PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS

2026-08-11 3 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

The Senate met at 12:00.

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS President 1 DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Are there any objections? There being no objections, the meetings are authorised. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting, Rearrangement 2 12:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That, on Wednesday, 12 August 2026— (a) the address-in-reply be presented at 8.30 am to Her Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany her; (b) the hours of meeting be 10 am to 8 pm; and (c) consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to allow senators to make valedictory statements relating to Senator Whish-Wilson. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 2 MOTIONS Taxation 2 12:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government's toxic taxes, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government's toxic taxes. I have to say, as we commence the second half of this year, what an absolute disgrace! This government has been exposed. What kind of a prime minister legislates a widow's tax? Well, sadly for the Australian people, that would be Mr Anthony Albanese. This is a tax that can hit when your spouse dies. This is a tax that can hit when a marriage breaks down. But, worse, it's a tax that can hit victims of domestic violence trying to rebuild their lives. That is why this matter is urgent and that is why the Senate should suspend its standing orders. We need to hold this government to account—a government that likes to laud itself as standing up for women, a government that likes to laud itself as being the only people who can save those who are less fortunate. Yet, at the same time, don't worry about what comes out of their mouths; look at their actions. They have legislated a widow's tax, they have legislated a tax that hits victims of domestic violence and they have legislated a tax that hits Australians when their marriage breaks down. As I said, that is why we should support the suspension motion. This is not theoretical. As we have now seen, there is a domestic violence survivor in Australia who has reportedly now been unable to refinance because of Labor's new tax laws. That is just an absolute disgrace. She is potentially now being forced to sell an asset she has spent more than 15 years building. Think about what that means and think about it in the context of this procedural motion to suspend the standing orders. This is a woman trying to rebuild her life after domestic violence, and now, because of the Albanese Labor government, because of those opposite, she may face another financial penalty because of the tax law imposed by those opposite. Senator McKenzie 207825 They don't care. Senator CASH I0M That is right; they don't care. And why do we know that? Because this was raised with the government prior to the legislating of this tax. That is why this matter is urgent. This is why I implore the Senate to support the procedural motion to suspend the standing orders. Widows face the same uncertainty as this domestic violence survivor when property changes hands following the death of a spouse. That is an utter disgrace. Those opposite were actually told this prior to legislating. These concerns were raised—they laughed. They said it would never happen. Well, guess what? It did happen. I would have thought today you would be prepared to suspend standing orders to bring in a bill to clean up your mess. Yet what have we heard? Absolute silence from those opposite. I can assure you, Deputy President, if those opposite won't help themselves, the coalition absolutely will. This cannot wait. This is the whole purpose of suspending standing orders. This is a mechanism that allows the Australian Senate to say: 'This matter is of such urgency that we all agree that we will put aside the ordinary course that is set out in the Senate order of business for today. This matter is so urgent that we will join together and suspend standing orders to actually deal with the urgency of this matter.' How can anyone on that side think this is not an urgent matter? This cannot wait. A widow, sadly, can't put the death of her husband on hold; she is now being financially penalised because of your widow's tax. A family going through a divorce can't simply suspend a property settlement; they will now potentially be hit with your tax. A victim of domestic violence—and this is the real-life example, and shame on those opposite for not coming in here today and being prepared to deal with the mess that they've created—can't put her financial independence on hold while the Albanese Labor government works out how to clean up the mess it's created. You were warned, you ignored the warnings. Australians are now dealing with the consequences. This is urgent and this matter should be supported by the Senate. 12:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I stand to support the suspension motion from Senator Cash on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition. The government tries to tell the Australian public that they've got it all under control, that they are on the side of Australians doing it tough, that they've got Australian women and children's backs during this cost-of-living crisis, yet here we are, I don't know how many weeks after that hopeless budget from Jim Chalmers was handed down, trying to help the government clean up a mess of its own making. And why are we doing this? Not because we want to show you up for the pathetic economic managers that you are, but to actually mean that the men and women, and the children, who are going to be subjected to severe economic detriment because of your failed policies. You knew prior to that budget that this widow's tax, this divorcee's tax, would impact those people, yet you did it anyway, because you thought no-one would notice, because you actually don't care. Women who are entering divorce and doing the difficult financial settlement end up economically worse off. They also end up having to care for the children of that relationship, typically. And here they are going to be subjected to less in their financial settlement as a result of your government's derelict legislation. We want to help you fix this. I have looked at the Red. There's not a lot on here that can't be delayed to actually fix this appalling neglect from your own budget so that not just widows but also the millions of Australians who are going through financial settlements as a result of relationship breakdown are protected. It is typically women who end up homeless post divorce because of the lack of money coming out of the financial settlement. I know Senator Cash went to the details of women fleeing domestic violence who need our support. I think what's particularly galling is the fact that you did receive advice about this impact and you willingly and knowingly chose to ignore it. That shows a careless and callous disregard for those people who are going through divorce, separation and the financial fallout of those situations—particularly on women and children—and for those who are dealing with the death of a spouse. When an estate has to be sold and those proceeds dispensed, you literally passed legislation that will mean the recipients of that estate will receive less money, and you don't care. I hear a lot from those opposite about the care economy and about compassion. I hear, 'Why are the conservatives so callous?' Well, here we are, wanting to stand with those who are going through bereavement, whom you're wanting to tax, and those who are going through divorce and separation, which is the most traumatic thing a family can go through. The fallout impact on the children as a result of the financial losses is significant and long-term and something that we as a society have to end up dealing with. We are here saying there is nothing on the Red today that cannot be put aside to help us help you—not because we want to embarrass you for your failures and your incompetence on economic management but to actually stand with those Australians who are negatively impacted by your flawed economic policies. So I would commend this motion to the Australian Senate and implore the Australian Greens to stand with the opposition to seek to suspend this chamber's work until we can actually help the government help themselves and make sure that divorcees, widows and those fleeing domestic violence won't be having negative financial impact as a result of Labor's legislation. 12:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Thanks for the offer of help from those opposite, but, as you know, draft legislation has been released, which we have— Senator Cash I0M How many weeks has it been? Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, last time the Senate met, there was a lot of concern about the time to get it right and you wanted more consultation. And now, in the interests of political opportunism, you are saying, 'Raise it.' The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING We have a draft out now for consultation that's due to close on 21 August. We have made it clear— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING That's not what I said, Senator Cash. You can continue to repeat it, but it's not what I said. We have a piece of legislation out for consultation— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Gallagher, could you resume your seat. The previous two speakers were heard in silence. Minister, you have the call. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you for your protection, Deputy President. The legislation has been released. It was released on 4 August. The consultation closes on 21 August. We've said from the beginning that this would be dealt with in addition to a number of other issues, as is standard practice for tax legislation. When new GST legislation was introduced, there were 30 bills that followed and were passed to implement that tax reform. We have made it clear there would be— Senator GALLAGHER ING Deputy President, please! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKenzie 207825 Nobody voted for this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator McKenzie! Senator GALLAGHER ING We were clear there would be subsequent pieces of legislation that the Senate would deal with, and that is the process that we are following. In addition, Treasury has been talking with all of the major lenders, as well as the Customer Owned Banking Association. They are clear about the policy intent, and the banks have confirmed they can take account of the policy decision in the decisions they make without the law having actually passed the parliament. This goes to the point of urgency. We have had those discussions. We have made it clear that this particular issue will be picked up in draft legislation that is out for consultation, and we will deal with it, as we had foreshadowed after the first tranche was released. I hear the concerns from those opposite around marriage breakdown and family and domestic violence, and I accept that that is an issue that the government and indeed the parliament should be dealing with. All of our measures that we have to deal with that, you have opposed. If, as you say, that is your driving concern, then you should also have supported all of the other programs that we are doing to deal with women, safe accommodation, supply of accommodation and supports for women who are in that situation, Senator Mckenzie. Let's be clear to everybody: you didn't support the tax reform that we introduced, and this is another way for you to continue that argument now, when you know that this legislation and the issue that you raised through your attempt to suspend standing orders are being dealt with. The government, both in that debate and indeed afterwards, committed to dealing with this in subsequent tranches of legislation. That legislation is out for consultation. I'm sure you've all read it. I'm sure you're all across it. That will close on 21 August, and legislation will come back through this parliament—through the House and into the Senate—for passing, and we look forward to when that legislation is ready. When that legislation is ready and has passed the House of Representatives, we would imagine that there would be absolutely no hold-up to that legislation passing this chamber, because of the position that you have taken today. The minute it comes to this chamber, that legislation should be supported and should be passed, if the arguments that you have put forward this morning are genuine. In the absence of that, a political stunt—a suspension of standing orders, which the Senate gets into at the beginning of every sitting day—isn't actually going to deliver the change. The change will come through the legislation that this government is leading, and when it has come through the House of Representatives, I look forward to the unanimous support of this chamber to get that legislation done as quickly as possible. 12:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The term 'widow's tax' has emerged in relatively recent times to characterise impacts of the tax package that has recently passed through this parliament on a cohort of Australians that is actually far broader than widows. I just want to make that point first, although I'm happy to refer to it as the widow's tax for the purposes of this conversation. There is an emerging consensus in this chamber that those impacts that have become known as the widow's tax do need to be addressed. Certainly, the Australian Greens are of the view that these matters need to be looked at, and I look forward to that occurring in due course. I note the beseeching plea from members of the coalition for the Greens to support this motion, which seeks to suspend standing orders so that the Senate can more promptly consider those issues. I want to be very clear that this motion is drafted in such a way that the Greens couldn't possibly support it, and members of the opposition know that full well. It's a bit rich for them to come into this place and ask us to support something that they drafted deliberately in such a way that they knew the Greens could never support it. There are a few examples of that, but the starkest example is provision (c), which calls on the Albanese government to immediately axe the very tax changes that were brought into this place and supported by the Greens, and which addressed the outrageous gift of the capital gains tax discount, which went, overwhelmingly, to some of the wealthiest, most privileged people in this country. As if the Greens are going to support that position. So don't come in here and ask us to support a motion that you drafted so that we couldn't support it. That's what's going on here. Everyone needs to be very clear about that. The changes to capital gains and negative gearing tax arrangements in Australia have delivered a long-overdue correction to the housing market in this country. Finally, wages are going to get a chance to catch up with the housing bubble. Finally, young people have got a glimmer of hope that one day they might be able to afford a house and a home to live in in Australia. That is what the Greens' decades-long campaign against the capital gains tax has delivered: a housing market that, over time, now should become more affordable—a housing market that young people can dare to hope they might be able to get into one day. That is a good thing. The correction in housing prices is a good thing. It has finally taken away one of the most generous tax concessions, overwhelmingly accessed by the richest and most privileged people in this country. It has finally given young people and people who are not so advantaged economically hope that one day they might be able to afford to buy their own home to live in and access the great Australian dream of homeownership. Those are good things. The correction in the housing market is a good thing, and, here in the Greens, we are proud of the role that we played in delivering that. For the opposition to come in here and ask us to support a motion that would put us in a position of winding back those benefits is simply ludicrous. You knew we couldn't support it. Please, by all means, draft whatever motions you like, but don't come in here and sanctimoniously ask us to support them when you actually drafted them so that we couldn't. 12:23 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It's quite interesting listening to Senator McKim's comments. I want to put on the record that One Nation does support this motion. As we've seen in the chamber before, Senator McKim's only drawn our attention to provision (c), which he cannot support. If he really wanted to, he could split the vote, take provision (c) out of it and vote for the rest—if the Greens really believe that this is an injustice to the people out there. I don't believe what the Greens have said here at all, although Senator McKim might want to change his mind and take provision (c) out of it, and we can have a vote on it. That might be an answer to it. Another point is that we've constantly seen in this chamber, time and time again, legislation being put through that has been guillotined and that has not been debated. Many times we've seen the government's legislation. We've had numerous amendments to their own legislation because they've never consulted properly with the community and the Australian people about their bills, and they've put them forward in this chamber. They rush their legislation through all the time. Look at what happened with this widow's tax on capital gains and what they're doing here. They knew that was an issue. They knew it when they brought their bill onto the floor of parliament, yet they did nothing to address the issue and make changes to it, bring amendments to it, at that time. I listened to the minister say that it's now going to be a 10-day consultation period. That consultation period should have happened before the legislation came here to the floor of parliament. That should have been done. It absolutely disgusts me that you call out to say that we don't support women's issues or funding to women's sports. You call out women when it suits you. Where is the issue of transgender men in women's sports? You don't want anything to do with it. You call out women when it suits your agenda—not right across the board with everyone. This needs to change. This was only a tax grab by the government, which is failing to control its own spending. You have been out of control with it. This is a $77 billion tax grab by the Labor government—that's what it is—on ordinary Australians. It's a load of rubbish to say that you're catching the billionaires out there who are making a lot of money out of capital gains tax. A lot of the investments that are made in this country are made by small business. That's a big investment. They build up their businesses. They put in a lot of hard work that they don't get paid for. They're going to sell it at a cost, and you're going to take it off them. You want their benefits taken from them or for them to pay extra tax. A lot of the young people want to get into negative gearing and capital gains tax to buy their properties, and you're actually denying them. You say that you've allowed more Australians—the younger generation—to get into owning their own homes. What a bloody farce that is! That is ridiculous. It's not the case. We've found that more of them now are out of reach of owning their own home because of this government and the laws and legislation that you have imposed here. It's a tax grab by an incompetent government that can't control its own spending. You constantly put your hand in the pockets of ordinary Australians who are trying to survive, make a living for themselves out there and own homes. If you don't have those investors, you won't have rental accommodations. That's what it's about. Can I give you some advice? Forget about a tax grab off people. Cut back your immigration into this country. That might help. Then we might have housing for the Australian people and families in homes, instead of them being homeless on our streets here. But you can't even admit that. You keep saying you're going to pull back, but no-one trusts you anymore. People are sick and tired of your lies. You're constantly lying about what you're going to do, and you never do it. You're constantly accusing One Nation of not supporting your policies, whether it's in housing or whatever. Let me tell the public this: your policies have hidden agendas which we cannot support because they're lying to and cheating the Australian people. Put up good legislation and One Nation will back it. Put up legislation that's denying the Australian people—lying and cheating and trying to take what you can off them—and we won't support that. You've been hopeless in government. You cannot put up decent legislation. You're ruining this country day in, day out with your policies. You're driving people into the ground out there. They can't afford to live anymore. Their standard of living has dropped. Their way of life has dropped. I hope they throw you out on your ear at the next election. 12:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand today to support the suspension by Senator Cash that would enable her to speak about something that is urgent. It's very urgent. Ask Australians what's urgent. What is urgent is the fact that they can't afford to pay their bills. They've seen the value in their houses absolutely fall through the floor. And we know that there are many people out there concerned about the impact of this so-called widow's tax. At a time in someone's life when they are at their most vulnerable, at a time in someone's life when they have got so much to deal with, this government knowingly allowed a piece of legislation through this place—they forced a piece of legislation through this place—that contained elements that actually made victims of victims. I don't know how the Labor Party could not have had the decency to fix the problem before they shoved that piece of legislation through here. The question the Australian people should be asking of this government is: what sort of government, what sort of prime minister and what sort of treasurer would knowingly put a piece of legislation through this chamber that says to a widow or widower who has lost their partner to death, or to somebody who has gone through the trauma of a marriage break-up and has had to separate children, pets, assets and the like, or to a woman—most likely; anyone, for that matter—escaping a domestic violence situation and fearing for her life, 'We want to financially penalise you for that'? That just seems an outrageous thing for any government to do. For that reason, I believe it is absolutely urgent that we are able to debate this very point. I also take on a point that Senator Hanson raised in relation to the contribution to this place from Senator McKim. Senator McKim quite clearly is happy—I would imagine, on the basis of his contribution—to say about this widow's tax that has been legislated that they will support the amended legislation if and when it eventually comes through this place to fix the problem that they have legislated. If Senator McKim is so determined to have his and the Greens' position on the record reflecting that, why don't the Greens actually seek to amend the motion that has been put forward by Senator Cash—this urgent motion that is incredibly important to Australians who are in a time of great stress? Remove part C of this motion, and let's vote on that. But I doubt that that's what they're going to do. The fact of the matter is that this is just another example of the egregious behaviour that we continually see in this place from this government. They go to their people and tell them one thing. They make a whole heap of promises to them about things, but apparently promises are things that are now able to be broken. One doesn't have to keep one's promise in the lead-up to an election; one can just change their mind after the election. Contained in the legislation that included this toxic tax was a broken promise—a litany of broken promises—that this government made to Australians before the last election. Now, because Jim Chalmers's bottom line ain't looking so good, they have decided they are going for a tax grab from Australians but particularly from vulnerable Australians, which is why this particular piece of legislation is so important. Also, they are pushing the legislation through knowing the fundamental flaw in this legislation that we are talking about today and saying: 'Okay, just trust us. We'll come back and fix it.' Every time we see a piece of legislation stuffed through this place, a great big headline piece of legislation that they can go and write a press release on and hold a press conference, all the details are in the subordinate legislation. Once again it's, 'Just trust us; just trust us.' I, for one, have to say that I do not trust this government because time and time and time again when legislation is put through here, when the details are eventually revealed through the subordinated legislation, you will find that the rules or the so-called changes that they promised they were going to make are fundamentally flawed. Just ask older Australians right now about that—the older Australians who've had their assessments for their aged-care needs stuffed through a computer generated algorithm and have been told that, while they needed a level 4 care package last week, the algorithm doesn't think they need a care package any more. This is an urgent motion, and I urge the chamber to support Senator Cash's suspension so we can debate it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The time for the debate has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. 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. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. 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. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Bragg, A. J. Mulholland, C. Canavan, M. J. Wong, P. Chandler, C. Walsh, J. C. McLachlan, A. L. Smith, M. F. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V.

Question negatived.

National Security 7 12:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion relating to ISIS fighters, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator HANSON BK6 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to ISIS fighters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Consistent with previous rulings of the chair, repeated suspensions of standing orders should not be used as a means to frustrate the business of the Senate. I will allow this suspension motion, but a third will not be entertained. Senator HANSON BK6 Thank you very much. I move that the motion relating to ISIS fighters may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment. There is no more urgent consideration before this parliament than the safety and security of Australia and its people. It is the first responsibility of this parliament, and it's not something we can afford to kick down the road. People who left Australia to join the depraved ISIS terrorist cult have been allowed to return, and this Labor government has actively helped them despite saying it would not. These people represent a direct threat to the safety of Australians and the security of this nation. There are more of them. Thirteen men linked to ISIS and currently held in a Baghdad prison may soon be released. They may seek to return to Australia as well. They include Tareq Kamleh, also known as 'Dr Jihad'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Hanson, there's a point of order. Please take your seat. Minister. Senator Gallagher ING [Inaudible] debate on the suspension, not on the substantive. So I'm just asking you to bring Senator Hanson back to the argument, which is about why this should be considered urgent to be debated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Yes. Senator Hanson, please do bring it back to that point. Senator HANSON BK6 I believe that I am. He is known as Dr Jihad, who appeared in ISIS propaganda and called for Muslims everywhere to join ISIS or conduct jihad everywhere. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the law leaves him with no other option than to permit the return of these people, despite the threat they pose. That's why it is urgent for the Senate to bring the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill to debate immediately. If the law does not currently prevent these people from returning, our duty to the Australian people is to change the law. One Nation is acting where the Labor government has failed to act. The bill creates a new foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. This is in addition to the existing temporary exclusion order regime. The new order allows the minister to go to the Federal Court and establish that the person poses an unacceptable risk— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Hanson, can you please really focus on the urgency component of this? Senator HANSON BK6 I can explain the urgency—why this is needed. That is quite clear, in why the bill needs to be introduced into the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Speak to the urgency, not the substantive. Senator HANSON BK6 I'm sorry—if the Labor Party doesn't like what I'm reading out here, telling the people why we desperately need this, then they have the problem with this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 I'm the chair, and I'm asking you to keep it to the urgency component of the suspension, please. Senator HANSON BK6 The urgency is that it needs to go to the courts. The bill needs to be introduced so it can go to the courts to keep these people out of the country. That is the urgency of this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Please continue but, as I reiterated, on the urgency component. Senator HANSON BK6 This is in addition to the existing temporary exclusion order regime. The new order, which is urgent, allows the minister to go to the Federal Court and establish that the person poses an unacceptable risk based on the advice of security agencies. It is measured and it is robust. Judicial oversight is maintained. It also strengthens terrorism bail laws and passport powers, and it imposes serious penalties on people who unlawfully facilitate the return of terrorist fighters. One Nation strongly believes that every possible legal measure must be employed to prevent the return of terrorists to our shores. We must take all possible steps to ensure the safety of Australians. Labor's approach to this issue has been to hide behind advice about constitutional questions. This is why there's urgency. The government should table this advice instead of keeping Australians in the dark and stop using it as a convenient excuse for failing to act. I say let the High Court determine whether a law is constitutional, because that is its job. We can't afford to sit on our hands and wait. Labor has stood by while two ISIS linked women on serious charges were released into the community on bail. Labor has said they won't assist the return of these 13 men imprisoned in Baghdad, but that's what they said about the so-called ISIS brides they helped to return. Labor can redeem itself by allowing this debate and supporting One Nation's legislation. The safety and security of the Australian people demand no less. We should act before these men are released. We must put in place every possible barrier to prevent their return. One Nation has done its part by drafting this bill to protect Australians. We ask that the Senate suspend standing orders to debate our bill and put the safety of Australians first, and that's a matter of urgency. 12:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Well, this is the One Nation dog whistle, isn't it? They come in here, proposing legislation they know is unconstitutional. It's got about as much chance of surviving a constitutional challenge as a paper kite in a bushfire. That's what they're proposing with this legislation. They even say it. They come and say, 'Let it go to the courts; we don't have to worry about constitutionality.' Senator Hanson tried to go to Syria on a Channel 7 funded trip. She tried to go there, but it was all too hard. Well, I'll tell you what. I've been to north-east Syria, and I've spoken to the people who fought and defeated ISIS. I've spoken to those brave women fighters who fought and defeated ISIS, and they don't support what Senator Hanson is doing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Shoebridge, please take your seat. Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson BK6 I want that comment withdrawn because there's no truth in it whatsoever. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Sorry, which comment? Senator Hanson BK6 What was just said about Syria. I want that comment withdrawn. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 310860 Senator Hanson, it's a debating point, so please take your seat. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 It might be inconvenient for Senator Hanson to know that the people who fought and defeated ISIS, the brave women fighters who fought and defeated ISIS—whom I've met; Senator Hanson hasn't—want this country to support a pathway to justice. They want us to support the International Criminal Court. They want us to cooperate with international tribunals. They want us to find a pathway so that the people who fought for ISIS can actually be held to account. They don't support this kind of dog whistle. They don't support this non-answer. They want us to actually back in and find a pathway to justice. They have no interest in some unconstitutional kite flying from One Nation. They want a solution where people are held to account for justice. You have no interest in justice. You want to blow your dog whistle. You want to pretend that you're doing this. The Greens want a pathway to justice. Do you know how you do that? You back in international tribunals. You back in the International Criminal Court and all the things that One Nation comes in here and opposes day after day after day. We want justice. That's why we won't support your rubbish. 12:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just to be very clear, the motion currently before the Senate is effectively an urgency motion. It is a motion seeking to suspend standing orders to consider Senator Hanson's bill. Now, depending on the outcome of that result, we will have an opportunity to express our views on that bill. But the matter before us right now is whether the standing orders should be suspended to debate this matter, which would have the effect of continuing to disrupt the other business of the Senate. The government does not support the suspension of standing orders. We as a government of course acknowledge that any government's priorities need to be headed by maintaining the safety and security of the Australian population, and that is something that this government has done, including in relation to foreign fighters and the group that have become known as ISIS brides. We have repeatedly made the point that as a government we are not providing any assistance to those individuals to return to Australia. Even though it doesn't seem to be accepted by some in this chamber, it is well known that, under Australian law, Australian citizens have a right to return to Australia. But this government is not providing an ounce of assistance to those individuals to return, so the government does not support the suspension of these standing orders. It is absolutely clear to anyone who has paid any attention to the debates about this issue that the bill that Senator Hanson is seeking to introduce is unconstitutional and would be thrown out by the High Court at the first opportunity. This is simply Senator Hanson seeking to score political points on a particular issue in front of the Australian people at the moment. This government is about laws that stand up in court, that do protect Australians and that don't result in being thrown out by a court, exposing Australians to greater risk—and that is what would be the consequence of Senator Hanson's bill if it were to pass the Senate chamber. We know that the current legislation that governs the use of temporary exclusion orders, which is what Senator Hanson's bill goes to—the current law, which was introduced by the former government, goes to the absolute maximum lengths that are permissible under the Australian Constitution. If any politician in this chamber, whether it be Senator Hanson, a coalition member or an Australian Greens member, seeks to amend the laws to take them further, that new law would be knocked over by the High Court and would not protect Australians. What this government is about is protecting Australians, not just seeking headlines, which is what Senator Hanson is doing. On that basis, we oppose the motion to suspend standing orders, and I move that the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.

The Senate divided. [12:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. 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. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 24 NOES Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 5 PAIRS Ayres, T. Antic, A. Mulholland, C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Hume, J. Walsh, J. C. Smith, D. A. Wong, P. Canavan, M. J.

Question agreed to.

12:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

24 AYES Bell, S. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. (Teller) McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Whitten, T. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Farrell, D. E. 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. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 5 PAIRS Antic, A. Ayres, T. Canavan, M. J. Wong, P. Hume, J. Smith, M. F. Scarr, P. M. Mulholland, C. Smith, D. A. Walsh, J. C.

Question negatived.

BILLS 11 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 11

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

Second Reading 11 13:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026. The coalition will not be opposing this bill; however, we will be moving an amendment to ensure that the expanded extradition arrest powers are subject to the appropriate parliamentary review. We will also be asking some questions, in the committee stage, in relation to schedule 3, relating to the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. I also want to put on the record, in addressing the bill, some important concerns not only about what this bill does represent but also, more importantly, for the benefit of the Senate, about what this bill does not represent. This is an omnibus bill. It contains five schedules. Those five schedules make a range of amendments to Commonwealth criminal justice, law enforcement and prosecution legislation. On the face of the bill itself, much of it is technical or procedural in nature, and the coalition accepts that. We accept that a modern parliament must maintain workable, up-to-date frameworks for policing and prosecution. Where these amendments modernise, clarify or improve the law, we support them. The bill has now been considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and coalition senators, in their report, supported the committee's recommendation that the bill be passed. However, coalition senators also placed on the record important concerns—and this is so typical of the Albanese government—about the government's failure to progress comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework; the removal, through this omnibus bill, of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's data disruption warrant powers; and the need for a review of expanded extradition arrest powers. Those issues do deserve careful attention. Why is that? It's because these issues actually go to the heart of ensuring that Australia's national security and law enforcement laws remain effective, proportionate and properly scrutinised. Schedule 1 itself clarifies Australian Federal Police policing powers at the Western Sydney international airport. It modernises the way warrant applications may be made by allowing electronic and telephone applications in place of cumbersome paper based processes. It also makes sensible technical amendments to ACT policing. These are practical commonsense changes that the coalition, as I said, support. Schedule 2 changes the way certain serious drug offence thresholds are calculated by moving to a mixed weight approach. This is going to broadly align Commonwealth law with the approach that is now taken in most of the states and territories. Schedule 3 creates a mechanism for managing conflicts of interest involving the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I said, we will be asking a number of questions in the committee stage just to get some clarification around the changes being made in this schedule. Schedule 4 itself aligns arrest powers under the Extradition Act 1988 with general Commonwealth arrest powers available under the Crimes Act 1914. Schedule 5 makes a minor consequential amendment to telecommunications interception legislation following changes to Victoria's integrity oversight arrangements. As I've stated, much of this bill makes sensible and practical improvements. It seeks to remove unnecessary administrative barriers, provide greater consistency across Commonwealth legislation and assist police, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to perform their important work. The coalition, as outlined in our committee report, support those practical improvements. But I want to turn to the element of the bill that deserves very careful scrutiny, and that is the extension of Australia's cyber disruption powers. In 2021, the former coalition government introduced the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021. Those reforms recognised a reality that has now, in 2026, become impossible to ignore. Serious organised crime was changing. Criminal enterprises were increasingly operating online. Child exploitation networks—the absolute worst of the worst, the scum of the earth—were hiding behind encrypted platforms. Drug-trafficking syndicates, money-laundering operations and other serious criminal organisations were exploiting sophisticated digital technologies that traditional investigative powers were not designed to address. Law enforcement agencies needed more than the ability to simply observe serious criminals operating online. They also needed the tool which we gave to them, and that was the ability to disrupt them. That is what the former coalition government delivered. We introduced data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants. Those powers were designed not merely to monitor serious criminal activity but to intervene, as is required, directly in criminal networks to prevent further occurring and further offending. Data disruption warrants enable law enforcement agencies to interfere with data used by criminal networks. Network activity warrants assist agencies to identify offenders operating anonymously across complex online environments. Account takeover warrants allow agencies—under, of course, judicial authorisation—to take control of online accounts being used for serious criminal offending. These were landmark reforms. They gave Australia's law enforcement agencies the tools they needed to confront serious and organised crime in an increasingly online and digital environment. They also ensured that those powers, appropriately, remained subject to judicial authorisation, independent oversight and a sunset clause so that the parliament would be required to revisit their necessity and their operation. Those powers are due to expire now—in September 2026. Part 3 of schedule 1 extends them for a further three years, until 4 September 2029. The coalition supports the continuation of these powers. As I've already stated, they were a landmark achievement of the former, coalition government. We created them because we recognised that they were necessary. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has since undertaken a comprehensive review of the identify and disrupt regime. The independent monitor found that these powers provide effective operational capabilities in circumstances where other powers—bearing in mind what we're talking about here: serious organised crime online—would have been ineffective. The independent monitor recommended that they should not be allowed to sunset. The coalition agrees. Australia's law enforcement agencies should continue to have access to these capabilities. The threats these powers were designed to address have not disappeared. If anything, they have become more sophisticated. Serious and organised crime continues to adapt. Criminal networks continue to exploit new technologies. Those seeking to harm Australians continue to look for new ways to conceal their activities, frustrate law enforcement and operate across jurisdictions. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must have the tools necessary to respond. But, while the coalition supports extending these powers, the need for this extension exposes a much broader and more serious problem. It exposes the Albanese government's continuing failure to modernise Australia's electronic surveillance network. The Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community described reform of Australia's electronic surveillance laws as becoming more urgent. The government accepted the need for reform. The government then committed to a new, modernised and coherent electronic surveillance framework. Bad news, Australia—that was actually four years ago. Four years after taking office, there is still no comprehensive legislative package. There is still no modern electronic surveillance act. There is still no clear timetable for reform. Instead, what is the government doing? They're asking the parliament to extend a sunset clause. But why? Because the government has failed yet again to complete the broader legislative work that we so desperately need. The bill keeps important powers alive, but it also tells a story. It tells the story of a government that has had over four years to modernise Australia's electronic surveillance laws, but it has failed to do so: great on the headline; shocking on the substance. This is a temporary measure now made necessary because the government has failed to deliver the reform it promised. National security reform cannot be allowed to simply drift from one sunset extension to the next whilst governments postpone the difficult work to comprehensively initiate legislative reform. Technology continues to evolve; that is a fact. The threat environment continues to evolve; that is a fact. The measures used by serious and organised crime continue to evolve. Our laws, therefore, must evolve with them. Australia's intelligence agencies, quite frankly, deserve better; our law enforcement agencies, quite frankly, deserve better; and Australians deserve confidence that the laws protecting them are being modernised before a deadline arrives, not after. Comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework should now be an immediate priority for the government. The second issue of concern that was highlighted in the coalition senators' additional comments in the inquiry report concerns the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Part 3 of schedule 1 does more than just extend Australia's cyber disruption powers. It also removes the ACIC's ability to apply for data disruption warrants. We accept the government's broader policy objective of refocusing the ACIC as a dedicated criminal intelligence agency responsible for the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence relating to serious and organised crime. Our concern is not simply the policy direction. Our concern is the legislative vehicle the government has chosen and the level of scrutiny that this significant change will receive. The removal of the ACIC's ability to apply for data disruption warrants is not a minor or incidental amendment. Data disruption warrants enable law enforcement agencies to interfere directly with data used by serious and organised criminals. They can be used to disrupt criminal communications, degrade criminal platforms, interfere with information central to criminal operations and undermine the ability of criminal networks to operate effectively. Removing the capability from the ACIC is a significant change to their powers and their functions et cetera. At the same time, we have the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 before the parliament. What is that bill going to do? Its intention is to establish a modern legislative framework for the ACIC, to give effect to its new proposed intelligence focused role. It has been referred appropriately to the PJCIS for scrutiny. This is our specialist parliamentary committee for scrutiny of intelligence and national security legislation. It is appropriate for PJCIS to consider this power. The coalition has been clear. We therefore consider that the removal of the ACIC's data disruption warrant powers should be dealt with through the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026. That would allow this change to be considered as part of the broader reform of the ACIC's role and functions. It would also ensure that the PJCIS gives the change the appropriate scrutiny it needs. Accordingly, as I've already noted, the opposition will be moving an amendment on sheet 3825 standing in my name to this effect: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the bill removes the ability of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to apply for data disruption warrants; (b) further notes that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 is currently before the Parliament and is the appropriate legislative vehicle for considering significant changes to the powers, functions and operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission; (c) considers that the removal of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's data disruption warrant powers should be considered as part of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026, to enable appropriate scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; and (d) calls on the Government to incorporate Part 3 of Schedule 1 into the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026". This actually improves the legislation. Why? Because changes of this significance should not be bundled into an omnibus bill containing largely technical and procedural amendments. As I've already stated, there are a number of other issues that we will be pursuing in the committee stage. We are, as I've also stated, broadly in support of this bill. But there are some issues that do need to be interrogated further. Some amendments do need to be made. At the same time, as I've said, we again firmly place on the record our concern that after almost four years of taking office—in fact, as I've said, it's actually in excess of four years—the Albanese government has still failed to deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance laws that is so desperately needed and that has indeed been recommended. 13:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens have significant concerns with the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026 and will be seeking to amend it in committee. I want to be clear that if those amendments don't succeed, we'll be opposing it on the third read. This is an omnibus bill. You don't get to use the word 'omnibus' much, other than in the Senate; it's nice that we haven't lost that word. It's a big bill amending seven separate acts and full of different things, from AFP move-on powers and a new major airport—which is designed to give those powers at the new Sydney west airport at Badgerys—to surveillance warrants, drug offence evidentiary rules, DPP conflict-of-interest provisions and extradition powers. They're all the things you could fit in a big bus! Two schedules are of most concern to the Greens. They are the schedules in relation to the drug offence evidentiary changes and the surveillance warrants sunset extension. As always, for oppressive, powerful and secret state powers, the sun never seems to set on them. I'll deal with each of those in turn and then flag the amendments that the Greens will be moving. The bill makes two substantive changes to how Commonwealth drug laws are prosecuted. The first is a new evidentiary certificate regime, and the second is a shift from the traditional purity-based offences to what's called a gross weight—or an admixture method—for assessing drug quantities. I'll deal first with the evidentiary certificates. These proposals propose to remove the requirement for there to be individual witness statements on chain-of-custody matters. Traditionally in Commonwealth proceedings, so that a defendant could be sure about the alleged material which is said to have been in their possession or which they may have been otherwise involved with, there was a requirement for witness statements to identify where the material, often drugs, was found; who they handed it to; how it got to the lab; where it was tested in the lab; and how that then supports the finding from the lab that a particular amount of drugs was found in a particular period. That chain of evidence is, of course, critical if the courts are to have confidence that the allegations about the nature and the quantity of the drugs are actually well founded. National Legal Aid has flagged the practical consequences of removing that chain-of-custody evidence and instead replacing it with a simple certificate that alleges, on the side of the police and the prosecution, that chain-of-custody requirements have been met but with no proof, no witness statements and nothing to be tested by a defendant. National Legal Aid flagged the practical consequence of this, which is that defence practitioners lose that early visibility of problems—and they do happen—like improper storage or contamination risk because they will no longer have that documented until the matter goes to trial and only then if they pick it up and demand that the chain-of-custody evidence be given. I want to be clear that this has historically been a significant problem. Police in my home state of New South Wales have often had appalling records for where they store drugs that had been seized. There was a point about a decade ago in New South Wales where police station safes were full of deteriorating bags of drugs that had been seized and there was poor evidentiary holding. In one police station in central Sydney, they had an underground walk-in safe that, when you opened the door, literally could floor police officers from the smells and the fumes from drugs that had been in bags that had deteriorated. Officers' health was at serious risk going into those rooms. Of course, when that happens, evidence about chain of custody, what drugs there are, what drugs are actually relevant to which particular criminal proceedings and the purity and the quantity of them becomes very murky. That is why there is insistence, traditionally, on chain-of-custody evidence. If that chain-of-custody evidence is removed, National Legal Aid has said, that potentially puts a significant cost impact on defendants in a system where legal aid is already incredibly stretched. It will potentially see significant flaws in the prosecution case not being identified. It will fall hardest, National Legal Aid tell us, on people who already have the least resources to identify and contest deficiencies in evidence against them. On the other side, of course, is the AFP, who simply say: 'We'd like this to be simpler. We'd like it to be cheaper, quicker and simpler. We'd just like to issue a certificate rather than actually persuade the court about where and how the drugs found their way into police possession and how they got to the lab.' The Greens believe that the concerns raised by National Legal Aid, and I think also by the Law Council of Australia, should be listened to and those parts of the bill should not be supported. The second element is the gross weight or admixture approach. Moving away from the purity based assessments when they're determining the quantity of drugs that have been seized means that the weight of cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substance that gets mixed into drugs will be counted as if it were the drug itself. In some of the submissions we saw the potential that somebody may have drums that had been contaminated by drugs on a previous occasion. They may have had no knowledge that the drums had contained drugs. They may have had no knowledge about the contamination. They may then store a benign material in it—some flour or some beans or some other material. If that benign, legal material were tainted by the drugs from the earlier storage then, under these laws, anyone who was in possession of that or sold that could potentially face criminal prosecution for very serious drug possession and/or commercial trade offences. That's been raised clearly by National Legal Aid and by the Law Council. It might just be useful to hear directly what National Legal Aid said about this. I'll just read from paragraphs 2.27 to 2.29 in the report: However, NLA submitted that the purity-based system for measuring border-controlled drugs should be retained and expressed concern that the 'proposed approach risks arbitrary outcomes, particularly where concealment materials or low purity substances inflate weight' … Then there's another quote from National Legal Aid: NLA is concerned that a shift to gross-weight measurement will disproportionately affect lower-level participants in drug supply chains, including mules, runners and others at the bottom of criminal enterprises, who are more likely to handle substances of lower purity and who make up the majority of legal aid clients in Commonwealth drug matters. Some accused may face significantly higher maximum penalties on the same factual basis as a result of the change. Paragraph 2.28 in the report says: In addition, NLA argued that, should a mixture-quantity model be adopted, there should be 'a review of thresholds and the explicit preservation of purity as a mitigating factor to protect fair trial rights, ensure accurate sentencing, and avoid disproportionate punishment without demonstrable deterrent benefit'. None of that is contained in this bill. So what this is doing is substantially increasing the penalties under Commonwealth drug laws for exactly the same offending material that's happening today, without any clear justification other than that the police don't like going to the expense and the cost of actually checking the purity of the drugs. There is no justification for doing this other than the administrative convenience of the police. The Law Council of Australia also identified a number of concerns with the changes, including about whether or not absolute liability elements about quantity should be included in the Criminal Code. They said this: We are concerned that, by changing the method for calculating the quantity of prohibited substance, consideration needs to be given to introducing a fault element to quantity elements or shifting these elements to strict liability elements, to admit of the possibility that mistakes of fact might be materially relevant to the conduct in question. That's exactly the concern that somebody may have innocently, as in the example that was given, purchased some barrels that may have been contaminated, unbeknown to them, by previous storage of drugs. They store another material in those barrels, and then, under these strict liability provisions, they could find themselves going to jail for an extremely long period of time for serious commercial drug-dealing offences. Again, there's no explanation for this. National Legal Aid's evidence here is blunt on who these changes will catch—not the big drug dealers or the Colombian or bikie gang criminal cartel element but the mules and the runners, those at the bottom of the supply chains, who are often addicts themselves and who have the least agency in this space. Is that what we want to do—pass laws to put people who are the most vulnerable in jail for even longer periods of time, for exactly the same conduct that they're doing now? If you really wanted to dismantle these criminal drug-dealing cartels, the worst place you can look is the mules and the runners, the people right at the bottom, often carrying low-purity products, who make up the majority, in this case, of National Legal Aid's clients in drug matters. This isn't a bill that will touch the organisers and profiteers at the top of these operations, and it's not designed to. It's just designed to make those lower level prosecutions more serious and easier for the police. That is not going to keep us safer. This matters because at least 23 offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code carry these absolute liability elements tied to drug quantity and, under an absolute liability offence, the prosecution doesn't even have to prove any mental element about the quantity. Critically, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake is not available. If you combine that with a gross weight approach, you will get people facing more serious absolute liability thresholds because of the weight of a mixture they had no knowledge of, and, under the law as it would stand, they would have no defence and no ability to explain what they knew and why they found themselves there. The Law Council's submission to this bill is clear that, on both the evidentiary certificate framework and on this admixture element, it should not proceed. That is why the Greens will be moving amendments to seek to remove those schedules from the bill. Could I quickly address the surveillance warrant sunset extension proposal? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 315170 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. We've now hit 1.30, so we will move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 16 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Indian Independence Day 16 13:30 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales This Saturday marks the 80th Independence Day of India, commemorating the birth of the world's largest democracy. Indian independence was hard-earned and hard-fought, driven by the non-violent resistance and campaigns of many of millions of everyday Indians, whose efforts brought self-determination to one of the world's oldest civilisations and an end to nearly 200 years of colonial rule. So this occasion is one for celebration, and I know it will be celebrated throughout India. But it will also be celebrated in gatherings across Australia. Australia is home to one of the largest and most active, vigorous, dynamic and contributing Indian diasporas in the world. It is almost one million strong and, as we will see from tonight's census, it is probably growing at a significant rate still. I know many Australians of Indian heritage, amongst whom I count myself, will be with others—neighbours and friends—to celebrate their culture, their heritage, their traditions and their values, as well as their Australianness. I look forward to joining the Indian Australian community this weekend in Sydney for some of those celebrations. Indian Independence Day is also an opportunity to reflect upon the shared bonds and values that bind Australia and India together—not only shared beliefs in democracy and the rule of law but shared values and interests across the world and shared beliefs in and a shared respect for pluralism and tolerance. It is these beliefs that underpin the growing trade, defence, security and commercial relationship between our two countries, underpinned by recent free trade agreements and other commercial relationships. But at the heart of this relationship lies the community—the people-to-people ties—which adds so much to our bilateral relationships, whether it's through businesses, education, enterprise or academia. Thank you to the Indian Australian community. Education 16 13:32 Senator DOLEGA 316935 Tasmania Public education is the foundation of a fair, democratic and successful country. Growing up, I was fortunate enough to attend public schools, Spreyton Primary School, Latrobe High School and Don College, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is increasing public school spending after decades of neglect. Look back through the history books. Under the Howard government, the coalition completely plundered public education, heavily skewing funding towards elite private schools, many of which were among the wealthiest in the country. Then came the Abbott government, which repeatedly promised no cuts to education, before slashing billions from public schools. Then, continuing the crusade of cuts, the Morrison government's pre-2022 election budget included more cuts to public schools while it increased funding for private schools. It was unfair, punitive and downright disrespectful. So much for it being the party of aspiration—only if you were fortunate enough to go to a private school, it seems. Then you've got the other right-wing party, the circus over there, One Nation. They frequently undermine and discredit experts while claiming they'll restore critical thinking to the classroom. It's hard not to laugh at that claim when they are consistently peddling cooker conspiracy theories. If that's their idea of critical thinking, we should be concerned about what they want taught in our classrooms. Education in Australia should give every child the opportunity to succeed. That's what the Albanese Labor government believes in, and that's why we have put all schools on a pathway to full and fair funding. That means an extra $20 billion over the next decade and an extra $50 billion in the decade after that. We are committed to helping kids catch up and finish school. This government is standing up for school funding, and I fully support public schools and giving kids a fair go in public education. Taxation 16 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland How much tax did you pay last year? If you're Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, the answer is none. News Corp just announced a record increase in revenue, yet they paid no tax. In fact, News Corp is one of 79 companies that have never paid a cent in tax over the 11 years that corporate tax data has been publicly released—$0 tax on almost $25 billion in revenue. News Corp are emblematic of a new breed of big corporate bludgers leeching off the public purse and giving nothing back. Their stock market announcement of this record revenue also informed shareholders that subscribers to their flagship newspapers are down. So where is the money coming from? Well, News Corp, despite their name, are essentially a property business that is subsidising unprofitable right-wing newspapers and 24-hour outrage opinion channels. It turns out that having a near monopoly on clipping the ticket on property sales via realestate.com is very profitable. It's understandable that people are losing faith in a system in which our largest media organisation is propped up by real estate advertising. I'm sure that's had no effect on the housing crisis! But it doesn't have to be this way. If Labor had the guts to take on the one per cent and make big corporations like News Corp pay their fair share, we could invest in affordable housing and more free and affordable public services, and take on corporate price gouging. They won't, though, because Labor, like the Liberals and One Nation, are funded by big corporations and the one per cent, and they're making decisions that make them richer at your expense. New South Wales: Acknowledgements 17 13:36 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales We are so blessed in my home state of New South Wales to have some of the most welcoming country towns in Australia. Through the break, I visited Albury and Armidale, two regional centres with multibillion-dollar economies and vibrant communities. I commend the work that my state colleagues Justin Clancy MP and Aileen MacDonald MLC are doing in their communities, supporting small businesses and local families, and I look forward to returning soon. I learned about the water struggles that affect both these towns and how population growth and renewable energy zones are putting maximum pressure on dwindling water supplies. In Armidale, I met council Mayor Sam Coupland, Deputy Mayor Todd Redwood and Councillor Eli Imad to hear about their comprehensive vision to improve water security and support larger population growth. In Guyra, I spoke with four incredible Tongan people working under the PALM scheme. I heard firsthand about the benefits of this great coalition policy for these individuals, and it was absolutely heartwarming. They told me how much they love our country and that Australia and the Kingdom of Tonga are closer as a result. The University of New England is making a huge contribution to education, in particular through the great work of Vice-Chancellor and CEO Chris Moran in bringing tertiary education to disparate communities. In Albury, amongst many small businesses, I visited Anzac House and the Albury RSL Sub-Branch to learn about the work that they are doing to support the local veteran community. Thank you to outgoing president Graham Docksey OAM for your dedication and all that you have put into that role and your local veteran community. Albury may be a regional city, but it has a global and highly diversified economy and has become an engine of the New South Wales economy. But Labor's policies have created cost-of-living pressures, housing affordability challenges and workforce shortages which are huge issues in these town centres. This is forcing young people and families to leave these towns—what an absolute tragedy. Medicare 17 13:38 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia Labor is focused on delivering real change. Not too long ago, we announced that we have opened every single one of our Medicare urgent care clinics. That's 137 fully bulk-billed urgent care clinics right around the country, and it is through this work that you can see the true priorities of our government. That is not the end of it. Thanks to our government's record investment in bulk-billing, 84 per cent of practices around the country are now fully bulk billed. In my home state of Western Australia, we have seen that the number of practices fully bulk-billing appointments has gone up to 240. That includes 127 new practices that were previously mixed billing. This means that 32 per cent of practices in the state are completely free. In the electorate of Canning, in the south metropolitan and southern regional area of Western Australia, we can see that that number is even higher, with 41 per cent of practices bulk-billing every single patient. In the Peel region, this builds upon the efforts of the state government, who last week announced the start of construction of the brand new Mandurah hospital, adding more beds, expanding access to health services and ensuring more people can access the care that they need, which is exactly what the growing suburbs and regions of Western Australia need. This is part of a record $5.5 billion investment in health. I want to congratulate my friends Rhys Williams and Lisa Munday, the members for Mandurah and Dawesville, who have long advocated for this new hospital. This is an example of state and Commonwealth Labor governments working together to deliver real change for health care for Australians. Euthanasia 17 13:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Back in 2022, Canberrans sent me to this place with a very clear message—to work with the Senate to restore territory rights—and I'm really proud to be part of a Senate that delivered just that to the territories. After a quarter of a century of being deprived of these rights, the people of the ACT were finally able to determine for ourselves legislation to enable access to voluntary assisted dying. This has given choice and dignity to people facing the end of their lives, but those in this most difficult of circumstances need further assistance from our federal parliament. They need us to amend the Criminal Code so that the VAD telehealth consultations are no longer captured, as they were never intended to be. The member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, in the other place attempted to bring a bill this morning that would make these very minor changes to our laws—changes that protect doctors and ensure that people at the end of their lives who meet stringent safeguards and requirements can access some consultations on VAD via telehealth. Disappointingly, despite the Labor Party incorporating an amendment to its national platform to allow its members a conscience vote on the matter, no vote was allowed on the member for Curtin's bill. The VAD process is long and full of safety checks, as Australians would rightly expect. Terminally ill, frail or regional patients are forced to undergo multiple mandatory in-person assessments, sometimes travelling thousands of kilometres and occasionally dying before this process can be completed. The member's legislation proposes a very modest and sensible change of roughly 170 words to the federal Criminal Code that would explicitly exempt VAD telehealth discussions from the archaic rules. We have an opportunity to give people the dignity that they deserve—the last gift that we can give them. Child Abuse: Childcare Centres 18 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I want to begin my short speech by acknowledging the horrific distress and pain of every child and family affected by the allegations involving childcare worker Hamish Tait. No parent should learn through a newspaper or a Facebook group that their child may have been exposed to an alleged offender, yet that is the reality facing many families across Australia. Recent childcare abuse cases have exposed serious failures across centres, regulators and screening systems. In some cases, alleged offending was uncovered through online activity or digital devices, not by the safeguards there to protect children. Still, four weeks on, the national leadership families deserve has been missing in action. Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the education minister, Mr Clare, or the minister responsible for child care in this place, Senator Walsh? Why are families still waiting to hear from them? Two weeks ago, opposition leader Angus Taylor, Bruce and Denise Morcombe and Childcare Choice wrote to the Prime Minister calling for a publicly accessible national childcare perpetrator register. The principle is simple. When a childcare worker is charged with serious child sexual offences, parents should be able to access their name and relevant employment history from a trusted official source. A register would not determine guilt; it would preserve the presumption of innocence while giving parents reliable information. A Daily Telegraph poll found that 73 per cent support a transparent public register, and the coalition stands ready to work with the government to establish this. Parents do not want silence. They want action, they want transparency and they need confidence that their children are safe. Australian Labor Party 18 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution about the commitment to the democracy of this nation and the civic engagement of members of political parties, particularly my party, the Labor Party, which was celebrated in the recognition of life members at the 2026 New South Wales state conference. I proudly attended as part of the SDA delegation. It is a tradition in our conferences that we acknowledge those longstanding and outstanding members of the Labor Party who have reached life membership status. I congratulate every single one of them. I want to take the opportunity I have here in the time that's allocated to put on the record the many women in New South Wales who received life membership at this conference. I say to each of you: thank you for your remarkable contribution not just to the Labor Party but to your communities and to the democratic project of this great nation, Australia, our home. Congratulations, Merilyn Alt, Joy Benton, Helen Clifford, Kathleen Collins, Carmel Cook, Marilyn Eade, Robyn Gibson, Victoria Holland, Karen Judd, Anne Knight, Patricia Maybury, Cath Miller, Merleen Millson, Anne Rees, Mollie Rule, Maree Shepherd, Alma Stearn, Susan Suchy, Carmel Tebbutt, Colleen Timoshenko, Leta Webb and Sue Young. We value your contributions to the party over many, many years to ensure that our party, the Labor Party, truly reflects the communities across Australia that we strive to represent. I recognise each of you and commend your efforts. I want to make a very special mention in the time that remains to me of Maria Iemma, the wonderful mother of the former premier of New South Wales Morris Iemma AO. Thank you, every life member, for your contribution. Migration 18 13:46 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Last week Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, launched a fresh attack on migrants who are living and working here in Australia. Her comments about Uber drivers, nail technicians and dog walkers are not a serious contribution to the immigration debate here at home. They are a deliberate slur against particular sections of Australia's community, people she dismisses as disposable. In her words, these people should be gone. Let's be clear, I'm particularly concerned about the phrase 'dog walkers' and this attack on people. This is a Trumpism from Pauline Hanson. She's talking about dog walkers today; tomorrow, she's going to be saying, 'They're eating the dogs.' It is a disgusting attack on those who come to Australia to make a life, to contribute to our community and to build their families. Where is the call-out of this lie? Because, of course, there is no visa category for dog walkers in Australia. We have a whole array of visa streams and qualifications. Not one of them is for dog walking. So where is the call-out of this lie from Australia's media and politicians? It is disgusting Donald-Trump-copycat behaviour from Pauline Hanson. It is her version of Donald Trump's 'eating the dogs', manufacturing an absurd menace attached to migrants to use to prejudice and to distract from the real failures of our housing and cost-of-living crisis. Trump's claim was debunked by local officials, and yet it's crickets here in Australia. It's worse than in America because nobody has said a thing. (Time expired) Victoria: Corrections 19 13:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Breathing fresh air and seeing the sky is a basic human right enshrined in international law and in the Victorian charter of human rights. Just last month, the Victorian government introduced their 'no air in prison bill', which strips people of this right. This bill legalises inhumane treatment in contravention of Victoria's own human rights charter. It means people in prison won't have guaranteed access to go outside for fresh air and the government cannot be held accountable for this cruel treatment. Proud Wiradjuri woman Kelly Flanagan, who has spent time in Dame Phyllis Frost women's prison, has said: Being locked in a two-by-three metre cement cell with no hope of coming out, despair, psychological distress and hopelessness will wreak havoc on women's mental state. It will create unsafe conditions for officers as well as women. Days ago, an 18-year-old woman died in the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre after repeated lockdowns. My heart goes out to her family. Instead of ensuring this doesn't happen again, the Victorian government is passing laws that will make conditions worse and disproportionately harm First Peoples. People in prisons are our brothers, sisters, parents and children. The trauma they experience in prison follows them home and impacts families and communities. That's why we need a federal human rights act in this country and to set minimum standards for these prisons which are torturing children, women and people. The federal government has the power to act. Do so. Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 19 13:50 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Abuse, intimidation, stalking and assault have no place in our community, and they certainly have no place in our workplaces. That's why I am proud to stand in the Senate today to commend the SDA union in Victoria for its Ban Aggressive Customers campaign. This 12-month-long effort has delivered a significant outcome thanks to the Ben Carroll Victorian Labor government introducing legislation to create workplace protection orders through its new scheme. Those in retail, fast food and other customer-facing roles deserve nothing less than the right to feel safe whilst doing their job. Workplace protection orders will give the courts the power to ban or limit people's access to workplaces when they have repeatedly behaved inappropriately towards workers. These bans can remain in force for up to 12 months, with breaches carrying penalties of up to two years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000. We don't need to see the statistics to understand the impact abuse and violence can have on customer service workers. These reforms are an important step towards ensuring that people can clock on without stress or fear. I want to commend the SDA union for its advocacy and thank the Carroll Labor government for recognising the importance of this campaign and for protecting workers. These reforms send a very clear message that if you repeatedly abuse or intimidate workers, there will be serious consequences. The workplace protection orders will make a real difference to the safety and wellbeing of thousands of Victorians, because everyone deserves to go to work and come home safely. Quite frankly, no-one deserves a serve. National Security 19 13:52 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales When it comes to protecting Australians from terrorist supporters and terrorists returning to Australia, this government has failed the people. When you hear the Labor government say, 'We are offering not one ounce of assistance,' you should really hear the truth. They are saying, 'We are turning a blind eye.' Let's look at ISIS. ISIS is not some misguided political movement. It is a terrorist organisation responsible for murder, torture, slavery, rape and terrorism, and anyone who travelled overseas to support it or work with it knew exactly what they were doing. One Nation is fundamentally committed to saying that if you pledge allegiance to a foreign terrorist organisation, if you participate or provide support to terrorists, you are not welcome in this country. The first responsibility of any Australian government is simple: keep Australians safe. So, Australians, you are entitled to ask why we are taking on the risk of bringing them back. Why does your right to safety get trumped by the right that they think they have to be in this country? One Nation has put legislation forward, and it will put the safety of Australians first. It will strengthen foreign terrorist fighter exclusion orders, strengthen the power to cancel passports, restrict return permits while cases are considered, tighten terrorism bail laws and impose serious penalties on anyone who unlawfully facilitates a terrorist linked person's return. We are told people who embrace violent extremism can be managed through deradicalisation programs. Almost 300 people are now in programs across Australia, but the government cannot tell Australians what percentage has actually been successfully deradicalised. This should terrify Australians. It gets worse because these programs are not mandatory. The New South Wales Engagement and Support Program is voluntary and consent based. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. One Nation will always put the safety of Australians first. Labor Government: Climate Change 20 13:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries in the UK has issued the starkest of warnings about the future if we don't urgently rein in greenhouse gas emissions. It is frightening reading—absolutely terrifying. We are facing up to four billion people dead this century—four billion people dead. We are facing death, disease, starvation, famine, fire, flood, pestilence, war, displacement and ecosystem collapse, a future where our actual civilisation crumbles and collapses around it. And we're going to get a tiny taste of that in the next six months, because there is a record El Nino forming—again, a frightening, terrifying climate driven event which could lead to some of the most extreme weather events humanity has faced for decades—coming this summer here in Australia. And what is the Labor Party doing? Approving new coal and gas mines as fast as they can, supporting the logging, destruction and burning of Australia's native forest estate. The psychopaths running fossil fuel companies in Australia are being enabled by the Australian Labor Party. One of the fundamental jobs of a government is to keep its people safe, not expose them to avoidable danger. The future we are facing is horrifying, it is radical and it is far, far worse than most people alive can comprehend. But it is government's job to keep people safe, and you are failing us, you utter fools. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 315170 Thank you. Senator Cadell, you have the call. Energy 20 13:56 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales It was interesting to hear that previous comment on what's happening in the world and the need to clean up and get rid of greenhouse gases when the person speaking is one of those so opposed to nuclear in this country—so opposed to an abundant source of energy where we can mine it, build it, grow it, operate it and actually get it out there. When we talk about the new gas and the new coalmines that they're saying the government is interested in, or the people are, you have to realise that every new one is cleaner than the one you're taking offline. I look at the Bayswater No. 2 site that stands up in the Hunter Valley. It could be easily turned into a new HELE plant as quickly as we wanted to, to help with the transition of these things. We're out there talking about AI and data centres, all of these things, but we're not talking about the way to fuel them with the strong baseload power that is needed. During this break, on 4 June, the Antares Mark-0 microreactor actually went critical for the first time, prior to the deadline of 4 August that was out there in the world. A microreactor is anything under one megawatt, and the Antares R1 reactor is up to 100 kilowatts. It was housed, in its experimental stage, in a building just 12 metres by 20 metres. That's how big the building was, and that was everything—shielding, heat, transmission and all of these things in that size. What you're talking about is a future where containerisation of power up to one megawatt—so 100 kilowatts to one megawatt—is real. It has happened. We've seen this go around the world, and Australia is sitting this out. Imagine being able to airlift a container to flood areas to get power. Imagine its use for emergencies. Imagine its use for defence. Imagine the use of this technology that we are sitting out because we want to mine it, we want to sell it and we want to do treaties with countries to give it to them. It's good that they have it but we can't use it ourselves! If we want a stronger base load—I want to follow Dr David Gillespie, who was here as a Nat and led it in the country, and the women who are out there, like Jaz Diab, Helen Cook and Patricia Gadd, who are leading this around the world. But we can't do it in Australia, because of a rule. It is stupid and it must be overturned. Early Learning Matters Week 20 13:58 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia We've just concluded Early Learning Matters Week, a national celebration of the profound impact that early learning has on children, families and communities. To recognise the week, I visited two services in my community and watched in awe as educators encouraged curious minds through water play and transformed a simple tarpaulin into a game of hide-and-seek. To many, while these moments look like simple acts of play, we know that these acts of play can be transformative. We know that early childhood is one of the single most important levers we have to invest in if we want to lift disadvantage and if we want to improve opportunity in Australia. Investing in those early years is transformational. It presents every opportunity to grow our productivity. It presents every opportunity to address disadvantage. Simple moments of play, simple moments of singing songs, counting and learning, have an extraordinary role to play in a child's brain development, learning and capability. That's why our government is investing in a three-day guarantee to ensure that every child who stands to benefit from the extraordinary opportunity of early learning has it. Early learning is an opportunity for children to help their brains grow and develop. For disadvantaged children, it is most important, and I commend the work of Minister Walsh in this Early Learning Matters Week. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Prime Minister 21 14:00 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, have you advised the Prime Minister to apologise to the Japanese Prime Minister for the crude and insulting comments and gestures he made when discussing a symbolic and thoughtful gift of crown melons he received from her? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I would say to those opposite that Prime Minister Takaichi is a friend of Australia and a friend of the Prime Minister and the relationship with Japan is closer than it has ever been. I am disappointed that those opposite are so desperate to score political points that they seek to confect a diplomatic issue to do so. The relationship with Japan has bipartisan support, as it should. It is a very important relationship for Australia, and I would emphasise how grateful I am to have the close relationship that I have with Foreign Minister Motegi, who I spoke to just over a fortnight ago on the sidelines of the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting. Those opposite may know that I have visited Japan, I think, seven times as Foreign minister. This goes to the relationship between Japan and Australia. Senator Cash I0M Have you told the PM as the Foreign minister to apologise? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The question's been asked. Senator WONG 00AOU I think Senator Cash is demonstrating why she's no longer in this shadow portfolio by her interjections and by what she has said. We take very seriously the importance of the relationship with Japan— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! My goodness! We're into the first question. I've called order about seven times. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Australia's relationship with Japan is one of the most important relationships we have. In fact, I often describe it publicly as our special strategic partnership second only to, in particular, our alliance with the United States. Now, it's a relationship that has been strengthened under this government, and we will continue to do that because it is in Australia's national interest. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, first supplementary? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Sharma. I'll just wait until there's order on your side. Senator Sharma. 14:02 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Far from confecting a diplomatic issue, Japan's former ambassador to Australia wrote only yesterday: The last thing she expected was to be so casually mocked by the trusted leader of Japan's special strategic partner. Minister, do you agree the comments were unacceptable and unworthy of an Australian prime minister? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Minister Wong, I'm going to remind those particularly on my right that Senator Sharma had the right to ask his question in silence. 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As Senator Gallagher said today, the Prime Minister has been clear that he did not mean for those comments to be interpreted in the way they have been by those opposite. I again say Prime Minister Takaichi is a friend of Australia and a friend of the Prime Minister. I make this point: this is a relationship— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I'm sorry. Please resume your seat. I've called for order on my left. Senator Ruston, you were one of the people that was out of order the first time around, and you've continued to be. Please come to order. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Again, what I would say is that we appreciated very much Prime Minister Takaichi's visit to Australia and the Prime Minister was honoured to receive her, just as I was honoured to deliver the keynote address at the event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Nara treaty. We will continue to work in our relationship with Japan, which is so important to strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Sharma. Resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I've asked you to come to order; I expect you to come to order. Senator Sharma, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, what steps have you as Foreign minister taken to ensure our partnership with Japan, one of our most valued trading and security partners, is not damaged by the Prime Minister's boorish and insulting behaviour? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, what I'd say to the senator is that the relationship with Japan is something that has strengthened since we have been in government, that we engage closely and regularly, that the Prime Minister regards Prime Minister Takaichi as a personal friend as well as a friend of our nation, and that we are grateful for the close relationship we have. I know that there's a lot of division and unrest in opposition ranks, which has been spoken about, but I don't believe that distracting from that by diminishing Australia's relationships is responsible. International Relations: Australia and the Indo-Pacific 22 14:06 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, following the treaty signings last month by Prime Minister Albanese and Prime Minister Rabuka of Fiji, this week the Australian government will table the Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance here in parliament, marking a new chapter in our relationship with Fiji. Can the minister please explain to the Senate what these treaties mean for Australia and how continued engagement with the Pacific, including last week at the PIF Foreign Ministers Meeting, strengthens Australia's place in our region? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for your question, Senator Ciccone. I appreciate the opportunity to update the Senate on the Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance. These two treaties are some of the most comprehensive and important endeavours Australia has undertaken with any country. They are grounded in our two nations' shared trust, respect and responsibility. The Vuvale Union's three pillars—security, economies and people—will underpin our relationship with Fiji for generations to come. The Ocean of Peace Alliance, our mutual defence treaty, commits Australia and Fiji to come to each other's aid in times of greatest need. We are saying that we will be there for one another. The government's credibility and reliability with Pacific partners is why we now count Fiji and Papua New Guinea as Australian allies. These agreements are milestones in the Albanese government's work to secure Australia's future in our region, because a stronger, safer, sovereign and more prosperous Pacific benefits every Australian. I have spoken publicly about the permanent contest Australia finds ourselves in, and we cannot be complacent about this. Advancing our national interests requires sustained effort. Just last week I was back in Fiji for the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting, continuing the government's work to advance Pacific priorities and our shared interests. We know how important it is that Pacific countries work together to ensure the future of our region is determined by our region's countries and peoples. With new alliances with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, the Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu, our Falepili Union with Tuvalu and the Naoero-Australia Treaty, Labor continues our work to deliver a peaceful, stable and prosperous Pacific. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria As the minister has previously said, Australia must embrace all elements of our national power, including our unique cultural and historic regional ties, to ensure our place in the region and in the world. Minister, how has the Albanese Labor government worked to make use of our national advantage, and how has it complemented the government's work to strengthen every single one of our relationships in the region? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Ciccone. You refer to the times we face. They are uncertain and unstable times, and we have to use every tool at our disposal to shape a peaceful, stable and prosperous region. Centuries before Europeans arrived, First Nations people connected Australia with the world. They were Australia's first diplomats and first traders, and this is a source of strategic national advantage. This was highlighted when Yolngu elder Djapirri Mununggirritj stood alongside the prime ministers of Australia and Fiji at the signing of the Ocean of Peace Alliance and Vuvale union. Yolngu elders gifted a name from Yolngu Matha—Bukmak, everyone—to the new forum at the heart of our Vuvale union. There is no other country that can emulate or replicate Australia's historical connections to the Pacific and South-East Asia, and that is why we will keep drawing on the full breadth and depth of Australia's experience and capabilities in order to create a stronger and safer region. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria As the minister has outlined, the Albanese Labor government is working with the Pacific, proudly so, to deliver on our shared priorities and work alongside the region. Minister, what has enabled Australia to improve our standing in the region, and what risks are there to this constructive and productive approach? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We in the Albanese government know that the job of building a safer, more secure region will never be over. That is why we're using all arms of national power to strengthen Australia's relationships in the Pacific to continue building trust and to remain a partner of choice. We have been turning up, listening and working to advance Pacific priorities. We've prioritised Australia's position as the Pacific's largest and most comprehensive development partner because, when Labor came to government, we chose to deliver real change in our foreign policy. This is why we have made transformational breakthroughs in the Pacific. But we know we have to keep working hard every day. We cannot afford to return to the days of neglect, and we will keep persistently pressing Australia's national interest in our region every day. International Relations: Australia and Japan 23 14:11 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Andrew Greene at the Nightly has reported today that the Japanese government was 'surprised' to see confidential correspondence to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the Prime Minister's melon mess leaked to the media. Minister, do you know how the media obtained this sensitive diplomatic correspondence? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Paterson, I would also say to you, as someone who does care about our relationships with the region and who—I hope—would not be party to putting out really what is misinformation, which is what we have seen from some of those opposite, that I would hope that you understand the importance of ensuring we have a strong relationship with Japan. I would encourage you to not participate in the confection of a diplomatic issue, which we are seeing from those less responsible on your side of the parliament. In relation to what you have raised, I have seen those reports publicly. I don't know what correspondence is being referred to. What I would say is what I said in response to Senator Sharma. The Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Takaichi, is a friend of Australia's and a friend of the Prime Minister. I can say to you that the Prime Minister was personally committed to ensuring that Prime Minister Takaichi felt at home during her visit to Australia, including joining her at the Nara Peace Park. It was a very successful visit, and it is a very important relationship. I hope it is treated as such by all parties. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Will the government launch an investigation into how confidential correspondence from one of our closest and most important partners to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was leaked to the media? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have seen the reports. I don't know what—I refer to my earlier answer in relation to the correspondence. What I would say to you is we have a very close and trusting relationship with the government of Japan. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:13 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, isn't it true that, in a desperate attempt to clean up the Prime Minister's self-inflicted melon mess, the government is now risking a critical bilateral relationship by leaking confidential correspondence? Wouldn't it be easier for the Prime Minister to just admit he got it wrong and say sorry? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I make this point—that the— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I am answering the question. Thank you for the advice; I appreciate it! The risk to relationships is borne by all parties in this chamber, and there are those opposite who have engaged— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU who are so desperate to score political points that they are confecting a diplomatic issue to do so. We've seen that with Senator Cash's public statements. I would invite those opposite to, with the government, engage in bipartisan support of the Japan relationship, which is what it has historically enjoyed. Gambling 24 14:15 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week we heard damning evidence about the predatory behaviour of gambling corporations, grooming people with a gambling addiction to keep betting, and letting streaming services continue to advertise, with no limits. Yet today we're hearing media reports of a deal between Labor and the Liberals to pass weak gambling reforms that do not fully deal with the recommendations in the Murphy report. How can you sleep at night—doing a deal with the Liberals to pass gambling reforms that protect gambling corporations' profits rather than delivering evidence based policy that protects people? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The focus of the reforms that the government has brought forward is the protection of Australians. I think that is something we all wish to do. I appreciate you don't agree with some of the current policy, and you certainly don't agree with us talking to the coalition in order to pass legislation. We have to deal in this chamber, as you know, Senator, with either the coalition or yourselves in order to get legislation passed. We don't have the majority in this chamber. So, by necessity, we have to negotiate to pass legislation, and that is what we are doing. We do believe that it is important to move forward on this legislation. We want to be able to break the connection between live sport and gambling advertising; we want to ban gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts; we want to ban gambling ads on radio during school pick-up and drop-off times; and we want to ban stadium advertising, jersey advertising and the use of celebrities. I understand that there have been constructive discussions both with the Greens and with the opposition. We thank you for your engagement. Ultimately, the government needs to engage with either of those two groups in the chamber in order for the legislation to pass the parliament. We've said that we are open to sensible amendments to deliver real change, and that's what the government are engaging in. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Alongside your dodgy deal on gambling, you plan to work with the Liberals to kick 241,000 disabled people off the NDIS—to save money off the backs of disabled people. Almost all witnesses to the inquiry said these horrendous NDIS cuts should not pass. How can you sleep at night when you're ganging up with the Liberals to cut essential support to 241,000 people? Senator Gallagher ING I have a point of order in relation to whether the second question, the first supplementary, relates to the primary question, which was about gambling law reform. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am struggling, too, to find the relevance, but I will take the advice of the Clerk. My advice is there isn't a connection, but I will invite Minister Wong to answer the question in a way that she thinks is relevant. 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I suppose the response might be: how can you sleep at night, knowing that you would make sure that the NDIS could not survive? That is actually the issue. I respect that you have the right to run a political campaign. We have to continue to deliver real change, and that means we have to ensure that the NDIS can stay strong and continue to support Australians who so desperately need it—not just this year, not just next year, but for decades to come. And that is what the government are seeking to do with the changes which we are engaging in. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The government's job is to look after people. If you're looking for ways to fix the budget bottom line then a 25 per cent gas export tax would raise $17 billion a year. Why does Labor keep doing favours for big corporations and making money off the back of disabled people instead of working in the interests of Australians? Senator Gallagher ING President, again, I'm not sure how that question relates to the primary question or, indeed, the first supplementary either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. I am going to, once again, ask Minister Wong if she wishes to make a contribution, because I'm ruling that question out of order. Minister Wong? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Waters, we've addressed this previously. I would make this point to you. You make a whole range of personal assertions about people's motivations. We are always motivated— Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, you do—motivations of the Labor Party and the Labor government. The Labor government is motivated to try and work to deliver real change for Australians who are experiencing cost-of-living pressure now, to deliver real change on national security and foreign policy, to deliver real change on the economy, to deliver real change on housing and to deliver real change so that we can continue to deliver a strong Medicare system and a strong NDIS not just now and not just next year but in decades to come. That is what we are motivated by. Cost of Living 25 14:21 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania It's great to be back, President. My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. A responsible approach to the budget has allowed the Albanese Labor government to deliver another tax cut for every taxpayer from 1 July. We've delivered wage increases for around three million workers and increased payments for 2.6 million Australians who need them most. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government's responsible approach to budget management is delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians and continuing to build the services and support Australians rely on? 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Dowling for the question. Welcome back and congratulations on the new member of the family. We can't wait to meet her when you bring her to Canberra. In relation to the question, we have, in just the last week or so, seen that S&P Global have endorsed the government's responsible economic and fiscal management by reaffirming Australia's AAA credit rating. We remain one of only nine countries with a AAA sovereign credit rating from all three major rating agencies. Indeed, in that report—and I was hoping for a question about the S&P report from those opposite, but it wasn't the first question that they wanted to run with—S&P said 'Australia's fiscal performance is sound' and 'Australia has modest public debt by international standards'. It specifically called out the government's ambitious tax and saving reforms for helping improve Australia's fiscal position over the next decade. We knew, once we inherited a budget mess from those opposite, who had doubled the debt before the pandemic hit and had also failed to address key areas of pressure on the government's budget, that we had to find savings in order to be able to meet some of those demands in the NDIS, early childhood education and care, health, aged care and defence. Almost every area of government had a level of unmet need because those opposite, when in government, failed to do the policy thinking or actual delivery in any of those areas to make sure that our national interest was being protected. We have made the hard decisions in this budget alone, finding more savings than ever in previous updates. We've lowered the debt and we've lowered the interest on that debt to allow us to meet some of these other pressures. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dowling, a first supplementary? 14:24 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania Thank you for that AAA rated answer, Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to look at ways to provide cost-of-living support to more Australians? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've missed the jokes from Senator Dowling! Senator Scarr 282997 We haven't! Senator GALLAGHER ING Come on! That was a good one! One of the new ways that the Albanese government is providing cost-of-living support is through expanding the Commonwealth Prac Payment to people training in an additional 10 key frontline health professions. This will provide cost-of-living relief for students and support our future healthcare workers. This was an important announcement that the Prime Minister made, building on the work that's already been done in this area. It shows the government's commitment to continue to look at ways to provide cost-of-living help in a way that doesn't add to inflation in our economy and also in a way that the budget can afford—responsible, funded cost-of-living support that makes a real difference to those students and should help them with some of those pressures whilst also making sure that the budget can afford it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dowling, a second supplementary? 14:25 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania Since the Albanese Labor government was elected, significant investments in Medicare have been made. How have these investments provided cost-of-living assistance through a stronger Medicare system? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Dowling for this supplementary. This is an important area where the government has consistently, over a number of budgets, invested in ensuring that Medicare is able to deliver the services it needs across the country. Again, it was one of those areas when we came to government, as I think the health minister says, where Medicare was on its knees and needed significant investments to make sure that it continued to deliver accessible health care across the country. Just in the last couple of days, we've seen some of the first outcomes from the additional investment, demonstrating that when you match that investment with a particular outcome and you drive for that outcome you see improved results. That's what we're seeing with the bulk-billing rate. For the June 2026 quarter, it rose to 84.1 per cent—that's up almost five percentage points on the same quarter last year, the largest quarterly increase in 20 years. In Senator Dowling's home state of Tasmania, the bulk-billing rate has increased to 80.8 per cent, up 5.5 percentage points, making a real difference to Tasmanian families. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Lambie. Welcome back. Veterans 26 14:26 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Thank you, Madam President. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. DVA requires doctors to provide medical evidence for liability and personal injury claims for veterans, but doctors are reporting that DVA is failing to pay for reports already completed and submitted. Not surprisingly, some doctors are now refusing to provide any more reports for veterans until their outstanding invoices are paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This puts veterans in the middle of a payment dispute between DVA and their treating doctors. It is shameful, with claims that can't progress because the DVA needs medical evidence that isn't available, or they make a determination without it, or they force us into the hands of mlcoa, which is not our choice. This is causing significant distress to veterans and threatens to further reduce the pool of doctors willing to work with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. How many liability and personal injury report invoices are currently unpaid, and how many doctors are waiting for payment? I'm sorry I have to ask this in here, but I've been asking DVA for quite some time and they will not give me that answer. 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your question, and, as the President indicated, welcome back. You ask a very specific question around the number of invoices that are presently being processed and any indication about the time taken to process invoices submitted by our medical staff to DVA. I don't have that information with me. If I can locate anything of that kind, I'll return to the chamber. More broadly, of course the government does want to see claims handled well and the experience for veterans improve. I think we've demonstrated our bona fides in coming to government and making very significant investments in the claims-handling architecture for DVA, because we recognise that the previous arrangements were totally unsatisfactory. This has seen very significant improvements in the time taken for veterans to be able to access benefits, because we want veterans to have a positive experience and we want our veterans to feel supported. As I've indicated, I don't have specific information about the issue that you raised, but if I do have anything I can return at some future moment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania From the discussions I've had with doctors, I'm aware of dozens of outstanding invoices, and DVA is not engaging with those doctors to resolve the basis for withholding payment. My office has raised this issue with the minister's office on multiple occasions, yet veterans and doctors are still waiting. If a private business knowingly receives goods or services without paying for them, it might be considered theft. It's definitely not okay. Why does DVA consider waiting months for payments to pay their doctors acceptable? 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Lambie, as I indicated in my response to your primary question, I don't have the factual information that you refer to in your question. I will return to the chamber if there is any further information I can provide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania DVA has failed to pay medical practitioners for liability and personal injury reports, with some invoices outstanding for months. Why should doctors carry DVA's financial burden? Will the minister commit today to pay the outstanding invoices and the interest due on those invoices, as per the government's Supplier Pay On-Time or Pay Interest Policy? 14:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Again, Senator Lambie, your question rests on a number of assertions around facts that I don't have available to me. I will say this. The government, of course, is committed to paying suppliers who provide services to Australians within all of the ordinary program requirements, including all of the requirements about integrity and record keeping and all of those matters. If I have any information about the specific matters you've raised, I will return to the chamber. Humanitarian Visas 27 14:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, I would like to ask about Australia's commitment to Afghans who assisted our Defence Force personnel during the Afghanistan war—Afghan men and women who laid their lives on the line, risking everything to help us. Despite our country's commitment to protect them in return for their service, too many have been left behind. Two key programs, the locally engaged employee program and the pathway for high-risk women, have now closed, despite many Afghans not yet making it to Australia. You set out the principle yourself in this chamber in October 2023: Australia should stand by those who help us. Minister, is the government satisfied it has kept its word in getting the people who served Australia to safety? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Pocock. I do appreciate the question very much. It does give me the opportunity to talk a little bit about one of the programs you identified, the locally engaged employee program, and the mess that that was in when we came to government. I will just make this point. I think we all recall the fall of Kabul. Unfortunately, there were too many Afghan citizens who worked for Australia or who were engaged in development projects or in other ways which put them at risk who were not processed by the Australian government prior to our withdrawal, and I asked many questions about that in opposition. I got answers that ministers saw it as a moral responsibility, a moral imperative. Their actions did not match their words, and when we came to government we saw, frankly, a mess when it came to the locally engaged employees' applications. I commissioned a review of that by Rosemary Huxtable. I'm sorry, I'll come back on the name; I think that was another report. Then we acted in line with all of the recommendations. In fact, as foreign minister and with the ministers in the portfolio, we have certified more than 660 applications from Afghan locally engaged employees, which is more than the total approved under all previous foreign ministers combined since the program began. As at 27 July 2026, 2,059 Afghan LEEs have been certified and over 5,700 have arrived in Australia. This comprises— (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for that. I've heard from veterans who talk about the guilt that they felt coming back to Australia while their Afghan colleagues and friends were left behind. One man, unnamed for his safety, served beside our soldiers in Uruzgan. His case sat untouched for six years, until a Taliban bomb left him fighting for his life. He almost died waiting for that decision. Will the government commit today to bringing every certified locally engaged employee home? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It was Ms Vivienne Thom who did the report. I apologise for mixing up the two reports, which were certified at the same time. I indicate that the way in which the locally engaged employee program works is that those persons are then considered under Australia's wider humanitarian program and have a certain status as having been certified as an LEE under that program, more than 40 per cent of total offshore humanitarian program visa grants over the last four years have been to Afghan nationals. We've in fact granted more visas under that program to Afghan nationals than to any other national nationality. Five years on from the fall of Kabul, I say clearly that our thoughts are with the people of Afghanistan as well as the Afghan community here in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, these people have waited years. Why should they have to wait? This was a commitment that we gave to them as a country. They helped our troops, and we said that we would in turn help them. Is there a timeline on ensuring that all of them get to Australia, and will the government refer this program to the Auditor-General so that parliament can actually find out why this program has not delivered as we were promised? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The program didn't deliver as it was promised because people were not processed under the previous government. We had thousands of applications, and they have now been dealt with. It took a lot longer than it ought have. The second point I make is that the program then gives people a right under the humanitarian program. There's not a separate visa. Obviously, there are calls on Australia's humanitarian program well in excess of the numbers of places which are allocated, but, as I said to you, you can see from the numbers the weight of that program: the largest single cohort is people from Afghanistan or Afghan nationals. So I'm pleased that we have finally ensured that all of these applicants have been properly processed in accordance with Ms Thom's recommendations. (Time expired) National Security 28 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. An Islamic State bride, Rayann El Houli, accused of indoctrinating her children into violent jihad, was freed on bail in July. El Houli forced her children to watch propaganda videos of Islamic State fighters, filmed herself training her toddlers how to use a rifle and demanded that they show her how jihadist fighters slaughter an infidel. She faces charges of being a member of a terrorist organisation and entering a declared conflict zone after allegedly fleeing Melbourne to join the caliphate in 2014. Minister, El Houli was granted bail due to your government's inadequate laws. Why won't you make the safety of the Australian people the No. 1 priority and stop charged terrorists being easily released on bail? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson. Well, this government does absolutely take the safety of Australians as its utmost priority, and that's why, in relation to this cohort, we've provided no assistance whatsoever to enable these people to return to Australia. Now, I might point out to those chuckling and sniggering opposition members that that's exactly the same approach that was taken by the former government, although it is worth reminding the coalition that, when they were in office, they assisted the return of over 40 foreign fighters. So people might like to be a little bit careful about claims that they're making right now. Senator Hanson, the end of your question talked about efforts that the government would take to stop people being released on bail. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the government should intervene in decisions that are being taken by the courts. That's obviously not something that this government supports, whether it be about this sort of situation or other situations. I can only assume that you're referring to the bill that you are seeking to introduce around temporary exclusion orders, and I remind you, as I said earlier today, that that bill is almost certain to be found unconstitutional by the High Court if it were passed by this parliament. The current laws that we have in Australia, which were introduced by the coalition government, take the steps regarding temporary exclusion orders to the maximum limit they can be taken without falling foul of the Constitution. It's this government's view that we should not be passing laws that we know are unconstitutional, that we know will be struck down by the High Court and that we know actually put the safety of Australians at greater risk rather than removing that risk, and that is the approach that we are going to continue to take. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, we know that the courts look at legislation that's in place to make decisions, so therefore I'll go back to the laws. It was under—well, you're in your fifth year in government. You knew these ISIS brides were returning to Australia and you knew foreign fighters were going to be charged with crimes in Australia, yet you've done nothing to actually address that. And, when you talk about the bill, you haven't even seen the bill, so how can you say it's unconstitutional? I ask you, Minister: what legislation have you passed to ensure— (Time expired) 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think Senator Hanson's conclusion to the question was about steps that the government would take to stop these types of people being released on bail. Again, we're not going to intervene in the independent decisions of courts. We are going to ensure that Australian laws are as tough as they possibly can be in relation to this group of people—and they are. We have obviously considered what further steps can be taken around these laws, and the consistent advice is that any extension of the current laws around temporary exclusion orders or anything related to it would be knocked over by the High Court. That would put the safety of Australians at greater risk. Now, Senator Hanson, I might remind you that, when this government has attempted to take steps to keep Australians safe by, for example, passing laws to deport hate preachers, the One Nation party voted against those laws. When you've had an opportunity to stand up for Australian safety on migration matters, you've decided to vote against that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, Labor has been dishonest about blocking ISIS brides from returning to Australia. You've been dishonest about whether accused terrorists can be stopped from getting bail. Another 13 suspected ISIS fighters could be freed from an Iraqi jail soon. How can the Australian people trust you will attempt to stop these ISIS fighters and sympathisers from returning to Australia? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Australians can certainly trust that this government will operate in line with Australian laws. We'll take the toughest possible action that we can under laws that are constitutional. Senator Hanson talks a bit about dishonesty. I reckon what's dishonest is telling battlers that you're standing up for them and coming in and voting against wage rises. I reckon what's dishonest is saying we need more homes and blaming migrants for housing issues and then voting against more housing. I think that's dishonest. I think that what's dishonest is telling battlers that you're standing up for their health care and voting against a government that passes laws to provide more health care. That's what dishonesty is. That's what One Nation are. They are fundamentally dishonest when it comes to standing up for Australian battlers. They say they do one thing, they come down here and they vote with the Liberals, and that's because they are effectively the same. We know that One Nation can only enter government in partnership with the Liberals, we know that the Liberals can only enter government in partnership with One Nation, and that would be a disaster for working people and the people One Nation claims to represent. Wages and Salaries 29 14:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I'm very proud to be a member of an Albanese Labor government that's delivering real change for Australian workers. Helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn is at the very heart of Labor's economic plan. Can the minister outline for us the latest wage increases that the government is delivering for workers in care industries. 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks to Senator Grogan, who, along with pretty much everyone in the Labor caucus here, has a proud record of standing up for the wages of Australian workers, something that can't be said for anyone from around there right through to—oh no, they've gone, because they don't bother turning up for question time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, we don't refer to whether senators are in or out of the chamber. Thank you. Senator WATT 245759 Okay, okay—we'll just talk about attendance at estimates instead. Higher wages is one of the best ways to help people with the cost of living, and that's what we're delivering for workers around the country. Wages for all workers are up due to the Albanese Labor government's workplace law reforms, and we've taken action to support workers in the care sector, who've been undervalued for too long. Earlier this month, the government was proud to back the aged-care nurses who look after our loved ones through another wage rise. Since we came to office, aged-care workers have now received five wage increases, because we believe these workers should be properly valued for the care they provide to our older Australians. This means that, since we came to government in 2022, aged-care nurses will have seen their pay increase by up to $36,000 per year. Supporting better wages and looking after workers is at the heart of our commitment to deliver real change for Australians, because these workers deserve more than our gratitude; they deserve fair pay for the essential work they do. This investment recognises the big contribution that nurses in aged care make to our economy and community, and will help to create a bigger incentive for young Australians looking for a rewarding career to choose aged-care careers in the future. Better pay for aged care nurses means better care for older Australians. Our record boost to wages is making it easier for aged-care homes to attract and retain nurses, ensuring older people can access higher-quality, more consistent care. After a decade of decay under the coalition, aged-care workers deserved better pay, and in four short years Labor has delivered exactly that. This latest pay rise builds on our work to get wages moving and strengthen the sector for years to come. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you to Minister Watt for outlining that for us. The Albanese Labor government has put gender equality at the heart of the Fair Work Act. How has the government's investment in boosting wages in the care sector helped to narrow that gender pay gap? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Grogan. Under the Albanese Labor government, the gender pay gap is at its lowest level on record. Australian women are now earning more than $250 a week more than they were before we came to government. We've invested more than any previous government— Senator Canavan 245212 How much extra are they paying? Senator WATT 245759 It sounds like Senator Canavan's got a problem with that. We've invested more than any previous government to ensure workers in female dominated occupations like aged care and early childhood education and care are compensated appropriately to deliver the world-class care our parents, grandparents and kids deserve. Of course, there are some people in this place who think that women should continue being paid less than men over the course of their careers. Senator Hanson thinks the gender pay gap is 'all smoke and mirrors', as she said at the Press Club in June, and she's even said that women 'get themselves pregnant for the money'—this coming from the party that the Liberals want to form government with, because we all know that One Nation can't win without the Liberals and the Liberals can't govern without One Nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Australians are doing it tough right now, and cost-of-living pressures continue to impact families all around the country. Boosting wages of working Australians is one of the best ways to help those people with cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister please tell us why it is important to keep wages increasing, and what are the barriers to further wage increases into the future? 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Grogan. This latest pay increase for aged-care workers means that, since 2022, a registered nurse on the most common pay level will have seen their pay increase by more than $36,000 a year, while an enrolled nurse in aged care will have seen their wage go up by almost $32,000 per year. Our aged-care nurses do an incredible job, and they deserve every dollar of this pay rise that Labor is delivering, just like our amazing early childhood educators, who've also received pay rises from this government over the past few years. The truth is that the only barrier to further wage rises for those or other workers in Australia is a Liberal-One Nation coalition government, because, when asked if these pay rises for female care workers were necessary, Senator Hanson said, 'Didn't they get a pay rise not so long ago?' and then added, 'Do we even need these services?' That's the kind of attitude that One Nation and their Liberal counterparts have towards Australian working people. It would mean lower wages and a harder life for Australian workers, and we are not going to stand for it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Canavan. Taxation 30 14:49 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, Minister, since Labor's May budget, Westpac says that new home loan applications have fallen by 20 per cent, while the National Australia Bank reports demand for new loans is down 15 per cent. Will the government now admit that its property taxes have damaged confidence, and will it immediately remove its taxes to restore economic certainty? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Canavan for the question. Senator Canavan speaks about taxes, and I do remind Senator Canavan that he was part of a coalition that went to the last election with a mandate for a commitment to higher taxes. Senator Canavan 245212 That's the difference. We actually went to the election. Senator WONG 00AOU I would just make the point: you committed to higher taxes, and so I think— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher? Senator Gallagher ING It's very hard to hear the answer to the question, from those opposite interjecting. Senator McKenzie 207825 You're a liar. The PRESIDENT 112096 It is indeed hard. I am going to—Senator McKenzie, you need to withdraw. Senator McKenzie 207825 Withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I would like you to stand properly and withdraw. Senator McKenzie 207825 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I would ask those on my left to allow me to hear what the minister has to say. Order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Those opposite might want to play the outrage, but I make the point again: you went to the election, under the senator who is now a deputy leader of the Liberal Party, being very clear that you would increase taxes, and now you tell people you don't want to increase taxes. So I would— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Watt 245759 On a point of order, that is persistent interjection from Senator McKenzie. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called the chamber to order. Senator McKenzie, I'm asking you—order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Perhaps the two of you would like a debate by yourselves in the Senate? What do you reckon? The other point I'd make, Senator, is that it is important to continue to work to improve people's economic position. I would make the point that annual nominal wages have gone above three per cent for 15 quarters in a row. That is the longest streak in more than a decade and a half. I don't believe they grew above three per cent under the coalition, and we all know the coalition's position on minimum wages. The gender gap is at an all-time low. I know, Senator Canavan, you yourself, in particular, have made comments where you were somewhat dismissive of the gender pay gap, but narrowing it actually means better outcomes for women across this country. We do understand Australians are under pressure, which is why the government has focused on cost-of-living relief, including tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer this year and next year, as well as the working tax offset and instant tax deduction. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Recently I met with Dimitri, a financial planner, and Nathan, a real estate agent, both from Rockhampton, who have seen firsthand the knock to economic confidence on their business of Labor's taxes. Has the government done any assessment of the impact on the lending slowdown for people like Dimitri and Nathan and for others in real estate, mortgage broking and small businesses in this sector, and will the minister release this analysis? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government's focus has been delivering real change to build more homes and to help more first home buyers. That has been our focus. Unlike those opposite, we think housing affordability needs to be addressed and we have thrown everything at it. We have been doing this for four years. We are seeking to level the playing field for first home buyers, building more infrastructure, cutting red tape and approving more homes. The government's Housing Australia plan— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 On relevance, for Nathan and Dimitri, I was just asking about an analysis of the impact on them. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant. I'll continue to listen carefully. Minister Wong? Senator WONG 00AOU I am asked about housing, and you're correct that the focus of the government's approach to housing has been to build more homes and to help more first home buyers. That is our policy objective. You may have other policy objectives, but we think that housing affordability is something that does need to be addressed, which is why we have worked on, as I said, a range of measures which are all about addressing housing affordability. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, last week Minister Plibersek claimed that there has never been a better time to be a first home buyer. How can that be true when new loan applications are collapsing and finance is becoming harder to secure? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Our policies are unashamedly about trying to get more Australians into housing and able to own their own home. I know that those opposite don't believe that the Australian dream of owning your own home should be something that is more accessible to more Australians, particularly young Australians, but we do. We do think it's important, with the many changes that the government has put in place, both on the supply side and on the tax side, to ensure that we help more young Australians get into their first home. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Bragg, I know that that is not something you think should be a policy priority, but we do. We want more Australians to have access to the Australian dream that I assume people in this chamber have had access to, which is the capacity to own your own home and build a life. (Time expired) Medical Workforce 32 14:56 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. We on this side of the chamber know how important it is to ensure that Australia has the health workforce we need now and into the future. A strong Medicare and aged-care system only works because of the frontline workers who deliver it. Last month, the Albanese Labor government announced it would expand the Commonwealth prac payment to more frontline health professionals. Minister, can you tell us how the government is strengthening our future health workforce and easing the financial pressure on students studying these important courses and professions? 14:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Smith. Right now, a student training to be a radiographer has to complete more than a year of unpaid placement before they graduate. A student training to be a paramedic, an audiologist or a podiatrist often has to move away from home to complete training. Until now, they've done that all for free while still paying rent. That changes under this government. We are expanding the Commonwealth prac payment to 10 more frontline health professions. Future psychologists, pharmacists and podiatrists will now get up to $338.60 a week while they train. That's in addition to the teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students who are already receiving it. Think about what it actually means in practice. From next July, a physio student doing a placement at a regional hospital hours from home can better afford petrol or accommodation. An OT student completing their 1,000 hours of placement doesn't have to choose between their degree and their bills. Tens of thousands of students will benefit from this payment, and it builds on what this government has already done on cost of living for students by cutting student debt by 20 per cent. It matters. These are the people who look after us when we're sick. These are the people who will support Australians with disability. These are the people who will care for older Australians in their own homes, and we need more of them, not fewer. This is what strengthening Medicare actually looks like—making sure that the future generation of health workers can afford to finish their training. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister. I know I've heard from so many young people in my community about the difference that this will make. Not only is the government backing the future health workforce; it's also making sure that we value the workers caring for older Australians right now. This month saw the fifth increase to award wages for nurses providing aged-care services. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government backing aged-care workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This month, the Albanese Labor government delivered the fifth wage increase for aged-care nurses, because we believe that aged-care nurses deserve more than gratitude; they deserve fair pay for their essential work. This increase means that, since 2022, a registered nurse on the most common classification will have seen their pay increase by more than $36,000 a year. Better pay for aged-care nurses means that aged-care homes and facilities can attract and retain nurses, delivering higher quality, more consistent care. It tells you everything about those opposite that when this government fixes a historic wage injustice, the Leader of the Opposition's response is to complain that these workers are disproportionately unionised and that they've received hefty pay increases. What a disgrace! (Time expired) 15:00 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, it's great to hear how the Albanese Labor government is delivering for healthcare workers now and into the future, providing cost-of-living support for students and workers, and helping Australians to get the care that they need. Can the minister outline whether anything stands in the way of our government's approach? 15:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Paid prac is fundamentally about supporting hardworking students by paying them to train for their next job. Now, we're extending the same courtesy, the same arrangements to future psychologists, pharmacists and podiatrists that others in this place have extended to themselves. Almost every member of the opposition who doesn't have one foot out the door seems to be doing paid prac at the moment for their next job. Senator Antic's paid prac seems to involve preparing himself for a future in One Nation. Senator McKenzie is doing some paid prac in marketing. She's got very strong views about how One Nation should be spending their advertising budget and in what seats. And, honestly, who knows what the shadow Treasurer is actually training for, but it's certainly not his current role. He's off on Sky explaining that he sees himself as Tigger from Winnie the Pooh. Those opposite are not focused on the Australian people. They are focused on themselves, their own jobs and their future roles elsewhere. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Housing 33 15:02 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of all coalition questions. It is dishonest and delusional to suggest that the housing market is doing well under Labor, that they're fixing housing in Australia. The evidence says different, and you're not fooling anyone who's out there in the market currently. Westpac mortgage applications fell 20 per cent. Investor housing credit growth is forecast to drop from 9.1 per cent this year to 4.4 per cent by 2028, driven by higher rates and Labor's policy changes. Auction clearance rates for the week finishing 1 August were 46.7 per cent in Adelaide, my home state. That's down from 74.5 per cent in the same week last year. That's not an improvement; that's going backwards. House prices must become more affordable for young Australians, but the answer isn't to crash the family home—it's lowering inflation, lowering rates, raising real wages, providing more homes and more opportunity, and having less spending by those opposite. A housing minister floating a 10 to 20 per cent price correction is not a housing plan; it's a warning to every family with a mortgage and every young Australian eyeing the market. You're not helping first home buyers. It's smashing their confidence, hitting investment, pushing up rents, building fewer homes and making it harder for them to get ahead not just in the home purchase but in saving for the home too. The only things that Labor is actually building are excuses. Labor's toxic taxes have acted like a wrecking ball on the housing market. More borrowing capacity for first home buyers doesn't mean more affordability. It means higher repayments for life and higher prices. You've brought in 1.4 million people, roughly the population of Adelaide, with 90,000 more planned to arrive in the next two years, stoking demand while housing supply shrinks. You're not building the houses that you said you would build in the budget. You're building fewer homes—35,000 fewer. What about rents? On page 159, you said: The reforms are likely to have a small impact on rents, with an expected increase of less than $2 per week … That's not what's actually happening. In places like Sydney, independent economists estimate that rents could rise by up to $160 a week and by $130 a week in Melbourne. When investment is driven out of the rental market, landlords pass on the costs. Fewer rentals mean fewer and higher rents. I don't understand why Labor doesn't get that. It's economics 101. It's pretty simple. When you don't build the houses, when you bring in more people, when you make it more costly to buy that house—because the cost of living continues to go through the roof, and, with that, interest rates—and when the cost of servicing that mortgage continues to remain high, you're not being affected positively; you're being affected negatively. That's the impact on housing under Labor. That's the impact on all Australians. You're leaving people behind. (Time expired) 15:07 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I also rise to take note of answers. Listening to those opposite on housing, you would think that they had just discovered the housing crisis yesterday. For years under their watch, house prices ran away from wages. They watched younger Australians get locked out of homeownership. They watched investors enter auctions with tax advantages that a young couple trying to buy their first home simply did not have. Their answer was always the same: do nothing. Now that a Labor government has actually changed the system, suddenly the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have discovered an interest in housing. They're very good at defending the status quo. They are very good at finding something to complain about, but they are not very good at explaining how a young Australian is supposed to buy their first home under the system they want to protect. We make no apologies for backing first home buyers. For 25 years, house prices grew at around twice the rate of incomes. That was not sustainable. So we have reformed negative gearing and capital gains tax because the system needed to be fairer. Treasury modelling shows that these changes will help about 75,000 more Australians move from renting into owning their own home. This is what this debate should actually be about. We are building more homes and levelling the playing field for first home buyers. Too many Australians, as I've said, were feeling that housing was stacked against them, especially young Australians. We've built the most ambitious housing agenda in generations, and we're building on this plan. This plan that this government has implemented and is, as I've said, the most ambitious housing agenda in generations is not supported by those opposite. They don't come in here and support more housing. They vote against it. They voted against the government's plan. We know that the long-term fix for housing is to build more homes. That's why we have this ambitious national target of 1.2 million new homes. We're delivering 55,000 social and affordable rental homes. We're building 100,000 homes reserved for first home buyers. To unlock these homes, we're training more tradies, building more infrastructure, cutting red tape, including pausing the National Construction Code, and fast-tracking environmental approvals. In the 2026-27 budget alone, we invested a further $2 billion in enabling infrastructure to unlock 65,000 new homes. We're taking more action to speed up housing approvals and cut red tape to unlock tens of thousands more homes. This is a debate about supporting a government that is supporting Australians to get into their own homes or supporting an opposition who voted against them owning their own homes. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia We heard this afternoon Senator Canavan make the observation that Westpac now say that new home loan applications have fallen 20 per cent, while the National Australia Bank have reported a 15 per cent downturn in home loans. That in itself, under normal circumstances, would be a very alarming statistic. But, in this case, it's proof positive that this government has damaged confidence in the property market through its property taxes in a way that, certainly in the short term, may not be recoverable. It doesn't really feel like there has never been a better time to be a first home buyer like Minister Plibersek has told us. In fact, it is, I think, actually even a broader problem than that which has been discussed here this afternoon. This is a government which has overseen some of the greatest cost spikes we have seen in recent times. This is not just about new home loan applications and listings on realestate.com. This is one of the most expensive environments for all Australians to operate in in living memory. That applies across the board. The war on energy, this ridiculous net zero target and the climate scam continue to be pushed out there. What see as a result of that are rising fuel prices. You can't blame it all on the Strait of Hormuz. You can't blame it all on President Trump. Unfortunately, that's an undergraduate approach to what is really happening here. The environment itself is just completely counterproductive to building homes. You have to get through all the state imposts, the development applications, the energy ratings, the local government approvals. Ask any person that's in the building game what they think about the current regulatory environment. That's the sort of thing that could be fixed with a snap of the fingers of this government. We've seen how they like to guillotine laws through when it suits them. They could fix this overnight. Over the week ending 9 August, Cotality reported that the clearance rates are now 57 per cent in Sydney, 60.8 per cent in Melbourne and 38.1 per cent in Brisbane. This is not good news for the property market because of course this country is indelibly welded to that as an economic marker. We are all concerned about the affordability of housing, especially for young Australians. But the answer to fixing that is not crashing the economy, and that's what this is going to do. The answer to that problem is not to crash the family home. The answer actually is reducing the regulatory burden. It's reducing inflation. It's lowering interest rates. It's rising real wages. We heard this afternoon this government heroically claim that the gender pay gap has improved for women in this country. But, at the same time, they've gone and made everything else exponentially more expensive. So, if that is correct, women are still paying more for everything. That's the sort of meatball economics that we get from this government. Labor's not helping Australians. They're not helping first home buyers. They're smashing confidence. They're hitting investment. They're pushing up rents. They're building fewer homes and making it harder for young Australians to get ahead. You don't help young Australians into homes by making them and everyone else around them poorer in the process. It can only be done through a strong economy, through lower taxes and through cheaper energy, by the way, which is the thing that is completely missed in this equation. It can only come from a government that actually rewards hard work. That's the only way. That's the way this country was built, and that's the way we'll build it out of this housing crisis. (Time expired) 15:15 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia It took me quite some time to dig through the questions that the opposition had in question time today to actually find something of substance. Out of the three questions that they got to ask the government today, only one of them was around economic policy. Since 2021, when I started in this place, it's actually been quite alarming to see how far they've shifted away from their roots. It took my colleague from Tasmania Senator Dowling, on his return to the Senate after a short absence, to bring us back to economic policy and talk about our AAA sovereign credit rating with the S&P Global report and to highlight some of the factors that Australians do care about. Australians absolutely care about the cost-of-living pressures and the work that the Albanese Labor government have been doing over the winter break, while some others opposite may have been having some time off. We've been working hard. We've been looking into the paid prac that Senator McAllister talked to in great detail. There's also our record investment into Medicare and the difference that is making for all Australians to be able to see a GP for free. That is an amazing initiative. Minister McAllister commented that the minister had made the comment that Medicare was on its knees after a decade of neglect by those opposite. Not only that but there is the amazing work of our government and particularly our cabinet ministers in securing wage rises. We've heard from our government senators during question time, asking questions and extracting some of that information around the five wage rises that we've secured, particularly for aged-care nurses. As the previous chair of the community affairs committee, I know these are important workers in our economy. A big shout-out to the aged-care workers who do an amazing job looking after older Australians, making sure that there is stable and consistent care that our older Australians have access to. Paid prac is absolutely about ensuring that our students go from training and getting those skills right into employment. Also in the report on our credit rating there was a reference to fuel security. I'm glad that Senator Antic opposite just mentioned that. It actually has a sentence in there praising the Albanese Labor government in shoring up its fuel security. I want to thank our cabinet ministers in particular: Minister Wong, Minister Farrell and Minister King in the other place, our resources minister who absolutely went out hard and did all of those things. It is absolutely crystal clear to us here on this side of the chamber who is backing in Australian workers. It is we in the Albanese Labor government who continue to work hard to ensure that Australians get to keep more of what they earn. That is absolutely true when it comes to women. Just quickly on Senator Canavan's point about the gender pay gap and comparing apples with apples, as he puts it, his commentary is about how completely useless the gender pay gap is. Wow. Imagine that—not wanting to be ambitious and create opportunity for women in the economy to participate in higher paying jobs and calling that a hill of nonsense. (Time expired) 15:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales The question today specifically around housing was quite an interesting one. While we hear lots of diversions and lots of thoughts about everything else going on in the country, let's talk about housing. The ANZ has predicted a 10.6 per cent drop, peak to trough, in housing values. To put that into some perspective, if you take the value of housing across Australia to be worth over $12 trillion, what this government is overseeing is the loss of almost $1.3 trillion in the wealth of Australians. Everyone says: 'What's $1 trillion? I don't know what a trillion dollars is. What does it buy? What does it do?' Let me put it this way: every single Australian, from the newborn to those taking their last breath—everyone—will be $48,000 poorer because of these policies. And they say this is a good thing. The single best— Senator Cox 296215 Not true! Senator CADELL 300134 We hear 'Not true!' from the other side. We have the ANZ bank coming out and saying it's 10.6 per cent nationwide. In Sydney, in my home state—I'm from the Hunter—it's 14.5 per cent; it's even worse there. We have just wee'd away $1.3 trillion of Australian wealth because a government thought it was a good idea. What a great idea! Let's just throw $48,000 per person in the garbage and say, 'Oh, but that's going to make first-home buyers.' They talk about the things they've done, such as a five per cent deposit for a new home buyer. Now, I know those over on the other side are not great with numbers, but if I put a five per cent deposit down— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Cox, you were heard in silence. Senator CADELL 300134 If I put a five per cent deposit down and my property goes back 10.6 per cent, I'm 5.6 per cent underwater on my debt. I owe the bank more money than the property is worth by five per cent. That is what is happening here. We never want to look at what actually happens; we want to talk about the spin and all of these things we're going through. We talk about the budget papers that say there will be a modest increase of $2 per year on rent. It's more like $2 per day on rent. With the way things are going, there are rent increases of $100 or $150 per week. This is what matters. That is what actually happens to the people around Australia. We talked about the loan numbers coming out. For Westpac, there was a 20 per cent drop in loan applications. We're talking about NAB's 15 per cent drop in loan applications and the statement that they were only propped up by self-managed super funds getting in to beat these challenges. That was what was propping it up. You're seeing a collapse in the wealth of Australians who are getting to the end of their careers and have paid their taxes, paid their mortgages and done everything right. And what do we do? We strip wealth from them at the time they need it. When the No. 1 determinant of a healthy retirement is owning your own property, we are taking away that wealth because of decisions of this government. And not only is there the attack on elderly Australians; let's get rid of the seniors health insurance rebate too. They've realised quickly that they've run out of their own money, the normal money; let's go after the money of the people who have done the right thing by Australia—they've got more because they've lived longer, they've earned more and they've done more. Those are the true facts of this government—if you've got it, we want it. We are becoming more socialist by the day. But we don't care about how we spend it; we just care about how we can get it. So not only are we taxing the money you've got, doing all these things and spending it everywhere; we are now throwing away the value you put in your housing, and $48,000 per person will be the result of a 10.6 per cent drop peak to trough. Imagine an average household of three people. It means $150,000 will be thrown away over two years because this government can't manage housing and can't manage the economy. This government needs to be changed. Question agreed to. Gambling 36 15:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to gambling regulation. In the three years since the Murphy report was released, Australians have lost $104 billion to gambling. That's an average of $666 million each week. Now, the Prime Minister is at pains to tell us that Australians love a punt, but they have also made it abundantly clear that they don't love being pummelled by gambling advertising and inducements to bet more and more often. Four in five Australians support a total ban on gambling advertising, including on TV, on radio and online. And why wouldn't they? Anyone watching the recent World Cup can attest to the sheer volume and constancy of gambling ads throughout every match. People deserve to be able to watch sport without being bombarded by gambling ads. But it's not just sport. We heard evidence at the inquiry last week that kids are hearing Sportsbet ads between Disney songs on their parents' Spotify accounts, yet, three years since the Murphy report, this pathetic bill, which ignores most of those Murphy recommendations, is the best the Prime Minister can offer. The Prime Minister defends his reforms as 'striking the right balance'. Well, who would want to balance gambling corporation profits against people's lives? It is deeply disturbing but perhaps not surprising when you look at the vast donations that the gambling industry makes to the major political parties. In the last five years, companies like Sportsbet, Tabcorp and the AHA have given the Labor Party $4 million. Those same big gambling corporations also donated more than $2 million to the coalition. They're having a bet each way to stop this parliament doing anything that gets in the way of their profits. And people are not just losing money to online gambling; they're losing their lives. Young people aged 18 to 24 were nearly twice as likely to be at high risk of harm compared to other age groups. This is also the group that's most aggressively targeted by gambling ads, particularly online. We know that gambling addiction can lead to suicide and we know that it can exacerbate domestic and family violence. To reduce gambling related suicides and family violence, we need to see real policy change. The Murphy report was clear: Gambling advertising is grooming children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The torrent of advertising is inescapable. It is manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience to gamble online. And yet, more than three years after that landmark report, the Albanese government is still refusing to take meaningful action against the scourge of gambling ads. The data says, 'End gambling ads.' The public says, 'End gambling ads.' The parliamentary inquiries say, 'End gambling ads.' But the gambling industry says no, and the Prime Minister falls into line. Today, we're hearing that Labor's planning to do a dodgy deal with the Liberals to save their weak gambling legislation. Their proposed gambling reforms are in tatters, and it says everything that they're relying on their gambling industry mates in the Liberal Party to swoop in and save it. Anyone watching the hearings into this weak bill knows that it fails the most basic tests. It's littered with loopholes and carve outs, rendering it weaker than the status quo in many areas. It fails to create a national gambling regulator. It leaves predatory online advertising largely untouched. It relies on an opt-out model for streaming instead of putting people in control with opt-in protections. As drafted, the bill does absolutely nothing to rein in inducements, which get targeted at people with a gambling addiction. Now, the deals with the Liberals might address that predatory grooming with inducements, but we know it doesn't fix any of those other gaping holes in the bill, which the gambling industry will continue to exploit. Last week's inquiry showed how much work is needed on this bill and showed just how far away this bill is from what the Murphy report recommended. Rushing through a dodgy deal with the Liberals would be a massive favour to the gambling corporations who are ripping off Australians, and it would be a massive kick in the teeth for anyone who's been working and fighting for so long for commonsense gambling reform that puts people ahead of the profits of gambling corporations. Question agreed to. National Security 37 15:28 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to national security. This is about the questions I asked regarding bail for the ISIS brides in Australia and hat the government was doing about possibly having 13 ISIS fighters coming back from Iraq. He couldn't answer the question. He was absolutely hopeless. He was basically saying it's up to the courts. The courts rely on legislation that's been put in place. We are putting forward a policy with legislation that is going to close the loopholes, but they are just not interested. He hasn't looked at it. He said it's unconstitutional. He wouldn't even know if it's unconstitutional unless it's challenged in the High Court. So we are putting safeguards in place to protect the Australian people, but Labor just shut their eyes to it. They're not interested. You ridicule and have a go at One Nation when you're not answering the question that I've asked on behalf of many Australian people. You need to look at good legislation. That's why we're putting it up. Put up a debate. If you don't agree with it, tell us why. You can't even do that. You can't even tell us why. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Veterans 37 15:30 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania 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 medical services for veterans. When a veteran needs a medical procedure or compensation for an injury that has been caused by their service for our country, the Department of Veterans' Affairs requires a report from a DVA approved doctor. But, as my questions to the minister revealed today, doctors are reporting that DVA is failing to pay for reports, and in some cases DVA are using reports that haven't been paid for to make their assessment on the veteran. That's bordering on theft. In fact, in the real world, businesses who don't pay up on time are known as delinquent debtors. Because DVA aren't paying their doctors, some of those doctors are refusing to do more reports until their outstanding invoices are paid. You can't really blame them. They already get paid less than their counterparts—less to treat veterans. How's that for a slap in the face? We get treated like second-class citizens these days. I've met doctors and specialists who work for those lower rates and put up with the very late payments because they give a stuff about veterans, which is more than I can say about the department. I've also met a lot of doctors and specialists who are making the decision not to be an approved DVA doctor, because it places too much pressure on their practice that they just can't sustain. I've also been hearing from veterans who have been getting emails from their delegate questioning the veteran's relationship with their doctor. I have it on good authority that this has happened at least five times, which tells me it's going on a lot more. So keep coming to my office. A respected practice that looks after many veterans recently told me that it got a phone call from a veteran's partner who said that DVA outright refused to send his doctor a liability report request, even though that was his treating doctor. When the DVA were asked why they did this, they didn't supply answers. They just refused, because, once again, they've given up caring about veterans. Doctors and practices have also been telling me that this started happening in February and March this year. How about that? Doctors have had an absolute gutful, and so have I. Some are now refusing to submit liability and personal injury reports for veterans until DVA pays outstanding invoices. You are playing with veterans' lives. Some of those doctors have dozens of unpaid invoices. It's barely three years since the royal commission handed down its final report. The commissioners were very clear: delays and complexities in veteran disability claims processing significantly heighten the risk of veteran suicide. I was getting reports when the royal commission was still running that things were getting better. Not now. We've gone backwards. Now veterans and their doctors say it's going backwards, I know it. I'm playing in it. It's gone backwards. It has gone so backwards in the last six months. Do the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs think they just needed more funding for claims processing while the commission was on, and then they could go back to treating every veteran like they were a bloody second-class citizen? DVA is relying on medical evidence to make decisions about veterans' compensation while failing to pay medical practitioners who produce the evidence in full and then forcing veterans and putting them in a panic mode and sending them to mlcoa, which is disgraceful in itself. My office has raised this issue with Minister Keogh's office on multiple occasions, but veterans and doctors are still waiting. Today, in response to my questions, I got no answers. One doctor has submitted 18 liability and personal injury reports to DVA and has not been paid for a single report. The doctor is now holding onto a further 23 reports that are complete but not yet sent to DVA because they have not paid these outstanding invoices. Some of these invoices are more than 90 days old. I want DVA to know this: I have those reports in my office. I went and did the job you could not do. You could not negotiate with these doctors. I have those reports. I would suggest the clock is ticking. If one of these 32 sitting on my table takes their life, I look forward to going to a coroner's inquest with you, because right now the clock is ticking on veterans' lives. Get off your butt and get up there and get those reports. Those veterans have waited long enough. It is time to pay the doctors. Question agreed to. NOTICES 38 NOTICES Presentation 38 Presentation 39 15:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will introduce a private senator's bill to remove the stoppage of voluntary assisted dying via a carriage service. This is a law that needs to change. It is keeping people suffering unnecessarily. I will put forward this private senator's bill, and I hope that people across all sides of this chamber can use their own minds and their own hearts and act with compassion. CONDOLENCES 40 CONDOLENCES Denman, Ms Kay Janet, Hinch, Mr Derryn Nigel, Tate, Hon. and Reverend Professor Michael Carter, AO 40 15:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of three former senators: on 20 April 2026, of Kay Janet Denman, a senator for Tasmania from 1993 to 2005; on 5 June 2026 of the Hon. and Reverend Professor Michael Carter Tate, AO, a former minister and senator for Tasmania from 1978 to 1993; and, on 10 July 2026, of Derryn Nigel Hinch, a senator for Victoria from 2016 to 2019. I understand that arrangements will be made to move motions of condolence at a further date. BUSINESS 40 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 40 15:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills: No. 46 Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025—Wednesday, 12 August 2026; and No. 57 Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026—Thursday, 13 August 2026. Question agreed to. NOTICES 40 NOTICES Withdrawal 40 15:37 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Hume, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for tomorrow. Postponement 40 COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 40 15:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. DOCUMENTS 40 DOCUMENTS Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 40 Order for the Production of Documents 40 15:38 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 13 August 2026, all documents, consultation notes, briefings, meeting notes, correspondence, emails or advice received or transmitted by the Minister for Health and Ageing, relevant to eligible podiatrist prescribers being an authorised podiatrist prescriber for the purposes of prescribing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Question agreed to. Victoria: Infrastructure 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:38 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 9 am on 19 August 2026, the federated funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the state of Victoria for each of the following projects: (a) the Suburban Rail Loop; (b) the North East Link; (c) the Metro Tunnel; and (d) the West Gate Tunnel; including all governance, accountability, and compliance conditions attached to those agreements. Question agreed to. Workplace Relations 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:39 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 9 am on 19 August 2026, a copy of all documents in the possession, custody or control of the office of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, including letters, briefing notes, meeting notes and file notes, between the minister or the minister's office and any union, union official or union-affiliated organisation, regarding: (a) Commonwealth procurement policy in relation to enterprise bargaining agreements; or (b) the development of provisions enabling the Commonwealth to preference contractors holding enterprise bargaining agreements. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Productivity in Australia Select Committee 41 Reporting Date 41 15:40 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of the Chair of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, Senator Bragg, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia be extended to 31 March 2027. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 570 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

24 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Collins, J. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 6 PAIRS Blyth, L. Farrell, D. E. Bragg, A. J. Ayres, T. Cash, M. C. Mulholland, C. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Sharma, D. N. Wong, P. Vacancy Stewart, J. N. A.

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 42 MATTERS OF URGENCY Taxation 42 15:47 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which is shown at item 13 on today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Labor Government's decision to impose toxic tax changes that can punish widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence, despite being warned of the consequences, and the need to axe these taxes. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Labor Government's decision to impose toxic tax changes that can punish widows, divorcees and victims of domestic violence, despite being warned of the consequences, and the need to axe these taxes. The question the Australian people are currently faced with is: what kind of Prime Minister legislates a tax that hurts widows—in other words, people who have lost their husbands—divorcees and, I think almost worse than that, women escaping domestic violence. Sadly for the Australian people, the name of that prime minister is Anthony Albanese. Quite frankly, Labor—the Albanese Labor government—were clearly warned by the Senate and others prior to this legislation going through, and they still rushed it through the parliament. They still forced a vote in the parliament. Of course the Australian Greens were there every step of the way. And what did they do? They actually legislated, as I said, a tax that hurts widows, divorcees and women escaping domestic violence. Sadly, this is no longer an abstract debate about some disastrous tax policy. This is about the Albanese government, those opposite, deliberately voting for a tax that is imposed upon Australians at the most vulnerable time in their lives. A woman whose husband has died will be taxed more by the Albanese government. A woman leaving a relationship, a woman getting a divorce, will be taxed more now by the Albanese government. A woman trying to escape domestic violence, separate her finances and rebuild her life with her kids—that's the real-life example that is now all over the newspapers—has been taxed more by the Albanese government. That is just sick. But there's worse. You've got to ask yourself: how did the Prime Minister of Australia allow this to happen? How did a Labor government that, along with the Australian Greens, never, ever stops lecturing Australians about fairness, compassion and standing up for the most vulnerable in society—how in God's name do they then legislate a tax that affects the most vulnerable in society: widows, those escaping domestic violence, divorcees. I've got to say to those on the other side, to the Labor women, and even the Greens down there, who also like to pontificate, how did the self-proclaimed 'party of women' legislate a tax that creates another financial obstacle for women who are escaping domestic violence? That is just sick, quite frankly, which now appears to be the hallmark of the Albanese government. What's worse is that Mr Albanese and the Labor Party were warned. Concerns were raised about the impact of these laws and what they could mean for property ownership changes because of death, divorce and family breakdown. The government knew that there were problems, but what did the Prime Minister do? He legislated those problems anyway. Worse, they pushed those laws through, and Labor senators voted for them. I would have thought that we'd return to the parliament today—particularly now that there is a woman who has been affected directly by these taxes—and they'd at least have the decency to legislate that change. Get rid of the tax on the widows. Get rid of the tax on the divorcees. Get rid of the tax on, in particular, women who are escaping domestic violence with their children. Instead, when we raised it earlier today, they had the audacity to sneer at us. You should be ashamed of that. Where's your Minister for Women? Senator Gallagher is always out there saying what a great job she's doing—seriously, legislating a tax on these people? Where's Senator Wong? She's another one who likes to pontificate. Yet again—Senator Wong, you voted for this tax on women. It is a disgrace. Let me tell you right now, if you don't abolish it, the coalition will. 15:53 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to oppose this motion. It's yet another Liberal Party scare campaign dressed up as concern. They have taken some of people's hardest moments—the death of a partner, the end of a relationship or escaping family and domestic violence—and, in fact, tried to use them as cover to defend an outdated tax concession for property investors. At the age of 17, I joined the Western Australia Police Force. I've worked alongside women and families living through family and domestic violence, and the stories that women have trusted me with have never left me. The questions they ask themselves when leaving are: 'Can I keep a roof over the head of my kids? Can I afford to start again? Will I be safe?' For someone who's lost a partner, a property may be the home they built together that holds a lifetime of memories. These are deeply personal moments. To strip away the humanity and use them to defend outdated tax concessions is absolutely beneath this Senate. I want to be very, very clear. The Albanese Labor government will not allow victims, a widow and someone going through relationship breakdown to lose existing negative-gearing treatment simply because ownership of a property transfers. We said that we would address this in the next tranche of legislation, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Last week we released the draft legislation ensuring that property acquired from a spouse through inheritance or relationship breakdown will retain access to negative gearing if it was owned on budget night, and that includes transfers under recognised court orders, court approved agreements and binding financial arrangements. Capital gains tax rollover interactions will also be addressed in the further legislation. These reforms do not commence until 1 July 2027. The family home remains exempt from capital gains tax. Superannuation and small-business CGT concessions are not affected. And for other inheritance there is grandfathering that will generally end where there is a need for genuine change in ownership consistent with longstanding tax arrangements. That is a reasonable and principal distinction. Legislating major reforms in tranches is a standard practice in this place. We said we would consult in good faith, and the exposure draft is open until 21 of August. Treasury have consulted banks, which confirmed that they can account for the policy in lending decisions. So let's put those scare campaigns aside and deal with the facts today. There is no widow tax. There is no divorce tax. There is no tax on escaping violence. Senator Cash had a copy of the exposure draft. She had the protections right in front of her and she signed this notice for this debate anyway. On 5 August the shadow Treasurer, Tim Wilson, demanded more consultation, and now the coalition is condemning the reforms before the consultation has even finished. They demand a consultation and then they run a stunt like this to try to shut it down. That is the worst type of hypocrisy I have ever seen. Those opposite are fighting to preserve a system that makes it easier to buy your 10th home than your first, a system that has left fewer than half of the Australians aged between 25 and 34 owning a home. That system is not sacred. It is not fair. Our reforms direct negative gearing for future investment towards new homes, placing a blunt capital gains tax discount with indexation, and they are expected to help 75,000 Australians become homeowners. They are also helping to fund tax cuts to 13 million working Australians. If the coalition wants to come in here and debate which party supports Australian women then let's have that debate. Since 2022, the Albanese Labor government has invested more than $4.4 billion under our National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and that investment has supported more than 1,400 organisations and helped 444,000 women experiencing family and domestic violence. That is the fact. 15:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me a great deal of pleasure to debate the fact that the Labor Party talks a lot about hypocrisy on our side of politics. The greatest hypocrites of all is the government who say they care about women, who say they care about domestic violence victims, who say they care about making sure they get first home owners into a home, yet their housing policy and their budget are delivering outcomes in direct opposition to that. The level of economic incompetence from this government knows no bounds. I have been in parliament a long time. I am yet to recall a period of time, whether in government or in opposition, when we were still talking about the mistakes in a federal budget in August. The reality is this government's economic incompetence has seen us now chasing to fix an economic mess of its own making, where its own legislation means, if you are going through a financial settlement as a divorcee, you are actually going to be subjected to the capital gains tax changes. If your partner dies, that estate will also be going through the capital gains changes. Instead of consulting and getting it right before they make it l-a-w law, we are still here eight weeks, 12 weeks—it'll be 16 weeks before we get a chance to fix it. And that is why Australians are furious with Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party. They are not up to the job. Inflation's through the roof. Interest rates are higher than they need to be. They blame the Middle East, but, when you look across all developed countries, inflation is higher here than it is in other developed countries or like nations, and for longer than it needs to be. That is a fact, and it is because of the Labor Party's inability to manage their own spending. As I said earlier, if a couple is separating at a time when they still have a very high mortgage to pay off, or if the couple decides as part of the divorce settlement to retain the family home in the name of one person, maybe to make sure the children of that partnership continue to remain in the family home, limiting the destabilisation of those young people—they might want to put the house up for rent—the divorcee will lose access to grandfathered negative gearing and capital gains tax laws. If the couple were already renting out an investment property, again, after the separation and transfer of assets into one name, the divorcee—potentially and often the woman—will lose access to the negative gearing arrangements available to other taxpayers who owned their home prior to 7 pm on 12 May 2026, budget night. The government pretends this is an unintended consequence of their law. Again, really! Surprise! Not responsible! But we now know that they were advised that this would be a consequence of the decision they took, and they didn't care, because they thought no-one would notice. The reality is that property investors, in the main, are nurses, teachers and coppers—that's the data—trying to prepare a future and retirement options for themselves. Those are the people that are investing in property. And they are the people that were lied to by this Prime Minister and this Treasurer 50 times before the last election when they were told that this would not be part of— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Minister? Senator Chisholm 39801 I'd ask that Senator McKenzie withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McKenzie, please withdraw. Senator McKenzie 207825 What am I asked to withdraw? This is a fact. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Please take your seat and I will tell you. Senator McKenzie 207825 You lie— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Take your seat, Senator McKenzie. I think you just used a word that you know is inappropriate. If you recalled for one second what you said, you would know appropriately responding to my request is a plain and simple withdrawal. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I withdraw. The Australian public was sold a pup when the Prime Minister stood up 50 times and said there would be no changes to negative gearing. And what happened? This is why Australians are furious: if they had known, they wouldn't have voted Labor. They would have gone into the voting booth and actually been able to assess the two parties of government and what they were offering. Instead, they were sold falsehoods— (Time expired) 16:04 Senator DOWLING 55842 Tasmania There are two facts that Senator Cash hopes this motion will obscure. Firstly, the government is already addressing the precise issue she describes. Secondly, her coalition went to the last election promising to increase income tax for every Australian taxpayer. Let's begin with the substance. On 25 June, the government committed in this Senate to address property transfers arising from inheritance or relationship breakdowns. On 4 August, Treasury released the detailed exposure draft, and consultation remains open until 21 August. It preserves the existing negative gearing treatment when a property owned on budget night passes to a surviving spouse or co-owner or is transferred following a relationship breakdown. These changes do not operate until 1 July 2027. Under the government's published design, no new tax is triggered simply because someone is widowed, separates or escapes a violent relationship. The draft confirms that the property's grandfathered treatment follows the relevant transfer. So Senator Cash is demanding that we axe a penalty we have already published a legislative fix to prevent almost a year before the rules even begin. Only last week, the shadow treasurer asked whether the government would allow 'more than two days of consultation'. Today, Senator Cash wants us to stop consulting altogether and axe the reform. For the coalition, consultation is apparently vital, right up until the government actually consults. But let's step back and just wonder why these broader reforms are actually necessary. Since 1999, house prices have risen more than twice as fast as average full-time earnings. Between 2001 and 2021, homeownership among households aged 25 to 34 fell by seven percentage points. Our reforms keep negative gearing for new builds, grandfathers existing properties held on budget night and directs incentives towards additional housing supply. It's expected to enable another 75,000 Australians to own a home over the next decade. More than 13 million workers will also receive a tax offset of up to $250, and, separately, 6.2 million workers will benefit from the standard deduction, saving an average $205, with more than half of those being women. So these are reforms that reward work, support new housing and give younger Australians a fairer chance. Contrast that to the coalition's tax record. At the last election, Labor had legislated further tax cuts for around 14 million taxpayers. The coalition voted against them and then lodged election policy with the independent PBO to repeal them. The coalition's own costed election policy would have increased the lowest income tax rate from 14 per cent to 16 per cent, hitting some of the lowest paid Australians and costing them up to $536 more every year. Taxing the lowest income Australians was their stated official policy. By the way, there were no exemptions for widows, divorcees or victims-survivors of domestic violence. They were captured; they were going to cop a tax increase along with every other Australian. If they earned taxable income, the coalition planned to make them pay more. That's not an allegation. It's their own costed election policy. Senator Cash invokes victims-survivors. This government's commitment is measured in action. More than $4.4 billion has been invested since 2022 to deliver the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. People facing bereavement, separation or violence deserve protection. They should not be deployed as political cover for preserving a tax concession. The specific issue is being addressed. The broader reform makes housing fairer, supports new supply and cuts taxes on work. Labor will protect affected Australians and get the details right. The coalition wants to protect the status quo and erase its own record in proposing higher taxes for every taxpayer. That is the real contrast before the Senate, and I oppose this motion. 16:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria If you really want to get up the Labor Party's nose, you only need to use one word, and that is 'mean'. If you call the Labor Party mean, they will squeal. They squeal every time. But that's exactly what the widows tax is. It is mean. It's a mean tax. It's a tricky tax. And don't for a second be fooled into thinking that it wasn't entirely deliberate. The widows tax imposed by Labor was no accident. There were plenty of chances for the Labor Party to fix it six weeks ago, when the Senate was sitting, when the original taxation legislation was being passed. But they chose not to. It wasn't an oversight; it was a deliberate act, and it was a mean, tricky act. More importantly, it was a failure of basic moral reasoning. But the Labor Party persisted. It's a tax that catches people at their most vulnerable. Don't for a second let Labor fool you into believing that these tax increases are reform. They're not reform; they are tax increases. Labor's tax increases were supposed to grandfather existing investment properties, protecting them from changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax if they were bought before budget night. However, what this tax does is ensure that, if one owner dies or a couple divorces, the property is transferred to the other owner, and Labor treats that as a change in ownership, and that grandfathering—that protection—disappears. That's what this tax does. It was intentional. It wasn't an oversight. They had a choice, and they chose to inflict it upon the most vulnerable. The extraordinary thing is that Labor clearly know that this is a problem. They know it's a problem because now they're saying that they're going to deal with it. They're going to deal with it by attaching it to another bill and then consulting on it. Yet every single other senator In this chamber is willing to change this now. They realise it's a problem. Labor has chosen to pass the bill with the widows tax still in it. Senator Cox was incorrect. There is a widows tax. It's no-one's imagination. It is there, and it is a divorcee tax and a tax on survivors of domestic violence. It's been deliberately chosen by the Labor government. Labor had six weeks to produce a bill to remove this tax, and they've chosen not to. Instead, they've chosen to delay. They've put out an exposure draft, sent it out for consultation and bundled it with legislation that deals with trusts and other tax changes that they know that the coalition won't support. They've done this because they're doubling down on being mean and tricky. In the meantime, they're playing politics with people's lives—with women's lives. It's disgusting. It's an extraordinary way to deal with a problem that's affecting people who are grieving or going through a divorce, and it raises a very, very simple question for government: if there's no rush then why was there so much of a rush to impose it in the first place? Now Australians are simply being told: 'Oh, don't worry. Trust us. We're going to fix this. Don't worry about it.' But how out of touch can you be? Australians don't rely on a law that might pass; they rely on laws that have passed, and you have passed a widows tax—a mean and tricky widows tax. Australians operate on what the law says today, not what the law might say tomorrow. A widow refinancing an investment property cannot simply say to her bank: 'Don't worry. The government say they're going to fix this eventually, so you don't need to worry about me.' It doesn't work that way. So the law needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed immediately, and we will help this Senate chamber to fix it immediately. I'd like to acknowledge Senator David Pocock's work on this issue. Just recently, he was contacted by a 44-year-old victim of domestic violence who was unable to secure financing for an investment property that she co-owned with her former partner and was due to receive as part of her divorce settlement. But she can't, because of the uncertainty that Labor created from its tax increases. So the coalition will work with Senator Pocock and the crossbench to remove this terrible tax, because we agree that it should not exist. Labor says there's no rush. Well, there should be a rush. They should be rushing to fix this right now because, for Australians that are caught up in this mess, it's not a theoretical problem; it's a real problem. It's their lives. Australians shouldn't be punished by a tax system simply because their spouse has died. They shouldn't be punished by a tax system if they're escaping domestic violence or experiencing divorce. So Labor should stop delaying. It's hard to imagine a clearer example of a policy failing the people that Labor claim to protect. (Time expired) 16:14 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales This has been an embarrassing time to be an Australian, between the diplomatic incidents created by the Prime Minister's appalling discussion about the Japanese prime minister and then the general chaos of the economic mismanagement that we've seen since the budget. I think many Australians would say, 'Why is housing so buggered in this country?' and the answer is that this government has made it so much worse by giving us more tax, more regulation and more corruption than we've ever seen before in the housing system. On the first point, on tax, the government has a deliberate design feature to reduce housing supply. They've got in their budget some sort of tricky offset. They say that they're going to have an infrastructure fund which may supply more homes, but they have a deliberate design feature to reduce by 35,000 the houses that would have been funded by individuals. I make that point—individuals. The government is against individuals investing to create houses for other Australians. They think this is a bad thing—it's bad for the individual—and they are desperate to help their friends at the union and industry super cartel to become landlords. This is all part of their great Australian dream, trying to completely change the character of Australian housing. The chasing of individuals out of the housing market as investors is a top priority for this government. They think it's very bad that individuals should invest for their future because the only investment the Labor Party likes is when the investment is in a compulsory superannuation scheme which they can use to pilfer—and all their friends can get their snouts in the trough. This is the theory behind this budget: 'We want to chase out individual investors.' Of course, on the way through, they've caused themselves a number of problems. What's been exposed is this widow's tax and a number of other technical issues, including the fact that the Treasurer—Dr Chalmers or whatever he calls himself now—has passed a budget bill ostensibly about housing taxes without a definition of what a new build is. What a joke of a country we've become! If this treasurer, this pathetic treasurer, had been the CFO of a company, he would have walked the plank years ago. His first tax policy on unrealised gains collapsed. His second tax policy on negative gearing and CGT has collapsed. What a joke! You pass a budget with a tax hike as the centrepiece and you have no idea what a new build is, which is just ridiculous. So they've got to come back and tidy this up. They say they'll fix up this widows tax. Let's see. I'd say they've been pretty callous about this. For the people that have had to suffer through these widows tax transactions, it's a terrible time because there's no certainty that they can actually get from their government because it hasn't passed this chamber. Similarly, the government was desperate to pass their terrible budget. They came to the coalition, I imagine, and said, 'Look, would you like to pass our $77 billion of new taxes?' and we said, 'No, thank you,' so they went to the Greens. The Greens said, 'Yes, we would love to help you pass your $77 billion in new taxes on the economy, because we think that it's good to have more taxes on housing.' I'm sure that will solve the problem. Housing is already very heavily taxed, so more taxes will create more houses. The price the Greens party asked of the Labor Party was this: 'We want you to abolish the ability of SMSFs to borrow to invest in residential property because that's something that's hurting Cbus, hurting Australian Super and hurting all our mates. They're losing market share. We've got to stop that from happening because it's terrible that people would invest to purchase new properties off the plan and create new houses for other Australians. That's terrible.' When the Australian people have to consider why rents are sky high and why affordability is in the toilet, it's because the government hates new housing. They've got a policy to tax it into oblivion. They've got a policy to cancel the ability of other Australians to provide rental stock for Australians. That is why we're in a terrible, terrible mess. As I say, it's been an embarrassing time to be in Australia, with this shambles of a budget and a prime minister who goes around the world embarrassing the nation by engaging in disgusting phrases and terminology that should be beneath the office of a prime minister. And this Treasurer, Dr Chalmers—I think he calls himself that now—needs to go back to do another PhD on actual economics so he can learn how to do a budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

24 AYES Antic, A. Bell, S. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. P. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. A. McKenzie, B. G. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. Whitten, T. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ananda-Rajah, M. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. M. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Whiteaker, E. 7 PAIRS Blyth, L. Gallagher, K. R. Chandler, C. Wong, P. Collins, J. Stewart, J. N. A. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Scarr, P. M. Ayres, T. Sharma, D. N. Farrell, D. E. Vacancy Mulholland, C.

Question negatived.

National Security 47 16:26 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Roberts, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations Australia is now hosting people who left our shores to fight for ISIS or other Islamic terrorist organisations against Australia and against our allies in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was overthrown in that war. Syria fell into the hands of Islamic group HTS, which recently reformed into a more moderate government. Guess what? They don't want these women. Syrian authorities are treating them as foreign nationals awaiting deportation. In early 2026, when a group of Australian ISIS combatants tried to leave the al-Roj refugee camp, Syrian officials briefly turned them back because they wanted explicit confirmation that Australia would accept them upon arrival. The new Syrian government is clearly smarter than this Albanese Labor government. What offences did these women commit in travelling to an area designated as a zone of terrorist activity? Firstly, under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, it's an offence for an Australian citizen to intentionally enter or remain in an area, specifically the al-Raqqa province in Syria. Simply being physically present within these ISIS controlled borders without an approved excuse is a crime carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. Secondly, under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code, it's a criminal offence to intentionally join a listed terrorist organisation. The definition of membership extends beyond combatants to include individuals who swear allegiance, provide support or willingly integrate into the group's societal structure. The penalty is up to 10 years imprisonment. Thirdly, enslavement offences under section 268.10 of the Criminal Code include the reduction of a person to a status of slavery, including purchasing, owning, using or trading human beings. The Australian Federal Police allege that some of these women were complicit in the purchase and domestic enslavement of captured Yazidi women. The penalty is up to 25 years imprisonment per charge, amongst the harshest penalties in Australian law, and rightly so. While charges have been laid against two, One Nation is asking, 'Why not the others?' Home affairs minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have consistently claimed the government provided 'absolutely zero assistance' to bring these women back to Australia. This is not accurate. The evidence indicating that Minister Burke's office and federal departments helped or cleared paths for the women includes handwritten notes of Department of Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster revealing that Minister Burke held undisclosed meetings with the Save the Children fund, who were responsible for bringing these women back to Australia. During these discussions, Minister Burke reportedly thanked the advocacy group for keeping their repatriation plans quiet and out of the media. The minister explicitly noted that the government 'doesn't want to be perceived to have been paying to have them smuggled out'. Paying? The minister is referring to the $100 million that Save the Children has received in federal government funding in the last three years. Minister Burke coordinated with Dr Jamal Rifi, a prominent Western Sydney Islamic community leader, who served as the key facilitator managing the ground logistics for their return to Australia. The federal government actively processed the legal paperwork required for international travel, which the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism described as being 'utterly disingenuous' to deny as being of assistance. Minister Burke conceded that the Department of Home Affairs assisted with passports, identity verification, DNA testing and citizenship documentation for the children born overseas. When the women applied for travel documents, the government chose not to implement long-term temporary exclusion orders, even though their circumstances perfectly met the criteria for that order. The return of foreign Islamic fighters is not over. There are 13 men in captivity in Iraq who could be returned with the same assistance Minister Burke gave these women. Not on One Nation's watch. Australia needs protection from Islamic terrorism, and we need protection from politicians facilitating Islamic terrorists' return to Australia. This is why One Nation will tomorrow move to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, a bill the Greens call unconstitutional. What absolute rubbish! Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said One Nation's bill is structured to navigate constitutional hurdles, because our bill was carefully written to comply with High Court rulings on this topic, and we believe it is constitutional. Our bill strengthens Australia's ability to prevent the return to Australia of persons who have served with, participated in the activities of or materially supported terrorist organisations, to protect our Australian community. I ask the Senate to take this sensible measure to protect Australians from people who have actively fought in foreign lands against Australia and against our allies, to fulfil government's and parliament's primary role, to keep Australians safe. (Time expired) 16:33 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I commend One Nation for bringing forward this urgency motion today, which does go to the very heart of the most important job any government has at any point in time in history, and that is to keep its people safe. Nothing makes it clearer than listening to Senator Roberts's speech or indeed observing the actions of this government, which paint a very clear picture, that this government is failing at that very task, of keeping Australians safe from those who seek to do harm. At the centrepiece of the debate we're having right now—one we've been having for quite some time—is this government's decision to actively support the repatriation of ISIS brides back into this country. It doesn't matter when you say, 'We are providing no assistance;' the facts there are otherwise. This government provided passports to these individuals, when the Passports Act gives it capacity not to. That was an active decision by this government. This government assisted their passage to the airport. It shepherded them from the plane to their hotels. It bought them pizzas when they arrived in Australia to make them feel comfortable. If that is not providing support, then I do not know what that is. This government is running a concierge service for people who turn their backs on this country and everything we believe in. And when it gets a bit tough for these people who supported that death cult, ISIS, when things are getting a bit hard for them where they chose to go, they want to come back here and take advantage of our rule of law, of our court system—something they hate. People who support Islamic State do not believe in Western democracies, do not believe in the legal system we abide by. So this government is actively facilitating the return of these people who do evil things. And if we think they've had a change of heart while they've been away, that they've suddenly seen the error of their ways and they want to come back and integrate into society then we are more silly as a country than we look. They didn't just change their minds and decide that perhaps being a law-abiding Australian citizen was what they always were. That hatred that they adopted when they went to support ISIS is still in their hearts, in their minds and, I fear, very much in their children's hearts as well. This government has not done what they should have done, and that is to protect the Australian people from the harm these people are going to import back into this country. At a time when we have a royal commission on foot talking about extremism, radicalisation, and how we can ensure that we can prevent that sort of thing from happening in our community, all the while, through our borders are coming people like this. And what about that fellow that they found in the Iraqi prison, Doctor Jihad? 'I wasn't a militant. I wasn't a combatant.' He supported ISIS fighters. He healed their wounds. He sent them back out to cause and inflict the harm that ISIS fighters inflict, but no, this guy's an Australian citizen. We won't provide any assistance whatsoever. Well, I'm sorry, that just does not cut it. The facts bear out that you are providing assistance. I had the pleasure and the honour of meeting members of the Yazidi community from Coffs Harbour, a visit organised by Mr Pat Conaghan, the local member for Cowper. I heard the most moving testimony of experiences that here in Australia we can't even begin to imagine. People were, because of their faith, persecuted in the worst of ways—rape, kidnapping, torture, separation of child from parent, brainwashing. The things that were told to me just half an hour ago by a group of people who now sit in the public gallery are things that should give this government pause for thought, and to consider what they are doing when they allow these people to come back into the country, facilitating their entry. These are people who came to Australia for safety, for sanctuary, for a place to feel included and to be able to live out their lives peacefully, and this government is bringing back the people who drove them—the Yazidi community—from where they were from, who vilified, victimised and pursued these people in the worst of ways just because of their faith. I can't even begin to imagine the experiences these individuals have gone through. Members of family are still not located, still separated from those who've been able to make it to Australia. And while we're not providing support to that community, who desperately, genuinely need help, who adore what this country has to offer, we are bending over backwards to bring in ISIS brides, ISIS doctors, and all sorts of evil back into this country. I say shame on this government. Put Australians and others who adore this country first. 16:38 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria The safety of Australians is vitally important and we should talk about it, but those opposite—the coalition and One Nation—are not entering this discussion in good faith. They are peddling this notion, this wrongful assertion, that this government somehow allowed these ISIS brides, who made a woeful, terrible decision to go overseas, to come in when they know full well that from day one the Prime Minister said that he would not lift a finger to help these people back. They know that. And he has been consistent in that position. In peddling this nonsense, they are actually distracting from the main game, and the main game in Australia when it comes to terrorism is actually youth radicalisation. This was raised in a joint report by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US—the Five Eyes analysis—which was released in December 2024, titled, Young people and violent extremism:acall for collective action. ASIO stated in 2024 that around one in five of their priority counterterrorism cases involved young people. This is a sobering report. In every one of the terrorist attacks, disruptions or suspected terrorist incidents that they prosecuted in 2024, the alleged perpetrator was a young person—in every single instance. What we are finding is that people are now being radicalised online. They're being radicalised fast. They have a mixed ideology, meaning religious, political, racist—you name it; it's all jumbled up there in this kind of politics of grievance and hate—and they are overwhelmingly young. This is what ASIO boss Mike Burgess said just in May this year: I continue to be extremely concerned by the number of young people, particularly young men, who are being radicalised online and mobilising to violence relatively quickly with little to no warning … People who self-radicalise online … often show few … real-world indicators they are mobilising to violence. In the past two years, since we strengthened counterterrorism legislation—which by the way, One Nation voted against—we have had 31 individuals who have been charged with violent extremist material offences, of whom three in five are aged 17 years or younger. Three in five are children. They are minors. As of 30 June this year, only a few weeks ago, 298 people were enrolled in counterterrorism interventions to deradicalise them. This was up 18 per cent on the year before, and the overwhelming majority—92 per cent—were men and boys. This is a problem of young people, and it is overwhelmingly a problem of boys and men. The issue here is that once it reaches the purview of ASIO and the AFP—the Australian Federal Police—it's too late. So what the ASIO boss actually said was that we need a whole-of-society effort. We have to understand why it is that we are losing our boys and our children to terrorism. What is happening here is that kids are being exposed to violent extremist content. The algorithms bombard them with this stuff, and then, on top of that, they are falling prey to groomers—to terrorist adult groomers, sometimes from overseas, sometimes domestic, who are preying on their vulnerabilities, their need for acceptance, their need for friendship and their need for validation. These are vulnerable children. So this is why we stood up, in May of this year, $74 million towards a new counterterrorism centre to bring together these agencies—the AFP and ASIO—to work with local and international law enforcement authorities to try and identify these networks and disrupt them and save our kids. This is also why we have brought in the social media ban. We don't talk about the dirty, dark secret of online extremism and radicalisation, but this is part of the reason this government has acted, and 20 countries have fallen like dominoes behind us, because we realise the threat of youth radicalisation. (Time expired) 16:43 Senator BELL 319142 New South Wales The first responsibility of any Australian government is simple keep: Australians safe. In that responsibility, the Albanese Labor government is failing and has failed because, when it comes to Australians who chose to travel overseas to join, fight for or support Islamic State, the Albanese Labor government has its priorities wrong. ISIS is a terrorist organisation responsible for murder, torture, rape, slavery, executions and acts of terror on an industrial scale. Its victims include innocent civilians: religious minorities, women and children, just to name a few. The people who travelled to its so-called caliphate knew the organisation they were associating with and the atrocities it carried out. They made a choice. They chose to leave Australia. They chose to associate with, support or fight for one of the most barbaric terrorist organisations the world has ever seen, and, when people make that choice, Australians have every right to expect their government to put the safety of the country first. Instead, the Albanese Labor government has supported the return of ISIS-linked individuals to Australia and chosen not to pursue stronger measures to prevent their return. Labor has washed its hands, as we have heard. They have washed their hands of responsibility, blamed everyone but themselves and left Australians to face the risks. Rather than pursuing every lawful avenue to stop ISIS-linked individuals returning to Australia, Labor throws up its hands, saying nothing can be done, leaving everyday Australians to live with the consequences of Labor's failures. We know that Australians travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight with or support terrorist groups. We know that dozens of Australian men who went overseas to fight have already returned and we know that further ISIS-linked women and children have been repatriated from Syria. Every person who made the decision to travel to ISIS-controlled territories to associate with ISIS or to support its causes must be held accountable for the choices that they made. Every person who associated with ISIS and who is then released into the Australian community presents a national security risk that must be treated with the utmost seriousness—something this Labor government is failing to do. Australians should not be asked to accept the risk while the Albanese Labor government washes its hands of responsibility and blames everyone but itself. Bondi should have been a warning to this country. It showed the deadly consequences of radicalisation taking hold in our communities and the terrible price that is paid when extremist ideology is not confronted early and decisively. Citizenship is not simply a one-way contract where Australia owes you an obligation regardless of what obligations you abandon yourself. If you leave this country, pledge allegiance to a terrorist organisation, fight for it or support its atrocities, you have betrayed Australia in one of the most fundamental ways imaginable. One Nation believes Australians have the right to say to anyone who has made that decision: 'You made your choice. You chose ISIS. You turned your back on Australia. You cannot simply demand to come back and endanger the safety of every Australian community.' Tomorrow, One Nation—Senator Hanson—will introduce legislation that puts the safety of Australians first. Our bill will give Australia stronger powers to prevent foreign terrorist fighters and ISIS linked individuals from returning to this country, where they present an unacceptable security risk. It will create foreign terrorist fighter exclusion orders. It will strengthen passport powers. It will stop automatic return permits. It will tighten terrorism bail laws. All of these things the Labor government could be doing and is refusing to do. And it will impose serious penalties on anyone who unlawfully facilitates the return of a person connected to terrorist activities. These are not symbolic measures. These are real changes that should be taking place. And Labor should have acted earlier to implement them. They are practical steps to stop the risk before it crosses our border rather than waiting until it's inside Australia, where you then hope it can be managed. One Nation's principle will always be that the safety of Australians must come first. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to blame others for their failure to act. It has refused to test every lawful option available to protect Australians. One Nation will not wash our hands of responsibility. We believe this problem can be dealt with. There are solutions, and we are taking those steps. We are introducing legislation. We will be strong at the border. We will be strong against terrorism where this Labor government has failed. (Time expired) 16:48 Senator WALKER 316818 South Australia I rise today to discuss something that should be completely uncontroversial. If an Australian chooses to travel overseas to join or support a terrorist organisation, that is appalling. There is no excuse for it. I have no sympathy for someone who supports an organisation that murders civilians, persecutes communities and uses terror to achieve its political aims. Where Australians have committed terrorism offences, they should face the consequences. We are a country governed by laws, and the rule of law matters most when the person involved is someone who has done something horrible. Australia cannot simply decide that an Australian citizen is somebody else's problem because they have done something inexcusable overseas. I expect we will continue to hear about individual cases, including women who have travelled to ISIS-controlled territory, the indoctrination of children, criminal charges and decisions to grant bail. These are deeply confronting cases, and nobody on this side is pretending otherwise. And, if a case raises legitimate questions about whether our terrorism laws, bail laws or other safeguards are adequate, then we should examine them. If our agencies need additional powers, there should be a case made for them. If safeguards need strengthening, bring the evidence to the parliament and let us legislate accordingly. But that is very different from using one confronting case to justify abandoning the principle that Australia takes responsibility for its own citizens. Australians who commit terrorism offences should be investigated, charged and prosecuted. Where someone poses an ongoing threat, our national security agencies have extensive powers to manage that threat, and, where those powers are inadequate, parliament can strengthen them. Australia has been dealing with these cases for years. In fact, 45 men returned from fighting in Iraq and Syria before this government even came to office. This government has used every tool available to manage people who have returned, including temporary exclusion orders where the minister has received advice that issuing one was possible and appropriate. So, if One Nation genuinely believes our laws are inadequate, show us where. Show us the evidence. Propose something that actually fixes the problem. The current TEO system was designed by the former government to sit at the absolute limit of what is constitutionally possible. Putting decisions to issue TEOs in the hands of the courts adds another legal hurdle without any reason to believe more orders would be issued. There is another, practical problem. Australia expects other countries to take back their citizens when we deport criminals from Australia. We cannot turn around and announce that Australia will not take responsibility for ours. There is something particularly ugly about One Nation presenting itself as the great defender of Australian safety—because apparently not all threats to Australians are treated equally. Just last month, Senator Hanson described domestic violence as a 'two-way street' and suggested women experiencing abuse should simply not 'put up with it'. If only it were that easy. She has previously described paid family and domestic violence leave as domestic violence holiday leave and suggested domestic violence was taking police away from real crime. I think the families of Australians killed by their partners might have something to say about whether that counts as real crime. Over 2024-25, 98 Australians were killed in domestic homicides; 46 were killed by an intimate partner. On average, an Australian woman was killed by an intimate partner every 11 days. These are not hypothetical threats. These are dead Australians. When One Nation talk about the safety of Australians, they really need to be more consistent. 16:53 Senator WHITEAKER 316555 Western Australia There are many things that we don't agree on in this place, but there are some things that I think we can confidently say we do agree on, and one of those is that the safety of Australians, the safety of the communities that we live in—the communities that I know we're all very proud to represent in this place—is at the core of all of our work, and that's certainly at the core of the work that our government is doing. One of the things that I'm most proud of that our government is doing to protect the safety of Australians is our investment in defence and national security. In the 2026-27 budget, our government announced record funding for defence—the biggest boost in funding in peacetime that this country has ever seen. We're delivering an extra $14 billion over the next four years and an additional $53 billion over the next 10 years. We can see the impact of that investment right in my local community through the work that's happening at the Henderson Defence Precinct and, more broadly, through the acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership. This is a key priority of our government and just one example of our commitment, a commitment that is shared by many of us, to keep Australians safe. We've heard just in recent weeks about the really important work that the foreign minister and the Prime Minister have done to strengthen our relationships across our region and beyond. This is another example of our commitment to keeping Australians safe. The work that we do with our neighbours in the Pacific and in Asia is really, really important in making sure that our partnerships with those neighbours are strong and that they know that they can rely on us as a strong partner. As I said, it's just another example of the commitment of our government to keeping Australians safe. On this particular issue to which One Nation senators have referred in this debate and that they talk about in the bill that they plan to introduce, it's really easy to play politics and to stoke fear and division in the community. I think that's a really irresponsible thing to do. I think it does nothing to keep Australians safe. In fact, I think it only further harms Australians and puts our safety at risk to try and undermine social cohesion and to try and stoke anger and fear in the community when it's just not necessary. I think, as Senator Walker pointed out very rightly in her contribution, it is really important that, when you attempt to legislate for these kinds of really, really important things, you do it right. To go into it with some kind of assumption, saying, 'This is probably not going to pass a constitutional test, but we'll give it a go anyway,' is not how you keep Australians safe. It's not how you protect Australians. I think it's really important that we don't put decisions on temporary exclusion orders into the hands of the court. We've heard in response to One Nation's policy on this issue that it's very unlikely to increase the number of temporary exclusion orders being issued and, in fact, creates only an additional barrier for governments who are looking to issue one. The current system was designed by the former government to be at the absolute limit of constitutionality, and many of the laws that have been made by former governments that attempted to strip rights from citizens or strip citizenship altogether have been thrown out by the High Court. This brings complex and difficult consequences. Our government has been really clear that we think these people have made appalling decisions. To travel and fight with or support one of the worst terrorist organisations we have ever seen is abhorrent, and we will not provide any assistance to those cohorts attempting to return to Australia. We've used every available tool to try and manage that risk, and we will continue to do that. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 52 DOCUMENTS Consideration 52 COMMITTEES 52 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 52 Additional Information 52 16:59 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria As the Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 52 Report 52 16:59 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria At the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present a report of the committee on a matter of parliamentary privilege. Community Affairs Legislation Committee 53 Report 53 16:59 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria At the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026, together with accompanying documents. Productivity in Australia Select Committee 53 Report 53 17:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland On behalf of Senator Bragg, I present the interim report of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, together with accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. PETITIONS 53 PETITIONS Middle East 53 17:02 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I table a non-conforming petition signed by 3,069 residents of Australia calling on the Labor government to sanction Netanyahu and Israel's war cabinet. COMMITTEES 53 COMMITTEES Productivity in Australia Select Committee 53 Report 53 17:03 Senator ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Victoria As a member of the Senate committee examining productivity, I can say this has been a really excellent committee. We've heard a vast amount of testimony from right across the housing and construction industry on some of the problems associated with the building of more houses in Australia. It is a complex and wicked problem that has plagued successive governments over generations. But, as a government, we are not here now to admire this problem. The scale of it demands an ambitious and expansive response, because we have a situation now in Australia where an entire generation of young people have lost hope that they will ever own a home. We also have a situation where salaries have become completely decoupled from house prices. This has happened over a period of around 30 years, fuelled by the interaction between capital gains tax and negative gearing—add on 15 years of cheap credit, and the whole thing detonated. House prices raced away from incomes. We have a situation where it takes somewhere between 10 to 13 times your median income to buy a home in Sydney. In Melbourne, it's a little bit better, but it's not that much better. It's nine to 10 times the median income to buy a home. This is clearly in the impossibly unaffordable range for most Australians, hence we have a generation of young people who have given up on the prospect of ever owning a home. But I want to say to those young people that we haven't given up—in fact, quite the opposite. We are doubling down on action to address this problem, and, given the scale of this problem, we are attacking it from every angle. We have to. And so we have a range of measures in a $47 billion Homes for Australia program. I'm going to break this down. There's a lot to unpack with every single measure. It's not just about building homes, though, I might add. It's also about ensuring we have those tradespeople to build those homes. They're not built by machines; they're built by people. They've got to have the requisite skills. It also means that we need to ensure that the migrant workers we have here in Australia are actually working to top of scope so that, if they are tradies, they're not driving Ubers but instead working on construction sites. We also have to make sure that the construction industry has integrity and that workers are protected, because, as we learnt in this inquiry, this is a high-risk industry. It is high risk when it comes to occupational health and safety as well as mental health outcomes, which are very poor in this industry largely because of the type of work—manual, heavy, hard work—but also because it is very much male dominated, and these tend to be features of gender-segregated industries. In terms of the key measures, I might talk to some of the ones that we've already brought through before I go to the taxation changes. We expanded the five per cent home deposit scheme towards the end of last year—I think it was October of last year—and we have seen, since coming to government, an additional 270,000 Australians enter homeownership, which means that they are paying their mortgage instead of someone else's mortgage. This is an unalloyed good. It is a good thing. Those opposite hate this scheme. They think it is 'middle-class welfare' because we removed income caps. I say to them that we removed income caps because income has become decoupled from house prices. We can't just stand back and admire this problem. We have to act. We have to give them a foot in the door. We also launched another scheme which doesn't get anywhere near enough attention. It was voted down by the coalition like just about every single housing measure. It's called the Help to Buy scheme. Help to Buy is designed for people on very modest incomes, low incomes, and it enables them to get into a house with a two per cent deposit with the government taking somewhere between 30 to 40 per cent equity in their home. This is pitched to people who never in a million years thought they would ever own a home, and we have seen over 3,000 applicants for this program already. We also introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund which the coalition hate and talk down at every turn. They want to abolish it, if they ever form government. The problem with that is this is a fund designed to build 55,000 social and affordable homes for key workers like nurses, teachers and emergency personnel—the people who help run this country, the people who are mission critical to running this country but those opposite hate. They hate the workers, and they hate the Housing Australia Future Fund. They voted against it. In fact, they tried to move a disallowance motion against the Housing Australia Future Fund in the Senate. We have made some adjustments to taxation settings for Build to Rent. Build to Rent is a relatively new asset class in Australia, but it's very common elsewhere, and it's for institutional investors. This is where we bring foreign capital in; it mixes with domestic capital, and we build at scale. I've seen some of these completed developments in Melbourne, in Kensington, and they are very impressive. They are large-scale, very liveable spaces. They are bright, warm, modern, with sustainable materials. They have common spaces. The one I toured had a swimming pool. It had more than one gym, a yoga centre, a dance studio. It came with all the bells and whistles, and it was popular. People were renting out these apartments. Beautiful. A community secure, with a predominance of women because women felt safe in these kinds of developments. For those people who are at acute risk of homelessness, we have introduced, and supported them with, back-to-back Commonwealth rent assistance increases. In this budget, we've also put in another $40 million towards modern methods of construction. This goes to modular housing—again relatively new in Australia, but it could be a complete game changer. It uses a pattern, a template, to build homes which, by definition, then become cheaper for consumers. There's no compromise on quality, but these become cheaper. In terms of cutting red tape, we have paused the National Construction Code, and we're putting some work into converting that weighty document into something that can be enabled through AI, which will make it a lot easier for builders to navigate. Also on the topic of red tape, we have committed $47 million to working with subnational governments throughout this country, the states and territories, to help them implement the new environmental laws that we passed with the help of the Greens political party, voted against by the coalition. The coalition parade around this country, talking about housing, how they care about young people, how they're so worried about the fact that they can't get a foot in the door and how they care about workers: 'Isn't it terrible that housing is so unaffordable? What a terrible job the government's doing!' But what they fail to tell Australians is that when they come into the peak decision chamber of this country, this parliament, they vote against every single measure to actually increase housing supply or enable Australians to get into houses with smaller deposits. It's utterly disingenuous. At every step we will call out your fraud. I did say that houses are not built by machines; they're built by humans. We have a really ambitious program to train up more Aussies to encourage them to take up an apprenticeship in housing construction. To that end, we have a $10,000 Key Apprenticeship Program, the housing construction apprenticeship, which opened on 1 July last year and has already seen nearly 30,000 apprentices start in this trade. What could be better? These kids, these young people, will walk into jobs and they will be in secure jobs for a very long time because this government is committed to building. We are going to build our way out of this crisis, and that does mean that we need to also have discussions in our local communities with those people who are resistant to change, the NIMBYs, the 'Not in my backyard' crowd. We need to be honest with each other that if we don't build, if we don't densify our cities in a sustainable, sympathetic way, we will never address this problem of housing affordability. That is not something this government will tolerate. 17:13 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria It's a pleasure to have recently joined this Select Committee on Productivity in Australia as deputy chair and a pleasure to work with Senator Ananda-Rajah, Senator Bragg and Senator McKenzie on the inquiry. In the packed agenda of five days of hearings that I've participated in already, we've examined a lot of serious issues, and this interim report that has been tabled today outlines some of those issues. What I would say in terms of those of us on this side of the chamber is that what we say about productivity and, more importantly, what this government does in terms of productivity is really important to think about. This government is delivering the broadest productivity agenda that this country has seen since the 1990s. The 15 productivity reforms that have been progressed in this budget alone will help attract and absorb more investment, make it easier and quicker to build, and slash compliance costs when it comes to housing and infrastructure in this country. They will make a meaningful difference, cutting regulatory costs by $10.2 billion every year, and boost GDP by $13 billion. By contrast, the Liberals and Nationals want to make people work longer and harder for less. As a consequence of their policies, Australia experienced the slowest decade of productivity growth in 60 years on their watch. Under the coalition, productivity growth fell for seven consecutive years in the lead-up to the pandemic, and the 2022 election coincided with the largest quarterly fall in productivity growth in more than four decades. If we want to talk about productivity and how we can deliver productivity in this country, then looking at what this government is doing in terms of action to turn around that massive decline is what we really need to be mindful of. And, of course, we know that productivity has been a longstanding challenge in our economy, and that's why it was such a focus of this year's budget. I'd like to thank the senators, the witnesses who have appeared and those who have made a submission into the inquiry so far. I also want to acknowledge, as part of that, that we heard that, in terms of measuring productivity in this country, there is a challenge. Measuring productivity isn't just about building houses and infrastructure that you can easily measure. Measuring productivity in the non-market sector is just as important. If we think about Australia and Australia's future, the rise of the non-market sector is a larger and larger proportion of our economy, so we are going to need to consider how we measure in terms of productivity. The inquiry so far has elicited that the current measurement that we use doesn't allow the same easy way of describing product input and then product out in the same way. For example, a nurse seeing more patients with the same number of hours—is that going to deliver a quality result or is that going to deliver a worse result for the health of our Australians? I do think that conventional measures don't always capture improvements in productivity, in quality, in wellbeing, in prevention and in other outcomes, meaning the value created by these sectors may be understated, particularly in the care sector. We also explored a little bit in the inquiry productivity and the costs to the environment, how those things are counted and measured, and what gaps there are in our current frameworks around those things. Having said that, we know that the Albanese government has identified this decline as one of the biggest challenges facing our nation, which is why the Economic Reform Roundtable was convened in August 2025. One of the three main themes of this work was making our economy more productive a year ago. Following the roundtable, the Productivity Commission had completed inquiries into aspects of each of the government's five pillars of productivity which were identified. This work represents an ambitious reform agenda aimed at lifting productivity growth, boosting economic resilience and supporting higher living standards. I'd also like to say that this question about productivity is also needing to be thought about within the global context and the geopolitical uncertainty that our country faces. In recent years, instability and global conflicts have directly affected housing construction in Australia by driving up material and energy costs, disrupting global supply chains and tightening financing conditions. These are all a factor in thinking about how we address the productivity challenge in our country. The pressures have increased the cost and complexity of delivering new housing, contributed to project delays and cancellations, and further constrained the capacity of the construction sector to respond to the strong demand for housing. In particular, the government has prioritised what we can do within this context and taken strong action to shore up our fuel security, which is a key driver in delivering construction materials around the country. By investing in strategic fuel reserves and domestic storage capacity, Australia's exposure to the global supply disruptions and price volatility has been reduced, helping to moderate cost pressures across the construction sector. I will leave it there and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:19 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I will start by thanking colleagues who have already made statements this evening. From the government, I thank Senator Ananda-Rajah and Senator Darmanin. I've really enjoyed working with those senators, as well as with Senator McKenzie, on this committee. We had a lot of fun at the public hearings, but I'll move on to the serious matter of the productivity challenge that the country has. We are living through a great decline in our nation, which is very regrettable, and our productivity trajectory is very poor. Yes, people can use speeches in this place to apportion blame to various people, but I think, in the main, it has been a bit of a bipartisan job. In relation to housing productivity in particular, we have had a serious problem, in that the bureaucrats have been allowed to run on autopilot and ministers of the day, potentially of both shades of government, have just let things happen without properly considering them. The point of this interim report is to land a series of policy options on housing productivity. There are matters of finance and banking. There are matters of how the regulators are set up. Then, of course, there is the matter of the National Construction Code, which is probably the biggest lever the national government has in terms of determining how productive or unproductive the housing system might be. The National Construction Code is one of those things that every bloodsucker and every rent seeker has found a way to get their snout into. So what you've got is a National Construction Code which has ballooned from a couple of hundred pages 30 years ago to now 2,000 pages and it is effectively unreadable. As a failed accountant and a very poor auditor, I take the view that, if a professional in an industry can't understand their own governing rules or has no chance of ever actually being able to read them, it's not a very good sign. I take the view that the 2,000 pages, which it has now ballooned to, are not a sign of health for the housing sector. Effectively, it is a punitive way to deal with people coming into the housing system. It says: 'You've got to have all this gold plating.' Everything has to be mandatory. You must have a house built as if you are disabled or as if you are wanting to have the most super-duper energy-efficient house known to humanity. I think the general view is that the house should be— Senator Ayres 16913 It's awkward until the cladding is on fire. Senator BRAGG 256063 I'll take the interjection. We want to have safe houses. It's very important that our houses are safe. It doesn't mean they need to be gold plated. The core recommendation for establishing a basic Australian standard is that a house won't burn down and won't fall down, but it won't be gold plated. That allows people to enter the market without having to pay for the house as if they are disabled and without all the additional so-called cladding. That is a very good model, and that is going to be the core of the debate going forward. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, Senator Ayres. Senator BRAGG 256063 Thank you for that protection. The government have failed to deliver any reasonable reform here in relation to the National Construction Code. This is an opportunity now for the nation to have a proper debate: do we want to allow people to build a cheap house, or do we not want to allow people to build a cheap house if they want to? Last time I looked, we lived in a free country and a free society, where people should be able to build a cheap house which is safe and secure, if they want to. So that is one of the core recommendations of this review. I note with great regret the ability of rent seekers and parasites to inject themselves into the public policy process. That is what has happened in relation to this construction code. All the vested interests have made it uneconomic to build. One of the problems we have in this country is that it's very hard to make any money out of housing, so not many houses are being built. This is a way to lower the cost. If you want to have a super-duper energy-efficient house, then you can have that. That's in the report. The second thing I'd say in relation to the massive problem of mortgage fraud is that we are now going to recommend that the consumer data right— Government senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Bragg, please resume your seat for a moment. On this occasion, I'm not asking you to withdraw, but I am asking senators to comply with the standing orders and allow Senator Bragg to continue his remarks. Senator BRAGG 256063 The second core point I wanted to make is around this consumer data right. I think it's been very clear that there is a lot of mortgage fraud going on in this country. It's fuelled by artificial intelligence. There are a lot of pieces of paper that fly around when people try and get a loan. If anyone has recently refinanced or tried to get a home loan, they would have found that it's effectively a paper based system. Artificial intelligence now allows people to make duplicates or completely fraudulent documents, so I think that having the CDR hooked up to the tax office in some way for verification is well worth looking at. The other point we looked at in this productivity inquiry was the mandate of APRA, which I think is very focused, as it should be, on prudential safety. But it also makes sense for them to consider the impact of their macroprudential tools on the ability of people to get finance so they can get that elusive first home. We didn't make any commentary on their judgements in relation to macroprudential tools, but we did make the point that they should at least make them disallowable in such a way that the Senate could actually take one out if it thought it was unreasonable. And I make that point in relation to their limits on high debt-to-interest loans and also in relation to the serviceability buffer. The report does deal with the productivity problem that the EPBC Act has created. Despite the government's best efforts, there are still 80,000 houses ensnared inside the EPBC Act. The fact that the minister of the day doesn't publish the decisions and the judgements that he makes about the approvals or the denials is a problem, because the people who are wanting to build houses have nothing to work with. There is no precedent, if that makes sense, so publishing what is effectively going to be a compliant development under the EPBC Act would, I think, aid people wanting to build houses in this country. In the main, I think we had a very collegiate opportunity to identify some productivity problems in the housing system. We may not agree on everything, but in general I would say that more rules and more regulations have not made more houses, and as we face a significant housing deficit, I think we ought to look at the regulatory burden of the NCC. I note from the multiple interjections that there is perhaps a strong disagreement about where the final balance should lie, but I would have thought that we should try and give people the choice to build a cheap house, if that is their wish. We should also give people the choice to build additional properties and dwellings on their properties, whether they be above or whether they be granny flats or whether they be subdivisions. Ultimately, we want to have more buildings to house our population. We want to maintain our ethos as a great migrant nation, but we also want to be able to house new Australians. So I think this is a— Senator BRAGG 256063 I'm very happy to go into that. I do think that the serviceability buffer has probably been set too high, but that is not something that we as parliamentarians make a judgement on, as you know. In general, I do think that this suite of options gives the government some serious policy work that it needs, because the nation has a fundamental problem. I've tried not to be too political in this contribution, but the government is stuck on autopilot in its housing policies. What it needs is a refresh, because what it's been doing for four years hasn't worked. I'll say as kindly as I can that the high-tax, high-regulation, high-corruption model has failed to give the houses that Australians need. Most of the government's interventions have ended up making the problem worse, not better. This is a report which gives them options on productivity in terms of the banking and finance component and in terms of the regulation component. There are many other things in there, but I would have thought that even my favourite environment minister, Minister Watt, could agree to the very kind recommendation we offered, which is that he should publish his judgements about the nature of compliant development so that people in future can see that that complies and that this doesn't comply. Hopefully, they'll then be able to provide more of the housing stock that Australians sorely need. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 57 Report 57 17:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present the advisory report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The bill aims to strengthen our anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing framework by addressing emerging financial crime risks, updating the definition of 'terrorism financing' and making a range of technical amendments identified through the implementation of the 2024 reforms. The inquiry considered how Australia's legislative framework can remain responsive to rapidly changing technologies, payment systems and criminal methodologies. The committee received 19 submissions and heard evidence from government agencies, industry representatives, legal experts and civil society organisations. The committee found broad support for the objectives of the bill. Submitters recognised the serious harm caused by money laundering, terrorism finance, organised crime scams and other forms of financial abuse and acknowledged the importance of ensuring Australia's regulatory framework remains fit for purpose. A central feature of the bill is the creation of a new power to restrict or prohibit the use of products, services, delivery channels or other mechanisms that cause harm to Australia's financial system or community. The committee concluded that this proposal addresses a genuine gap in the existing framework, particularly where risks arise across an entire sector or mechanism, rather than from the conduct of a specific entity. However, the committee also considered evidence concerning the breadth and significance of the proposed power. To strengthen public confidence and accountability, the committee recommended that this power be exercised by the responsible minister, acting on advice from the CEO of AUSTRAC. The committee considers that this approach appropriately balances responsiveness to emerging threats with the appropriate ministerial oversight of major regulatory interventions. The committee also recommended greater transparency around consultation processes undertaken before any restriction or prohibition is imposed, including the publication of submissions, consultation activities and AUSTRAC's responses to issues raised. The inquiry paid particular attention to evidence concerning crypto ATMs. For instance, the committee heard that vulnerable elderly Australians were deliberately targeted and coerced into using crypto ATMs to transfer funds to scammers, resulting in significant financial harm. People aged 60 to 70 are among the biggest users of crypto ATMs in Australia, making up nearly 30 per cent of all transactions by value. This means that older users, like our grandparents, are more likely to be targeted by crypto ATMs, with people over the age of 50 accounting for over 70 per cent of all transactions by value. The committee concluded that crypto ATMs can contribute to significant harm, affecting scam victims, and can increase the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the minister, in consultation with AUSTRAC, consider as a matter of priority whether restrictions or prohibitions on crypto ATMs are warranted in the public interest. The committee also supports amendments updating the definition of 'terrorism financing', ensuring greater alignment with Australia's broader counterterrorism and sanctions framework and reflecting contemporary threat environments. The Australian Criminal Code has also been updated to recognise that state actors like the IRGC can present the same terrorism risk as non-state actors. There is no reason why Australia's counter-terrorism-financing regime should not also fully recognise and guard against this threat. Beyond the bill itself, the committee identified broader issues relating to financial system resilience and traceability. In particular, the committee examined evidence concerning the continued operation of the Bulk Electronic Clearing System, or BECS. The committee recommended that AUSTRAC, the Reserve Bank of Australia and industry stakeholders undertake further assessment of the money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks associated with the legacy payments infrastructure and report back to the committee on their progress. Ultimately, the committee recommended that, subject to the recommendations contained in the report, the bill should be passed. I want to thank the deputy chair, Mr Wallace, committee members and all those who made a contribution to the inquiry through submissions and evidence at the public hearing. I do commend that report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report 58 17:35 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the review of the listing of White Australia as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code. 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 made in May this year, specifying White Australia as a prohibited hate group. It was the second such use of the framework for prohibited hate groups following the earlier listing of Hizb ut-Tahrir in March of this year. As senators will recall, this parliament was recalled back in January to deal with the framework that set up the listing of such hate groups following the antisemitic terrorist attack towards the Jewish community in December. The committee approached this task with the gravity that it demanded following the recalling of the parliament back in January. We rigorously scrutinised the material before us as a committee, including a very detailed statement of reasons from the government, and heard from a wide range of stakeholders. The committee also convened an in camera hearing to test the evidence with relevant government bodies to satisfy ourselves that the legislative criteria had been met and that the process was sound. That was very important because we got to give to the Australian people the confidence that the government of the day has appropriately utilised its listing powers. The conclusion from the committee is absolutely clear. White Australia meets the legislative criteria for listing as a prohibited hate group, and the listing has been made properly. The evidence is very, very clear that the organisation before the committee as part of its inquiry has repeatedly promoted racist and hateful propaganda about Jewish people, about Asians, about Muslims, about Indigenous Australians and about other migrant ethnicities. Its members have attacked lawful protests and displayed racist banners and the Nazi salute in public forums. It does so for the purpose of demeaning and inciting hatred against our fellow Australians and these particular groups that I've just mentioned. It poses a direct threat to the safety and social cohesion of our multicultural society and our wonderful community. The committee is therefore satisfied that the listing is not only justified but necessary to protect Australians from such harm. The days of organisations like White Australia, or should I call them Neo-Nazis, and Hizb ut-Tahrir operating freely in this country are over. We will not allow hate to be dressed up as political debate. Australia draws a very firm line. Groups that incite hatred and that want to radicalise individuals and endanger lives have no place here in our country, Australia. The PJCIS supports wholeheartedly the listing of White Australia as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code and finds no reason to disallow this legislative instrument. On that note, I commend this report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 59 Government Response to Report 59 17:39 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia In respect of the government response to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's report on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Ban Unethical Contractors) Bill 2025, dated June 2026, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is a one-page response. It is a pathetic response in view of the current public interest in the big four contracting firms, partnerships, and the way in which they are riding roughshod over the ethics, the dollars, the tax contributions of the Australian public to services across our nation. Every single day, there is more evidence of the rot at the core of the auditing, assurance and consulting sectors. These are issues that this parliament and Senate have pursued—and I acknowledge your own contribution, Acting Deputy President Colbeck, on this question. We have pursued these issues for over three years, through three different inquiries, yet we still haven't seen major structural response. We have not seen a calling out of the opportunity to create an opportunity for banning these unethical contractors when they go totally off the rails, totally rogue with billions of dollars of government money. The government must use its purchasing power to ensure ethical procurement. Unfortunately, Labor and the Liberals are content with the current status quo for procurement, despite continuing ethics violations from the big consulting firms. This bill would strengthen our procurement. It would strengthen it by preventing unethical contractors from winning government contracts. It'd put new requirements on procurement officials to not give contracts to entities or persons who have engaged in unethical conduct. This should be the bare minimum. If there are not penalties like this, we are going to continue to see unethical conduct on a massive scale in our country in government contracting. We need a national debarment regime. The OECD, the Senate economics committee, the Australian Law Reform Commission, have all recommended a reform of this nature. Many stakeholders to repetitive inquiries have agreed that such a regime is overdue and is sorely needed. At least 20 other jurisdictions around the world and in our own country already have this, and they have it without having endured the two massive scandals that Australians have watched unfold in astonishment in recent years. The second recommendation of our dissenting report was should the Senate not pass this bill, the government must bring Australia in line with other countries and develop its own centralised debarment and suspension regime. The government just noted this recommendation and listed their minor tweaks to procurement notes and training—a completely inadequate response to the national scandal we are enduring. It falls so short of community expectations. This is a bill that I introduced in the wake of the PwC scandal, the first massive scandal that this parliament has seen unfold. PwC are the epitome of an unethical supplier. They colluded with foreign multinationals to defraud our tax system. They refused to cooperate with government inquiries, and they have still not provided key documents to this chamber. PwC were never banned from bidding for government contracts, but, in the absence of a debarment regime, they instead voluntarily stepped aside through a mutual agreement. The Commonwealth does not currently have a clear power to ban a firm that monetises confidential Treasury information or falls into other forms of unethical practice—the kind that we are now seeing unfold in KPMG. This must change. The need for this bill is overwhelmingly evident as a result of the unethical behaviour of PwC and now KPMG, and despite strong opposition from a number of senators involved in this matter—and I acknowledge you in the chair, Senator Colbeck, and Senator O'Neill, who was there before you—and all of that work, the Department of Finance has allowed PwC back into the fold of government contracting. It's a gutless decision that betrays the Australian people who have, very rightly, held the expectation that the rogue consulting firm PwC would be held to account. But, don't worry, the evidence continues to mount. Increasing amounts of evidence are showing up as repetitive forms of unethical behaviour are revealed—slowly extracted from the firms themselves, slowly pulled into public view, against the resistance of these very large, extremely remunerative, very wealthy big corporations, big partnerships. This bill is even more important now given the unfolding, rolling scandal within KPMG, where the sins are multiple. Senior partners have misused confidential client information to win very, very lucrative audit work. They were denied by the firm as behaviours. They were brushed aside by a half-arsed legal investigation for months. There were breaches of audit independence and multiple instances of cheating on internal exams. How many examples of this unethical practice do we need? People have lied to the Senate about the firm not power mapping, when in fact they did in multiple ways on many occasions. Other examples include overcharging Defence while raking in billions of dollars; mistreating and harassing multiple whistleblowers, including Brendan Lyon in the TAHE matter in New South Wales and the more recent experience of a brave new whistleblower—who knows how many other whistleblower chapters there are in KPMG and in other firms that we are yet to learn about, which we have to extract like pulling teeth through applying the resources of the Senate—attempting to use legal professional privilege repetitively to obscure the work of this parliament and ASIC; and not notifying the Department of Finance of recent developments and incidents as required by their contractual obligations. The list goes on. I am told that the last hearing that was held in this parliament on the KPMG matter on 19 June attracted 60,000 viewers over the one day of the hearing. That is a very unusual number of people paying attention across our country to this massive misuse of our resources by these very big firms. People will also probably be watching this Friday 14 August in similar numbers as we try to learn more about what has gone on through a series of disastrous behaviours by this firm. It's a firm whose chief executive officer, chief operating officer, national managing partner of audit and assurance, chair and three senior audit partners have all either resigned, been fired or stepped down from their roles in recent days because of this scandal. Just today, their general counsel, head of human resources and chief risk officer have finalised arrangements to leave the firm. This is unfolding day by day at massive cost to the Australian public and to those who are trying to work in the firm and have come there often as young people hoping for a career. Their lives are changed by these events and these betrayals and unethical practices. The federal government's spending on procurement is substantial. In the past financial year alone, the government spent over $117 billion on procurement. KPMG itself made $2.3 billion last year, with a significant portion of that coming directly from government contracts. This government and the Department of Finance must not do the same thing they did with PwC and let them back in the fold before all investigations are finished. The laws are inadequate. They need to change. The government needs to stop the empty platitudes and insisting they've done enough to stop this from happening again. What they did with PwC has not prevented an even worse scandal, an historically significant scandal, to unfold on an even greater scale just a year or two after the PwC scandal. The government's three-month freeze on KPMG isn't even effective. It's riddled with carve-outs. We are seeing millions of dollars go to KPMG. AusTender records show a new contract between KPMG and the Department of Defence for $5.25 million, which was executed on 1 July this year—three months after Senator O'Neill revealed in this chamber the nature of the unethical practices within KPMG and two weeks after the exclusion period itself began. Despite the ongoing fallout over KPMG scandals and the government's own three-month contracting freeze on KPMG, Labor continues to dish out multimillion-dollar contracts to them. That's why we need a debarment regime. These firms should not be automatically entitled to public money. They need to earn trust. If the government doesn't act on this issue, it's an endorsement of this incredibly poor behaviour. Two of the big firms have shown us they're not fit for government work. The business model of PwC trumped ethics at the first hurdle, and the lesson from KPMG is the same—the use of confidential information to make money. As long as the government allows those unethical tenderers to get away with it, they are not doing the right thing. They're failing to police such appalling behaviour, and Labor needs to stand up to these vested interests, restore the public sector and call these huge firms to account. We must see ethical standards across this sector. We've got to break up and regulate these sectors so that we get decent behaviour from them. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Consideration 60 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 61 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Ocean of Peace Alliance and Fiji-Australia Vuvale Union 61 17:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I table the Ocean of Peace Alliance and the Fiji-Australia Vuvale Union treaties, together with associated documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. At a time of great uncertainty, risk and contestation, the Albanese government recognises that Australia cannot afford to be a passive observer of the profound changes occurring around us. Peace is never a given. And we are not here to just occupy the space. For the past four years, we have been building Australia's future in our region. A future built through partnerships, not coercion. A future built by the countries and the peoples of our region. That is why, from the outset, the Albanese government has listened to our region, engaged with respect and humility, and acted on our shared priorities. We are investing in being the partner of choice for our immediate region, including the Pacific. We are using all tools of statecraft to invest in Pacific relationships, trust and regionalism. Embracing Pacific leadership and backing initiatives that make our region safer, more prosperous and more resilient. And we could not have a better partner in this than Fiji. Under Prime Minister Rabuka, Fiji has crafted and tirelessly championed a vision of our blue Pacific as an 'ocean of peace' that the Pacific family has embraced. As Prime Minister Rabuka described it: "a region in which strategic competition is managed; where stability is the touchstone of regional relationships; and where coercion is eschewed. A region where differences are resolved peacefully'. Fiji is a leader in our region, and one of only three Pacific island countries with a military. Australian and Fijian service men and women have stood shoulder to shoulder in two world wars, in deployments to support our region's security, and in peacekeeping missions across the world. And it is in the shared pursuit of peace, stability and prosperity, that we deepen our partnership. I know Prime Minister Albanese was deeply moved to receive Fiji's highest honour—the Companion of the Order of Fiji—on the same day as signing these landmark treaties. As the name of our treaty suggests, Australia and Fiji are one family—one Vuvale. Australia was honoured to accept Prime Minister Rabuka's proposal for the Ocean of Peace Alliance. An alliance is the highest act of trust between two nations. This is Fiji's first alliance and only Australia's fourth. It will build ever deeper levels of interoperability. We will plan, train, exercise and deploy together, strengthening our combined capability to enhance our respective sovereignty and ensure our nations' and our region's security at a time of fracture and disruption. The Vuvale Union treaty is equally important. It will be a multigenerational endeavour to integrate our economies, our security and our peoples. It is backed by more than a billion dollars of investment over a decade, including grants and loans. On security: together, we will elevate our fight against the scourge of transnational crime and illicit drugs. With an investment of $181 million, the AFP will work hand in hand with the Fiji police force to disrupt criminal networks and strengthen intelligence to interdict drugs before they reach Fijian or Australian shores. We'll support Australian doctors and nurses to enhance specialist training for Fiji's health workers, boosting Fiji's response to the fastest growing HIV outbreak in the world. Under our economic pillar, we will finance nation-building infrastructure—ports and major climate adaptation projects—strengthening Fiji's role as a regional hub. We will back Fiji's economic diversification agenda, supporting secure digital infrastructure, enhancing critical infrastructure investment screening, and increasing supply chain resilience. Our final pillar is our people. Australia and Fiji are linked by deep personal connections, including more than 100,000 people in Australia with Fijian heritage. Our multifaith, multicultural communities and First Nations peoples share a strong bond. For thousands of years, Australia's First Nations peoples have maintained connections across our region. During World War II, Fijian missionaries, skilled farmers, builders and sailors worked alongside the Yolngu people, and elders still recall the esteem in which they were held. The theme of this year's Garma festival was 'Bukmak'—a local Yolngu word meaning 'everyone'. The same name was gifted to the Bukmak Forum established through the Vuvale Union. The Bukmak Forum will bring together government, traditional faith and business leaders as our two nations build a shared future. Yolngu elder Djapirri Mununggirritj travelled 40 hours from Yirrkala to stand with our prime ministers at the treaty's signing. And a Fijian delegation, including Fiji's Minister for Women, Sashi Kiran, and traditional leaders, joined this year's Garma festival. This reflects the spirit of shared history, purpose and vision that drives the partnership between Australia and Fiji and the foundations upon which we have now chosen to elevate our bilateral relationship. Colleagues, these two treaties tabled in parliament today will transform our relationship far beyond what was contemplated when we started this journey together. They will form a durable structure for generations of the future. I have just returned from Fiji, where Pacific Islands Forum foreign ministers reaffirmed our leaders' call to give practical effect to the Blue Pacific Ocean of Peace Declaration. These are the first two treaties to answer that call. As Prime Minister Rabuka has said, these treaties reaffirm Fiji and Australia as trusted partners working together not only to benefit each other but as contributors to a more stable, peaceful and resilient Blue Pacific continent. We know that in these unprecedented, dangerous times, we are stronger together, and everything we do will also be aimed at supporting our Pacific region. Investments in Fiji will flow on to the Pacific family, which relies on Fiji as a regional hub for transport, logistics, education and health care. These two treaties send an unequivocal signal of our commitment to each other and to the Pacific family. They will help realise the vision of an ocean of peace to make us all more secure, prosperous and resilient. I commend the Ocean of Peace Alliance and Vuvale Union treaties to the Senate for consideration. 17:58 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales The coalition welcomes the signing of the Vuvale Union treaty and the Ocean of Peace Alliance—the Veitacini Treaty. This is with our regional friend and now ally, and this is a really big moment for Australia and for Fiji. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, it is Fiji's first alliance and Australia's fourth. They are quite rare indeed. This is an uplift in the military relationship, and we know that Fiji and Australia have stood side-by-side. The Fijian personnel are embedded into Australian units. I really wish I didn't have to do this, but we heard today the Foreign minister take a partisan swipe at the coalition and the coalition's record in the Pacific, and she did say that there was a neglect of the region, so let's put the facts on the table here. The coalition government in 2019, under former prime minister Scott Morrison, signed the Fiji-Australia Vuvale Partnership, which underpins this alliance. We got that in motion. The coalition got that in motion. We did not neglect the region. In fact, we charged on with the step-up. Now, the coalition has a very proud record of delivery in the Pacific, including major contributions through the Pacific Step-up, the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, Coral Sea Cable and the opening of new diplomatic missions giving Australia representation in every member of the Pacific Islands Forum. The list goes on. But I will stop here because it's important to talk about the alliance and the union, the treaty, that have been signed between Australia and Fiji. The coalition supports more engagement. It's a good thing that this has happened, even if done under Labor, because it's good for all of us. It is good for security. It strengthens regional security. These agreements speak to our partnership with Fiji and the need for closer ties—security ties and people-to-people links. They affirm our shared values and increase cooperation and consultation regarding security related threats. We welcome that outcome; we do. But again I make the point that this formed part of the substantial work undertaken in the Pacific by the former, coalition government, and that should again go on the record, given the propensity of those opposite to make spurious claims about our record of delivery. Now, there is some good news in these arrangements. The Vuvale union will strengthen ties and promote security, democracy and stability. But I do have concerns regarding article 4, part (4), section (a), where both parties 'commit to peace and security through the transformation of their economies to net zero emissions'. Senator Green 259819 There we go. You wouldn't have signed it. Senator COLLINS 297964 Yes, there we go. I'll tell you why I have a problem with it, thank you, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs. I'll tell you why I have a problem with it. Article 4, part (7) says: Neither Party shall act in a manner that would undermine their ability to meet any of their obligations pursuant to this Article. Instead of acknowledging the challenges in the region, you tied it to a specific contested policy, a partisan policy—a policy that is not agreed to on a bipartisan level. Why would you tie your domestic energy and industrial policy to that of another country? Where is the sovereign interest in that? Where is the sovereign independence in that? Senator Shoebridge 169119 AUKUS! Senator COLLINS 297964 This treaty is not bipartisan. It is short sighted and it opens the door to conflict. Senator Shoebridge 169119 AUKUS! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Collins, please resume your seat. Senator Wong was heard in silence. Let's give Senator Collins the same respect. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Shoebridge! Senator Collins, you have the call. Senator COLLINS 297964 In article 3, part (3), sections (a) to (c), the parties commit to deepen engagement by enhancing economic growth, digital economies and personal links, including through mobility. These are all things that I've long advocated, including in my maiden speech. These are good things. But I've argued that we need regional integration on all of these issues so that they go deeper, longer and further than a bilateral agreement. One part of that integration is defence. It should be raising a Pacific infantry regiment as an entirely rotational force, where our soldiers could train and deploy side by side with our Pacific family. The Ocean of Peace Alliance, or the Veitacini Treaty, tabled today enshrines mutual defence obligations and a framework to develop visiting force agreements. As I said in my maiden speech last year, for Australia to remain the preferred security partner in the Pacific and to secure the ocean of peace, we need to not just sign security agreements but pursue real defence integration with our Pacific partners. Australia's Pacific integration must cover all aspects of force posture, including intelligence sharing, defence training, disaster response capability, logistics arrangements, resilient infrastructure and enhanced maritime security cooperation. Last month I had the honour and privilege of attending RimPac, the US led military exercises, where I gained firsthand insight into the training environment of our service personnel and the importance of defence integration with allies and partners—to strengthen readiness, to train in the region, to practise in the region together, understanding the landscape of the Indo-Pacific. There were representatives from Tonga and Fiji at RimPac, and it was terrific to see them embedded into the program. We also know that Papua New Guinea now plays a huge role in Exercise Pitch Black in the Top End of Australia. These are all good things, and they are important because, in our current strategic environment, we need to be ready to deploy with our friends and allies. China continues to test the region's security architecture, including by launching a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads into our ocean of peace and doing live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea. A security agreement alone is not sufficient to protect our ocean of peace. That has been made abundantly clear. I therefore urge the government to pursue meaningful defence integration with our Pacific partners and to lift defence spending as a matter of urgency. Australia cannot afford to be complacent should the PLA Navy again seek to circumnavigate our coastline, conduct live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea or launch ballistic missiles directed towards our Pacific partners. We have to step up to deter, because diplomacy and deterrence are the only credible ways to protect and maintain our ocean of peace indefinitely for the benefit of the entire Pacific family. I commend the government and Prime Minister Rabuka for their work on this, but there is so much more to do, including cleaning up the mess on inserting a Labor political agenda into what should be a bipartisan led treaty. 18:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also wish to speak on the ministerial statement by our Foreign minister, Senator Wong, tonight and also follow on from earlier today, in question time, where I asked Minister Wong about Australia's very close relationship with one of our closest friends in the Pacific, Fiji. It is great to see the two countries, under the leadership of Minister Wong and the Albanese government, doing the hard yards to try and repair the damage that was left by the previous administration in terms of our Pacific neighbours. The Fiji-Australia Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance between Australia and Fiji, as we heard earlier from the minister, mark a very important and new chapter in the relationship between our two wonderful countries. They represent two of the most significant agreements ever made in the Pacific region. They are also a very clear demonstration of the progress that the Albanese Labor government is making in strengthening Australia's place in the Pacific and something that we are very proud to do since being elected. For Fiji, this is their first alliance. To be clear, this is their first alliance—something that others, previous governments, could have done in their time. For Australia, it is our fourth, something that we are very proud about and something that we want to see more of with our closest neighbours, particularly in the Pacific. The Ocean of Peace Alliance reflects Australia's very much deep respect for the sovereignty of our neighbours. Pacific leaders have agreed that Pacific security should be led by the Pacific, and this alliance absolutely reflects that principle. Peace is the greatest priority for our Pacific neighbours. Above all, the region wants to see a future that is free of war. Australia and Fiji have stood together through some of the greatest crises that the Pacific has ever faced. We just have to remember, back during the First and Second World Wars, Fiji's contribution to the Allied efforts that far exceeded their size. Fijian troops fought alongside Australian and New Zealand forces in the Second World War, most notably during the Bougainville campaign, and our soldiers happily served together in the fight for a much better and freer future. This treaty is a historic achievement that honours their sacrifice. It signals that neither of our nations will ever stop fighting for an ocean of peace. Today, this commitment is more important than ever. Not since the end of the Second World War has the region faced such strategic uncertainty. In an age where great powers are increasingly viewing the Pacific as a stage for geopolitical competition, Australia has never been much prouder to be a partner of choice for the region. We are proud of our efforts to strengthen our relationships with our neighbours. We will always invest in our vuvale, our Pacific family, because family is so integral to many of our Pacific islands neighbours. We are proudly committed to regional sovereignty, and we are also committed to a crucial role in the Pacific Islands Forum. Australia's commitment to supporting regional security and governance architecture is reinforced by these agreements. The Ocean of Peace Alliance is a framework that could form the foundation of increased cooperation between Australia, Fiji and other like-minded nations in the region. Such cooperation will also help ensure the security of the region in uncertain times. In response to uncertainty, we must also lean on the dependability and reliability of our friends, and that only happens through consistency, through engagement and through a demonstration that we actually do genuinely believe in each other's values and friendship. Only by standing together can we ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the peace that we today seek to protect. The Vuvale Union treaty will bring Australia and Fiji closer than ever and recognise our special bond. Australia will commit more than $1 billion of investment over a decade to support Fijian health care, Fijian infrastructure, Fijian economic diversification and, importantly, Fijian security. Through this treaty, Australia is well placed to help Fiji fight recent HIV outbreaks and to fight the scourge of transnational crime and illicit drugs. Overall, these historic treaties will deepen our ties and help create a safer and more prosperous future for countries and the region. I want to commend the work by our Foreign minister, Minister Wong; our Pacific minister, Pat Conroy in the other place; and our assistant minister for the region, Senator Nita Green in this place, who I know holds very dearly to her heart the region and the people of the Pacific given not just her role as a senator for the great state of Queensland but her proximity, in Far North Queensland, to our neighbours in the Pacific. On that note, not only do I commend the ministerial statement to our colleagues but I make this last point: Australia will continue to support Pacific led regional cooperation, and we stand together with and alongside our neighbours as we face the challenges ahead in what seems to be a very challenging time over the short to medium term. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Snowy 2.0, Cheaper Home Batteries Program, National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30, Workforce Australia 65 Order for the Production of Documents 65 18:12 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I table documents relating to the orders for production of documents concerning Snowy Hydro Limited, the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, the National Access to Justice Partnership and employment services reform. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Selection of Bills Committee, Senators' Interests Committee 65 Membership 65 18:12 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The President has received a letter requesting changes to membership of committees. 18:12 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation Committee — Appointed—Senator Ruston Education and Employment Legislation and References Committee — Discharged—Senator Kovacic Appointed— Senator Scarr Participating member: Senator Kovacic Finance and Public Administration References Committee — Discharged—Senator Chandler Appointed— Senator Kovacic Participating member: Senator Chandler Selection of Bills — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Blyth Appointed—Senator Liddle Senators' Interests — Standing Committee — Appointed—Senator Kovacic Question agreed to. Electoral Matters Joint Committee 65 Membership 65 BILLS 66 BILLS Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026, Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026, Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 66

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief No. 2) Bill 2026

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

Assent 66 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 66 Reference 66 18:13 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Well, here we go again—another day in this parliament, another game of 'guess who this government is working for'. Whether it's gambling reform, whether it's taxing our gas exports or whether it's this issue—multinational gas and other fossil fuel companies infiltrating our schools, our early learning centres and our public institutions to brainwash our kids—the answer is that this government is not working for you and it is not working for those families and teachers who are incredulous that this has been permitted to occur under this government's watch. When we first got wind of the fact that fossil fuel corporations—coal and gas corporations—were being allowed to brainwash children as young as six months old in early learning centres, we were stunned. Surely Labor would be as outraged as we were that this was being permitted to happen in our childcare centres and schools? Sadly, no—or, if they were shocked or disgusted, they hid it incredibly well. Now we are back in this place and we are giving Labor another shot to show who they are here to represent. Are they here to represent the gambling lobby that donates to them? Are they here to represent the fossil fuel industry that donates to them? Or are they here to represent Australian families and children? Labor will have a very, very simple choice in front of them in a matter of minutes: to support an inquiry into the influence of multinational coal and gas corporations on Australian children, or not to. That is the proposition that we are here to talk about today. It's a pretty simple one. It's a chance to ask some very basic questions of these fossil fuel polluters, of the education system, of the experts who know and understand the impacts of brainwashing children as young as six months old. How much money are fossil fuel corporations spending to influence children? How many programs are they running? How many schools? How many early learning centres? How many sporting clubs? How many community organisations? Perhaps most importantly, why are they running these programs? We've got a pretty good idea of why we think they are, but let's hear from them. Why are they running these programs in our schools? What is the end goal of these investments? What are the impacts on our kids? Let's be clear; that is what we are talking about. We are talking about business investments from multinational coal and gas corporations designed to get into our early learning centres and our schools to brainwash our children and to buy social licence because they know their social licence is on the brink. They know Australians have had a gutful of being ripped off in the great Australian gas rip-off. Now they're trying to build social licence amongst children as young as six months old. Come on! How can anyone hear this and not act? How can anyone hear this and not support an inquiry into this absolute travesty? I just cannot compute, as the mother of a three-year old, imagining my child coming home with a Santos drink bottle and being told that the very climate impacts that my child is going to have to endure are as much their responsibility to prevent as it is for these fossil fuel corporations that are brainwashing them. How do you keep a straight face? How do you keep on going in this role as family members? I just can't compute. They do it because they understand the value of getting in early—future customers, future workers, future voters, future communities hooked on fossil fuels instead of transitioning to clean and secure energy. And these are the future generations who will have to live with the consequences of the climate crisis their industry is driving. They want to shape the story before kids are old enough to critically examine it and question it for themselves. They want to tell them: 'We're not the bad guys. Don't look too closely. Don't ask who's causing the climate crisis. Don't trust the science. Here, have a beanie. Have a cap. Have a drink bottle. We're the good guys.' Bullshit. During the past weeks, I've heard from families and communities across this country—I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Hodgins-May, I honestly did not hear—well, I heard something, but I wasn't sure what I heard. It is correct; you should withdraw it. That's not somewhere we should go. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 I withdraw. It was a reaction. I withdraw. During the past weeks, I've heard from families and communities across this country whose children have been subjected to exactly this kind of influence. As I said, kids are being given gas company drink bottles and sun hats, and curriculum materials that diminish the role of fossil fuels in climate change while helping children learn how to write cover letters for jobs in the fossil fuel industry, and the same attention is not given to the renewables and regenerative energy industries that will actually build our jobs of the future. Teachers are reprimanded and even face the prospect of losing their jobs if they refuse to teach this fossil fuel propaganda. In the Northern Territory, Beetaloo Energy is sponsoring ice skating—of course! The joke writes itself because we know that many of these kids will never again see snow or ice or hit the ice rink. Thanks, Beetaloo Energy. That's very generous of you. Let's be clear. An inquiry is crumbs. It is the bare minimum, but it matters. It matters to these families. It matters to these teachers. It matters to me. It matters to the Greens because Australian families deserve to know what is happening in their children's schools, in their sporting clubs and in their communities. Labor know that, and they want this to go away. Well, we've got news for them. This is not going away. They can vote against this inquiry. They can bury their heads in the sand. They can protect their relationships with the fossil fuel industry, but we're not letting this go. We won't let it go for the sake of our children or any child. They deserve an education based on evidence, not on propaganda. We won't let it go until fossil fuel corporations are out of our schools, early learning centres and sporting clubs and staying the heck away from our children. I really want to say a huge thank you to Comms Declare for their report and for bringing this issue to light and surfacing it. Thank you. I know you won't let this go, and we are behind you. I want to thank the Australian Youth Climate Coalition for their work and for representing the generation that is being forced to live through the crisis they did not create. And I want to thank the teachers, the educators, developmental experts, parents and families who have stood up and said, 'This is not right.' Labor, here's your choice. You can stand with families, children, educators and scientists, or you can stand with your coal and gas donors again—the lobbyists, the polluters and the climate change deniers. I know which side I'm on. We, the Greens, know which side we're on. I've seen Labor members squirming in their seats when they hear this stuff. You've got an opportunity to draw a line in the sand. This is about our kids, our children, and Australian families. Stand with the families and vote for this inquiry. Vote how the people who elected you expect you to vote. 18:22 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland As a former classroom teacher for over two decades, I know how overworked and time-poor our classroom teachers are and that public schools are still not fully funded, leaving teachers to make up the shortfall with their own time, energy and resources. Unfortunately, it's not surprising to me that, when fossil fuel corporations with their own self-serving agendas hand out lesson plans, educational programs or money for sponsorships, public schools take them up on their offer. Right across the country, our kids are being taught lessons that are written by fossil fuel companies and corporations. In their recent report, as my colleague Senator Hodgins-May said, Comms Declare identified over 260 fossil fuel linked programs in our schools funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, including the fossil fuel companies' take on climate change. It is likely that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It's honestly downright dystopian that we've outsourced our kids' education on science and technology to corporations that directly benefit from distorting the facts on this existential crisis of our time. Our schools are being used as platforms for greenwashing propaganda and corporate promotion. Climate education is being branded with the Woodside logo, and the content of that education is minimising the role of fossil fuels in the crisis. These corporations are not paying tens of millions of dollars to get these programs into our schools out of a sense of charity. They are buying the ability to propagandise children with greenwashing and self-promotion smuggled into their classrooms. Living in regional Queensland, I recognise this pattern of behaviour really well. Fossil fuel companies leverage trusted institutions and they use their billions to buy social licence for their pollution and climate degradation. They buy sponsorships at sporting clubs and local schools and they try to parlay that into a licence to extract our natural resources and to keep the enormous profits for themselves, ruining our planet and our kids' futures in the process. These shocking revelations about the fossil fuel industry's influence in education are just the most audacious example of a far-reaching strategy by these corporations to capture our civil institutions, and Labor should be concerned about that. But what can we expect when the government is still pushing off the adequate resourcing of our public schools into the next decade? When teachers are overworked and time poor, how can we be surprised when they take on these ready-made lesson plans? We've also heard from Comms Declare and from teachers that, in some instances, they're not being given a choice as to whether they use those materials and they're having them foisted on them by the people above them. Schools and teachers should not have to look to fossil fuel companies to fill the gaps left in the resourcing of our public schools by this government. I support the call of my colleague Senator Hodgins-May and the Greens for an inquiry into this fossil fuel propaganda in our schools. That is a call that this Labor government should support because we need to understand how deep this influence goes. We also need to urgently fully resource our public schools to alleviate the workload of teachers and to allow them to deliver the science based, factual, unbiased education that our kids deserve. I want to reiterate the points made by Senator Hodgins-May. These are big corporations making bank off an industry that is destroying our planet and our kids' futures. Their social licence is ebbing away. In order to stop that, to buy themselves time to keep digging up coal, to keep fracking gas and to keep destroying our climate, they are using our kids, to get them on board before they have the ability to critically evaluate what is being put in front of them. We have heard that parents are horrified by this. I have two grandkids, a four-year old and a six-year-old. The idea that in their childcare centre or their classroom they are being fed fossil fuel corporation propaganda under the guise of science lessons is abhorrent to me, and it should be abhorrent to every single person sitting on the government benches. We would not allow tobacco companies into our classrooms. They're not writing lesson plans on health. This inquiry needs to happen. Labor needs to stand up to fossil fuel corporations and vested interests. They need to be prepared to let a light shine on what is going on in our childcare centres and schools and what teachers are being told they have to teach in their classrooms in relation to this stuff and let the community know and understand what is happening and how far it goes. For that reason, I reiterate Senator Hodgins-May's call. Labor should support this inquiry. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:33]
(The Deputy President—Senator Brockman)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. M. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Ayres, T. Bell, S. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. D. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. (Teller) Dolega, J. Dowling, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walker, C. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Whiteaker, E. Whitten, T. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 69 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 69

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

Second Reading 69 18:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Part 3 of schedule 1 of this bill extends the sunset date for what are called network activity warrants, data disruption warrants, account takeover warrants and related authorisations under the Surveillance Devices Act and the Crimes Act, and it proposes to extend them by another three years to 4 September 2029. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, did a review and found that those powers had been rarely used, but they had been used, sometimes effectively, against some serious cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crime. That's not in dispute; it's what's in the report. What is in dispute is whether they should be retained for another three years without the raft of stronger essential safeguards that the INSLM said—and said years ago, now—were needed if these powers were to remain on the statute books. It's interesting to note the trigger for comprehensive reform of electronic surveillance goes back to 2019, and that was the Richardson review of the National Intelligence Community's legal framework. That's seven years of runway. The runway has been laid out for seven years for reforms that still haven't taken off. And extending the sunset to late 2029 effectively tells agencies that they can have these powers without safeguards—and the public can be the subject of them without safeguards—for years. This is why the Greens have put in an amendment to change that date to 1 July 2027. That is more than enough. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry supported this. They made it clear with their recommendation that this is essential in order to give life to recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the now longstanding INSLM review into these powers. And what the Law Council said is that we need a clear assurance from the government that the safeguards will be put in place this parliamentary term. It has already taken too long for this to happen. Support in principle for modernising law enforcement administration doesn't mean waving through provisions that shift risk onto the people least able to bear it—whether it's a low-level drug courier facing an inflated gross-weight charge with no mistake-of-fact defence, or the public, who are waiting years longer for surveillance safeguards that were promised back in 2019. 18:38 Senator BLYTH 315170 South Australia The coalition will not oppose the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. Much of this bill is technical or procedural in nature. Where it modernises, clarifies and improves Commonwealth criminal justice, policing and prosecution laws, the coalition is supportive of those measures. The bill contains practical amendments dealing with AFP powers at Western Sydney International Airport, electronic warrant applications, ACT Policing, serious drug offence thresholds and conflicts involving the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It also covers extradition arrest powers and telecommunications interception legislation. The opposition is concerned about a number of aspects of this bill and will be moving amendments to ensure that significant changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission receive the scrutiny they deserve and that expanded extradition arrest powers remain subject to the appropriate parliamentary review. The coalition will also ask questions in the committee stage about schedule 3 relating to the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. This bill exposes the Albanese government's continuing failure to deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework that it has been promising the Australian people for almost four years. Part 3 of schedule 1 extends account takeover warrants, data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and related emergency authorisations for a further three years until 4 September 2029. The coalition supports the continuation of these important cyber disruption powers. The former coalition government introduced these powers back in 2021 because serious organised crime, child exploitation networks, drug trafficking syndicates and other criminal enterprises were increasingly operating online and exploiting encrypted platforms and sophisticated digital technologies. The coalition saw the importance of increasing measures around these particular areas. These powers allow agencies to not simply observe serious criminal activity but intervene directly, identify offenders operating anonymously, disrupt criminal networks and prevent further offending. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor found that the identity and disrupt powers provide effective operational capabilities in circumstances where other powers would have been ineffective and recommended that they should not be allowed to sunset. The threats these powers address have not disappeared, and some would say that the online environment has become even more devious. Serious organised crime continues to adapt, and new technologies are continually exploited as they operate across jurisdictions not just here in Australia but globally. The need for the extension is a direct consequence of the government's failure to complete a comprehensive electronic surveillance reform—the same reform that they have been promising to deliver for the last four years. The government accepted the need for a modern coherent electronic surveillance framework, yet here we are almost four years after them taking office and there is still no comprehensive legislative package for this—no modern electronic surveillance act and no clear timetable for its reform. In the meantime, criminal networks continue to evolve and exploit technologies. Extending the sunset clause keeps necessary powers alive, but it is not a substitute for the comprehensive reform that is genuinely needed in this space that this Labor government promised to deliver. National security legislation cannot drift from one sunset extension into the next while governments postpone the difficult work of modernising the laws so that they can keep pace with technology and the threat environment. It's fair to say that Labor has been caught napping in this area. Labor haven't done anything to make sure that they are keeping pace with the technology that criminal networks and exploitation networks are using, and they haven't kept pace with the threat environment. The opposition will move a second reading amendment concerning the removal of the ACIC's ability to apply for data disruption warrants. The coalition accepts the broader policy objective of refocusing the ACIC as a dedicated criminal intelligence agency responsible for collecting, analysing and disseminating intelligence about serious and organised crime. The concern is not simply about policy direction; it is the legislative vehicle chosen by the government and the level of scrutiny this significant change will receive. Removing the ACIC's data disruption warrant power is not a minor or incidental amendment. It changes the powers, the functions and the operational capabilities of one of Australia's principal criminal intelligence agencies. Data disruption warrants can interfere directly with data used by serious and organised criminals, disrupt criminal communications, degrade criminal platforms and undermine the ability of criminal networks to operate effectively here in Australia. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 is already before the parliament and is intended to establish a modern legislative framework for the ACIC and its proposed intelligence-focused role. That bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, parliament's specialist committee for scrutinising intelligence and national security legislation. The PJCIS is the appropriate forum to examine the future powers, functions and safeguards, as well as the accountability arrangements, that apply to the ACIC. The coalition's second reading amendment will call on the government to incorporate part 3 of schedule 1 into the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026. This is not about opposing the continuation of cyber disruption powers or preventing the reform of the ACIC. It is about ensuring that significant national security reform is considered through the appropriate legislative vehicle and receives specialist parliamentary scrutiny, which is something I think the people of Australia expect to happen with legislation that comes through this place. Proper debate and proper scrutiny is something that the Australian people expect to see. It has been this government's habit to constantly guillotine bills as they come through this place so that they are devoid of any kind of scrutiny. We end up with bills that are a mess and that create all sorts of unintended and, at times, intended consequences. Changes of this significance should not be bundled into an omnibus bill containing largely technical and procedural amendments, but that is something that we have seen from this Labor government, where they take a whole lot of normal, routine updates to bills, bulk them all together and then put quite extraordinary things in with them. Schedule 4 of the bill aligns arrest powers under the Extradition Act 1988. This is aligned more closely with the general Commonwealth arrest powers available under the Crimes Act 1914. The Australian Federal Police advised the Senate inquiry that the amendments address the genuine operational difficulties that they encounter, including limits on entry to premises and the use of reasonable force when executing an extradition arrest warrant. It is undesirable for police to face avoidable operational barriers when a person sought for extradition is inside private premises and where a lawful arrest warrant is in force. The coalition supports giving police officers the practical powers they require to execute lawful extradition warrants safely and effectively. However, these remain significant coercive powers involving entry to a premises, the use of reasonable force and the deprivation of liberty. Whenever parliament expands coercive powers exercised by the state, it has a responsibility to ensure that those powers operate as they are intended to operate. The opposition will move an amendment in Committee of the Whole requiring a parliamentary review of the schedule 4 amendments. The amendment will require the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or another committee constituted by a resolution of the Senate, to begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement. The review will consider any unintended consequences arising from the expanded extradition arrest powers. The coalition's amendment would specifically require the inquiry to examine the operational effect of restricting the execution of arrest warrants issued under the Extradition Act and the Crimes Act to certain hours while search warrants issued under those acts are not subject to the same restrictions. The government has circulated an amendment seeking to remove that specific reference from the terms of reference. While it is the coalition's preference to retain that detail, we do not think its removal will limit the committee's ability to examine those issues and therefore will not oppose the government's amendment in this case. This is a sensible accountability measure. It does not deny police the powers they need or delay the commencement of the amendments. It ensures parliament returns to examine how the expanded powers have operated in practice and can address any unforeseen problems revealed by operational experience. There is nothing inherently wrong with omnibus legislation where amendments are genuinely technical, administrative in nature or consequential, but omnibus bills should not become a vehicle for reducing scrutiny, which is what we've seen from this government. They should not reduce scrutiny of significant policy changes involving intelligence agencies, law enforcement powers or the fundamental rights and liberties. The coalition has consistently supported strong national security laws and backed Australia's intelligence, policing and prosecution agencies with the powers that they need to confront terrorism, serious organised crime, cybercrime, child exploitation, drug trafficking and other serious offending. Strong powers must also be accompanied by strong safeguards, by proper accountability and by rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. Those principles are not inconsistent. Proper scrutiny improves legislation, identifies unintended consequences and builds public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of Australia's national security framework. Good legislation should be assessed against operational experience rather than enacted and then forgotten, particularly where it expands coercive powers. The coalition supports the practical and operational improvements contained in this bill. We support the extending of cyber disruption powers because they remain necessary and effective, and we support ensuring that Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities they need to keep all Australians safe. But we also insist that significant changes to operational capabilities of the ACIC receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny and expanded extradition arrest powers be reviewed after the commencement of this bill. That is precisely what the opposition's amendments will seek to achieve. The government must also finally deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance laws that the intelligence, security and law enforcement community has repeatedly called for. Extending a sunset clause cannot become a substitute for comprehensive legislative reform. For all of those reasons, the coalition will not oppose this bill and urges the government to support the opposition's amendments. 18:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. I'm also going to flag One Nation's amendment to the legislation. This amendment will correct a grave injustice imposed on veterans and serving members of the Australian Defence Force. This amendment is about fairness. It's about the proper application of the rule of law. It's about standing up for the men and women who were ordered to fight a war in Afghanistan. It's about a Labor government which has turned its back on brave Australians. When our soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan, they were asked to fight an enemy who wore no uniform and who hid among civilians. Our people had a clear set of rules to follow when engaging this enemy, which in turn did not consider himself bound by the same rules. Our soldiers operated in hostile territory where almost anyone they encountered could be an enemy. I know this because I visited Afghanistan to see it for myself. And then our soldiers came home. Forty-one of them did not return alive. Hundreds more were wounded. Many came back struggling with their experiences and the impact those had on their physical and mental health. Many of them still struggle today. And then, in 2024, Labor betrayed our veterans. Labor changed the rules under which our soldiers operated in Afghanistan. Years after our deployment was finished, Labor changed the definition of 'hors de combat' in the Criminal Code. Before this change, the law required a full set of conditions for someone to be considered hors de combat. Labor broke that test apart. Labor made it easier to prosecute our soldiers, and then Labor made this change retrospective. They went all the way back to 2002, when Australians were serving in combat under a different set of rules. They went back to cases still before the courts. This was wrong. It was wrong because it was completely unfair. This betrayal sends a chilling message to every serving member of the ADF and every former member: serve your country, risk your life, do the job you were ordered to do, and many years later we'll rewrite laws to make it easier to prosecute you. Australians will not accept that. They know that our soldiers did not choose these wars. Our soldiers did not write foreign policy. They did not decide where to deploy. They obeyed their orders. They served Australia. They did the hard, dangerous work that politicians in this place asked of them. Yet Labor is happy to change the legal rules after the event. This government calls it a technical correction. That is the usual Canberra excuse. But ordinary Australians know the difference between a typo and a law that makes prosecution easier. If the change has no real effect, why make it retrospective? Why reach back more than 20 years? Why apply it to proceedings already underway? The government cannot have it both ways. Labor cannot say the change is meaningless while insisting it must apply to past conduct and current cases. This amendment restores the definition that existed before Labor changed it. It restores the legal framework which applied when Australian personnel served. It restores the basic principle of justice—that you do not change the rules after the game has been played. No-one is above the law. No-one is asking for immunity. Where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, it should be tested properly. But the law must be fair. The process must be fair. The government must not tilt the scales after the fact against Australians who served in uniform. This is where Labor has failed. This government is quick to talk about supporting veterans. It is quick to stand at memorials. It is quick to speak about service and sacrifice on Anzac Day. But words are cheap. Real support means standing by the people you sent into harm's way. Real support means ensuring that they are judged under the law that existed at the time. Real support means refusing to turn veterans into political targets. Instead, Labor has chosen to make prosecution easier. It has chosen retrospective law-making, and it has chosen to abandon the principle that Australians should have certainty about the laws that govern them. That is not support for veterans. That is a betrayal of veterans. This amendment draws a line. It says that parliament should not change the rules after the fact to make it easier to prosecute Australian soldiers. It says that fairness matters. It says that the rule of law matters, and it says that this parliament must not turn its back on the people who put their lives on the line for Australia. I urge senators to support the amendment. 18:58 Senator COLLINS 297964 New South Wales I also rise to speak to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026. We heard from my colleague Senator Blyth before that, yes, much of this bill is technical or procedural and the coalition does support the modernisation, clarification and improvement of the Commonwealth criminal justice system policing and prosecution laws. This bill does have some practical amendments dealing with AFP powers at the Western Sydney airport, ACT policing, drug offence thresholds, arrest powers and other legislation. The coalition's position is always that we want to keep Australians safer. That has never, ever been more important. The threat environment is increasing here in Australia. This is the natural home of the coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—who have a proud record of keeping this country safe. So when Labor steps up to the plate with an omnibus bill with national security measures we must scrutinise them absolutely and completely. We must be alert and alive to the fact that they might not all be technical or procedural measures. They might not all be non-controversial matters. Labor are very, very good at sneaking in measures that they've wanted for a long time but have never had the guts to make their intentions very clear on at all. So it deserves proper scrutiny, not guillotining. We must always understand the intention of every single part of bills, especially omnibus bills, and the unintended consequences. Because of this, the opposition will move amendments to ensure significant changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission get the scrutiny they deserve and need and that the expanded extradition arrest powers remain subject to appropriate parliamentary review. We must be able to continually examine the changes to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is placed under the correct legislative instrument. The coalition will also ask questions in the committee stage relating to schedule 3 and the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 in relation to conflicts of interests. That's because changes of this significance should not be bundled into an omnibus bill containing largely technical and procedural amendments. Whenever parliament expands powers of ministers, those extra new powers must be properly rationalised and safeguarded. We don't just trust them; we scrutinise them. Omnibus legislation is fine for amendments that are technical, administrative or consequential, but omnibus bills should not become a way to reduce scrutiny of significant policy changes involving important matters like intelligence agencies, law enforcement powers, ministerial powers or fundamental rights and liberties and they shouldn't make significant changes like these go unnoticed. The coalition has consistently supported strong national security laws and backed Australia's intelligence, policing and prosecution agencies with the powers needed to confront terrorism, serious organised crime, cybercrime, child exploitation, drug trafficking and other serious offending—in other words, the scum of Australian society—and we will never apologise for that. Stronger powers keep Australians safe, but stronger powers need strong safeguards, proper accountability and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. They must work together. They can consistently work together. Proper scrutiny is good. It makes for better legislation. We can identify the unintended consequences and we can build public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of Australia's national security framework. Good legislation should be assessed against operational experience rather than enacted and forgotten, particularly where it expands coercive powers. Let's remember that this government had over four years to do this. It failed to deliver on reform that it promised years ago, and here we are at the eleventh hour again rushing a massive bill through that hasn't had the proper scrutiny that it deserves. The threat environment has rapidly changed, and serious and organised crime continues to evolve. Terrorism continues to evolve, child exploitation—the list goes on. Our government should be keeping pace well before the deadlines arise, but here we are. Again, the coalition is cleaning up their mess, having to tell them how to get their national security legislation right. The government has said that there is a need for a modern, coherent electronic surveillance framework, yet almost four years after taking office there is still no comprehensive legislation package and no clear timetable for reform. The extension of the sunset clause keeps the powers alive, but it does not substitute for comprehensive reform. We can't just sit here with the national security legislation going from sunset clause to sunset clause while the government postpones the hard work and the hard decisions of keeping laws modern and responsive to the threats—ahead of the threats—that we are facing. The opposition will move an amendment in the Committee of the Whole requiring a parliamentary review of schedule 4 amendments. This is the scrutiny that it needs, and it means that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or another committee appointed by resolution of the Senate, will begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement. We need to understand if there are any unintended consequences of the legislation that this government is putting through, particularly in relation to the expanded extradition arrest powers. The coalition's amendment would require the inquiry to examine the operational effect of this particular schedule. This is an important and sensible accountability measure. Going through the inquiry doesn't delay the opportunity for the police and agencies to do the work but just makes sure that the parliament can examine the bill and how it's operating in practice. The coalition supports extending the cyber disruption powers because they are needed and they are effective. We support Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe and protected from the scum that I referred to before, but we also require significant changes to the operational capabilities of ASIC to receive special scrutiny on the arrest powers that have been identified in this bill. The government has to deliver on the comprehensive reform of Australia's national security legislation environment. Extending sunset clauses is not real reform. As Australia's national security challenges continue to evolve, our laws must evolve with them but also be ahead of the game. For those reasons and for the reasons of proper scrutiny of entire elements of this bill, the coalition urges the government to support the opposition's amendments. We will seek answers to questions on schedule 3 related to changes with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to conflicts of interest. 19:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. As my colleagues have indicated in their contributions, the coalition will not oppose the bulk of this bill. While it mostly contains technical or procedural amendments to various legislation, the changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ACIC, warrant further scrutiny. ACIC's current ability to apply for data disruption warrants enables it to interfere directly with data used by serious and organised criminals and disrupt criminal communications, degrade criminal platforms and undermine the ability of criminal networks to operate effectively. The removal of ACIC's ability to obtain these warrants is not a minor change. It should not just be bundled into an omnibus bill. That is why the opposition will move an amendment to this bill to ensure that major changes to Australia's peak national body for criminal intelligence are considered through the appropriate legislative vehicle and receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment will call on the government to incorporate part 3 of schedule 1 into the targeted Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026, which is currently before the parliament. We will move amendments so that expanded extradition arrest powers for the police remain subject to appropriate parliamentary review. Let's be clear: this bill further exposes the Albanese government's underdelivery of long-promised reform to Australia's electronic surveillance framework. Yet again, Australians have been left unnecessarily vulnerable because of a government that will only act in reaction, not in anticipation. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I want to say that I support part 3 of schedule 1 of the bill, which would extend agency account takeover warrants, data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and related emergency authorisations for a further three years, until 4 September 2029. In light of recent horrific high-profile cases of child sexual abuse, the importance of these matters cannot be overstated. I'm proud to say that it was the former coalition government who introduced these powers in 2021 because serious organised crime, child exploitation networks, drug-trafficking syndicates and other criminal enterprises were increasingly operating online and exploiting encrypted platforms and sophisticated digital technologies. It was occurring. The amendments in this section of the bill would give effect to aspects of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021. The monitor outlined in its report how SLA(ID) Act warrants are 'used in circumstances where other warrants would have been ineffective and where regulatory action would have been insufficient'. With significant technological advancements since the SLA(ID) Act came into effect, including in artificial intelligence, there is more need than ever for effective and efficient action to respond to cybercriminals, who are a threat to vulnerable Australians, especially our most vulnerable: our children. Recent cases have shown these threats not only exist online but can reach into the very places to which families entrust the care of their children. The recent allegations have been a stark reminder that the threat of child exploitation can reach well beyond the online world into those very trusted settings, which include child care. No parent should have to spend their working day wondering whether their child is safe in child care, yet, after a series of horrific allegations, that fear is now very real for families across Australia. Two weeks ago, opposition leader Angus Taylor called for a national childcare perpetrator register. He joined Bruce and Denise Morcombe, the parents of Daniel Morcombe, and Childcare Choice in writing to the Prime Minister, urging the government to establish one. Right now, parents can be left piecing together media reports and social media posts to determine whether an alleged offender ever worked in their child's childcare centre. This is, of course, a very distressing time. Parents see that there's a media report about a childcare centre that their child may have been in and it correlates and lines up with the time their child was potentially in that childcare centre. Of course, for the vast majority, almost 100 per cent, of families that would have intersected with the alleged perpetrator's time working at that childcare centre, the police would have been in touch with that family already. But for those that are unaware of police processes and what occurs, they simply see the media reporting. They see that the childcare centre where their child has been is listed, and then that anxiety that they experience and feel is through the roof because they are worried about whether their child's time intersected with this worker's time in that childcare centre. As I said, almost 100 per cent of those families have not needed to have worried because the police would have already been in touch, but they don't know that. What Mr Taylor has asked for, and what the Morcombe Foundation and Childcare Choice have asked for, is a national register of perpetrators to be available that parents can see very clearly. If there's a media report, they can go online—on a trusted, government website—and see whether or not the timing of their child being in a childcare centre where this alleged perpetrator has been working correlates at all, and their fear would be allayed. It's a way of dealing with it in a very timely and quick way. Under the current system, what we're left with is a situation where parents are just left with media reports. They've got to wait until the morning so they can ring the childcare centre, and time goes on before they actually realise. For the childcare centre, for the parents and for everyone involved, it's an inefficient way of dealing with that anxiety and that stress that has occurred. No family should have to go through that. No family should have to deal with the fear of whether or not their child was involved with one of these perpetrators that exist. We think it's something the government could do very simply. It's not something that would take a great deal of time to implement, and we'd encourage the government to do it. Families that I've spoken to are stunned that such a system does not already exist. Simply relying on media reports or on social media to get information out there is not okay, and the government could take the steps that are necessary to ensure that it was very, very clear. Australians agree. A Daily Telegraph poll recently found that 73 per cent of Australians support the call for a transparent public childcare perpetrator register. Parents deserve this transparency about who has been entrusted with the care of their children, and the coalition stands ready to work with the government. We understand that it would need to be designed in a way that was ensuring the presumption of innocence was clear and that it didn't in any way impede law enforcement's ability to prosecute and go through what they need to through the courts. We think that an individual with a serious charge of a child exploitation crime should have their name listed on a website so that parents can have that understanding of exactly where they have worked. This is something that we encourage the government to consider and something the coalition stands ready to work with the government on. Back to this legislation, extending these powers for another three years is necessary, but a sunset extension is not a substitute for comprehensive reform. Some of the recent cases of abuse occurred while these warrant powers were in effect. It's clear that a holistic approach is required. We must ensure that childcare workers receive proper training and fair compensation. Screening must be thorough to identify and prevent from working anyone with a relevant history or who may pose a risk to children's safety. There must continue to be swift intervention and strong justice responses for offenders, and there must be robust reporting to allow childcare providers and parents to make informed decisions about childcare safety. Extending the cyber warrant powers in schedule 1, part 3, of the omnibus bill is an important step to ensuring that criminals operating online understand they cannot exploit Australians without facing the full force of the law. The coalition supports the practical and operational improvements contained in this bill. We support extending the cyber disruption powers because they remain necessary and effective, and we support ensuring that Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe. But we also insist that significant changes to the operational capabilities of ACIC receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny and that the expanded extradition arrest powers are reviewed after commencement. This is precisely what the opposition amendments seek to achieve. We hope that the government will support these amendments. The coalition will not oppose the bill but urges the government to support these very practical amendments to ensure the long-term sustainability and truth of this bill. 19:21 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'd like to speak in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, and I do that because this is really important legislation. It's a practical bill that is going to reinforce the responsibilities of law enforcement in this country. As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I know and understand, along with all of my colleagues on that committee, how important this piece of legislation is. It is a time to acknowledge the tireless work of the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that institutions charged with protecting the Australian community have the powers, procedures and legal clarity that they need to do their jobs effectively, lawfully and safely. In supporting this bill, I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the officers, the investigators, the analysts, the prosecutors and the law enforcement leaders who work tirelessly every single day to keep Australians safe. We ask a great deal of them. They confront organised crime; illicit-drug trafficking; online exploitation of the most precious members of our community, our children; technology enabled offending; and cross-border criminal enterprises that are so much more sophisticated, well resourced and relentless. Yet day after day, often without recognition, they continue to work with professionalism, courage and determination. They deserve not only our gratitude but also a legislative framework that supports them to do this very important work. This is especially true of the work undertaken to seize illicit drugs and keep drugs off our streets and out of the hands of criminal gangs. Every major drug seizure matters. Every shipment that is intercepted at the borders, every distribution network that is disrupted, every criminal syndicate that is dismantled means less harm in our suburbs, less violence in our communities and fewer families living with the devastating consequences of addiction and organised crime. Organised crime affects too many people in our communities. I'm proud to be part of a government that has worked to bring about this bill—to bring about the changes that are needed so that our law enforcement can actually do their job to keep Australians safe. There is no more important time than right now to support this bill, and I'm proud, as I said, to be part of a government that is leading the charge on this. There's so much more I could talk about, but it is important that we proceed to the next level of debate around this bill. I commend the bill to those opposite, because we on this side are a government that delivers real change for Australians. 19:24 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland As my fellow colleagues in the government have said, this piece of legislation, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, is critical to supporting law enforcement related agencies to keep the community safe. I understand there's a second reading amendment for discussion, and there'll be a committee stage with further amendments. So, given I'll have an opportunity to speak more about this bill, hopefully, over the next couple of days, for the efficiency of the chamber I'm going to commend this bill to the Senate. (Quorum formed ) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281503 The question that is currently before the chair is that the amendments that have been moved by Senator Cash be agreed to. There is more than one voice calling for a division. It being after 6.30, we'll have to defer that division. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Raper, Mr Chris 76 19:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise this evening to acknowledge the passing of Chris Raper, a lion of the Labor movement and deeply respected in our organisation. Chris was a peacemaker at a time when so many were warriors. His involvement in the Labor movement and the Labor Party was never about advancing his own political career or as a stepping stone into an elected role. It was always about advancing the interests of union members—the contract cleaners, the home care workers, the security guards, the childcare workers that he represented—and he used every opportunity in his role within the Labor movement and the Labor Party to advance the interests of those people. Many people speak of his tenacious advocacy in every forum to meet with MPs and to seek commitments, sometimes very specific commitments, on the part of his members. He always worked every opportunity selflessly and modestly behind the scenes for the members that he represented. That meant, of course, that he was widely respected across the Labor Party. In every contest that he ever participated in, he frequently overperformed against expectations, drawing votes from parts of the Labor Party where Chris or another candidate might not ordinarily have expected to receive support. Some of the young people who worked with him as a union secretary speak about the tight ship that he ran. Everyone was expected to be at their desks by 8.15 in the morning. Chris was at his desk much earlier. Organisers were expected to be out visiting cleaners and other members of the union as early as 6 am and then later at night meetings. Later on in his career, he would evolve into a highly respected senior public servant, a central figure in the government's liaison with the entire Labor movement, working in the interests of the people of New South Wales and always in the interests of the working people of New South Wales. There are many in the Labor movement who deeply mourn Chris's passing, but none more so than his wife, Jenny, and their children, David, Gavin and Cameron. Vale, Chris Raper. Cost of Living 76 19:32 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Tonight, I rise to speak about the growing financial pressure facing Australian families and the thousands of young Western Australians that the Albanese government encouraged to take on unprecedented levels of debt through its expanded five per cent home deposit scheme. The cost-of-living crisis is not just about higher grocery bills, rising electricity prices or soaring insurance premiums. It is also about financial security and whether families can withstand the next economic shock. Unfortunately, Labor has left many Australians dangerously exposed. For generations, homeownership has represented security, stability and the chance to build wealth. Under this government, though, it is increasingly becoming a financial gamble. Labor's expanded First Home Guarantee scheme allows eligible buyers to purchase a home with as little as a five per cent deposit, or two per cent for eligible single parents, without paying lenders mortgage insurance. It sounds very appealing, but what Labor does not talk about is the risk. With virtually no equity, even a modest fall in house prices can wipe out a family's savings and leave them owing more than their home is worth. That is called negative equity. New Housing Australia data reveals where those risks are concentrated. In Western Australia alone, more than 3,000 first home buyers accessed the scheme across greater Perth during 2024-25, with another 161 buyers in regional Western Australia. The highest concentration was in Perth's rapidly growing outer suburbs, including Armadale, Baldivis, Ellenbrook, Kwinana, Gosnells and Success, where many young families bought after one of the strongest housing booms in Western Australia's history. The median purchase price under the scheme in Perth was $551,000, with a median deposit of just $30,000. At the same time, the average owner-occupier mortgage in Western Australia has climbed to over $700,000 for the first time, increasing from around $457,000 just four years ago. These families are carrying record levels of debt with almost no financial buffer. Now the market is cooling. REIWA reports that the number of homes for sale is now more than 90 per cent higher than a year ago. Auction clearance rates have fallen sharply. REIWA says the market has entered a wait-and-see phase. Cotality says the market is losing steam, and Morgan Stanley has forecast a five to 10 per cent correction in house prices, potentially one of the largest in four decades. If that occurs, thousands of buyers who entered the market with only a five per cent deposit could see every dollar of their equity disappear. Should unemployment, illness, separation or relocation force them to sell, they could be left owing the bank more money after selling their home. That is not financial security; that is financial vulnerability. What makes this even more concerning is that Labor has created contradictory housing policies while simultaneously undermining confidence through changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. The result is the worst of both worlds: record household debt, weaker market confidence and greater financial risk for first home buyers. Since the Home Guarantee Scheme commenced in 2020, almost 10,000 loans have been underwritten by Australian taxpayers, including more than 13,700 in Western Australia. That is a sizeable, significant public commitment of taxpayers' dollars. It should help young Australians build wealth, not expose them to unnecessary financial risk at the peak of the market. Australians deserve housing policies that deal with the real causes of the affordability crisis by increasing supply, reducing construction costs, removing planning bottlenecks and restoring confidence to invest in new housing. The answer is not encouraging young Australians to borrow more while Labor's cost-of-living crisis erodes their purchasing power. The dream of homeownership should provide security, not become another casualty of Labor's economic mismanagement. Young Australians deserve the opportunity to buy a home without being set up to fail. That requires responsible housing policies that expand supply, not ones that inflate demand by while leaving young families to bear the consequences of greater financial risk tomorrow. Victorian Racing Awards, Racing Industry 77 19:37 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Tonight, I want to discuss one of the premier events in the Victorian racing calendar, which is the Victorian Racing Awards annual event, which was held at the Forum Melbourne theatre on Saturday night and which I had the great pleasure of attending—and boy was it a cracking evening, showcasing the very best of my state's outstanding racing industry, something that always gets demonised by many people on the crossbenches in this place. Congratulations to every single trainer, jockey and all those wonderful people—men and women—who have achieved so much for the industry and who deserve the recognition on the evening. They reflect the skills, the dedication and the passion running through the horseracing industry. As you can see, I'm very passionate about this industry, and I am because there are so many wonderful people behind each horse that races every single weekend not just in Victoria but in each state around this beautiful nation. I want to particularly congratulate the Caulfield Cup and Melbourne Cup winner Half Yours, who was crowned the 2025-26 Victorian Racehorse of the Year, a horse that knows how to hit its straps when it matters most and a great achievement by the father and son trainers Tony and Calvin McEvoy. Congratulations should also go to jockey Craig Williams, who claimed his six Scobie Breasley Medal. Six Scobies is a testament to his consistency and longevity at the highest level. Craig accepted the award whilst in Ukraine, where he and his Ukrainian-born wife have made multiple humanitarian trips—something that I want to acknowledge and put on the record today—raising millions of dollars to deliver vital aid to those affected by the war since it began in 2022. It was a powerful reminder not just of his impact but of the impact that he and his wife are having, which extends well beyond the racetrack, something that those on the crossbench always want to demonise. With the Spring Racing Carnival set to get underway later this month, I wanted to take this opportunity to reflect on the enormous contribution and benefit that the industry makes to Victoria's economy and the many regional communities across thoroughbred, harness and greyhound. Last month an independent report was released, detailing the significant size and scope of the racing industry. The figures are remarkable, and they underline just how important racing is to the state of Victoria, particularly to regional communities. In 2024-25, the industry generated $5.5 billion in annual economic impact and contributed $3.8 billion in direct expenditure to the Victorian economy—nothing to sneeze at. Importantly, more than 46 per cent of this economic activity occurs in and benefits regional areas of Victoria. The industry supports over 33,000 full-time equivalent jobs and involves more than 73,000 racehorse and greyhound owners. That is only part of this story. With thousands of breeders, trainers, workers and volunteers, nearly 100,000 Victorians participate in the racing industry in some capacity, supporting this wonderful industry. Close to 80 per cent of these roles are in regional areas. This is a huge footprint that stretches well beyond the racecourse. More than 78,000 racing club members belong to one of the 109 clubs across Victoria. Together, these clubs host over 2,100 race meetings a year, with 59 per cent of them regional. These meetings draw crowds who don't just watch the race but fill local accommodation, restaurants, shops and transport, backing small businesses right across the state. Indeed, it is an industry with real staying power—no photo finish is needed to see that. Then there's the Spring Racing Carnival, one of the major events that keeps Melbourne and Victoria firmly in place as Australia's major events capital. The report makes one thing very clear: the racing industry is far more than what happens on the track. It is about jobs, investment, tourism and small business, regional communities, volunteers and families. It is about showcasing Victoria to the world. As the industry lines up in the barriers for another Spring Racing Carnival, I'm proud to celebrate the enormous contribution that racing makes to Victoria and to Australia's international reputation. Bring on the 2026 Spring Racing Carnival, and here's hoping that it's a photo finish for all the right reasons. Giddy up! Cost of Living 78 19:42 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia It's certainly been a cold winter, and it's made worse by Labor's cost-of-living crisis forcing families to choose between heating and eating and anything else. Labor has left many out in the cold. Their flawed policies have made little difference; in fact, they've made a bad situation worse. The ending of the fuel excise relief just last week will not make it better, only worse. Of course, Labor's not looking and not listening, because when families are under pressure, the small businesses they rely on are under pressure too. Small businesses, which make up over 90 per cent of all businesses, are experiencing the same pain. The local cafe is desperate to work out how they keep customers coming in and not passing on the costs. Retail shops are talking about increasing sales of low-margin goods, but less of the sales that keep their businesses viable. Tradies are finding just getting a job is getting harder, and the tools and the materials they use are more expensive. All of that prevents businesses from putting on more staff, buying more equipment and increasing things in the workplace that actually improve productivity and safety and which benefit whole communities. People who create jobs actually contribute to communities too. When inflation is high, we need to remember that it's the poorest people that are impacted the most. Sometimes when Labor is over there, telling us that they care about people who are vulnerable, they forget that it is the poorest people who are impacted the most. It's not here in Canberra nor on the union shop floor that you should develop policies—we see them, time and time again, taking instruction from their union masters—it is by listening and looking. Stop doing what does not work and do more of what does. That makes a difference. We heard from job creators in so many industries—construction, finance and business—about the lack of trust between government and the people. Labor's most recent broken promise, which heralded in a raft of toxic taxes, has broken their confidence and belief even further. Dishonest and delusional is how I describe Labor's narrative of the reality that Australians are feeling right now—not people in Canberra but people out there, outside of this house, living real lives. Regional communities are being hollowed out as a result of people paying less for meals and families drawing down on holiday spending—not spending so much. They are contributing less to the overall economy, and, as the economy shrinks, the bureaucracy is growing and the anxiety across families' kitchen tables every day is unmeasurable. Every dollar that disappears from a household budget is a dollar that is not being spent in local businesses. You haven't increased real wages, because inflation is killing the poorest people and preventing them from enjoying what they should enjoy as Australians. When mortgages cost more than they should because inflation balloons beyond reason, that's on Labor. Labor continues to squander opportunities by ignoring pleas from businesses and families and pushes ahead with building bureaucracy. That 2,000-page Construction Code doesn't pour a single slab of concrete or build a single home; it builds a mountain of red tape that drives costs through the roof, forcing builders to walk away and pushing homeownership out of reach. Labor is standing at a crossroad, knowing exactly what path leads to disaster; yet, stubbornly, they keep marching down the same path anyway. They're not interested in solutions; they're just interested in staying on that same path, leaving Australians to clean up the mess. Take the instant asset write-off. Labor talks about $20,000 and making it permanent. Well, when you actually talk to small businesses—that doesn't buy them a forklift. It doesn't buy them a pub combi oven or a conveyor dishwasher. It doesn't build them a multilane check-out network. Those things easily cost much more than $20,000. If you just talk to people in business, they'll tell you it's not going to help them. What they need is for you to stop spending, get inflation under control and stop pretending that you're not killing the economy, particularly for regional and remote communities that are doing it tougher because you cannot keep inflation under the bar that you committed to. Foreign Investment 79 19:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Betrayal—betrayal is what we have seen in regional Australia from this Labor government. Many, many Australians would now have heard about the situation—the case of Rushy Lagoon, where a property was sold to a foreign buyer. That in itself is not a problem; many Australian agricultural properties have been invested in by foreign purchasers. However, when you add to that the fact that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has underwritten the purchase by a foreign investor of Australian agricultural land, when you add to that that another government grant has been accessed by that foreign investor, when you add to that that Australian carbon credits are the underlying business model of that foreign investor and when you underlie that with the fact that the regulator of Australian carbon credits is the Australian government, you have a very, very murky story indeed. Why are farmers, not just in Tasmania but right around Australia, so dreadfully worried about this betrayal by the Labor government? It is because they are being outbid, by up to 30 per cent, by these purchasers that are using government money based on carbon credit prices that are regulated by the government and outbidding them on land that should be producing the food and fibre that Australia and the world needs. That is why this is a betrayal. That is why this is a murky story, the bottom of which we have not yet reached. And this is not an isolated case. In my home state of Western Australia there are something like 225 projects, underwritten by carbon credits, that are taking productive farmland out of production. Some of these will be marginal land; I accept that. Some of these will be taking marginal farmland out of production, but I know for a fact that many of them are not. I know for a fact that many of them are in high rainfall areas of Western Australia. They are highly productive land, such as Rushy Lagoon, a property that in the recent past ran 8½ thousand head of cattle and 22,000 head of sheep. That is not a small production unit; that is a significant agricultural producer—a significant producer of red meat and fibre, not just for Australia but for the world. I ask you now: Can anyone eat a carbon credit? Can anyone dress themselves in a carbon credit? I think we all know the answer to that. And that is why this very murky and very negative arrangement, where you have a foreign company with a business model based on carbon credits that is using Australian government money and is outbidding Australian farmers for Australian land by 30 per cent, is a disgrace. It is a betrayal of the Australian farming industry and it should not be allowed to stand. Personal Information and Privacy 79 19:51 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia We're living through a quiet but profound shift in the relationship between the individual and the government in this country. Piece by piece, law by law and system by system, this country is constructing the architecture of a surveillance state. It arrives with soft language—safety, convenience, protecting the children, national security, modernisation—and because the language is so soft, too many of us, particularly in this building, have been asleep at the wheel. So let's be clear what's underway. The Digital ID System, sold as voluntary, simple and a way to prove who you are online, is the central nervous system of this ongoing and emerging apparatus. Once your identity is digitised, every interaction with government, banks, platforms and, eventually, private services will become trackable. It'll become linkable. It'll become controllable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is the backbone of the future social-credit-style system. I'm so opposed to this that I introduced a bill to repeal the Digital ID Act, because we shouldn't trust anyone, let alone the government, with that level of permanent and intimate knowledge of its citizens. History shows that powers granted in the name of efficiency are rarely surrendered. We see this pattern everywhere. Age-verification mandates force ordinary Australians to hand over digital ID documents or biometric data that will be used every day for online services. Alongside these developments, we're witnessing a growing private sector interest in facial recognition technology. Retailers and other businesses have deployed such systems for security and operational purposes. Then you've got counterterrorism online centres, which will be armed with AI and analysts tasked with scanning social media gaming platforms like Discord and encrypted chats. We're now seeing the expansion of compulsory questioning powers for intelligence agencies that weaken safeguards and treat ordinary legal protections as optional extras. That's one for later in the week in this building. You've got smart city infrastructure, facial recognition, licence plate readers and data-sharing arrangements that turn public spaces into permanent monitoring zones. And now the push for massive AI data centres is being sold as an economic opportunity. Yet the same facilities that power AI also create the computational capacity for real-time population-scale analysis of behaviour, speech and association. When you combine that capacity with digital identity and the prospect of programmable money, you're no longer talking about isolated tools; you're talking about an integrated control system. Mission creep is not a theory; it's the historical record. Powers justified for the worst cases are normalised, then expanded and then applied to the merely inconvenient, politically awkward or the non-compliant. We've already lived through a dress rehearsal in recent years. Compliance was demanded, dissent was marginalised and many Australians discovered how quickly temporary measures become permanent. I'm not against national security. I'm not against protecting children online, and I'm certainly not against technology. What I oppose is the assumption that the answer to every problem is more centralised power, more data collection and fewer checks on the state. There are less intrusive ways to pursue legitimate goals, and we should be insisting on them. Australians are not subjects to be managed. We're free people with an elected government and we expect the government to remain limited in their powers. Privacy is not an obstacle to effective law enforcement; it's the foundation of a free society. Ordinary citizens rely on it to discuss health matters, family issues, commercial affairs, political views and their personal difficulties without the assumption that their words will be inspected by the systems designed for the worst cases. We must ensure that any new obligations are tightly defined, subject to genuine parliamentary oversight and accompanied by robust safeguards for encryption and private communication. The accumulation of surveillance powers is rarely reversed. It's therefore essential that we get the balance right while we still can. The creep of the surveillance state is not inevitable. It's a choice. We should choose differently. We should choose a different path. Food Industry 80 19:56 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Every decision affecting Australian food production should begin with one simple question: does this strengthen or weaken Australia's ability to feed itself? The Albanese Labor government would do well to ask this question as it continues to attack primary producers in this country. Australia is blessed with something many nations would dearly love to have—the ability to feed ourselves. That is not something that we should ever take for granted. The growth of imports of food is growing faster than the growth of exports by dollar value. A nation that cannot feed itself is a vulnerable nation. The same applies if that nation cannot access the fuel, fertiliser, chemicals and other inputs required to produce its own food. We've seen, repeatedly, in recent years just how quickly global supply chains can be disrupted. COVID showed us that. Wars and geopolitical instability have shown us that. Natural disasters have shown that. It was the coalition that announced funding from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to get the Perdaman fertiliser project to an investment decision. And yet, at precisely the same time that Australia should be strengthening our domestic food producing capability, the Albanese government seems determined to create more uncertainty for the people who actually produce it. Recently, I had the great pleasure of attending the 90th anniversary celebrations of Pace Farming at Rollingstone, just north of Townsville. For nine decades, the Pace family has been part of the extraordinary agricultural story of North Queensland, producing crops, including bananas and pineapples. They are one of scores of family farms and farming families across regional Queensland who get up every morning and do the crucial work of feeding Australians. At the Ekka in Brisbane over the weekend, I spoke to pineapple growers James and Will. James and Will are looking forward to a future growing pineapples for Australians. They understand better than anyone the devastation that an exotic pest or disease could inflict. All these growers represent generations of knowledge, investment, infrastructure, hard work and risk. Once we lose that productive capability, it is incredibly difficult to get it back. That's why farmers are rightly concerned about the federal government's consideration of new pathways for imported bananas and pineapples. In June, the department of agriculture commenced a new biosecurity import risk analysis, considering alternative measures for fresh Cavendish bananas from the Philippines. Australia currently imports no fresh bananas from any country. Our domestic banana industry produced almost 369 tonnes in 2024-25, worth more than $700 million, and 94 per cent of those bananas were grown in Far North Queensland. Why would any government take unnecessary risks with that industry? The department has now released a draft report proposing that fresh decrowned pineapples from India and Indonesia could be permitted into Australia, subject to biosecurity requirements. Again, this matters enormously to Queensland. Nearly every commercial pineapple grown in Australia is grown in Queensland. Our industry produced more than 68,000 tonnes in 2025. The department's own assessment has identified eight pests associated with fresh pineapples from India and Indonesia that require risk management measures. Growers are understandably asking what benefit to Australia justifies taking additional biosecurity risks with a successful domestic industry. Biosecurity is one of Australia's greatest competitive advantages, but, once a pest or disease arrives here, it is very hard to eradicate. Whether I'm in cane paddocks, on cattle stations, talking with commercial fishers or sitting around a table with fruit and vegie growers, the message is consistent: they want their government to understand that Australian producers already face some of the highest labour, energy, environmental and regulatory costs in the world. They're competing against imported products that can be produced under very different standards. Trade does not mean abandoning common sense. Our priority is that every Australian should be able to eat Australian, and farmers should be able to grow food, catch fish, raise livestock and manufacture the imports that our farmers need. We should be protecting our Australian farmers, and the coalition will always put Australians first. Tasmania: Business Investment 81 20:01 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I love my country, but I love my state—my home state of Tasmania—even more. That's why, with an issue we're facing in northern Tasmania, I just cannot understand the state Liberal government not standing up for Tasmania and, in particular, not standing up for northern Tasmania. Northern Tasmania needs investment, confidence and jobs. It needs governments at every level, whether it's your local government, your state government or our national government, to be making sure there is a level playing field and that new opportunities are not talked down. That's why the Rushy Lagoon project matters. At a time when our region has been hit by the loss of more than 200 jobs at Liberty Bell Bay and 42 jobs from Boag's brewery in Launceston, I just don't understand why an investment of $140 million into northern Tasmania is not welcomed by the state government. I don't understand why it's not supported and I don't understand why it's not being treated seriously. This project is expected to create more than 190 jobs over the life of this investment. That's with their present plans, but I know from conversations about that investment that there are potentially a lot more jobs—different jobs but more jobs—that will come to fruition. These are real jobs in regional communities—jobs for contractors, planting crews, field surveyors, transport operators, sawmill workers and local businesses that service the forestry sector. It will bring capital into the north-east, support local supply chains and strengthen Tasmania's role in sustainable timber production. At a time when families in George Town, Launceston and across the north of the state are feeling the pressure of these job losses and the economic uncertainty, that is exactly the kind of investment that we should be encouraging. Not only have we got Liberty Bell Bay leaving Bell Bay, but we've got Rio Tinto Comalco trying to negotiate with Hydro Tasmania and the state government to retain their presence in northern Tasmania. To people who live in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, 200-plus jobs—maybe 240 jobs—and another 42 jobs may not mean very much, but to northern Tasmanians and to Tasmanians that means a hell of a lot. Boag's brewery are leaving on 4 November—an icon for northern Tasmania. They may say that they are going to take the name and continue brewing. I'm not a beer drinker, frankly—let's be honest—but the reality is it will not taste the same when it's not brewed in Tasmania with our pristine water. A project like Rushy Lagoon is not just a land transaction. There were cries about foreign ownership. I understand those opposite are concerned about One Nation, but that property has been held in foreign ownership since 1997. It is not prime real estate, which is the classification under the control of the state government. Over the last decade it's been on the market a number of times. No reclassification of that land has ever been undertaken. We have this investment that, yes, is going to put some of that land—about 50 per cent of it; maybe a little bit more—into plantation, which is an investment in renewable energy. It's about renewing the interest in timber, where, quite frankly, since the Howard government, the timber industry in Tasmania has been attacked from every single side, and this is actually an investment in those workers, the sawmillers, and is going to deliver for Northern Tasmania. People talk about the north-eastern farming. I actually come from a family who were farmers in that very area. We hear the claims that schools and saleyards are going to close. The reality is there are already negotiations going on to lease the land that is currently being used for grazing and for raising cattle. There are already negotiations to purchase the cattle that are currently on that property which, as I understand, are all going very well. This investment is also going to be in revegetation of that land and improving that land. There are also quite a lot of houses and infrastructure that is just not being cared for. But what we hear from the state Liberals and the federal senator—who actually was awake; it was good to hear that he was awake and took an interest in this—is that they don't believe that this land is of prime produce and should be protected. But they also have not come clean as to who the investor that they believe has been outbid on this property is, nor have they come clean on how much the Tasmanian investor was prepared to pay for that property. Three weeks ago I stood very happily outside a construction of new homes using Tasmanian timber, with Danny Murphy, who is from the Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union, the TFTU, and is leader of the CFMEU manufacturing division in Tasmania. His message was very clear: resource security is job security. This is a project that should be seen by the state government and anyone else who has been critical as a win-win for Northern Tasmania. That is why the Tasmanian Liberal government and Senator Colbeck and others should be supporting this project. It is good for the north-east and it's good for primary industry. No saleyards are going to close. No schools are going to close. A $140 million investment should be welcomed and it should be supported. Creating jobs, growing businesses and attracting new investment is what we do and what we should be supporting every single day. Do your due diligence, but you should not be taking a political stance because you're trying to protect someone who you won't come clean about. We don't know, but I suspect an attachment to the Liberal Party in Tasmania. What we shouldn't be seeing is political grandstanding at the cost of potential good-value, highly-skilled jobs, or of making sure that northern Tasmania is still a welcoming place for investment. They should be doing everything that they can—and there have been many opportunities thus far, where the state Liberals have worked with this government to bring about good outcomes for Tasmania. And I will always acknowledge that. But when they're playing party political games—and I understand they must be scared of One Nation, and what they may do, potentially, with their capacity to win any House of Reps seats or to hold the Senate seats that they have. Our responsibility as elected members, whether we're in this chamber, in the Australian Senate, in the federal parliament, or in our state parliament, is to do what is in the best interest of Tasmanians. That's what disappoints me—that they're not prepared to put aside their personal connections to whoever this mystery buyer might have been to see that that investment is going to change that property for the better. There is no-one in this place who knows the north-east of Tasmania better than I do, with my family connections to that area. I am disappointed, and I'm calling on the government senators in this place from Tasmania who are not supporting this project and talking down Tasmania— (Time expired) Great Australian Bight 82 20:11 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia There is a horizon most Australians will never see, yet one that belongs to every Australian: the Great Australian Bight. The landfall is one of the longest uninterrupted line of cliffs on the earth. The bight is a nursery for the southern right whale, and a cathedral of cold water upwellings and ancient reefs. Senators will know that I've opposed drilling in the Great Australian Bight and I'm an advocate for its World Heritage listing. The last occasion I gazed upon this beautiful place was with two surfers, who I count as friends: Josh Kirkman from Surfers for Climate, and champion surfer Heath Joske. They have spent years in the cold swells of the bight, advocating, rightly, that the people who know these waters best are the ones who surf them, fish them, sail them and sing to them. I thank them for their advocacy, which has played an important role in the community movement protecting the bight from drilling. In 1988, then senator and environment minister Robert Hill declared what was then the second-largest marine park on the planet across these waters. It was an incredible act of conservation for its time. We now have an opportunity to build upon the great work of Robert Hill—an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we, in Australia, are intent on being good stewards of our land and seas, rather than exploiting nature for profit alone. Further, the communities on the coastline that thrive sustainably off the bounty of the seas still live under the shadow of new attempts to drill in their pristine seas. Importantly, a once-in-a-decade review of our marine parks is now underway, including of the south-west network within which the Great Australian Bight Marine Park sits. This review, open for public consultation until the end of September, is tasked with assisting with the delivery of our nation's commitment to protect 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. By the government's own reckoning, that means identifying more than half a million additional square kilometres of protected water. I say let's expand the current Great Australian Bight Marine Park to cover the entire basin—some 800,000 square kilometres. With one bold expansion, the 30 by 2030 goal can not only be met but exceeded by some 300,000 square kilometres. I assure senators that my support for World Heritage listing of the bight and the Nullarbor has not wavered by one degree of latitude. That listing remains a prize worth fighting for. But heritage nomination is a journey measured in years—in some cases, decades—while the threat of oil and gas exploration in these waters is measured in months, lease renewals and ill-considered reactions to an oil crisis. We cannot ask a nursing whale to wait for paperwork. An expanded, protected marine park can be created faster, defended more fiercely and enforced more immediately than any heritage title, and it can be won now through this very review. The government cannot claim it is beyond its capabilities to extend the boundaries of the south-west network. Only last month, it found the resolve to expand the Lord Howe and Norfolk marine parks by over 670,000 square kilometres. We need to, once and for all, ensure that seismic testing and drilling in the Bight will not happen into the future. Expanding the park does not mean an end to fishing. The declaration of a special purpose zone (mining exclusion) closes the door on seismic testing and drilling permanently. Recreational and commercial fishing can continue under the licences and regulations that already govern them responsibly. I'm not asking the fishers of Ceduna and Streaky Bay to abandon the waters that have fed their communities for generations. I'm seeking to ensure that oil and gas companies do not come this way again. Being of a conservative disposition, the cornerstone of my ambition is to leave the earth in a better condition than when I was born upon her. It is not to spend my days advocating for those who seek to live unsustainably in the now, the present, justifying their pollution in the name of the false god of unlimited growth. Please join me to protect the Bight. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Scarr 282997 I thought he just gave a speech! Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Can I get Senator McLachlan's extra five minutes? I'm happy to join you on that Great Australian Bight adventure! But I have another very important topic to talk about tonight. Valedictory 83 20:16 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is my final adjournment speech, and I'd like to give a big shout-out to some of the fabulous scientists I've had the privilege and honour to work with over the past 14 years in the Australian Senate. I truly believe scientists are the best of us, and, whilst the scientific method is not perfect, it is the best process we have to establish the truth and facts in this crazy world we live in today. It allows—indeed, promotes—critical thinking and peer review within a structure, a process that doesn't always descend into personal attacks and division. I know many scientists are doing it tough right now on a personal level. I know that many of my friends who are scientists certainly are. And it can't be easy when decision-makers in parliaments like this ignore your life's work to score political points and promote greed, ignorance and fringe views. We are in a world where science is under siege globally, where our information environment is poisoned by lies and deceptions often spread by politicians for and on behalf of nefarious interests. Good policy and legislation require the best possible information, and the challenges we all face today are so serious. There has never been a more important time to recognise scientists and celebrate their work. Most importantly, I've had a lot of fun working with scientists. I've made some really strong personal friendships, and I'm a better person for it. My interactions with them have given me the hope, the—I'd like to think—moderation and the confidence to prosecute debate and policy outcomes here in the Australian Senate. In no particular order, because there are a whole lot of them and I can't fit them into my valedictory tomorrow night, although I certainly will reflect on them, I'd like to thank and acknowledge them. I thank Dr Eric Wohler OAM for all his patience and support in helping me and others protect Tasmania's shore and seabirds and little penguins. He has often driven for many hours and slept in the back of his car to do presentations at community meetings I've been at, and I'm eternally grateful to Eric for his life's work. I thank Dr Jen Lavers from Adrift Lab, who has been a friend and an endless source of inspiration and knowledge on seabird protection, especially the impacts of plastic pollution on shearwaters. My wife, Natalie, and I spent days with her crew on Lord Howe Island last year, sadly plucking plastic out of the stomachs of these beautiful little birds. In one case, we had over 840 pieces of plastic from a bird that had passed away. It was one of the most meaningful experiences of my career, and I'm happy to say that here tonight. Shark mitigation and conservation has been a deeply personal, important area of policy for me. A big thanks to Professor Charlie Huveneers from the University of Adelaide, especially for the invite up to the Neptune Islands—where I know you're from, Acting Deputy President—for an expedition to dive with great white sharks and test mitigation devices. That was also a life experience that I'm eternally grateful for. I've also greatly benefited from the friendships and time spent over the years with Dr Barry Bruce, previously at CSIRO; Dr Chris Peppin Neff; Dr Leo Guida from AMCS; and Lawrence Chlebeck from Humane Society International. The Great Southern Reef is Australia's forgotten reef. It's equally as important as the Great Barrier Reef, and it's my home. My journey of discovery on the loss of giant kelp, declining fisheries, the march of invasive sea urchins and how we tackle these challenges was largely down to the guidance of Professor Craig Johnston from IMAS, Dr Scott Ling, Dr Johnny Keen, Professor Graham Edgar and Professor Jessica Meiwig at the University of Tasmania, Dr Paul McShane and, last but definitely not least, Dr Scott Bennett. On threats facing Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, I've been fortunate enough to work with Professor Nick Gales, Dr Dana Bergstrom, Dr Petra Heil, Gill Slocum and Professor Matt King just to name a few. The 14 years of my Senate term have seen significant changes for our oceans, presenting very challenging circumstances for marine and climate scientists—including multiple relentless and unprecedented mass coral-bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef and more recently in Ningaloo Reef. I'm especially grateful to Professor Terry Hughes, Dr Selina Ward, Dr Lissa Schindler, Dr Stuart Kininmonth—although he's a coral scientist, he's just gotten back from running the New Zealand Antarctic division over the last 12 months on the sea ice down in Antarctica—for their advice and wisdom on all matters Great Barrier Reef; and Tom Trull and Christine Coughanowr for their friendship and guidance on oceans and Tasmania's coastlines. I also greatly admire the work of Professor Greta Pecl and Professor Nathan Bindoff, and tonight I want to honour the late Professor Emma Johnston. On Tasmania's forests and wild places, I'm grateful to Dr Jen Sanger and Iona Fleck, and I honour also the late Professor Jamie Kirkpatrick. Senator McKim and I made our last calendar for Greens members in Tasmania in his honour. Thanks also to the social scientists I've worked with more recently on climate disinformation and cutting through the lies and deceptions that are undermining our global climate action. These include Professor Christian Downie, Professor Timmons Roberts and Dr Jeremy Walker. One area of policy I've worked on for years was looking at the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and marine life, and a big shout-out tonight to Professor Jason Semmens and Ryan Day from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Study for their groundbreaking work. Lastly, a special shout-out to my best mate and fellow traveller, Dr Thomas Moore, who is in the Senate with me tonight. T-bone, it's a long way from Notwoods! I think I needed to say that to you tonight. Who would have thought—meeting together 20 years ago over a beer to stop a massive, polluting pulp mill impacting our oceans—that you would be here in the Senate tonight? Thank you for your support and friendship and for looking out for me always. There are so many more I would like to name. I'm eternally grateful for the opportunity to work with all these wonderful humans, and I wish them all the best in navigating this upside down, topsy-turvy world we live in today. In my last few minutes, I also wanted to say—I haven't prepared this, but I wanted to say it because I didn't think I'd get two minutes. I'm a bit ahead of my time. I wanted to say that in 2019, seven years ago, I nearly quit this job. I had had a really bad dose of shingles. I had this awful disease that many Australians get, but unfortunately I got a dose of it inside my left eardrum. It really knocked me around. I got long COVID as well, which was a breeze compared to this. I had neuralgia and all sorts of nervous system issues. The only reason I was able to continue in this job, which, as we all know, can be very stressful—it's a 24 hours a day job—was that I had an open-minded doctor who put me onto medicinal cannabis. Now, this is all on the public record, so I'm not saying anything that's new tonight. But I did want to say more than a million Australians are now accessing medicinal cannabis—and I give a shout-out to previous health minister Greg Hunt, who made this happen back in the day. I just want to say tonight that it's worked really well for me. I know these things are different for different people, but it has made a huge difference to my life. I've been able to be highly functioning, I hope, and to do my job in the last seven years because of this drug. It's allowed me to manage my nervous system, manage my sleep and has made a massive difference to my health and wellbeing. I have worked with doctors and professionals, and that's why this has happened. This scheme is so important, and it's only early days. I urge the government to resist the temptation, when vested interests are lobbying, to change this scheme. Yes, it's not perfect and it can definitely be improved, and the industry themselves acknowledge that. But please don't take away this treatment that's helped so many Australians have a better quality of life. I'm a living testimony to that. There's so much more we can do with this drug. It can be literally lifesaving for so many people. It can be so much more affordable, so much more accessible. I'd urge the government to keep the scheme in place, improve it and build on it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. We all look forward to your valedictory speech tomorrow afternoon. Whish-Wilson, Senator Peter, Queensland: Community Services 85 20:26 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It is an honour to follow Senator Whish-Wilson's last adjournment speech. I'd like to applaud him on his passionate advocacy, especially in relation to Australia's beautiful oceans, which I've witnessed over the seven years I've been a senator. Senator Whish-Wilson is someone who I always carefully listen to and whose views I deeply respect. I'm sure that the scientists who you referred to would want to thank you for your advocacy, for your connection with them and for translating their work into effective advocacy in this place. I should also say, in relation to your comments on your personal circumstances, I can remember, when I learned that you'd suffered the debilitating illness shingles—I've had some people very close to me suffer it—how impressed I was that you could continue working so effectively with that burden. I think we should all listen very carefully to the comments you made in relation to medicinal cannabis. I know, through the work I do, how important medicinal cannabis is to many of our veterans. Many of them rely upon medicinal cannabis. So I am, like I'm sure all senators are, looking forward to your valedictory speech tomorrow night. It should be entertaining, as all your speeches are. It was an honour to have the benefit of listening to your last adjournment speech. We're here on a cold Canberra night, so I thought I might warm everyone's hearts with some tales of some extraordinary Queenslanders and some wonderful events I've attended during the winter recess. I congratulate Australian Lutheran World Services for a very successful Walk My Way 2026 Brisbane fundraising event. Australian Lutheran World Services is a wonderful overseas aid and development organisation accredited by the Australian government. Just last Saturday, there was a walk attended by hundreds and hundreds of people to raise funds for refugee girls in Kenya and Somalia and in particular to raise funds to assist them with education. The goal was to raise $100,000. I checked on the donation page earlier today—and the donation page is still up; all you've got to do is search 'Walk My Way 2026'—and we have in fact raised $101,842, which will help 1,018 girls in Kenya and Somalia. That's 1,018 girls who will now have the benefit of an education. I want to thank everyone who walked. I also want to emphasise how important this event was to our wonderful African Queensland community. There were leaders from that community at that walk, and for them to witness this generosity of spirit from their fellow Australians to help African girls in need in Somalia and Kenya was deeply moving. I'd like to thank the chair, Morgan Brookes; the executive officer, Michael Stolz; the community action manager, Mr Jonathan Krause; and the whole team. Thank you all for demonstrating what good can be achieved when we walk together. I would like to thank Bhartiya Samaj for holding a wonderful multicultural event on Sunday 2 August 2026 at Brisbane City Hall and King George Square. The event was entitled Empowering People, Strengthening Queensland 2026. I want to quote from a speech given by the president, Mr Abhishek Sharma, on the day. It was a wonderful speech, and Abhishek is a great Australian. He said: When we first imagined this event, we didn't want to create just another multicultural festival. Queensland already has many wonderful festivals. We wanted to create something different. A place where people don't just celebrate their own culture—they discover someone else's. A place where government meets community, where businesses connect with charities, where students meet mentors, where newcomers find trusted information, and where complete strangers leave as friends. Because communities are not built by buildings. Communities are built by people connecting with people. It was a wonderful speech from President Abhishek. I also want to congratulate all the winners of multicultural awards at the event. The disability advocacy award winner was a dear friend of mine, Syed Muhammad Zaidi. Congratulations, Syed! I could see how much the award meant to you and to your beautiful family, and it was an honour to be there when you received the award. The youth leadership award winner was Poonita Agarwal. The community leadership award winner was Peter Bongiorni, who's from our Ukrainian community and has provided outstanding leadership for that community in Queensland. The community organisation award winner was the Eritrean Women's Support Network, which is presided over by the wonderful Mama Saba. Acting Deputy President, if you and our chief whip are ever in Brisbane, I'd love to take you to her restaurant, which does wonderful work in terms of providing opportunities to the most vulnerable people in our community. The multicultural community champion award winner was Shweta Goyal, the excellence in sports award winner was Mahi Mehta—I had the delight of meeting Mahi's parents, and they should be very proud—and, of course, the lifetime service award winner was none other than my wonderful friend Janeth Deen OAM, who has done so much work in the Queensland community, bringing people together. Janeth is a wonderful Australian, and she epitomises the event that was held, which was all about empowering people and empowering Queenslanders. It is now a totemic event on Queensland's calendar: the LUMINOUS Lantern Parade, which is held on the Friday night at the commencement of Multicultural Queensland Month. I want to congratulate the wonderful team at Multicultural Australia for their work in bringing the parade together. There were 2,000 participants from 80 different communities participating in the parade at Southbank. There were thousands of people lining the route of the parade. They were five or six people deep in places, all in wonderfully good spirits, watching the parade, watching the wonderful lanterns, watching the cultural expression that was taking place and all coming together as Queenslanders to celebrate multiculturalism in my beautiful state. I would like to thank everyone who participated. I'd like to thank Mr Rabi Alam of the Rohingya community in Queensland who gave a beautiful speech during the formal proceedings. I'd also like to thank Mellissa Naidoo, the chair of the board of Multicultural Australia; Jo Nelson, the acting CEO; and the Peruvian ambassador who attended. I had the delight of meeting the Peruvian ambassador. In fact, I met him at the airport, and we discussed one of my favourite authors, Mario Vargas Llosa. I recommend everyone read his work. He's a Nobel Prize winner no less. I'd like to thank His Excellency Mr Vitaliano Gaspar Gallardo Valencia for attending the event, and I know he was particularly moved by the contribution made by the Peruvian diaspora in Brisbane. I was delighted to attend Sacred Heart School in Booval to make a flag presentation to them. I'd been approached by a wonderful grade 5 teacher at the school, Mr Gary Lowe, at the Ipswich Show, and he asked me if I could procure a beautiful national flag and also an Aboriginal flag and a Torres Strait Islander flag for the school, which I did. I then had the joy of presenting those flags to the wonderful school captains, Autumn and Ethan, at a school assembly, and I then had the joy of sitting in one of the classes and taking terrific questions from some of the students. They were very thoughtful and very probing. I felt like I was in Patricia Karvelas's studio at times, and I really did enjoy the interaction with the students at that wonderful school. The students were so well behaved, so courteous and so respectful. They were a great example of the young people we have growing up in this country, and they really did show such wonderful respect for the event. I thank them all for their attention. Media, COVID-19 86 20:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland It's obvious the media recently declared war on One Nation, and tonight I ask the obvious: what's really going on? Over the last 20 years, the mainstream media's market penetration has crashed. Broadcast television fell from a peak of 56 per cent of adult TV usage in 2006 down to just 20 per cent today. For young adults aged 18 to 35, it's even lower, at just 12 per cent. Many still watch their favourite program online, mostly sporting telecasts. What they don't watch are commentary shows, social engineering and opinion for hire. The last five years have seen the cancellation of commentary programming: 10 News+, The Project, 7NEWS's, early and late editions, SBS's The Feed and ABC's Q+A. The Q+A format, where one leftist host and four leftist talking heads invite a conservative to be ritually sacrificed each week no longer resonates. This is why the media's woke agenda has now been injected into sport, usually through welcoming the audience to their own country, men in women's sports and woke commentary talking points. No opportunity is lost in the media's quest to replace balanced, factual reporting with woke propaganda, at dramatic cost to the media's shareholder value. In 2006, Channel 9 was worth $7.5 billion. Today, Channel 9 is worth just $960 million—less than a billion. Channel 7 fell from $4 billion 20 years ago to just $115 million today. For accuracy and fairness, by the way, both values are inflation adjusted. Channel 10 was worth $1.5 billion 20 years ago and today is on the books of owner Paramount at just $20 million. Movies suffered, with theatre attendance over the last 20 years falling 50 per cent—an inevitable outcome of gender and race swapping of lead roles; the compulsory inclusion of a gay storyline and a transgender character; the endless negative portrayal of men; the refusal to show a happy, loving nuclear family; and generally propagandising the woke agenda while pretending it's entertainment. Let's move on to newspapers. News Corp was valued 20 years ago at $85 billion worldwide. Today, it's worth just $14 billion, including REA Group and Dow Jones. Fairfax Media was valued at $9 billion in 2006. Twenty years later, it was forced to sell to Channel 9, whose value of $960 million today includes Channel 9, Fairfax Media, Stan and Domain Real Estate. Again, I'm using inflation adjusted figures to compare 2006 with 2026 for fairness and accuracy—things Fairfax does not extend to us in One Nation. Last week saw what is a low point for Australian journalism. The Sydney Morning Herald falsely reported Senator Hanson had used party funds to keep a luxury hotel room vacant for six days while visiting Italy and played up the waste of donations. This ignored the facts. Firstly, the $5 million donated in the Fire the Liar campaign has gone into a term deposit, gathering interest until it's needed for the next federal election. Secondly, the story was false. Senator Hanson immediately provided receipts to show the room was not booked in this period and cost One Nation nothing. Rather than admit its mistake, the Sydney Morning Herald replied with a headline saying 'Hanson feuds with media, concedes using party funds for luxury hotel'—no apology and no correcting the record, just a story and a headline which doubled down on their lie. This is not journalism; it's partisan propaganda. If this continues during the next election, it will clearly and patently be election interference. What was a scandal was Minister Bowen spending $345,000 of taxpayer money in the last 12 months alone on junkets to Brazil, Denmark, Finland, USA, Germany and Fiji—and on and on the list goes. How does a minister with a domestic portfolio spend $100,000 more on overseas trips than the Minister for Foreign Affairs and $110,000 more than the Minister for Trade? How? These trips were designed to promote Minister Bowen's personal gains on climate change and, in part, his attempt to chair a UN climate change group. Instead of questioning this expense in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and a budget deficit, the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story portraying Minister Bowen positively for not claiming any family travel as part of these junkets. Fairfax Media has lost 90 per cent of its market value and still can't help itself. A company that was properly run would not be allowing injection of journalists' personal and political vendettas into a supposed news story. It would have presented the facts without partisan attacks and left the public to make up their own minds. Our media have skipped the whole balanced and impartial part and gone straight to telling you who to vote for. Conservatives make up 50 per cent of their potential audience. One Nation alone is 30 per cent. To alienate, ridicule, insult and lie to half their potential audience at a time of falling market share, falling profits and eroding shareholder value is business suicide. The fable of the scorpion and the snake was written for the Australian media, hopelessly ensconced in their urban bubbles, preaching to an ever-shrinking base of champagne socialists raging at the dying of wokeism, a perfect demonstration of the classic logical fallacy: they do not see the world as it is; they see the world as they are. Conservatives can turn, by the way, to the Spectator and the Epoch Times for accurate news and current affairs. If you haven't discovered these publications, have a look. Meanwhile, a casualty is media's credibility. The Australian Communications and Media Authority says the proportion of Australians who explicitly distrust the news rose from 25 per cent in 2016 to 32 per cent last year. That's a huge proportion of Australians—one in three—who do not believe what the newspaper or television tells them. This figure will grow as the truth around Australia's COVID response emerges. The media went all in on promoting baseless COVID policies, using what can only be described as 'fear porn'. I called for caution in Australia's COVID response in a letter to Prime Minister Morrison in April 2020, pointing out the fatality rate was simply not what the Chinese suggested. At that time, Anthony Fauci, in his private diary, recorded his comments to the American CDC saying COVID was 'acting like a bad influenza in its transmissibility' and would have a fatality rate of between 0.2 per cent and 0.3 per cent, not the two to three per cent publicly claimed. Zero point two per cent to 0.3 per cent is in line with the 0.1 per cent fatality rate of an average influenza. It's 0.13 per cent for a more serious flu. The current known fatality rate of the original COVID strain from 2019-20 worldwide is between 0.2 per cent and 0.3 per cent, exactly what Fauci privately predicted in February of 2020. Fauci was called last week to testify to the US Congress as to why his private diaries had the correct appraisal of COVID while his public pronouncements were entirely the opposite, whipping up unfounded terror and fear, and to inquire why he advocated measures like social distancing, masking, lockdowns and screens at check-outs, all which had no scientific basis. He pleaded his fifth amendment right to not answer based on his fear of self-incrimination 113 times. Nothing says 'I am guilty and will lose my immunity if I lie to you' more than what he did. The committee has now held Fauci in contempt. This he would rather than to admit under oath that the actions he took, the same actions the Australian media enabled with their fear porn, had no scientific basis. Fauci knew that at the time. These were actions taken to sell pharmaceutical products which were disproportionate to the health risks of COVID but which made big pharma rich. There was an opportunity to wind all this back in November 2021, when the omicron virus arrived in Australia and the fatality rate from COVID fell. The omicron fatality rate was between 0.03 per cent and 0.1 per cent; that's way less than the flu. Nonetheless, at the time, the excess mortality rate was going through the roof—and we know it was not due to COVID. The unfounded fear that Fauci fomented meant that advocating for the cessation of vaccination would have been hard to explain, despite the fact that American and Australian health regulators knew that Pfizer had misled the public on its shoddy, skimpy, faulty testing that proved fatal for 1,230 people. Only a royal commission can deal with the critical point here: if the omicron fatality rate was as low as 0.03 per cent of infected persons, and most people had been infected and, at the time, had natural immunity anyway, why was excess mortality running at a staggering 13 per cent? It's impossible for that mortality rate to have come from the COVID virus. What could it have been? Only one thing, it seems: COVID injections. Even now, five years later, Australia's excess mortality rate is running at five per cent. This represents 10,000 additional people dying each year with no explanation. I asked about this in Senate estimates and was told it was the lockdowns delaying medical treatment. It was psychological trauma, despair and loneliness: 'It'll pass.' It has not passed. Why is the media falsely labelling me a conspiracy theorist, and why is it lying about me for asking these questions based on hard data? The answer is that the media took their 30 pieces of gold in the first three years of Australia's COVID response. The media banked over $600 million from COVID— (Time expired) Askew, Ms Wendy Anne, Taxation, Prime Minister 88 20:46 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I wish to start this evening by acknowledging and thanking my good friend Wendy Askew, who resigned from this place yesterday afternoon. Former senator Askew leaves this parliament having made an enormous contribution to the Liberal Party, to this Senate and to the people of Tasmania. Having come to this place in 2019, she has continued a proud family legacy of public service, following her father, the Hon. Max Bushby, who served in the Tasmanian parliament, and her brother, former senator David Bushby. One of former senator Askew's many contributions to the Senate was her commitment to the work of its committees and the work of parliamentary scrutiny. It is work which does not always attract headlines or public attention, but it is among the most important responsibility entrusted to senators. It is through the committee process that this parliament can examine issues in depth and hear directly from Australians to help drive the serious and lasting policy changes that our country needs. In particular, former senator Askew is someone that hasn't tried to draw attention to herself but has instead done the work of the Senate. Former senator Askew participated in more than 100 committee inquiries during her time here, serving as chair or deputy on 47 of those. Her contribution to the community affairs committee reflected her genuine interest in people, especially in Australians whose circumstances or challenges meant that they were often not heard. Her advocacy on rare cancers, Parkinson's disease and epilepsy has made a difference to many lives. Through that work she helped bring to this parliament the stories, experiences and recommendations of everyday Australians. I acknowledge former senator Askew's service as Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate for the last four years. It's her shoes that I will attempt to step into as I take over that same role. It is an enormous honour to take on that same responsibility. I am grateful for her guidance and mentorship not only throughout this transition period but since I first arrived in this place some three years ago. Wendy was one of the very first people to reach out to me when I was elected to the Senate. From those earliest days, she was extraordinarily generous with her time, her advice and her friendship—and I noticed that it was not just to me but to others as well. Former senator Wendy Askew, thank you for your friendship and for your guidance. Thank you for your service to our party. Thank you for your service to this parliament and to this chamber. Thank you for your service to the people of Tasmania and thank you for your generous service to your country. My mind's now going to turn to the economic circumstances in our country at this time, and I want to reflect on the conversations that we had in this chamber today around the widows tax and the most recent tax changes in the budget. It makes me think of a statement: 'one rule for me and another rule for thee'. That's become a creed of this government, sadly. This is a government content to tax the widow grieving the loss of her partner while its own members are able to keep the negatively geared properties they were able to buy before the rules changed for everyone else. My biggest concern is that those opposite knew that this would have an impact. It was brought to their attention before the legislation was passed yet they chose to proceed with it regardless. That's something that we need to reflect on as a problem, when we are actually passing legislation in this place for a political agenda, for a media outcome, rather than for outcomes for the actual people that we're meant to be in here representing. We need to have a think about that. These tax changes have impacted many people. Australians hoping to build a nest egg are told that ambition is no longer for people like them, while institutional investors are seemingly the only landlords that this government is now prepared to tolerate. In fact, they have the red carpet rolled out to them to buy up housing on concessional terms. Beneath this hypocrisy sits something much more troubling, because this government doesn't understand what makes a country prosperous. Prosperity rests on confidence. People in Australia no longer have confidence. People start businesses, take on debt, back an idea and drive productivity when they can trust their government and trust that the rules they start under will be the rules under which they can finish. A government that moves the goalposts to suit its politics of the day makes risk fundamentally unsafe and makes people afraid to invest. A person who cannot plan is a person who will not build. That is not the bedrock of a modern liberal economy; it is the reflex of a Soviet style one. Confidence is not born of control. Just look at our housing situation. A private housing market exists because the government concedes it cannot build all the homes Australians need. But if you rely on private investment, you need to give it a reason to turn up. Labor has removed the incentives to invest in housing, and what are the results? Record high rents in every capital city and auction prices tanking. I wanted to finish tonight on the Prime Minister's remarks on the Japanese Prime Minister. We've all heard a lot about it today, but I can't understand how the Prime Minister can defend the distasteful and deeply offensive joke at the expense of Japan's Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. It is to that display that I want to make some comments. So much has already been said, but I need to make some facts very plainly stated. On a podcast, invited to reminisce about Pamela Anderson, the Prime Minister of Australia chose to describe a carefully chosen gift of two prized crown melons from Japan's first female Prime Minister, with hand gestures that left nobody in any doubt about the offensive joke he was making, and his office now insists that everyone who watched it simply misunderstood. It was a gesture beneath the office of the Prime Minister. We didn't misunderstand. We all know exactly what it meant. To the Minister for Women, who sits in this chamber, and to the Minister for Social Services, it is not right that you have had to defend this. We all know that if those words had come from anybody else in this chamber or in the other place, they would not have been accepted for a moment, and nor should they have been accepted. Instead of finding the courage to stand up for a woman subjected to blatant sexism, they have spent this week explaining it away and saying that we have all gotten it wrong. Respect for women is worth very little as a principle if it evaporates the moment the offender is a powerful man who leads your own party. When a former Japanese ambassador to Australia writes that the joke was insulting and beneath this nation, it is quite something for Australian ministers to respond by telling Japan what it is and is not entitled to find offensive. Japan does not need this Labor government's permission to be insulted. This is a leader who has stared down threats from Beijing and who has endured slurs about her body and her gender, who runs the fourth largest economy on earth and who came to our country bearing a gift only to be reduced to a punchline on a podcast by our prime minister. The Prime Minister managed an unequivocal apology to Kylie Minogue and rightly so. The Japanese Prime Minister is still waiting. The decent course here is not complicated. You apologise personally to the woman you offended, and, until the Prime Minister does, every lecture from him about respect for women will ring hollow. Department of Veterans' Affairs 89 20:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak about the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I got into the Senate because I found out the hard way that the Department of Veterans' Affairs had one policy and one policy only when it comes to our veterans, and that policy was 'delay, deny, die'. I spent nine years fighting for the DVA to recognise that my injuries were caused by my time in the Army. When I was elected—thank you, Tasmanians, for the four times—I spent the next 10 years joining an army of mothers, advocates, families and veterans campaigning for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Finally, everybody could hear the stories of the shocking damage done to Australian veterans and their families, because delay, deny, die comes with a body count. During the royal commission, the DVA put on more workers, and I was hearing through the veteran grapevine that things were getting better. Claims were being processed faster. It was an uphill climb, for sure, but I hoped—by God, I hoped and prayed—and I think most Australians thought that the care for veterans would get better. The minister and the Prime Minister embraced the royal commission's findings, and they agreed in principle to 104 of the 122 recommendations. But guess what Australians? I have again found out from the inside, because I'm going through it again myself, that DVA's approach to veteran care has gone backwards. I've still got issues with my back, probably not helped by the fact that the DVA made me fight for nine years without any help, and doctors are telling me it's now worse than what it was before the royal commission. If a doctor tells me that I have to get a procedure, I could be waiting up to 60 days for DVA to approve it, and that's on a good day. Not only are we going back to the bad old days of delay, deny, die; it now seems that the Labor government has failed to listen and failed to launch. Claims are taking longer, doctors aren't being paid for their reports, and, worse, the reports that these doctors aren't getting paid for are being used by the DVA anyway. That is absolutely unscrupulous! You have no shame in that department—none. If there are any doctors watching and you have invoices from DVA that haven't been paid and you're sitting on a veterans report, please call my office, because I don't trust DVA any more. That's come and gone like many others. So we can add borderline theft into the list of misdemeanours for DVA. Doctors are getting off the DVA list because they don't pay and they don't treat these doctors or their patients with any respect whatsoever. I want to know what the DVA commissioner is doing about this. I want to know what the DVA family and wellbeing commissioner is doing, because, quite frankly, from what I'm hearing, you are doing diddly squat, except that you are spending 300,000 bucks on rebranding. How about you worry about the veterans and their families? Adding insult to injury is DVA's $5,000 cap on allied health for veterans. Allied health is psychologists, occupational therapists, podiatrists, dietitians—you name it; they're on there. Australian veterans found out about the $5,000 cap when the government handed down its budget in May: no consulting, no nothing—just cap it off. The minister defended this new hit on veterans by pointing to an increase in fees to service providers, as if veterans are supposed to be grateful that this has been tweaked, even though these fees are still not the ones the NDIS is paying. That's why we're being outdone, and you're not listening. We are still missing out, and we are still being treated like second-class citizens. The minister says this will be easier for veterans. What planet are you on, Minister Keogh? That's because you didn't sell it, and no wonder. You've had to be either arrogant or totally clueless not to know that this will bring harm to veterans. I say both—arrogant and clueless. Why are we putting arbitrary caps on treatments that get veterans back on their feet? Do you just want us sick our whole lives? Does the Prime Minister think he knows better than these doctors? Has he finally really become that arrogant? That arrogant Albo needs to pull his head in. He needs to scrap this cap. You will go back to killing veterans. How's that for your conscience this evening? The Prime Minister has a duty to make sure that veterans who are harmed because of their service get treatment and support based on clinical need, not what suits your budget for the year. Go and take your money elsewhere, but stop taking it off veterans. What price do you put on a veteran's wellbeing? For veterans managing chronic pain and mental health, allied health is critical. They help us manage the pain, they keep us mobile and they get us back on our feet faster, and it's cheaper when we're at work than you paying us a wage. When our access to allied health care is reduced or delayed, it puts us behind and we lose years of our lives because of your poor decision-making. Based on my own circumstances, I would reach the proposed threshold in five weeks. At the moment, I have three lots of physiotherapy sessions a week. I'm paying out of my own pocket, 150 bucks a pop, and I'm seeing a chiropractor twice a week, at $110 a pop. At least DVA is paying for that. If I chose to have a psychologist, which most do a couple of times a week when they are that far down—my goodness me!—there is another $250 a pop, each session. That means I would burn through my cap, like the other seven per cent, in five weeks. I'm lucky. I own most of my house and I have a good job. I don't have to wait 60, 90 or 120 days for DVA to approve my medical procedure or therapy. If I have to, I can pay it upfront, and I'll argue with DVA and see them in the courts shortly. But there aren't many veterans like me. Here's a perfect example: I put in a claim three weeks ago and the claim's still sitting there. I'm having emergency surgery tomorrow because I'm not waiting for you to put me out any longer. I'll pay my six grand in the morning and I'll have it done. I waited on you for nine years, and that ended up with me walking in front of a car. I'm not waiting on you again. Given the history of DVA's shocking mishandling of claims in the past, and knowing very well that this contributed to veteran suicides, I have to ask: why are we going back over old ground? This new idea to cap the allied health services is already causing harm. The DVA says the traditional treatment beyond the cap may—'may'; goodness me, that's put me in panic—be approved where there is demonstrated clinical need. That's if you can get that done within a few days. Good luck to you! But that means we have another layer of bureaucracy in the system—just what we don't need. That becomes another trigger for the most vulnerable veterans out there. You're not listening. Veterans who have sacrificed their health in service to this country should never have to face a situation where access to clinically necessary treatment is limited by an arbitrary annual spending limit. That is the lowest of any government. I'm glad the government has fixed the allied health services providers' fees, but the cap has made it worse. Why did you even bother? What were you thinking? Rather than improving access to care, the combined effect of paying higher fees now will chew up the cap even faster, but you didn't take that into account either. It might mean that veterans burn through their cap even faster than they've been doing, so their five weeks will go down to four. So, once again, you're either arrogant or ignorant or both. The proposed cap on allied health services is totally out of step with the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commissioners went out of their way to highlight that 'timely, accessible and ongoing health care for veterans is absolutely vital'. I guess the Prime Minister thought he knew better. He thinks he knows better than the royal commissioners. He thinks he knows better than the healthcare providers. He thinks he knows better than veterans who've had to relive their stories again and again. Obviously he thinks he knows better than me. Do you? Yeah, I don't think so. How can the PM claim to honour the royal commission and introduce a policy that puts financial limits on the care of our most vulnerable veterans? Who does that? There's no consulting, no nothing. Where did you pull that from? You cannot be serious. I'm getting a petition going, Australians, and I know that you've supported us veterans in the past. I'm asking you to stand up again and stand beside us. I'm asking you to go to my website. I'm asking you to go to arrogantalbo.com.au and sign the petition to scrap the bloody cap before it kills more veterans. Senate adjourned at 21:05