Deborah O'Neill's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Hall, Mr Geoff, New South Wales: Growing Regions Program | Adjournment | Senate debates
Strong communities require dependable and generous people. Geoff Hall, a longstanding member of the Labor Party in Wagga Wagga, who passed away on 14 January 2026, is being remembered widely as...
Strong communities require dependable and generous people. Geoff Hall, a longstanding member of the Labor Party in Wagga Wagga, who passed away on 14 January 2026, is being remembered widely as exactly that: a dependable, wise and generous man who was dedicated to his regional community. Geoff was the heart and soul of Labor in the Riverina. He could be relied upon to always be there, organising election booth packs, managing rosters, engaging respectfully and advocating for his local community. Born into a Labor home, he lived a Labor life, and he has now gone to his grave as a Labor man to his bootstraps and beyond. I extend my condolences to Regina, Louise, Frances, Bevan and your families on the passing of Geoff, a man of true conviction and a strong Labor voice for regional New South Wales, who will be greatly missed. I recently had the opportunity to revisit the extraordinary national heritage listed Baiame's Ngunnhu, also known as the Brewarrina Fish Traps. These fish traps, which are over 40,000 years old, harness timeless, innovative technology. Their skilful architecture allows for the efficient herding and catching of fish and reveals a deep understanding of the region, with the fish traps proving resilient to high and low river flows. They're also a shining example of sustainability, with the rock weir and pen system encouraging people to take only what is needed. However, not too long ago—in the context of millennia—there was a sustained period where the fish traps were at risk of being destroyed. Paddle steamers entered the region, and, to accommodate those steamers, settlers blew up natural weirs and rock formations. This sowed division within the community and, in the course of that action, damaged the river. These ingenious fish traps that had sustained so many for millennia could well have been lost because the wisdom and voices of the people who lived on, loved and intimately knew this part of the world were being ignored. We in the Labor government hear these stories. We reflect on them and we learn from them. The Labor government understands that the needs of the regions are understood best by those who live in the regions, and that's why we work with our regional partners to deliver for regional Australia. In Brewarrina, for example, the council, in partnership with the PCYC, developed an idea for a multipurpose youth and sports complex. Following a competitive merit based grant process, they secured over $10 million in funding from the Australian Labor government through the Growing Regions Program round 1. Then, instead of plonking in some sports centre design that might meet the needs of a metropolitan precinct, they worked with their architect to ensure that, much like with the fish traps, the flow of regional life was incorporated into this design. In doing so, as Brewarrina Shire Council general manager David Kirby stated to me, it will be more than just a sports centre; it will be a place where young people can find opportunities, inspiration and connections, where families and people of all ages can gather and where community can flourish. It is this sentiment that the Labor government understands. Regional New South Wales does not need colour-coded spreadsheets that fund ill-fitting buildings as favours for politicians or political parties obsessed with infighting and their own sense of importance over prioritising their constituents and communities. Regional New South Wales needs political parties that understand, represent and respond to their needs ethically and with decorum. Next week, members of the New South Wales Labor Party from across regional and remote New South Wales will descend on the town of Orange for the New South Wales Labor Country Conference. They'll ensure that strong regional voices are at the forefront of the development of Labor policy. Unlike those opposite, our Labor branches and members are part of a united party that seeks to serve all Australians, from Broken Hill to Bateau Bay, from Moama to Mt Druitt, from Wagga Wagga to Woy Woy and from Cooma to Campbelltown. These delegates, nominated by their grassroots local branches and unions, are everyday Australians who, like the much-loved and recently deceased Labor member Geoff Hall, care deeply about their local communities. They'll speak up for their regions to ensure that they have what they need to continue to foster opportunity, inspiration and connection. I will be there, and I'll certainly be listening to the voices of citizens from the regions and members of the great Labor Party who speak to our party and the Labor Albanese government on behalf of the people they care for and live with in regional Australia.
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 151st Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Bilateral Visits to Romania and Switzerland | Delegation Reports | Senate debates
by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary delegation to the 151st Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly and the bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland, which took...
by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary delegation to the 151st Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly and the bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland, which took place from 12 to 23 October 2025. I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This report provides an overview of our delegation's participation in the 151st Assembly of the IPU, as well as our bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland. I was very pleased to be part of the Australian delegation to the 151st assembly, which took place in October last year. Our delegation was very ably led by the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Milton Dick, and included the Deputy Speaker, my good friend Ms Sharon Claydon; Senator Brown, who sits right near me here in the chamber and is a fine representative for Tasmania; Senator McLachlan from the opposition, a senator for the great state of South Australia; and me. Our program included bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland followed by the assembly itself in Geneva. These visits provided valuable opportunities to deepen parliamentary relationships and to engage directly with counterparts on shared global challenges. In Romania, I was particularly interested to learn of the important role the country is playing in supporting Ukraine. Romania is currently hosting around 100,000 Ukrainian refugees and has become a critical economic and logistics conduit enabling Ukrainian exports, particularly grain, to reach global markets through Romanian ports and infrastructure. What may also interest Australians here at home is that Romania played an integral role in assisting Australians to flee Ukraine following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion in February 2022. Romanian authorities worked closely with Australian officials to facilitate safe transit for Australians seeking to leave the conflict zone, a practical demonstration of international cooperation in times of crisis. Across our meetings in Romania, our delegation also emphasised Australia's strong commitment to democratic principles and institutions. Many of our discussions focused on the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the context of foreign interference. As highlighted in Romania's most recent presidential election, the risk of large-scale cyber campaigns—something one might have once associated with science fiction—has become a real and present national security challenge. Our visit to Switzerland, and particularly to Geneva, provided further insights into the role of multilateral institutions in responding to global challenges. Switzerland's longstanding commitment to humanitarian diplomacy and international law aligns closely with Australia's own values and foreign policy priorities. At the assembly itself, Australia joined 129 member parliaments in an exercise of global parliamentary diplomacy and collective problem solving. The theme of the general debate was upholding humanitarian norms and supporting humanitarian action in times of crisis. The Speaker, the Hon. Milton Dick, played a particularly significant role at the assembly. In his capacity as a member of the IPU Executive Committee and chair of its subcommittee on finance, the Speaker provided detailed briefings on the financial governance and organisation, promoting transparency and accountability across the IPU. He also addressed multiple geopolitical groups, including the Asia-Pacific and Twelve Plus groups, and answered questions from delegations on the floor. The Speaker also led Australia's advocacy on humanitarian protection, contributing to the general debate and ensuring recognition of the Australian led Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel in the IPU's Geneva Declaration. This was a substantial achievement, with over 100 countries now endorsing the declaration, including Switzerland and the United Kingdom, which partnered with Australia in its development. Ms Sharon Claydon as Deputy Speaker also made a significant contribution. She was endorsed by the Asia-Pacific group to continue Australia's mandate on the IPU Bureau of Women Parliamentarians, where she will serve until 2027. Ms Claydon participated in high-level discussions on gender equality, political participation and parliamentary workplace safety. She also represented Australia in parity debates, focused on advancing women's leadership and politics. Ms Claydon also contributed to sessions on implementing IPU's anti-harassment policies, drawing on the Australian parliament's own reforms and experiences in strengthening standards of behaviour. Senator Brown and Senator McLachlan likewise represented Australia very ably across a wide range of bilateral meetings and committee engagements. Over the course of the assembly, the Australian delegation conducted more than 20 bilateral meetings with counterparts from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, strengthening parliamentary links and promoting Australia's democratic values and regional perspectives. I also had the privilege of serving as co-rapporteur to the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development. We developed a proposed resolution on the role of parliaments in combating protectionism, reducing tariffs and preventing corporate tax avoidance. The resolution recognises that tax avoidance is one of the most significant barriers to achieving sustainable development goals as it deprives governments of the revenue required to fund essential services. I thank all of my colleagues for the wonderful work they did on behalf of the nation. Question agreed to.
Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
I'm proud of the work that we've done as a parliament—in particular, the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—in getting to grips with the...
I'm proud of the work that we've done as a parliament—in particular, the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—in getting to grips with the egregious and unethical behaviour in the consulting sector that we uncovered and reported on in our report to which the government has responded this week. I want to take the opportunity, in particular, to thank Deputy Chair Alex Hawke, Senator Paul Scarr and Senator Barbara Pocock for their dedication across party lines to the monumental task that unfolded before us. I'm proud that ordinary Australians are now alive and alert to the ethical failures of the big four accounting, assurance and tax advice providers in this country and globally. I've said many times in this place that these big partnerships that morph between being Australian and being international entities as much as it suits them provide the financial information verification that ensures the proper functioning of the financial markets of our country. What they do, how they act and what they say and produce have an impact on the superannuation earnings of every Australian—every single one of us and every cent of the $4 trillion under management. The fact is that the government is paying close attention to these issues and to the work of the committee. It is unusual in this place that a government responds to the findings of a committee over the course of the inquiry, but that is exactly what happened in the case of this inquiry. There has already been significant response and action in response to what we uncovered, and I'm pleased to say that, as a result of the hard work of the PJC, there's a body of work in this report that will stand the test of time. I stand by it and I stand by all of the recommendations. It is a tool of guidance not only for our nation but for all democratic nations across the globe confronting similar practices in the financial sectors in their sovereign nations. Indeed, you can name the UK, China and South Africa as countries that have really suffered in huge economic terms as a result of the failure of these entities. Let us never forget how PWC's monetisation of confidential government information brought the entire sector into disrepute. It has significantly altered the way that government conducts procurement already and how we engage with those consulting firms. We know that this inquiry has significantly altered the landscape for those firms and how they conduct themselves when it comes to their work with government and the corporate sector. Our scrutiny through all the tools of parliament will continue. So shocking were the actions and the accompanying contemporary emails from PwC employees celebrating the 'hustle', as they called it, and the 'intelligence' that the government had to respond immediately to what we found. Tax promoter penalties were significantly expanded, hundredfold, to in excess of $780 million, with enhanced power for the Australian Taxation Office and the Tax Practitioners Board to break the business model of deception that was embedded in their previous action. As seen in the government's response, Treasury has consulted on the regulation of accounting, auditing and consulting firms with the regulation of partnerships, conflicts of interest, the role of regulators and competition of the audit sector. That consultation and scrutiny needs to continue, and the government, having noted the recommendations, now has considered and almost unanimously agreed a road map for further action. Having noted all 40 recommendations, this government is committed to the continuing vigilance and necessary change. Our Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services continues our vigilance. We'll be hearing for the second time from the leaders of the public accounting bodies next month in what I can assure Australians will be regular and ongoing scrutiny of their quasi-regulatory responsibility for professional standards in the finance sector. The findings of the committees of the Senate and the parliament more broadly through the two major inquiries were quite frankly egregious. Let's remind ourselves of the lowlights. Deloitte failed to disclose conflicts of interest in two separate cases with the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Home Affairs where the firm was advising the government on its tender process while also subsequently consulting to one of the bidding companies. Ernst & Young possessed an enormously inadequate cultural environment that was recorded in the landmark Broderick report. KPMG engaged in mass power mapping, sharing internal resources of how power was distributed in government departments with classifications for how inclined public servants might be at the time towards the consulting firms, even going so far as to call relevant officials 'sponsors'—such contempt. Ironically and pathetically, KPMG Australia was slapped with a $615,000 fine for widespread cheating on an integrity exam. In that instance it was only because the American PCAOB had the grit to issue the penalty; it was unobserved here in our own country. Then there was PwC, a firm that held itself out as an arbiter of the corporate ethics and professional standards but was revealed to be engaging in basic double-dealing. A senior partner given privileged access to confidential government information, Peter-John Collins, returned to PwC Sydney and plugged our national secrets into a process at PwC Global. Peter-John Collins's goal was to create the saleable product for PwC Global at the expense of his fellow Australians. He did that without any correction from his seniors. He did that to financially and professionally benefit himself and his hundreds and hundreds of largely unregulated partners—including the then CEO of PwC Australia, Mr Luke Sayers, and the then head of tax, Mr Tom Seymour, who went on to become the next CEO. Corporate ethics, governance and accountability start at the top. When you have a 1,000-plus partnership model that encourages sales at any cost, you end up with leaders like Luke Sayers and Tom Seymour, and you get the international fix-it operators like Kevin Burrowes, parachuted in at massive cost to clean up the mess. I regard each of these men, chosen to lead PwC, as having had significant moral failings. Mr Burrowes, the fixer brought in by PwC Global in response to the Peter-John Collins scandal, blatantly misled the Senate, deliberately failing to reveal the portion of his salary that he receives from PwC Global for the work that he does for that part of the network. A mere $1.2 million—oh to be in a situation where you could forget that was your annual salary from the global entity! He simultaneously runs PwC Australia and earns $2.4 million per year for that work. He's a $4 million man serving two masters—his partners in PwC Australia and his partners in PwC Global. What a conflict of interest! Work continues everywhere on these matters. Our committee, within government, has revealed and worked alongside government on this issue. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the media in unearthing so much of this. I note also that an AFP investigation into matters related to this professional failure saga goes on. This is not over. Serious cultural and ethical failings will always expose themselves. Indeed, much is revealed over time. Denial does not offer a fig leaf in this situation. I also note PwC's most recent failures in audit, with Corporate Travel Management and Camilla. These problems cannot be allowed to continue. They suggest a continuation of the deterioration of the core function of these vital entities. Their failures result in serious implications for shareholders and participants in the financial markets—that's every Australian who works and has superannuation invested. Many whistleblowers, whom I want to thank, bemoaned the failures that they observed daily in their workplaces. There are wonderful, ethical people—people of hope—who are counting on us to continue this work. They want to serve the sector. They want to serve the community and they want to be proud of the work they do in our country. It's a shame not enough of them are listened to, celebrated in their sector or reach leadership positions. I stand by every word and recommendation in the Ethics and professional accountability report. It's a detailed and accurate account of ethical failure at scale. It's a noteworthy report, a significant contribution to public knowledge for public good. It is a revealing guide to the breathtaking ways in which major partnerships that provided the audit, assurance and consultancy services to major companies and to governments abused the trust they had once rightfully earned and held. No-one can unsee what the committee revealed. A fundamental trust has been breached. As the eyes and ears of our fellow Australians, who send us here to work on their behalf, I ask all senators and members to commit to continue our work together with the Assistant Treasurer, the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the heads of every government department to ensure that the road map to improvement—accepted by the government without rejection of a single one of 40 tripartite recommendations—continues to be considered and informs further necessary action in the national interest to build on the significant work already undertaken in the course of the committee's inquiry and since the delivery of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee; Delegated Legislation Monitor | Committees | Senate debates
I present Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 1 of 2026, together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to the tabling of the...
I present Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 1 of 2026, together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 1 of 2026. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 155 legislative instruments registered between 22 October and 25 November 2025. In this monitor the committee has commented on two new instruments and one ongoing instrument. The first new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care Systems Modifications) Rules 2025. This instrument amends the Aged Care Act 2024 and the Aged Care Rules 2025 to, among other things, allow certain determinations to be corrected if they're deemed to be incorrect and to extend certain notice requirements. The committee is raising concerns under scrutiny principle (l), which requires the committee to scrutinise instruments as to whether they amend or modify the operation of primary legislation. Such instruments may limit parliamentary oversight and subvert the appropriate relationship between parliament and the executive. In this case, the instrument directly modifies the Aged Care Act. Beyond this, the committee is particularly concerned that the instrument inserts new provisions into the act which allow the minister to further prescribe matters through delegated legislation. The instrument then relies on these new powers to amend parts of the Aged Care Rules. For example, the instrument inserts the new subparagraph 317(1)(b)(i) into the Aged Care Act. This enables the minister to prescribe laws and programs that may provide a basis to establish that individual contribution rate determinations, income determinations and asset determinations are incorrect. The instrument then relies upon this provision to insert the new section 317-1 into the Aged Care Rules to prescribe these laws. Where an instrument amends primary legislation, the committee's longstanding expectation is that this approach must be comprehensively justified in the instrument's explanatory statement and that the instrument itself should be time limited and operate no longer than strictly necessary. In this regard, the committee does note that the instrument will cease operation on 1 November 2026 and that the rule-making power itself ceases to have effect on 20 September 2026. The committee does consider that these safeguards are in line with its scrutiny expectations. However, the explanatory statement does not sufficiently justify why it is considered necessary and appropriate to use delegated, rather than primary, legislation to modify the Aged Care Act, particularly to create new ministerial rule-making powers. This is especially pertinent as the instrument relates to means testing for funded aged-care services and therefore directly impacts Commonwealth expenditure and the ability of individual service recipients to access funded aged-care services. The committee drew the inclusion of these funding provisions in delegated legislation to the attention of the Senate in Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 8 of 2025. The committee is therefore seeking the minister's advice as to whether further detail can be provided about why it is considered necessary and appropriate for the instrument to amend the Aged Care Act, particularly by introducing new rule-making powers into the act. The second new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025. This instrument specifies, among other things, the process and requirements governing applications for Australian naval nuclear power safety licences. This includes matters that the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator needs to be satisfied of and to consider when issuing licences, the conditions that apply to such licences and matters related to licence suspensions. The committee has resolved to seek advice from the Minister for Defence in relation to scrutiny principles (e) and (g). Scrutiny principle (e) relates to the clarity of drafting, including the use of potentially unclear or undefined terms. Scrutiny principle (g) relates to the adequacy of an instrument's explanatory materials. The instrument appears to use a range of terms that are undefined or unclear. For example, subsection 80 (6) of the instrument provides that licence holders and other authorised persons must not construct an item that is important for nuclear safety unless they obtain approval from the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. However, neither the instrument nor the explanatory statement provide explicit guidance as to the intended meaning of this term 'important'. Furthermore, several unclear and undefined terms identified by the committee are contained in provisions that impose requirements or conditions upon licence holders and authorised persons. Breaches of these conditions may be subject to civil penalties or constitute offences subject to terms of imprisonment. Furthermore, these offences impose strict liability and, in certain respects, reverse the evidential burden of proof. The committee is therefore seeking the minister's advice about the intended definition of unclear and undefined terms in the instrument or examples of guidance in relation to the intended meaning of those terms for those who may at some point need to access the law. Finally, the committee is seeking further advice from the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors regarding Aged Care Rules 2025. This interim instrument sets out requirements relating to the new aged-care framework, including care and service obligations, pricing and payment arrangements, complaints handling, compliance and enforcement processes and aged-care provider registration requirements. Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025 was the document in which the committee sought the minister's advice on the automation of administrative decisions and consultation; the incorporation of non-legislative documents into the instrument; conferral of board discretionary powers; privacy; coercive powers; and the availability of independent merits review in relation to the instrument. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the minister for his positive and constructive response, which sets a high standard for committee engagement and was of great assistance to the committee. There was an extensive list of requirements that we asked the minister to respond to, and I acknowledge the presence in the chamber here of the deputy chair of the delegated legislation committee, Senator O'Sullivan. I think he concurs with me that we were pleased with the level of response, which, sadly, hasn't always been the case. In particular, the committee welcomes the minister's advice in relation to automated decision-making under the instrument. The minister advised that automated decision-making is intended to only apply to decisions that are supported by objective and binary criteria and methods. More complex discretionary or subjective decisions will continue to be made by a human. The minister also advised that the department is working with other Commonwealth agencies towards the development of consistent best-practice arrangements for automated decision-making. The committee supports moves towards the development of a consistent framework across government services, particularly given the apparent increase in the number of provisions allowing for automated decision-making. The committee also welcomes the minister's advice regarding the use of restrictive practices under the instrument. The instrument sets out several types of restrictive practices, including physical, mechanical and chemical restraints, and imposes conditions on their use except in emergencies. The minister advised that the use of restrictive practices is subject to various safeguards, including that restrictive practices may only be used as a last-resort measure for the shortest time necessary in a way that is proportionate to the risk and with informed consent obtained by supporting the person to make their own decisions wherever possible. The minister also advised that restrictive practices are subject to monitoring and reporting requirements. Furthermore, the minister explained the types of emergencies in which certain conditions on the use of restrictive practices will not apply. These include when an older person poses a physical risk to aged workers or other residents or where a safety incident such as a fire or flood takes place and restraint is required for an older person who may lack capacity to understand the risks. The minister also noted that commonplace residential care activities, such as the risk of a resident falling out of bed, while significant and serious, should not be considered emergencies in the context of coercive powers. In light of this, the committee sought the minister's advice about whether the explanatory statement can be amended. The committee is also seeking further information from the minister on a number of other matters. With these comments, I commend the delegated legislation monitor No. 1 of 2026 to the Senate.
Fiscal Policy, Defence Properties | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
No. It was the Morrison government.
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
As I was saying before, at the hard mark of 11.15 am, on the matter of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, our geography matters and so does our capacity...
As I was saying before, at the hard mark of 11.15 am, on the matter of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, our geography matters and so does our capacity to deter. Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour that must deliver jobs, skills and economic opportunity across our regions and, indeed, across the entire nation. As we build capability, we must ensure communities share in the benefits and that local consultation and investment in community infrastructure proceed in parallel. Colleagues, technology is moving at pace. The government's investments in advanced platforms and the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator are important starts. But the technology development cycle for many autonomous systems is measured in months, not years. Building stockpiles that sit in warehouses and become obsolete is not an effective use of taxpayers' money. Instead, Australia must support a sovereign industrial base capable of rapid development, production at scale and iterative improvement. That requires a whole-of-society approach: government procurement and incentives, industry partnerships, research institutions and workforce training. Our aim must be to ensure that the ADF can access the right mix of high-end and mass produced systems when required and that we can scale production quickly in response to changing circumstances. The defence subcommittee's recent report, which was tabled this week, on the 2023-24 Defence annual reportemphasises these points. It highlights the rapid evolution of autonomous technologies and the need to align capability development with Australia's strategic geography. It also underscores that investments in capability must be matched by investments in people—in recruitment, retention, transition programs and services for veterans and families. Insight into defence agencies is incomplete without insight into the experiences of those who serve and those who have served. This bill recognises that reality. It proposes a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence with the mandate and expertise to examine defence policy, defence capability development, defence procurement, defence operational safety and the welfare of defence personnel and veterans. It balances transparency with the need to handle classified materials securely, drawing on the model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That balance is crucial. Oversight provided by such a committee as this must be meaningful, but it must also be able to protect sensitive information that, if mishandled, could harm national security. Parliamentary oversight is not an adversarial exercise for its own sake, much as the column inches that are expended on the battles of this place might convey that. Parliamentary oversight at its best is a powerfully constructive mechanism to improve performance, to identify risks and to recommend reforms that deliver better outcomes for the Australian Defence Force and, through them, for us the Australian people. Effective oversight builds public confidence; ensures that taxpayers' money is spent wisely; and ensures that procurement delivers capability on time and on budget, wherever possible, and that operations are conducted with due regard not just to safety but to law. I've seen where improvements are needed and I've seen where progress is being made. I've seen defence personnel working tirelessly to adapt to new technologies and new strategic demands. I've seen communities eager to partner with Defence, to share in the economic opportunities, the national security uplift and the national pride that capability development brings. Establishing a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence will allow sustained, specialised scrutiny and constructive recommendations that improve capability, accountability and the lives of those who serve. This bill is a practical, measured step to ensure parliament can meet the challenges of a more contested strategic environment. It will help safeguard our nation, it will help support our service personnel and veterans and it will help to ensure that investments in capability deliver value for the Australian people. The formation of this committee will enable parliament to ask hard questions. It will enable the parliament to receive classified briefings, where necessary, and to report publicly, where appropriate, so that Australians can have confidence in the institutions that protect them. Colleagues, this is an important step change from the current structure of the committee that sits as a subcommittee under the auspices of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It is an amendment to the Defence Act of 1903 and inserts new requirements that will enhance the capacity for us to do our work as parliamentarians. Importantly, this bill, which I hope will be supported in the chamber today, is a response to the 2003 report of the Joint Standing and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade subcommittee which called for the implementation of this new joint statutory committee to request and receive those classified information briefings. The comparison, for those who understand these matters, is with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The fact is that its significance demands very careful attention to the nature of those who are selected to conduct the inquiries. That should be given very careful consideration. That is why this 13-member committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The men and women of our defence forces deserve the best oversight and support we can provide. They deserve a parliament that's informed, engaged and capable of guiding the nation's defence policy with both wisdom and care. The bill strengthens that capacity. It strengthens our democracy. Acting Deputy President Polley, as you well know from your experience in the chamber here as a senator for Tasmania and now acting in the role of Deputy President of the Senate for the purposes of this debate, there are important matters that are dealt with in the most careful and serious way in committees and in this parliament. The role of committees in undertaking the work that cannot be done on the fly in public, in this chamber and the other one, is vital to the nation's security and wellbeing. I think of Anzac commemoration events and the pride that Australians have in the defence of democracy. In the current environment, the defence of the nation requires this step change. This is an important addition to the capacity of our nation to defend itself. I commend the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 to the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that parliament can better fulfil its duty of oversight in the national interest.
I rise today to speak to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility and with a conviction that this measure is...
I rise today to speak to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility and with a conviction that this measure is essential to strengthen parliament's capacity to scrutinise, to advise and to hold to account the institutions charged with protecting our nation. Like many in this chamber, I wish for peace above all. Peace is the aspiration that guides our diplomacy and our values. Yet we must be clear eyed about the world we inhabit. Peace is most reliably preserved when a nation is prepared, when our defence forces are properly funded, when they're well trained and when they're ready to respond. That readiness depends not only on equipment and strategy but on robust parliamentary oversight that ensures capability, accountability, public trust and, indeed, public pride in the defence of our sovereignty. In my role as chair of the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have had the privilege of visiting bases, meeting with personnel across ranks and hearing directly from those who plan and execute our defence posture. I've met exceptionally talented, brave and committed men and women, young Australians who volunteer to serve, who display professionalism and courage and who embody the Anzac spirit in a modern form. Their dedication demands that parliament do its part to scrutinise, to support and to ensure that the institutions that serve them are fit for purpose. The nature of conflict has changed. Warfare in the 21st century is significantly a technological endeavour. The domains of space, cyber and autonomous systems are now central to strategic thinking. The conflict in Ukraine has provided a painful and costly education to militaries around the world about the interaction among tactics, industrial capacity and the rapid iteration of both hardware and software. What's happened in Ukraine has shown the value of both high-end, sophisticated systems and cheaper, flexible, expendable devices. For Australia the lesson is not to replicate another theatre's approach but to learn, adapt and build sovereign capability and capacity suited to our geography and our strategic circumstances. Our geography matters. We are an island continent in the Asia-Pacific. Critical communication, trade and transit sea lanes lie immediately to our north. That reality drives the investments we are seeing in our northern bases, in Townsville, Darwin and key sites in Western Australia, which will serve as staging posts and first lines of deterrence. These investments are not merely about hardware and platforms; they're about people and communities. If we are to sustain a credible presence in the north, we must make it an attractive and sustainable place for defence personnel and their families. That means modern facilities, reliable infrastructure, quality education, access to health services in place, including maternity care, and community support that enables families to thrive and benefits the communities that wrap their arms around our defence personnel. Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational for our nation. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour—
John Houston Memorial Swimming Pool | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
There is so much terrible news to report to the chamber, but I want to take the opportunity to bring some good news—that is about the official reopening of the John Houston Memorial...
There is so much terrible news to report to the chamber, but I want to take the opportunity to bring some good news—that is about the official reopening of the John Houston Memorial Swimming Pool after a refurbishment. Its reopening, on 19 December at 11 am, was a remarkable community event. This was made possible by $4.2 million in funding from the federal government under the Growing Regions Program, combined with $3 million from the state government of New South Wales, funding of $200,000 from local ratepayers and $320,000 raised by a fantastic local woman called Gail Munn—part of the package of the entire renewal, which is now a signature for anybody who's going to or through Hay. This pool is a consequence of John Houston, who became concerned about a problem in his community when he was a kid growing up in Hay: kids were drowning in the river and something needed to be done about it. John didn't sit back, whinge about it and wait for somebody to come and solve the problem. He decided that he was going to do something and formed the Hay swimming pool committee, which fundraised for 10 years to get the pool built. That's what great citizens across this country do. They love our country. They love their community. They find ways to make life better and to connect us as fellow Australians. John Houston showed that, and he showed us that we can solve our community's problems. We don't leave it to someone else; we need to work together. There is nobody else. We are the sum total of the resources of this nation, and we need to do things together for our own collective benefit. The John Houston Memorial Pool is a shining example of identifying a problem, having a dream to make it better and competing fairly against other projects around the country to acquire federal money to make this country even better.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
At Bondi, on 14 December, two evil men, drawing on a perverted distortion of Islam that is the foundation of the terror organisation ISIS, committed a terror attack on our shores. For the record,...
At Bondi, on 14 December, two evil men, drawing on a perverted distortion of Islam that is the foundation of the terror organisation ISIS, committed a terror attack on our shores. For the record, ISIS is funded by Iran. Every part of its existence is to be abhorred. No Australian who shares in our nation's vast democratic success, shares in our collective wealth, which thrives in the fertile environment that is enabled by our democratic values, and benefits from our laws and the peace they bring can ever support ISIS or any organisation that harbours support for ISIS in any form. I don't think there would be any dispute here in this chamber or around the nation of the moral righteousness of that statement. But it is a fact that one of the antisemitic, ISIS inspired gunmen—one of those evil men—who shot 15 fine citizens that afternoon, Sunday 14th, in Bondi was born and raised here in Australia. He was known, in some glancing way, according to reports, to the intelligence agencies of this nation. The other man, his father, was not a citizen of this country. Their actions and the actions of others like them tell us that something is wrong with our current laws. We must learn from Bondi that threats to our society come from both within and outside our nation and our population. That father-and-son act of terror demands that we face the reality of the country we are today. We have to confront, through the myriad horrific images of people in Bondi on that fateful Sunday evening in December, the reality of our time. It's horrifying. People are scarred at a distance from media engagement, just by looking at the images of what happened in Bondi. There's a massive national provision of support for the mental health of the people who watched those images. But we have to look. We cannot turn away. It's horrifying for me that, in the moment when we could have confronted and responded to this challenge of our time, acted in unison, protected the best of what we are and been clear that we align together against the malign actors who would take this nation into the darkness of hate, there has been wholesale failure here in this parliament by too many who have not read the signs of these times. I listened to many of the speeches yesterday on the day of condolence for the loss of life in Bondi. One of the words I heard very frequently in the speeches was well-intentioned and said by people who cared, who shed tears as they spoke. I don't doubt the sincerity, but how many times did people say Australians 'should' be able to do something? You 'should' be able to walk down the street; you 'should' be able to do this. Our job is not to wish and ponder and hope. Our job is to legislate, not to decry the reality and wish it were otherwise and do nothing. 'Should' isn't going to cut it. We actually have to do stuff, and the stuff we have to do here is to legislate. And we need to do it in a timely way in response to the challenges we face. Reality must be faced, and our laws must meet that reality. We live in a time when foreign countries are involved in the attacks on our way of life. We can't just let that reality pass us by. It's part of the emboldening of the two gunmen on Bondi. The firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue, according to our ASIO public reporting, was advanced by Iran and their proxies, who they funded in our country. The Iranian ambassador was sent home, persona non grata. That is a serious diplomatic act. It was an extraordinary historical moment, but these are extraordinary times, and it gives shape to what it is that we're doing here tonight and why we have to do it. Senators, we cannot continue to do business as usual in a world that has changed. That is why we need legislation that gives powers to this parliament and the parliaments that follow to protect the good people of this nation from the evil ones, be they born here or born somewhere else. These laws are needed to protect us from the ones filled with hate, from the ones spewing their vile hatred into our community. That is why I speak in support of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 this evening. The bill before us is about addressing what became obvious to every Australian as we watched those images. Action is required now—not next month or next year but today. I noted the contribution of Senator Shoebridge just prior to my rising. There were many principles in there. He's a lawyer and a barrister, who obviously cares about the law—and I see Senator Scarr over there with the same respect and regard for the law. There's a degree of caution that we always want to apply, and we need to apply that. But there's application in a time of peace, order and long-term consideration, and there's action required in response to what we saw in Bondi. That's no time to sit back and navel gaze. This is a time for leadership, and the place where leadership has to happen for our country, this democratic nation, is right here in Canberra in this place. That is what this bill is about this evening. It's vital and it's necessary that we pass this bill to tackle hateful groups. We cannot keep waiting while the next extremist individuals start or continue brewing a concoction of fear and hatred that targets decent, ordinary, law-abiding Australians. We've seen, under the current structure of laws, malign groups that have strategically flouted the law by staying just—ever so marginally just—under the current test of criminality. We cannot allow that to continue. Sadly, the resistance that we're seeing to the necessary change to protect the people of Australia, surely our first responsibility—we've seen members in this parliament seek division, find division, push for delay. I said yesterday: … if not now, then when? Hate will only spread and further entrench itself throughout our community the longer we wait in calling it out and the longer we wait in bringing about the legislative changes necessary. The criminal amendments that are located within this bill will combat hate. They will dismantle extremism. They will ensure that violence clearly intended against individuals or groups based on race or national or ethnic origin is prevented before it starts. These amendments will include aggravated offences for leaders who promote or threaten violence against protected groups and for adults who radicalise children. It's got to stop, and it has to stop with legislation that needs to be passed in this place—and passed tonight. This legislation offers increased penalties for existing hate speech offences involving the advocacy or threat of force or violence, because that needs to happen. This legislation has requirements for courts to consider hate motivation at sentencing and to consider the designation of organisations that fuel violence or hatred on the basis of race, nationality or ethnic origin as prohibited hate groups. 'Your time's up'—that's what this legislation says. 'You've played a dastardly game. The cost is a permanent stain on the history of this nation, but your time's up'—that's what this legislation says. This bill will increase protections for our community from the risk of harm posed, particularly by noncitizens who engage in extremist conduct. Yet this parliament must acknowledge that this bill is not all of what was requested from the Jewish community, who urgently seek our response and protection. This bill, which was offered in one form last week and has been changed through amendments and agreements, doesn't contain many of the elements that would provide people with stronger protections from groups that want to spread hate. The laws that tackle racial vilification have long been an ambition of many in our parliament. This would have occurred in this parliament if the coalition and the Greens had done what was really being asked of them by this nation in this most horrific moment: the largest terrorist massacre of Australians in our history. Of course, we have to continue to tackle hate at its source, and I urge the coalition and the Greens to look to their hearts and deeply consider whether they will continue to allow the filth to be espoused on our streets. What we know is that hateful words metastasised into violence and into destruction. In our social media, these tropes, this hateful speech and the invitation for people to write hateful responses has turned what once was a source of connection into a social sewer. We're all swimming in it. That has got to change, and we can all do our part with regard to that. In closing, I want to refer to a piece of correspondence that I received from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. A lot of the resistance to this antivilification that led to that section of the bill being removed is arguable but not defensible in this historical moment. I received with this letter a copy of Pope Leo XIV's first papal document. It's called Dilexi te. In Catholic theology, the term 'option for the poor' is for people discriminated against or suffering in any way. The Pope said: … God has a special place in his heart for those who are discriminated against and oppressed, and he asks us, his Church, to make a decisive and radical choice in favor of the weakest. This legislation could have been absolutely a choice, a radical choice, in favour of the weakest. But it is weakened and, mark my words, we will need to return and attend to the racial vilification dimensions of this legislation that were so abruptly ripped from it because of inexplicable political resistance that should belong in another time.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Thank you so much for some of the correction of misinformation. What will these sensible gun reforms mean in practice? What effect would these reforms have had on the Bondi terrorists?
Thank you for that fulsome response, Minister. Could you also explain what this means for Australian gun owners and the importance of sharing accurate information about the gun reforms?
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. The antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December last year was the deadliest terror attack on...
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. The antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December last year was the deadliest terror attack on Australian soil. What steps are the Albanese government taking to address both the motivation and the means of this attack to ensure something like this can never happen again?
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
Dan Elkayam, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Marika Pogany, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Alex Kleytman, Reuven Morrison, Peter Meagher, Tibor Weitzen, Boris Gurman, Sofia Gurman, Edith Brutman, Boris Tetleroyd,...
Dan Elkayam, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Marika Pogany, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Alex Kleytman, Reuven Morrison, Peter Meagher, Tibor Weitzen, Boris Gurman, Sofia Gurman, Edith Brutman, Boris Tetleroyd, Adam Smyth, Tania Tretiak and 10-year-old Matilda. I stand in the parliament of our nation, the centre of democracy, and I grieve for you. I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, who have sought to capture your lives of goodness in their contributions to this condolence motion today. I grieve for the days you had yet to live, for the plans you had made that will not come to pass and for the loss of your profoundly unique contributions to the lives of all those who knew you. I acknowledge the deep and abiding grief of all those who loved you and lost you on 14 December 2025—24 Kislev 5786, in the Hebrew calendar. I mourn your loss. I'm mourn with you as a mother, as a sister, as a daughter and as a longstanding friend of the Jewish people. I mourn with you as a person blessed with my own Catholic faith, which I have practised publicly with little resistance or derision, and I see your suffering as a Jewish community that has already, for years and years, had to farewell your children at fortified school gates, watched over by guards with guns protecting you and your family as you attend faith based schools. I mourn with you as an Australian of goodwill, and I bring to you the many condolences of all who have shed tears for you, all who have prayed for you and all who, like me, continue to grieve with and for you. What happened in Bondi was a day that can never be undone, a day of shame forever now part of our nation's story, a day when the whole world saw our collective failure and a day that impels us to act in unison and move our country towards a more enduring and secure internal peace. But I fear we will fall short. I have a long and strong association with the Jewish community. As Chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Israel, I've worked closely with community leaders and attended countless events over many years. In 2023, I participated in a Chabad organised Hanukkah lighting in the city of Sydney, my home city. I've invited October 7 hostages and their loved ones to come to parliament and speak to leaders of our country. Just two weeks before 14 December, I attended an Executive Council of Australia Jewry event with leaders of the Jewish diaspora communities from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and Argentina alongside Assistant Minister Matt Thistlethwaite and Ms Allegra Spender to discuss the rise in antisemitism. In June 2024, I spoke in this parliament about how the atrocities of October 7 unleashed hatred across the world. Perversely, much of that was directed at Jews. In Australia, I said, we witnessed a change from a steady uptick to a significant surge in antisemitism. That surge has come from across the spectrum, with radical elements of society feeling emboldened. We've seen Nazis march in Spring Street in Melbourne and Macquarie Street in Sydney, carrying signs calling to abolish the Jewish lobby. Jewish businesses have been targeted with antisemitic graffiti, including red triangles. Synagogues have been set alight. Homes in Jewish neighbourhoods have been attacked by agents linked to the Iranian regime and the terrorist listed Iranian revolutionary guard corps. Hate preachers have espoused vile filth that may have ultimately contributed to the Islamic state radicalisation of the two gunmen responsible for this atrocity. This requires antivilification legislation in Australia. I say to all in this place and those outside who baulked at taking seriously this historical moment to deliver responsible antivilification legislation: if not now, then when? When? When will it be time? The report of the antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has been widely accepted. She called for antivilification laws. They have been widely accepted, at least in word. But that antivilification legislation element of what has been advanced by this Labor government has died in the days since the release of the draft legislation. But mark my words. It will be needed. On Sunday 14 December in our beloved homeland, Australia, families were destroyed by political hate, by antisemitic hate and by hate engendered, fed and nurtured within our own society, sometimes by actions that were overt and sometimes, to our enduring shame, by silence. We will need antivilification laws because the reality that I have just described has not changed. We each in this place must consider what our role is in this when we knew our gun laws were failing, when were worried that our schools and universities were not modelling the democratic ideas of tolerance and acceptance, when our national conversations were distorted to allow foreign conflicts to be used to target our fellow Australians and when we saw increasing antisemitism but didn't do everything possible to stamp out that raging, hateful fire. Senators in this place have spoken of moral courage. This was the week to show some of that. A child of 10 shed blood on our shores and is lost forever, a man who survived the Holocaust was gunned down at Bondi Beach, and 13 other decent Aussies—13 other fellow citizens of this nation—had their lives taken by two evil men with guns and bullets in their hands and a lifetime of hatred for Jewish people in their hearts. We saw what hate for a particular group of people can do and we can never turn away from the image from Sunday 14 December 2025 in Sydney. That river of hate, I am sad to say, is not yet stemmed. This is our task. Today, we are where we are and we know what we know, and now the question will be for how much longer will we fail to name and properly address vilification? Will we continue to play politics as usual, full of smart and cynical gamesmanship and hollow platitudes? Will we excuse ourselves from action today and tomorrow and every day that follows until the antisemitic hate against our Jewish brothers and sisters is put to rest or will we turn away? Will we choose a false freedom-of-speech agenda that emboldens the angry and silences the good people of this nation? Freedom to speak cannot be allowed an unjustifiable victory over freedom to live. If we do that, my fellow senators and my fellow Australians, we will see hate continue to flow in our streets, and I'm pretty sure that's not what we really want. It's certainly not what we want to be responsible for. Here in this chamber, my fellow senators, we have the fate of the nation in our hands. We have the lives of our fellow Jewish Australians in our hands as surely as those who held Jewish bodies in their arms that afternoon at Bondi did. I say to every Australian of goodwill do not offer performative grief, do not give shallow condolence, and do not offer platitudes to the families in this building today who are genuinely grieving. Do not dishonour their profound loss. It's time to move past the division and the cynicism. Today, in the shadow of the 15 deaths at Bondi, we cannot continue to posture for political advancement by pretending to wish for peace while fuelling unnecessary division for personal or professional gain. The nation needs more from this chamber than business as usual and its attendant performances. This, my fellow senators, is the moment to lift our sights and to lift our game. The coming days will reveal us utterly. To us falls the task to legislate for the reality of our times and for the physical safety of our people. We must ensure that laws are firstly adequate and then that they're enforced. We're tasked in this place to ensure that agencies are properly resourced and we're tasked to ensure that extremist networks, both foreign and domestic, are disrupted before hate turns to murder. We must confront disinformation and radicalisation wherever it spreads, particularly online. And we—all of us, each and every one of us in this place and each and every Australian of goodwill—must recommit ourselves to education and life in the public place that teaches and hears history honestly and enlivens without qualification the core values that give life to our democracy. Hanukkah is a story about how light pushed back against overwhelming darkness. On 14 December, darkness intruded violently into that story. But the Jewish people are showing us the way and the light. To the families who lost loved ones, to the wounded, to the Jewish community across Australia, I am so sorry that you've had to experience this awful tragedy. Your collective spirit means you truly feel every loss. And I thank every person who responded with courage and generosity to our fellow citizens on the beach that afternoon in Bondi and on the days that have followed. I want to thank the Jewish community, particularly the Jewish women with whom I gathered one week on from that atrocity. Thank you for sharing your capacity to grieve. Thank you for creating liturgical moments for us to share that grief with you. 'Never again' is not a slogan; it is a duty, and we must prove through our actions that we are worthy of saying it. May the memory of the 15 lives taken in Bondi on 14 December 2025 be a blessing.
Pursuant to notice given yesterday, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for four sitting days...
Pursuant to notice given yesterday, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for four sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegation Legislation Committee's Delegated legislation monitorNo. 8 of 2025. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 98...
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegation Legislation Committee's Delegated legislation monitorNo. 8 of 2025. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 98 legislative instruments registered between 24 September and 21 October 2025. In this monitor the committee has commented on two concluded instruments and one new instrument. The committee has concluded its examination of the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025. This instrument supports the new merger control regime that was introduced in 2024 through amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Part 6 of the instrument sets out the content and format of the notifications and public benefit application forms prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the information and documents required to accompany these forms. Under scrutiny principle (a), the committee expects that instruments are made in accordance with their enabling acts and otherwise comply with all legislative requirements. In addition, Senate standing order 23(4A) empowers the committee to scrutinise legislative instruments that are exempt from disallowance, including whether it's appropriate for those instruments to be exempt. In this case, the committee raised concerns about the legal basis for exempting only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance. Part 6 is made under sections 51ABY and 51ABZQ of the Competition and Consumer Act. Those sections also provide that any 'legislative instrument' made under them is not subject to disallowance. The other nine parts of the instrument are made under different enabling provisions within the Competition and Consumer Act and are subject to disallowance. Paragraph 44(2)(a) of the Legislation Act 2003 provides for two distinct circumstances in which an act may declare or have the effect that the usual parliamentary disallowance process does not apply—that is, to a 'legislative instrument' as a whole or to 'a provision of a legislative instrument'. In this case, subsections 51ABY(7) and 51ABZQ(6) of the Competition and Consumer Act provide that the usual disallowance process does not apply to 'the instrument' and make no reference to only certain provisions of an instrument being exempt from disallowance. As such, it was unclear to the committee whether the Competition and Consumer Act authorises the exemption of only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance. The committee sought advice on this matter and received responses from the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury about the instrument on three occasions. Most recently, in Delegated Legislation Monitor 7 of 2025, the committee asked whether the assistant minister would consider repealing and remaking the instrument as two separate instruments. The assistant minister responded on 4 November 2025, advising that he would remake the instruments as two separate instruments. In Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025, the committee thanked the assistant minister for his constructive engagement on this matter and noted that the assistant minister's undertaking addresses the committee's scrutiny concerns. Nevertheless, the committee reiterated its view that it is unclear as to the legal authority for exempting only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance. The committee also noted that it considers combining exempt and non-exempt provisions in a single instrument to be undesirable drafting practice, even where it is legally authorised. This is because such an approach has the potential to undermine clarity and to limit parliamentary oversight of provisions subject to disallowance. The committee has also concluded its examination of the Help to Buy Program Directions 2025. This instrument directs Housing Australia in the performance of its functions in administering the Help to Buy program under the Help to Buy Act 2024. The committee previously raised scrutiny concerns and, on two occasions, sought advice from the Minister for Housing in relation to broad discretionary powers conferred on Housing Australia by the instrument. In particular, the committee was concerned that several terms central to Housing Australia's discretion were unclear. The minister provided examples of the intended meaning of these terms and advised that Housing Australia would publish relevant guidelines and would implement policies and procedures to apply these concepts. The committee requested that the minister amend the instrument's explanatory statement to include this information. The minister subsequently agreed to this, and Treasury advised the committee on 18 November 2025 that this undertaking had been implemented. The committee welcomes the implementation of this undertaking and thanks the minister for her prompt engagement on this matter. Finally, Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025 includes committee comments on the Aged Care Rules 2025. This instrument, which is 666 pages in length and accompanied by a 729 page explanatory statement, was made under the Aged Care Act 2024. It sets out specific requirements relating to the new aged-care framework. This includes care and services obligations, pricing and payment arrangements, complaints handling, compliance and enforcement processes, and aged-care provider registration requirements. Noting the length and the complexity of this instrument, I would like to take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the committee, the committee's legal adviser and secretariat for their diligent and prompt work on this complex matter. In monitor 8, the committee has raised a number of scrutiny concerns about the rules, including the automation of certain administrative decisions, the conferral of broad discretionary powers, coercive powers, privacy and independent merits review. The committee has sought a response from the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors about these concerns. Additionally, the committee has resolved to bring to the attention of the Senate concerns identified under scrutiny principle (j) about the inclusion of significant elements of a regulatory scheme. I wish to take this opportunity to further draw the Senate's attention to the committee's comments in relation to this particular scrutiny matter. The rules contain numerous provisions that appear to be central to the aged-care framework. For example, the rules prescribe an aged-care code of conduct and aged-care quality standards. As per the act, the code imposes conduct requirements on registered providers, responsible persons and aged-care workers, while the standards include enforceable measures that relate to the quality of funded aged-care services. Under the act, compliance with both the code and standards is a condition of registration for registered providers. Noncompliance may result in the imposition of civil penalties and could affect an aged-care provider's registration status. Additionally, the rules supply content for several terms that appear to be central to the operation of the aged-care regulatory framework. For example, while the act broadly defines the term 'restrictive practice' as any practice or intervention that restricts an individual's rights or freedom of movement, much of the content of this term is prescribed within the rules. For instance, the rules specify chemical, environmental, mechanical and physical restraints and the use of seclusion as forms of restrictive practices. Requirements for the use of a restrictive practice are also included within the rules, rather than the act, including the use of restrictive practices on persons who have been assessed as unable to provide informed consent. Key safeguards are also prescribed within the rules, such as the requirement that restrictive practices be used as a measure of last resort and only to the extent necessary. Finally, key provisions relating to the funding of aged-care services are set out within rules, rather than the act. Under the scheme established by the Aged Care Act, individuals accessing funded aged-care services will have those services funded through Commonwealth contributions or, depending on the individual's means, through individual contributions and fees. Chapters 7 to 10 of the rules provide much of the detail as to how this funding framework is to operate in practice. Given the importance of the Aged Care Code of Conduct, the Aged Care Quality Standards, the funding of the aged-care scheme and key terms such as 'restrictive practice', the committee is concerned that the explanatory statement does not provide sufficient justification for the inclusion of these significant matters in the rules, rather than in the primary legislation. While the committee has resolved not to seek further advice on this occasion, it has resolved to draw this matter to the attention of the Senate under Senate standing order 23(4). In concluding my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of comprehensively justifying any significant matters which are proposed for inclusion within delegated legislation, rather than primary legislation. The committee's consideration of this issue is underpinned by the importance of ensuring proper parliamentary oversight over all matters covered by legislation, noting the central constitutional role of the parliament as lawmaker in chief. The committee will continue to monitor this important issue in its scrutiny of future instruments. With these comments, I commend the Delegated legislation monitor No. 8 of 2025 to the Senate and move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to.
Workplace Safety: Women in the Transport Industry | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Can you believe that, right now, in 2025, there are women in Australia who don't have access to a toilet in their workplace? This is a reality for too many women who work in the transport sector,...
Can you believe that, right now, in 2025, there are women in Australia who don't have access to a toilet in their workplace? This is a reality for too many women who work in the transport sector, highlighted in a new survey conducted by the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the mighty RTBU—and a shout-out to Alex Claassens. Nearly three out of every four women, 73 per cent, working in the sector reported health issues because of inadequate workplace sanitary facilities. Dehydration, UTIs, digestive issues, menstrual complications and kidney problems—all the result of not having access to a safe, private toilet in their workplace. Women are delaying their toilet breaks. They're dehydrating themselves. They're having to carry used period products around in their pockets or bags during shifts, or even having to wear adult nappies or special underwear just to get through their shift. The response of managers? Too often, they laugh it off, and they make comments like, 'That's just how it works in this job.' Not good enough! I support this campaign. Every decent Australian should too.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Senator Shoebridge, I'll interrupt you for a moment, if you could take a seat. I'm going to commence by saying you haven't technically broken any of the rules of the Senate. With this being a...
Senator Shoebridge, I'll interrupt you for a moment, if you could take a seat. I'm going to commence by saying you haven't technically broken any of the rules of the Senate. With this being a week when we're trying to manage respectful practice and also respectful language, I'd just ask you to review some of the more colourful phrases that have popped into your contribution. I give you the floor again.
I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, which forms part of Australia's deep and enduring partnership with the...
I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, which forms part of Australia's deep and enduring partnership with the United Kingdom. AUKUS represents a world renowned opportunity to uplift Australia's capability, and it strengthens our partnerships with our most trusted allies. Australia is a respected voice on the international stage, due in no small part to the tireless work of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong, whose leadership has restored and enhanced Australia's standing, particularly in our region but also across the globe. Our diplomatic efforts are fortified by our security here at home. We have a capable, modern defence force that underpins our commitment to peace and deterrence. Australia stands firmly for a rules based international order. We make no apology for supporting our democratic allies, nor for backing the multilateral institutions that help resolve disputes peacefully and prevent conflict. As the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have travelled with my fellow committee members across the country meeting with academics, industry leaders, think tanks and Defence officials. Our current inquiry, into the Defence annual report 2023-24, has revealed the scale of change now underway in our strategic posture. Australia is leveraging our natural advantages by orienting our defence capability to the north and investing in sea power, ensuring we can respond with agility and strength to potential threats. Central to this transformation is the AUKUS partnership. The acquisition of Virginia class submarines followed by the SSN-AUKUS is pivotal to Australia's ability to deter conflict. These submarines are the apex predators of the sea—capable, stealthy and strategically decisive. Complementary littoral capabilities in the Army will strengthen this posture, giving Australia the capacity to deploy and manoeuvre rapidly across our region. One Defence leader recently put to me that the Australian Army of the future may well become the largest navy in the region. Such is the scale of the transformation before us. Let me be absolutely clear: Australia seeks nothing but peace. All our families yearn for that, and Australians are committed to the peace of the world. If these submarines never see conflict, they will in fact have done their job. Maintaining peace requires preparation, and preparation requires vigilance. My role as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee is to ensure that the Australian Defence Force is ready, capable and accountable because every dollar spent must work hard in the national interest. Defence is in many ways our national insurance policy. We hope we never have to draw on it, but when the unexpected comes, as history tells us it can, it's an immense relief to know that we're ready. Australia's cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States is longstanding and deeply woven into our history. This was made starkly clear during my recent visit to Darwin, where the memory of the 1942 bombings remains alive in the community. It's a part of the collective psyche. Without the support of our allies during that dark chapter, Australia's defence would have been far more precarious. Importantly, AUKUS is not only a defence story. It's a nation-building story. This treaty will underpin our bilateral cooperation for at least 50 years. In doing so, it will support the construction of Australia's conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and will create around 20,000 secure, high-skill, long-term jobs. It struck me, as the committee was undertaking its inquiry last week, that in the time since I left school we've seen an erosion of long-term employment for Australians. So many jobs have been shifting as the economy has been changing and the nature of living has been changing. With support for industry now, particularly in shipbuilding, we will arrive at a point where it will be possible for people who are going into training now to have the chance of a lifelong career building amazing ships that support the defence of our nation and the growth of our economy. This is a very significant change for Australians. For those who might be in the chamber listening to my contribution today or those across this great nation who have got the wireless tuned in to hear what's happening, this is something that should not be lost. We are able to take steps to advance this possibility of hi-tech, high-skilled engagement in an authentic way in innovation for our nation through our strategic partnership with both the US and the UK. I know how much the Minister for Defence, who hails from Geelong, has invested in that community—and don't we all know how proud he is to be a boy from Geelong! To now have the Geelong treaty as part of our nation's history and our shared collaboration with the UK is no small thing. It is in fact a deeply significant, symbolic, practical and historic moment. What's really great about this project is that there will be good, secure jobs. In an era when work is too often insecure and fragmented, we have the prospect of well-paid, long-term employment positions, giving people a chance to build skills, raise a family and retire with dignity. This is an opportunity we are seizing with both hands. AUKUS will certainly drive a generational uplift in Australian skills, and it will create a thriving ecosystem of local industries supporting and sustaining this capability. Last week I had the pleasure of visiting the Henderson defence precinct, ably guided by my Western Australian colleague Senator Ellie Whiteaker. What I saw there was defence industry and maritime businesses working together, sharing expertise, pooling resources and strengthening the sovereign capability that keeps Australia safe. There is so much for us to do and so much more that can happen in this space. I encourage all members of this chamber—and I note the agreement of the opposition in their first contribution to this debate—to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill as a critical part of developing the infrastructure for the ongoing renewal of our industry, the defence of our nation and the honouring of our partnerships with like-minded countries that aspire to a world at peace where the rule of law prevails.
Workplace Relations | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise to make a contribution about workplace relations, particularly with regard to Black Friday. This Friday marks the start of the Black Friday weekend, and, according to recent reports from...
I rise to make a contribution about workplace relations, particularly with regard to Black Friday. This Friday marks the start of the Black Friday weekend, and, according to recent reports from the ABC, around six million Australians are expected to take part in a weekend of major markdowns and bulk purchasing incentives. Many will turn to online shopping to avoid the chaos at shopping centres. The online shopping realm presents as a desirable retail experience for many Australian consumers, who will manage to check off Christmas lists and even grocery shop from the comfort of their home this festive season. I do encourage them to think, though, about their local small businesses and to see what they can do to support business in their own area. The online retailer that has perhaps been most successful in promoting the convenience and cheap prices that consumers covet is Amazon. As a goliath of the e-retail space, Amazon owns a substantial share of the online retail market in Australia. This isn't, in my view, something to celebrate. Instead, as we head into this festive season, we must pause and recognise the workers whose labour underpins every click, every parcel and every promise of convenience. Those workers are the ones who make this retail frenzy possible. While Black Friday is certainly an exciting event for many Australians, it's far less festive for Amazon distribution workers, who will face immense pressure in an already stressful, antiworker environment. The environment of Amazon rids employees of their human and workers rights. Amazon has intrusive surveillance practices. Amazon forces employees to work and live like the very machines that surround them. This week, the Transport Workers' Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association are campaigning to protect Australian jobs and businesses that fall victim to the exploitative and deplorable actions of Amazon. Today I am proud to stand in this chamber and support the SDA and the TWU and their push, as part of a global movement, to Make Amazon Pay. I note that, in 2025, Amazon is continuing its globally disgraceful record of union busting, denying collective bargaining and pursuing corporate arrogance. In Quebec, Amazon made its stance clear. Rather than negotiate a fair union arrangement for fair wages and fair working conditions for ordinary Canadians, it instead chose to close seven warehouses, punishing more than 3,500 workers simply for standing together in solidarity. That will not wash in Australia. In Australia, though, Amazon has employed similar tactics. They've routinely attempted to silence workers who raise concerns about their health and safety, they've disregarded issues raised by union members and, very, very significantly, they have refused to engage with workers seeking representation. In doing so, in enacting these responses to workers' requests and conditions, Amazon is systematically denying its workers a voice. Equally alarming is Amazon's willingness to overstep legal and ethical boundaries in pursuit of intrusive and excessive surveillance practices—behaviour that governments are now taking notice of. In France, the national data regulator fined Amazon $57.4 million for an excessively intrusive monitoring system that tracked employees' scanner inactivity and productivity rates. So how can we trust Amazon? How can we even believe that they'll uphold obligations that they've agreed to when they continuously mistreat their workers and overstep legal boundaries? We cannot allow Amazon's track record of exploitation to go unchecked, particularly when it benefits from lucrative public contracts. That's why the Albanese Labor government's recent move to require agencies to assess the ethical conduct of bidding firms is a crucial step in the right direction. This reform sends a clear message: if you want to access public money, you have to meet the public's expectations—a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. People are not machines. They cannot be mechanised, and they should not be intrusively observed and turned into machines. That is a dehumanising practice. Amazon needs to review its practices and fix its disgraceful record. This parliament will no longer be witness to the deplorable flaunting of legal obligations and imaginary ethical standards. The days of profits first and accountability later are over. I congratulate the SDA and the TWU on their campaign. (Time expired)
Economy | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Australia's economy is stronger and more stable than many advanced nations, with the IMF praising our fiscal strategy and reform agenda. How important is it to maintain this responsible approach...
Australia's economy is stronger and more stable than many advanced nations, with the IMF praising our fiscal strategy and reform agenda. How important is it to maintain this responsible approach so we never return to the days of sliding global ranks and missed opportunities for jobs, for wages and for growth?