is intended to stop industries funnelling donations through lobby groups or associated entities instead of donating directly. This bill creates new criminal and civil penalties for unlawful donations. Knowingly making or accepting a banned donation could attract penalties of up to two years imprisonment or fines of up to 400 penalty units. Lastly, anti-avoidance provisions are strengthened to stop schemes designed to get around the bans, including channelling donations through third parties. Businesses uncertain as to whether they qualify as prohibited donors could apply to the Electoral Commission for a formal determination, which would be valid for 12 months. This is the situation we find ourselves in in modern politics. It's especially the case in the US and also in the UK, where third parties wanting to influence outcomes are now, for example, donating to fake industry groups. We broadly call them astroturfing groups. There are a number of them in this country that the Senate looked at recently in our inquiry into misinformation. For example, Coal Australia donated to Australians for Prosperity, run by ex-MP Jason Falinski, who said he knew nothing about the donations but wished he had because—I can't quote his exact words that he made in the media—he felt like that wouldn't have been something he would have supported. The majority of the money for Australians for Prosperity, $2.7 million, came from the coal industry to fund advertisements, before an election, attacking the Greens and the Labor Party. That was just one example. There were plenty more. We heard that, in the US alone, $3.4 billion had been funnelled by fossil fuel companies to PR firms, just to run attack ads and campaigns, in the last 10 years in the US. That's just to PR firms, let alone to consulting companies who write reports full of misinformation designed to undermine climate science and climate action, or the hundreds or thousands of right-wing think tanks set up deliberately to change the Overton window and to change public policy all around the world to suit the vested interests that fund those think tanks. Senator Canavan talked about environment groups that have disclosed their donations to Australian environmental campaigns and movements openly and proudly, saying they're campaigning to stop the age of fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. Senator McDonald talked the other day about the Sunrise Movement. Sunrise were out and proud about donating to these campaigns. They do want to stop the age of fossil fuels and transition to clean energy because they care about future generations. They care about us actually taking climate action and stopping the robbing of future generations of the same things that we've been lucky enough to experience in our lifetime. They're not trying to hide any of these donations. It's completely different when you do try and hide them through third-party organisations, through astroturfing strategies. The recommendation from our inquiry was that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, who are looking at these things and looking at how we could improve these laws, look at the last election and the amount of money that was funnelled into groups like Advance and these other astroturfing groups to suit the agendas of, at the time, the Liberal and National parties but, increasingly, One Nation. There are the campaigns around mass immigration and against net zero, the tens of millions of dollars being funded into groups like Advance and the hundreds of posts appearing out of websites internationally. We don't even know who is paying for them. There were 400 posts in one week essentially promoting One Nation using deepfake AI. Australians and people around the world are so confused. They don't know what's real and what's not any longer. That's the world we live in today, and it is getting worse every single day. This has been the strategy. Steve Bannon has openly talked about this—flood the zone and create confusion. That's what it's all about. If you repeat disinformation, lies and deceptions often enough, people start believing them. It's hard to know where to get your information in this day and age. We are drowning in a sea of misinformation and disinformation, and just about everything Senator Canavan contributed in this debate was misinformation on climate change, renewable energy and climate action. So this is where we are today. This is why we need to crack down on dark money and dirty money influencing our elections. It's been going on for too long. I commend Senator Hodgins-May for bringing this bill forward. I also want to acknowledge the long list of Greens MPs in this place over decades who have pushed and pushed for donation reform. No-one has done more in this Senate chamber than the Greens to try and progress cleaning up politics. It's what the Australian people expect. We need to pay attention to the Farrer by-election. Senator Canavan made another disinformation claim about the Greens vote. The Greens vote is holding up very well, thank you very much. In fact, it grew substantially all around the country six months ago when the Iran war was declared. It's actually the national Liberal-National vote that has been falling every day for years and years. Yet they come in here and do the same old thing. They are shills for the fossil fuel industry and other industries. They somehow think that campaigning against climate action is going to win them the next election. I acknowledge that there are senators in this place, such as Senator Canavan, who wouldn't have a job if they came out and said they believed in climate action and climate science and wanted to transition to renewables. He literally would not have a job as the leader of the National Party or probably even get preselected and elected because the incentives are all around making this a political issue for their own power, ambition and careers. They don't care about the science or the fact that the climate is breaking down before our very eyes. It's a massive threat to national security. It's a threat to people's cost of living. It's a threat to biodiversity around this country. It's a threat that's been recognised all around the world by thousands of scientists over hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and yet it gets thrown out the door on the altar of people's political ambitions. I've had enough of it. I have seen what this place has done to some people. They ignore the facts. We all ignore the facts at our own peril. Do you know what? I've had my fair say in here, and it's about to end, but history will be the ultimate judge of people like Senator Canavan and what he stands for and what his party stands for. I have no doubt about that. So I'll ask senators, with the last minute of my contribution, to consider how we can further clean up politics, which is to everyone's advantage in this place. If we don't connect with people, if people don't feel they can connect with us and don't feel like what we stand for is what they stand for, it erodes trust in this institution of parliament and in politics and we will continue to see protest votes and we will continue to see Australians disillusioned and disorientated by the standard of debate. If we can show them that we are in here legislating for them and not for special interests—the big, dirty fossil fuel corporations and other corporations that have rigged the system for too long and the billionaires who have used it to distract away from the fact that they are making record profits every day and don't pay their fair share of tax—then the rot will continue. I can only see darkness ahead if we don't act. This is a simple, easy way for us to act—getting behind Senator Hodgins-May's bill. Let's clean up politics. (Time expired) 09:49 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I can't help but reflect on the closing part of Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution where he said that all he sees in the future is dark. Of course, that is what the Greens agenda and the dark money that is flowing into anti-fossil-fuel and anti-energy project campaigns in this campaign would result in. It would result in a very dark future, and we know already, because of the crazy ideological agenda that is being pushed by these groups, funded by renewable energy profiteers, that it is seeing Australian energy prices go through the roof. There's not an Australian family that is not struggling with the cost of living and with paying the bills in their own home, much less the small business that they work in, and manufacturing jobs have been lost from Victoria. Worse, the big smelters that provide the important baseload metals—smelters like the bauxite and alumina smelters in Gladstone and Mount Isa, and the smelter in Whyalla for steel—are under threat from its crazy agenda. I want to turn back. It is Australia's democracy that we are speaking about today—the health of being a liberal democracy. This is an important thing, because democracy, as Winston Churchill described it, is not the best system but it is the best one that we have. I am paraphrasing, obviously; he was much more eloquent than that. But the point that to be made is that we believe in the freedom of democracy, in the rights of association, in the ability to speak, and in the ability to come together, irregularly or regularly, to vote to choose how our country is run. What we're talking about today is another shield, another veil that's been proposed by the Greens to distract and confuse donations that are being made by legal, taxpaying companies in Australia. What they don't want you to look at is the extraordinary campaign that's being run by influencers, by, yes, billionaires and by foundations like the Rockefeller Center and the KR foundation. Money flows into Australian organisations that seek to mislead, to confuse and to change the political agenda. These are campaigns that are very, very mischievous at best and, I would say, anti-Australian at worst. These campaigns are not disclosed. In fact, I love this idea that the Greens are quoting Electoral Commission disclosure laws because they comply with the laws. Any Australian can go to the Electoral Commission reports and see who is donating to their political parties and to their Independents. But there are organisations that are not forced to comply with the same sorts of disclosure rules. They are organisations that are funding organisations like the Australia Institute and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, IEEFA, and some of the social media influencers who are not disclosing who their posts are being funded by. There are organisations like the Environmental Defenders Office. After being found in the courts of Australia to be confecting evidence and creating cultural heritage stories in order to stop an offshore gas project, their penalty—millions of dollars to pay the legal fees of Santos—was first given as a loan to that organisation, and then that loan was forgiven. It was millions of dollars, with no disclosure as to who paid that. Surely, if the Greens were interested in transparency—in keeping our electoral system and our rule of law transparent and clear and fair in an open and honest democracy—they would want that disclosure made. They would want to know who paid nearly $10 million for the legal expenses of Santos. Surely that would be of interest to it. Surely of interest to us would be the $175 million that flowed into Australia to affect our political discussions and our policy position. It was $175 million in 2023-24 and, prior to that, hundreds of millions of dollars in other campaigns—campaigns that used words like 'undermining the financial figures' and 'campaigns that seek to distort, to confuse, to mislead the financial affairs of resources companies in Australia'. Surely that would be of interest to anybody who sincerely worries about transparency and influence regarding the Australian Electoral Commission. But of course the Greens don't, because it suits their agenda to shut down the sectors that not only pay the biggest amounts of corporate tax, royalties, PAYG tax and payroll tax but also support small businesses in regional parts of Australia and support hundreds of thousands of incredibly well-paid jobs. What is the plan for all those families who are earning $250,000 or $350.000 a year? Where will they go? Will they go and polish solar panels? Will they go to another energy project, like wind turbines? No, because those projects don't employ people, and they don't keep the lights on, certainly not in a reliable way and in a way that supports manufacturing in Australia—the sort of agenda the government says they seek. Surely we should be concerned about the transparency of those donations by people who seek to undermine, confuse and mislead in the story about oil, coal, gas and, most recently, nuclear in Australia. That is the sort of disclosure I would like to see, because what worries me is: what is the plan for us as a nation if there is no resources sector? That is where this is going. The agenda of funding organisations that seek to shut down coal, oil, gas and nuclear means that ultimately we will end up with no mining, because the energy costs make it too expensive, and certainly too expensive to do smelting in this country. It means the regional parts of Australia become tumbleweed towns and, instead, we end up with technology that is already under investigation by US security agencies for importing Chinese turbines into Australia that have cameras and microphones and potentially could be shut down. That is what we will end up with if this campaign of misinformation is continued. I want to go back to some numbers that were read into Hansard by one of the Greens senators about donations—completely disclosed, I assume, on the Electoral Commission's website. But in this same period, 2023-24, revenue of $175 million went into, for instance: the Australian Institute, $10 million; GetUp, $6 million; the Graeme Wood Foundation, $2,387,000; and the Environmental Defenders Office, $17 million. Where is the disclosure that would allow an Australian who is seeking to understand where the funding to influence our political discourse is coming from? Where can people simply go and find that? Well, I'm afraid they won't be able to, because, under the Greens' proposal, we will stop only the legitimate disclosures that are already being made but certainly not these other people of influence, these foreign donations. I'm fascinated. As a political representative, I can't take money from any foreign donations; it's a blanket 'no'. I don't seek to stop foreign donations flooding into this country, but I do think that there should be better disclosure. There should be some disclosure. This is extraordinary. If the Greens agreed, they would have included that in the amendments they are providing, but of course they haven't because they want to pretend that they are making this about transparency. But it's not. It is part of working to their political masters in running a campaign that seeks to mislead Australians. There are many important issues that Australians expect us to focus on in the parliament. They want us to focus on declining living standards, rising energy prices, housing affordability, small businesses that are collapsing and families under pressure. But, instead of focusing on these issues, we are here debating another thought bubble from the Greens. Their answer to Australia's challenges always remains the same: more regulation, more political censorship and more ideological gatekeeping. The Greens' solution is to create legal prohibitions around who can participate in the democratic process. They seek to financially throttle political participation based on ideology and to silence industries and Australians that they disagree with. Once again, that demonstrates how out of touch the Greens are with everyday Australians. The coalition believes in equal participation, equal treatment and transparency that is applied consistently because we trust Australians, not activist politicians, to make their own democratic decisions. For these reasons, the coalition will not support this bill. (Quorum formed) 10:03 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I seek leave to make a short personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Leave is granted. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 In my speech, I named a former Labor staffer, and I wish to withdraw that reference from Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Sure. Senator McKim? 10:03 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I thank Senator Hodgins-May for enabling us to have a debate today about the corrupting influence of political donations on our democracy. Let's be very clear about what political donations are. They are a corrupting influence on our democracy. They are basically institutionalised, legalised political bribery. This is how the big corporations get the outcomes that they got in this week's budget—by their donations to the Labor Party and, in previous governments, to the Liberal and National parties. This is how the one per cent insidiously control our democracy to make sure that they ultimately do not pay their fair share of tax. This is how the big corporations and the super wealthy one per cent make sure that work is taxed more punitively than wealth and that work is taxed more heavily than corporate profits in this country. Political donations are how the big corporations and the super wealthy one per cent control the major parties in the Australian body politic to make sure the overwhelming majority of tax breaks like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount end up in the pockets of the wealthiest, highest-income people in our country. This is how fossil fuel corporations made sure there were $46 million worth of direct public subsidies to burn fossil fuels in the budget that Labor brought down earlier this week. Political donations are how the native forest lobbying industry ended up with another $28 million in public subsidies in the budget that Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down this week. Let us be clear about the direct link between political donations and political outcomes. The budget this week contained cuts to our renewable energy transition. It contained cuts to environmental protection. It contained cuts to the climate transition. It contained cuts to support to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. And yet, in the very same budget that Labor is trying to convince people is reformist and of high ambition, there is nearly $40 billion ripped out of support for people with disabilities. There is new money to encourage gas production. There is new money for the mendicant native forest logging industry. This is the corrupting influence of political donations on our democracy. I want to talk a little bit about the environment and climate impacts of this budget because they have been delivered directly through the insidious reach of the donations that the Labor and Liberal and National parties accept from big corporations and from the super wealthy in this country. This budget contains extra subsidies for the native forest logging industries, especially in Tasmania and New South Wales. As if the government throwing $300 million of taxpayer money at the native forest logging industry as a sop when the Greens actually negotiated to strengthen Labor's reforms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act was not enough, now that mendicant industry, which would end overnight if the public subsidies were withdrawn, is the recipient of another 28 million bucks explicitly designed to help it work around the strengthened environmental laws that were passed through this place late last year. What a disgrace! The environment and the climate are the big losers in this budget, along with people with disability and young people, who will continue to get ripped off by a tax system that is designed to rip off young people, designed to rip off working people and designed to favour people who are high-income or high-wealth individuals. This is the corrupting influence of political donations. The Greens bill would finally, and it is desperately overdue, clean up our political system. It would stop dirty donations from harmful industries that are not acting in the public interest like gambling, weapons corporations, fossil fuel corporations and big pharma. These are the industries that continue to reach in through the mechanism of political donations and continue to deliver outcomes not for the Australian people but for their own narrow financial self-interest. Many of these industries are led by CEOs who are prepared to make bank by destroying the planet's climate system, destroying nature and engaging in activities that are not in the public interest. That includes the gas corporations, who, of course, skated home free in this year's budget because Labor squibbed on introducing a gas export tax of at least 25 per cent. That's multiple tens of billions of dollars forgone over the next decade because Labor will not take on the big gas corporations. This budget contained $46 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Folks, it's 2026—we're sleepwalking into a climate catastrophe! It's going to smash people around the world. Countless people are going to die, be displaced, suffer starvation and suffer from thirst because water supplies are changing and rainfall patterns are changing. This world is heading for calamity, and in 2026, under a Labor government, we are getting approvals of new coal and gas mines hand over fist and a budget was handed down this week that contained $46 billion in public subsidies for burning fossil fuels—in 2026! History will not look at you kindly; I can assure you of that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator McKim, I have to cut you off there. The time for debate has expired; the clock has come to that hour. BUSINESS 11 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 11 10:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That on Thursday, 14 May 2026: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 be put at 11 am; and (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. Just briefly, the motion essentially brings on a vote, at 11 o'clock today, on the bill that was debated yesterday and will be debated this morning. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:17]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 8 PAIRS Ayres, T. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Dowling, R. Henderson, S. M. Farrell, D. E. Scarr, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. McLachlan, A. L. Lines, S. McGrath, J. A. McCarthy, M. Cadell, R. P. Watt, M. P. Ruston, A. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 12 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 12

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026

Second Reading 12 10:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it's a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister's office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won't even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should. This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers' expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia's fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding. Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they're helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I'll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment. Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it's the people who pay. We can't normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don't really mean it. I'm just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn't it? Is that right? One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions. In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That's why he's got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation. 10:27 Senator WHITTEN 317026 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. One Nation is not here to rubberstamp legislation for Labor. We're here to represent the people who have been forgotten, ignored and taken for granted by the two major parties for far too long. Our voters—in fact, your voters—sent all of us here to question and scrutinise legislation that this government is constantly trying to rush through. They are laws that hand more power to Canberra without accountability. We didn't get a copy of the proposed legislation until yesterday. Today we're being asked to consider a bill that gives the Treasurer sweeping new powers to declare exceptional circumstances and then allows the ACCC to grant exemptions from competition law. This is for a crisis that doesn't exist, by the way. We are expected to deal with it in a timeframe that makes genuine scrutiny almost impossible. It is the government of transparency and more tax! How are we supposed to properly represent our constituents when we have not had a real chance to review this legislation? This is the first and most fundamental problem with this bill. It is being rammed through probably with the help of the votes-for-sale Greens. We have a duty to read legislation; to understand its implications; and to consult with experts, small business, consumers and people actually keep this country running—or have you forgotten about the people you're meant to represent? When the basic process is short-circuited, we can't do our job. If we can't do our job, the people who voted for us are not being represented. It's pretty simple. This is not an isolated incident. This is typical of the Labor government. You might have heard of them—the government of transparency and more tax. They constantly complain about the Senate not moving fast enough. They lecture us about the need for urgency. They accuse anyone who asks for proper process of getting in the way. They claim we don't support their rubbish legislation. Yet they have done absolutely nothing to cultivate trust with this Senate or with the Australian people. Remember old Mr 'My Word is my Bond'? Trust is not something you demand. It is something you earn, and you are losing the trust of the Australian voters very quickly. This government has done everything possible to destroy what little trust remains. We don't trust them. The Australian people don't trust them, and they have every reason not to. Look at the budget handed down only this week. Australians were told not once, not twice but over 50 times, allegedly, that there would be no changes to negative gearing. That sounds like Labor. 'There will be no child living in poverty'—blah, blah, blah. Seriously. Australians were told repeatedly that capital gains tax arrangements would not be touched. The Prime Minister himself stood at the dispatch box and said it again and again and again. 'For the 50th time' he said on one occasion. Then, the moment they believed they had the numbers and the political cover—oh, and the little issue of running out of your money—they turned around and slammed through major changes anyway. This is not a change of heart based on new information. This is a deliberate deception. This is not a Robin Hood budget, as it was being sold—you know, 'Take money from the older people who have worked hard and saved and give to the young'. This is a Klaus Schwab budget—'You will own nothing and you will be happy.' Now they expect us to take them at their word on this bill. If the government genuinely wants support for its legislation, then it needs to start being honest. It needs to start being transparent. It needs to stop treating this parliament and the people of Australia as an inconvenience that gets in the way of its agenda and start treating it as the democratic institution it's supposed to be. The government says this is necessary because of the current fuel crisis. One Nation understands the pressures on fuel supply and energy prices caused by the complete lack of foresight by this very government. We understand that, in genuine emergencies, there can be a need for rapid coordination between businesses to keep essential goods moving. No-one wants to see fuel shortages or panic buying because the law is too slow to respond. But understanding the problem does not mean we accept any solution the government puts forward, no matter how flawed. Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers from price gouging. It protects small businesses from being squeezed out by larger players who can coordinate their behaviour. It stops anticompetitive conduct from becoming normal. Any law that carves out exemptions from those protections must be treated with extreme caution. This bill gives the Treasurer an extremely broad power to declare exceptional circumstances. Do we really want this bloke to have more power? It is not limited to the current fuel situation. It could be used in a future pandemic, another economic shock or any situation the Treasurer of the day decides qualifies. Once that door is open, the ACCC can grant exemptions that this parliament cannot disallow. The only transparency requirement is that the exemptions be made public within seven days. In some cases, that might be acceptable. In others, it is nowhere near good enough. Then there is the retrospectivity. The bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. We ask why that particular date was chosen. The Treasurer's office apparently said they wanted sufficient flexibility. That is not a justification. Is this a belated April fools joke? Who knows. That is an admission that they want to cover their tracks or give themselves room to act without proper oversight. Retrospective lawmaking, especially in the area of competition law, should be extremely rare. It should require a clear, specific and compelling reason and maybe some oversight. 'We want flexibility' does not meet that standard. One Nation has seen this movie before. Governments of both persuasions use any crisis as an excuse to permanently expand their power. They say it's only temporary. They say the safeguards are adequate. Then, when the next crisis comes along, those expanded powers are still there and the safeguards have been quietly weakened even further. We are not prepared to let that happen again without a fight. This bill should be subjected to a full and proper inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That inquiry should examine whether the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate, it should test whether the Treasurer's declaration power is drawn too broadly, it should consider whether the ACCC exemptions should be made disallowable by parliament, it should look closely at the transparency requirements and whether seven days is anywhere near sufficient, it should demand a clear and specific justification for the retrospective start date and it should consider whether stronger sunset clauses and review mechanisms are needed so that these powers do not become permanent. None of that is unreasonable. None of that is obstruction. It is the basic responsibility of this chamber, the house of review. Cries of urgency do not justify our trusting a government that has repeatedly broken its word to the Australian people. Our constituents did not vote for us so we would roll over every time a minister said that something is urgent. They voted for us because they are sick of being treated with disdain, sick of being ignored, and sick of watching the power of ministers and bureaucrats grow with every passing crisis. If Labor wants this bill to pass in a form that commands genuine support across the chamber, they know what they need to do: stop the rush; support a proper Senate inquiry; be transparent about why these particular dates and these particular powers have been chosen; and start treating the Senate and the Australian people with the respect they deserve. Until that happens, One Nation will continue to ask the hard questions. We will continue to demand proper scrutiny. And we will continue to stand with the Australian people who sent us here, rather than with a government that seems to believe it can command a trust it has never earned. It is time for this parliament to start earning their trust again, one honest debate, one proper inquiry and one transparent piece of legislation at a time. You can screech across the chamber as much as you want that we don't vote for your rubbish legislation, but this is exhibit A of our defence. 10:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, another One Nation senator sounding like just another Liberal—that's what that contribution was: the right-wing uni-party, One Nation, the Liberals and the National Party, in that order of primary vote. One Nation, the Liberals, the National Party— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 A point of order on relevance: the government has brought this bill forward, and they're saying it's to deal with exceptional circumstances relating to the issue of fuel security— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Minister! Senator Canavan 245212 I said it was on relevance, if you were listening, Senator Ayres. This bill, and the minister's got— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Canavan, I'm happy to rule. Generally speaking, second reading debates are fairly wide ranging. The minister has the call. Senator AYRES 16913 This is an important piece of legislation that is urgent and in the interests of Australians, particularly Australians who rely upon diesel and particularly Australians who rely upon petrol and Australians who rely upon jet fuel and fertiliser. As with every other issue, when it comes to issues that actually matter for Australian supply chains, you'll find that the old right-wing uni-party—One Nation, the Liberals and the National Party, or what's left of them—are in complete accord, because the anger and hate that drives these parties together is their primary motivation. They're angry people. They're not interested in the Australian national interest; they're just interested in anger politics. That is the decline of conservative politics in Australia. That's what has happened, and it leads them to opposing bills like this. Senator Whitten and Senator Canavan and all the other Liberals suddenly say—as all Liberals always do—that there's not a role for government in dealing with these challenges. Well, it's been government that has insulated Australia here, as best as any government could, from what is the biggest energy shock in our history. It's been government, this Albanese government, that has enhanced our reputation internationally and in our region in a way that gives us credibility to be able to secure shiploads of additional diesel, shiploads of additional petroleum products and jet fuel—something previous governments could never do. I remember the previous prime minister talking about 'negative globalism', sounding like just another One Nation senator, with all the same stuff, all the kooky stuff, which diminished Australia in the region. Those guys—they are almost all guys—could never have delivered what the Albanese government has done here. Some of you are still in a paroxysm of rage about what happened in 2022 let alone what happened in 2025. It's meant you've lost the capacity for reason and the capacity to act in the national interest. One of the key things that needed to be done in a market that is established to drive the maximum competitive outcome in the way that we deal with petroleum products, particularly diesel—when there is a shock internationally, it jams up. Some of that was evidenced in what happened in regional Australia for a few weeks. While you lot were telling people to hoard diesel, we were in ports and in refineries around the world dealing with the actual practical challenges, not being complacent, smug, partisan, self-interested, anti-Australian forces in our political system. We were just acting for Australia. We didn't get distracted by the ideology and the social media memes. I want to thank people who've contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 establishes new powers for the Treasurer and ACCC to enable coordinated action during crises. Where exceptional circumstances threaten harm to the economy, businesses or consumers, the Treasurer may make a declaration. The ACCC can then use streamlined powers to grant authorisations or class exemptions, allowing businesses to coordinate in support of the government's response, which is a pretty good thing, I reckon. These reforms ensure faster, more effective action in crisis situations and make it easier for businesses to assist in the national interest, to work together as Australians in the national interest—a foreign concept, I know, to the One Nation-Liberal-National right-wing uniparty over there. I note in relation to schedule 1, the government will support amendment 3804 moved by Senator McKim. Schedule 2 to the bill provides further protections against unfair and unlawful conduct by fuel companies. It will align maximum penalties in the Oil Code of Conduct with other industry codes to provide a real disincentive to fuel companies who disregard their obligations and benefit from the current conflict in the Middle East. This is a very sensible, very straightforward proposition. You could go into any shopping centre, pub or main street in any country town in Australia, and Australians would expect the government to act in this kind of way, requiring high standards from Australian companies by getting them to work together in the national interest when there is a shock like the one the world is experiencing now. That's what they would expect. But you've got One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals in a conspiracy to deprive government and Australians of the tools they need to act, which is to secure more fuel, to make sure it gets to where it needs to go, to support farmers and to support country families and communities in doing what they need to do to keep Australia moving, to make sure that, despite high prices, we're doing what we can in areas like fertiliser to make sure as much gets planted as can possibly get planted and that we get diesel to where it needs to get to. The kind of ideology that would see this being held up so that it couldn't be dealt with in a parliamentary session until June is the most self-obsessed, unreal, ideological, un-Australian kind of proposition that you could possibly muster. There's a pool of reflection out there. Some of you ought to go and have a look. Have a look in the mirror and a bit of self-reflection on what your actual job is here. It is not in the interests of worrying about what overseas extremists might say but actually in the interests of what country communities, country towns, Australian industry and Australian farmers need from government and how to support Australian firms to continue in that work. We won't be out there finger-pointing in an energy shock. We will be working here in Australia and with partners overseas to make sure Australia gets what it needs. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Canavan be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Bragg, A. J. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McGrath, J. A. Dowling, R. McLachlan, A. L. Gallagher, K. R. Scarr, P. M. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 17 10:52 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland We have very little time to ask questions of the government about this extraordinary piece of legislation. In the limited time I have, before the government once again gags debate on special legislation—stopping the job of the Senate to look at these types of things—I want to focus on one aspect of the bill. It's the aspect that the minister and the government have just not explained. It's the provision of the bill, in section 92E, which allows these exceptional circumstances to be designated—these exemptions from competition laws—to go all the way back to 1 April 2026. The minister, in wrapping up the debate before, said that we need to do these things to help keep delivering fuel, fertiliser and other important commodities to our country. We support them on that. We have supported special legislation on this. But to do those things in the future does not require us to exempt people from laws in the past. Those things in the past have already been done. A lot of my colleagues and I are scratching our heads, trying to understand why the government needs to exempt conduct—potentially anticompetitive conduct; that's why the exemptions are here—from stuff that has happened, going all the way back to April Fools' Day, 1 April, this year. If this was about the future, if this was about protecting Australians in the future, why do you need to go back to the past? What is the government hiding—that's what I'd like to know. What is the justification for this? I would particularly like to know if the ACCC has asked the government for these powers, and, if so, why? Why? As other senators in this debate have raised, we did have a lot of complaints come to us about the potential anticompetitive conduct that occurred in the early stages of this crisis. There were shortages of key commodities. That's a ripe opportunity for people with market share and market power to abuse the situation, to take market share, to kill competitors and the like, and now the government is potentially exempting all of that suspected alleged conduct from review, scrutiny and penalty, if indeed there were things done at that time. Unfortunately, we have very limited time. I'd hope that the minister could deal with these issues briefly so that there may be some time to ask some more follow-up questions, but that is the key reason why the opposition remains sceptical of the need to rush this legislation with such great haste. 10:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think there are three propositions there. Firstly, let me make it clear that the ACCC support these laws and have advocated for the flexibility to use their powers quickly in a crisis. That is their view. They made this clear when they briefed Mr Taylor, Mr Wilson and Mr Hogan from the other place on Monday. In terms of retrospectivity and 1 April, businesses, the regulators and departments, including my department, have been meeting regularly since the war in the Middle East broke out. That includes forums like the National Coordination Mechanism and the supermarket supply chain effort that is going on, led by my department. That is really important work, and it does involve a response that is led by government, but it must have those firms at the table, because we're not North Korea, where we would be directing complex supply chains. They are the experts in that work. But having government and regulators at the table leading mechanisms like that supermarket supply chain work is the right thing to do in order to be prepared to deal with all of the contingencies and to not be complacent when we have made very good progress. There is more fuel in the country today than there was when the war broke out. That is because of the government's efforts here. There is no complacency from us on these questions. It would be very good if the conflict finished tomorrow, but that is not in our control. In the government's control is what we as Australians do collectively to deal with this. That is why the ACCC supports the legislation here. I think they've made it clear that they'd prefer that it be unamended, but we'll do what we need to do to secure passage of this so that we can continue with that important work for Australians. You could leave things as they are. During the COVID period it took many, many months after orders were sought for those orders to be granted. It's our view that the arrangements in areas like fuel supply mitigate against getting fuel to country towns in a cooperative way. When there's a shock—there are arrangements that people make; independent fuel retailers purchase largely on the spot market—everything freezes up. It particularly freezes up when you've got people from One Nation and the Liberals and the Nationals on their social media telling people to stock up. That is— Senator AYRES 16913 I don't look at this stuff. It gets printed out; it gets popped on my seat. I don't have any social media on my phone. I'm not interested in your posts, Senator Canavan, or anybody else's actually. What we're interested in doing is giving the ACCC the capacity to act in the national interest to allow Australians in these kinds of situations to work together to support industry, farmers, country towns, our mining sector, our forestry sector and other areas that require diesel and fuel to function effectively. That's our job, and we're going to do it in the Australian nation interest. Limitation of Debate 18 11:00 The CHAIR 30484 Pursuant to the order agreed yesterday, the time allotted for this debate has expired. I will now put the questions before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheets 3812 and 3814 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment s— SHEET 3812 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 15 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Sunset of exceptional circumstances exemption powers Part 1 — Main amendments Competition and Consumer Act 2010 1 Subparagraph 90(7)(b)(ii) Omit "conduct.", substitute "conduct; or". 2 At the end of subsection 90(7) Add: (c) all of the following apply: (i) a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force; (ii) the Commission is satisfied in all the circumstances that the conduct would assist, or would be likely to assist, in the response to or recovery from the emergency to which the national emergency declaration relates; and (iii) the Commission is satisfied in all the circumstances that the benefit to the public resulting from the assistance, or likely assistance, together with any other public benefit resulting from the conduct, would outweigh the detriment to the public that would result, or be likely to result, from the conduct. 3 Subsection 90(9A) After "paragraph (7)(b)", insert "and subparagraph (7)(c)(iii)". 4 Division 1A of Part VII of Chapter 6 Repeal the Division. 5 Sections 95AC and 95AD Repeal the sections. 6 Division 4 of Part VII of Chapter 6 Repeal the Division. Part 2 — Consequential amendments Competition and Consumer Act 2010 7 Subsection 87 ZP( 3) Repeal the subsection. National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 8 Section 10 (paragraph (k) of the definition of national emergency law ) Omit "section 92D or 95AC", substitute "section 88 or 90". [ _____ SHEET 3814 (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 20 to 22), omit "(which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026)", substitute "(which must not be before the commencement of this section)". (2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 3), omit "(which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026)", substitute "(which must not be before the commencement of this section)". (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 12 (lines 1 to 3), omit "(which may be before the commencement of this section, but must not be before 1 April 2026)", substitute "(which must not be before the commencement of this section)".  

The committee divided. [11:04]
(The Chair—Senator Brockman)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. McGrath, J. A. Dowling, R. McLachlan, A. L. Gallagher, K. R. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V.

Question negatived.

 11:07 The CHAIR 30484 The question is that the amendment on sheet 3804 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 10 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the instrument", substitute "and, despite anything in section 44 of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to the instrument". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [11:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 5 PAIRS Dowling, R. McGrath, J. A. Farrell, D. E. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. McLachlan, A. L. Sheldon, A. V. Scarr, P. M. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 20 Report 20 11:14 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present the sixth report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated into the Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 6 OF 2026 14 May 2026 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator Leah Blyth Senator Ross Cadell (Nationals Whip) Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator Jessica Collins Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 OF 2026 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 May 2026 at 7.16 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral), (b) the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2026 (see appendix 2 for statement of reasons for referral), (c) the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 August 2026, and (d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2026 (see appendix 3 for statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 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 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019 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 (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025 Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 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 Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025 Mandatory Regulation Impact Statement Bill 2025 National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 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 Regulatory Reform Omnibus 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 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 5. The committee considered the following bills but could not reach agreement: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Tony Sheldon) Chair 13 May 2026 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Possible hearing date(s): May-June Possible reporting date: 18 June (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Defence Possible hearing date(s): May-July Possible reporting date: 31 July 2026 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Possible hearing date(s): May-June Possible reporting date: 17 June 2026 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator GROGAN 296331 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add ", and: (a) the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2026; and (b) the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee. 11:15 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move the amendment circulated in the chamber standing in the name of Senator McKim: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 August 2026". Let's be really clear about what is happening here. Labor is proposing to send the NDIS bill to inquiry. It's the most significant change to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in its history. It's legislation that will enable $185 billion to be ripped out of the scheme over a decade. It's the largest cut made by a government to a government program in the history of the Commonwealth. That's what this legislation will do, and they are seeking to send it to an inquiry that will report by 16 June. That is ridiculous. Let me be really clear about what that will mean for the people who will be affected by this legislation. It means that there will be 20 working days to review this piece of legislation. Let's be real. Out of those 20 days, only 11 are non-parliamentary workdays for this Senate to review this legislation. And now I hear that we may not even get a meeting of the committee to set out the agenda for this inquiry for another week, which would scrub another three days off the potential period of time that people would have to scrutinise this legislation, to understand what it may mean for them and to be able to share their view on the legislation that will shape their lives. This is outrageous and it is wrong. Fellow senators, this is wrong. These cuts are immoral. This is not what you were elected to do—to cause this harm, to cause this pain, to put these lives at risk, to leave the community in the dark without the answers that they need or the time to get those answers. I would be happy if this bill went to an inquiry permanently and never passed this chamber. However, we put forward this amendment today as a compromise that would see the inquiry report in August, giving at least some sensible amount of time to engage disabled people, to enable proper hearings and to enable people to make submissions to the inquiry so that we can understand the legislation that we will then be asked to pass. This is a basic expectation of the community. This amendment is reasonable, and in this situation you'd better believe it is necessary. I urge you to support this amendment today. Many in this place may not have a lived experience of disability, but I do hope that the majority of us have not lost our capacity for empathy and our commitment to curiosity and a belief that we should understand the laws that we are passing and the impacts that they will have on people. One hundred and sixty thousand people now face removal from the NDIS, with $185 billion ripped from this scheme by a government that cannot bring itself to ask the big gas exporters or wealthy end of town to pay a cent more. This legislation dumped today at the end of a parliamentary sitting week is already proving to be the vessel for terrifying changes for disabled people, for the redefinition of what disability itself means in the eyes of the government, and the provision to the minister of vast new powers that will give government control over the lives of disabled people and our families, that will strip agency from our hands, that will reduce our choices. I urge you to put aside your party affiliations in this moment, connect with your humanity and vote for this amendment. 11:21 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John's. The number of times we hear people say 'nothing about us, without us' and 'we will not do anything to disabled people without engaging them in a codesigned process', and here is the government proposing to make the biggest change to the NDIS by shutting out disabled people and not allowing them to have a say. Shame on you! And to the other members of this chamber: if you genuinely believe that people with a disability have a right to have a say in their care, you will support this amendment too. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bell, S. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whitten, T. 26 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 I now intend to go to the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher. Senator Duniam, I understand you wanted to split that amendment. Senator Duniam 263418 That's correct. The PRESIDENT 112096 So we'll firstly deal with (a) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. The question is that part (a) of Minister Gallagher's amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that part (b) of the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 26 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 6 PAIRS Ciccone, R. McKenzie, B. G. Dowling, R. McLachlan, A. L. Farrell, D. E. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Antic, A. Watt, M. P. McGrath, J. A. Wong, P. Cash, M. C.

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.15 pm today: Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026 Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 (subject to introduction) Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and a related bill (subject to introduction); (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 510 standing in the name of Senator Chandler, relating to the 2026-27 Budget, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 26 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 26 Meeting 26 11:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 11.15 am. Question agreed to. NOTICES 26 NOTICES Postponement 26 11:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. COMMITTEES 26 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 26 11:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 There is no objection. BUSINESS 26 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 26 11:36 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dowling from 12 to 14 May 2026, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 26 COMMITTEES Directions to Committees 26 11:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (a) for the duration of this Parliament, any question directed to a witness appearing before any legislative and general purpose standing committee and any current or future select committee concerning the provision of sponsored passes for Parliament House be taken to be relevant to the matter before the committee; and (b) consistent with the procedure to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses, nothing in paragraph (a) affects the entitlement of a witness to request that evidence be given in private session, or to object to answering any question. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 451, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 7 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Hanson, P. L. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Thorpe, L. A. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 27 11:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to publish answers to questions on notice relating to sponsored passes for Parliament House asked by Senator David Pocock during the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, unless the witness answering the question requested that the answer be kept confidential. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 452, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 7 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Hanson, P. L. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Thorpe, L. A. Whitten, T. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Collins, J. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 27 DOCUMENTS Renewable Energy 27 Order for the Production of Documents 27 11:50 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move general business notices of motion Nos 493, 494, 495 and 496 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 493 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 25 May 2026, any briefings, submissions, documents, files, notes, correspondence or advice provided by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to the minister and his office that concern the operation of the Cheaper Home Batteries Scheme in the months of July and August 2025 and February 2026, respectively. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 494 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 25 May 2026, attachments A, B, C and D received by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the ministerial submission with the Parliamentary Document Record number MS26-000271. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 495 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 25 May 2026, any briefings, submissions, documents, files, notes, correspondence or advice prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water concerning safety issues with Victoria Interconnector West and Western Renewables Link. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 496 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 25 May 2026, a document that includes: (a) for the Rewiring the Nation program, per each investment to date: (i) the name of the investment project, (ii) the type of Commonwealth investment (equity stake, debt, loan, etc.), (iii) the quantum of Commonwealth investment delivered to date, (iv) the total forecast quantum of Commonwealth investment over the life of the project, (v) the date of commencement of construction, (vi) the date of expected project completion, (vii) the expected date of return on investment to the Commonwealth, and (viii) the quantum of investment required to be returned to the Commonwealth; and (b) for the Rewiring the Nation program: (i) per applicable project, the location of transmission lines being invested in, (ii) the forecast total length of transmission lines expected to be delivered, and (iii) the total length of transmission lines delivered to date. Question agreed to. Housing 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:52 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notices of motion Nos 497, 498, 499 and 500 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO.497 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 29 May 2026, all Treasury modelling for the 30,000 new homes over the next decade as a benefit of productivity-enhancing reforms, as included in the 2026-27 Budget (as per page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1). GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 498 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 29 May 2026, all Treasury modelling and advice on the 35,000 fewer dwellings related to the housing tax changes included in the 2026-27 Budget (such as capital gains tax and negative gearing, as per page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1). GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 499 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 29 May 2026, all Treasury modelling for the 65,000 more dwellings related to the infrastructure spend included in the 2026-27 Budget (as per page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1). GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 500 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 29 May 2026, all Treasury modelling related to the figure of 75,000 first home buyers that will result from the changes in housing related tax settings (such as capital gains tax and negative gearing) included in the 2026-27 Budget (as per page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1). Question agreed to. Aged Care 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:53 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 21 May 2026, the national median price for Support at Home services. Question agreed to. BUDGET 29 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 29 11:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate directs the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner, the Honourable Paul Brereton AM RFD SC, and the National Anti-Corruption Deputy Commissioners, Ms Nicole Rose PSM, Dr Ben Gauntlett and Ms Kylie Kilgour, to attend the Budget estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in the week commencing 25 May 2026 to give evidence and answer questions. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 29 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—I move general business notices of motion Nos 503, 504, 505, 506, 507 and 508 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 503 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling in relation to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme's statement that new eligibility rules would reduce NDIS participation to 600,000 people by the end of the decade. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 504 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling in relation to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme's statement that new eligibility rules would reduce NDIS participation to 600,000 people by the end of the decade. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 505 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling underpinning the $184.9 billion reduction in National Disability Insurance Scheme payments contained in Box 3.2 on page 90 of Budget Paper No. 1 2026-27, including details of any cohorts who will be removed from the scheme to achieve the savings. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 506 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling underpinning the $184.9 billion reduction in NDIS payments contained in Box 3.2 on page 90 of Budget Paper No. 1 2026-27, including details of any cohorts who will be removed from the scheme to achieve the savings. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 507 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling of the fiscal impacts of each component of the Government's budget measure, 'Securing the National Disability Insurance Scheme for future generations', on page 106 of Budget Paper No. 2 2026-27, including the $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payments and details of any cohorts who will be removed from the scheme to achieve the savings. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 508 That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by Wednesday, 20 May 2026, any financial or other modelling of the fiscal impacts of each component of the Government's budget measure, 'Securing the National Disability Insurance Scheme for future generations', on page 106 of Budget Paper No. 2 2026-27, including the $37.8 billion reduction in NDIS payments and details of any cohorts who will be removed from the scheme to achieve the savings. Question agreed to. BUDGET 29 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 29 11:55 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move: That the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) Mr Mark Irving KC was appointed as Administrator of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) on 23 August 2024 and will continue to assist the CFMEU as Senior Counsel after his resignation as Administrator takes effect on 1 June 2026, and (ii) Mr Michael Crosby will replace Mr Irving as Administrator; and (b) directs Mr Irving and Mr Crosby to attend the Budget estimates hearings of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee in the week commencing 2 June 2026 to give evidence and answer questions regarding the administration of the CFMEU. 11:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Under the scheme of the CFMEU administration, responsibility for appointing a replacement administrator lies with the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission. The general manager has publicly outlined a consultative process whereby he will seek the views of registered organisations, peak bodies and industry participants in making the appointment. No appointment has been made. Budget estimates is not a forum to compel private individuals for questioning; this is a longstanding practice. Should senators wish to bring forward lines of questioning regarding the CFMEU administration, the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission will be in attendance. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 509 standing in the name of Senator Kovacic be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. (Teller) Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Cox, D. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 7 PAIRS Antic, A. Dowling, R. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Duniam, J. R. Sheldon, A. V. Lambie, J. Ciccone, R. McGrath, J. A. Watt, M. P. McLachlan, A. L. Darmanin, L. Scarr, P. M. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

 COMMITTEES 31 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 31 Membership 31 12:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 I have received a letter requesting changes to the membership of committees. 12:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Allman-Payne for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Participating member: Senator Allman-Payne Environment and Communications Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young Question agreed to. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 31 Reference 31 12:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 October 2026: The management, delivery and cancellation of the Inland Rail project since May 2022, with particular reference to: (a) the reasons for the Labor Government's decision to cease the Inland Rail project north of Parkes; (b) the escalation in estimated project costs from May 2022; (c) the governance, management and delivery of the Inland Rail project; (d) the implementation of recommendations of The delivery of inland rail: An independent review; (e) the economic, social and environmental impacts of the cancellation of the Inland Rail north of Parkes; (f) the loss of projected carbon emission reductions that would have been achieved through shifting freight movements from road to rail; (g) engagement with communities, governments and industry on the delivery and future of the Inland Rail project; and (h) any other related matters. It is with a heavy heart that I rise today. It's budget week, when the whole nation should be grateful for the government and a prime minister who said he'd govern for all Australians. But it turns out—if you don't live in inner-city Melbourne, inner-city Sydney or Brisbane—he doesn't govern for you. Last week, we heard that the Inland Rail project, a corridor of commerce connecting Melbourne to Brisbane, had been cancelled halfway—tracks stopped at Parkes. This is a nation-building project over a century in the making that has been on the planning box since John Anderson was in parliament. It was a project the Prime Minister, when he was infrastructure minister, championed. Even it was 'critical' to the productivity agenda, such as it was, for the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Fast forward, there were no complaints about Inland Rail as it was designed, planned, land acquired, budget provisions made, agreements with state and territory governments, absolutely. The minister who is chortling, scoffing, behind me knows that their hands are very dirty on this project. Because the Prime Minister, who prides himself on being an infrastructure prime minister, has shafted this project, shafted the communities and exporters, farmers and regional capitals along this route, to buy political capital in my home state of Victoria to try and shore up the fortunes of the premier Jacinta Allan by investing in the Suburban Rail Loop—a project, I might add, that should actually be on the budget's statement of risks given that it is signing up state and Commonwealth governments to a project that is going to cost in today's dollars in excess of $216 billion, let alone by 2035 when it is looking to have its first passenger. This week we had mayors from right up and down the Inland Rail come to Canberra and tell us of the millions of dollars of small business and private capital invested in their communities, with their construction workers and businesses gearing up, employing staff, skilling staff and purchasing kit to participate in a decadal rollout of this project, who are now in limbo, left holding the can for a Labor government that has left them reeling. That was the evidence we heard yesterday when mayors stood up and spoke about private investment that had been made in these regional communities. The National Farmers' Federation stood beside us, talking about the great potential this project had for our primary producers, for our mining and resources sector through western New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. That is now dashed because it is literally a railway to nowhere that has already cost in excess of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for no return. The local councils also took successive federal governments at their word that this was a project that, no matter who was in power, was going to be completed—coalition, Labor, coalition, Labor—with Labor now saying 'no more'. So we have tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases, invested to build industry precincts in these regional capitals that are seeking to increase not just the population but the gross regional product of these communities for decades to come. They have a great vision of what is possible in their communities, and it is a pity this government refuses to back them. That brings me to the third issue with the cancellation of this project. In my shadow portfolio of infrastructure, it is very rarely—in fact, I would struggle to think of an example—that the minister who announces a nation-building infrastructure project would ever be the minister who cuts the ribbon on the opening day. It probably wouldn't even be the same side of politics that got to do that. Because parties of government—that used to mean something—the Labor Party, Liberal Party and the National Party knew that, if we had a bipartisan approach to these nation-building infrastructure projects, we were all signed up to the deal, and this was one of these projects. By tearing up its commitment, the Labor Party has now put a sovereign risk question over any subsequent commitment from future governments on nation-building decadal projects such as the Inland Rail. It will be very, very difficult to take to the bank, to the boards of private investors and to regional councils and inner-city councils the commitment of a federal government that they're going to stay the course on any given infrastructure project, given the Labor Party has said, 'This one's not for us.' I think what makes it more galling for rural and regional Australians is that they saw the potential of this. It would have turned that trip from Melbourne to Brisbane into literally a 24-hour trip, instead of it taking days on the back of a truck. It would have taken over 200,000 heavy vehicles off our freight network between Brisbane and Melbourne and their surrounds. The safety and efficiency of that move alone was driving productivity. The 750,000 tonnes a year of carbon emissions that would have been reduced come 2050 have now gone as well. We know productivity is going backwards under this government. We know they held a roundtable last year, which we're yet to see any outcomes from, and this budget does not give the economy or our people any hope, but this was a project that was going to deliver efficiencies to the freight task. And you don't need to talk to the boffins; you just need to get out on the ground and talk to the truckies, the farmers, the manufacturers and the small businesses involved in this project to know what that benefit was going to be. Yet, for political purposes, the Prime Minister did this. Have you ever wondered what 25-odd years in this place can do to you? It can make you a tactical master. Anthony Albanese is very, very clever because he has actually chosen to abandon communities and the productive side of our economy to invest in his political necessity and that of his political movement, the Labor Party, in Victoria. You'll never see a balder case of that than this cancellation. We were looking forward to Catherine King actually getting the Beveridge to Parkes piece done and then heading north of North Star, where the stop sign is right now on the track, because we had a change of government in Queensland. The Liberal National Party state government could also see the benefits of this project—unlike the Palaszczuk-Miles Labor government, who refused to partner and get the work done. If you want to know what the impact of the rollout of this project has been, the Acting Deputy President, Senator Sterle, will know this. He chaired a committee inquiry into this project. There have been farmers right and up and down the Inland Rail route who've had to go into negotiations about selling parcels and parts of their property and making access arrangements for construction crews. These negotiations have often taken years and have caused a lot of heartache, but they did it knowing it was in the national interest. Of course, they didn't do it for free, but I think that that now being unrealised says everything you need to know about the Labor Party. We know that the independent review done by Kerry Schott priced the increase for construction of the Inland Rail at $31 billion. When you ask the department of infrastructure how those figures were arrived at, you are met with blank stares. The actual microdetail of how that $31 billion figure was arrived at is not public, neither is the ACIL Allen report that the minister has used to cancel this project. If this was not for political reasons, then put the report on the table so that, at the very least, the communities paying the price of this government's decision can actually understand that it is an increase to $45 billion and you are telling the truth this time. But right now, there is no comfort— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! Senator McKenzie, it being 12.15— Senator McKENZIE 207825 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Yes. It being 12.15, we shall now proceed to government business orders of the day. BILLS 33 BILLS Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026 33

Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026

Second Reading 33 12:15 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales On behalf of the coalition, I rise to indicate that we will be supporting the passage of the Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026. We are supporting this legislation because it delivers sensible and practical amendments to the framework governing Australia's export operations. The Export Control Act 2020 provides the overarching legislative framework for the regulation of exported goods, including food and agricultural products, from Australia. It's important that this framework is regularly reviewed to ensure it remains streamlined, fit for purpose and responsive to the changing needs of industry and our international trading partners. This bill seeks to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on industry and facilitate reforms relating to certain nonprescribed goods, which are intended to become known as general products once prescribed under the act. In particular, the bill would amend the Export Control Act 2020 to allow export operations, including production and preparation activities, to be undertaken at registered establishments without every activity needing to be specifically included in the registration unless it is required as a prescribed export condition. This is a practical requirement that will remove excessive and unnecessary administrative burden for some export operations, and the coalition will always support measures aimed at cutting red tape, boosting productivity and improving efficiency across Australia's export system, particularly for the agricultural industries that depend on it. This bill also includes amendments to expand the scope of export documentation that can be issued by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to trade requirements. Specifically, the legislation would allow the department to issue additional export documentation covering a range of goods for up to 18 months, rather than being limited to a specific kind of goods. This is another sensible measure that recognises the evolving requirements of overseas markets and trading partners. We know that the department is currently undertaking export assurance reform work examining the regulatory oversight of certain nonprescribed goods, including wool and wool grease, skins and hides, animal food, honey and bee products, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and technical and blood products. The amendments before the Senate today will be particularly beneficial for these general product categories because registered establishments are not proposed to be used as the primary regulatory mechanism for those commodities. The explanatory memorandum also notes that these amendments are supported by industry stakeholders, and that is an important consideration. Australia's export system must remain efficient, robust and evidence based, because exports are fundamental to the profitability, sustainability and resilience of Australian culture and our hardworking primary producers. Australia exports around 70 per cent of total agricultural production. In 2025-26, agricultural exports are forecast to reach $80.5 billion. That is an extraordinary achievement on behalf of the agricultural sector and one that should never be taken for granted. While this bill contains sensible reforms, it is impossible to discuss export regulation without acknowledging the serious concerns around the government's export cost recovery model. Over the past five years, between 2020 and 2025, the department's export regulatory costs charged to industries, including meat, seafood, grain, dairy, fruit and vegetables, have increased by 47 per cent. There has been a 47 per cent increase in just five years. These are the costs associated with documentation, inspections, audits and assessments—costs which, ultimately, are directly passed on to Australian exporters and producers. At a time when farmers and exporters are already dealing with tariffs, escalating fuel prices and fertiliser costs, labour shortages and broader input pressures, including the oil shock from the Middle East, these increases are deeply concerning. The coalition does acknowledge that the government has delayed the implementation of its expanded cost-recovery increases by 12 months following strong industry opposition. That delay is welcome. It reflects the strength of concern coming from agricultural industries at a time of significant pressure right across the country. But delaying these increases for one year is not enough. The coalition believe these additional export cost-recovery charges should be abandoned entirely. Australian exporters should not be forced to absorb the consequences of bureaucratic cost blowouts within the department. Industry deserves to know how the government allowed departmental export service costs to increase so dramatically—by 47 per cent in just five years—and why agricultural exporters are now being expected to foot the bill. We will continue to scrutinise this matter closely and stand up for the interests of Australian agricultural exporters and producers. In conclusion, the coalition strongly supports Australia's agricultural exporters and their continued improvement of our export regulatory framework. The measures contained in the Export Control Amendment (Clarifying Obligations Relating to Registered Establishments) Bill 2026 are sensible, practical and proportionate reforms, and for those reasons the coalition will support the bill before the Senate. 12:21 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Given that we're in the non-contro part of the program, I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 34 12:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:21 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 34

Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026

First Reading 34 12:22 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 34 12:22 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— In beginning this speech, I wish to acknowledge the survivors and advocates, and their families, who have joined us in the gallery for the introduction of this Bill. I recognise Andrew Carpenter; Madeleine West and her children, Xascha and Xayn; Adam Washbourne and his wife, Troon; Nicholas Cavanagh and his father David Kneyle; and Edan van Haren and his family members Carolyn, Richard, Kirsten and Trent Their presence here today is deeply significant. It reflects not only courage, but their enduring commitment to justice, advocacy, and hope. I also acknowledge the many organisations that have advocated for the introduction of this bill over a long period of time, including, but certainly not limited to, Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, the Grace Tame Foundation, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, and the Carly Ryan Foundation. These reforms have not emerged in isolation. They are the result of sustained advocacy, lived experience,and the determination of survivors and their supporters to improve a system that has too often failed them. This Bill will enable victims and survivors of child sexual abuse offences to seek access to a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy unpaid compensation orders, where a criminal conviction has been made. At its core, this Bill is guided by a simple but fundamental principle: perpetrators of child sexual abuse should not be able to hide behind financial structures to avoid accountability. For too long, a deeply unjust loophole has allowed convicted offenders to shield assets in superannuation while victims and survivors are left without the compensation they are owed. This Bill closes that loophole and affirms that financial systems must not operate in a way that undermines justice. This bill aims to prevent superannuation being used to shield a perpetrator's assets from compensation, improve transparency and reduce uncertainty in pursuing compensation. Child sexual abuse causes profound and often lifelong harm. Its impacts extend far beyond the period of abuse itself, in many cases affecting mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, education, and a person's ability to participate fully in work and community life. For many survivors, the trauma does not end when the abuse ends. It is something they carry into adulthood, often navigating its effects daily, and too often without adequate support. The harm is not only emotional and psychological, but also deeply material. Too many survivors face barriers to stable employment and financial security, meaning the consequences of abuse can shape every aspect of their lives. The Bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act allowing compensation debts to survive perpetrators' bankruptcies, improving the ability of victims and survivors to enforce such debt. There is a growing recognition that justice is not only about securing a conviction, but about ensuring meaningful redress. For too many survivors, a conviction has not translated into real-world outcomes. They have endured the trauma of legal proceedings, often reliving deeply painful experiences, only to face further distress when compensation orders go unpaid. That compounds the harm and undermines confidence in the justice system. Under this bill, victim-survivors will be able to apply to the Australian Taxation Office {ATO), with appropriate safeguards, to identify any potential eligible superannuation to inform their decision as to whether to seek a court order. These reforms are a practical and targeted step to address that injustice. They introduce a mechanism to ensure that perpetrators cannot simply wait out their obligations while their financial position remains protected. Importantly, by allowing compensation debts to survive bankruptcy, this Bill sends a clear and necessary message: financial manoeuvring must not override moral and legal responsibility. Bankruptcy should not be a refuge from accountability for such serious harm. Unfulfilled historical compensation orders brought into existence before the schedule's commencement will be eligible if they remain legally enforceable. These changes recognise that there are survivors right now who are being denied justice under the existing framework. By applying to both future and current bankruptcies, this Bill seeks to address not only future harm, but present inequity. These reforms are intended to strengthen victim-survivors' ability to enforce court-ordered compensation and prevent superannuation being used by perpetrators to shield their assets. When offenders retain substantial retirement savings while victims struggle financially, often as a direct consequence of the abuse they suffered, it undermines confidence in the justice system. It risks perpetuating a system where the burden continues to fall on those who were harmed, rather than those who caused the harm. These reforms help restore balance and fairness. The regime established by the Bill will be subject to a review after it commences full operation, to ensure that it is operating effectively for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This Bill should be understood as a significant and necessary foundation. It closes a clear loophole, sends a strong signal about the direction of reform, and establishes a framework that can be built upon in the future. Reviewing these measures after implementation will be critical. It ensures that this Parliament remains engaged with how the law operates in practice, and whether it is truly delivering for victims and survivors. Our approach must continue to be informed by the voices of survivors, advocates, legal experts and practitioners. When survivors tell us where the system still falls short, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. Ultimately, this measure is about restoring fairness and dignity. It is about ensuring that the law does not inadvertently protect those who have caused profound harm, while leaving victims and survivors without recourse. It aligns our financial and legal systems with our values: that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that victims and survivors deserve meaningful support and redress. I thank members from across the chamber, across all political parties and the crossbench, who have offered their support for this Bill and stood alongside me, and alongside survivors, this morning to announce its introduction. Today's show of unity has been demonstration of the Parliament at its best. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. 12:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this bill comes about as a result of years, in some cases decades, of advocacy by survivors and their families and supporters over many years. This bill slightly rebalances the legal system in favour of survivors, victims and their families. And I don't just say that in a shallow way. The strength and the courage that survivors have shown to continue to confront the injustices in our legal system to say that legal works, legal protections—systems that are designed to protect the wealth of perpetrators and prevent survivors from having access to that wealth—need reform and need change. I also want to commend the work of the Assistant Treasurer and the minister's office. This is an example of when the government does it right—sitting down over time, consulting with survivors, working through law reform, and answering some really difficult questions about how you balance certain rights, such as the rights to protect superannuation and to protect some of those core social safety nets in our system but not do so at the expense of fundamental questions of justice. Often, I rise in this chamber to critique the government about how and why they have gone through a process, but I want to emphasise that this shows that, when politics can put the narrow, political fight on the bottom shelf for a while and focus on law reform that will make a measurable difference to people who desperately need it, we can do it right. What this bill does is give survivors a pathway to enforce what courts have already said they are owed. What we have seen time and time again is where perpetrators, particularly of child sexual abuse, come from positions of power and wealth and privilege in our society, and they prey upon the powerless in our society. Children by definition are powerless in that situation. But we can't ignore the fact that so often those perpetrators come from positions of power and wealth and privilege. Often, they have led a life that has meant they've accrued significant assets. Their appalling behaviour, their criminal conduct, has destroyed the lives of children and thrown people's lives into chaos for decades. We have seen time and time again, when those same perpetrators are finally held to account and forced into a criminal court, they've often compelled and required their victims to give evidence, to be tested in a criminal court proceeding. Finally, when there's a sense of justice when a conviction is recorded and a perpetrator is put behind bars, they find that, when efforts are made to enforce civil claims against the same perpetrator for the damage and the violence that has been inflicted on survivors, those same perpetrators use legal structures to hide their assets and protect them from survivors. One of the things that has been apparent when I have been working with survivors—I've spent over a decade and a half in this space—is quite often perpetrators place their assets inside their superannuation. Superannuation assets are protected from civil claims and from enforcement against damages. Survivors have seen this double injustice—the violence, the insult, the crimes against them as a child. They finally see the criminal justice system give them a glimmer of justice in having a conviction recorded, and then when they seek to get civil recovery to make up a small portion of the loss they've suffered as a result of the abuse they find the legal system has allowed this structure in place for the perpetrators to hide their assets inside superannuation, and it can't be accessed in the civil courts. Superannuation is protected for good reason. It is effectively a social safety net for people when they retire; we understand that. But those protections were never meant to give convicted child abusers a place to park their assets beyond the reach of victims—or, I don't think it was ever intended to do that. Victims with unpaid, court ordered compensation will, when this legislation passes—and I hope it passes unanimously, I think it will—allow those survivors to apply to access a perpetrator's superannuation, where they've hidden their assets to avoid having to pay proper compensation. It applies only where there has been a criminal conviction for child sexual abuse, and we think there is scope for expanding that in the future to other crimes of violence—personal violence and sexual violence. Compensation must also have been unpaid for more than 12 months before the mechanisms in this bill can be used to seek access to superannuation. Importantly, this legislation allows victims to apply to the Australian Taxation Office to identify what superannuation a perpetrator holds, and to help them decide whether or not to pursue a court order. It applies to both future compensation orders and existing unfulfilled historical orders provided they remain legally enforceable. The Greens have always said that justice for survivors can't stop at a conviction. It doesn't stop with police. It doesn't stop with courts. It doesn't stop with jail. Real accountability means perpetrators need to be held to account, and that includes preventing the justice system or the finance system allowing them to hide their assets from survivors. The bill also amends the Bankruptcy Act so that compensation debts owed to survivors can survive a perpetrator's bankruptcy, because we have been told that perpetrators are using bankruptcy in order to avoid having to pay court ordered compensation to survivors of child sexual abuse. Again, this bill applies to both future and current bankruptcies so that, if people have already been denied a benefit, they have a chance under this legislation. Part of the urgency in passing this today is to ensure offenders don't unscrupulously use bankruptcy again to avoid this law when seeing it about to come into place. Bankruptcy should be a last resort for people in genuine financial hardship and should not be allowed to be a legal manoeuvre to extinguish what someone owes the people that they abused. Closing that loophole is long overdue. I note that there are safeguards and that there is a review mechanism proposed, but I also know from when we have been speaking with survivors, consulting with the government and talking with legal reform groups that there is still unfinished business here. There are other offences that the Greens and survivors believe this legislation should be extended to. There are possibly unforeseen technical difficulties in the way some of the bankruptcy provisions are proposed. There's also a question as to whether or not there needs to be further action taken once this legislation is in place, because the truth of the matter is that those with money, power and privilege always try to find novel ways and novel schemes to avoid paying compensation for which they are morally and legally liable. I think there are also some questions as to whether or not the retrospective provisions in this bill go back far enough to provide the kinds of protections and redress that survivors have told my office will be necessary for a full measure of justice. So I move the second reading amendment standing in my name in order to hopefully obtain that review. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the Government has committed to undertake a review of this measure no more than 3 years following its commencement and that such a review will examine: (i) whether the objects of the Act have been achieved, (ii) the extent to which survivors' legitimate interests have been met, (iii) whether the provisions of the Act adequately capture offences relating to historical child sexual abuse and, if not, whether the provisions of the Act should be amended to capture additional offences within the definition of 'specified child abuse offence', (iv) the benefits and detriments of extending the Act to also cover cases in which only civil findings of child sexual abuse have been made, (v) the benefits and detriments of extending the provisions of the Act, or undertaking other actions, to capture a broader range of offences related to sexual assault and family and domestic violence, (vi) whether further actions are required to prevent perpetrators from using novel schemes and forms of financial restructuring to defeat legitimate compensation claims by survivors, (vii) whether the retrospective provisions adequately address historical compensation orders and whether gaps remain that perpetuate ongoing injustice, and (viii) any other matters relevant to the operation of the Act; and (b) is of the opinion that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the preferred body to undertake this review, and that the review should be completed no later than 12 months after its commencement and a final report should be tabled in the Senate as soon as practicable after completion of the review". I want to give credit to the minister's team and the minister himself on the spirit in which this legislation has come before the parliament, the way it was consulted on, with survivors at the heart, and the agreement to the second reading amendment to ensure that the review is done openly and with the appropriate depth that I, the Greens and survivors believe will be needed to ensure that justice is done going forward. 12:33 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The coalition are supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026 and we support survivors. Victims-survivors and their families have waited too long for this action. Australia's superannuation and bankruptcy laws have been weaponised by the worst criminals, and for far too long the parliament has failed to act. Under the current laws, perpetrators have been able to hide assets in superannuation and avoid paying court ordered compensation. I want to acknowledge Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino for his work to get this law before the parliament, but we also want to acknowledge the work a former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, who began work on these reforms in 2018. But, most importantly, we thank the survivors, their families and their advocates, many of whom came to parliament in March, for both their bravery and their persistence. This reform is the result of years of advocacy by survivors and their advocates. There is more work that could be done to strengthen the laws even further. Indeed, the 2018 reform work considered whether all victims of serious violent crime should be able to access a perpetrator's superannuation as compensation. But we will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, particularly when it comes to supporting victims of child sexual abuse. This is not a partisan issue. This should be one that unites the parliament in our shared goal to protect children and to rebuke predators. Under the current law, we have a situation where paedophiles have been able to boast that their victims won't see a penny of their superannuation. Survivors should not have to fight their abusers once in court and then fight them all over again to get compensation. The current loophole has allowed perpetrators to shield assets in superannuation, declare bankruptcy and, worse, leave survivors with nothing. The Australian parliament is saying, with a unified voice, that enough is enough. Superannuation is for retirement. It should not be used to deny compensation to survivors of child sexual abuse. The coalition support this legislation and we thank the parliament. 12:35 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I won't speak for long—I think survivors have waited long enough—but I do want to indicate that the government supports the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge. This amendment affirms a commitment which the government has made to review this legislation following its implementation, so we will support that second reading amendment. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, for his work, but in a reciprocal way we want to thank Senator Shoebridge in particular, and your team, as well as senators from across the chamber in this parliament and in previous parliaments for their productive engagement on this legislation. Most importantly, though, I want to pay tribute to those survivors. The passage of this bill is testament to the strength and hope of survivors of child sexual abuse and their families. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 38 12:37 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 274506 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 38

Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026

Second Reading 38 12:38 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 deals with a serious and growing issue, the importation of counterfeit goods into Australia. At its core, the bill does two things. Firstly, it introduces a new strict liability offence for importing goods that bear false trademarks. Secondly, it brings that offence within the customs infringement notice scheme. In practical terms, this means that the Australian Border Force would be able to issue a financial penalty notice in relevant cases rather than relying only on seizure of goods or court action. The government's argument is that many importers of counterfeit products currently face no real consequences beyond losing the goods themselves and, for some, that seizure may simply be treated as a minor cost in a much wider overall trade. The coalition recognises that counterfeit imports are a serious problem. They undermine legitimate Australian businesses, they distort fair markets, they expose consumers to unsafe or substandard products, and they are frequently linked to organised crime. Globally, counterfeit and pirated goods are estimated to account for around 2.5 per cent of world trade, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Here in Australia, relevant authorities seize millions of dollars worth of counterfeit products each year, ranging from clothing and electronics to cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, vehicle parts and children's products. These goods are not merely cheap imitations. Counterfeit medicines may be ineffective or dangerous, counterfeit electrical goods may not meet basic safety standards, counterfeit vehicle parts may put road users at risk and counterfeit children's products may expose vulnerable Australians to harm. So, on the surface, the government's proposal to strengthen enforcement in this area is reasonable. The idea of giving the Australian Border Force an additional enforcement tool, particularly one that sits between seizure and prosecution, has logic to it. For those reasons, the coalition will support this bill. But support for the objective of the bill does not mean the parliament should simply wave it through without scrutiny. When the coalition first considered this legislation we believed there were several important questions to examine. The first concerned the use of a strict liability offence. Strict liability means there is no need to prove intent or knowledge. The offence turns on the fact that the goods were imported and bore a false trademark. That is a significant step. Strict liability can be appropriate in some regulatory contexts, but it also carries risk. It can capture inadvertent or low-level conduct and affect small businesses or individuals who may not have deliberately set out to do the wrong thing. That raised various questions about proportionality, fairness and the practical operation of the law. The second issue was the apparent absence of a clear trigger for this legislation. There has been no major public incident, no clearly identified enforcement failure, and no new data or report that explains why this reform is being brought forward now. That did not necessarily mean the reform was wrong, but it did mean the parliament was entitled to ask, Why this bill? And why now? The third issue was consultation. The evidence available to us suggested there had been limited recent formal stakeholder engagement. Some key stakeholders who were contacted in the preparation of the coalition's response were not even aware of the bill's existence. For a reform that creates a new offence and expands penalty powers, that was concerning. That is why the coalition took the responsible step of referring the bill to a Senate inquiry on the papers. That process allowed us to hear directly from affected stakeholders, examine the strict liability approach and test whether there may be unintended consequences. Importantly, that was a proportionate course of action. It did not unnecessarily delay the bill but ensured proper additional scrutiny before its final passage. As a result of that inquiry, the parliament is now better informed. We therefore sincerely thank every individual and organisation that contributed to that inquiry. While some organisations proposed potential amendments, the coalition has chosen not to move them, in part because it was clear that they would not have had sufficient numbers in the Senate to pass. However, that does not mean these concerns should be overlooked. We will keep a close eye on the operation of this legislation and how these new powers are used in practice. The coalition supports action against counterfeit goods and stronger enforcement where appropriate, but we also support getting the law right. Counterfeit importing is not a victimless issue. It harms legitimate businesses, undermines consumer confidence, distorts markets, supports organised crime and can endanger public safety. However, effective enforcement must be balanced with fairness, proportionality and proper safeguards. We will therefore support the bill while continuing to closely monitor how these new powers operate in practice. I thank the Senate. 12:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens won't be opposing this bill, but we do have a series of concerns we wish to put on the record. First, as the Law Council has pointed out in its submissions to the inquiry, there is the question of strict liability. And I note that the Law Council said in their submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into this bill that that creates significant concerns. The offence as drafted doesn't require any commercial purpose and that means a person importing a single item for personal use—not to sell, not to distribute, just for themselves—and not knowing that it was a fake could technically be caught by this provision. That's a very broad net, particularly when we think about all the online transactions that people do. Whether or not somebody knows it is a counterfeit item when they are purchasing is irrelevant. There is no requirement for Border Force to prove any knowledge or recklessness before they can be successfully prosecuted. That is a very broad net and it's not what a well-targeted law looks like. It would, of course, be deeply concerning if this is how Border Force chooses to use the law in practice, and the Greens will continue to monitor this space. The Copyright Act is an example of a law that does get this kind of right. The section 132AH of that act requires that importing infringing articles be done in the course of selling or distributing for trade. Why is that important? It's because if you are importing materials for the purposes of business or trade, there is a further obligation on you to check whether or not they are counterfeit. Obviously, if you are doing it for a commercial purpose you should make due diligence to see whether or not the item you're bringing in is counterfeit. If you don't do that and it ends up being counterfeit then you can see how it a strict liability offence might apply. But if you're just a mum or dad at home, or a teenager going online, having a look, and purchasing something online, how are you meant to know whether or not it's a counterfeit item? And with a strict liability offence, you could be prosecuted under this law; that doesn't seem to get it right. As I said, under the Copyright Act there is a requirement for it to be an importing offence to be in the course of selling or distributing for trade but there is no equivalent limitation here. The government is essentially saying it will just trust law enforcement to use discretion. From experience, the Greens don't just blankly trust law enforcement to use discretion. We are concerned this will be abused. If the government did not intend to catch personal imports then it could have said so in the law. Many people, having read the report and having seen what the Law Council has said, would like to hear the government address in any reply that the minister makes today that question as to whether or not personal imports, not for trade, are intended to be picked up. I want to raise something else that was flagged in the submissions that will resonate with people—to the extent that they are watching the debate on the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trademarks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026. I think there is a clear distinction between different kinds of counterfeit goods. Not all counterfeits are the same, not all counterfeits produce the same kind of social harm, and the law should reflect that. On the one hand, there are genuinely dangerous goods, and some examples of those were contained in the submissions, that can cause harm and injury or even lead to loss of life. They could include things like fake lithium ion batteries in chargers that can cause fires; counterfeit automotive parts, brake pads and the like, that may lead to fatal crashes; fake cosmetics and medical equipment that could put people's lives at risk; and fake pharmaceuticals. Clearly, there are products where somebody, either the consumer or a third party, could be harmed if we allow these counterfeit products into the country without checks and balances. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has made the point clearly. The Consumer Electronics Suppliers Association also gave examples of actual consumer injury. Those are serious risks and serious enforcement action is warranted. We understand the rationale for that part of the bill. But on the other hand, is what most people would call or recognise as dupe culture, which includes goods that imitate the aesthetic of luxury or designer brands—Gucci handbags and the like—bought by consumers who may not even necessarily be deceived. A $15 Gucci handbag in Shenzhen may not actually be a genuine Gucci handbag—I get that—but who is harmed when someone buys a $15 Gucci handbag in Shenzhen? There's no consumer risk. The only people who are harmed are a couple of cashed-up French billionaires who are shareholders in Gucci. There's no safety risk there. The idea that we would be applying the same penalty for somebody bringing in one of those counterfeit luxury scarves/belts/handbags as somebody deliberately commercially importing counterfeit automotive parts, I think, shows why there's something wrong with this bill. The social harm from buying a fake designer bag is categorically different from somebody buying a counterfeit car brake pad, and a law that treats those two things identically is not proportionate. We're told that we should just rely on the prosecutorial discretion, but I'd say again that that is not a genuine safeguard given the history we've seen about some pretty awful prosecutions that have been done by this government and the former government. One of the submissions, from Mr Sanderson, suggests that the infringement notice pathways could be expressly confined to commercial-scale importation and genuinely high-risk categories, which is a position I think is worthy of further consideration by the parliament. We urge the government, if this bill passes and when it passes, to consider prompt amendments to limit it to a commercial purpose requirement and some form of tiered approach that reflects the genuine difference in harm between safety-critical counterfeits and those lower risk importation goods. 12:51 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I want to respond very briefly to Senator Shoebridge's comments and, rather than answer the particular questions he has raised, offer him a briefing from our minister on these particular issues and note the complexity of the law that we're talking about today and how quite a lot of the provisions we're talking about need to be taken in the context of the broader guidance the ABF uses and the defences in the legislation. But, again, we're in a non-contro period of the program, so I will just commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 40 12:52 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 12:52 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026, Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 41

Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026

Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026

First Reading 41 12:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland 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. Second Reading 41 12:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— PUBLIC AND EDUCATIONAL LENDING RIGHTS (BETTER INCOME FOR AUTHORS) BIL1 2026 The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors} Bil12026 is an important step forward in recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers. It brings together the Public Lending Right and Educational Lending Right schemes into a single, contemporary legislative framework, replacing the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and ensuring these vital programs remain fit for purpose. Public and educational lending rights exist for a simple and enduring reason: to ensure that Australian creators and publishers are fairly compensated when their books are made freely available through public and educational libraries. These schemes acknowledge that access to books should not come at the expense of those who create them, and they play a crucial role in sustaining Australia's writing and publishing sector. While not everybody who writes a book seeks to be a full-time author, it is still telling that the average income in 2021-22 for an Australian writer was reportedly $16,100. While this legislation won't turn that around, it is one of the concrete things that government can do to help. An author's creativity is their property. It should not be stolen by those that wish to use it for other purposes. When it is read through a library loan or an educational setting, the author should be paid. The origins of this principle are worth recalling. In 1974, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right scheme with a clear vision of fairness-one that recognised the value of authors' work and the importance of supporting Australian voices. More than fifty years later, that vision remains just as relevant. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, more than 17,000 payments were made to eligible Australian creators and publishers, totalling $28.16 million. For many creators-authors, illustrators, translators, and editors-these payments are not supplementary; they are a reliable and meaningful source of income. This is particularly significant in a sector where many earn modest incomes from their creative work. Lending rights payments help make it possible for Australian stories to continue to be written, published, and shared. This Bill also reflects the way Australians now read and borrow books. Through the National Cultural Policy, Revive, the Government has invested in modernising lending rights to include digital formats. E-books and audiobooks are now a normal part of library collections, and it is only right that creators are recognised and compensated for their use in these formats as well. The Public and Educational Lending Rights {Better Income for Authors) Bil12026 secures these reforms in legislation and provides a clear, modern framework for the future. It ensures that our lending rights schemes continue to support Australian creators, adapt to changing technologies, and strengthen our cultural life. PUBLIC AND EDUCATIONAL LENDING RIGHTS (BETTER INCOME FOR AUTHORS) CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS BILL 2026 The Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill 2026 repeals the Public Lending Right Act 1985 and supports the transition to the new unified lending rights framework. It ensures related legislation continues to operate smoothly and consistently following the passage of the primary Bill. The Bill also provides continuity by confirming that the existing committee will continue to oversee the Public Lending Rights Scheme and will extend its role to the Educational Lending Rights Scheme, supporting transparent administration and ongoing advice to government. Importantly, these amendments provide certainty and continuity for existing and future claimants as the schemes transition to the new legislative framework. Together, these measures strengthen support for Australian creators and ensure the lending rights system remains clear, stable and fit for purpose. 12:54 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise today to debate the Public and Educational Lending Rights (Better Income for Authors) Bill 2026 and the related bill. At the outset, I want to make it clear that the coalition will be supporting these bills. They are sensible, non-controversial measures that update the governance and administration of important schemes that support Australian authors and publishers. Public lending rights and educational lending rights are longstanding Australian government programs. They compensate authors and publishers for the free multiple use of their books in public and educational libraries. These schemes recognise a fundamental principle: while we rightly support free public access to books and knowledge, creators should not be financially disadvantaged as a result. Borrowing a book from the library, including the school library, means that authors are supported. For example, Trent Dalton is able to benefit from this program and is listed for his many books, including Boy Swallows Universe, Lola in the Mirror and Love Stories. I note that he is from the great state of Queensland. Andy Griffiths is a beneficiary for his stories in the The 13-Storey Treehouse series. Anyone who has read these books with children may agree that it is great that our library borrowers can experience the joy of Andy's 78-flavour ice-cream parlour serving every flavour imaginable, from chocolate to roasted ant, and that Andy is able to receive financial support for that. I have been one of those parents reading those books with my children. Ash Barty is also a beneficiary of the program, with My Dream Time. What a wonderful contribution Ash continues to make to Australia. The program supports a range of authors, from those we are more familiar with to those who are emerging too. The public lending rights scheme has been governed by legislation since 1985. The educational lending right, by contrast, is operated as a program administered within the department. What these bills do is straightforward. They consolidate both schemes into a single legislative framework, bringing educational lending rights into legislation for the first time. They also transition the existing advisory committee to cover both schemes and provide the minister with the power to establish legislative instruments governing their operations. These are administrative and governance improvements. They modernise the framework and provide greater consistency across the two schemes. But let me address what this bill does not do. Despite its title, 'Better Income for Authors,' this bill does not increase the amount of compensation paid to authors or publishers. There is no new funding attached to this legislation. The total pool of funding remains fixed, and the way payments are calculated remains unchanged. Payments are distributed from a capped annual allocation of around $28 million in recent years, with rates determined per book held in libraries as set out in ministerial instruments. In 2024-25, more than 17,600 payments were made, totalling $28.16 million. That system continues under this bill. There is no change to that. While the government may seek to suggest that this legislation delivers better income, the reality is that it primarily delivers structural and administrative change, not increased financial support. To be fair, bringing the educational lending rights scheme into legislation does provide greater certainty and security for that funding stream. This is a positive step, but we should not conflate certainty with expansion. The government may also point to funding announced in 2023 of $12.9 million over four years associated with expanding eligibility to include ebooks and audiobooks. However, that funding has been flowing since the 2024-25 financial year. It is not new funding associated with this bill. This legislation arises from the government's broader National Cultural Policy agenda. As part of that process, additional advisory bodies and committees were established, including a Writing Australia committee. This reform is one of the outputs of that process, aimed at modernising lending rights legislation. Again, modernisation is welcome, but it must be matched with meaningful support and delivery. The coalition has a strong and consistent track record in this area. We have supported these schemes since their inception. Coalition governments have maintained and delivered payments to authors and publishers for decades. It was a coalition government that established the educational lending rights scheme in the 2000-01 budget. Our support for Australian authors is longstanding and genuine. In preparing for this legislation, we met with representatives from the Australian Society of Authors. They support the bill, as do we. However, it is no surprise that they and many others in this sector are calling for additional funding to support authors. This is a conversation that should continue because, while governance changes are important, they do not on their own address the financial pressures facing authors. I turn now to some of the specific changes in the bill. One key reform is the incorporation of educational lending rights into the legislative framework. This brings greater transparency and accountability to the scheme. The roles of the secretary and the advisory committee are also updated. Notably, appeals regarding payment calculations will now be determined by the secretary, providing a clearer decision-making pathway. Eligibility criteria are also being updated. Currently, eligibility is based on being a resident for taxation purposes, but, under the new framework, eligibility will be based on citizenship or permanent residency status, providing a clearer and more contemporary definition. There are also changes to the remuneration arrangements for the advisory committee. The chair will move from an annual stipend to a per-meeting payment structure, which is expected to result in lower overall remuneration. Committee members' remuneration will remain unchanged and aligned with standard tribunal fees. Importantly, the number of committee members and the individuals serving will not change. These are measured administrative updates. This bill is not controversial. It is not time sensitive. It is a practical piece of legislation that tidies up and strengthens existing arrangements. But, while we support the bill, we must also place it in its proper context. Authors across Australia are facing real challenges. They are dealing with rising costs, evolving publishing models and increasing competition in a global digital marketplace. For many, income from writing alone is not sufficient. Lending rights payments are an important supplementary income stream, but they are not a complete solution. That is why the broader policy settings matter, it is why funding levels matter, and it is why delivery matters. Too often we see a gap between government announcements and real outcomes on the ground. We see programs announced with fanfare but without the follow-through needed to make a tangible difference. This bill, while welcome, is not a substitute for a comprehensive approach to supporting Australian writers and the broader creative sector. Access to books through libraries and educational institutions is one of the great strengths of our society. It supports literacy, education and opportunity. But that access must be balanced with fair compensation for creators. That is the purpose of lending rights schemes, and that is why they are worth maintaining and strengthening. This legislation contributes to that objective by providing a clearer and more robust framework, and for that reason the coalition will support it, just like we have supported the program for decades. The coalition would also like to support the lesser known Australian authors who benefit from the scheme. For example, Jack Heath is a Canberran who attended Lyneham High School and has written a range of children's books, such as Spy Academy and 300 Minutes of Danger. Books like these are in many school libraries, where he benefits from the education lending rights program. Jack also volunteers a lot of his time to appear in schools, inspiring our younger Australians to read and even become authors themselves. Jack, thank you for the work that you do. The coalition will continue to ask questions about funding and delivery and about whether the government is doing enough to support Australian authors in a meaningful way, because governance reform is only part of the equation. If we truly want better income for authors, we must be honest about what it will take. It will take sustained investment, it will take clear and effective policy, and it will take a government that prioritises outcomes over announcements. Yes, the coalition supports these bills. They are sensible administrative reforms that modernise and strengthen important programs, but we should be clear about their scope. They do not increase funding, they do not change payment calculations and they do not, on their own, deliver better income for authors. That remains a challenge for the government to address. 13:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 43 13:05 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 44

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

Second Reading 44 13:06 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This bill deals with very important matters: the security of our nation, the powers available to our intelligence agencies and the safeguards that must accompany those powers. At the heart of this debate is the compulsory questioning warrant framework under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. These are significant powers. They allow ASIO, with the approval of the Attorney-General and a prescribed authority, to compel a person to appear for questioning and provide information relevant to serious national and security threats. In practical terms, they allow ASIO to require a person to answer questions or produce documents where voluntary cooperation is insufficient. These powers are not ordinary. They are not routine and should never be treated as such. We are very mindful that there need to be very serious safeguards and checks around them. We should also not pretend that the security environment facing Australia is ordinary or routine either. The world has changed dramatically even since these powers were first legislated in 2003 in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The purpose of the compulsory questioning framework was to address a specific operational gap: ASIO's inability to obtain critical intelligence from individuals who refuse to cooperate voluntarily. The gap mattered then and the gap still matters now. Australia continues to face a complex and volatile national security environment. The threats before us are not confined to terrorism alone. They include espionage, foreign interference, politically and religiously motivated violence, sabotage, attacks on our defence systems, threats to territorial and border integrity and the promotion of communal violence. These are not abstract risks. They are real challenges faced by our intelligence and security agencies every single day. The bill before us was introduced in the House of Representatives on 23 July 2025. It follows the earlier Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2025, which temporarily extended the compulsory questioning warrant framework through to 7 March 2027. This second bill encompasses three broad sets of changes. Firstly, in its original form, it would make ASIO's compulsory questioning powers permanent. These powers have existed since 2003 but have been subject to ongoing extensions by parliament. Secondly, the bill would expand the scope of adult questioning warrants. At present, the definition of an adult questioning matter includes espionage, politically motivated violence and acts of foreign interference. This bill would add further heads of security, including sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. Thirdly, the bill would strengthen a number of oversight, reporting and administrative safeguards. In particular, it would amend eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities, who are responsible for conducting questioning, to ensure their independence and impartiality. It would also provide for additional reporting to the Attorney-General and require postcharge questioning to occur before a retired judge. These are important matters, and the opposition has considered them carefully. In a general sense, the coalition recognises the ongoing importance of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. They remain a core part of Australia's national security framework. In certain circumstances they may be essential to ensuring that ASIO can obtain information necessary to protect Australians. But our support for strong national security laws has always been accompanied by a commitment to strong oversight. That is particularly important where laws involve extraordinary powers. That is why these issues were rightly examined through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. During that inquiry, the committee heard evidence from a range of witnesses, including ASIO, and considered the concerns raised by individuals and organisations. Some argued that compulsory questioning powers are excessive powers for an intelligence agency to possess. Others argued that they should not be broadened. Some pointed to the fact that the powers had been used only infrequently over the past two decades and suggested that this demonstrates they are not necessary. But there is another view, and it is one that the coalition considers to be persuasive. The fact that these powers have been used only around 20 times over 22 years does not in itself prove that they are unnecessary. In fact, it can point to the opposite conclusion. It suggests, including because of the existence of a sunsetting arrangement, that the powers have not been used recklessly. It suggests that they have been used sparingly, carefully and in a targeted way. That is exactly how powers of this kind should be used. They should be available, but only where they are genuinely necessary. They should serve as a last-resort capability, not as a routine investigative mechanism. There are also important safeguards that remain in place. The Attorney-General must be satisfied that the issuing of a compulsory questioning warrant is necessary. The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security retains a central oversight role. IGIS may be present at questioning sessions and provide real-time oversight. Prescribed authorities will continue to have an important independent function, and the bill proposes to strengthen arrangements governing their appointment and activities. It also remains the case that ASIO is an intelligence agency, not a law enforcement agency. ASIO cannot arrest, charge or prosecute. It also cannot gather evidence for the purpose of criminal persecution. Its operations remain subject to oversight by bodies, including IGIS, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Attorney-General. These safeguards are very important, but they also require ongoing checks and scrutiny in our parliament. That is why the coalition's position on this bill is clear. We support the substance of it and accept that ASIO must be equipped to respond to the increasingly complex and dangerous threat environment facing Australia. We also accept that the expansion of questioning matters is, in principle, a reasonable response to the changing nature of national security threats. The proposed amendments to oversight and administrative arrangements are also broadly sensible. However, we do not accept that these powers should operate indefinitely without further parliamentary review. The coalition's position is that a sunset clause must remain in the bill. We therefore call for the amendment to retain a sunset clause for three years, and we are thankful the government has agreed to this call. Subject to the passage of that amendment, the opposition will support the remaining measures in the bill. This is a balanced position. It recognises that Australia's intelligence laws must keep pace with the threat environment and that ASIO must have the legal tools necessary to protect the Australian people. But it also recognises that strong powers must be matched by strong oversight. The continuation of the sunset clause ensures that parliament must revisit the operation of these powers. It means current and future parliamentarians must assess whether the powers remain necessary, effective and appropriately limited. A three-year sunset clause strikes the right balance. It allows the powers to continue operating and acknowledges the seriousness of the threat environment, but it also guarantees that parliament will have a continuing opportunity to review the regime. That is consistent with the way these powers have been treated since they were first introduced by the Howard government. They have been subject to periodic review and renewal, and that model has served Australia well. The coalition believes it is the most fundamental responsibility of any government to keep Australians safe. We also believe in ensuring ASIO possesses the capabilities it needs to identify and respond to serious threats before they materialise. However, national security— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Always on ASIO's side. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Kovacic, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, interjections are disorderly. There is a senator on her feet and she needs to be heard in silence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 You are not in a debate with me, Senator Shoebridge. Have some respect for the senator who is on her feet and needs to be heard in silence. This is not a debate. Senator Shoebridge 169119 It is a debate! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 You are not in a debate with me. Senator Kovacic has the call. Senator KOVACIC 306168 The coalition believes it is the most fundamental responsibility of any government to keep Australians safe. We also believe in ensuring ASIO possesses the capabilities it needs to identify and respond to serious threats before they materialise. However, national security powers must be carefully bound by law, subject to oversight and regularly reviewed by the parliament. The Australia people expect— Senator Shoebridge 169119 This is like secret interrogation in a dungeon. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Kovacic, please take your seat. Senator Shoebridge, if you can't contain yourself, please leave the chamber. If you continue to make disorderly interruptions, I will name you. You do not have the call. Please stop interjecting while Senator Kovacic is on her feet. Senator Kovacic, you have the call. Senator KOVACIC 306168 The Australian people expect their parliament to protect them from serious national security threats. They also expect their parliament to protect the principles and freedoms that define our country. That means being clear-eyed about the threats that we face but careful about the powers that we confirm. It means ensuring intelligence agencies have the tools that they need while ensuring extraordinary powers do not become ordinary by default. For those reasons, the coalition supports the substance of the bill subject to the inclusion of the three-year sunset clause that the government has now graciously agreed to restore. That amendment will preserve the essential balance between national security, accountability and parliamentary oversight and ensure ASIO can continue to undertake its vital work. It will also ensure this parliament continues to do its vital work on behalf of all of those Australians who rightly expect careful and proportionate use of the powers at the heart of this legislation. 13:19 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to talk to ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2). I raise the concern that Australians listening to this debate would not be comfortable with the idea that a security agency can knock on your door, take you in and force you to answer their questions even if you've done nothing wrong. ASIO's powers to question are extraordinary. Many in our communities would be shocked that staying silent under questioning from ASIO means a risk of being sent to prison for five years. Most concerning is the fact that this power applies to children—to any child in this country aged 14 and older. Children don't need to be suspected of any crime at all. To many, these powers sound like those available in an authoritarian state, but they exist in Australian law today. As currently drafted, the bill before the Senate would entrench them in our law forever and expand them further than the agency itself has asked for. These powers were introduced in 2003, a couple of years after the shock and grief that followed the September 11 attacks. The parliament was told that they would be exceptional, temporary, a tool of last resort. A sunset clause was built into the law for that exact reason—so that parliament would have to come back, look the Australian people in the eye, look young Australians in the eye and keep justifying them. That sunset clause has been renewed five times in 22 years. Five times, this parliament has said, yes, these powers are still exceptional and, yes, the Australian people are owed the reassurance that comes with regular public scrutiny of the most coercive tools the state holds over them. When this bill was first introduced, the Labor government wanted to do away with that safeguard altogether. It's hard to believe. That would have meant taking a power sold to the Australian people as temporary and making it permanent. But the government has circulated some very welcome amendments that will sunset the powers three years after the commencement of the bill. This is a very welcome change. It shows that, at least on the question of oversight, the government is still listening to experts, listening to advocates and listening to Australians who have called for proper scrutiny of the extraordinary powers vested in ASIO. I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Law Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and many others in calling out the need for scrutiny. I want to thank the government for accepting, albeit late in the process, that the sunset of these powers should remain. That is clearly the right outcome. But it's also a hard won outcome, and it did not happen because the government changed its mind on the merits; it happened because civil society stood up and refused to accept bad reform—reform that Labor had in fact argued against in the past. The Law Council of Australia was emphatically against the removal of the sunset clause. Mr Lloyd Babb SC, Chair of the Law Council's National Security Law Working Group, put this to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on 17 November last year: The sunset clause is acknowledgement of the extraordinary status of the questioning warrant framework. It forces a public debate regarding intelligence-gathering powers that undermines the possibility of fair and adversarial criminal process for those questioned. Periodic and public scrutiny by this committee encourages the judicious use of questioning warrants. The Law Council was not alone in calling for the sunset clause to be retained. The Australian Human Rights Commission, lawyers, academics, community organisations and members of the public refused to let these extraordinary powers remain permanent without a fight. That is what democratic scrutiny looks like. But, even with the sunset clause restored, the bill still asks Australians to accept things we should not have to accept. In its current form, the bill retains ASIO's power to compulsorily question children as young as 14—children who have not been charged with an offence, children who may never be charged with any offence. The standard is not criminal suspicion; it is whether the Attorney-General believes intelligence gathering is warranted. Reassuringly, ASIO has never used this power, not once in 22 years. Two years ago, ASIO itself made a submission for the PJCIS review of division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. In it, they say: … we no longer see a strong case to support the continuance of the power to question minors under warrant. The Department of Home Affairs also made a submission to a similar effect. I'll read their submission to the 2024 review. It says: The Department suggests it is also important that minor questioning warrants be considered in light of their proportionality and the need to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable people. As an intrusive and extraordinary power, the carrying out of a minor compulsory questioning warrant would be confronting and difficult for the minor involved, with potentially enduring ramifications. The powers were introduced at an exceptional moment in world and Australian affairs, and the Department suggests it is appropriate to reflect on whether it remains necessary to maintain such an extraordinary and intrusive power. We've got ASIO and the Department of Home Affairs saying that it doesn't look like this power is actually necessary. ASIO says, 'You should probably drop it.' The Department of Home Affairs says we should consider it. But the government has now walked away from that advice with no real explanation, and it is asking the Senate to write it permanently into the statute book. To paraphrase the Law Council, extraordinary powers affecting children should not sit on the statute book for a rainy day. That is not a good enough reason to hold a coercive power over Australian children. The bill asks Australians to accept that ASIO can compulsorily question them on grounds the agency itself said it did not want and did not need. Have a think about that. The Labor government wants ASIO to have powers to question minors, 14 to 18, that they don't even want and that they say they don't even need. The bill adds border security to the list of matters on which a person can be forced to answer questions, despite ASIO telling the PJCIS in 2024 that this was not necessary or reasonable. The Department of Home Affairs said the same thing. Neither agency asked for this expansion. Again, the government has not explained why it is there, and yet here it sits in a bill about powers of the most serious kind we have in this country. Why is the government doing this? Why does the Labor government add extraordinary powers that our intelligence agency says that they don't want and don't need. Home Affairs says, 'We don't need to be in there.' Why? You have to ask the question. You probably won't get an answer, because I don't think it can be explained. This is the executive just wanting more and more power. They are not actually putting Australians first but setting up a system where there is surveillance and the ability of ASIO and other agencies to take extraordinary action against Australian citizens. Another really concerning element of the bill is that a person's access to legal representation can be restricted and the lawyer of their choosing can be removed and replaced. How on earth is this happening in Australian law? The Australian Human Rights Commission has been clear on this. These limits on legal representation are not justified and they breach rights Australia has signed up to under international law. There is no equivalent regime in any other country in the Five Eyes alliance—not the US, not the UK, not Canada, not New Zealand, only here. Let that sink in. Australia is doing things that not even the US will do to their citizens. I don't understand how senators can, hand on heart, vote for this sort of legislation. I'll move amendments that seek to make two changes to this bill. The first will remove the power to compulsorily question children. As we've heard, ASIO say this is unnecessary. Home Affairs don't be see the reason for it. It seems to be only the major parties that think we should be compulsorily questioning— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 It being 1.30 pm, we will now move to two-minute statements. Senator Pocock, you will be in continuation. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 47 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Budget 47 13:30 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Labor's fifth budget has again ignored the silent cry for help from Australian families who are struggling with the cost of living, the lack of relief in the budget, higher mortgages and the enormous challenges and joys of raising young children. I'm not sure what's worse from Labor: the gaslighting or the lying. Families are making tough decisions every day, not just about how to balance the budget and keep a roof over their heads but about how many children— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 Senator McKenzie, we'll just pause for a moment. Senator Chisholm? Senator Chisholm 39801 I ask that Senator McKenzie withdraw that reference. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 Senator McKenzie, I think it's the reference to lying. There's been a request that you withdraw. I make that request in the interests of keeping peace in the chamber and moving along. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Given the minister's sensitivity, I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 257613 Thank you very much. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Families are making tough decisions every day. Of those decisions, how many children to have is often the easiest one to make. We know from research that cost-of-living pressures are putting that at risk. Families are not having as many children as they would like. Who's going to take time off work, and for how long? When do they return to work? How do they manage the family budget to stretch financial and family support in order to stay at home as long as possible? How do they deal with leaving young children in the care of strangers while continuing to breastfeed? There is a multitude of questions that families are grappling with each and every day. They are doing the best that they can under enormous financial and social pressures. In conversations I've had, particularly with young mothers, a common refrain I hear is, 'What is it all for?' This week's budget is depressing if you were looking for greater choice in child care and greater support for Australian families. What has made it worse is the Minister for Finance's comments around the evidence behind putting young children in long day care and that it is better for them to enter school. It is only gaslighting but incorrect. The mountain of evidence from the UN's human rights and child development specialists and psychoanalyst Erica Komisar says that children are better off at home. Labor is gaslighting young families. Lung Health Awareness Month 48 13:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to acknowledge Lung Health Awareness Month, which takes place throughout May, and to recognise the work of Lung Foundation Australia. Lung health is something many of us do not think about until breathing becomes difficult. But, for many Australians, lung disease and lung cancer are part of daily life. Lung Foundation Australia has been working for more than 30 years to support people living with lung disease and lung cancer, along with families, carers, health professionals and researchers. Their message this month is simple and important: take your lung health seriously. A persistent cough, breathlessness, wheezing, chest tightness, repeated chest infections or unexplained tiredness should not be ignored. These symptoms can have many causes, but they are worth checking. Too often, people put off seeing a doctor because they are busy, they think symptoms will go away or they do not want to make a fuss. But early advice can make a real difference. It can help people get the right care sooner, manage symptoms better and, in some cases, detect serious conditions earlier. Lung Foundation Australia provides trusted information and support through its lung health helpline, peer support programs, resources and advocacy. In 2025, the foundation supported more than 7,000 lung health related inquiries through its helpline and helped thousands of people access information and support. This month is also a reminder that lung health is for everyone. If you have smoked, worked in a dusty environment, lived with asthma or had repeated chest infections, it's worth going and speaking to your GP or a health professional. I encourage Australians to use Lung Health Awareness Month as a prompt to check in with their health. If something does not feel right, speak to a GP or health professional. Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 48

Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day

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

13:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This coming Monday, 18 May, will mark Mullivaikkal Remembrance Day, when the world remembers the appalling crimes inflicted on the Tamil people in 2009 in the closing days of the conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese in northern Sri Lanka. In 2009, some 300,000 Tamils were hemmed into a so-called safe zone and then subjected to bombings, artillery shells and killing. We don't know how many Tamils died, but it's estimated to be more than 140,000. That's why, this week, the Tamil Refugee Council held an exhibition here in the heart of Australia's democracy, Parliament House, to tell the truth about the Tamil genocide. It didn't just happen on one day in 2009; it has happened for decades and continues. I want to thank the Tamil community for the strength they've shown in remembering the power of their culture and the power of truth and thank the Tamil Refugee Council and all their supporters for bringing that show and that exhibition to parliament today. Well, now we're seeing it. We are watching the way Labor, the coalition and their mates in One Nation are trying to do a stitch-up job by bringing in these new extended ASIO powers. Labor initially wanted to make these extraordinary secret detention powers absolutely permanent to literally whisk you off the street for 24 hours, secretly interrogate you and then stitch you up with secrecy laws so you can't tell anyone. Initially, the coalition was on board and One Nation was on board. There's been a resistance across the country. Labor has now pulled its head in on these permanent laws, but make no mistake; they want to extend ASIO's powers to reach into your homes and to not only track down alleged terrorism but extend it to issues like communal violence or to wherever ASIO wants to go to pluck you off the street whenever the Attorney-General thinks that you might be a risk. Those are dangerous, fascist laws, and we should fight them. North Bondi RSL Club 48 13:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales On Anzac Day, many of us are able to visit various RSLs and other community groups as we acknowledge the contribution of our armed services over these last 125 years. This Anzac Day, I was honoured to be a guest of the North Bondi RSL Club's service at dawn, which was attended by the Governor-General. This is a particularly important RSL branch in New South Wales because it is the largest group of returned service people anywhere in the state of New South Wales. When you attend these services, as I have a few times now, it is strikingly different to many of the other services that we would attend as elected representatives, because of the extent of the families bereaved by recent family losses because of service abroad in the last 10 or 15 years, or, very tragically, in training accidents, as we were again seeing this week with the sad loss of Warrant Officer Lachlan Muddle. I want to acknowledge the North Bondi RSL for conducting one of the largest services anywhere in the state. It brings together the community and, more importantly, gives returned servicemen and women a community that is large and substantive. Sadly, at the moment, I expect they would be grieving. I also want to acknowledge the North Bondi RSL Club's significant service in the wake of the Bondi attacks, where they provided their clubrooms as a place for people to take refuge. Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games, Manufacturing Industry 49 13:38 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria It might be a few years away, but I can tell you that many in my family are already excited about the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane. My kids weren't born when the Olympics came to Sydney in 2000, but I can certainly remember the energy across the country, which was really something else. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our athletes to host the world, but it also presents an incredible opportunity to showcase the talent of Australia's manufacturing and textiles. Ethical Clothing Australia and accredited businesses are calling for the uniforms for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to be made locally and ethically. Already, Commonwealth Games Australia has confirmed that Sylvia P Teamwear, a Brisbane based sportswear manufacturer, will be the official supplier of gymnastics teamwear for the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games. If we can continue to back our local manufacturers properly with Australian procurement, our Australian manufacturers will be ready to deliver for the games. Not only will having local and accredited businesses mean workers are protected from exploitation and are paid properly; it will build the local capability of our clothing and footwear industry. When uniforms are made offshore, the economic benefits go offshore too. When the incredible Australian athletes stand on the podium in 2032, I want to see them in Australian made uniforms. Eight out of 10 Australians want to see this too. Expressions of interest for the Brisbane 2032 uniforms close in mid-2026. This is our chance to set clear expectations that uniforms are made locally and ethically and that Australian textiles are worth gold to Australia. Parliament House: Sponsored Access 49 13:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory When I came to this place, I was really shocked at how loose our lobbying rules are in Australia. I didn't know that as a parliamentarian you can give out an unlimited number of sponsored passes, and there is no transparency about who has a pass or who they represent. That has meant we have 2,200 people walking the halls of Parliament House, the people's house, and the people don't know who they are or who gave them those passes. I don't think that cuts it. I don't think that's in line with what Australians want. Surely the base level of transparency is that, if you are an elected representative, you tell the people who elected you, 'This is who I've given access to Parliament House.' That hasn't been happening. I've tried many avenues to urge colleagues and the Senate and parliament to do that. I eventually set up passregister.com.au and have had about a dozen parliamentarians—all Independents and one from One Nation—disclose whom they sponsor passes for. At Senate committee hearings I've asking people, if they have a sponsored pass, who sponsors that pass. I think this is what Australians expect, yet today we saw Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens vote to not allow me to continue to ask those questions. What is everyone hiding? Who are we here to represent? Surely you can stand by the people you've given access to the people's house. I honestly don't think this cuts it, and this is not in line with what Australians expect of us. We've got to do better, and I think there are a plenty of questions to be answered by people who voted against that. Inland Rail 49 13:42 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales There's already been a lot of talk today about this in this chamber, but I will go back to the Inland Rail cuts and what they mean for my area of the Hunter. Previously, before coming to this place, I was working for the Port of Newcastle, and we were working on the container terminal because it's such an important piece of infrastructure for the Hunter. Anytime a container terminal gets to a million TEU, you see year-on-year economic growth of 1.5 per cent above national growth, just by the innovation. I think it's the agglomeration effect—that's quite a strange name—that sees that happen. A point of connectivity for the Port of Newcastle was going to be a 1.6-kilometre rail loop directly on the port, which would have connected to the Inland Rail via a 40-tonne-per-axle coal line going up to the Hunter Valley. In this budget, the cut to the $6.5 billion Narrabri-Narromine section means that is dead. That connection will no longer take place. The connection to the Central West and the north-west of this state will no longer happen. We will see a hit to the Port of Newcastle's business case for spending $2 billion to build the container terminal to make Australian shipping more efficient. The whole thing is in doubt because of this cut. The government can say that it was going to cost $45 billion and that there wasn't a business case, but that Narrabri-Narromine section was so important. They've cut $6.5 billion. The one thing we're lacking is productivity gains, and this would have done that. I was adjacent to the business case because I was there. A TEU of wine would have saved $1,800 by shipping out of Australia via this. That's for one box—doing nothing differently than sending it out of the country via that rail. That money would have stayed in local communities, but that is gone. For cotton, almost $1,000 a box would have been saved for the community and farmer by doing it that way, and that has now gone. Where has the money gone? There's $500 million to walkways and cycleways and $695 million to the high-speed rail that will never be built. If we want productivity gains, we have to do the hard things but do the right things. Trucking Industry 50 13:44 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm delighted to inform the Senate that this week is national Truck Week, which will run from 11 to 18 May. An initiative of the Heavy Vehicle Industry Australia, Truck Week 2026 is a national celebration of the people, businesses and innovation that keeps Australia moving. During Truck Week 2026, transport and mental health advocacy foundation Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds are delivering a coordinated national program of activations across Australia, from Western Australia to the eastern seaboard, taking practical, mental health support directly to drivers, operators and logistics workers where they are—on the road. Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds delivers practical, industry-specific mental health resources, training and on-the-ground support tailored to the unique pressures of road transport, warehousing and logistics. With more than 500,000 heavy-vehicle drivers on Australian roads every day, the work of Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds is critical to ensuring accessible and trusted support reaches those who keep our country moving. On Wednesday morning this week their prime mover Kenny visited Parliament House as part of Truck Week, giving MPs and senators the opportunity to show their support of our vital road transport industry and the many essential workers who keep Australia moving. I even got to take Kenny for a spin around Parliament House, and I have to tell you, I didn't want to give the keys back! I was also delighted to be with Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King during her visit with Kenny, where she announced a one-off commitment of $2.5 million to assist Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds to continue their critical work to improve mental health and wellbeing of our truckies. My congratulations to Naomi, Ben and all at Healthy Heads in Trucks & Sheds, and everyone involved in the events to acknowledge Truck Week and our essential transport workers. Budget: Housing 50 13:46 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I recently met with Sebastian, a remarkable 13-year-old young South Australian. He has crunched the numbers for himself and his generation and worked out that he won't own a home—it will be worth millions of dollars as he approaches home ownership, and he won't get there until he is well into his 40s. It is going to cost him an enormous amount of money, and he has spelt out what that crisis means for him and his generation. I was very proud this week to table Sebastian's Change.org petition on Tuesday, which was signed by more than 20,000 people in just two months prior to this budget. We know what Seb's generation face in a massive housing crisis. Seb, what can I tell you out of this budget to give you some comfort? All too little. Labor had the chance to scrap the massive tax breaks that go to wealthy property investors in this budget, and they squibbed it. They took a tiny baby step in the right direction, but they have failed to shut down the tax breaks which deliver billions of dollars to wealthy property investors across our country—older, wealthier people who force up prices of housing all around our country. It means it's not just you, Seb, and your generation, who are going to struggle to get into housing, but all the people out there right now—Gen X, Gen Y, millennials. They cannot get the housing they need. Many of them are struggling with runaway rents, facing the prospect of homelessness. Homelessness is growing by 10 per cent under this Labor government. In the midst of a housing crisis, what we saw in this budget was preservation of great wealth through tax benefits for people who own 10, 20, 40 or 50 wealthy property investments, which mean they are locking out those young people like those in Seb's generation. It was a chance for Labor to do something meaningful and they missed it. They missed it in ways that will guarantee benefits for very wealthy people. It will bake in those benefits for decades ahead. I'm sorry, Seb. Thanks for your petition. Nakba 50 13:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria This week marks the Nakba, the catastrophe of 1948 when more than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed from their land. As an Aboriginal woman, I do not see this as a distant history; it's a pattern that is still unfolding—dispossession, fragmentation of land, the destruction of villages, homes and livelihoods, and settlements built atop the rubble, the steady expansion of control disguised as law, planning and security. Right now, that pattern is unfolding in real time in the West Bank and through the devastation of Gaza, where entire communities have been destroyed and Palestinians are being pushed from their land under the shadow of war, siege and occupation. The proposed expansion of settlements in the E1 corridor would effectively divide the West Bank in two, severing East Jerusalem from the rest of a future Palestinian state. This is what annexation looks like—not always through one dramatic declaration but piece by piece, road by road, settlement by settlement more land taken and more Palestinian communities surrounded and cut off. First Nations people in this country know this story. We know what it means when sovereignty is denied and dispossession is made permanent through systems and institutions. When we acknowledge the Nakba, we must also confront this country's role in what is happening now. Public money from here is invested in companies linked to weapons manufacturing, military infrastructure and settlement expansion connected to the occupation. Recognition means nothing if we finance dispossession and annexation. Divest now! Budget 51 13:51 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Small business owners, start-ups, founders and entrepreneurs were shocked to learn on Wednesday morning that they've got a new co-founder. Somehow a sneaky shareholder has crept onto their capital table, taking 47 per cent of their business. Who is this new shareholder on their cap table? Have they invested in the business, brought money to the business? No, they haven't done that. Have they agreed to put in long hours and take sweat equity in return? No, they haven't done that. Maybe they have brought in a whale of a client, helping the business to scale and grow and reach new heights. No, they haven't done that either. The sneaky shareholder who has crept onto the capital table is none other than the Prime Minister and his Labor government, who have basically gone about nationalising and taking a share of these businesses. This is how it works if you're a start-up founder. You pour your life into it. You borrow against your house. You max out your credit card. You live off your partner's income. You might stay living at home so that you save on the rent. If you take on staff, you're not paying them properly; you're giving them sweat equity. You do all that and work hard to build the business because, if you succeed and grow something and make something, you will be rewarded. You will get to keep what you have grown. If you start a small business, your cost base is zero, and when it comes time to sell the business, the government, as a result of the changes announced in the budget, is saying we're going to take 47 per cent of that. I want to read just one message I have from a founder about this. 'This government now wants us to take a large chunk of this upside away from us in the name of fairness. What is not fair is changing the rules during the match. We have done everything by the book and created jobs for our country. Now, incentives are being cut down on a large scale. The talk in the start-up community right now goes like this: "If you're in it, how do you move offshore? And if you are not in it yet, do not build in Australia."' This is the sort of future that the Anthony Albanese government and their budget is presenting Australia. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 51 13:53 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australia's political landscape has changed for the better. Everyone is going to have to learn their way around it. That especially includes the ABC. Their behaviour towards One Nation has been reprehensible, unprofessional and completely un-objective in direct contravention of their charter. This was illustrated very clearly by Patricia Karvelas in the aftermath of our win in Farrer. She directly implied that One Nation wasn't a legitimate political party and that it would be dangerous to legitimise us. Too late, PK, the people have spoken. It's the Australian people who decide who is legitimate, not you. In Farrer and in South Australia, the people have chosen to back the One Nation party, which listens to them. It's time the ABC started listening, too. Let me remind the ABC—you are funded by taxpayers to the tune of around $1.3 billion, with a significant increase this year for a failing media outlet, which deliberately keeps secret the high salaries of failing presenters and executives. Forty per cent of taxpayers in Farrer voted for One Nation, and they didn't need the ABC's permission. The arrogance and the entitlement of the ABC is obvious. They whine about my ban on them because they cannot handle the consequences of their own actions. As far as I'm concerned, it's the ABC which is illegitimate. They're the pot calling the kettle black. I would only fund the ABC in rural and regional areas. The rest of it can go to the people for their support, by the way of subscriptions, and business, by the way of advertising. It may be the only way to ensure true accountability from an organisation which always avoids it, and doing so would save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Medicare 52 13:55 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Six months ago I tabled a petition to save cohealth's community bulk-billing clinics across Victoria. It now has almost 8,000 signatures. That gave Labor, state and federal, six months to understand what these closures would mean for thousands of patients, nurses and doctors. It means six months of anxiety for healthcare workers wondering if they'd still have jobs and six months of uncertainty for patients already struggling to access care. And what has Labor delivered? Another temporary political fix. These clinics were facing closure because Medicare does not properly fund the long, complex appointments that community health relies on. Cohealth supports people living with chronic illness, disability, mental health challenges and housing insecurity—people who need time, continuity and care. Last week's announcements keep clinics in Kensington, Fitzroy and Collingwood open for one more year—just one year. That is not certainty for workers, it is not certainty for patients and it is not the long-term funding stability that community health services have been calling for year after year. After Labor's last short-term rescue package, the member for Melbourne, Sarah Witty, plastered the community with billboards claiming she had saved cohealth. She saved it from whom exactly? Her own government? As community bulk-billing clinics across the country are shutting their doors to patients who rely on them, that's what we've come to expect: another short-term bandaid fix from this Labor government. Access to health care should not depend on the election cycle. Labor must properly fund bulk-billing for long and complex care and deliver permanent, secure funding for community health. I say to the community: please keep the pressure on. Please keep speaking up, contacting your local MPs and demanding properly funded public health—because we must save cohealth. Farrer By-Election 52 13:57 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Prime Minister Albanese has mastered the art of winning by not appearing where the losing might be visible. Take the Farrer by-election, a great example, or rather take the fact that the Labor Party deliberately did not turn up. They had no candidate, no campaign and, most importantly, no embarrassing primary vote to demonstrate how on the nose they are with the Australian people. On the surface, conceding the Farrer by-election looked like retreat, but in Canberra retreat is often just a form of attack by other means. By declining to contest the seat, the Prime Minister ensured that the Labor Party and his leadership could not be measured by votes or, indeed, by swings. No ALP candidate meant no ALP failure—it has a kind of statistical genius. But the second effect was where the real elegance lay. With Labor absent, the coalition was left to do what it does best, which is argue amongst itself while insisting that it's arguing with everyone else. Hovering above all of this, untested, was Prime Minister Albanese. How he would have loved watching the Leader of the Opposition caught between fighting One Nation and maybe partnering with One Nation, as the Liberals' primary vote collapsed to 12 per cent. By not contesting, Labor ensured it could not be attacked for its unpopularity, while simultaneously allowing its opponents to exhaust themselves. Credit where it is due. The Prime Minister might not be very good at governing, but he is a master at rearranging the furniture so that everyone else trips over it. To borrow a phrase from Mr Paul Keating, Prime Minister Albanese is 'doing Mr Angus Taylor slowly', and Mr Taylor appears powerless to resist. Budget 52 13:59 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria I had to do a double take today when I read that the Liberal shadow treasurer plans to repeal our negative gearing changes, but then I remembered that that mob opposite actually voted against every single one of our housing measures, or have planned to undo those measures. That includes the Housing Australia Future Fund, built-to-rent and Help to Buy. Not only did they turn their backs on millions of Australians in their first term of government; they haven't learnt their lesson, and they are now turning their backs on millions more—people like 30-year-old Maddy, who is a healthcare worker, who said, as reported by the ABC, 'I don't even want to refer to housing as a dream. I think it's a minimum'— The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has expired. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 52 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Tyrrell, Senator Tammy 52 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU It gives me great pleasure to inform the Senate of an additional senator on the government benches. We welcome Senator Tyrrell— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU If I may, a little bit of graciousness might be appropriate. Can we welcome Senator Tyrrell to the Labor family. We look forward to working together and the contribution you will make for Tasmanians as a member of the Albanese Labor government. Government senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 53 14:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, I'm really sorry. Senator BRAGG 256063 It's very loud in here, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg has the right to have his question heard in silence, particularly by those on my right. Senator Bragg, start again, please. Senator BRAGG 256063 My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Page 294 of the Treasury portfolio budget statements states that the expected performance results of the Housing Australia Future Fund for 2025-26 are as follows: Housing Australia Future Fund, affordable, zero homes built; Housing Australia Future Fund, social, zero homes built; housing Australia fund facility, affordable, zero homes built—zero homes built. Can the minister confirm that the government's own budget papers show that the HAFF has not built a single new home in 2025-26? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make a couple of points in response to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, you will recall I gave Senator Bragg the opportunity to start his question again because there was a lot of disruption, and the same equally now applies to Minister Wong when she answers. Senator WONG 00AOU I believe Minister Ayres yesterday spoke to the Senate about the performance of housing construction over the last few years, and I think he made the point that almost 660,000 homes have been built nationwide since Labor was elected. more than 6,000 homes are being completed with Commonwealth investment, and over 23,000 are in planning and construction phases. He also said—and this was the figure I was asking my staff to find, and I thank them for their assistance—that new home starts are up 26 per cent compared to a year ago. Senator Bragg 256063 On a point of order on relevance, President, the question was clearly about the Housing Australia Future Fund, not about the private economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 I allowed you the point of order, but I'll just check if the minister has concluded. No. The minister is being relevant to the question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I would make the point to you that you in fact opposed the HAFF— Senator Cash I0M It doesn't matter; it still reads zero! It doesn't change the fact— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind the Senate once again that the minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Not only did you oppose it, Senator, but I understand—it's the reporting—that Mr Taylor will commit to abolishing it; is that right? I find it interesting that you care about a fund that you opposed and that you intend to abolish. It's a very interesting position to take—to be critical when you are in fact going to abolish it. But what I would say— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg? Senator Bragg 256063 I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was: has the HAFF built any houses in this financial year? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, Senator Bragg. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, we have a $47 billion Homes for Australia plan. It includes the HAFF. It includes a number of other elements. What we have seen is an increase— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:05 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'll try this one. Given the government's own budget papers confirm zero new HAFF houses have been delivered in 2025-26, can the minister also confirm that the target of 30,000 new Housing Australia Future Fund homes is listed as 'at risk' in, again, the government's own budget papers? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we have been very upfront that we have a very ambitious target. Senator Cash I0M Of zero. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Cash! I remind senators on my left that respect for silence during questions asked equally applies when the minister gets to answer them. Senator WONG 00AOU We on this side do have an ambitious target for more houses. The difference between those of us on this side and those opposite, who might sneer and look down their noses, is that we actually care about building more social and affordable housing. We actually care about building more houses in Australia. You, Senator Bragg, are part of a party that does not believe that government has any role whatsoever in ensuring there is adequate housing in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The government's own budget papers show that 295,000 people came to this country in 2025-26 and that the HAFF has delivered zero houses. Minister, will the Prime Minister now admit that his $10 billion housing fund isn't just a failure but that it is a failure that is making the housing crisis worse? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This is a government that is committed to building more houses. We are a government that is committed to investing in ensuring that more Australians have more access to more homes. This is a government that is bringing forward taxation changes which are all about bringing more first home buyers and more owner-occupiers into the market, all of which are opposed by you. If anybody wants to understand what the Liberal Party policy is on housing, no matter how much those opposite yell and shout—do you know what it is? 'You're on your own.' That's what they're saying to Australians: 'You're on your own. If you can find some way to tap into the bank of mum and dad, that's great, but, otherwise, you're on your own.' That's the difference between you and us. We actually believe that governments have a role in ensuring there are more houses for more people in this country. You should get with the program, Senator Bragg. Women's Budget Statement 54 14:08 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. On Tuesday, the Albanese Labor government delivered its fifth Women's Budget Statement, which showed gender equality remains central to this government's economic agenda. What are the priorities— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, I'm very sorry. Senator McKenzie, cease, or I will invite you to leave the chamber. Senator STEWART 299352 What are the priorities in this year's statement, and how will measures to improve gender outcomes make a practical difference for Australian women? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her continuing interest in driving gender equality through the budget process. This government continues with that work in this budget. The Women's Budget Statement outlines the impact that budget measures have on women—backed by gender-responsive budgeting. We believe gender quality belongs at the centre of economic decision-making, not on the sidelines. This is our fifth Women's Budget Statement, the first of this term, and it reports on the significant progress we have made since 2022. In relation to specific measures in the budget, this budget includes $182.6 million for the most significant child support reforms in nearly 20 years, including historic changes to reduce the weaponisation of the system and protect women from financial abuse. It also continues significant investment under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, including investments for funding Our Ways—Strong Ways, the first ever First Nations safety plan. Investment in the National Safety Plan now sits at more than $4.4 billion since 2022. In relation to economic security, a woman on an average of $81,000 could be nearly $3,000 a year better off from 2027-28, including from the new Working Australians Tax Offset, which will benefit 6.3 million women, and also the Instant Tax Deduction Benefit, which will benefit around 6.2 million women, or 54 per cent of beneficiaries. This budget includes major investments in aged care and continued investment in Medicare, mental health, reproductive and maternal health, and menopause services and other services, including the ongoing funding of the Medicare urgent care clinics, which women are using at high rates. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senate Stewart, first supplementary. 14:11 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. Since 2022 the Albanese Labor government has invested over $4.4 billion to end violence against women, expanded paid parental leave, delivered cheaper child care, backed fairer wages in female dominated sectors, and invested in women's health. How does this budget build on those reforms to lock in lasting progress for women and families? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senate Stewart for the supplementary. Creating greater opportunity for women is at the centre of our economic agenda and, as Senator Stewart outlined, we have delivered sustained reforms, and the results are clear. Over one million families are benefiting from cheaper child care. Eligible families with a baby born or adopted from 1 July this year will get the full benefit of six months of paid parental leave, and super will be paid on paid parental leave as well. Since January 2023, women have saved more than $647 million on medicines through reduced PBS prices and expanded PBS listings for contraception and menopause treatment. Our historic women's health package is incredibly successful. We know that 71,000 women have undertaken menopause assessment and consultations and that women have saved more than $106 million, I think the figure is, from the new listings of contraceptives and menopause treatment. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary. 14:12 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Since 2022, women's labour force participation has reached a record high, the gender pay gap is at its lowest level on record and Australia has risen to 13th globally on gender equality. What does that progress say about the difference it makes when gender equality is treated as a core economic priority and not an afterthought? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senate Stewart for that question. As Senate Stewart has outlined, Australia has increased its international gender equality ranking from the 43rd when we came to government 13th in the last reporting period. The gender pay gap is at a record low. Women are earning almost $300 more per week, with a big reason behind that being our investments in those undervalued and underpaid occupations of aged care and early education and care. Women's participation rate is up. Women's employment is up. We've got paid parental leave moving to six months, and super on PPL. This budget is proof, and when you see it in conjunction with the budgets that have come before it, it is dealing with the structural issues that had been left for way too long. The women of Australia were over it. We are dealing with these issues one by one and improving the lives of women across the country. Budget 55 14:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the Prime Minister has claimed that his government's budget measures are about intergenerational equity, but 20-year-old Anthony Kolmac has said that the government tax hikes will: significantly hinder my ability to create wealth as it will ultimately delay the process (to save for a deposit) significantly. I will have to save even more money to be able to afford what I would have once been able to -afford a lot earlier. How can the government call these tax hikes 'intergenerational equity' when young Australians like Anthony are being punished the most? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say to Anthony is— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson, which part of order did you fail to understand? The minister had barely got to her feet when the interjections started. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to Anthony is what I said yesterday, that— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt and Senator Cash. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to Anthony is this: the government is serious about dealing with the challenge of intergenerational equity, and if you read budget paper No. 1 it is very clear that we are risking that great Australian contract, that great Australian undertaking that we will, as a generation that is in government, make sure that those who come after us have a similar capacity to fulfil the aspiration for that great Australian dream. And what I would say to Anthony is that the tax changes that we have put in place will ensure, along with the other measures in the budget, not only additional housing supply but also more owner occupiers coming into the housing market. I would also say to Anthony that negative gearing is still available for new builds. We have not abolished it. What we have done is focus on ensuring that we have additional supply. I would also note that, under this government, unlike if Mr Taylor was delivering the budget on Tuesday night, Anthony will see lower taxes, not higher taxes, as would have been the case under a Taylor government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Nineteen-year-old Paula Demetrio said the changes would mean young people can't benefit as much from the shares that they have, leaving them with fewer options to build wealth to save for a deposit due to the Prime Minister's tax hikes. Why is the government closing the door on wealth-building opportunities available to young Australians that he himself was able to benefit from? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The interjections right now, given that I have called order three or four times, are disrespectful to me and to this Senate. If you want to have a chat with the senator on the other side, do it outside, not now during question time. It is not call and response. 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This budget will help about 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of homeownership, and what that means is that more young people— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I'm sorry. I'm not quite sure why I bothered to try and call order because the minute the minister stood, Senator Colbeck, you interjected, as did you, Senator McKenzie. Seriously, I don't think I should have to start naming people in major parties. You should know what is expected at question time—that is, that you don't interject, especially the minute after I've called order. Senator WONG 00AOU This budget will help 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of homeownership and, of course, housing is so important to that ladder of aspiration and to ensure that people can build wealth. It is a commitment by this government to ensure that more Australians are able to fulfil the aspiration of the most Australian of dreams, which is a dream to own your own home. Again, I'll say negative gearing and capital gains tax would continue to be available for new homes. I would say to you—was it Pauline?—listen to Mr Wilson. He said: … the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:20 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, how does an increased capital gains tax on shares make housing more affordable? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Treasurer and the government have been upfront about—first, in terms of housing, I've explained our policy. In terms of— Senator WONG 00AOU The Treasurer was upfront on budget night. We are changing the arrangements for taxation of assets. That is because we need to ensure, as a country, that we get a better alignment between the treatment of income from Labor and the treatment of income from assets. I think most Australians would understand that is pretty fair. We are providing additional tax benefits to working Australians on top of the previous tax cuts that Australians— Senator Cash I0M When do they get it? Jack's paying. Senator WONG 00AOU I don't mind a bit of interjection, but Senator Cash—I know she is very upset with the way that things are going on that side, but she has actually not drawn breath in this answer. I just wonder if she could draw breath. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Senator Cash, please stop the running interjections. Minister Wong, did you wish to continue? Senator WONG 00AOU I do wish to continue, thank you. We are offering additional tax cuts on top of the income tax cuts that we went to the election with, and, if I may remind you, Senator Paterson, they're income tax cuts you opposed. (Time expired) Taxation: Gas Industry 57 14:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In an interview with SBS News last night, the Prime Minister said that the proposal for a gas export tax was a slogan and that no-one seems to know what it means. The ACTU clearly knew what it meant when they proposed a 25 per cent flat tax on all gas exports to replace the broken PRRT. The ACTU has also been clear that a flat 25 per cent gas export tax would've raised $17.1 billion in 2023-24, and it would raise far more in the coming year of wartime profits. Does the Prime Minister really think that the peak union body doesn't know what it's asking for when it comes to a gas export tax and is simply spouting a slogan? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't think the Prime Minister and Leader of the Labor Party needs a lecture from the Australian Greens about the ACTU. We engage with the other part of our movement—the organised trade union movement—regularly, closely and personally, so I don't think we need any assistance from you in understanding where the trade union movement is coming from or the relationship between the trade union movement and our political party. In relation to gas taxation, the point I would make is this. The government has put in place a reservation. A reservation is superior policy. It requires producers— Senator WONG 00AOU I know you don't actually think the economy matters, but we do. We actually think jobs in Australia matter, revenue for Australia matters and good income for Australians matters. The reservation is superior policy because it requires producers to supply Australia first. It will deliver lower and more stable prices and shield the Australian economy, and it will ensure that important manufacturing jobs in this country can continue to operate and can continue to flourish, given the importance of energy prices to so much of Australian manufacturing. So that is the real world of working people in which we operate, where we understand the importance of ensuring that facilities that require access to domestic gas are supplied. We understand the workers and the families that rely on that policy, and that is what the government has delivered. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland As the Australian Services Union has noted, the $17 billion raised by our gas export tax is 'vastly more than the roughly $2 billion we currently receive under the PRRT. These public funds could resource the vital community services Australians rely on.' Why did the Prime Minister reject the opportunity to tax gas giants to fund services like housing, public health and aged care and instead raise funds by cutting 160,000 families off the NDIS? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We're very familiar with the ASU—in fact, I'm a member of the ASU—and I'm also familiar with the campaign that the ASU ran in relation to social and community workers, who have seen Labor governments deliver for working people again in terms of better wages and better conditions. For those workers particularly and workers more generally—and in the case of gender bias in the industrial sector and the work of women particularly being undervalued, also something that this government has acted on— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 A point of order on relevance. I'm an ASU member as well. My question was about why you aren't listening to them and why you're punching down on disability families. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Waters. I remind you it's not okay to make statements. The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator WONG 00AOU I am surprised that you interrupted me when I was talked about gender undervaluation, because that is something that matters and that that union cares about, but, anyway, I'm happy to continue to talk about it. What I would say to you is that the government has been very clear that, in the middle of a fuel crisis and the biggest shock in global energy markets that we have lived through—it is the largest shock in global energy markets that we have lived through— Senator WONG 00AOU You might interject and dismiss that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This budget cuts $4 billion from climate and renewable energy programs while keeping $47 billion for fossil fuel subsidies and giving millions for new gas fields and to prop up the destructive native forest logging industry. Why is the Prime Minister using the budget to keep the gas and coal industry happy, the loggers happy and Labor's corporate donors happy? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure that's a supplementary question to a question about gas policy, but I will return to energy policy and say that this government is working with the community and with the private sector to steer Australia through the worst energy crisis that the globe has seen. I invite you to look at the analysis of this. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I know this is inconvenient, but it is absolutely clear that we are currently living through a shock to energy markets that is the worst the world has seen. We are making judgements to ensure that Australians get access to the diesel, jet fuel, petrol and fertiliser that our economy needs. We make no apology for that, and we will continue to do that because that is the right thing to do for the nation and for the community. Budget 58 14:28 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Youth, Senator Walsh. Young people want to feel optimistic about their future. They want a home they can afford and confidence that, if they work hard, they can get ahead. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator Walker, I'm sorry; please resume your seat. Order on my left! Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right as well! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator Walker, if you would start again, please. Senator WALKER 316818 My question is to the Minister for Youth, Senator Walsh. Young people want to feel optimistic about their future. They want a home they can afford and confidence that, if they work hard, they can get ahead. This week, I'm hearing from young Australians who are feeling hope again. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese Labor government is listening to young people, taking their concerns seriously and building a fairer future for them? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! On my right! Minister Walsh. 14:29 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Walker, for the question. How appalling that those opposite tried to shout down the youngest senator in this chamber as she asked her question. Unlike those opposite, Senator Walker knows more than anyone in this place the experiences of young Australians— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Whichever male senator made that comment in relation to Minister Walsh will withdraw it. If you don't think that was unparliamentary then you need to rethink it. You know it is not my practice to have repeat offences. That again, in my view, demonstrates the level of disrespect this place has sunk to—that that comment by a male senator has not been withdrawn. Please continue, Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH 252157 Unlike those opposite, Senator Walker, more than anyone else in this place, knows the experiences of young Australians and the challenges that they face. Those experiences and those challenges matter to us, because we are a government that listen to all Australians, and that includes young Australians. We have handed down a budget that levels the playing field. Too many young Australians have been looking at the housing market and wondering whether the Australian dream of homeownership will ever be within their reach. The Prime Minister has been clear. This generation shouldn't have to say goodbye to the Australian dream. That's why our budget takes responsible action to help more young Australians into their first home. We are building on the most ambitious housing agenda in generations—more housing supply, more public and social housing, more support for first home buyers and now, under Labor, tax reform that levels the playing field for young first home buyers. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's in your own budget papers—it's a disaster! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I have had to call you personally a number of times. You were yelling, without your microphone being on, louder than the minister. It is not funny, Senator Henderson. It's rude and disrespectful. If you can't keep quiet, I invite you to leave. Minister Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 This is generational reform, so no wonder those opposite hate it. This is reform to make sure young Australians can get their foot in the door and their keys to a home. If you are a young Australian in a position to invest, you can still get tax benefits for investing in new builds that add to supply for everyone. These changes matter because homeownership is more than a roof over your head; it is a secure future. So we are doing what it takes for young Australians to be able to work hard, get into their first home and plan their secure future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia We know young Australians are working hard, studying hard and trying to get ahead, but many still feel the pressure of day-to-day cost-of-living challenges. Minister, how does this budget help open the door of opportunity to young Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Senator Walker, again. Under our government, young Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. We are rolling out our already legislated tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer this year and next year. They're tax cuts that those opposite opposed. We are delivering our new instant tax deduction—$1,000, no receipts needed. We are delivering new and permanent income tax cuts for every Australian worker— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU President, I raise a point of order on disorderly behaviour. Senator Henderson is very quick to demand courtesy in this chamber, but she offers almost none. She has continued to interject against the minister. I ask you to call her to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, you will be aware— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, it's not a debate. As the chamber is aware, I have called up Senator Henderson personally a number of times and I've invited her to leave the chamber. I am quite serious about that, Senator Henderson. As I said early in the peace, I think the role of the opposition is not to be named, but that's what it's coming to—a frontbencher on the opposite side being named. I'm warning you; that's what will happen. Minister Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 In addition to our already legislated tax cuts, we're delivering a new and permanent income tax cut for every Australian worker through the Working Australians Tax Offset. Since the Albanese Labor government was elected, the national minimum wage has gone up by more than $9,000 a year. We know the Liberals love low wages. We like good wages for all Australians, including young Australians. Under Labor's new tax cuts, young workers can keep even more of what they earn. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walker, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia Young Australians want practical support and a government that's focused on their future. They want action that helps them to get ahead, to buy their first home, to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Are there any barriers standing in the way of delivering that support for young Australians? Senator McKenzie 207825 Your government! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, the fact that you put your hands to your mouth then to elevate your voice, again, is quite disrespectful. It's incredibly disrespectful. As I said yesterday, you're not at a footy match. Minister Walsh? 14:36 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Yes. We've been hearing quite a lot from those opposite. They're not listening to young Australians. The person they're listening to is Senator Hanson. And there she is, Senator Hanson, shouting from the Facebook, directing the Liberal Party from 'Sky after dark' and dragging the Liberals so far from the kitchen tables of everyday Australians that they can't seem to find their own seat anywhere—not in the cities, not in the regions and not in the home of the Menzies Liberals in Farrer either. While all of you move closer to the crossbench, we welcome more of the crossbench moving to us. Welcome again, Senator Tyrrell. While all of you lose your minds over there, we are building a future young Australians can be proud of. We are listening to young Australians. We are levelling the playing field for young Australians. On this side of the chamber, we know who we are. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind those on my right that it is not appropriate to clap. Aged Care 60 14:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Minister McAllister. How many people are currently waiting for a Support at Home package, and how many people are currently waiting for an assessment? 14:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Pocock, for the question and for advising me of your intention to ask it. In terms of those waiting for a Support at Home place, as at 31 December, there were 94,963 people in the National Prioritisation System waiting for the allocation of a place. In terms of the waitlist for assessment, as at 31 December, 103,527 people were waiting for an assessment. Senator Ruston 243273 In December. It's May. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Senators will understand—and I think this is a shared value across the chamber—that older Australians have spent their entire lives contributing to their communities and caring for their families, and they should be supported to access the care that they need to grow older with comfort, dignity and respect. That is why we have made the investments that we have made from government. When we came to government—and I'm listening to the interjections from Senator Ruston—the aged-care system was not built for the population we have today— Senator Ruston 243273 That's not true. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I have called you. Senator McALLISTER 121628 and not for the population we can expect to have in 10 or 20 years. Everybody will remember how the royal commission described the system that was administered by those opposite as one characterised by neglect. Since coming to government, we have set about compressing a decade's worth of reform into a three-or-four-year period. We've invested more in three years than those opposite invested in their 10 years in government, and we've invested over $4.3 billion in the new Support at Home program. These are facts that those opposite don't wish to hear, but this is important work that the government takes seriously because we respect the contribution made by older Australians, and we're determined to provide the services that they require. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for that. I am a little bit surprised that you've only got figures from December. I would have thought you'd at least have the first quarter's figures. Given that there are more than 200,000 older Australians waiting for care at home, can you advise how many new Support at Home packages were funded in the budget? 14:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This Senate has had a number of conversations about whether or not it is appropriate to add those two numbers and whether that makes sense. You know, Senator Pocock, that that methodology is not one that the government accepts. Nonetheless, your question goes to the budget. Labor will deliver an additional 32,000 Support at Home places in 2026-27. As I outlined in the budget papers, once we've rolled out these additional places, more than 420,000 older Australians will have access to a Support at Home place. That is almost three times as many older Australians compared to those who had a home-care package back in 2020 when those opposite were responsible. Senator Ruston 243273 That's not true either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, perhaps you can have your own question. Senator Ruston 243273 It's so not true. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I'm addressing you. Perhaps you can have your own question rather than interjecting so rudely from the sidelines. Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, on Tuesday during budget lock-up, the government released two weeks late their report into wait times. We now know there is a triage list which is a waitlist to get onto the waitlist, to then get onto the waitlist for a Support at Home package. Given we've got so many Australians waiting, why weren't there more Support at Home packages funded in the budget? 14:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, the report that was published was not late. It was published in line with the government's legal obligations under the Aged Care Act. The government was required to release the report as soon as practical after it was provided by the department, and it did so. This government and this budget do deliver for older Australians. The Labor government will deliver $3.7 billion to deliver more beds, more packages and better care for older Australians to ensure they get the support they need. That means 5,000 additional aged-care beds each year, principally for those with limited financial means, incentivised through building subsidies, and an increase and restructure of the accommodation supplement. It means faster access to Support at Home— (Time expired) Energy 61 14:43 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, in every budget speech delivered by your government before this week, there was a promise to lower the cost of energy through your net zero agenda. But the government has broken these promises, as electricity prices have risen by 40 per cent in recent years. This week's budget contained no such promise to lower the cost of energy. Indeed, energy prices were not mentioned at all. Minister, for years you have told the Australian people that net zero will reduce power prices, but now you're waving the white flag. Why is the government continuing down the net zero path when your government won't even promise that it will lower energy prices? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If you ever wanted a demonstration of the fact that, in every way that matters, the coalition are acting as a coalition with One Nation, I think it is by listening to what Senator Canavan has to say. It is impressive, the extent to which he parrots and mimics what Senator Hanson has to say. Senator Canavan 245212 Anything to avoid talking about energy. Senator WONG 00AOU No, I'm happy to talk about energy. There are a number of points I'd make. The first is that there was actually quite a lot of discussion about energy in the budget and in the speech. Senator Canavan 245212 No there wasn't, not in the speech. Senator WONG 00AOU There are five packages in the budget, and one of them deals with fuel security and the context of that, which the Treasurer spoke about, is that it is the largest shock to energy markets the world has seen. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU That is energy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 President, on relevance, the question went to energy prices, not fuel security. I'd ask the minister to come back to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 You also referenced speeches and other things that have occurred, so I think the minister is being relevant and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll make a couple of points. The government is— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister sat down because, again, there are interjections. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The first point I'd make is that one of the five packages in the budget—and the context of the budget that the Treasurer spoke at length about was the state of global energy markets and the way that has impacted on Australia. That impacts upon Australia in a number of ways, including through higher energy prices. The consequences of these shocks to global markets are ricocheting throughout our economy, and the Treasurer was upfront about that. That is what is driving, in great part, the challenges through supply chains of higher costs. It is contributing to inflation— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, this week's budget reveals that the government is spending another $18 billion of taxpayers' money on its failing net zero agenda. We know that net zero isn't reducing the cost of living for Australians. Minister, why did the government choose to spend another $18 billion on a failed energy policy? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The failed energy policy was the one you contributed to wrecking. That was in the government of which you were a part—for some time a cabinet minister and for some time not—where you had four gigawatts exit the system and one gigawatt come in, and, as you know, that creates problems with both price and supply. The reality is that 24 of the nation's 28 ageing coal-fired power stations announced they were closing while you were on this side of the chamber, and you didn't do anything about working out where else supply would come from. What you hoped was that the private sector would invest—it had in the past—and it was very clear that the private sector wouldn't. What I would also say is, if you cared about price, why is it that you opposed energy rebates for Australian businesses and Australian households? Why is it that you opposed them? Senator Canavan 245212 What are you going to do about it? Senator WONG 00AOU You're backing it in! You're backing in your opposition to those rebates. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, the government had promised that net zero would unleash mining investment in critical minerals, yet your own budget documents show that mining investment growth will slump to zero by 2027-28. If net zero is working, why aren't we getting investment in mining? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, what I would say to you is that you are a demonstration of the way in which ideology, in short— Senator McKenzie 207825 Don't reflect on the senator! Senator WONG 00AOU We had coal-fired power stations exiting with no plan for more supply. No plan for more— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 I'll take two points of order, on relevance and on personal reflection. The minister was asked about mining— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Canavan; I can't hear you. Senator Canavan 245212 I don't think that was my fault. The PRESIDENT 112096 Please start again. Senator Canavan 245212 I have two points of order, on relevance and personal reflection. The minister was asked about mining investment and went straight to reflecting on me. I think the people who work in mining— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Canavan 245212 deserve an answer about why investment is going to zero. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Ayres, you will withdraw that comment. Senator Ayres 16913 I withdraw. Senator Canavan 245212 Can he repeat it? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I have checked with the Clerk, but it is also my view there was no personal reflection, and the minister is being relevant to your question. I would invite the minister to continue—to be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I wasn't intending it as a personal reflection. It's an observation about the way in which the views of One Nation and parts of the National Party have ensured that we saw power exiting the system with no plan to bring more power into the system. When we came to government, that was the situation with which we were dealing. It was brought about because of an ideological position that you and others—led, in many ways, by Senator Hanson—have expressed, which is: you like only some forms of energy, not others, and you don't recognise— (Time expired) Housing 62 14:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, documents uncovered by One Nation under freedom of information show that foreign owners of Australian houses are not complying with Australian laws. Only one in five foreign purchasers submitted a mandatory disclosure, known as the foreign vacancy fee return, last year. Tens of thousands of foreign-owned homes may be sitting vacant with the required fee not paid, because the mandatory declaration has not been lodged. Minister, how can the Australian people have any faith in what your government says about the level of foreign ownership when you've been caught red-handed letting 80 per cent of foreign owners not comply with the law? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for the question. In this budget, the government has extended the ban on foreign purchases of existing homes to 2029. That is included in the budget paper. That is part of our response to pressures in the housing market and to make sure that Australians aren't competing with foreign buyers for those properties. It is also interesting to note that foreign buyer levels peaked under the Liberals in 2017-2018, when almost 8½ thousand properties were purchased by foreign buyers. This was down by over two-thirds, from 1.8 per cent of buyers to just 0.5 per cent of buyers, after our foreign buyer ban started in 2025. We have been responding to the issues, making sure that every lever available to us is being used to ensure that housing is affordable and accessible to the Australian community. In relation to the question on compliance, I don't have any further information to provide other than that I know from my work at estimates—where One Nation raises this issue every hearing—that the Treasury and the ATO respond to questions about the nature of the compliance work that they do to ensure and verify that those arrangements are working properly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I would suggest that no-one in Australia believes that foreign purchases are less than two per cent a year. Surveys of real estate agents put the figure as high as 10 per cent. Why won't your government require all real estate sales to be accompanied by proof of citizenship or permanent residency, to ensure no foreign purchases are slipping through undetected? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for that supplementary. The advice and information provided to me—and that is the information that's provided by the officials that monitor this—is that foreign buyers of housing in this country make up just 0.5 per cent of buyers. That hasn't always been the case, but that is the information that I have been provided with. I think that would be more accurate—because it would be using the financial records available to government—than a survey of real estate agents. In relation to compliance, since 1 July 2023, all acquisitions and sales of residential land by foreign persons have been required to notify the new Register of Foreign Ownership of Australian Assets. Also, the ATO assumed responsibility for residential real estate in December 2015 and, since then— (Time expired) 14:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, your government is still allowing foreigners to purchase new homes, driving up demand and prices when Australians can't own one. In 2017, the ANZ bank estimated foreigners owned up to 400,000 existing Australian homes. One Nation says these existing homes should be owned by Australians, not foreigners. When will you force these foreigners to sell their properties, a lot of which are unoccupied while Australians are sleeping in tents and cars? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I outlined, in the budget we have extended the ban on foreign purchases of existing homes to 2029. In relation to the ability to purchase on new builds—you will see this from our policies in relation to negative gearing and capital gains tax—we do support investment in new housing construction in this country because it generates supply and we want housing supply to continue at pace. All of the policies that we are using and putting together are about driving supply. In relation to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 I have a point of order on relevance. My question was: will the government forced foreigners to sell up their homes? The PRESIDENT 112096 The Minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator GALLAGHER ING I am being relevant because I have answered what the budget documents outline, and the position of the government, which is the policy of the government, is to extend the ban on foreign purchasers of existing homes to 2029. That was in the budget. It was extended in the budget and that remains the government's policy. Budget 63 14:56 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. This week, the Treasurer delivered the Albanese Labor government's fifth budget which continues the work of strengthening Medicare for all Australians. How is the government continuing to make health care more affordable and accessible after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Ananda-Rajah for this question and for your advocacy for public health. The Albanese government is investing so that all Australians can get the help that they need when they need it. This budget furthers that work to strengthen Medicare and deliver real cost-of-living relief to families all around Australia. We're making Medicare urgent care clinics permanent, locking in access to public health care right around the country. It takes the pressure of emergency rooms and public hospitals, and it makes it so much easier for families. Senator O'Neill would be pleased to know that we will deliver up to six new fully bulk billing GP clinics in the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Lower Hunter and Central Coast areas. Now, these communities have historically had low bulk-billing rates, and so we are bringing bulk-billed, accessible healthcare directly to them, and all they will need is a Medicare card. We're going to deliver more upgrades to My Health Record so patients and health professionals can access health data in better ways. We're protecting older Australians from higher out-of-pocket costs for intravitreal eye injections, and we are stepping up our efforts to close the gap, improving health infrastructure across Aboriginal community controlled health services and increasing investment in culturally safe mental health support and for birthing on country. Free public hospitals are a cornerstone of Medicare, and that is why we are delivering $25 billion in additional Commonwealth funding. That is $25 billion in additional funding for our public hospitals and the doctors and nurses who are the backbone of our public health system. It is three times more additional funding than under the last five-year agreement of Commonwealth funding for state-run hospitals, and it will reach a record $220 billion in the period— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary. 14:58 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria The PBS is a cornerstone of Australia's universal health system because Australians should not have to choose between the medicines they need and paying their bills. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering more cheaper medicines for all Australians? 14:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The budget delivers significant investments to secure the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That'll mean that families right across Australia will get access to the life-changing medicines that they need, at cheaper prices. Our reforms to make medicines cheaper have already saved Australians more than $2.5 billion since 2022. In this budget, the Albanese government will be pressing on with our work to make medicines cheaper and more accessible. We're continuing new and amended medicines listings on the PBS, including for cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, various cancers and more. We're ensuring free access to the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine for older Australians through the National Immunisation Program and we're delivering measures to increase childhood vaccination rates through an enhanced immunisation campaign, SMS reminders and growing the National Immunisation Program Vaccinations in Pharmacy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary question? 15:00 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria When it comes to getting quality health care, all you should need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. How do the new measures to strengthen Medicare in the budget complement other actions the Albanese Labor government has taken to deliver affordable health care for all Australians? Why has the government chosen this approach? 15:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In May last year, the Australian people made a very clear choice. They voted for a government that would stand up for universal health care. The measures in this budget complement the largest-ever investment in the history of Medicare, $8.5 billion. Since our investment started on 1 November 2025, there are now nearly 3,800 Medicare bulk-billing practices nationwide, and over 1,200 of those were previously mixed billing. People are very quiet over there, but I do want to make this point: at these clinics, all you will need is your Medicare card. That means that more and more people will be able to see a GP and fewer and fewer people will have to resort to sitting in their local emergency department. That is what delivering for everyday Australians actually means. Labor is focused on the needs of the Australian people while those over there are focused on themselves. (Time expired) Budget 64 15:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Will the minister assure the Australian people unequivocally that the Albanese government will not introduce a tax on inheritance? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia ():  I congratulate Senator Ruston on her first question for some time. I think it's been a couple of months, hasn't it, Senator Ruston, since you've been given a question? So I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you at this point. I note that, given the coalition's inability to actually contest the budget, you know when to contest what is not in the budget. We have been very clear about what we are doing and what we are not doing, and what you are asking us about is something we are not doing and we do not intend to do. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll just wait for order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator Ruston, first supplementary question? 15:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will the minister assure the Australian people unequivocally that the Albanese government will not oppose any new taxes on the family home? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my first answer. They're so worried about the budget that we've handed down because it is such a good budget for this country that they are now resorting, on the second day after the budget has been handed down, to asking a range of questions which they know are not things that this government is doing and not things that this government will do. Now, I'm asked about the family home, and I would say to Senator Ruston that I think Australians know which is the party that looks to the welfare and benefit of Australian workers and their families, which is the party that makes sure Australian families get Medicare, get decent education, get access to the services they need and have access to decent wages. That is the Australian Labor Party, which is why we are where we are and why you are in coalition with One Nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, second supplementary question? 15:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, the Prime Minister ruled out changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax more than 50 times before the election. As recently as August last year, he looked Australians in the eye and reaffirmed that there would be no changes. Then budget night came and he betrayed the Australian people. Minister, why should the Australian people believe a single word that your government says, because of the evidence of this budget? 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government always looks to do what is right for the Australian people. That is what we do. What I really enjoy is the party that pretended to be the party of lower taxes, lower debt and lower deficit—Senator Hume, now the deputy leader, led them to an election, with the man who is now the Leader of the Opposition, guaranteeing more debt, larger deficits and higher taxes. Now they want us to believe they have returned to a lower-taxing ideology, after they went to the last election saying they wanted higher taxes and more debt—quite remarkable. I would say to those opposite: maybe work out what you stand for and who you are before you start lecturing others about anything to do with policy and politics. Budget 65 15:05 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Tuesday night's budget was the most responsible and also the most ambitious handed down in decades. It continued the Albanese Labor government's focus on driving wages growth and providing tax cuts for all Australians. Can the minister outline how the budget will deliver better outcomes for workers? 15:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would love nothing more than to outline how this year's federal budget will deliver better outcomes for Australian workers. That's because our government's No. 1 focus is supporting Australian working families who are struggling with cost-of-living pressures, and a key part of that is helping them earn more and keep more of what they earn. This budget will put more money into the pockets of 13.3 million workers, with a new $250 working Australians tax offset. This offset is targeted to workers and represents the most meaningful permanent increase to the effective tax-free threshold since Labor last increased it more than a decade ago. Altogether, our five different tax cuts will benefit the average Australian worker by up to $2,816 in 2028, evening out taxation for those who earn income from work and those who earn it from owning assets. To help workers earn more, we've announced we will again advocate to the Fair Work Commission for an economically sustainable real wage increase for our lowest-paid workers on minimum award wages. This will help almost 2.7 million workers across the country, including cleaners, retail workers, security guards and hospitality workers, many of whom rely on minimum award wages. These workers are more likely to be women, employed on a casual basis, working part-time and younger—and I know Senator Hume doesn't support working people on minimum wages. Our government's submission to the Fair Work Commission advocating for a real wage increase is about supporting working people in Australia. This Labor government has advocated for a wage increase for minimum award wage earners each and every year we've been in government. Since coming into government, the minimum wage has increased by more than $9,000 per year. We have legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates for these same workers because it's an important part of their pay packet—something that was opposed by the Liberal-National-One Nation coalition. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 15:08 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Since 2022, the Albanese Labor government has had a very clear focus on improving the wages and conditions for millions of working Australians. Yesterday, new data was released by the ABS which showed that, under Labor, wages continue to grow above three per cent. How have wages improved under this government and what is the government doing to continue this into the future? 15:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We know that for 10 years we had a Liberal-National party coalition government for whom low wages was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. But things have changed under Labor. New data released by the ABS yesterday shows that annual nominal wages continue to grow above three per cent under Labor. Annual wages are growing by at least three per cent in 14 of 18 industries. Our predecessors never achieved this. At best, they could only achieve three per cent wage rises in six industries for one lonely quarter. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Can we just stop the running commentary, particularly from you, Senator Hume—I've called you a number of times—and from you, Senator Sharma. That is extremely disrespectful. Senator WATT 245759 Where does the incredible shrinking coalition stand now on these matters? We know that Senator Bragg likes to reheat an old losing policy or two, old 'Fightback!' Bragg over there. This week I informed the Senate of his desire to bring back the Liberals' losing Fightback! policy. Today it seems that he's keen to bring back John Howard's losing Work Choices policy. This morning on ABC Radio National, Senator Bragg doubled down, saying: I think we need to be looking again at the IR system. More lower wages, more cut conditions— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I ask you to withdraw those comments about Senator Bragg. Senator Watt 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 15:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales A main theme of this year's budget is dealing with intergenerational equity by improving access to housing and increasing wages. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government helping younger workers to earn more, and why is it important that this parliament comes together to support these measures? 15:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The independent Fair Work Commission has ruled that young adult workers should earn adult wages, and that happened under a Labor government. This government welcomes the decision to abolish junior rates of pay for 18- to 20-year-old workers in some sectors, meaning tens of thousands of young adult workers will earn more at this important time of their lives. While we're getting on with the job of supporting younger Australians, what do we see from the endangered species of the opposition? Their week started with that catastrophic result in the Farrer by-election, recording historically low votes for the Liberal Party and the National Party in coalition heartland. Then they spent the rest of the week flip-flopping about whether they would enter a coalition with One Nation. Senator McKenzie was first out of the blocks, saying she was for it. The shadow foreign minister was against it. The shadow treasurer was for it and then he was against it. Then we saw Senator Hume on that train-wreck interview this week where this moderate Liberal eight times would not rule out going into coalition with One Nation. The truth is they're already in coalition, cutting wages, cutting housing and cutting cost-of-living relief. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Housing 67 15:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have some further information for Senator Bragg in relation to the question asked in question time. The table Senator Bragg referred to was for 2025-26, which was— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU May I finish? Is that possible? I'm trying to do the right thing. This is a courtesy. Oh, boy! I'll start again. The table Senator Bragg referred to is for 2025-26, which is between HAFF rounds. More than 18,000 HAFF homes were contracted in 2024-25 for rounds 1 and 2. Then round 3 opened in January this year, and more than 21,000 homes are scheduled to be contracted in 2026-27. That means that, by the time the next election comes around, the full 40,000 social and affordable homes in the HAFF will be contracted. NOTICES 67 NOTICES Presentation 67 15:13 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (1) notes the referral of the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2026; and (2) directs the Committee, in respect of that inquiry, to: (a) note the referral of the inquiry; (b) immediately call for submissions; (c) set a closing date for submissions of no earlier than Friday 29 May 2026; and (d) hold at least two public hearings of no less than 8 hours each. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 67 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Tyrrell, Senator Tammy 67 15:14 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania by leave—I inform the chamber that I am now a member of the Australian Labor Party. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 67 15:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. There is a lot of focus around housing today in what's going on here. It's quite interesting that you can deliver a budget and not enough of your own party room actually read the budget papers to know what's going on it. The surprise on faces to some of the questions yesterday was truly great to see. The talk is about how this is going to build more houses, and it’s going to be great for the economy. If you go to page 158, it actually says that we will build 35,000 fewer houses. There is also talk about how it is going to be great for rents. But if you go to the same page, you will see that the taxation policies will drive up rents. What gets it for me is that we're going back to tried and tested territory on removing negative gearing and what it does to housing. Back in the eighties, they tried this very same thing, and we found that in Sydney and Perth, especially, rents went through the roof. The proof is in the pudding. When negative gearing was removed, rents went through the roof. They studied this, because they didn't go up everywhere. They found that a low supply of rental housing—it was below two per cent—caused rents to go through the roof. Then Labour in New Zealand tried it. They said: 'Let's learn from our cousins. Let's get negative gearing in New Zealand.' They tried it, and they found that rents went through the roof. They looked at the reasons for that, and they said: 'It's because we had higher-than-expected immigration. That's the reason we had it.' What do we have in Australia now? We've got this government getting rid of negative gearing, and we've got both. We've got low vacancy rates. In fact, every capital city in Australia has 1.4 per cent or less. Some cities have 0.4 per cent vacancy rates. So they are lower than they were in Sydney and Perth the last time when it was blamed, and we have higher immigration. The budget papers say that two million people are coming to Australia. We have both instances, both causes, on the one instance. But we're going to try it again, and we'll pretend the rents will only go up by two dollars! Here's what's going to happen. We're building 35,000 fewer homes. We're bringing in two million people. In every experience where low vacancy rates below two percent have happened, rents have gone through the roof. And we think everything is going to be okay. This is a joke! Talk about mess around and find out—the Australian people, renters, students, people come into this country and guys trying to save for a mortgage will find out exactly what a joke this is, because I guarantee this: rents will not go up two dollars per year; they will go up far more than that. Don't worry about the gain on your investments to try to get a house. You won't be able to put away any savings because your rent is going to go through the roof. Everything we see in the past—I'd love it if one Labor person was able to point to anywhere in the world where negative gearing has been removed in a tight rental market and it has actually given better accommodation outcomes, because it hasn't. We are going to reinvent the wheel if this works. We have low vacancy rates and high immigration, yet they still think this will work. You go out there and say, 'Hang on a sec, this is going to be great for young people wanting to get into the market.' No, it won't, because they haven't got the negative gearing aspects if they want to buy a unit to start off. They haven't got the capital gains tax exemptions if they want to go into the share market or have other investments to get into it. All of us have got it. Twenty-three members of cabinet have multiple properties. They have all benefited from capital gains tax and negative gearing. We can all do that here. I've got a place in Canberra. If I wanted to, I could have done it that way. But, for the people who want to get into the market, you have taken away their options to get those benefits. This is a joke of a policy. Your own budget statements, your own Treasury papers, say this. But you didn't bother to read that bit. You keep going, 'Overall, this is a good thing.' Page 158 says, 'The taxation policies contained here will lead to 35,000 fewer homes being built.' 15:19 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The focus of the opposition in today's question time was on things they actually didn't do when they were in government, which is surprising. Three hundred and seventy-three homes are all they built when they were in government. Our budget that was handed down by our treasurer in the other place the other night was a responsible budget. It was a budget that focused on three things. It focused on resilience, relief and reform. They are important things to ensure that we are delivering more cost-of-living help and building a more productive economy and a fairer tax system. Getting lectures from the opposition, from 'High Taxes' Hume and co over there— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Cox— Senator COX 296215 I withdraw. But we're not going to take lectures from the opposition around a better tax system when they went to the last election talking about higher taxes. Now, on a fairer housing market—you saw an absolutely disgraceful display, Deputy President, when Senator Walker was on her feet in this chamber asking a question, as a young Labor senator, and was, disgracefully, yelled down by those opposite. Young people sitting in this gallery were nodding about the housing benefit they will now have access to because of the policies that were announced in our budget on Tuesday night. It is disgraceful that this party who claims to be the tail that is being wagged by the dog over there, in Pauline Hanson's One Nation, is trying to lecture us about a more sustainable budget. It's ridiculous. Tax cuts, housing and fuel were the focus because of the conflict in the Middle East. That is weighing heavily on our economy. You can't disagree with any of that. And you are tone deaf, absolutely tone deaf, to the compounding cost-of-living pressures that Australians are under. For months you've sat in this place and concentrated on yourselves and haven't even listened to the Australian people. That is why your base has cracked. That's why she increased her margin in Farrer in the by-election. That's because of what you've done—navel-gazing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Cox, please refer to people by their correct title. Senator COX 296215 I did—Senator Hanson. I was referring to the party. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 No, you pointed across the chamber. Senator COX 296215 I'm sorry, do I have the call, or does Senator Hanson— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I didn't ask her to withdraw, Senator Wong. Senator COX 296215 You were correcting me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I just said, 'Please refer to people by their correct title.' Senator Wong 00AOU On a point of order, Deputy President, I didn't hear—I may have missed it. But generally the chair picks that up when someone refers to someone by a different title, not the word 'you'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 She pointed across the chamber and used the word 'she'. I think it is more usual in this place to go through the chair and to use people's names, Senator Wong. To be honest, that is the way most presidents would have perceived the rules. Senator Cox, you have the call. Senator COX 296215 I will talk about the reforms that our party have made in Medicare and our investment in health and ageing. Our aged-care budget, and the announcements made by Minister Rae in the lead-up to the budget, is about our investment in older Australians. We're putting the 'care' back into aged care after years and years of neglect. The Labor Party are responsible for building Medicare, and we will continue to invest in strengthening Medicare. That is our commitment to the Australian people. We have done that, and in my home state of Western Australia we have now made 14 urgent care clinics permanent. That is a game changer in our home state, is it not, Senator Whiteaker? For us as mums, when our children are sick, to be able to go to an urgent care clinic is amazing. We stand by this budget, and we will continue to do the work for the Australian people. 15:24 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Well, where to begin? I think I will begin with the questions that Senator Bragg asked in relation to housing in our country. One of the answers to his questions was that this government has an ambitious target for more houses. The reality is, whether there is an ambitious target or not, the delivery of houses under this government has been nothing short of unacceptable. Young Australians have found it harder to purchase a home under this government than in any other time in our history. The government's budget on Tuesday evening was delivered under the guise of intergenerational fairness. Well, I would like somebody to explain to me how it is fair for young Australians that the Prime Minister, who used negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to build his own wealth after his own beginnings in public housing, gets to retain the benefits of that but young Australians don't ever get the chance to do that. That is intergenerational fairness under the Albanese Labor government—in order to be fair to you, we're going to lift the ladder up so you can't use it when we're finished using it. Explain that to me. Explained to me, if we are trying to create more housing in this country, why then we have to tax everything else more. Why are we taxing housing? Why are we taxing shares? Why are we taxing small businesses? How does that create intergenerational fairness? What that actually means is that young Australians will have nowhere to go to build wealth because this government doesn't want them to build wealth. This government wants them to rent their houses built by the CFMEU and owned by the super funds. That is what this government wants. Every single time that we have pointed out a deficiency in one of its policies, this government has pretended that it doesn't exist. The RBA said that the government's five per cent deposit guarantee, without requisite supply-side measures, would increase prices of entry-level dwellings. This Prime Minister said, 'No way, no, no, it will probably increase prices by 0.6 per cent over six years'—something like that. But guess what? They have gone up 3.6 per cent in the December quarter alone. But why would we believe anything the Prime Minister says anyway? He abjectly does not tell the truth to Australians. Some 50 times before the last election, he said that negative gearing and capital gains tax were off the table, and what have they done in their budget this year? They have introduced both, despite telling Australians that they would not. Why didn't he have the courage and the transparency to tell Australians that this was what he was going to do? Because I put it to you that he had a plan to do this all along. He deliberately misled Australians when they went to the polls and, I tell you, he probably has an inheritance tax on the family home up his sleeve next. Oh, you can scoff and you can laugh but you can't hide from the fact that this Prime Minister lied about this some 50 times before the last election. That is a fact, amongst so many other things that this government has said that they would and would not do. (Time expired) 15:28 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia What has become abundantly clear after today's performance in the chamber by those opposite is that they do not understand the people of my generation let alone the generation below me. I think the behaviour that we saw while Senator Walker was attempting to ask her question in question time really says everything about what those opposite think about young people in this country. We should not forget that this is a coalition who, while in government, had no plan to build homes, had no plan to help young Australians get into their own home. They didn't even have a housing minister for most of the decade that they were in government. They built—what was it?—300-and-something homes while they were in office. Now they have the gall to come in here and speak over Senator Walker, who comes from the generation below me and who feel like they are locked out of a system that does not work for them. They're a generation who can do everything right, who can work hard, but who still can't get their foot in the door and still can't get a home of their own. Our government is committed to changing that. Yes, we have made a hard decision to do what is right. We are not sitting on our hands and pretending this isn't a problem like those opposite did for the near-decade that they were in government. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering for my generation and the generation below mine and the generations to come to give us a real shot at owning our own home. This budget brings our total housing investment to $47 billion dollars. Our tax reforms will support 75,000 more young people to own their own home. We will invest an extra $2 billion in enabling infrastructure to help the states and local governments build more homes. Our budget will build 65,000 more homes for Australians. We will also deliver $59.4 million for states and territories for social and affordable homes. In my home state of Western Australia, we are building 4,200 more social and affordable homes. More than 3,000 of those are through the HAFF, which Senator Bragg likes to pretend isn't actually building any homes despite all evidence to the contrary. I don't know if he's walking around the country with his eyes closed, but I see them in my own community and in the regions as I am out further in Western Australia. I see these homes being built. Nineteen thousand Western Australians have bought their first home thanks to our five per cent deposit scheme. That is 19,000 Australians who otherwise would not have been able to buy their own home. They certainly wouldn't have been able to buy their own home if those opposite were in government. So it's really no surprise to me that my generation and the generation below can't bring themselves to vote for the Liberal Party anymore. It's because they do not speak for young people and they will not make the hard decisions to get young people into their own homes. They sat on their hands for a decade and did nothing. It was an absolute disgrace. Only Labor is doing what is right to build homes. (Time expired) 15:32 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia As the dust settles on Labor's budget of broken promises, higher taxes, a lower standard of living and less housing, young Australians are being forced to wake up and pay attention. Young Australians are waking up to the realisation that Labor's claim of intergenerational fairness is actually a fraud against young Australians. Young Australians are waking up to the news of Labor's youth tax. What is Labor's youth tax exactly? Labor's youth tax seeks to tax the livelihoods of young Australians. The budget papers estimate that gross debt for Australia will soon reach $1 trillion, growing to $1.2 trillion. Just think about that for a second. What is $1 trillion? A thousand billion equals a trillion or a million million equals a trillion. It is phenomenal. It is almost unfathomable. If you're a young Australian, it's your problem—because that is Labor's youth tax. You will be required through future taxes to meet that debt cost. That debt cost comes with interest payment bills of $42 billion a year. Just think about that. What is $42 billion a year? It's $80,000 a minute in interest payments on $1 trillion. And if you're a young Australian, that's your problem. If you're a young Australian, you have to pay that in future taxes. That is Labor's youth tax, and that is the realisation that young Australians are coming to. And if you're a young Australian who is renting, or if you're a young Australian who is hoping to rent one day, in preparation for getting your own home, you need to be ready for the fact that rents are expected to increase by at least 10 per cent. In the budget papers the Labor government tries to tell you that those rental increases will be limited to $2. In the media this morning, that has been called 'delusional'. Young Australians will be hit with higher rents. Why? Because changes to negative gearing and changes to the capital gains tax, detailed in the budget, will make it harder for property investors. It will lead to a decline in the number of rental properties that are available to young Australians. Increasing rents makes it harder for young Australians, and that is the consequence of Labor's plans to tax, Labor's plans to change negative gearing and capital gains tax. In the media today someone has said, 'You can't trust the government; they are just making up the numbers.' And young Australians pay a hefty price for Labor's economic failures. But if you're a young Australian, there's an alternative, and we'll hear about that alternative tonight. That alternative comes in the form of Angus Taylor's budget-in-reply speech, a speech that will present a plan to restore our standard of living and protect our way of life in Australia. It will be a plan that focuses on getting rid of Labor's toxic taxes, a plan that reduces taxes on homes, a plan that removes taxes on small businesses, a plan that reduces taxes on hardworking Australians and a plan that will give hope to younger Australians. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Taxation: Gas Industry 70 15:37 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to taxation of the gas industry. Labor's budget is a missed opportunity to make big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share. Instead of taxing gas exports and using that revenue to fund essential services and give people real cost-of-living help, Labor has chosen to preserve corporate handouts, to keep unfair tax breaks for wealthy property investors and to shift the burden back onto everyone else. By the Greens' calculations, this budget keeps in place 95 per cent of property investor tax perks. The Working Australians Tax Offset works out to $4.81 a week that people aren't even going to get until 2028. Meanwhile, people in the community are going to be set back by Labor's budget—160,000 people chucked off the NDIS, losing critical disability supports. There is no new money to build housing, except for the $110 million for US and UK defence personnel. There is $4 billion in deep cuts to climate transition, the biggest rollback since the Morrison government, in a time of a climate crisis and when we desperately need to be transitioning to renewables for our energy security. There is $1.7 billion for electric vehicles, $2.2 billion in cuts to climate and the environment, a $255 million cut from ARENA, and cuts to the domestic manufacturing of solar and hydrogen. Egregiously, there is no increase at all to income support payments, no increase for JobSeeker, no increase for youth allowance, and no increase to the age pension or any other income support payment—after your own advisory body told you, for the fourth time, that raising income support is critical. And there is not one new homecare package. I note the minister's response to the question from Senator Pocock. But on our view of the budget papers, on the Parliamentary Library's view of the budget papers and on the department's view of the budget papers, there is no additional allocation for any more homecare packages. There are no new packages in a system where the waiting list is now well over 200,000 and where the average waiting time is now a year. How do we know that? We know that because, under the cover of the budget lock-up, instead of releasing the figures on the day they were required by law, the government held them back and snuck them out in the hope that no-one would see them. Well, we noticed. Old people will have to wait for a year for critical supports. That's a year to wait for help with showering, a year to wait for help with getting meals, a year to wait for help to get out and do shopping, a year to wait to get essential transport for medical appointments. What is wrong with this government? I don't understand how you can tell the community that you want to help them when you're giving billions of dollars to Defence because we're supporting wars that are illegal, when you're still giving away billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, and when you're refusing to tax gas exports, which would bring in $17 billion a year, and the people whom you are telling that you can't help—or you won't help—are people on income support, older people desperately waiting for home-care packages and people who need the support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is shameful. You're not a government for the people. You are a government for the big corporate backers who help you write the legislation for things like gas reservation policies that will not raise a cent because you're too cowardly to stand up to them. The people of Australia are paying the price for that, and the Greens are going to keep fighting for them. Question agreed to. Aged Care 71 15:42 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to aged-care services. This government gets very sensitive when the crossbench and others talk about how secretive it is. When you look at the raw numbers on OPDs and on compliance with FOIs, it's a secretive government. Yet we should just take them at their word when they say that releasing a report into waiting times in aged care during the budget lock-up is just a coincidence and that that was the soonest that they could possibly release it. They got it on 28 April, and on 12 May they decided: 'It's inconvenient that it's budget lock-up, but now is the first time we could do it.' Australians aren't buying that, and I don't think anyone in the Senate actually believes it. We saw the same thing with the response to the Murphy report: put it out during budget lock-up, when there's far less scrutiny. I have some concerns, and I would love the minister to clarify them. The minister said that there were 94,963 waiting for a package and 103,527 waiting for an assessment, but the department, in estimates, said that, for the same date, 31 December, there were 131,366 people waiting for a package and the same number of people as the minister said waiting for an assessment. That's a difference of 36,000 people. That's a lot of older Australians. I'd be really interested to know why there's a discrepancy between what the minister said in the Senate and what the department told us that estimates. But I think the bigger question is: why is it so hard to find out how many old Australians are waiting? Everyone knows that there's a challenge in aged care with assessments for Support at Home. There should be transparency. Surely, it shouldn't be so hard to get the figures. Why are there no additional home-care packages in this budget? I was so surprised that I had to call the department in lock-up to clarify. I got on the phone and said, 'Hey, I'm just looking at the budget papers; are there additional packages?' No. Ten thousand have simply been brought forward. There are no additional packages. It's really disingenuous to say that there are additional packages when there aren't—when the department says there aren't. There's a difference in figures from the department, and there's a difference in message from the department than we get in the Senate. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Housing 72 15:45 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to foreign ownership. I've got to respond to Senator Gallagher's answer to my question about foreign ownership. I've been in this chamber now for the last 10 years, and all I've heard in the recent years since Labor took over is complaints about housing. This is the worst situation that housing has been in in this country. Why? Because of mass migration into the country. We've got more people coming in. During this term of their government, two million people have come into this country, and that's why we have a housing crisis. They said they'd put a $10 billion fund there, but the fact is that the first $50 million went on administration, not to building one house. Now, my question was about foreign ownership. The minister said we're down to 0.05 per cent. In 2017, nearly 10 years ago, the ANZ bank estimated foreigners owned up to 400,000 existing homes. That's disgraceful. The Taxation Office and the Foreign Investment Review Board said it was less than two per cent of purchases each year, but, if you listen to the real estate agents who deal with sales, they believe it's closer to 10 per cent. My concern is that foreign investors are usually not associated with our Taxation Office, so here we're going to ridicule Australians owning homes for that negative gearing. How do we know foreign investors aren't building homes out here, renting them out to people here, having Australians paying them rent and don't have to comply with it because they're not associated with our Australian Taxation Office? The money is leaving the country. Another thing is whether the question has been asked. What about capital gains tax? Are these foreigners that you say don't own the houses here—they are selling the houses here—complying with the capital gains tax that should be paid? This government is going after every Australian that has paid their taxes along the way and has accumulated a way to provide for themselves later in life. Now you're going after them. This is nothing but a grab—to put it in your coffers to use in the next election. That's what this is, and that's why Australians will never get into the housing market—because of your foreign investors in the country plus your mass migration. You have destroyed this nation. That's what Labor has done, and it is telling lies constantly to the Australian people. (Time expired) Question agreed to. PETITIONS 72 PETITIONS National Disability Insurance Scheme 72 15:48 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—I table this non-conforming petition on behalf of People with Disability Australia opposing the NDIS cuts. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 72 Reference 72 15:48 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm divisions were called on two motions moved by Senator Bragg proposing references to the Economics References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred votes to be held now. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

22 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Askew, W. Watt, M. P. Canavan, M. J. Dowling, R. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Ananda-Rajah, M. Hume, J. Sterle, G. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. Gallagher, K. R. McLachlan, A. L. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

Reference 73 15:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion related to the governance and performance of Housing Australia be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Babet, R. D. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Mulholland, C. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 9 PAIRS Askew, W. Watt, M. P. Canavan, M. J. Dowling, R. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Ananda-Rajah, M. Hume, J. Sterle, G. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. A. Gallagher, K. R. McLachlan, A. L. Polley, H. Scarr, P. M. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Public Works Joint Committee 75 Government Response to Report 75 15:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present four government responses to committee reports as listed at item 17 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 APRIL 2026 Overview The Australian Government welcomes the Community Affairs Legislation Committee (Committee) reports into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024 (Bill). The first Committee report delivered on 20 June 2024 made four recommendations and the subsequent report delivered on 9 August 2024 noted those recommendations had been addressed by Government amendments and recommended passage of the Bill. The Australian Government is committed to working alongside the disability community to implement reforms enabled by the Bill which commenced on 3 October 2024. Committee Recommendations (report delivered on 20 June 2024) Recommendation 1 The committee recommends the bill include amendments so that First Ministers are also recognised as Ministers for the purposes of Category A rule-making . Agreed. Government amendments on sheet PA112 responded to this recommendation by amending section 9 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (NDIS Act) to expand the definition of host jurisdiction Minister to include First Ministers of states and territories and allow First Ministers (in addition to Disability Ministers) to agree to NDIS rules. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that a consultation statement be tabled accompanying the legislative instrument that sets out consultations undertaken. Agreed. Government amendments on sheet PA112 responded to this recommendation and inserted a new section 211 to the NDIS Act, to prescribe that certain information about consultation must be included in explanatory statement to legislative instruments made under the NDIS Act. The amendment clarifies and strengthens the existing requirement on the Minister under paragraph 15J(2)(d) of the Legislation Act 2003, to provide information about consultation undertaken on legislative instruments made under the NDIS Act. The amendment requires the Minister to provide explanatory statements adhering to the following requirements for all legislative instruments made under the NDIS Act moving forward: describe the nature of the consultation describe in general terms the persons, bodies or organisations who were consulted contain a summary of the views expressed by those persons, bodies or organisations. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Australian Government further clarify the circumstances under which the additional powers granted to the National Disability Insurance Agency Chief Executive Officer will be used. Agreed. Government amendments on sheet PA112 responded to this recommendation and inserted new subsections 30(6A), 30A(7A) and 36(3A) of the NDIS Act, providing guidance that the CEO must consider the reasonableness for a person not to have complied with a request for information and have regard to the following matters: the length of time the person has had to provide the information (for example, a delay of 6 months may be appropriate in certain circumstances whereas a delay of 12 or 18 months may not be) any previous failures by the participant to comply with a request for information made under this Act any previous failures by the other person to comply with a request for information made under this Act in relation to the participant the length of time since the CEO was last provided with information relevant to the decision whether or not to revoke the participant's status as a participant whether the failure to comply with the request was beyond the control of the participant or other person because of a delay in the provision of information to the participant or other person any matters prescribed by Category A NDIS rules any other matters the CEO considers relevant. Recommendation 4 Subject to the above recommendations, the committee recommends that the bill be passed. Agreed. Committee Recommendations (report delivered on 9 August 2024) Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the bill be passed as soon as practicable. Agreed. The Bill was passed by both houses on 22 August 2024 and came into effect on 3 October 2024. Dissenting Report—Australian Greens Recommendation 1 Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Bill not be supported. Noted. Recommendation 2 Australian Greens Senators recommend that the government ensure foundational supports be comprehensively defined and implemented in states and territories Noted. Since the passage of the Bill in October 2024, Governments have committed to jointly contribute $4 billion over 5 years to implement the first phase of Foundational Supports, known as 'Thriving Kids'. The National Agreement on Foundational Supports 2026-31 commenced on 2 February 2026 and is available at National Agreement on Foundational Supports | Federal Financial Relations. Recommendation 3 Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Government deliver a formal response to the NDIS Review. Once these actions have been undertaken, the Government can return to the question of amending the NDIS Act but with a commitment to true, authentic co-design with disabled people to achieve change that will meaningfully improve the lives of the many people who rely on the NDIS. Noted. In December 2023 National Cabinet acknowledged the need for reforms to secure the future of the NDIS, ensuring it can continue to provide life-changing support to future generations of Australians with a disability. Governments noted the release of the final report of the Independent NDIS Review, co-led by Professor Bruce Bonyhady AM and Ms Lisa Paul AO PSM. National Cabinet agreed to work together to implement legislative and other changes to the NDIS to improve the experience of participants and restore the original intent of the Scheme to support people with permanent and significant disability, within a broader ecosystem of supports. The Australia Government remains committed to working alongside people with disability on NDIS reforms. _____ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade first report on the Inquiry into Australia's aid program in the Indo-Pacific MAY 2026 Recommendations made in the report Inquiry into Australia's aid program in the Indo-Pacific Committee Recommendations Recommendation 1-22 of the committee report recommendations listed below response. Response: The Government notes the recommendations of the committee report. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. The Government notes that the development budget has been steadily rebuilt since 2022, subsequent to the largest cuts in Australia's history. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government remains committed to a strategic, sustainable and effective development program to support the security, stability and prosperity of our shared region. Recommendation 1 3.75 The Committee strongly recommends that the Australian Government change the name of the 'Aid' program to 'Development Partnerships' (or a similar name such as 'Development Co-operation' or 'Australian Partnerships'), which emphasises the mutual two-way benefits to Australia and recipient nations of our aid program (in terms of social development, trade, defence, security, strategic influence, health, biosecurity, and more), reflects a view of co-operation and partnership instead of a perceived or implied one-way 'paternalism' or 'charity', and would likely encourage greater public support for the program. Recommendation 2 3.77 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide additional funding to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for activities to raise awareness of the benefits of Australian Development Partnerships (aid), in particular via a national and ongoing advertising campaign on television, in newspapers/magazines, online and on social media that sets out: the amount of funding for Development Partnerships in real terms and as a percentage of gross national income; the reasons for and mutual benefits of undertaking Development Partnerships in terms of social development, trade, defence, security, strategic influence, health, biosecurity, and more, noting the change from the use of the word 'aid' to the new 'development partnerships' nomenclature; and the benefits in increasing our support for Development Partnerships. Recommendation 3 4.93 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, within a year, commit to a set timeframe of no more than five years for increasing Australia's funding for Development Partnerships (aid) to at least 0.5 per cent of gross national income, and to a second set timeframe of no more than 10 years for increasing Australia's funding for Development Partnerships (aid) to at least 0.7 per cent of gross national income. Recommendation 4 4.95 The Committee recommends that the Australian Parliament, within a year, introduce a legislated floor of 0.5 per cent of gross national income funding for Development Partnerships (aid), to come into effect immediately upon conclusion of the set timeframe of no more than five years, as recommended in Recommendation 3 when 0.5 per cent is reached. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Australian Parliament subsequently introduce a legislated floor of 0.7 per cent of gross national income at the time Development Partnerships (aid) funding reaches this target under the proposed second set timeframe of no more than 10 years. 0.7 per cent should then remain the legislated floor after this period of time. Recommendation 5 4.97 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in working to reach 0.5 per cent, and then 0.7 per cent, of gross national income for Development Partnerships (aid), supplement the core Development Partnerships funding managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio with funding set aside from other portfolios such as Defence, Health, Education and Agriculture (for example, funding for conflict resolution and governance Development Partnerships programs under the Defence budget, which in turn may prevent future Defence expenditure). In doing so, consideration should be given to setting up Development Partnerships units within (or from) each contributing Department, which would then be managed under the core Development Partnerships structure headquartered under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recommendation 6 4.99 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement further measures to improve geographic targeting of aid at the national and sub-national level of recipient countries. Recommendation 7 5.116 The Committee recommends that the strategic target for aid for trade investments remain at its current level of 20 per cent of Australia's aid budget for now, while the aid budget remains at current funding levels (so as not to take away from other non-aid for trade programs). However, the Committee recommends that with a timeframe set to increase Development Partnerships funding to 0.5 per cent of gross national income (as per Recommendation 3), the aid for trade program target should concurrently gradually increase to 25 per cent of the Development Partnerships budget (but such that non-aid for trade program funding is not impacted). Concurrently, aid for trade investments should be more explicitly linked to the objective of reducing poverty. Recommendation 8 5.122 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently implement the recommendations of Chapter 8 of the Committee's Final Report for the Inquiry into Modern Slavery, issued December 2017, noting the potential for misuse of aid, Australian donations, and Australian volunteerism, plus the potential negative impact on the effectiveness of Australian's aid program, if action is not taken to limit Australian donations and volunteerism to only legitimate orphanages and residential institutions for children. Recommendation 9 5.123 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should implement Recommendation 28 of the Committee's Final Report for the Inquiry into Modern Slavery, issued December 2017, to fund through its Development Partnerships (aid) program further measures to better address the drivers of modern slavery. Recommendation 10 5.127 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government enhance and develop clearer local procurement guidelines and reporting mechanisms—that prioritise purchase of goods and/or services within, in or within the region of, Development Partnerships (aid) recipient countries where possible—for use by entities including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, other Departments working in the Development Partnerships space, recipients of Development Partnerships funding (including contractors), and businesses, contractors, or individuals employed or engaged by Development Partnerships recipients to assist them in the provision of goods and/or services. Recommendation 11 5.128 The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade introduce to their procurement processes, tenders, and contracts, a requirement for recipients/contractors in receipt of Development Partnerships funding to first prioritise procuring locally in the recipient country, where possible (where the goods or services can be provided locally, can be provided at a sufficient quality standard locally, are not excessively more expensive than via procurement elsewhere and/or can be provided within the required project timeframes locally). Recommendation 12 5.129 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government eliminate any remaining forms of tied aid, and informal aid tying, where there are conditions that some or all purchases are made from, or from entities from, the donor country (Australia). Goods or services supplied to and/or in recipient countries should only be supplied from Australia or non-regional entities where the goods or services cannot be provided locally, cannot be provided at a sufficient quality standard locally, are being offered at an excessive cost locally to what can be procured elsewhere and/or cannot be provided within the required project timeframes locally. Recommendation 13 5.130 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government use recipient country procurement systems as the default option, where possible, and invest Development Partnerships funding to support recipient countries to improve their procurement systems and accountability safeguards. Recommendation 14 5.132 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce a Digital Economy Aid Investment Strategy, as recommended by Prospr and Save the Children (noting that local procurement should remain the first priority under this recommendation, as per Recommendations 10-12). Recommendation 15 5.134 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increase funding both in real terms and as a proportion of an increased Development Partnerships (aid) budget to agricultural, food, agribusiness and food security initiatives, including through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), particularly targeted at better enabling private sector partnership opportunities through the Development Partnerships program. In doing so, the Australian Government should look to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Model for private partnerships to assist in creating better and more private sector partnership opportunities, as well as other successful models internationally. Recommendation 16 6.51 The Committee recommends that, within the aid for trade program (noting Recommendation 7) and other Development Partnerships (aid) investments, the Australian Government better prioritise seeking to improve market access for poor and marginalised groups in recipient countries, in particular women and girls, adults and children living with a disability, and disabled women and girls. As noted in Recommendation 7, aid for trade investments should be more explicitly linked to the objective of reducing poverty, in particular for women and girls, those living with a disability and/or other marginalised groups. Recommendation 17 6.52 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide more funding for local-led water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) initiatives to communities most at need, particularly given the impact of a lack of safe drinking water, wash facilities, rest rooms, and sewerage disposal on the advancement and safety of women and girls in particular. Recommendation 18 6.53 The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade work through the Development Partnerships (aid) program to further develop, prioritise and fund community-led localised initiatives proposed and developed by women and girls, women and girls with a disability, people with a disability, and other disadvantaged or marginalised groups within localised areas within each recipient country. Recommendation 19 6.54 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide greater assistance and funding for holistic menstrual health programs, holistic breastfeeding programs, micro-nutrient investments, and nutrition initiatives before, during, and after pregnancy within an increased Development Partnerships (aid) budget, including through the provision of more funding for water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) initiatives to communities most at need (see Recommendation 17). Recommendation 20 6.57 With respect to use of Development Partnerships (aid) to assist people living with a disability in recipient countries, in particular women and girls, the Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: include data on disability-inclusion investment performance by investment priority area in future Performance of Australian Aid reports (as occurred in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 reports); establish a new strategic target that an ambitious percentage of investments, regardless of their objectives, will effectively address disability inclusion in their implementation. This target should be determined according to the latest baseline data available, including the most recent Aid Quality Checks data; integrate disability analysis, including disaggregated data, identification of barriers for women/people with disabilities, and strategies for inclusion and empowerment of women/people with disabilities in investments targeted towards women's empowerment and aid for trade; and in responding to the Office of Development Effectiveness' report, Development for All: Evaluation of Progress Made in Strengthening Disability Inclusion in Australian Aid, implement the agreed recommendations as expediently as possible. Recommendation 21 6.59 The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in the context of increasing Development Partnerships funding (as per Recommendations 3-5): build on its commitment to achieving gender equality globally by developing a stand-alone action plan for adolescent girls, similar to the US Government's 2016 Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls; and set a target that at least 15 per cent of all investments under Development Partnerships with the principal or significant objective of advancing gender equality, identify adolescent girls as the primary beneficiaries by 2030. Recommendation 22 6.60 The Committee recommends that this inquiry be continued in the next Parliament. _____ Australian Government response to the Senate References Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade interim and final reports: Australia's engagement in Afghanistan May 2026 Recommendations made in the report Australia's engagement in Afghanistan Committee Recommendations Final (Recommendation 1-6) and Interim (Recommendation 1-8) committee report recommendations listed below response. Response: The Government notes the recommendations of the committee reports. However, given the passage of time since the reports were tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Australia values its longstanding connection to the people of Afghanistan and the contributions of the growing Australia Afghanistan community. We recognise this is a challenging time for many in the community given the deeply concerning situation in Afghanistan. The Government stands with the people of Afghanistan. Australia does not regard the Taliban as the legitimate representatives of the Afghan people and strongly condemns the Taliban's pervasive disregard for the human rights of the people of Afghanistan—particularly women and girls, and voices of dissent. The Government remains actively engaged on Afghanistan issues and focused on addressing the dire humanitarian and human rights situation in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan continue to suffer one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, with the United Nations estimating almost 22 million Afghan people are in need of humanitarian support in 2026. Since 2021, Australia has committed over $310 million the humanitarian and basic needs assistance to the people of Afghanistan, with a strong focus on women and girls. Australia supports UN partners to deliver priority assistance, including food security and nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene, shelter, health and protection. We have also provided funding to support disaster response, including to earthquakes in Afghanistan in 20221, 2023, and 2025. Australia works with established partners, such as UN agencies, to ensure our support helps those in need, not the Taliban. The Government is taking strong and coordinated action to hold the Taliban to account for its treatment of the Afghan people, particularly the sustained and systematic erasure of women from public life. In December 2025, the Government established a world first autonomous sanctions framework for Afghanistan. The new framework enables Australia to directly impose its own sanctions and travel bans to increase pressure on the Taliban, targeting the oppression of the Afghan people, particularly women and girls, as well as actions that undermine the rule of law and good governance in Afghanistan. On establishing the autonomous sanctions framework for Afghanistan, the Government listed four senior Taliban members for their involvement in the oppression of women and girls and in undermining good governance or the rule of law. This builds on the 140 individuals and entities Australia currently sanctions under the United Nations Security Council's Taliban framework. In September 2024, Australia commenced legal action, together with Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, to hold Afghanistan to account for violations of the human rights of women and girls as enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Australia consistently raises concerns regarding the situation in Afghanistan in national statements delivered at the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly. Final report Recommendation 1 7.29 The committee recognises the tragic situation facing the people of Afghanistan and as the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen, the committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to provide ongoing targeted multi-year funding, including through the United Nation's Humanitarian Response Plan for Afghanistan, which may need to increase in response to the scale of increased need. Recommendation 2 7.30 Given the severity of the crises facing the people of Afghanistan, the committee recommends that the Australian Government utilise the most effective channels for aid funding and distribution, which may include United Nations, World Food Programme and non-government organisation (NGO) channels. Recommendation 3 7.37 The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to liaise with its key allies and United Nations contacts and work together to develop solutions to the ongoing liquidity crisis. Mechanisms should be multi-faceted and flexible and must provide confidence for donors and the financial sector. However, importantly, any approach taken must also emphasise the clear international expectation that the Taliban do not interfere with the provision of aid to the people of Afghanistan. Recommendation 4 7.67 The committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs urgently improve its processes and communication in relation to Afghan visa applicants, including by: urgently sending acknowledgments to all visa applicants from Afghanistan to assist with ongoing processing and communication; publishing more detailed criteria and guidance about how humanitarian visas for the Afghan cohort will be prioritised, as well as expected average timeframes for visa applications to be assessed; ensuring applicants on subclass 449 visas are given sufficient time and resources to lodge their permanent visa applications; and issuing additional subclass 449 visas as necessary to overseas split family members of evacuees in Australia, to ensure family unity is preserved in permanent visa applications. Recommendation 5 7.78 The committee recommends that the Australian Government conduct a review of the Humanitarian Settlement Program's (HSP) structure and funding arrangements to provide greater operational stability for HSP providers and greater flexibility in the way services can be delivered during a crisis or emergency. Recommendation 6 7.82 The committee recommends that the Australian Government enhances comprehensive settlement planning for the ongoing intake of Afghan refugees, in conjunction with the settlement services sector, relevant community groups, and state, territory and local governments. Interim Report Recommendation 1 9.13 The committee recommends that an assessment of Australia's whole-of-government mission in Afghanistan be commissioned and conducted by an appropriate entity, which follows an initial report on the 2001-2014 period which was released in November 2016. Recommendation 2 9.24 The committee recommends that the Australian Government publish, where there are no national security implications, a breakdown of the total cost of Australia's engagement in Afghanistan across each year of its engagement, as well as a breakdown of costs across departments. These figures should also include the costs incurred and estimated ongoing costs associated with services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs supporting veterans who served in Afghanistan. Recommendation 3 9.56 The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission an independent review into the operation of the Afghanistan evacuation effort to ensure that departmental practices and coordination are improved in future. This review should include consideration of: the operation of the Australian Government Plan for the Reception of Australian Citizens and Approved Foreign Nationals Evacuated from Overseas (AUSRECEPLAN) and other relevant crisis management tools during the Afghanistan crisis, and whether amendments to these frameworks are required; protocols for the issuance of short-term humanitarian visas during crisis situations; the need for increased surge capacity staffing in relevant departments to assist in communications and visa processing during crisis situations; and the development of formalised protocols for incorporating relevant stakeholder groups into government planning and evacuation processes (for example, legal and advocacy groups working with affected groups and individuals in country). Recommendation 4 9.63 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and implement more accurate measures and methodologies for assessing and keeping track of the number of Australian citizens, permanent residents, visa holders and visa applicants at risk during crisis situations overseas. Recommendation 5 9.89 The committee recommends that the Australian Government extend all available effort to finalising certifications and visa applications for Afghan Locally Engaged Employees (LEE) and their families as quickly as possible, and extending assistance to those still eligible in Afghanistan to make their way to Australia. 9.90 The committee further recommends that the Australian Government commission a full and thorough review of the operation of the Afghan LEE program to analyse and appropriately address concerns raised in evidence to the committee and ensure that programs of this nature are improved. Recommendation 6 9.102 The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with coalition partners and international organisations to support the resettlement of Afghan nationals globally, with Australia making a contribution of places within the humanitarian, family, skilled and other permanent visa categories to help resettle those Afghan nationals displaced by the crisis. Recommendation 7 9.106 The committee recommends that, in light of the changed security circumstances in Afghanistan, the Australian Government review its policies for pathways to permanent protection visas for Afghan asylum seekers and refugees currently in Australia, and prioritise family reunification when processing humanitarian visa claims from Afghan nationals. Recommendation 8 9.120 The committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other Australian agencies providing development assistance foster further engagement with local NGOs and diaspora groups which can assist with the provision of aid to the local level and most vulnerable. _____ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works report: National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project April 2026 Overview The Australian Government notes the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (the Committee) into National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project (Report 7/2023). The Committee presented a total of three recommendations and the Australian Government's response to them is detailed below. The Australian Government is committed to delivery of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge Renewal Project. Due to its remarkable engineering design, it has not undergone any significant upgrades for sixty years. However, the time for these upgrades has come. Once work is complete the bridge will be strengthened to respond to the growing population, increased traffic and new vehicles and provide better access for active travellers across, to and from the bridge. The Australian Government will continue to work closely with the ACT Government to coordinate construction programs, disruptions and communication activities wherever possible across the many projects underway in and around the city area. The Australian Government recognises these works are going to be disruptive for the community and visitors to the National Capital and are committed to completing works as efficiently and safely as possible. Australian Government response The Australian Government's response to National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project (Report 7/2023) is set out in detail below. Recommendation 1: 2.39 The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority contact Local and Federal Members of Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory that may be affected by the proposed works to offer a project briefing and report on their progress to the Committee. The Government supports this recommendation. In the lead-up to construction commencing, briefings were offered to all ACT Federal Members of Parliament and ACT Government Ministers and MLAs including Chief Minister Andrew Barr, Minister for Transport Chris Steel, then ACT Liberal leader Leanne Castley, ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury, and Independent MLAs Thomas Emerson and Fiona Carrick. Briefings were accepted and held with all with exception to ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury. Recommendation 2: 2.40 The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority report back to the Public Works Committee with six monthly written updates until the completion of the works. The Government supports this recommendation. The latest six monthly written update was provided following the commencement of construction and was tabled with the Committee at their meeting on 5 February 2026. The next report will be provided in August 2026 and will continue being provided until the completion of the works. Recommendation 3: 2.42 The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge Renewal Project. The Government supports this recommendation. Dr Andrew Leigh, Member for Fenner, spoke in the House of Representatives on 15 November 2023 following the publication of the Committee's report and moved: "That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project." House of Representatives Hansard, 15 November 2023, Public Works Joint Committee—Approval of Work, Dr Andrew Leigh MP, "National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project". This was agreed to. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 82 Report 82 15:59 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 [Provisions] together with accompanying documents. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 82 Report 82 16:01 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report Review of the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I want to make it clear to the Senate that the review was conducted under section 114A.9 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, following the making of the regulations in March this year specifying Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group. It was the first use of the framework for prohibited hate groups, which was established by the parliament earlier this year, as senators will remember. The committee approached this task with the gravity it demanded. We rigorously scrutinised the material before us and we included a detailed statement of reasons that the government provided. We heard from a wide range of stakeholders as part of our inquiry, and the committee also convened an in camera hearing to test the evidence and satisfy ourselves that the legislative criteria that have been set had been met and that the process was sound. That's very important because we've got to give the Australian people the confidence that this parliament is doing its job. The conclusion from the committee is absolutely clear. Hizb ut-Tahrir meets the legislative criteria for listing as a prohibited hate group, and the listing has been made properly. The evidence is unambiguous. This organisation has repeatedly praised attacks that would constitute hate crimes if committed on Australian soil. It promotes hatred, it normalises violence and it poses a direct threat to the safety and social cohesion of our community. The committee is satisfied that the listing is not only justified but necessary to protect Australians from harm. The days of organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir opening freely in this country are over. We will not allow hate to be dressed up as ideology. Australia draws a very firm line. Groups that incite hatred, radicalise individuals and endanger lives have no place here. The PJCIS supports wholeheartedly the listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code and finds absolutely no reason to disallow this legislative instrument. I commend the report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Consideration 83 COMMITTEES 83 COMMITTEES Consideration 83 Economics References Committee 83 Report 83 16:08 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia This is a report from the Economics Reference Committee into the funding and resourcing for the CSIRO. There was a boost in the budget—a one-off boost for the CSIRO which I'm sure is very welcome for the scientists of CSIRO, but it is a long way short of what this significant Australian institution needs, and it is not going stop, we have heard, with a cut of 350 full-time roles in this very significant body. This cut, which is going to go ahead despite that extra money, includes up to 150 positions in the environment research unit at a time when around our country we know the environment crisis is increasing daily in significance and in impact, and we need every piece of science we can find to deal with that issue. What we have instead is the cutting of 150 positions in that important research unit. It's a budget that similarly cut $4 billion from the climate transition and allocated $46 billion to fossil fuel subsidies. This is spending that is going in the wrong direction for environmental protection and climate action. At the same time, it is failing to invest in our scientists. These are priorities that Labor has got all wrong. I take note of other reports that I will come to at the end of my comments. CSIRO has been responsible in our country, over many decades, for such important research. Its funding has declined from 0.16 per cent of GDP in 1978-79 to just 0.03 per cent in 2024-25. It's now worth approximately 193 million in real dollars, which represents a decline of over 17 per cent in 46 years. Under Labor, the funding for CSIRO has only got worse in real terms. We have had—as reports made to the inquiry and our comments on its outcomes show—a systematic erosion of our scientific capability, chronic underinvestment and the loss of more than 800 jobs, with now another 350 full-time-equivalent roles to go. I know a lot of young scientists. They are passionate about their work. They don't chase dollars in big corporations. They are giving their time—their working lives—to researching the problems that they know are critical to the survival and health of our nation. We don't give them big salaries. We don't give them long careers. In fact, in many cases, they go from a six-month contract to a one-month contract after spending decades of their lives getting their qualifications. They put themselves through the torture of a PhD—torture I've personally shared. It's not easily done. They give an enormous amount, building the knowledge and working in incredible teams, to approach problems which we know are very, very serious for our country, including climate change and the changes in agriculture and production that we need for a future that's sustainable. There are so many issues that they are at the cutting edge of. Where are the scientists that will be available to assist us in dealing with the challenges of AI that are coming so fast down the pipe towards us? We have so little research about what AI will do to the practice of science, to the careers of scientists and to the critical questions that are facing our country. If you read the enormous amount of information that's coming out about the ways in which AI is going to transform our societies and significantly change the labour market, it is a terrifying prospect. We are seeing the concentration of power in a small number of very large 'big bro' companies who are controlling the science and controlling the way it's used. We need to see a properly funded scientific capability in this country to deal with these problems. What we have at present is a CSIRO that is limping from one-off fixes inadequate to the decline in real resources. It is a really shameful way to treat these hardworking, passionate scientists who give their lives to this work and want to see the solutions. We need to face up to these challenges and to fund our science. Instead, what we're doing is forcing our scientists to act like fake consultants. They have to go out and generate short projects that bring in a bit of cash and that meet a short-term consulting kind of issue and not the basic science questions that are challenging so many important parts of our society and our economy. Turning our CSIRO scientists into consultants is just a shocking waste of their capabilities. They have to chase money month to month to sustain life-saving and important research that is critical to our ongoing health. Shame on Labor for not indexing their funding and properly pitching their funding and relating it to GDP in an ongoing way. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 84 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Acknowledgement 84 16:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 I welcome His Excellency the Ambassador of Indonesia and I wish him a very warm welcome to the Australian Senate on behalf of all senators. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 84 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security 84 16:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I table the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security and I move: That the Senate take note of the document. It is indeed a privilege to today speak on the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security, known as the Jakarta treaty 2026. Like the President, I also acknowledge the presence of His Excellency Dr Siswo Pramono, Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia. Selamat sore—you are always welcome in the Australian parliament. At a time of uncertainty, instability and profound change, Australia's future is anchored in our region because we share a region and we share a future. That is why the Albanese government has worked so hard to rebuild close and trusted relationships with the Pacific and South-East Asia since our election in May 2022. And there is no relationship more important for Australia than Indonesia. Bound together as neighbours—a sentiment celebrated by the Prime Minister on his first bilateral visit three years ago. Then, the Prime Minister told the audience about the sea routes and trade between the people of Makassar and the First Nations people of northern Australia. The peoples of our lands have understood for centuries the value of our cooperation. The metal axes of Indonesian fishermen were used by the Yolngu people in Arnhem Land to build their canoes, and the art of the Yolngu people depicts the sails of Makassan vessels.  Even today, Yolngu languages still retain Indonesian words like 'rupiah', meaning money. Our bonds were indelibly strengthened by Australia's support for Indonesia's independence in the aftermath of World War II. As President Prabowo said when he visited parliament in 2024, 'Indonesia always remembers that Australia was one of the first, if not the first, country to support its struggle for independence.' Just seven weeks after Indonesia proclaimed independence on 17 August 1945, our country sent a diplomatic mission to meet its inaugural president, Bapak Soekarno. Our nation made the choice to stand with the nationalist leaders and to stand with the Indonesian people. We referred the Netherlands to the UN Security Council for its military assault, arguing it was a 'threat to peace' under article 39 of the UN Charter. We were the first country to ever invoke article 39 of the UN Charter. Bapak Soekarno chose Australia as Indonesia's representative on the Committee of Good Offices, established by the Security Council—a great and singular honour for our country. And Australian military observers were sent as part of the good offices committee's work, and they were the first UN peacekeepers. Support for Indonesia's cause came not just from our government but also from the Australian public. At the same time as President Prabowo's father, Bapak Sumitro, worked tirelessly to rally international opposition to the Dutch blockade of Indonesia, Australian maritime unions imposed boycotts of Dutch ships loaded with military arms and personnel and prevented them from returning to Indonesia. On 27 December 1949, when the Dutch finally and formally ceded sovereign control, our country recognised Indonesia's independent statehood immediately. This was an Australian decision, driven by Australian interests in forging closer ties with our largest neighbour. As the Prime Minister has remarked, 'From the very beginning, ours has been a partnership of shared purpose.' Today, that shared purpose is in ensuring the stability, security and prosperity of our nations and of our region. It is why our two countries share deep trust and an unbreakable bond as neighbours, partners and friends. The Prime Minister's first bilateral visits, after being elected in 2022 and 2025, were both to Indonesia. And it is why there have been, since this government took office, over 65 two-way ministerial visits between our two countries, including the seven visits I have undertaken as foreign minister. The treaty on common security that I have now tabled is the latest chapter in the historic story of our two nations—taking our cooperation to a higher level and acting together to secure peace and stability for our nations and for the region. It is the biggest step in the strengthening of our partnership since the Soeharto-Keating agreement on maintaining security. It builds on the 2006 Lombok treaty and its unreserved respect for Indonesian territorial integrity and sovereignty, and on the treaty-level defence cooperation agreement, signed in 2024 by President Prabowo as then defence minister and Deputy Prime Minister Marles. Our relationship in many ways has been a story of helping each other as neighbours. In 2004, when the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami took more than 170,000 lives in Indonesia alone, Australia was among the first nations to offer humanitarian assistance. In 2020, when bushfires ravaged our east coast, Indonesia came to our aid deploying dozens of personnel to New South Wales. And when terror has struck our nations, we have worked together and resolved to defeat its cold brutality—side by side, in unity, friendship and cooperation. The Jakarta treaty commits us to consult at leader and ministerial level on matters affecting our common security. It also commits us to consult each other in the case of adverse challenges, and to consider measures we might take individually or jointly to respond to those challenges. It brings us even closer together as neighbours and strengthens the foundations of our cooperation. It of course was a personal initiative of the Prime Minister and President Prabowo, and is a sign of the deep trust and close friendship between our leaders and governments. I also want to acknowledge my counterpart and friend—Foreign Minister Sugiono—for his vision, drive and cooperation for achieving this treaty. Terima kasih, Pak Sugi. And I want to recognise the tireless efforts of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials in delivering on our mandate. When President Prabowo visited Australia last November, he referred to an Indonesian proverb: 'Our relatives will remain far away, but our neighbours are the closest. And only good neighbours will help each other.' That is exactly the sentiment that the treaty captures—and it is already demonstrating its importance. Last month, we sought to shore up key supply chains impacted by the Middle East crisis, and it was Indonesia who offered quickly 250,000 tonnes of additional agricultural-grade urea for Australian farmers, supporting Australia's economic resilience and allowing Australian exporters to continue supplying Indonesia with food and other agricultural products—a recognition that the stability of one makes both of us stronger. In this week's budget we are making further investments in the treaty's implementation, including cooperation in priority areas like maritime, cyber and economic security for the shared benefit of Australians and Indonesians. We are creating a new leadership dialogue to bring together decision-makers from both our countries and from across the private and public sectors to foster connections. And we are increasing funding to the Australia-Indonesia Institute to deliver new, high-impact programs to increase Indonesian language and country expertise in Australia. Because this government understands that it is in our country's interest to engage more consistently and more deeply with our neighbours. As comprehensive strategic partners—Australia and Indonesia are committed to working together across every field, from trade and investment, to defence and security, to strengthening the ties between our people. And our intent is to take our partnership and friendship even further—now we do so as treaty partners—to help each other in times of need, to deepen understanding, to reinforce each other's security and prosperity. The Jakarta treaty is our expression of a commitment to each other, to each other's common security, and to that of the region we share. It is a commitment that's always valuable, even more so in times which are uncertain. It embodies the spirit of cooperation, respect and friendship that lies at the heart of the relationship between our peoples and governments. I commend the Jakarta treaty 2026 to the Senate for consideration. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 86 Report 86 16:24 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want to add my comments to the comments of Senator Pocock on the funding and resourcing of the CSIRO. Both of us attended the CSIRO inquiries. Indeed, we initiated this inquiry with the other Senator Pocock. I want to give a shout-out to all the CSIRO employees around the country today and let them know that their work is valued and that there are senators in this place that have got their backs. I also want to add to the record that nearly 10 years ago I chaired a select committee into the Morrison government's plans or attempts to cut 350 jobs in the oceans and atmosphere division at the CSIRO. At the time, we were very alarmed about the impact this would have on our capability to do climate and oceans research, not just in Australia but in our region. A number of scientists, many of whom are based in Tasmania where I live and are such an important part of our community, were facing losing their jobs and of course the funding for their projects. I chaired that inquiry but the co-chair was Senator Kim Carr from the Labor Party, as well as a number of Labor senators. We fought really hard to overturn those cuts to the CSIRO. That was nearly 10 years ago. In fact, at the time, to his credit, Minister Hunt actually put more money into the CSIRO, set up a separate climate division and ring-fenced funding for 10 years into the specific climate division, just as a display of commitment to climate research. Well, I didn't think I would see in my time in the Senate the Labor Party doing the same thing, looking to cut jobs at the CSIRO. I was very interested as to where the majority of these job cuts would fall and, lo and behold, they are in the environment and climate research units, exactly the same place where there were attempts to cut jobs nearly 10 years ago. There is a couple of reasons for this which were explored in this inquiry and are outlined in this report that I'm taking note of today. One of the reasons is this is essentially public-good science. These scientists work on collaborative projects around the world. They don't necessarily bring in commercial income but, over the years, have increasingly had pressure put on them to go out there and find what they call external revenue sources. Some of those may be other government bodies but many of them are commercial bodies. It is difficult for these scientists to do this public-good science when there is constant pressure to do deep dives and come up with income. One of the professors described it to us as the CSIRO feels like it has been turned into a commercial consulting enterprise, where scientists working in the environment and science unit have to justify their time and work and careers. Of course, many of them have studied for a long time to get to this point. These scientists don't earn a lot of money—it is a calling for them—and they do critical work across all fields of scientific research but they are being told they are not valued unless they are bringing in external revenue. I wanted to make this really clear: this government—every government—should invest in public-good science, and, you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say, especially in climate science and ocean science. The work that these climate and ocean scientists do is critical to understanding the changes we're seeing in our physical world. It is critical for our understanding of the weather. The services that these scientists provide are being used by farmers all around the country to help them plan their cropping for the year. This work is absolutely critical to adapting and mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, and it is very shortsighted for the CSIRO to be cutting jobs from these divisions because it is easy to do so. We will be watching where these job cuts fall very closely in the weeks and months to come. In this report, Senate Barbara Pocock and I recommended that full funding be restored to the CSIRO, not just to solve its capital issues but we actually want see an increased appropriation to science in this country, especially a commitment to public-good science—science that we all benefit from, that shouldn't be having to face commercial revenue to justify its existence. It is the most critical time in history for us to be increasing our capability in climate science, and the Greens recommended that as part of one of the key recommendations where we dissented from the government in this report. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 87 Report 87 16:29 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into human rights and democracy in Myanmar, set against the reality on the ground five years after the 2021 Myanmar coup. That unlawful seizure of power dismantled a democratically elected government; detained leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi; and triggered what is now a nationwide armed conflict. The key conclusion of this inquiry is clear: this is not a crisis that is resolving; it is a crisis that is evolving and worsening. The recommendations reflect this harsh reality. First, on the matter of elections and legitimacy, the military regime is attempting to create the appearance of political normalisation, but, of course, we know there is no free media and no political freedom, there are thousands of political prisoners and large parts of the country remain in active conflict. Under these conditions, no election can be considered free, fair or inclusive. Australia must not recognise any military-controlled election and must align with ASEAN and like-minded partners to avoid legitimising the regime. On the matter of engagement with democratic actors, the report notes that, since the coup, an alternative democratic framework has emerged through the National Unity Government and the CRPH. The inquiry highlights the importance of structured engagement with these important and legitimate actors because, if we are to be serious about a civilian-led transition, humanitarian support alone will not be enough. Engagement must be formalised, structured and sustained. On the matter of human rights and political conditions, the report notes that political leaders remain detained, violence against civilians continues and reports of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence and air strikes are systemic and growing. The recommendation to increase coordinated diplomatic pressure, including for the release of political prisoners and the cessation of attacks on civilians, is essential. Without these baseline conditions, there can be no credible political process. On the matter of humanitarian assistance, the report notes that Australia's approach, delivering aid through international organisations and civil society rather than the regime, is consistent, must be maintained and must be strengthened. But the scale of the crisis demands more. Millions have been displaced and access remains restricted. The inquiry calls for expanded, flexible and conflict-sensitive humanitarian support, particularly in areas outside military control. On the matter of sanctions and accountability, the report notes that Australia has imposed targeted sanctions but enforcement gaps remain and are increasingly obvious. The continued importation of aviation fuel used in air strikes against civilians shows that the regime retains access to critical resources used against civilians. The recommendation here is clear: strengthen sanctions and coordinate more closely with partners to close these gaps. Sanctions must raise the cost of violence without increasing the burden on civilians. At the same time, accountability must remain central through support for international mechanisms and evidence preservation. On the matter of regional security, perhaps the most important and emerging issue, Myanmar's crisis should be considered no longer contained within its borders. We are seeing refugee flows across South-East Asia along with the expansion of trafficking in narcotics and illicit finance. This is now a regional security issue, and the inquiry recommends stronger law enforcement and financial intelligence cooperation with regional partners. On the matter of protection pathways, which are especially important to the Burmese diaspora in Australia, the inquiry also identifies the need to strengthen pathways for those at risk. Displacement is growing, and policy settings must reflect that reality. On the importance of civic space and information, the report notes that the crackdown on media and civil society has been severe, yet independent journalism, civil society organisations and diaspora networks remain essential to accountability. The inquiry recommends stronger support for these actors, including digital safety and media resilience. In conclusion, the inquiry provides a clear and coherent framework, and Australia's current policy is broadly aligned. But, five years on, the situation in Myanmar remains grave. What is required now is implementation, stronger coordination, more effective enforcement, deeper engagement with democratic actors and a sustained regional focus. Because, while Myanmar's future will ultimately be determined by its people, Australia has a role in ensuring that its future remains grounded in human rights, accountability and democratic legitimacy. Taxation of Gas Resources Select Committee 88 Report 88 16:35 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Australians are being ripped off. That is the unavoidable conclusion of the Greens-led Senate inquiry into the taxation of Australia's gas resources, chaired by my colleague, Senator Steph Hodgins-May. The evidence before the inquiry was clear. Australia's gas resources belong to the Australian people. Whether they sit beneath the seabed or under our land, they are finite public resources, and Australians deserve a fair return when they are extracted and exported. Yet, under successive Liberal and Labor governments, some of the biggest multinational corporations on earth have been able to take that gas, export it and make eye-watering profits from it, returning far too little to the people who actually own it. That is the great Australian gas tax rip-off. The petroleum resource rent tax was supposed to make sure that Australians received a fair return from offshore gas, but it has failed. The inquiry heard that the PRRT is structurally broken. It's riddled with generous deductions and has indefinite carry-forward losses and accounting tricks that allow massive gas projects to avoid paying what any ordinary Australian would understand to be their fair share. Australia is one of the largest LNG exporters in the world, but the Australian people are not seeing the benefit. The inquiry heard evidence that gas companies have made around $112 billion in windfall profits since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They heard evidence that Australia has forfeited tens of billions of dollars in revenue because our tax settings have failed to capture those windfall profits. While gas corporations have been cashing in on illegal wars, Australians have been told that there's no money for the things that they desperately need. Renters are being priced out of their homes. University students are skipping meals and working punishing hours just to stay enrolled. Older people are waiting months and years for the care that they need to shower safely, eat properly and remain in their own homes. Families are cutting back on essentials. People on income support are being told again and again that there is no money to lift them out of poverty. Then this government comes into this place and says that it has to make difficult decisions. Here's a difficult decision the government refused to make: tax big gas corporations. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports could have raised around $17 billion a year. That is money that could have funded dental into Medicare. It could have fully funded our public schools now, not in 2034. It could build public housing. It could support disabled people instead of kicking them off the NDIS. It could help households electrify, bring down their bills and get off gas for good. It could help regional communities build the industries and jobs of the future. Regional communities deserve more than being used as human shields by the gas lobby. Whenever anyone suggests that gas corporations should pay more tax, the industry suddenly discovers its deep concern for workers and regional communities. But where is that concern when corporations are exporting our resources for massive profits while local households and manufacturers pay international prices for gas? Where is that concern when communities are left with the boom-bust cycle—which people in Gladstone know all too well—a lack of critical services, the climate risk and the industrial pollution? There is no serious moral case for cutting services while giving gas corporations a free ride. There is no serious economic case for making students, renters and workers pay more while multinational gas exporters pay less than they should. We need to introduce a tax on gas. This government had the chance in this budget to do the right thing and get the Australian people their fair share, and they squibbed it. The community wants a tax on our gas exports, and the Greens are going to continue working with advocates and the community to make that a reality. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Education and Employment References Committee 88 16:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I will comment on the report Quality and safety of Australia's early childhood education and care system. Australian families are struggling with high mortgages, cost-of-living pressures and the enormous challenges and joys of raising young children. I am not sure what's worse, the gaslighting or the lying. Families are making tough decisions when they decide to start a family: who takes time off work and for how long, when to return to work, how to manage the family budget, how to stretch financial and family support to stay at home as long as possible, how to deal with leaving your young child in the care of strangers while trying to continue to breastfeed. They are doing the very best they can, often under enormous financial pressure with disjointed and sporadic support. In conversations I've had with young mothers, a common refrain is: what is this all for? Looking at this week's budget is depressing if you were looking for more choice for families. The budget statement for women says caring is important but the real denominator in a federal budget of priority is the money. There is no money. There is no consideration of income splitting. There is no choice in childcare support for families desperate for this type of initiative. An effective family policy agenda requires structural reform that recognises children as a public good, caregiving as productive work, families as economic units and housing as social infrastructure. This budget has failed Australian families on these measures, but what has made it worse is the Minister for Women has continued to purport the lie that children are better off in day care than with their own parents. She said the published evidence is the sooner you get a child into care, the better prepared they are for school. When questioned on the veracity of that, she doubled down and said the evidence is pretty clear. That follows on from equally ridiculous comments from the health minister, who scoffed that grandparents couldn't look after their grandchildren better than someone in long-day care. I think it's no wonder young families feel left behind, because it's not true. There is a mountain of evidence that from birth to three years old, that critical first thousand days, the child's time is much better spent with the primary carer. The health minister and the finance minister's provocative statements have got a lot of reaction from groups like For Parents, Kids in Harmony, Nanny Granny, Childcare Choice and the Future Care Project. The reactions are raw and real. Hundreds of individuals also expressed their outrage. Labor has to stop gaslighting young families, and mothers in particular, because the evidence against the minister's statements is clear. Child development specialists at the United Nations say the best thing for a child is to stay at home as long as possible. Psychoanalyst Erica Komisar's research shows that infants separated for long periods from primary caregivers elevates the stress hormone, leading to higher rates of anxiety and depression later in childhood. Parents who have been campaigning for greater choice and support for families have said that the comments were harmful, tone-deaf and insulting. Virginia Tapscott summed up the way that many mothers feel but are too afraid to say aloud, 'I don't want to see my kids any less than I already do.' The idea that a grandmother or a grandfather who raised their own kids is somehow unqualified to be a caregiver is also preposterous, but that's literally what this Labor government thinks. Your budget confirms your bias. The lived experience and the actual preferences of parents are inconvenient truths to those who've built a political agenda around universal child care, and the response to any critique is to seek to silence it and shut it down as 'antifeminist'. Institutional care is not the only viable option; it's simply Labor's preferred option, and parents need us to do better. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 89 Report 89 16:45 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on democracy and human rights in Myanmar. I want to reflect on the significance of this particular report for me. For me, one of the huge motivations to get into politics was that I did my PhD research with refugees from Myanmar, from Burma, who were being resettled from the Thai-Burma border to Australia. I really wanted to be able to give them a voice, and the very first hearing I chaired on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was for this particular inquiry into the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. This is something that has been particularly special and significant to me but also the people before me in being able to give them a voice. I commend the people who also worked hard on this hearing and on this report. It's an excellent report. It has excellent recommendations for supporting the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. The very first thing we did in this report was establish that the legitimacy of the 2025-26 general election in Myanmar—it was an absolute sham. It has been five years since the coup. They had the three-phase election over a few months. They excluded whole townships. They killed people. They forced people to vote. They didn't get a legitimate election out of that, and yet the so-called government there is trying to claim a victory on that. We call on the Australian government to stand up and call this a sham election. It is not a legitimate government. In my view, it never really has been. In its constitution, 75 per cent of the seats are reserved for the military in that parliament. Until that constitution is changed—I don't think it's a real government at all. We also looked into the current state of human rights in Myanmar. They are worsening. They are worsening in a very bad way. There is violence against the civilians. There are continued air strikes, artillery attacks and whole villages burned down. There are no services. There is no safety for the good people of Myanmar. There is torture and there are mass arrests even after these so-called elections. The air strikes continue against vulnerable families on the ground. We call on the government to help the good people of Myanmar by imposing harder, faster sanctions on the sources of money that continue to feed this evil war and on the central banks that the military, the Tatmadaw, are getting their funds through. The experts have said that it's not going to affect the people on the ground because the services don't exist for them anyway. We call for sanctions on the jet fuel to disrupt the supply chains so we can stop those evil air strikes on the good people of Myanmar. We call on the Australian government to help strengthen civil society. It's a really important way to be able to get aid into the country and into the refugee camps. It's really difficult to do that at the moment, but it is absolutely needed, especially with the withdrawal of USAID. We have tens of thousands of good new Australians, people from Burma, or Myanmar, living here in Australia helping the good folk back at home. I just want to thank everybody who participated in this hearing and everybody who I have grown to know over the past 15 years or so. Every weekend these people go out and they raise money for the people back at home, trying to get money to send there. They are giving everything out of their own pockets and their own time to help everyone back at home. I just want to thank everybody for all the beautiful work that they do to try to support the good people of Burma. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 90 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 90 COMMITTEES 90 COMMITTEES Consideration 90 DOCUMENTS 90 DOCUMENTS Tabling 90 16:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table the following documents: Australia's 2026 National Defence Strategy speech to the National Press Club, the 2026 Integrated Investment Program and the 2026 National Defence Strategy. Order for the Production of Documents 90 16:52 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents related to an order of the Senate for the production of documents concerning the Housing Australia Future Fund. MOTIONS 90 MOTIONS Budget 90 16:52 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the Budget is one of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards, fewer homes and more division, (ii) the Prime Minister and the Treasurer now own the highest taxing government in Australia's history, (iii) Labor has locked Australia into a decade of deficits worth $150 billion, gross debt of $1.25 trillion and interest payments of more than $42 billion a year, or about $80,000 a minute, (iv) Australians face almost $50 billion in higher taxes, including $15 billion in higher personal income taxes, (v) spending remains at its highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic, (vi) inflation is forecast to hit 5%, keeping interest rates higher for longer and leaving Australians with lower real wages and living standards, (vii) Labor's housing taxes will mean 35,000 fewer homes, higher rents and less investment, and (viii) Labor has again blown its immigration targets, bringing in nearly 2 million migrants over two terms and overshooting by another 90,000 over the next two years; and (b) condemns the Government for making Australians pay more, borrow more and accept less. This week the Labor government have handed down their fifth budget. After five budgets, Australians are entitled to ask one simple question: are they better off, more secure and more confident about the future than they were when this government took office? For too many households, I suspect that answer is plainly no. This budget follows Labor's familiar pattern—more spending, more promises and more pressure on Australians who are already doing it tough. It does not lift living standards, it does not build confidence and it does not leave Australians feeling more secure about what comes next. I think a good budget should do three things. It should level with the Australian people and be clear and honest about the circumstances that the government find itself in and that our economy finds itself in, it should reward effort and it should make it easier for the next generation to buy a home, raise a family and get ahead. On every one of those tests, this budget falls short. One of the clearest tests of any government is whether it keeps its faith with the people who elected it. Before the election, Australians heard a great deal about trust, integrity and keeping commitments. Indeed, in the last two elections, Australians have heard a great deal about those three things from this Labor government. Australians were told that promises made would be promises kept. They were told, 'My word is my bond.' I believe that, when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them. They were told that Labor was the party of homeownership. They are not my words. Those are the Prime Minister's words. Everyone has heard them all many, many times. But the budget handed down this week shows a government willing to change its position when it suits, hoping that Australians won't notice or will plainly accept it. Given the reaction that we've seen to the budget this week, I think it is pretty clear that this government has not got its wish. Australians realise that they have been misled. That is why this budget reads as a budget of broken promises. It speaks the language of aspiration and homeownership—and we saw this time and again, particularly from the Treasurer in the lead-up to this budget—but it has delivered the exact opposite. Housing is where that betrayal is felt most sharply. I know that, for some time, young Australians have been concerned about their ability to access housing. They were told by this government that buying their first home shouldn't feel impossible. But, because of the changes in the budget this week, for many young Australians, buying their own home now does feel impossible. Young Australians have done what we ask of them. They work hard. They save where they can. But rents are higher, mortgage pressure is higher and homeownership feels further away every year under this government. This government talks constantly about affordability, yet it is making investment less certain and it's making new housing supply harder to deliver and it's taking longer to deliver. I've lost count of how many times I have said this in the lead-up to this Labor budget being handed down: you do not solve a housing shortage by making it harder to build; you do not solve a housing shortage by taxing new houses. The budget papers clearly show what we already knew—that Labor's housing taxes will mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built, rents will be higher and there will be less investment in the housing market. Indeed, the only reason that any new houses will be built—again, it's in black and white in the budget—is the government's infrastructure fund, which they borrowed from the coalition's 2025 election policy. Australians can see the pressures very plainly. Demand keeps rising, housing supply is constrained, rents keep climbing—again, more so because of what is in this budget—and more young people are going to conclude that the system no longer works for them. This will mean more competition for too few homes, more pressure on rents and more young Australians concluding that the system isn't working for them. This matters because Australians save and invest for one reason above all: to build security and get ahead. That is an instinct that should be encouraged, not treated with suspicion or blocked by taxes. Older generations could reasonably expect that effort would lead to security, but younger Australians are being asked to accept less opportunity, less certainty and a steeper climb, whether it's in regard to housing or other investments. That is why consistency matters. If a government campaigns on certainty and governs by reversal, it will erode people's trust, and people's confidence will go with it. I suspect this government will find out very soon just how much people's trust in them has been eroded by the broken promises that we saw in the budget this week. That is why Australians are questioning not only this government's priorities—and it's fair enough that they should question those—but also its word. The major problem with this budget is pretty straightforward. The Labor government cannot control its spending—another thing I've lost count of how many times I've said since I have been shadow finance minister. Governments need to choose between what is necessary and what is desirable and what is merely politically convenient. They're hard decisions. I'm not going to stand here and pretend that they aren't. But government is elected to make those hard decisions. Too often this government is choosing the third of those options; it chooses what is politically convenient as opposed to what is necessary. Every time the government reach for more spending first, they say they will achieve discipline later if they achieve it at all. This results in Australians carrying more debt without any confidence that the country is becoming stronger or more productive in return. We read in the budget papers this week that the government's trillion-dollar debt bomb will grow to $1.25 trillion. It was written in the budget in black and white. That means Australians are paying $80,000 a minute in interest on that debt bomb. That is real. Every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar that cannot be used to ease pressure on families, strengthen government services or create room for real tax relief. And as I've said many times, the heaviest burden for all this will fall on Australians of my generation and younger. They are the ones who will inherit the bill for decisions they did not make and will be left paying higher taxes to pay off that debt, unless government can get its spending under control. At a time when households have already endured years of cost-of-living pressures, the case for budget restraint should be obvious. Indeed, I and my colleagues have been making that case for months. Yet this Labor government continues to expand spending as though there are no long-term consequences to these decisions. But Australians understand that, and they see through it. When government spending runs too high for too long, families feel it in their bills, in their mortgages and in the sense that no matter how hard they work they are not getting ahead. We know this government was fuelling inflation with government spending that was at historic highs well before the crisis in the Middle East that has resulted in higher fuel prices on our own shores. As I said, good budget management is about discipline and growth and about ensuring that the next generation is not left with a weaker economy and a tax burden. Yet that is what the budget this week is framing up for the future for all Australians. We hear a lot from this government about intergenerational fairness. I think intergenerational fairness means recognising that today's fiscal choices shape tomorrow's opportunities. On that test, this is a budget that pushes costs forward and tells younger Australians they will have to pay for them later. That is not a prudent government. This government's ambition will come with a long-term price, and they have shown no desire to try and bring that price down. Another issue is this government's migration policy, which, frankly, has not been matched with capacity in local infrastructure. Australia as a country has been strengthened by migration. People who come here work hard, contribute and become part of our national story. These people have helped build the country we are all so proud of. But a serious migration program must be matched by serious planning. That means housing. It means transport, schools, hospitals and local infrastructure. I recognise that not all of that is the responsibility of federal government, but a big part of it is the responsibility of the federal government. When that planning from federal government is missing, pressure builds everywhere at once. Australians can see those pressures right now in increased rents, congestion through our cities, stretched services, and the growing difficulty of living close to where they work and raise their children. All Australians are asking for is a competent government that aligns population growth with housing supply and infrastructure delivery. When that alignment is missing, confidence falls and people start to think the system is drifting rather than being governed and working in their favour. We know this Labor government cannot match migration with homes and infrastructure, so it cannot credibly claim that it has this challenge under control. This government is not building enough homes, by their own budget's admission, and they have increased migration to a point where it is clearly not keeping up with the demands in infrastructure that we see across the country. Their own budget shows, despite the fact that they claim to have migration under control, that there will be more than two million migrants in two terms of this government. Where are they going to live? Where are Australians going to live? These are fair questions that I know many Australians are asking this week. As I've said, this budget leaves Australians with less confidence, less capacity and less reason to believe that this government has a serious plan, because this budget didn't present a serious plan. This budget has asked households which are already under strain to accept higher costs, weaker incentives and a more uncertain future. Living standards matter. Economic security matters. It matters to me, and it matters to so many of my colleagues, that younger Australians know that effort in this country can still lead to a good life, but that is not a sense that young Australians are getting from this government right now, particularly not given the budget that they've handed down this week. This budget does not meet any of those tests. Australia deserves better than a government that spends too much, breaks its word and cannot match growth with capacity, and young Australians in particular expect and deserve so much more from a government that has promised them so much and seemingly delivered so little. 17:06 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria It's probably fair to say I disagree with most of what has just been spoken about on the other side. A good budget is about reform, resilience and fairness but also heart, and that is exactly what you would expect from a Labor government. What I would like to talk about first off, in response, is something contained in this budget that hasn't been spoken about in this chamber yet but is really important and life changing. I want to tell you about someone called Atlas and why, for Atlas and thousands of young people just like Atlas who are experiencing homelessness, this federal budget is bring hope and action. I was lucky enough to meet Atlas through the Home Time campaign. Atlas is a brilliant young advocate who was in and out of homelessness for 10 years. I will give Atlas's own words: I left home with no money. Just a duffle bag full of clothes and no idea what I was doing. I was too young to access payments like JobSeeker and I didn't understand the system. I didn't understand what was needed of me to access housing because I'd never had to before. I spent years couch surfing and moving from crisis accommodation to park benches to strangers' couches with nowhere to go and no foreseeable way out. Children and young people just like Atlas lose their homes for many reasons, like extreme life events, family and domestic violence, abuse, neglect and estrangement, all beyond their own control. Of course, all young people need safety, security and access to housing to have stability and a fair chance to build their future. But, until this week's federal budget, a flaw in our social housing system has disadvantaged providers and discouraged them from offering young people like Atlas tenancies. It has meant too many young people haven't been able to access social housing to escape homelessness. This flaw, known as the youth housing penalty, has made young people financially unviable tenants for community housing providers, paying just $86.52 a week in rent compared with $186.33 for someone on the age pension. It has meant that generations of young Australians haven't been able to access social housing to escape homelessness. Today, only around two per cent of social tenants are under 25, despite young people making up almost 15 per cent of Australians experiencing homelessness. In this budget, our government has now invested $60 million to create a new youth housing supplement, which will unlock social housing for more than 4,000 young people just like Atlas to solve this problem. This would not have been possible without the fierce advocacy from the Home Time campaign, a coalition of community organisations, housing providers, unions and young people who have led this campaign for reform over three years and have now delivered through this budget. Atlas said this week: I can't fully articulate what this supplement means for the young people who are currently experiencing homelessness, the people who have become so accustomed to falling through the cracks in the system. This subsidy is just the first step of many in the changes we need to create a truly equitable system—but for the first time in a long time there is hope. This budget demonstrates Labor's focus should be first and foremost about housing for people across Australia, including people like Atlas, as security and as a home. I want to thank Atlas for their advocacy. I also want to thank Daniel Scoullar and all those from the Home Time campaign for making this happen and all the workers who support people like Atlas in the community sector—who lead, advocate and support young people—and the many thousands of those who also happen to be ASU members. I'd like to turn now to a specific section in Senator Chandler's motion that states: Labor's housing taxes will mean 35,000 fewer homes, higher rents and less investment … This is incorrect, and I want to put on record the misinformation and address the misinformation that those opposite are seeking to spread to the Australian people rather than supporting and being a part of the solution to address the issues that we are trying to over a long period of time. It's clear that the status quo is currently not working. The current tax settings in the housing market and in the tax system are way out of balance. In this budget, we're reforming the tax system to support 75,000 more Australians into homeownership, because this government wants to rebalance the scales. Right now, the system favours those who already have assets over those trying to get ahead. Young people want the same thing generations before had—a chance to own a home, to put down roots and to be a part of their community. That first rung on the ladder matters, and these changes will give 75,000 Australians the opportunity to step onto it. Australians can still invest with the same benefits, but now it's about investing in new supply so that we're building more homes and making housing more affordable. Our reforms strike a balance, supporting first home buyers while still enabling investment that adds to housing supply. Let's look at what the budget shows. Yes, the budget papers do estimate a number of 35,000 fewer homes linked to these tax changes. But it's important to read all of the papers in totality, and this is based on a scenario where the government doesn't do anything else to boost construction. We know that the tax changes are not the only thing contained in the budget that are addressing housing supply. We are doing much, much more. One of those actions is the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund. Treasury estimates that the $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund will support the construction of 65,000 additional homes over the next decade. That means that the net result is 30,000 more homes being built, and that is before you account for the broader impact. That's a $2 billion fund bringing total investment in housing-enabling infrastructure to $6.3 billion, a steep change in supporting new supply. It's also tied to planning and building reforms from the states and territories, with Treasury estimating this will unlock tens of thousands of additional homes beyond that 65,000. Importantly, new housing is exempt from the tax changes, encouraging investment where it will make the biggest difference. This budget builds on an already ambitious housing agenda, lifting total Commonwealth housing investment to $47 billion. The goal here is straightforward: more homes, better access and a system that works for people trying to get in, not just those already ahead. 17:13 Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 Queensland I rise to talk about Labor's federal budget, which has delivered more tax cuts and a fair go to buy a home of your own and has strengthened Medicare. Let's start with the tax cuts. This budget is about delivering a tax system that is fairer for working Australians. It's about ensuring that everyday Australians can get ahead so they are rewarded for their work and their effort. It's about helping more Australians to get ahead and get a foot into the housing market. This budget isn't about making the easy decision, to do nothing, which is the economic policy offered by Angus Taylor. Labor is making decisions to build an economy that delivers greater productivity, and Australians understand that. Australians made the right choice at the last federal election, rejecting the Liberal Party. And last weekend, in the once blue-ribbon seat of Farrer, they again rejected the Liberal Party, because this is same party that went to the last election promising higher taxes for ordinary Australians. It is the same Liberal Party under which wages stagnated for a decade. It is the same party under which productivity stalled. It is the same party under which bulk-billing rates were in freefall, making it more expensive and more difficult to find a doctor in Australia. Instead, thanks to Labor, over 13 million working Australians will receive a tax cut in this budget. This is real money for working people, not shareholders, not trust beneficiaries, not investors with six properties—real Australian workers. We will not be lectured about taxation by those opposite, because the highest taxing government in Australia's history was John Howard's government. That is not an opinion; it's a fact. The ATO has confirmed it. Treasury's own numbers have confirmed it. Under Howard, the tax-to-GDP ratio hit a record 24.2 per cent in both 2004-05 and 2005-06. The top seven years of tax to GDP since the 1950s all belong to the Howard government. They don't like to hear it. They don't like to be reminded of history. If you want to put something in a motion about the highest taxing record, you'd better have the receipts to prove it—every single one of them. Under Labor in 2011, the ratio dropped to 19.9 per cent, the lowest in 33 years. Howard had the mining boom behind him, and we're not begrudging him that, but what did he do with all that money? He introduced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount in 1999, and that single decision— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOL Senator Smith? Senator Dean Smith 241710 A point of order on a fact checking. I'm wondering if Senator Mulholland has any other facts that she would like the coalition to check while she's giving her contribution? Of course, Mr Howard, a very successful prime minister, used revenue to pay down debt. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOL I'm not sure that that's a point of order. Senator MULHOLLAND 277110 They don't like to hear it. That single decision to introduce the 50 per cent capital gains tax in 1999 was the one policy choice that has done more than almost anything else in our economic history to lock young Australians out of homeownership. Since the discount was introduced, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent in this country—wages, less than half that. Homeownership among 25- to 34-year-olds has fallen by 17 percentage points. In the parts of Queensland I represent, homeownership is as low as 30 per cent, and in other parts it is as low as 20 per cent. For the first time since the Second World War, a majority of Australians in their 30s do not own a home. This is not because they don't want to but because the Liberal Party's tax system has spent 25 years favouring those who already own multiple properties at the expense of those trying to buy their first. Logically, that had to change, and under the Albanese government, Australians finally have a government with the resolve and the ambition to do something about it. The Howard government's capital gains tax discount was the can of petrol poured over the housing affordability bonfire, and negative gearing was the flame. Now Labor is putting out the fire that the Liberal Party started. This budget begins to fix it. It gives people over a year's notice that the tax system is changing. From 1 July 2027, negative gearing for residential properties will be limited to new builds, incentivising investment in housing supply. Existing investors are protected. The grandfathering is generous, and it is deliberate, because if you've made financial decisions based on options available to you, we don't want to change that. But it's time we acknowledged that the tax scales in this country have been tipped against younger generations, so, going forward, Australian taxpayers will stop subsidising investors to bid against first homeowners for existing homes. The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will be replaced with cost based indexation at a 30 per cent minimum rate. That means only real gains get taxed. If inflation ate your return, you will not be taxed on it. If you made genuine, significant capital gains, you will pay something closer to what a nurse or a tradie pays on their wage. Treasurer Jim Chalmers rightly called it the most ambitious tax reform in 26 years. (Quorum formed) The government estimates these changes will help 75,000 more Australians buy their first home over the next decade. Alongside the $47 billion total investment in housing, including $2 billion for enabling infrastructure to unlock 65,000 new homes, this is a serious, structural, long-term response to a crisis that has been building since 1999. But this is not about being anti wealth; this is about being pro fairness. There is a difference. It means that, as a government, we can focus on the things that matter, like the largest investment in Medicare in its 40-year history. We know that our investment in urgent care clinics, increasing bulk-billing and cheaper medicines is already delivering right across the country, particularly in my home state of Queensland. In the seat of Longman, since Labor tripled our bulk-billing incentives, 15 more GP practices are now bulk-billing. There have been more than 3.3 million cheaper scripts issued to the people that live in the seat of Longman, and there have been more than 57,000 bulk-billed visits to our Morayfield Medicare Urgent Care Clinic since it opened. In the seat of Groom, up on the Toowoomba Range, we've seen seven practices convert to fully bulk-billing practices. There have been over 3.2 million cheaper scripts issued to the people right across the Darling Downs. I'm looking forward to joining Assistant Minister Emma McBride next month to officially open Labor's new endometriosis clinic in the suburb of Drayton in Toowoomba. On the Sunshine Coast, in the seats of Fairfax and Fisher there are 12 additional GP clinics that have started offering bulk-billing appointments since our bulk-billing incentives were introduced. More than five million cheaper scripts have been issued on the Sunshine Coast, and there have been 5,800 visits to the Buderim urgent care clinic, a clinic that we promised at the last election, we opened in December and is already helping thousands of residents on the Sunshine Coast. But we won't stop there. We promised an urgent care clinic at Caloundra and we'll be opening that urgent care clinic next month. We promised it at the election and we're delivering it already. Finally, in the seat of Wright five more GP clinics are now offering bulk-billing services thanks to Labor, with more than three million cheaper scripts issued to local residents. This budget locks in a record investment in Medicare and makes Labor's urgent care clinics permanent. The Liberal Party can run their scare campaigns, but, while they do that, Labor will be out there delivering for the Australians who have been forgotten. That is the difference between this side of politics and the other. 17:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia We do not have to wait for too much longer. Soon Australians will be put out of their budget pain, because tonight they will be hearing from Angus Taylor on what is the alternative plan to Labor's budget of broken promises, Labor budget of higher taxes, Labor's budget of lower living standards and Labor's budget of less housing. What can Australians expect when they hear from the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor, this evening? They will hear how the coalition has a believable plan to restore Australia standard of living and to protect our way of life. The Leader of the Opposition's speech will be a serious speech because these are serious times. The budget reply will outline the coalition's plan to end mass migration and bring in only as many people as Australia can house; a coalition plan to build more homes and help young Australians into homeownership; a coalition plan to create the conditions for more investment, more jobs and stronger growth; a coalition plan that will make Australia more energy secure; and a plan that will reward aspiration instead of punishing people for trying to get ahead. This will be a clear contrast—a contrast between what we heard on Tuesday night about a budget built on broken promises, built on higher taxes, built on higher government spending, leading to rising inflation, leading to more interest rate pain for Australian households. The coalition's budget reply will be about lower costs, more homes, stronger borders, secure energy and a fair go for Australians who work hard, save hard and want to get ahead. Much has been said by Labor about its claim to intergenerational fairness in its budget of broken promises. The fact is that Labor in its budget is committing a fraud on young Australians. Earlier today we heard about Labor's youth tax. The $1 trillion debt that this country is forecast to have in coming months, rising to $1.2 trillion, is a tax on the future livelihoods of young Australians. It is a tax on their future and a tax that will inhibit them finding homes, affording rents and building families. That $1.2 trillion of debt, Labor's youth tax, means $42 billion a year in interest payments alone. That $42 billion in interest payments alone is calculated at $80,000 a minute. This is money down the drain. This is interest repayments. This is money that does not go to a productive outcome. It's a burden on young Australians. It is Labor's youth tax, and over coming weeks we will hear more about Labor's tax on young Australians. Tonight Australians will be able to watch and listen intently. There will be an alternative plan to Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers's budget built on broken promises, built on less housing, built on falling living standards, built on higher taxes. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 17:30 to 20:14 BUDGET 96 BUDGET Statement and Documents 96 20:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to table the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech and to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The speech was unavailable at the time of publishing . 20:15 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Labor's budget of broken promises sells out regional Australia and by doing so sells out the future of all Australians. In our lucky country, we should be able to promise younger Australians a wealthier, healthier and easier life than the one we had. Every generation of Australians has not only made that promise but delivered upon it. Labor's budget breaks promises, but, worse still, it breaches the intergenerational social contract of ever-rising prosperity that has bound generations of Australians together. Tonight, I commit that the Nationals and the Liberals will always fight to hand on a stronger and wealthier country than the one we have inherited. We will never give up on the potential of the Australian nation and its people. Labor's own budget forecasts higher inflation, lower real wages and fewer homes, because of its broken promises on tax. Labor has given up on economic growth. Labor has given up on cheaper energy; Labor has given up on building the roads, the rail lines and the dams that could unlock our nation; Labor has given up on controlling our borders; Labor has given up on the cost of living; and, after four years of higher prices and lower wages, Labor has given up on Australia. This week, in their budget, they flew the white flag. Look, I'm from Queensland. We know how to come back, and I will never give up. I will never give up on this country. I will never give up on fighting for Australians. I will never give up on our great nation and its promise to be the best country in the world. We can make life better, but to do so we must use our country again. We must develop our farming, our mining, our energy, our tourism assets and all of the industries of regional Australia. Australia's extraordinary economic success has been underpinned by the use of our natural resources. It is the natural wealth of regional Australia that will also provide the springboard to a better future for all Australians. I have spoken to thousands of regional Australians in the last couple of months in southern New South Wales, during the Farrer by-election. I spoke with Sam, a cafe owner, who told me that rising costs are making it harder to keep his doors open. I spoke with Emily, a young mother, who says it's becoming almost impossible to raise a family with the soaring cost of living. I spoke with Simon, a farmer near Griffith, who worries whether he can plant a crop this season, given skyrocketing water, fuel and fertiliser costs. I spoke with Mary, a pensioner, who fears rising health premiums following Labor's cuts to the private health insurance rebate. I spoke with Vicki, who has been waiting two years for a knee replacement operation. I listened to those people in southern New South Wales. I'm not so sure if they listened to me, given the election results, but I was there to listen to their concerns and I will act on them. The Labor Party and Anthony Albanese didn't even show up. They did not show up to listen to them. Anthony Albanese—and Labor—has not just broken promises to Sam, to Emily, to Simon, to Mary and to Vicki but has let them down. He has let them down because the budget this week does nothing to reduce the cost of living. It does nothing to make it easier to employ people in small business or farming and does nothing to tackle the waiting lists in our hospitals. Instead, this week's budget disappears into a mess of unworkable tax increases that confuse Australians, punish aspiration and fail even to deliver the promised benefits. Labor's own budget papers admit that its tax policies will result in fewer homes being built. How can reducing housing supply help Australians buy their first home? You can't tax your way to more houses. Labor is not listening to the Australian people. Australians want life to be easier again, and that means we must reduce the cost of everyday items. It is now more expensive to buy Tim Tams here than it is in Canada. I checked that today. Tim Tams are on sales at Coles at the moment for $4.20 a pack, but at Walmart in Canada they are just $3 in Australian terms. It's becoming even more expensive to have a tea break under Labor. Just like those Tim Tams, Australian factories now pay more for electricity than factories in Japan. We are the biggest supplier of energy to Japan. So why can't our factories enjoy cheaper power prices than the countries we export energy to? The answer is that Japan continues to build coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and reopen nuclear stations while Labor remains obsessed with net zero. A future Liberal and Nationals government will scrap Labor's net zero target. We will restore the idea that Australia's energy system should be run with one overriding principle, and that is to deliver the cheapest possible power prices for Australians. Our plan will be cheaper, better and fairer. Our plan will be cheaper because we will use all of our natural resources, and more energy supply means lower prices. Our plan will be better because lower power prices will revive manufacturing. It will unlock new opportunities, including in artificial intelligence and advanced industries. We should not ban any energy sources. We should use our coal, gas, hydro, nuclear and renewables—they all have a role to play. Australia needs the best fit of energy sources for all of our different needs. Our plan will be fairer because Australia will no longer cut emissions at a rate far beyond the rest of the world. Under Labor's targets, Australia is expected to reduce its emissions at roughly three times the rate of other comparable developed nations. The Treasurer's speech on Tuesday was his first budget speech not to promise to lower energy prices. He's done so every other year. Every other year he's turned up and said, 'Energy prices will be lower this year,' and then, of course, energy prices have gone up. But, this year, there was no mention of energy prices at all. Is the government actually listening to people? The cost of energy is probably, for all of us, the most common thing that is raised with us from families and businesses—from everybody! Yet now the government has taken a monastic vow of silence on energy prices itself. The only explanation is that they are embarrassed because electricity and gas prices have risen under them by almost 40 per cent. In his speech, the Treasurer mentioned net zero just once, and that was really an afterthought. He didn't mention climate change at all. Net zero is collapsing around the world while Australians continue to pay the price for it here. This week, Labor committed another $18 billion of net zero spending. At the same time, Labor continues to spend recklessly, with another $9 billion in new policy spending next year alone. Labor is ignoring the Reserve Bank's warning that excessive government spending is driving up interest rates. When interest rates rise, regional Australia suffers most. New investments in mines and farms become unviable. Under Labor's high-interest-rate settings, investment growth slows dramatically. Mining investment growth is forecast to slump to zero in 2027-28. That's not a misprint. Labor's budget itself says that mining investment growth will fall to zero. The Labor Party promised that net zero would unleash a critical minerals boom, but the only thing that's gone to zero is mining investment itself. Nor is this shortfall in private investment being offset by nation-building infrastructure. This budget slashes $9 billion worth of infrastructure investment in regional Australia. Labor's pulled up stumps on the Inland Rail project while it remains half complete. Inland Rail is exactly the kind of nation-building investment we need. It would free up our roads, reduce freight costs, help our farmers and lower prices—yet the government is ripping $6 billion from this project in a false economy that will cost Australia dearly in the long term. Then Labor will go and use these savings to bail out a failing Labor government in Victoria by pumping another $3.8 billion into suburban rail projects. The Liberals and Nationals will fight this shortsighted decision. I thank the councils, businesses and regional communities that are standing up for their future. The government has announced $5½ billion in new infrastructure spending, yet less than $50 million of that, not even one per cent, will go to regional Australia. Labor has spent a lot of time talking about intergenerational equity. That hasn't been delivered. But I'll tell you what has been delivered; what has been delivered is geographical inequity. The fair go for regional Australia has been obliterated in this budget. The Liberals and Nationals will instead invest in infrastructure that lowers the cost of doing business and strengthens our national economy. This government has already squandered one mining boom and now risks wasting another through reckless spending and economic complacency. We must give regional Australians a fair go by saving for the future, when high coal and gas and iron ore prices deliver rivers of gold to Canberra. We will place 80c of every mining windfall dollar into a future generations fund, and one quarter of that fund will be dedicated to a regional Australian future generations fund, investing directly back into the regions that generated that wealth in the first place. The wealth generated by mining booms comes from regional Australia, and it's only fair that some of that wealth is reinvested there. Those investments will support productivity, they will diversify regional economies and they'll help attract more Australians to live and work in regional communities, taking pressure off our capital cities. Australia has one of the most concentrated populations in the world. We need to spread out more, so people can own a home at an affordable price. Labor has scrapped funding for the National Water Grid. When the Liberals and Nationals left government we left them a clear pipeline of new dams and water infrastructure, but Labor has abandoned the expansion of Australian farming. Australia has enormous potential to build dams, to produce more food, and we will invest in dams again and ensure that that water is used to expand farming opportunities and farming communities. Labor continues to demonstrate that they sell out regional Australia. It has signed up to the worst trade deal in our history and is spending another $40 million on that in this budget. Labor signed a sweetheart deal to provide capital gains tax concessions to foreign investors in the large-scale solar and wind projects that are destroying our pristine bushland. Labor continues to demonise law-abiding firearm owners. Labor has provided no tangible support for regional tourism or farmers, who are struggling with high fuel and operating costs. Australia needs more families and more children, which means giving parents more freedom in how they raise their own kids. The finance minister's insensitive comments on Mother's Day—suggesting that a mother could simply be replaced by a childcare worker—were not only insulting but also wrong. Children benefit enormously from time with their mothers and fathers. Parents would love to spend more time with their children, but Labor's inflation and taxes are making that increasingly difficult. Labor's answer is always more subsidies, more red tape, more government interference. But this has only driven childcare fees higher—assuming the family can find child care in the first place. We will put parents back in charge by giving families more options, whether through child care or by supporting parents who choose to care for their own children at home. To deliver more homes across the region, the Liberals and Nationals will establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund, with 30 per cent of that targeted to enable infrastructure to unlock new housing in regional areas. We will never solve the housing crisis by endlessly cramming more people into Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Not every young Australian will move to the regions, but every person who does will relieve pressure on housing markets in our major cities. And Australia must build new cities to relieve pressure on our existing cities. This will take time, of course. And in the short term, migration must once again reflect the needs of Australians. Labor has missed its migration targets again in this budget, and that means even more people competing for scarce housing in this country. We will cap migration in line with housing builds. We cannot bring more and more people into this country while some Australians must live in tents. We do not need mass migration to deliver high economic growth. We will oppose Labor's tax increases and repeal them when we get into government. We need tax to go down and cost of living to go down, and we need living standards to go up. While Labor has no plan to lift the economic growth and the economic prospects of Australians, we do. Australia already has everything it needs to succeed. We're the only nation on Earth that occupies an entire continent; we have a whole continent to ourselves. We have the land, we have the resources, we have the water, we have the people and we have the ingenuity to shape our own destiny, with more jobs, more wealth and more opportunity. Banjo Paterson once wrote of this country that we have the great 'plains extended', and we need to aim for that horizon again. We need to use our country. We need more oil. We need more gas. We need more coal-fired power stations. We need more dams. We need more roads. We need more rail lines. We need more factories. We need more homes. We need more babies. We need more Australia. We just need a hyper-Australia, as I like to call it. There is nothing that is wrong in this country that we cannot fix by just using more of what we have in Australia. Labor may have given up on Australia this week, Labor may have flown the white flag, but we never will. A Liberal and Nationals government will restore trust, restore confidence, restore hope and restore the belief that Australia's best days are ahead. 20:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland For all the talk about this budget, many issues are all too familiar. Revenue is up from $773 billion to $815 billion. Expenses are up from $812 billion to $833 billion. Gross interest payments are at $27 billion, rising to $40 billion over the forward estimates. Budget deficits are forecast to balloon by another $100 billion over the next four years. Interest-bearing debt will climb another $300 billion to $1.3 trillion. Businesses are collapsing at record rates—almost 50,000 insolvencies since Labor took office. Productivity is stuck at six-decade lows. Eight out of 10 new jobs are now created by government because the private sector has become so disillusioned. Business confidence and domestic investment have fallen to 1990s recession lows. Our inflation remains the highest in the developed world. Australian families have endured 15 interest rate hikes, pushing more than one million households into extreme mortgage stress. GDP per capita has fallen in 10 of the last 13 quarters, and 337,000 households can no longer pay their energy bills—double the level of five years ago—as power prices continue to surge. Labor will introduce the working Australians tax offset. It's less than $5 a week in relief and doesn't kick in until next year, an election year. The government wants you to be grateful for 68c a day off your tax. That tax offset will be completely rubbed out by bracket creep. Bracket creep means working Australians will pay more in tax because of inflation. The government profits from higher inflation. It's a stealth tax, a trap for the next election and an advertising slogan for 2028. They used the same trap in their election advertising in 2022. If anyone dares to refuse passing a useless, less than $5 tax cut, they will be accused of not supporting tax cuts. While Australians will receive just $2.6 billion back in the one-off WATO, they'll pay tens of billions more in taxes because of bracket creep. One Nation tried to end bracket creep by indexing income tax thresholds to inflation, ending the stealthy tax increases. Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens refused to support it. Instead of the measly $250, ending bracket creep would put thousands of dollars a year back in working Australians' pockets. We don't need Labor to protect Australians; we need to protect Australians from Labor. The tax changes in this budget, including on discretionary trusts, will suppress investor appetite and speculative capital, forcing these businesses to set up in jurisdictions with no impediments. Capital will always, always follow to where it is most loved. This budget reveals a political culture that relies evermore heavily on centralised bureaucracy, dependency on the state and short-term intervention. That is the Labor way. Forget the spin about intergenerational equity; it's being used as an excuse to break election promises. True equity does not punish those who worked hard, took risks, built businesses and paid their taxes. It does not resent aspiration or success. Real intergenerational equity means giving young Australians the same opportunities their parents had—the chance to own a home, raise a family, start a business and get ahead through hard work. Young people are not struggling because older generations succeeded. They are falling behind because governments have chosen subsidies and wealth redistribution over allowing free enterprise to flourish. On the forward estimates, our total liabilities will exceed $1.9 trillion—a burden to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. That is not equity. That is hypocrisy. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will further dampen economic activity, push rents higher and reduce housing supply. As a self-proclaimed scholar of Paul Keating, the Treasurer might have reflected on what happened in 1985 when these same policies were tried and had to be reversed two years later. Housing is a national crisis only since Labor took office, and I say 'crisis'. More than 40 per cent of the cost of building a new home is government taxes and unnecessary compliance costs. One Nation will take a different approach. We will slash the GST to zero on building materials for homes up to a value of $1 million for the next five years. Rapid population growth without matching supply is a recipe for declining living standards. This is not about blaming migrants. It's about recognising limits. But this government has no interest in reducing migration, for all the talk. It expects to increase visa application fees from $4.7 billion today to $7.1 billion by 2029-30. Elevated migration is a money spinner. Canada cut migration sharply from 2024 and has now enjoyed 18 straight months of falling rents and easing house prices, something we have strongly advocated for. We will introduce income splitting for every family with at least one dependent child. A single earner on $120,000 with a stay-at-home partner would be around $9½ thousand a year better off. We will exempt insurance from the GST, and we urge the states to drop stamp duty on it as well. Affordable insurance ultimately reduces burdens on taxpayers. We will allow aged pensioners and veterans to work as much as they want without losing any of their pensions or health card benefits. For more than a decade, One Nation has consistently argued that Australia must strengthen domestic resilience, including strategic fuel reserves, reliable energy systems, food and water security, and sovereign industrial capabilities supported by true nation-building infrastructure. The current liquid fuel crisis has not only exposed our domestic unpreparedness but signalled to adversaries how vulnerable we would be in a conflict. Building a strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to build resilience and liquid fuel independence. The total cost of not having sufficient supplies will always outweigh the net cost of having them in a crisis. One Nation will cut the red, green and black tape that is strangling projects and fast-track major approvals, especially energy, to a maximum of six months. We will ditch net zero, exit the Paris Agreement and axe the climate change department, saving $30 billion in the process. We will back coal and gas and support bringing nuclear power to bring down prices, restore reliability and guarantee national energy security. Next week, I will introduce a bold new gas policy that underwrites our vast sovereign resource assets for decades to come. It will provide real equity investment and genuine skin in the game, where our healthy dividend will help pay down the debt racked up by successive governments. We have listened extensively, and we will work with industry, not against it, in genuine partnership. We will bring back our mining and resources industries, the bedrock that funds schools, hospitals, roads and defence. A strong nation leverages its natural advantages. It does not demonise them. One Nation will swiftly move to get rid of impediments in an increasingly competitive global environment and restore our status as a nation that rolls out the red carpet in resources rather than roll it up. We are backing the Capricorn steel project, to connect coal in Queensland's Bowen Basin to iron ore in Western Australia's Pilbara region with a rail line that will open northern Australia to development. The project is strongly backed by Australian investors and is aimed at making Australia a major global supplier of high-quality steel. It will require the Inland Rail project, now abandoned by Labor, to be completed and extended to the more suitable Port of Gladstone, in Queensland. It will be the foundation for a national rail circuit that effectively circumnavigates the Australian continent, providing freight efficiencies and improved defence logistics. These are no longer abstract debates. They are national security imperatives. In agriculture, we will ban the further sale of controlling interests in freehold farmland to foreign investors and limit the sale of leasehold farmland to a maximum of 25 years. We will ban foreign ownership of water and return balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. One Nation strongly supports the modern hybrid Bradfield scheme to improve water security, open new areas to farming and improve food security and exports. We will build new dams and water infrastructure, reintroduce drought payments and re-establish a federal government backed rural lending fund to protect farmers through other natural disasters. Importantly, we will restore accountability. Australians work hard for their money, and they deserve a government that shows the same discipline. Successive governments have failed to tackle a culture where people in charge of creating multiple white elephants pay no price for their commercial illiteracy. Snowy 2.0, which has blown out 21 times—to $42 billion—is but one egregious example. One Nation will ensure past, present and emerging failures will no longer be transaction free for those responsible. We will abolish divisive cultural departments and race based programs that divide Australians by skin colour or ancestry. Every Australian will be treated as equal under one flag and one culture. Help will be given on the basis of genuine need, not race. No more special privileges—equal rights for all, and special rights for none. There will be no more taxpayer-funded welcome to country rituals. Unity builds strength; division destroys it. Our Defence Force must focus on operational readiness, capability and deterrence, not morale-sapping identity politics. One Nation will restore pride in wearing the uniform and give them the latest equipment to carry out their duties. We won't sell off our historic sites of symbolic significance to cover irresponsible spending. Australians are not asking for miracles. They are simply asking for a country that works again. One Nation continues to attract practical Australians with real world experience—people from finance, investment, trade, engineering, farming, small business, building, energy, manufacturing and defence. These are men and women who have built things, employed people and delivered results outside the Canberra bubble. Australia does not need more career politicians serving vested interests. One Nation believes the government is there to serve you. This budget only goes to prove yet again that this government believes you are there to serve it. In closing, Australia stands at a crossroads. For too long, Labor's failed experiment of reckless spending, crippling regulation, net zero ideology and wealth redistribution has driven businesses to the wall. It's crushed living standards, saddled our children with debt and stolen the Australian dream from an entire generation. A nation loses hope when it loses vision. Australia now has near a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. One Nation will break the green, red and black tape that has tied us down. We will work with the natural strengths of the assets on our balance sheet. We have iron ore, coal, gas, cattle, rain, cotton, gold, copper, oil and so much more. Australia should be a powerhouse, but the major parties lack the management skills for us reach our potential. It is perverse that a government and an opposition believe they can change the weather, and are prepared to waste ultimately hundreds of billions to do it, while they mock the idea of a version of the Bradfield scheme that would open the massive potential for irrigation of the rich but dry soils of the western districts. It is perverse that a government and an opposition that came up with the biggest construction fiasco on earth, the $42 billion Snowy Hydro 2.0, cannot complete the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane, which would open up the intermodal efficiencies and commercial potential of the inland corridor. We are covering the land with windmills and solar panels and, in turn, delivering— (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call? Senator Hanson BK6 I seek leave to finish my speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Is leave granted? Leave has not been granted, Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson BK6 I seek leave to table my speech. Leave granted. Senate adjourned at 20:46