Barbara Pocock's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate takes note of the document. I will also be referring to the government response on the final report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's Inquiry...
I move: That the Senate takes note of the document. I will also be referring to the government response on the final report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's Inquiry into the Management and Assurance of Integrity by Consulting Services. I want to thank colleagues, particularly Senators Colbeck and O'Neill, for their work on these inquiries. It was a big job, and we worked very collectively and cooperatively on it. It is rare that you see tripartisan recommendations in this place on such a large body of work, which makes Labor's incredibly woeful response to the two consultant inquiry recommendations, to me, all the more disappointing. Australians are tired of seeing the same story play out over and over again. First, there's a massive scandal. In this case, it's PwC deliberately monetising confidential Treasury information. We cannot forget that this was one of the most shocking breaches of public trust in recent memory. PwC made millions of dollars in fees, and staff gloated in internal emails about their success. Next, an inquiry is announced and evidence is gathered. Between the two inquiries, we held 22 public hearings and received 144 submissions. Australians paid attention. We unearthed a tidal wave of malpractice, poor governance and structural failures. We asked serious questions about integrity, influence and the hollowing out of the public sector. Our reports were issued, with clear road maps for how reform needed to unfold. Between them, the two inquiries made 52 evidence-based recommendations, which were agreed by Labor, the Liberals and Greens. Then, just when the public expects decisive action, the government shrugs. It issues a short response and quietly moves on. That is not accountability. It is not leadership, and it is not good enough. What good is the Labor Party if our community and our Senate go through all of that work and then it simply makes tiny steps towards progress? What is a Labor government for if not to deal with such a significant failure of governance and integrity in our community? This is a government of gestures. When it comes to critical reform in response to a crisis like this, it shrugs; it gestures. Despite a truckload of evidence and comprehensive recommendations, the government is once again choosing to tinker around the edges. Instead of committing to the kind of wholesale reform we need, the government's response is to fob off our reports with tiny baby steps that nowhere near meet the scale of the crisis. Let me remind everyone what these inquiries found. They laid bare systemic problems in the way that federal governments engage with consultants. They showed that successive governments have allowed a massive and unchecked expansion of the consulting industry inside the heart of decision-making. They raised serious concerns about conflicts of interest, revolving doors between public office and private profit, and horrible workplace cultures, rife with bullying and sexual harassment, where profit and earnings are king. They showed that audit quality is in decline, with ASIC calling for concerted action from both Deloitte and KPMG to lift their game. There is no shortage of scandals that these inquiries uncovered. Who can forget KPMG's systemic power mapping of government department staff? They were colour-coded, laid out to a person, named and graded for their land-and-expand potential. Then KPMG lied about it. They said they didn't do it, but there were the maps that proved that they misled the Senate. People who charge millions for their work, people who ask for your watch to tell you their time—we need to do better, and these scandals were multiple. What about the scandal around the then CEO of PwC, Luke Sayers, who was paid $30 million—an astronomical amount of money—for his eight years at PwC, through the years of scandal and deceitful monetisation of confidential information? This is a man who could not recall any crucial conversations with the ATO and who looks to have experienced more damage from an intimate photo scandal than from his serious failures in management and leadership at the top of PwC. PwC's unwillingness to provide the Senate with key documents was symptomatic of its problematic engagement with the various committees and the many hearings. There's been a vast array of ethical failures, unchecked conflicts of interest and a lack of regulation in the consulting and auditing sector. The scandals have been frequent and global in nature, and yet what have we seen in response from this Labor government? There's review after review, no urgency and not enough meaningful action. I'm hearing from whistleblowers and witnesses who gave evidence to our inquiries in good faith that they're incredibly disappointed at Labor's quiet retreat from what is really needed here. There's no clear commitment to end the practice that allowed this situation to arise in the first place. The recommendations were tripartisan. If the government genuinely wanted to clean up the consultancy sector, it would support its own Labor senators' recommendations. Instead, their response has failed to meet the moment. It's one thing to have shared outrage. It's another to ensure that the tax leak scandals never happen again. We have the evidence of the consultancy sector ripping off the public and taxpayers and we have clear recommendations. So when will this government act? The government noted all 40 recommendations in the second report. They noted them. There has been no action in structural reform of the kind that is clearly recommended, laid out in these reports; no action on stopping the revolving door; no action on holding PwC or Luke Sayers truly accountable; no action on conflict of interest or banning political donations from contractors; no independent regulator of the consulting sector—and the list goes on. Six months ago, I stood in this chamber and expressed my outrage at the government's decision to allow PwC to rebid for government contracts. It was a decision that Senator Colbeck, Senator O'Neill and I strongly opposed. We wrote a joint letter arguing that we saw no meaningful justification for giving PwC the green light while significant investigations remained ongoing. Regardless, they were let back into contracting to the public sector. What a shame. What a shocking failure of governance by the Labor government. This was gutless. It was a gutless decision, so far from the standard that Australians face in their own workplaces and community for their own behaviour. The government's refusal to clean up the unethical practices rife across the consulting sector is the reason why I introduced a bill to this parliament to ban unethical contractors. It's not enough to have a code of conduct. There have to be consequences. As any parent of a small child knows, there must be logical consequences for behaviour. Unless there are, kids repeat it. People with bad ethics in the consulting sector certainly do. We have to close the legal loopholes that allow government contractors who behave unethically to get away with it. They are laughing all the way back into public consulting and all the way to the bank. The government response reiterates that the government is aiming to 'reduce the government's reliance on contractors and consultants and rebuild capability within the APS'. This is coming from a government that spent more on consulting firms than the Morrison government. The recent biannual consultant spending data shows that, in the last six months of last year, the government had committed to spending over $600 million in contracts worth $2 million or more. Is this the behaviour of a government that is truly reducing its reliance on outsourcing? The Greens will continue to push for real reform. We want to see real reform, real transparency, real accountability. We will not accept a system where public policy is shaped behind closed doors by those with the deepest pockets and the best access. Australians deserve a government that works for them, not one that looks the other way when the warning signs are flashing red. What are you for, Labor? Not just for the scandal—you must be there for the action. When confronted with two of the most damning inquiries into consultant influence ever conducted by this parliament and probably internationally, the government has chosen inaction dressed up as responsibility. We need a government willing to legislate real safeguards, not tinker with voluntary guidelines and endless reviews—not gestures. The Greens have been clear about what meaningful reform looks like: having cooling-off periods to stop the revolving door; banning firms who make dirty political donations; having an independent regulator in the consulting sector; and rebuilding a strong, independent, well-resourced public sector. Instead, these government responses send a message to consulting firms that business will continue as usual, even when the status quo has failed. Well, meaningful reform would have upset powerful interests! And that's what we must do if we're going to see the real change that these reviews ask for.
Housing; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I rise, also, to speak on this motion. I've got to say, the minister's response today was extraordinary. It was insulting. It trivialised an issue that is affecting the lives of millions of...
I rise, also, to speak on this motion. I've got to say, the minister's response today was extraordinary. It was insulting. It trivialised an issue that is affecting the lives of millions of Australians—first home buyers; young people; people who've given up on getting into housing. And he doesn't think this is serious. He made a lot of jokes; he thought it was an amusing issue. And he defended the hardworking public servants who try and get this data out to the Senate to inform decisions. He didn't deal with the critical question that this seeking of information is trying to address. We are in a housing crisis where we need to know what works and what doesn't and the impact of policy changes on the critical crisis in housing. This OPD is looking for documents which show the effect of that five per cent deposit scheme on house prices—the second time the minister has been required to attend and explain the failure to comply with this matter. We're a chamber of review, and it's important that we get the data, the information that we need, so that we can take apart and examine, look at, the rationale and the modelling of the impact of this decision on pushing up house prices. Prices are completely out of control in this country and they are affecting the lives of so many families and households. The parliament had no oversight of the recent expansion of the five per cent scheme which removed income limits entirely for people to have access to this scheme. Where is Labor's commitment to the low-and-middle income earners, the first home buyers, who really need the most help? We've had people across the country who are experts—economists, the Reserve Bank, Treasury; so many experts—tell us, they all warned, that these changes would result in increased prices in housing, and they have. If you feed demand, you push up prices where supply is constrained—especially in the case of moderately priced housing, which is where first home buyers are focused. This change has pushed up prices at the lower end of the market. Prices of homes eligible for the scheme jumped 3.6 per cent in the last three months of 2025. That is incredible. First home buyers out there are despairing. They were despairing before a 3.6 per cent increase in that last quarter. These are extraordinary times, and we have a right to the information, the assumptions, that are in this modelling. Now, with another interest rate rise, workers, renters and mortgage holders are going to cop even more economic pain from rising inflation, so we need real solutions informed by decent data. We need to cut tax breaks for wealthy property investors and build social and affordable housing but we also need to stop the very lucrative revolving door between ministers offices and the hugely profitable big-donor corporates, like the Commonwealth Bank. We need to break the link between those who advise and those who benefit from decisions. When the Minister for Housing—or the 'minister for higher house prices' as the Financial Review called her today. When her adviser takes up a job at an institution that's amongst the greatest beneficiaries of Labor's policy in this case, what are mortgage holders, renters and first home buyers supposed to think? I'll tell you what they think. They think it stinks. They see it for what it is. They don't like it. They know it's a revolving door, and they know that they are affected by decisions which advantage the wealthy, institutions and advisers and do down those who are trying to make it work out there in the housing market. The revolving door corrupts our democracy. It prioritises the interests of big business over the community. Australians are fed up with the jobs-for-mates mentality that has plagued successive governments. This is why we've supported—here, in the Greens—strengthening lobbying oversight by extending the ban on former ministers lobbying to five years and applying it to senior staff. The Senate has a right to ask for information and the Senate has a responsibility to hold ministers to account. When ministers come here to talk about the data they have not supplied, we should not be insulted and we should not be trivialised. We should be respected and provided with the information we need so that we can actually make the decisions that help homebuyers in a housing crisis, that help renters and that can come to grips with the biggest crisis we've seen in the postwar period, which deserves a serious minister bringing serious responses to the Senate. (Time expired) Question agreed to.
Economy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Working people are being made to absorb the economic pain caused by extreme wealth in this country. The Reserve Bank has just confirmed what workers across the nation already know: their wages...
Working people are being made to absorb the economic pain caused by extreme wealth in this country. The Reserve Bank has just confirmed what workers across the nation already know: their wages are not keeping up with the cost of essentials and are not expected to meaningfully grow until the end of 2027. At the same time, inflation has spiked again, and people with debt are being asked to pay the price in the form of higher interest payments. That means another year where working households fall further and further behind through no fault of their own. Nurses, cleaners, teachers and tradies are working hard, paying their taxes and trying to keep up with growing prices, yet their purchasing power keeps shrinking. Not only are these workers paying more tax than a third of big corporations in Australia, but—as we are told by the Reserve Bank—their wages are now not keeping pace with the cost of essential groceries and things that are important to every household in this country, especially the cost of housing—of mortgages and of rent. House prices and rents are completely out of control in this country. We are in a severe housing crisis. Yet, instead of reforming tax concessions that are fuelling that house price spike and fuelling inequality, the government is presiding over falling real wages, rising interest rates and a tax system where workers are hit harder than millionaires and billionaires. This is not just an economic failure; it's a political choice with serious consequences for intergenerational inequality. This government is responsible for a system that tackles inflation by suppressing the household income of workers while protecting housing wealth and corporate profits. Until a Labor government is willing to confront the concentration of wealth in the country, working people will keep paying the price of inequality. Until they're willing to fix the tax system and take those big tax breaks away from wealthy property hoarders, the housing crisis will get worse. (Time expired)
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
I move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2026: The capacity of the existing legislative...
I move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2026: The capacity of the existing legislative framework that created and governs Australia's specialist investment vehicles (SIVs), with particular reference to: (a) the effectiveness of the following Acts: (i) Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, (ii) Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, (iii) National Reconstruction Fund Act 2023, (iv) Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund Act 2016, (v) Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991, and (vi) Regional Investment Corporation Act 2018; (b) the importance of countering the threat of investment uncertainty and higher energy and capital costs that would result from abandoning net zero by 2050; (c) how existing SIVs can be improved, restructured and harmonised to create a stable, long-term investment environment for the widespread deployment of clean technologies in Australia; (d) whether the current structures of financing offered by SIVs and the targeting of finance at different points in the research, pilot and commercialisation stages are fit for purpose and where they can be improved; (e) how the various application processes can be streamlined and improved, particularly for early-stage businesses and technologies; (f) any other related potential changes to the law to ensure investment certainty and guard against a future federal government that is hostile to clean technologies; (g) lessons to promote to potential investors how the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency successfully generated billions of dollars of investment while withstanding multiple attempts by previous Coalition federal governments to dismantle and interfere with their capital deployment and statutory responsibilities; and (h) any other related matters.
Taxation | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I rise to take note of the answers given to Senator Waters regarding the deeply unfair billion-dollar tax breaks for wealthy property hoarders. Reforming the capital gains tax discount is...
I rise to take note of the answers given to Senator Waters regarding the deeply unfair billion-dollar tax breaks for wealthy property hoarders. Reforming the capital gains tax discount is obvious. It's long overdue, and a growing number of people in our country know this is true. All of Australia's significant economists get it. They want to see a change. Unions support it. Working people understand it. Welfare groups see it as an urgent reform required for fairness in our community. It's supported by many people in this parliament, including many on the Labor side of politics. Yet, instead of acting to make housing more affordable, Labor is choosing policies that turbocharge housing prices. Unbelievably, they are making things worse. They're handing out obscene tax breaks to people buying their 50th, 60th or 70th investment property. No wonder homeownership rates for young people are falling. No wonder so many young people are so depressed at their prospects of getting housing security. Labor is prioritising wealthy property investors over renters. They're doing it over the interests of so many people who find themselves catapulted into homelessness, and they're doing it over the interests of people who are facing increasing mortgage stress. Labor is spending more on those tax breaks for wealthy housing investors than on social housing, homelessness and rent assistance combined. Let that sink in. That's about priorities, and they're all wrong on the Labor side of politics. The Labor government is giving more support to making housing unaffordable, especially for our young people. Meanwhile, Australians are working harder than ever and still falling behind. And, yes, real wages are falling. Things are going to get worse for a long time before they get better. Rents keep going up. First home buyers are locked out. The cost of living is eating away at the chances to get those savings that young people are seeking to get into the housing market. Mortgage stress is the norm, not the exception. It's Labor's decision to give $181 billion over a 10-year period to wealthy property investors, making housing more unaffordable. They're not dealing with the crisis that too many Australians are facing every day. Question agreed to.
It is my honour tonight to speak of the Dalai Lama and my recent trip to Dharamsala meet him—a highlight of my life—and to meet with the Tibetan government in exile. It's a particular...
It is my honour tonight to speak of the Dalai Lama and my recent trip to Dharamsala meet him—a highlight of my life—and to meet with the Tibetan government in exile. It's a particular honour to do so in the presence of Mr Karma Singey and members of the Tibetan community here in Canberra. Last night was a special night. The Dalai Lama starred at the 68th Annual Grammy Awards ceremony in LA. He won Best Audio Book for his album, Meditations: The Reflections of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It's not every 90-year-old international leader who wins a contemporary music award like the Grammys, and he won to world acclaim. But then, there is nothing ordinary about the Dalai Lama. This award wasn't just a win for an album but global recognition of the message that the Dalai Lama has championed in every year since 1959 when he was exiled from his beloved home of Tibet and began his long march for human rights. I congratulate the Dalai Lama on his award. Receiving it, he said: I truly believe that peace, compassion, care for our environment, and an understanding of the oneness of humanity are essential for the collective well-being of all eight billion human beings. I'm grateful that this Grammy recognition can help spread these messages more widely. In an immediate illustration of the political hostility of the Chinese government to the message of the Dalai Lama and the human rights of the people of Tibet, the Chinese government attacked the award as a tool of 'anti-China political manipulation'. Anyone who listens to the Dalai Lama's album will see the absurdity of this attack. Anyone who knows the history of Tibet and the determination of the Dalai Lama to foster democracy in Tibet can see this attack for what it is: hostility to the freedom of expression and the rights of Tibetans, including their spiritual leader. On my trip to Dharamsala, I was proud to represent the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Friends of Tibet. On the delegation, I was joined by fellow parliamentarians Kate Chaney MP and Sarah Witty MP. Other delegations of politicians from around the globe joined us in standing up for Tibetans—parliamentarians from New Zealand, from Fiji, from the Czech Republic, from France and from Chile. We met with the Dalai Lama and with representatives of the Central Tibetan Administration, including its leader, the Hon. Sikyong Mr Penpa Tsering, the speaker of the parliament and many hardworking courageous ministers in the government. Our visit coincided with the year-long 90th celebration of the Dalai Lama's birthday, a celebration shared by so many people across Australia at all kinds of events and parties. When we met with the Dalai Lama, he spoke of the rights all humans should share, rights that too many lack in practice, including in Tibet under oppressive Chinese rule: the rights to freedom of spiritual practice, culture and language, and the right to democratic control of life and country. We met the Dalai Lama on the 36th anniversary of the award of his Nobel Peace Prize and on International Human Rights Day. It was a joyous day of celebration. Every year here in our own parliament, Australian parliamentarians join with the Australian Tibetan community to celebrate Tibetan culture and to call for human rights for all Tibetan people. We discussed the ongoing actions of the Chinese government in repressing these rights with terrible consequences for the six million Tibetans living in Tibet and to the great cost and sorrow of Tibetans all over the world, including in Australia, who experience growing surveillance and intimidation through transnational repression. On our visit, we heard many stories from Tibetan exiles who had left their home country, often in dangerous circumstances, because they were unable to speak out or protest the occupation of their beautiful country without fear of arrest or torture. Even to carry a picture of the Dalai Lama was a dangerous act resulting in long political imprisonment. Tibetans face, as His Holiness has described, a calculated and systemic strategy by the Chinese government aimed at the destruction of their national and cultural identity. It will no doubt be impossible for Tibetans to publicly listen to the Dalai Lama's Grammy-Award-winning album and its message of peace. Too many young Tibetans are forced to leave their country and their families behind to pursue basic freedoms. Too many are jailed for expressing love and support for the Dalai Lama. We heard their stories directly from them. They are heartbreaking. One young woman, when 15 years old, was jailed for five years without visitors for carrying a picture of the Dalai Lama. Too many children are removed to colonial boarding schools and subject to loss of language and traditions that amount to cultural genocide. These are fatal cultural losses that we know from our own Australian colonial history and into our present that cause untold intergenerational harm to children who are removed from their families, culture, spirituality and language in an evil regime deliberately designed by the Chinese government to deny Tibetans their cultural identity. From here in the Australian parliament, here in the Senate, as a member of the Australian All Party Parliamentary Friends of Tibet, I say: we see you. I say to every brave Tibetan living in Tibet or in exile who is unable to exercise their human rights: we see you. You are entitled to the rights of freedom and to your culture, spirituality and language. The Dalai Lama is loved throughout the world, including by many within China, for his steadfast commitment to nonviolence in the face of great provocation. He is loved for his courage, his sense of humour and the vision of human rights that he offers to the world. Most important is the right of the Tibetans to determine the identity of the next Dalai Lama following their own spiritual and cultural practices. Tibetans must have the right to choose a future Dalai Lama using their traditional processes without the interference of the Chinese government. The world would see such interference for what it is, a trampling of the human rights and spiritual freedoms of a people. We must take stronger action right now to protect the Tibetan people. We must see sanctions against Chinese government officials responsible for policies that are harmful to Tibetans and for gross human rights violations inflicted on Tibetans. Australians will continue to stand across political parties in this parliament for the freedom of Tibetans living in oppression, unable to speak out or protest the occupation of their country without fear of arrest and torture. In his poetry and words on his Grammy-Award-winning album, the Dalai Lama speaks of peace. He asks us to never give up. We will not give up on Tibet. We Australians have an important role to play in standing strong with the Tibetan government in exile and the Tibetan people to retain their language, their culture and their political and spiritual practice on their own terms. I gave the Dalai Lama a small felt red kangaroo made by a South Australian artist, Sandra Tredwell, when I met with him as a symbol of my own place, Adelaide, Kaurna country, the land of the red kangaroo. He placed the kangaroo inside his shirt, near his heart. I reminded him that kangaroos cannot ever go backwards. They can only travel forwards, just like the long struggle of the Tibetan people as they strive towards democracy and freedom. We walk at your side.
Housing | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
What a dark day. Just hours ago, the Reserve Bank raised interest rates to 3.85 per cent. This is one of the shortest and shallowest rate-cutting cycles in three decades. What this actually means...
What a dark day. Just hours ago, the Reserve Bank raised interest rates to 3.85 per cent. This is one of the shortest and shallowest rate-cutting cycles in three decades. What this actually means is that millions of Australians will bear the brunt of this interest rate rise because the government has not tackled two major causes of inflation: spiralling health costs and corporate profiteering. If you are a mortgage holder or renter, you're being hit by the RBA to fix the government's inflation problem. The government's priorities mean that everyday Australians are copping the pain, while banks, energy companies and property investors keep winning. People are rightly worried about their economic security, their wages and their futures. They are hurting. We know that housing is a huge contributor to our inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. According to the ABS, housing was the largest contributor to annual inflation over the past 12 months, with a 5.5 per cent rise. Politics is all about choices. Just the other day, new data from ACOSS showed that the federal government spends more on tax breaks for wealthy property investors than it does on social housing, homelessness and rent assistance combined. That's a choice, a choice against the issues that are facing so many Australians in housing stress. This is $12.3 billion of foregone revenue towards the deeply unfair capital gains tax discount and negative gearing tax break while social housing waiting lists exceed 10 years in every major city. Social housing makes up less than two per cent of dwellings today. That's down from 22 per cent of all housing built annually in the 1950s. We know things can be different. We are at a record low in social housing stock, which only makes persistent homelessness worse. Come to my city of Adelaide and you can see it on our streets and parklands every day and every night. There are nine preventable deaths every single day of people who have experienced homelessness. This is a national shame in our wealthy country. It's clear that Labor cares more about investors with dozens of properties than it does about renters, first home buyers and people experiencing homelessness. Labor needs to stop making things worse. The solutions are clear. Our history shows us we can do this well and we can do it differently. We need to make corporate price gouging illegal. We need to end the tax breaks that help wealthy investors to hoard housing. This government must urgently slow housing inflation. Labor needs to stop treating housing like a game of Monopoly. It needs to scrap the tax breaks for wealthy property investors and to directly build public and affordable housing. Labor should be protecting households, not corporate profits. Treasurer Chalmers recently said the government is open to tax reform to address intergenerational unfairness driven by this nation's dysfunctional property market. Well, it's time you did something about it, Treasurer. Even Mathias Cormann, who is now leading the OECD, has said that this government should be 'removing some of the favourable tax treatment of residential property ownership, including capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing'. In his words, this 'would help to cool demand and could help to mitigate upward pressure on house prices.' There's growing pressure on the government to act. It's time to get on with it. There are solutions there. Let's implement them. Let's relieve some of the pressure that so many Australian families are facing, rather than making the problems worse with things like the five per cent deposit scheme, which just add heat and fuel rising house prices.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise today, like so many others in this place, with a heavy heart, to speak on behalf of my community and my conscience about the tragic events that unfolded at Bondi Beach on 14 December last...
I rise today, like so many others in this place, with a heavy heart, to speak on behalf of my community and my conscience about the tragic events that unfolded at Bondi Beach on 14 December last year—on what should have been a beautiful night of celebration, the first evening of Hanukkah, a horrific and senseless act of violence against the people gathered at Bondi. Fifteen innocent people were killed, dozens more were injured and the lives of so many families, friends and loved ones were forever changed by grief. This was an attack on Jewish people and on a Jewish community gathering, an attack on a community, so many of whom came to Australia and have come to Australia seeking refuge—including, in my own family, Selene Malefsky, who, like so many Jewish Europeans, sought refuge from antisemitic pogroms and the Holocaust and including, so tragically, Alex Kleytman, amongst those killed at Bondi, having himself survived the Holocaust. It was, at the same time, an attack on the very values that define us as Australians, an attack on our safety as a community—something we all value, we all need and we must protect for the future of our children and generations to come. We mourn those who were robbed of life, of laughter, of a future—a future that can never be reclaimed. We hold in our thoughts and in our hearts their families and friends, those who will carry this loss with them forever. I extend my deepest condolences to the Jewish community, who face unimaginable pain and fear as a result of this horrendous attack. Antisemitism has no place in our country. Our Jewish communities, schools, events, celebrations and homes must be safe. We stand united in rejecting hatred and antisemitism absolutely and hatred in all of its forms. We are not safe unless all of us are safe. In the wake of this violence and amidst our great, shared grief, our nation has witnessed something powerful: the extraordinary capacity of our communities to care for one another in moments of such profound loss. I want to acknowledge the courage of those who ran towards danger to protect others and the courage and care of the first responders, people who threw their own bodies at the outrage to protect others. We have seen neighbours open their doors, communities gather in vigils and countless acts of compassion. This response—not fear but courage, kindness and care, and not division but solidarity—is the true measure of our nation. This tragedy reminds us painfully and unforgettably that violence has no place in our community, that antisemitism has no place in our society and that racism, prejudice and hatred directed at a group or individual cannot be tolerated. Our response must be rooted in compassion, in justice and in a commitment to ensuring security for all Australians, especially our most vulnerable. To the Jewish community here in Australia and to Jewish communities around the world who share in this sorrow: we stand with you. In offering our condolences today, let us recommit ourselves, as legislators and as fellow human beings, to healing, to unity, and to confronting hatred wherever it arises. In remembering the lives lost at Bondi, may we choose a path forward that embodies care, humanity and the steadfast refusal to let fear define us. I want to acknowledge the pain of the families and honour the courage of those who acted to save others and convey, on my behalf and that of the Greens and my community, especially the many South Australians who have shared their horror and pain with me, my deepest sympathy for the victims and their loved ones.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
I want to make a short statement; I don't have questions. Today the Greens have announced that we will support the Environment Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, having achieved significant...
I want to make a short statement; I don't have questions. Today the Greens have announced that we will support the Environment Reform Bill 2025 and related bills, having achieved significant amendments for new protections for our native forests and excluding coal and gas from fast-tracking. We've negotiated significant wins, but we know it's nowhere near enough. This package, however, is better than the status quo—considerably better than the status quo—and it's a whole lot better than it would have been if negotiated with the climate deniers on the other side of this chamber. Labor's first draft was a wish list for corporate environmental destruction. It would have gutted our environment laws, given corporations the green light for new coal and gas projects with just a 30-day approval process, and introduced new loopholes to an already very weak act. Instead, Greens pressure made this bill better than the weak laws we have and infinitely better than if the government had done that deal with the climate deniers in the coalition. While Labor had clearly hoped to pass a bill on behalf of big corporations, the Greens held firm during negotiations on protections for nature, boosted by community opposition to a bill that took us backwards. We won outcomes that forest campaigners have fought for across this country for decades—not enough, but a significant step in the right direction to begin the proper protection of our native forests—and we made it harder for big corporations to keep wrecking nature—our beautiful forests and all the creatures who live in them. We have ended an outrageous legal carve-out for logging that's resulted in devastation of our forests and threatened the habitats of our species that are at risk. We've fought for and won the removal of the ability of coal and gas projects to use fast-tracked approvals or the national interest loophole—such important wins. We've fought for and won the protection of the water trigger. We said from the start the Greens wouldn't accept a bill that would take nature backwards and we would fight to protect forests and nature. Millions of Australians who voted for the Greens and put us here didn't put us here to lead our vote backwards and weaken the protection of nature. We've won protections that go forward, and that is our job. We stand on the activities and activism of thousands of Australians who have put us here to make that fight. We know that our beautiful native forests and bushland, which protect our wildlife and biodiversity, are essential to fighting off the pollution of fossil fuels. It's only possible because there were Greens in the parliament to fight for our planet. You know this is a good outcome when you're angering all the right people. The Minerals Council of Australia has called this 'an inferior and disappointing outcome'. The Business Council called it 'a missed opportunity', and the Liberals are in hysterics. Meanwhile, environment groups have backed in our improvements. Greenpeace have said this is 'a significant improvement on the broken laws that have for too long failed to deliver credible environment protection'. Climate Council said: This deal strengthens protections for our native forests, and provides a faster yes to responsible renewable energy projects that cut climate pollution. The Bob Brown Foundation has acknowledged the hard work of the Greens in making important gains, especially taking Australia a step further towards saving a forest and woodland habitats of threatened species. The Australian Conservation Foundation called this 'a historic step for nature', with our forests 'finally covered by national law' for the first time. Despite these significant wins for nature however, we know there's a lot more to be done. Despite huge public support, Labor has repeatedly refused to support a climate trigger. This failure prevents the environment minister from considering climate damage when approving projects. How absurd. What a disaster. What a shocking weakness in the face of all the science that's telling us the climate crisis is coming at us harder and faster than previously predicted. As Bob Brown recently said: Having an Environment Minister who can't act on the greatest threat to our environment and ourselves, which is climate change, is like a Treasurer who has no power over tax. It makes no sense. Labor's refusal to take meaningful climate action shows that the coal-and-gas lobby still have way too much influence on both major parties in this place. Take today's emissions projections report, prepared by the climate department, for example. It clearly shows that the current absence of climate policies has Australia on track to reach just a 48 per cent reduction by 2035, nowhere near the government's 62 per cent target. Forty-eight per cent is a country mile away from the 62 per cent emissions reduction that Labor promised. We know that Labor will fall significantly short of even its 2030 target without stronger action. These are diabolical pollution numbers that suggest we are on track for cataclysmic climate change. The numbers in this report show Australia is nowhere near meeting our supposed climate targets for pollution reduction, which is directly thanks to decisions like Labor's approval of the North West Shelf gas project within two weeks of being elected this year. Labor must stop approving new coal and gas. It should also build on the momentum of the EPBC agreement today and immediately move to end all native forest logging to help hit the 2030 target. In the face of so much climate inaction from this government, I'm delighted to be joining Rising Tide in Newcastle for the third time tomorrow and to paddle out into the beautiful Hunter River to protest our export of coal. The show of solidarity of hundreds of South Australians will be joining that of so many other Australians from around the country at Newcastle's Rising Tide. It's a powerful protest against fossil fuels and the damage they are doing to our world. It is time to end new coal and gas. We see the effects of not having done so everywhere around our planet, including and not least in my own state, South Australia. Like so many South Australians, I grieved the loss and damage caused by the harmful algae bloom that's unfolding in front of our eyes on our beautiful beaches, with thousands of dead fish and no sign of abatement, a crisis that continues and, in some places, is getting worse. Scientists have warned us for years: fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis, and this ocean warming is risking our beautiful marine life, our food systems and our beaches. Labor can throw money at cleaning up climate disasters, but, as long as the government keeps opening up coal and gas, we'll keep seeing climate disasters like the algae bloom crisis in South Australia. The show of solidarity at Rising Tide speaks for itself. Australians are fed up with the major parties' commitment to fossil fuels. There will be kids, parents, grandparents, coalminers and Novocastrians who know the need for transition, have seen it before and know that they're facing another one, busloads of South Australians. We'll be protesting for our future, for the future of all of us and for the future of all the kids to come.
Environment, Rising Tide: Protests | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Today the Greens negotiated significant wins to protect our forests and to stop Labor's fast-tracking of coal and gas. We stood up to end decades of exemptions for forest destruction and to...
Today the Greens negotiated significant wins to protect our forests and to stop Labor's fast-tracking of coal and gas. We stood up to end decades of exemptions for forest destruction and to remove the ability for coal and gas projects to use fast-tracked approvals or the national-interest loophole. We've pushed and pushed for powers to stop illegal land clearing and we have negotiated saving the water trigger and ensuring that the federal minister can step in to protect the environment. These are such important wins, which were only possible because the Greens are here in the parliament fighting for nature. That's why South Australians have put me here: to do everything I can for our planet and for future generations. The outcome today is far better than the train wreck we would have seen had there been a deal between the climate deniers on that side of the house and Labor. Despite the significant wins for nature, our climate crisis needs more—so much more. Labor has repeatedly refused to support a climate trigger despite huge public support for it, preventing the environment minister from considering climate damage when approving projects. What a failure. What a travesty. Labor's refusal to take meaningful climate action shows the power that the coal and gas lobby still holds on both parties in this place. That's why, for the third year in a row, I'm delighted to be joining Rising Tide this weekend in Newcastle, to paddle out onto the beautiful Hunter River to protest our export of coal, along with hundreds of South Australians and Australians, including my kids, my family and my friends. Through our participation in Rising Tide, we are mounting a powerful protest against fossil fuels—against coal—and the damage they're doing to our planet, and for the transition that places like the Hunter Valley need for a safe planet for the future.
Government Response to Report; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) in accordance with Senate resolution 44, government responses to parliamentary committee reports are required to be tabled within 3 months of a...
I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) in accordance with Senate resolution 44, government responses to parliamentary committee reports are required to be tabled within 3 months of a report being tabled, (ii) the Finance and Public Administration References Committee tabled its report entitled Management and assurance of integrity by consulting services on 12 June 2024, (iii) a government response has not been tabled even though it was due by 12 September 2024, (iv) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services tabled its report entitled Ethics and professional accountability: Structural challenges in the audit, assurance and consultancy industry on 7 November 2024, and (v) a government response has not been tabled even though it was due by 7 February 2025; (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service, by no later than midday on 15 December 2025, the outstanding government response to the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee entitled Management and assurance of integrity by consulting services; and (c) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, by no later than midday on 15 December 2025, the outstanding government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services entitled Ethics and professional accountability: Structural challenges in the audit, assurance and consultancy industry. Question agreed to.
Economics References Committee; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 8 before asking that it be taken as formal. Leave granted. I, and also on behalf of Senators Whish-Wilson and David Pocock, move...
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 8 before asking that it be taken as formal. Leave granted. I, and also on behalf of Senators Whish-Wilson and David Pocock, move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026: Funding and resourcing for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), with particular reference to: (a) the nature of recent and proposed job and program cuts in the CSIRO; (b) the importance of public funding for public good science; (c) the importance of public resourcing of Australian sovereign scientific capability; (d) the recruitment and retention of staff including senior and mid-career researchers, along with the training and career paths of early-career researchers; (e) CSIRO's commercialisation of scientific research; (f) the long-term capability needs of the CSIRO, including workforce, infrastructure and equipment; (g) the role and independence of the CSIRO's leadership in making resourcing allocation decisions; (h) the effects of these cuts on the program of scientific work conducted by the CSIRO, including in relation to: (i) areas of fundamental and basic scientific study that do not find ready industry funding partners, (ii) areas of scientific study that relate to emergent, pressing and/or priority issues like the pace, impact and mitigation of climate change including study of the oceans, biodiversity, agricultural adaption to a changing climate, and related issues, and (iii) the particular burden of proposed cuts on the Environment Research Unit; and (i) any related matters. Question agreed to.
Adelaide: Built Environment | Adjournment | Senate debates
I did enjoy that contribution. I rise to talk about a significant new building in South Australia: South Australia's first skyscraper, 38 storeys high, which is planned to be built a few metres...
I did enjoy that contribution. I rise to talk about a significant new building in South Australia: South Australia's first skyscraper, 38 storeys high, which is planned to be built a few metres from our South Australian parliament, on our precious public parklands in our city. It's called Walker tower 2. It's the child of a rich-listed property developer, Walker Corporation, a multibillion-dollar enterprise. It is a huge building of 38 storeys, alongside Walker tower 1, which is a mere 28 storeys. Approval of the first Walker tower was on the basis that it was offset and set back from Parliament House, that it didn't obscure the view of our beautiful parliament building from the north and that it didn't disrupt the sight-lines of this very important South Australian monument, and with the agreement that only three storeys would be built next door to Walker tower 1—the place where we now see a proposal for a building of 38 storeys. On 11 June this year, the South Australian State Planning Commission assessment panel granted planning consent for this building. Since then, over 125 eminent South Australians and many others—and this group included former premier the Hon. Reverend Dr Lynn Arnold AO, former president of the Legislative Council the Hon. Anne Levy AO and so many others—have signed an open letter calling on the Premier and the South Australian parliament to stop the construction of Walker Tower 2 to protect our Festival Plaza as open civic space and retain it as public land. The construction of Walker Tower 2 would incur a major loss of open civic space and negatively impact really vital heritage values of our Parliament House complex and our beautiful Adelaide parklands. These are two of South Australia's National Heritage listings. We have nine, but these are two of our National Heritage listings. If you've visited South Australia, you will have admired the beautiful green spaces, internationally famous, like Central Park in New York, for being the lungs of our city, beautifully planned by Colonel Light and a prized aspect of living in our city. You will also, I hope, have strolled down the boulevard of North Terrace, a cultural precinct of enormous historical significance in our city. These are the two heritage sites, nationally listed, which are at risk of serious compromise by this building proposal. As my colleague in South Australia's upper house Mr Rob Simms said in the South Australian parliament yesterday, the South Australian government should intervene to prevent the construction of Walker Tower 2, and so should the federal government, using its EPBC powers to call in this project, assess its heritage impact and make a full and open assessment, with the consultation of South Australians, about its impact on our heritage. So many South Australians care about the character and heritage of our city, and they've contacted me and protested at what is proposed for this site—many planners, architects, ordinary citizens, trade unionists and people in our churches. I want to especially acknowledge Robert Farnan, convener of the Save Festival Plaza Alliance, and Elizabeth Vines, architect, who have kept me informed about what's going on at Walker Corporation 2. The skyscraper that's being proposed will overshadow North Terrace and our Parliament House and obscure the view for the public. It'll prevent the public from being able to enjoy Festival Plaza, which is iconic civil space. This 160-metre-tall skyscraper will be the tallest commercial building in Adelaide, and it'll include commercial office space on most of its floors. The South Australian planning minister has said that the plaza will be a vibrant space once the tower is finished, but just how many office workers will be there isn't clear. We don't need another 38 storeys of commercial space in South Australia, with a 20 per cent occupancy for commercial space at present. So why are we building yet another enormous office tower when what we really need in our city, and in every other city and regional town in our country, is housing for citizens who can't afford a house and can't get a rental, leading to increasing rates of homelessness? This skyscraper risks turning one of Adelaide's most iconic public spaces into just another soulless commercial precinct, wrecking two critical National Heritage sites. There are lots of other spots where you can put very tall buildings. I'm not opposed to tall buildings, but they should be in our CBD, not set on our beautiful river and compromising our beautiful parklands. You don't put a skyscraper right next to Parliament House. Imagine if we did it here in the Parliamentary Triangle. It's like putting a commercial skyscraper right next to the Opera House or plonking one down in the middle of Federation Square. Parliaments internationally don't put 38-storey buildings next to their public parliament houses. No-one does that, especially where it compromises historic heritage values. What we see here in this building is a massive change in the use of space, and—wait for it—it is charging the Walker Corporation, a multibillion-dollar enterprise, a ground lease of just $1 per year for 100 years. We're turning over, for commercial space, a prime civic spot, massively significant in heritage terms, to a multibillion-dollar operation which will lease it for commercial purposes. If this goes ahead, South Australians are going to have two giant towers overshadowing the people's place, the people's house, reminding all Australians and South Australians who runs the show and robbing us of our beautiful civic space and national heritage. It's outrageous that Walker Corporation was granted exclusive use of this parkland site for their first tower. It is even more outrageous that we see a second one, which was initially agreed to be only three storeys high, now a towering 38-storey monstrosity. The South Australian government's own heritage agency, Heritage SA, has raised really significant issues about the impact of this tower on our heritage, and many South Australians are protesting its shape and impact. We know that the South Australian code amendment which changed the zoning law was rushed through without proper consultation, walking all over the government's own community engagement commitments or charter without a proper planning process. There has not been a proper consultation with the citizens of our state. This is such a significant project which has not had the public attention and conversation it deserves. There is also a role here for the federal government through the EPBC Act. Minister Watt has the powers to call in this project under the provisions of this act. The act states that a corporation must not take an action that will have a significant impact on the national heritage values of a national heritage place. The guidelines in that act state that, if an action is adjacent to or within important sight lines and if it has a significant impact, the proponent must not take the action without prior approval from the minister. Yet, here in South Australia, we have the cement foundations already poured for this building without proper consideration of the heritage compromises that are implicit in this project. The EPBC Act gives the powers for rigorous assessment, including a 10-day public consultation period should the minister decide to call it in. We, South Australians say, to Minister Watt: call this project in. We want a say about what this means, and we want a proper heritage assessment. We have to see a full assessment of these impacts. We want to see the legislative protections for urban national heritage places. Otherwise, our EPBC Act and the notion of heritage listing is meaningless. Other factors, like financial deals, politics, pressure for development, jobs, bureaucracy—all of these, in this example, are trumping the voice, views and heritage of South Australians. We must protect our significant values and our significant heritage. It's time to listen to South Australians, citizens, not billionaire developers. Minister Watt has the power to do this. South Australians want to see the EPBC powers used to enable proper consultation, and we cannot sacrifice the brilliant historical heritage values of our state to corporate interests and commercial deals which don't stack up.
Domestic and Family Violence | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to violence against women....
I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to violence against women. I rise to take note of the answers given to Senator Waters regarding the deeply troubling reality facing older women in Australia, especially in relation to housing, a reality laid bare in the recent Priced out, run down report by Housing for the Aged Action Group and the Swinburne University of Technology. That report was released just this week, and we've had a delegation here in Parliament House. This report confirms what frontline services have been telling us for years: older women are amongst the fastest-growing groups falling into poverty, housing insecurity and homelessness. We know that women over the age of 55 are eight times more likely to experience homelessness than other groups. When they do have a home, they are disproportionately poor-quality homes in insecure, private rentals, and they place women under increasing financial strain. In the private rental market, 35 per cent of older women are living in homes that are both unaffordable and in poor condition, far higher rates than affect men. These are homes with leaks, mould and structural issues, homes that are expensive as well as inadequate, homes that undermine health and wellbeing. Single older women are one of the most marginalised groups in the fight for safe, affordable and suitable housing. This is a gender inequality issue at play. As the report states, this disparity stems from lifelong disadvantages like the gender pay gap, time taken off for caring and lower-paid work, all of which accumulate into severe housing insecurity later in life, a lifetime of care for others and a retirement and older years of poverty and insecurity. Housing insecurity for women is not just an economic issue; it's also a question of safety. Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Almost half of women who experience homelessness in Australia are victims of domestic, family and sexual violence. Research shows that unstable or unaffordable housing is one of the strongest factors trapping women in abusive or coercive relationships. Many simply do not have the financial means to leave, and, without affordable, accessible housing, the choice is impossible: staying with a violent or controlling partner or facing homelessness. Let's be clear—domestic and family violence happens to all women, regardless of their age or background. It doesn't stop at 50 or 60 or 70. It often becomes more hidden—psychological or financial abuse, neglect and coercion by family members happening behind closed doors, pitching women into homelessness. When a woman has no safe and secure housing alternative, the abuse continues unchecked. Housing is not just a roof over someone's head. It's autonomy, dignity and safety. Australia's housing affordability has hit record lows, and buying and renting have reached unsustainable levels for too many. Despite all of the evidence of need, the government's Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, contains no dedicated funding stream for older women, not one. This is a glaring policy gap. Older women are clearly a high-risk cohort for poverty and homelessness. They should be a priority for any national housing investment strategy. If the government is serious about gender equality, if it's serious about preventing violence against women and if it's serious about ageing with dignity, then the HAFF must include targeted, gender-responsive investment for older women's housing. Without it, we'll continue to see older women priced out, run down and left behind. Right now, this government is failing women, older women, in relation to housing safety and security. It doesn't have to be this way. We know there are solutions. We need a dedicated allocation within the Housing Australia Future Fund for older women, and we need to build more public and community housing designed for older women—safe, accessible, affordable and secure. And we need tax reform. We need to raise the rate of income support and to fully fund frontline services. Older women have spent their lives working, caring and contributing, often invisibly, to their families, their communities and the economy. They deserve to age in safety and dignity. They deserve secure, affordable homes, and they deserve to be seen and supported in our national housing policy. Question agreed to.
Housing Australia; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I rise to take note of the minister's explanation. As I've said time and again, as have many of my colleagues in this chamber, I'm deeply concerned by the lack of compliance with Senate motions...
I rise to take note of the minister's explanation. As I've said time and again, as have many of my colleagues in this chamber, I'm deeply concerned by the lack of compliance with Senate motions by this government. This isn't a new trend. The Centre for Public Integrity raised the alarm on declining compliance rates in 2023. Compelling the production of documents is one of the most significant powers this chamber has to hold government to account. In the area of housing policy we're seeing a particular lack of transparency and accountability from this government at a moment of deep crisis around the housing issues in our country. I'm still waiting for my overdue OPD on public and community housing spending, which was due back two months ago. Housing is a crucial issue. There's nothing more important right now than having a safe roof over your head, and so many people are struggling, especially renters—seven million Australians in three million households, and all those first home buyers and homeowners who shrink when they read the headlines every day in our newspapers and listen to the radio. It's getting worse for those people who want to enter homeownership, and especially for our young people. We see so many people living in crippling housing stress and with huge mortgage repayments. Homelessness is also a growing problem—10 per cent growth on Labor's watch, since Labor came to power. Everywhere you look, the news is only getting worse and worse. Just today, Cotality's new housing affordability report shows that Australia's housing affordability has 'hit new lows' compared to the past five years. The median house is now 8.9 times the median income, up from 6.6 just five years ago. National dwelling values have grown 6.3 per cent in this year to date, and Westpac forecasts they're going to grow by an enormous nine per cent next year. In reality, this means that saving for a 20 per cent deposit for a house now will take more than 12 years—12 years! Cotality's report points to the growing divide between those who own property and those who do not, saying that capital gains themselves potentially widen the gap. We have in our tax policy right now a new engine firing historic levels of intergenerational inequality, driven by tax benefits for wealthy property investors. Cotality also says that those who already own a home and have made strong capital gains can use that windfall profit towards their next property purchase, and we know that is happening, hand over fist, across our financial and housing system. This creates a larger gap of access to housing for those who do not own property and have little possibility in the near future of doing so. So when will the government listen? When will they finally tackle the unfair capital gains discount and negative gearing tax breaks? The Labor Party used to want to address these unfair, unsustainable and distorting tax breaks for wealthy property investors. Treasurer Jim Chalmers once said that reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax discount was the 'most meaningful lever' that government could pull on housing affordability. In 2017 Senator Brown said: Any housing affordability package that does not deal with negative gearing and capital gains tax discount is a sham. And in 2017 Senator McAllister said: There is something very, very wrong about a tax system that privileges the investor over the young person, the young couple, perhaps a young family, seeking to buy a home to live in. Spot on, Senator McAllister! She said that our unfair tax system would have 'very significant social consequences as fewer and fewer Australians are able to enter the housing market'—a housing market that has only got worse on Senator McAllister's watch. And these are Labor's own words. What happened to this party, which was willing to take on the big end of town and wanted to put people in places where they had a roof over their head? Reforming the unfair capital gains discount and negative gearing would reduce inequality and rebalance the housing market. PBO analysis commissioned by the Greens shows that 50 per cent of the benefits of capital gains tax discount go to the richest one per cent—that's 50 per cent of the benefit going to the top one per cent. Instead, we could redirect those billions of dollars into building new public and community housing. Jim Chalmers admits that he got Treasury to model the impact of changes to that tax. He knows what we need to do. Let's get on with it. Question agreed to.
I rise to speak to this matter which is clearly an issue of public urgency—the need to rein in tax breaks that are overheating our housing marking and to work to see APRA cut investor...
I rise to speak to this matter which is clearly an issue of public urgency—the need to rein in tax breaks that are overheating our housing marking and to work to see APRA cut investor lending, as it has historically. The truth is simple in relation to housing in this country—if this government put people first and exercised every possible tool in the toolbox, this housing crisis could be dealt with. We could assist those many thousands of Australians—so many of them young people—feeling enormous anxiety about their opportunity to ever get into homeownership. Instead, we see a tsunami of investor activity distorting the very purpose of housing in this country. Instead of homes giving people shelter and safety, housing is being treated as a speculative investment vehicle. It has been turned into an asset for wealth accumulation. It's no longer the key first plank of economic security in our country—that is, a roof over your head—and it's getting worse. Investor loans have reached a record high this year. They now account for more than 40 per cent of total new loans, up from just 25 per cent in 2020. When investor demand outpaces owner-occupier demand like this, you don't just get more buyers; you get a bidding war. First home buyers are losing, and they are feeling it every weekend in every city and too many towns across our country. This surge in investor demand doesn't just push prices up; it locks in expectations of future growth and fuels ever more speculative buying. House prices are now forecast to rise by nine per cent next year, and that's on top of six per cent already this year. This is causing enormous anxiety across our country for young people. Labor is making things worse. Labor's policies are exacerbating the problem. Their five per cent deposit scheme, designed to be an assistance to first home buyers, is now unleashing a wave of first home buyers and investors competing for the same small group of properties, driving up the price of housing in October alone by more than one per cent. This is not just an economic imbalance; it's a moral one, because housing is a human right. Having a roof over your head is a human right. It's critical to having a safe life and a base from which to work, to build a family and to have a community. First home buyers simply don't stand a chance in a market that's rigged in favour of wealthy, tax-subsidised investors. We have tools in our toolbox to deal with this—and we must—and APRA is holding some of them. APRA has intervened before. Between 2014 and 2018 it put the handbrake on investor lending growth. In this crisis, that's a tool we need right now. That period saw more loans flow to owner-occupiers, and prices stabilised to the slowest period for house price growth in over 30 years. It worked, and we can do it again. We can stabilise house price growth through actions like the possibilities available to APRA, and this urgency motion calls for exactly that. We need the Treasurer to direct APRA to reinstate tighter macroprudential controls on investor lending before prices get even further out of control. We cannot simply leave it to market forces when they are manifestly failing. We can't leave it to the banks, who are profiting from a reckless amount of high-risk investor lending, including through trusts and other devices that avoid the lending buffer and feed the bubble. At the same time, we must address the unfair tax system—the billions in tax breaks flowing to property investors through negative gearing and the capital gains discount. These are enormous distortions in our market. They must be reined in. We must make sure housing returns to being a roof over the head, not a way of accumulating wealth by very wealthy people who, in so many cases, already own multiple homes. If we do not act, we condemn another generation to being renters for life—to being locked out while the wealthy investors keep investing and receiving enormous tax breaks to buy more and more property. Question negatived.
Housing | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
I rise to speak about the housing crisis. In the past year, rents around Australia have risen between seven and 14 per cent—in a single year. That's two to four times the rate of increase...
I rise to speak about the housing crisis. In the past year, rents around Australia have risen between seven and 14 per cent—in a single year. That's two to four times the rate of increase in wages in that same year. How are renters meant to keep up when their rents are growing two, three or even four times as fast as their incomes? It's even worse for low-income households. A hospitality worker living in a one-bedroom unit in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane or the ACT spends nearly half their income on rent. People on JobSeeker who have been forced into the private rental market, due to a lack of public and social housing, simply cannot afford these rents. Most renters have a landlord who owns two or more properties and whose household wealth is more than double their own. Why are we prioritising these wealthy landlords over hardworking renters—60 per cent of these renters don't think they will ever be able to own their own home. We've consistently put the needs of an elite few above the needs of the majority. In the last two decades, we have seen a housing crisis that both the major parties have fuelled. If a rent regulation policy were introduced just five years ago, Adelaide renters could be paying around $140 a week less on their rent right now. Think about what a difference that $140 would make. We can't turn back time, but we must act now, or rents will continue to increase exponentially. The Greens are the only party pushing to end unlimited rent increases.
Selection of Bills Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I rise to support Senator McKim's amendment in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. Today, what we're seeing is Labor and the Liberals joining forces to delay...
I rise to support Senator McKim's amendment in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. Today, what we're seeing is Labor and the Liberals joining forces to delay action on an issue that matters to millions of Australians out there—the right to work from home. My bill would give workers the right to work from home for up to two days a week—a modest, sensible reform. It's already a reform that's been adopted and pushed by people around the country and governments. It's a sensible reform that reflects how Australians actually do want to live and work. It's in the media every day. We see Westpac trying to roll back that right and being held to account in the Fair Work Commission. We see banks put on notice that they must honour those work-from-home provisions in agreements and make sure they look after workers. This is a very live issue right now for millions of Australians. Instead of debating its merits, both major parties have voted to defer the decision to send this important bill to inquiry. This is extraordinary. It's a longstanding Senate convention that private senators' bills, especially those from the crossbench, are sent to inquiries so they can be properly examined. Stakeholders, experts and the public get to have a say. It begs the question: why have the major parties teamed up to delay this right for workers? The coalition has a long history of eroding workers' rights and siding with the bosses—no surprise there. But Labor is supposedly the party of the workers, yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding the rights and improving the lives of workers in this country, especially women, especially parents, especially carers and many others who also want the chance to work from home and have a protected right to work from home. Yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding those rights and improving the lives of workers. So, who benefits from this delay? Who is Labor working for in delaying it? Let's be clear. They can't claim this work-from-home policy came out of the blue, as, Minister, you have just said. We gave plenty of warning about this, and we moved this very proposal as an amendment to the government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill six weeks ago. There's nothing surprising here. That is not an explanation for why Labor is doing what it's doing. Workers deserve a fair go, and that includes the right to flexibility, a protected right to work from home. Deferring this bill isn't just procedural, it's a slap in the face of every worker, every woman, every carer, every person who wants to work from home and have a fair go to access that right.
I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to reform their $181 billion tax breaks for wealthy property investors and...
I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to reform their $181 billion tax breaks for wealthy property investors and their 5% deposit scheme which are threatening the stability of our housing system while the big banks are on track to make $30 billion in profits this financial year. I'm speaking to the urgency of the housing crisis. We're in a housing crisis that's becoming more severe every day in this place. I know young people who are too frightened to open a newspaper for the bad news that lies there every day about what's happening to house prices. There was a more than one percent increase in a single month, in October—the fastest monthly pace in the last two years. House prices are increasing everywhere—in every city, in every regional town, in every country town. One in three houses in Australian suburbs is now worth an incredible $1 million. No wonder 59 per cent of renters don't think they'll ever be able to afford to buy their own home. Homelessness levels are at their worst in living memory, and homelessness services are being pushed to the brink. The major parties are failing us. Labor has been in government for three years; when will they take accountability for making the crisis worse? Labor's failure to reel in the tax breaks for wealthy property investors—$181 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years—is also fuelling the crisis. South Australians contact me every single day telling me to urge this government to wind back these handouts. We know that Labor's policies and lack of ambition are making things worse, but don't be fooled into thinking the Liberals would be any better. It's ironic that yesterday the Liberals called the home guarantee scheme irresponsible, given that it was originally their own policy. It's also funny that Liberals are calling any housing policy irresponsible, given that they've recently dumped their widely criticised 'super for housing' policy. Neither of the major parties truly have the interests of renters and first home buyers in their minds. They've had a quarter of a century to fix this, and instead they've spent a quarter of a century making things worse. Together, they have cooked housing in Australia, and they've landed us in a giant housing bin fire. Just last week, Labor, the Liberals and One Nation teamed up to vote down our urgency motion on housing. The major parties may not think this is urgent, but Australians do—89 per cent of Australians agree that we're in a housing crisis. They know because they're living it every day. Every Saturday morning, across our country, we see first home buyers standing alongside investors, being priced out of auctions, unable to secure housing for themselves. First home buyers don't stand a chance. Our housing market is driven by speculation, not demand—not by the need to put a roof over everyone's head, instead by the desire to increase investment wealth. We've increased the demand for housing without increasing supply. As a consequence, we don't have a functioning housing system that looks after everybody, especially those most in need and vulnerable. We have a generational lottery, where young people are staring down the barrel of lifelong renting, precarious leases and a housing market that is rigged against them. Housing should not be an intergenerational tug of war. House prices, especially those in lower and medium price brackets—where entrants and first home buyers are very focused—are not within the budget of first home buyers. They are rapidly growing in price—much faster than the house prices in higher brackets. That's about a lack of supply in that lower priced and mid-priced bracket. We're seeing declining rates of homeownership among young people and rising rates of homelessness. That's on the coalition for its years of policy failure and now on Labor for its failures to fix the tax system and build enough social and affordable homes. We know where Labor's priorities lie. They're with the wealthy property investors and banks, not renters and not first home buyers. We know because bank profits are booming. Australia's biggest banks are expected to make over $30 billion in this financial year. They are making an enormous amount of income out of this crisis—more than $200,000 in profit over an average 30-year mortgage for a first home buyer. That's $200,000 off every mortgage of those first home buyers. We can't keep going like this. We're in a crisis. I spent my life studying employment, and I know employment matters to a good life chance for kids and adults, but housing is even more critical, and we need to make sure that we build enough social and affordable houses, and we must end tax breaks which are delivering so much to the very wealthy property investors who don't need to increase their housing portfolios anything like that we need to put into—
I rise to speak to this attendance motion. In attending today, the minister has not provided the documents that are being sought. We're here because last week the independent review into...
I rise to speak to this attendance motion. In attending today, the minister has not provided the documents that are being sought. We're here because last week the independent review into governance and operational concerns at Housing Australia was due to be tabled. It's been sought, as we've heard, for quite some time. The government has once again failed to comply with this OPD in a timely manner. There can be no doubt the Senate needs as much useful information about the administration of housing as we can possibly look at in what is, day to day, becoming worse and worse as a crisis in housing. In the last month, housing prices have increased by more than one per cent in a single month. We now have homeownership rates of people under 25 that are around a third, compared to 51 per cent back in the early 1970s. We've got a rate of homelessness that has increased by 10 per cent, in the years of this Labor government. So we need accountability. We need to know what's going on inside the policy solutions, so called, that the Labor government are putting forward. And we need know what's going on within the administration of this system. I'm very concerned about what I'm hearing about Housing Australia and the Housing Australia Future Fund. We need information about these important, very large programs in the midst of a housing crisis. I'm very concerned, along with many others in the chamber, about the increasing secretive response to requests for information, particularly in relation to housing. Without publicly accessible information, non-government senators need motions like these or estimates or whatever to try and get to the answers in relation to very few questions about the administration of sizeable amounts of money to fix and respond to a housing crisis. Australians and their senators deserve to know what's going on and to have a government which is open and transparent about its spending. We want our housing system to work well. We want a housing system that responds to that frightening, rapid increase in the price of houses. Housing Australia's mandate is to support homeownership for Australians and to improve the supply of sustainable long-term social and affordable housing—an incredibly important goal—but I remain concerned about the adequacy of the response and its administrative failures. Reporting in the Australian Financial Review notes that at least six of the top eight executives at Housing Australia have left the agency since Carol Austin took over as chairwoman in June 2023, in addition to other less senior staff who have also left, and we know, of course, Carol Austin has herself since resigned. Publishing this independent review sought here today would help to show that the matter has been properly dealt with and that the culture within Housing Australia is working in a way to respond to a crisis that's affecting the lives of so many Australians, and we could have avoided this mess if the government had just directly invested in public housing in a direct spend, as we saw in the post-war years, that's simpler, more direct and cheaper. An issue in relation to what's going on in our housing spend relates to the question of consultants and the budget. The issue of outsourcing public sector work, especially to consultants, really worries me. Section 46 of the Housing Australia Act states: Housing Australia may engage consultants to assist in the performance of its functions. Housing Australia recently said their total operating budget in the year 2024-25 was just under $60 million, but, when I look at their reliance on external contracts, it's incredible. It's really quite shocking. Over the past year, they have committed $30 million to external contracts—half the equivalent of their entire budget. That is just astonishing. How are you running an ongoing service when half of the budget or the equivalent of it is contracted out? Fourteen million of that spending is specifically on consultants—the equivalent of 25 per cent of its entire budget. I've asked Housing Australia, on notice, to explain what's in that bucket of consulting. We know what's going on in that bucket. There will be overpriced charging for poor-quality work and a failure to build up the heart, soul and capability of our public sector. Consultants are not the way forward. We need to know what this spending is doing. In conclusion, we haven't had enough information about what's going on in Housing Australia, and we need to. We had a mere 48 minutes of questioning in estimates on this issue, and we get another go tomorrow night, which is a good thing, but we need to know more. (Time expired) Question agreed to.