Leah Blyth's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Energy bills have become one of the heaviest burdens on Australian families. Everyone I speak to says the same thing. The cost of keeping the lights on, heating and cooling a home, and running a...
Energy bills have become one of the heaviest burdens on Australian families. Everyone I speak to says the same thing. The cost of keeping the lights on, heating and cooling a home, and running a small business has climbed beyond what ordinary budgets can absorb. It is felt in every quarter, with every bill that slices further into a family's disposable income. Hardworking Australians are now making trade-offs on what were unthinkable things a decade ago. Parents are turning off appliances to protect the grocery budget, seniors are rationing heating in winter and cooling in summer, and small businesses are shutting earlier because power costs make it difficult to stay open those extra trading hours. These are quiet sacrifices, but they speak to a deeper failure—energy policy that has lost contact with reality. Australia should not be a country where abundant natural resources coexist with crippling power prices, yet that is exactly what has happened under Labor. Ideological targets have displaced practical planning. Dispatchable generation has been pushed out faster than it can be replaced. Investment has certainly collapsed. The result is a grid under strain, wholesale prices that move like a seismograph, and consumers forced to pick up the tab for policy experiments that never match the engineering. Lowering energy costs is not a luxury; it's an economic and social necessity. Affordable power is the foundation of manufacturing, the life support of small businesses and the safety net that shields families from cost-of-living shocks. Australians are doing everything they can to cope. A country with our resources should deliver cheaper power, not higher bills. Only the Liberals will get back to affordability, accept reality and restore balance to the energy grid.
Housing, Interest Rates, Economy | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
Well, those opposite seem to think the opposition here is responsible for spending, which is news to us and I'm sure news to all Australians, because it is literally the responsibility of...
Well, those opposite seem to think the opposition here is responsible for spending, which is news to us and I'm sure news to all Australians, because it is literally the responsibility of government to manage their budget. This government is addicted to spending, and when they run out of money they come after more of yours, because, at the end of the day, the government can only spend your money. The government has no money of its own. There is only what it collects from the taxpayer. So, when they stand over there and lecture us on all the things they are delivering for Australians, mark my words, Australia: you are paying every cent of that. When they talk about the discounts they're giving on student debt, let's remember: student debt went up because inflation was out of control. So they've caused a problem and then they've come along and said: 'Have I got the solution for you! You can actually pay to solve our own problem.' That is the problem with this government, people of Australia. They are causing problems and then trying to solve them with your hard-earned money. So, to all the tradies out there, to all the people who didn't go to university: you've actually paid for those student debts to be reduced because inflation was high because government spending is out of control. And I'm with you, Australia. I am sick and tired of this government blaming everybody else for the economic settings in our country. Australians want a government that is going to deliver the houses they are spending billions of dollars not building. They want a government who is going to deliver static conditions for them to be able to rely on the fact that their mortgage isn't going to increase, as it did yesterday, by $100 a month. Here in Australia right now, everyday families and households are paying about $23,000 a year more in interest on their mortgages. Let that sink in for a moment: an extra $23,000 that everyday families are having to find, on top of rising electricity bills, on top of rising insurance premiums and on top of increasing grocery bills. When those opposite get up and say, 'We know Australians are doing it tough,' do they? I'm not sure that they do, because not only are everyday families doing it tough but it is pretty insulting, when they're watching—I'm sure there aren't that many people who are interested in watching this—and sitting there and being told constantly, time and time again by their government that everything is just fine and they are the most amazing economic managers of the Australian economy. It is like a slap in the face. Let's be honest. Families here are struggling. That's if you can afford a house. If you can afford a house, you're finding $23,000 a year more. For those that are in the rental market, every single time they are going to try and find a rental home—let's remember we've had the largest surge in our population since the 1950s. You are lucky if you can find a rental home. It's amazing if you can get into the housing market, but, if you can't and you're looking for a rental, good luck trying to find one. The billions of dollars that this government is spending on not building homes is not doing anything to ease that pressure at all. Labor has promised to build 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029. So far, they are well short on this target, and they are a quarter of the way through their own timeline. It's fair to say that for families and everyday hard-working Australians, who are just trying to make ends meet, who are just trying to make their mortgage repayments and who are just trying to find a rental house to live in, there is no ease in sight. All those opposite want to do is stand there and talk about what the Liberal Party did years ago. They've been in government. They're in their second term. It's time they took responsibility for the state of our economy, for the rising inflation, for the rising interest rates and for the lowering of our living standards for the first time in living history. (Time expired)
Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
The opposition does not support this amendment, which introduces mandatory, independent review of the operation of the amendments made by the bill within three years of commencement. The...
The opposition does not support this amendment, which introduces mandatory, independent review of the operation of the amendments made by the bill within three years of commencement. The opposition is concerned it will add additional administrative burden on an already stretched ART.
New Vehicle Efficiency Standard | Adjournment | Senate debates
You deserve to choose what car you buy, yet Labor is limiting your choice when it comes to buying a ute, SUV or four-wheel drive. Australians deserve to know the truth about Labor's ute tax. The...
You deserve to choose what car you buy, yet Labor is limiting your choice when it comes to buying a ute, SUV or four-wheel drive. Australians deserve to know the truth about Labor's ute tax. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 introduced fleetwide emissions targets for new passenger and light commercial vehicles. The legislation does not ban petrol or diesel vehicles; however, it relies on penalties and credits that steer car manufacturers towards electric vehicles as the lowest risk compliance option. Manufacturers respond to regulatory pressure. That means a reduction in the range and volume of higher emission vehicles offered in Australia. Everyday Australians rely on utes, four-wheel drives and SUVs, yet in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, when families are choosing between air-conditioning their homes and purchasing groceries and when businesses are going bust, this Labor government is reaching into your driveway and your pocket, trying to dictate how you will spend your money and what car you can drive, regardless of need or vehicle requirements. Funnily enough, the highest selling vehicle in Australia is a ute. Under Labor's vehicle efficiency standards, car manufacturers must meet ever-tightening average CO2 targets for their fleets or face hefty penalties. By 2029, allowable emissions per kilometre will halve, forcing car makers to drastically change their model mix. If a manufacturer exceeds the cap, they will be fined $100 for every gram of CO2 over the limit per vehicle sold. Companies that beat the target earn credits, and they can sell to those who do not by effectively subsidising electric vehicles at the expense of petrol, diesel and even hybrid models. The government insists this is not a tax because the fines are paid by the car makers, not the buyers. But car makers even admit that they will pass this cost on to consumers. The National Farmers' Federation has been blunt and said: There is no point trying to tax us into choosing lower emissions vehicles when those alternatives don't exist. Utes and four-wheel drives aren't a choice for farmers and tradies. Industry modelling predicts that some of Australia's most popular models will surge in price. By 2029, Australians could be paying over 25 per cent more for the average ute. That means paying an extra $4,900 for a Toyota RAV4, $7,800 extra for a Toyota LandCruiser Prado and $14,400 extra for a Ford Ranger. This policy is estimated to take about $2.8 billion from farmers, from tradies and from families by 2029. Manufacturers are already pulling models out of our market. Ford has stopped selling the 4x2 Everest. Isuzu has dropped the 4x2 MU-X. The fines under Labor's new standard make these vehicles unviable in the Australian market. Labor's policy is simple: you will pay more and have fewer options. Vehicles that symbolise the Australian way of life are in the crosshairs. LandCruisers, Patrols and Prados will not be spared. It reaches into rural Australia's heartland, and tradies, families and anyone who wants to tow a caravan and explore our great nation. Tradies who use a ute as a mobile workshop will pay up to $17,000 more. Farmers who need a robust four-wheel drive will face limited options and disappearing models. It's happening before Australians are ready. For many users, EVs are not yet viable. Farm and worksite vehicles need long-range, heavy towing capacity and durability in harsh conditions. Current electric utes and four-wheel drives cannot reliably meet those demands. Australians deserve the right to choose—to choose what they buy and how they spend their money. The Labor government are more concerned with changing consumers' behaviour to meet their ideological targets. Let me be clear about what this means for Australians. It means families are paying nearly $13,000 more for a Mazda CX-5, it means tradies are paying nearly $17,000 more for an Amarok and it means farmers are paying $17,000 more for a HiLux.
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 is a case study, I think, for this parliament on how not to legislate. Labor has taken a national tragedy and...
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 is a case study, I think, for this parliament on how not to legislate. Labor has taken a national tragedy and responded not with calm, precision or competence but with a rushed, poorly targeted and deeply flawed piece of legislation. It has been pushed through this parliament with inadequate scrutiny, truncated consultation and a 'take it or leave it' attitude that shows contempt for proper lawmaking. Australians deserve better than policy made on the run. Let me be clear about one fundamental point that this bill deliberately obscures. Australia does not have a gun problem. What we have is a radical Islamist extremism problem, and this government has consistently failed to confront it honestly and directly. Every major terrorist attack on Australian soil in the past two decades has been driven by radical Islamist ideology. That is the uncomfortable truth the government refuses to name. Instead of tackling that ideology, dismantling the networks that promote it and stamping out the antisemitism it fuels, Labor has chosen an easier political target: lawful Australian gun owners. Farmers, sporting shooters, collectors, dealers and licensed competitors are being treated as collateral damage for the government's failure to act decisively against antisemitism and extremism when it mattered. This is unjust, and it's dishonest. This bill uses the horror of the Bondi attack to justify sweeping firearms changes that would have done absolutely nothing to prevent that atrocity. Nothing in this legislation would have stopped the attack. Nothing in it addresses the radicalisation pathways that led to the attack. Nothing in it confronts the ideology that motivated the attack. Instead, it punishes people who already comply with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Labor wants Australians to believe that confiscating more firearms, tightening imports and expanding bureaucratic control over lawful ownership will somehow make us safer. It will not. It simply diverts attention from the government's longstanding inaction on antisemitism, radicalisation and community safety. This bill has been rushed. It is poorly drafted. It was originally so unworkable that Labor was forced to split the bill in two. That alone is an admission of failure. And yet, even after that embarrassment, the government persists in trying to ram through the remainder of this bill without proper inquiry or scrutiny. That's not leadership; that's panic. Law-abiding Australians should not pay the price for the government's refusal to confront hard truths. Farmers should not lose tools essential to their livelihoods, sporting shooters should not see their disciplines strangled, and small businesses should not be driven under. Lawful gun owners should not be treated as suspects, because the government lacks the courage to deal with extremism at its source. Antisemitism must be crushed wherever it appears. Radical Islamist ideology must be confronted, named and dismantled. Terrorist networks must be disrupted. Noncitizens who promote hatred or violence should be removed from this country without hesitation. But none of that requires punishing lawful, gun-owning Australians. This bill does exactly that. It targets the compliant instead of the dangerous, it expands bureaucracy instead of security, and it offers symbolism instead of any kind of substance. Australians are entitled to safety, but they are also entitled to honesty. The honest assessment is this: you do not defeat terrorism by targeting farmers, you do not defeat antisemitism by confiscating sporting firearms, and you do not strengthen a nation by eroding trust in law-abiding citizens. For those reasons alone, this bill deserves criticism, scrutiny and resistance, and this parliament should have the courage to say that Australia's problem is not guns, it is extremism, and the solution lies in confronting that reality, not in avoiding it. For that reason I will not be supporting this bill.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise to offer my deepest condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of the 15 innocent people who were murdered in the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi last month. No...
I rise to offer my deepest condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of the 15 innocent people who were murdered in the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi last month. No Australian should ever be made to feel unsafe for gathering peacefully, for observing a religious holiday or for simply being who they are. I join colleagues across this chamber and Australians across the nation in standing in solidarity with our Jewish community. The attack occurred during Hanukkah, the festival of light. Hanukkah commemorates the survival of a persecuted people and the triumph of faith and religious freedom over tyranny. It reminds us that, even in the darkest times, light can endure and that identity, belief and conscience are worth defending. It is one of the most confronting truths of our national history that the largest loss of Jewish life outside of Israel since the 7 October 2023 attacks occurred here in Australia at one of our most recognisable and beloved public spaces. Bondi Beach, known worldwide as a symbol of openness and community, became the site of the deadliest terror attack on our soil. That is a national wound. Australians have long taken pride in believing such violence does not happen here. That belief has been shattered. We have not only lost 15 innocent lives. We have lost the measure of our sense of safety and of what we thought Australia was immune from. But, when hatred is allowed to fester unchecked for years in our schools, in our universities and in our institutions, we should not be surprised by the consequences. Tolerance of intolerance corrodes the moral foundations of a society. When extremist ideas are excused, normalised or left unchallenged, they do not remain abstract; they metastasise into action. A nation committed to freedom must also be committed to moral clarity. That means confronting hatred early, consistently and without equivocation wherever it appears. We remember those who were taken not as statistics but as people. We remember Edith Brutman, aged 68, a deeply respected community leader, remembered for her heart of gold and a life defined by moral courage and service. We remember Tibor Weitzen—who died shielding his wife and close friend, Edith—a great-grandfather whose final act reflected a lifetime of devotion to family. We remember Dan Elkayam—who was just 27 years old and building a life in Australia—as adventurous, loving and full of joy. We remember Boris and Sofia Gurman, whose instinctive bravery in the first moments of the attack likely saved dozens of lives. Their courage delayed the gunmen and allowed others to flee. Both, tragically, were killed. Their bravery should never be forgotten. We remember Alexander Kleytman, an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who rebuilt his life in Australia only to be murdered for being Jewish decades later in a country that should have been safe. We remember Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, a father of four and central figure in Sydney's Jewish community. We remember Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a man devoted to faith, service and compassion who walked toward the attacker with his hands raised, pleading for the violence to stop and drawing attention away from fleeing families. He was fatally shot; his self-sacrifice saved lives. We remember Peter Meagher, a retired police detective sergeant and much loved rugby club volunteer. We remember Reuven Morrison, who fought back against the attackers—which allowed others to escape—and was killed while intervening. We remember Marika Pogany, aged 82, who fled fascism and communism and devoted her life to caring for others. We remember Adam Smyth—husband and father of four children. We remember Matilda, just 10 years old, bright and joyful—murdered simply for who she was. We remember Boris Tetleroyd, a husband and father and Tania Tretiak, a grandmother who made Australia her home. Each name represents a life stolen and a wound carried by our nation. We must also be honest about the context in which this attack occurred. Antisemitism is rising, both globally and here at home. It is increasingly driven by radical Islamist ideology that rejects pluralism, despises Western democratic values and targets Jewish people simply for existing. To deny that reality is to abandon our responsibility to protect vulnerable communities. Australian Jewish Association CEO Robert Gregory observed that, while the attack itself was not a surprise to him, what followed matter deeply. He said that he was profoundly moved by the support of Australians from all walks of life—messages from across the country from faith leaders, community leaders and ordinary Australians. After two extraordinarily difficult years for the Jewish community that outpouring of solidarity restored hope for him in his fellow Australians. Even in immense darkness, we saw the very best of Australia. We honour Ahmed al-Ahmed, who confronted a gunman with his bare hands, disarmed him and saved lives, sustaining multiple gunshot wounds in the process. We honour Boris and Sofia Gurman again here not only as victims but as heroes. We honour Reuven Morrison, Geffen Bitton, Tash Willemsen and Chaya Dadon, whose courage protected others. We honour the bravery of the NSW Police officers, paramedics, doctors, nurses, surf lifesavers and first responders who ran toward danger and prevented even greater loss. These were ordinary Australians who, in extraordinary moments, chose courage. The Jewish community has given so much to this country. Many families came here as refugees seeking safety, freedom and the rule of law. We cannot allow hatred to take root here. History teaches us that what starts with the Jews never ends there. Antisemitism is a warning of deeper societal decay. If we do not act with clarity and resolve, every Australian is at risk. Hatred has no place in Australia. Those who choose to live here accept not only the protection of our laws but the responsibility to respect and uphold the values that underpin our society. Our nation is built on tolerance, pluralism, the rule of law and the equal dignity of every person. Ideologies that reject those principles, glorify violence or seek to divide Australians along religious or ethnic lines are incompatible with our way of life. Australia must remain a country where freedom of belief is protected, where differences are resolved peacefully and where loyalty to our shared civic values is not negotiable. In this chamber our responsibility today is to honour the dead not only with words but with resolve, by confronting antisemitism wherever it appears and defending the values of our Western democratic tradition without hesitation. May those who tragically lost their lives never be forgotten, and may they serve as a reminder to ensure that the country that they believed in and loved never sees a terrorist attack motivated by extreme Islamist ideology ever again on our soil.
Migration | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Migrant communities like mine understand the promise of Australia because we have lived it. My family, who arrived here from India, Burma and England with little more than determination, built...
Migrant communities like mine understand the promise of Australia because we have lived it. My family, who arrived here from India, Burma and England with little more than determination, built lives, businesses and futures anchored in stability that this country once took for granted. My own maternal family could come here only because White Australia was abolished by the Holt government and finally dismantled under Whitlam and Fraser. That moment did not weaken Australia; it strengthened it. It opened the door to people who worked hard, played by the rules and made this country better. That stability depends on an immigration system that is orderly, fair, transparent and centred on the national interest. The hard truth is that the current system is failing to meet that standard. It is too large, too chaotic and too vulnerable to exploitation by universities, labour hire operators and those who see migration not as a nation-building project but as a commercial product. When migration becomes a volume business rather than a values based program, pressure falls hardest on the communities who welcomed newcomers first: migrant suburbs where housing is already strained, schools are crowded and job competition is real. People who have journeyed across the world to make Australia home know better than most that citizenship is earned, not purchased. They understand the value of secure borders, clear expectations and a program that prioritises contribution, cohesion and capacity over raw numbers. They know that rapid, unmanaged growth risks social fragmentation, wage suppression and reduced trust between communities who should be standing together. This is the task before this parliament, and migrant communities expect us to get this right.
Right now Australia's hardworking families are being left behind. Under Labor the cost of living is rising faster than wages. Too many families feel like they're working harder and not getting...
Right now Australia's hardworking families are being left behind. Under Labor the cost of living is rising faster than wages. Too many families feel like they're working harder and not getting ahead. People who make the difficult but deeply personal decision to work part time to raise their children, support ageing parents or children with a disability or special needs, or just keep the family show on the road are quietly punished by a tax system that doesn't see them. It's time we had a serious conversation about how our tax system treats families. Australia's personal income tax system doesn't just raise revenue; it sends a message about what we value. Right now that message is outdated and unfair to those who structure their lives around caring for children, elderly parents or loved ones with a disability or special or additional needs. Imagine two families earning a combined $160,000 a year. In one, both parents work full time and earn $80,000 each. In the other, one parent earns $120,000 while the other works part time and earns $40,000, perhaps to handle school pick-ups, provide care for a toddler or support a child or elderly parent. Under our current tax system the second family pays more tax. Why? It's because our tax system treats individuals in isolation, rather than recognising the shared reality of household finances and caregiving. This is where household income aggregation, also known as income splitting, comes in. It allows a family to be taxed based on their combined income, with tax brackets applying to the average income per adult. It's a small administrative shift that would make a big difference for fairness and better reflect the way modern families live in Australia today. Australia's system of individual income taxation takes no account of whether someone is supporting a household of one or a family of five. That means the more uneven the income split between partners the more tax the household pays overall. A family where one parent reduces hours to care for children or loved ones is punished financially, paying more tax than two full-time earners with the same total income. This isn't just about traditional single-income families; it's about modern families, where one partner goes part time to juggle parenting duties, support ageing relatives or just maintain a cohesive home. It's about giving households the freedom to decide what's best for them, without being pushed into a one-size-fits-all model by a cold and indifferent tax code. Under the aggregated system, that $160,000 total income could be treated as two $80,000 shares, regardless of how the earnings are split. It doesn't mean families pay less just for being families. It simply ensures that caregiving, whether full time or part time, isn't penalised. At its core it's about fairness. Care work, whether it's raising children or supporting elderly parents, is real work, but, unlike paid work, it's not recognised in our tax system. Household income aggregation would give proper value to those contributions by reflecting the shared financial responsibilities within a household. It would also enhance flexibility. Right now the system creates a sharp disincentive for secondary earners—usually women—to work more hours. Even modest income increases can push families into higher tax brackets or result in benefit cuts. Aggregating income would smooth these cliffs, making it easier for families to decide what combination of paid work and caregiving suits them best. Critics say the reform would be too complex or unfair to singles, but household aggregation could be made voluntary. It wouldn't affect those who prefer separate finances or who want to file as individuals. This isn't about creating winners and losers; it's about recognising the diversity of how Australians live. Working parents, carers, part-timers, stay-at-home mums and dads, shiftworkers—our tax system should respect them all. As the financial pressure on families grows, it's time for a tax system that backs the quiet heroes—those who put family first. The current government will not fix this problem. The Liberal Party believes we must reward effort, respect choice and provide a fair go for families. A tax system that recognises caregiving is central to delivering a fairer future for Australia's families and building stronger communities. Senate adjourned at 19:40
Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
I rise to support Senator Henderson's motion referring this matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The ABC receives about $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding each year....
I rise to support Senator Henderson's motion referring this matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The ABC receives about $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding each year. This funding will increase by $30 million each year until 2029. With that level of public investment, there comes a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality. Australians expect their public broadcaster to get the facts right, present issues fairly and correct mistakes quickly. Last year, the ABC received about 4,000 editorial and content complaints, with only 56 breaches upheld. The majority of complaints were not even investigated. This level of public concern makes it clear why oversight of the ABC is necessary. Senator Henderson has rightly said the ABC's editorial division has been allowed to run wild and is no longer fit for purpose as a taxpayer funded source of trusted news. I'll go through and highlight some of the examples, but I will take some out because my colleague Senator Henderson has covered some of them. In 2019, the ABC aired serious allegations accusing fellow senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who was then deputy mayor of Alice Springs, of spreading racist vitriol and hate speech. The claims were unverified. In 2021, two years later, the ABC apologised after a defamation action confirmed that the allegations were, in fact, false. The ABC admitted it failed to verify those statements before broadcasting them. They took a now senator through two years of a defamation trial at the taxpayers' expense, only to be found to have never verified the statements that they broadcast. In January 2023, the ABC's report on a community meeting in Alice Springs was found by the ombudsman to breach accuracy and impartiality standards. The ABC relied heavily on just one attendee, who described the event as a 'white supremacist fest', and ignored the broader community perspective. The ABC also understated the crowd size, reporting hundreds when more than 2,000 locals were present peacefully. The ombudsman ruled that the story misrepresented both the tone and the scale of the meeting, and the ABC was forced to correct and re-edit the story. These two instances show a clear pattern. We can keep going. In October 2023, the Federal Court ruled that the ABC defamed former commando Heston Russell, yet another trial that was paid for by you, the Australian taxpayer. In May 2025, the ABC news repeatedly reported that 14,000 babies would die in 48 hours in Gaza. The statistic was incorrect and was based on a misstatement by a UN spokesperson in an earlier BBC interview. The ABC repeated the claim across multiple programs and took a full week to correct it. The ombudsman found a clear accuracy breach and a breach for failing to correct a significant error promptly. This mistake spread misinformation and showed weak fact-checking and weak correction processes. I could keep going on. In recent weeks, I've seen a doctored photograph of my colleague Senator Hume on Insiders, which again raises questions about the ABC's editorial judgement. These examples matter. What we see here are unverified and one-sided claims, misrepresentations of events, failures of investigative fairness, major factual inaccuracies and editing choices that distort context. These are not isolated, one-off mistakes. They point to a systemic weakness in editorial processes. And what about the accountability to the Australian people and the taxpayers who fund this journalism? Public funding comes attached with accountability. The ABC is funded by Australians. That is $1.1 billion of taxpayer dollars every single year. Australians deserve confidence that this funding delivers factual, balanced and trustworthy journalism. Independence is important, but it does not mean that the ABC should be exempt from scrutiny. This inquiry will allow the Senate to examine whether editorial standards are being upheld, complaints processes are independent and effective, and corrections are made in a timely and transparent manner. This is a constructive process. It ensures the ABC meets the high standards that it sets for itself. That is why it is time for a transparent, independent inquiry into the ABC's impartiality. Australians deserve to have confidence that their national broadcaster upholds the highest standards of fairness, accuracy and balance. An inquiry would not be about attacking journalists nor about controlling content. It is about restoring public trust in our national broadcaster. With rising concerns about political bias, selective reporting and uneven scrutiny, Australians deserve transparency and accountability in our public broadcaster. We must ensure that the ABC truly serves all Australians. The ABC needs to be held to the standards as set out in its charter, a charter that is rightfully attached because it is publicly funded.
Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
At the request of Senator Kovacic, I present additional comments by opposition senators to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Education...
At the request of Senator Kovacic, I present additional comments by opposition senators to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
What Australians are witnessing is a part-time energy minister who spends more time chasing global applause than getting power bills down for hardworking Australians at home. How can the energy...
What Australians are witnessing is a part-time energy minister who spends more time chasing global applause than getting power bills down for hardworking Australians at home. How can the energy minister, who now has two jobs, face the Australian people? Australians expect his first duty to be to Australian households and businesses, not to the conference circuit. Under Labor, taxes are climbing, spending is soaring and debt is spiralling out of control. The minister has boasted that he walked away from the failed negotiations for COP31 with, in his words, 'all the power'. We ask ourselves, 'All the power over who and over what?' He will be the President of Negotiations at next year's COP31 climate summit. How will that help hardworking Australians? How will that help them get their energy bills down? Australians are entitled to ask a simple question: how much of their money was spent just so the energy minister could grab all of the power for himself? A figure of $8 million has been thrown around, but I'm sure that, as we find out more in this place, there will be hidden charges and costs that come with that. This theatre is paid for by you, the hardworking taxpayer. Australians do not want another global summit or another slogan. They want the lights to stay on and their bills to come down. They want an energy minister who spends less time on the tarmac and more time fixing our energy grid. They want someone who is focused on affordable, reliable power here in Australia instead of chasing claps in conference halls overseas. It's time to end the climate theatre and to get back to honest, practical energy policy that puts Australian households and jobs ahead of our minister's frequent flyer status. Australians are tired of being lectured on emissions by global elites who will happily bulldoze a rainforest for a more convenient access road to a climate summit. These conferences burn more carbon than they save, yet everyday Australians are turning off their heaters or their air conditioners and tightening their belts at the grocery store just so they can balance their household budget. Emissions are rising globally, not falling, despite all the grand announcements, the billions and trillions of dollars that are being spent and all of the glossy communiques. Power bills are up by around 40 per cent, and it is hardworking families and businesses who are paying roughly $1,300 more than they were promised. Let's remember that this government went to the election promising Australians a $275 reduction in their power bills. Labor's promise of that $275 reduction is now just a cruel joke to the Australian people. The only thing that has gone down under this government is trust. Emissions remain at about 28 per cent below 2005, exactly where they were when Labor took office. So Australians are getting higher bills without any extra progress in relation to emissions. Only the coalition has a plan that maps a practical path to affordable power and lower emissions—not Labor's recipe for soaring prices and targets that cannot be met. Our focus is on results for Australians, not targets that Australians can't meet. Our energy minister has gone out there and has committed to taking our No. 2 and our No. 3 exports completely off the table. Coal and gas are worth about $180 billion to the Australian economy. Our energy minister has gone over and signed us up to the Belem declaration, which is a declaration to phase out the use of fossil fuels. How is this going to help the Australian people and our economy? Our own minister is overseas, signing us up and impoverishing our nation just so that he can get that global applause on the world stage.
Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise today to speak against the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025. After spending two decades working in higher education before coming into this...
I rise today to speak against the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025. After spending two decades working in higher education before coming into this place, I know a little bit about how universities operate. I agree with the Greens on one thing—that our higher education system needs significant reform. But this bill is probably one of the silliest I have seen in my very short time being in the Senate. The Greens sound like they have a first-year-undergraduate level view of the world. They are like children who haven't yet fully developed their cognitive capacity. This just goes to show that the Greens, if they were running Australia, would mandate everything that they liked and ban everything that they didn't. They are the party that wants to control exactly what Australians do, how they live, what they're allowed to say and what they're not allowed to say, and I think this bill absolutely speaks to the heart of what the Greens have now become. They are activists rather than looking at sensible policies that are in the best interests of our nation, and I question whether they truly, really like Australia. This bill is characteristic of exactly what the Greens are like. It is an exercise in virtue signalling, completely divorced from reality. I worked in higher education, as I said, for two decades. Research and development that occurs in our higher education system is vital. There is research that goes into sciences, engineering, medicine and all of those different areas which are vital for Australia and vital for our future. We want to have the best thinkers and doers in our nation. Our universities are a great bed for that research and development to occur. Under this bill, the Greens would essentially ban all innovation that would happen, because, as my colleague Senator Kovacic pointed out, everything can be weaponised. What exactly would this bill exclude, if we're going to go through and say that we're not going to do anything in terms of weapons development? I can tell you that a lot of medical devices actually come from research that happens in other areas. What happens when there's research in one area that can be applied to another discipline? Under this bill, the Greens would basically say: 'Nope. That's banned. We're banning everything we don't like.' The Greens want our universities. They're quite happy for taxpayer dollars to go into indoctrinating the next generation of Australians, but, when it actually comes to genuine research and development, they want it banned. It is quite hilarious to be sitting here in the chamber, being lectured about how good the spending of taxpayer dollars is by the Greens. On this, they seem to worry. But, if it comes to the indoctrination of young people, the universities can have all the money they would like in the world. It's a blank cheque from the Greens for that. This bill is completely unworkable. It wants to list a whole group of bodies that it will say are prohibited. What does that mean? It means anyone who's engaged in business in relation to fossil fuels, and we all know the Greens are a huge enemy of fossil fuels. How did they all get to parliament? I'm guessing fossil fuels played a role in them actually being able to get here and come to this place. 'But, no, we'll ban anything to do with fossil fuels. We'll ban anything to do with gambling, tobacco, weapons,' or any other endeavour that they might say they're not interested in at that particular time. What this means is that this bill would be completely unworkable, and it is incredibly vague. But what it's trying to do is to say that universities will only research or be able to teach in areas that the Greens want to give a tick to. On this side of the chamber, with my colleagues, we believe in freedom of choice, and we want to give Australians the opportunity to explore whatever they like. We don't necessarily have to agree with them, but we want Australians to have the freedom to choose. What the Greens are doing is saying: 'You don't get the freedom to choose. You are just going to be mandated to in terms of what we say you will do and what you will like.' On this side of the chamber, we just cannot agree with that position. We are about freedom of choice. It's up to universities to have to disclose whether they would be doing research with these particular groups, so if we are going to say they are banned—and I take my home state of South Australia, for instance, where we are going to be hugely involved in Australia's defence capabilities—that would take an enormous amount of research and jobs out of my home state alone, let alone other states, like Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. What this bill would seek to do is say: 'We're no longer going to train and educate young Australian people. We're no longer going to let them have the full choice of things they may want to engage with.' The legislation basically says that, if you're involved in the manufacture or sale of weapons, you would be prohibited in this. Under this bill, would kitchen knives be weapons? What about baseball bats? What about radios? Radios are a huge part of armed conflicts, so would that be banned? We're not going to allow engineering students to look at that? We won't develop the best technology that we possibly can? Even things like cars are things you've got to use in combat; weapons systems are mounted on them. Of course, chemicals can be weapons, and chemical warfare is one of the most horrific forms of modern warfare that we could possibly see. We're no longer going to be able to do any kind of research and development in these areas. There are satellites; communications infrastructure is used across the modern battle space, and certainly controls modern battle. You could even go into shipping. What about trade and transport? They're also things which will be used in modern warfare. Will they be banned as well? Artificial intelligence and quantum computing—it is hugely important for Australians to be at the forefront of that development of machine learning. Are all of these going to be banned under the Greens' proposed bill? Because they certainly can be weaponised. All of these things can be weaponised, as, you could argue, anything in the world can be weaponised. Does that mean that universities will be prohibited from partnerships with places like Coles, Woolworths and Target because they sell kitchen knives and baseball bats? Will universities no longer be able to go into partnerships with them? Does that mean that universities won't be able to go into a partnership with any kind of organisation that makes chemicals, including for cleaning or for medical purposes? Certainly, for our mathematics and engineering departments, quantum computing will be completely off the table under this proposal from the Greens. We wouldn't be able to look at artificial intelligence or computer science. All of those jobs of tomorrow, all of those industries of tomorrow, will be completely off the table. This bill is so hopelessly broad that it will basically look to ban everything. I am struggling to think of anything other than the very woke that the universities are teaching now that will be exempt from this, which is probably exactly what the Greens want. That's of course going to be their agenda in this. Looking at board appointments to universities, anyone who has any kind of investment in any of these businesses, which would include superannuation, would be exempt from being able to serve on a university board, which is just completely absurd. This is not well thought through. The Greens are just looking to come through and ban the things that they don't like but haven't thought of what the real-world consequences are. So a vision of the world under the Greens is one where universities can't work with anyone—certainly, I can't think of any business; not Woolworths, not Coles, not a chemist, not hospitals; nobody—and no-one who has a superannuation fund will ever be able to sit on a university board. We can look at things like the gambling industry. I would argue that research into gambling is actually really important. How do we know what the harms of things like the gambling industry are if you can't even talk about it or research it because that's banned? This is just completely ridiculous. 'The Greens don't like it, so we're going to ban it.' Even a newsagent who sells scratchies, every school fete that runs a chocolate wheel, or any club or pub that has pokies—banned by the Greens. The whole fossil fuel industry will be prohibited, which means any corporation that involves the exploration, prospecting, discovery, development, extraction or exportation of fossil fuels. Last I checked, Australia was a pretty resource-rich nation, and the very economy that we live in is driven by our resources. Under this, the Greens will ban that. I'm not sure what they expect Australians to do when all of these things are banned, but I think we'll all be living in caves, having a little camp fire to cook our dinner on. Any logistics company which transports fuels, any shipping company, any mining company—it's really anyone who has any kind of link to the fossil fuel supply chain. They're are all going to be banned as well. If you have, say, an investment fund that has BHP shares, you're not even going to be a fit and proper person to sit on a university board. Imagine if these categories were extended even more broadly and it was determined that any business or undertaking engaged in habitat destruction should be proscribed because it's harmful to the Australian community—there go all of the renewables because renewables are harming our natural environment. We're putting solar panels and transmission lines and wind turbines in our pristine natural environment. Under the Greens proposal—and I'm sure they haven't thought this through—that would all be banned as well. That's going to be problematic, and maybe they should have thought this through and not had their undergraduate, year 1 of university, understanding of how the world works. Having said all of that, this is really about the Greens pushing their agenda on Australians, telling Australians what they should and shouldn't like and what they can and can't say and basically sending our economy backwards. This is probably one of the silliest bills I've seen in my very short time in the Senate, and I can only imagine that the Greens are doing this so they can make social media videos and get some spin out of this for the wider people they think they are here to serve. But this hasn't been thought through. It's a shameless attempt at social media, and this Senate should be focused on the things that matter to everyday Australians, who are in a cost-of-living crisis and need houses. Unfortunately the Greens are wasting the Senate's time with silly ideas like this. Obviously I won't be supporting this bill.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I'm going to start by addressing some of the remarks made by Labor and the Greens which are really quite extraordinary, and there were some that I personally found quite offensive, that a man is...
I'm going to start by addressing some of the remarks made by Labor and the Greens which are really quite extraordinary, and there were some that I personally found quite offensive, that a man is not a financial plan. Nowhere in this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, does it have any kind of connotation that a man is a financial plan, and unless Labor and the Greens have some kind of magic solution that is going to mean women like me—I've had three children, which have necessitated me having to take time off work to have those children. Unless Labor and the Greens can solve that issue for women, why shouldn't a family—a man and wife, a wife and wife—decide that, for the care of children, they will actually share their super contributions and make that decision on an annual basis? What it tells me about Labor and the Greens is that they don't value the unpaid work that happens in child care and child raising that happens within the family—that they don't value that and they don't respect that. Rather than coming up with actual issues with the structure of this bill, all they are doing is throwing out very crazy, reckless ideas that somehow women are dependent on men asking for this. I can tell you that in my family situation, even though I was the one who had time off work, my super balance is actually higher than my husband's, because he's self-employed. I was very lucky to have a high super. Why couldn't I do it the other way and share with him? Why are Labor and the Greens assuming that this only goes one way when it comes to super? Of course my situation is probably not what most Australians experience, but there would certainly be a lot of people in that situation. What this bill is trying to do—and I congratulate my colleague Jane Hume for introducing this bill to the parliament, because we all know that women aged over 55 are the largest growing group experiencing homelessness in Australia. That is largely because they have less super. When there is a marriage breakup or a relationship breakdown, it is women who are financially significantly behind. A lot of them might have taken time off work to raise children. It might be that they're now empty nesters and have spent that time doing the care work around the house. It's difficult to find employment. You might not have a very large super balance. These women are now disproportionately showing up in our statistics for homelessness. This bill is trying to address that. Rather than finding frivolous reasons why to not do something—because you want to do something and fix everyone's problems—why don't we tackle this one particular problem, which I think this bill actually does, making the superannuation system fairer for women and enabling families to make a choice of what they would like to do with their money? What we hear from Labor and the Greens is that they hate Australians having choice. They don't want you to be able to decide what you can do with your money. They want to tell you what will happen, and—let's be honest—superannuation accounts are just a piggybank for Labor. When they run out of money, they will absolutely come after yours. They will come after Australians' superannuation balances, so the idea that we're actually going to start making the superannuation system fairer for women, in particular, scares them a little bit. Labor's solution to this problem—and they've given us a long list of things that they say they're going to do—is that, just by addressing the pay gap, it will magically fix super. Once again, I would say that unless there is a solution whereby women don't have to take time off work for childbirth—and, I can tell you, after having three natural deliveries, I was very grateful to have some time off work, and it certainly exceeded what my sick leave allocation would have been—addressing the gender pay gap is not sufficient. That is not a sufficient measure to address what is happening in the reality of superannuation in this country. Labor don't value family, they're not valuing the unpaid work contribution that Australians make within their own family situation, and they don't value Australians having that personal responsibility and that personal choice to do it. I will say that the example of the, I think, $5.5 million, was just to demonstrate the guardrails that are in place for the bill. That's not saying that Australians have that super balance and that it is a normal balance; it's just to demonstrate that there are guardrails that have been put into this bill to show that you can't just transfer whole balances over from one partner to the other. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that it's a disturbing number and that a man is not a financial plan. After the care that women across our country put into raising children and having children, why shouldn't they be able to split superannuation? Couples might split the electricity bill; they might split the mortgage payments. You're able to split superannuation and, legislatively, you're required to aggregate superannuation at the time that a relationship or a marriage dissolves. Why can't you choose to do that when you're happily together? Why does it have to be only on the dissolution of a relationship that there is some equity that's put into the superannuation system? What this bill does is create a way for one partner to say to the other, 'I'm valuing what you're doing, staying at home, raising and caring for children, and we can split the super so that it's fair.' One partner can say to the other, 'I accept,' and it is usually the woman—or the mother—who stays at home to raise the children. The other partner says: 'That's great. I'm valuing what you're doing by staying home and not being in the workplace. I accept that you may not be getting paid for that work.' There are a lot of reasons why Labor have said they don't support the bill. What I haven't seen is a good reason not to. This is really about giving individuals the opportunity to decide what works best for them and their families. I think the coalition has a fantastic record on superannuation. Unlike Labor over there, who use it as a piggy bank—it's run for their union mates—the coalition, in the time we were in government, made superannuation far fairer, more efficient and more transparent. We capped fees on low balances; we banned fees on rollovers and investment switches; we made expensive insurance premiums opt-in, rather than opt-out, for young people; and we abolished the $450 rule. On this side of the chamber, we in the coalition certainly have a very, very strong record when it comes to making our super system in Australia fair. This isn't also necessarily for older people. Younger people can choose to opt in to this scheme as well. The coalition has the Your Future, Your Super reforms. That ensures that workers' funds follow them from job to job so that young workers don't have to join a new super fund every time they change employers. It is like Labor to say that they invented superannuation, but it took a coalition government to make superannuation work for members instead of the unions and super fund managers. Tackling the gender super gap is the next step to ensuring that superannuation in Australia is more flexible and fair, particularly for women, and making sure that your hard-earned dollars in your superannuation accounts are working for you and your family and not for Labor and Labor's mates.
Australians are good stewards of this land. We care deeply about our environment, our farms, our coastlines and our communities. Australians want to do the right thing, yet this government wants...
Australians are good stewards of this land. We care deeply about our environment, our farms, our coastlines and our communities. Australians want to do the right thing, yet this government wants to carve up our beautiful country to make way for renewables. Ninety-five per cent of Australia's emissions reductions have not come from technology or innovation but from land use restrictions. This is not stewardship. It is saying one thing and doing another. The Australian people deserve better. We're constantly being told that the wind and the sun cost nothing, but—for the grown-ups in the room—nothing is ever for free. The real cost is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 for every single Australian. We were promised cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy. Instead, costs are soaring, reliability is failing and Labor's green subsidies are lining the pockets of foreign companies, green energy grifters and international investors while putting everyday Australians out of work. Even leading economists now admit that no large-scale renewable projects are proceeding without government support. When will the minister and this government admit that billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to prop up projects that cannot stand on their own merit. Take the Capacity Investment Scheme, an open-ended subsidy that guarantees profits for renewable developers. It puts taxpayers on the hook whenever market prices fall. The government pays the difference. With no spending cap, all the financial risk shifts from private investors to Australian households, who are already paying—and struggling with—higher power bills. Then there's the new vehicle efficiency standard; I call that 'Labor's war on utes'. We are told it is about cleaner cars and cheaper fuel. In truth, it comes with a hundred-million-dollar set-up bill and annual ongoing costs—money that could have gone to roads, schools and essential services. Instead, everyday Australians are paying more for vehicles, losing choice in the market and watching billions flow into red tape and green tape. This is not climate action; it is cost shifting and economic self-harm. It's also government control and overreach, telling us what cars we can and can't drive and unfairly impacting those who use a ute or a larger four-wheel drive for their work or family. Last time I checked, a Tesla isn't really great for farm work or to chuck your tools in if you're a tradie. Meanwhile, the safeguard mechanism operates as a carbon tax by another name, taxing our largest employers only to hand them subsidies so that they can survive. It is economics turned upside down, driving up costs, driving out manufacturing and driving away investment. Many major employers across mining, manufacturing and energy are being forced to buy overseas carbon credits or face penalties. Independent analysis shows this could cost industry up to $1.7 billion a year and nearly $12 billion by 2030. That is money that could have gone into cleaner technologies, new projects and regional jobs. Instead, it's being drained to meet arbitrary targets set in Canberra. What does this mean for ordinary Australians? These costs don't stop with businesses. They flow directly to families and workers in the form of higher prices and fewer opportunities. Electricity, construction materials, fuel and everyday goods are becoming more expensive as compliance costs rise. While our international competitors continue to produce without these burdens, this government is making it harder to build, mine and manufacture at home. The safeguard mechanism isn't safeguarding our economy; it's undermining it—one compliance bill at a time. Under this government, 8,000 manufacturing jobs have vanished. Jobs are being exported, and Australians are left to pay the price of bad policy. Australians are good stewards of the land. We believe in sustainability. What we don't believe in is self-sabotage—nor in hollow slogans about 'free energy' that costs trillions. When will Labor finally do the maths on their net zero targets? This no longer stacks up.
Australians deserve honesty about energy policy. The reality is that Labor's net zero cannot be achieved without devastating consequences for Australian families, farmers, businesses and...
Australians deserve honesty about energy policy. The reality is that Labor's net zero cannot be achieved without devastating consequences for Australian families, farmers, businesses and manufacturers and, of course, our natural environment. It's driving up electricity prices, hollowing out our industrial base and undermining our energy security, yet the government continues to treat this fantasy as sacred doctrine. Under Minister Bowen, billions have been funnelled into renewable subsidies and carbon schemes that deliver more political theatre than power. The result is a fragile grid, soaring household bills and a generation of young Australians who are told their country's future depends on shutting down the industries that sustain it: coal, gas and uranium. The resources that built modern Australia are demonised while we import solar panels, wind turbines and batteries from nations like China with poor labour conditions and far weaker environmental standards. This is not environmental stewardship. It's economic self-harm disguised as virtue. Our responsibility is to the national interest—to provide affordable, reliable energy that sustains jobs, strengthens sovereignty and underwrites prosperity. Targets set to appease international forums do not heat homes, power factories or defend our nation. Energy policy must serve Australian families, not the applause of global elites. It's time to remove subsidies paid by hardworking Australian families to green energy grifters and wealthy international investors. We need an unapologetic return to energy realism; investment in dependable power, including next-generation nuclear; maintenance of our coal and gas capacity; and policies that reward Australian production rather than penalise it. A strong domestic energy sector is essential to reindustrialising our regions, rebuilding manufacturing and making Australia once again a country that makes things, grows things and exports strength to the world.
Energy | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I rise to take note of questions asked by the coalition in question time today, and I will take some of the comments from those opposite in terms of where the coalition stands in relation to...
I rise to take note of questions asked by the coalition in question time today, and I will take some of the comments from those opposite in terms of where the coalition stands in relation to energy policy. Under this Labor government, power bills are up, emissions are up, and productivity has flatlined. We're talking about billions of dollars in rebates with no intrinsic value for the taxpayer. When those opposite stand up and purport that the sun and the wind do not cost anything, I would put to them: why is it going to cost $1.33 trillion just to get solar panels and wind turbines? That number does not include transmission lines. The sun and the wind are going to cost $1.33 trillion. When those opposite put these things to the Australian people—those opposite stood up at the election and said that they would lower power bills by $275. They then came into this chamber and said that they were always expecting power prices to rise. Why did they lie to the Australian people? Why did they mislead the Australian people into believing that they would have cheaper electricity under this Labor government? This government's reckless pursuit of net zero at any cost is costing Australian businesses. It's costing Australian families. It is costing everyday hardworking taxpayers. We've got this government taking over farmland—agricultural, beautiful, pristine parts of Australia—to put in solar panels and wind turbines. This government is proposing to destroy our natural environment—all in the name of having what they call the cheapest form of energy. And I say: if it is the cheapest form of energy, why have our power bills gone up 23.6 per cent? If this is truly the cheapest form of energy for the Australian people, we should be seeing costs coming down. We are not seeing costs fall. We are seeing costs rise, and we are seeing costs rise across the board because when electricity is expensive, it's more expensive to do everything. It's more expensive to produce milk. It's more expensive to transport our products. It's more expensive for businesses to keep the lights on. We are seeing inflation go through the roof in our country. We are a wealthy, resource-rich nation, and this Labor government is driving us into poverty. We are going to see living standards fall drastically. That's what productivity tells us. When productivity flatlines, we know that our living standards are the next thing that are going to fall. On this side of the chamber, we stand for everyday, hardworking Australians. We stand for sensible policy in relation to energy. We stand for sensible policy in relation to the environment, and we will stand every single day with the Australian people to make sure that they have access to cheap, reliable energy. That is something that this Labor government is not able to deliver for the Australian people. Even their own spending in terms of what they are doing to our economy—they are spending at four times the rate of the growth of our economy. We are expecting to see here in Australia a debt set to reach $1.2 trillion. I have three children, and I worry because my three children are inheriting that debt. I certainly worry about their children, which will be my grandchildren, and what that is going to mean for them. We were the lucky country. That's why my grandparents and my parents migrated here—for the opportunities that were afforded to all Australians who came to our sure. But, when I think about that debt and I think about the impact that that is going to have on my children and my children's children, it scares me. This out-of-control spending is hurting everyday Australians, and it has to stop. Emissions are up, power bills are up and productivity has flatlined. This Labor government has to accept that they have the policy settings all wrong and the Australian people are the ones who are paying the price. (Time expired) Question agreed to.
Regional Security | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
What steps is the government taking to reassure Australians, including the families of ADF personnel and the Australian public more broadly, that our maritime surveillance and...
What steps is the government taking to reassure Australians, including the families of ADF personnel and the Australian public more broadly, that our maritime surveillance and freedom-of-navigation operations will continue safely?
How does the government balance maintaining trade with its friend China versus regional security concerns?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The government has publicly described the incident on 19 to 20 October in the South China Sea in which a Chinese...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. The government has publicly described the incident on 19 to 20 October in the South China Sea in which a Chinese Su-35 fighter jet released flares dangerously close to a Royal Australian Air Force P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft as 'unsafe and unprofessional', yet the PM still labels China as friends. What is the government's view of the incident, does the PM truly believe China is a friend, and how is Australia ensuring its aircraft and crew are safe in the region?
Gender and Sexual Orientation | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Sall Grover, an Australian entrepreneur, created Giggle, a women-only app, to give women a safe space free from online harassment from men. When a biological man sought to join, she said no. For...
Sall Grover, an Australian entrepreneur, created Giggle, a women-only app, to give women a safe space free from online harassment from men. When a biological man sought to join, she said no. For that, she has spent four years and nearly $2 million in court. Her case is now before the Federal Court, not only for herself, but for every woman and girl who believes women deserve spaces of their own. This is not just about women. It is about any group with legitimate criteria for membership—a prostate cancer support group for men, a children's club for kids or a miscarriage support group for women. Each exists for a reason, and that reason collapses if membership can be claimed by anyone at will. Men cannot have miscarriages, women cannot get prostate cancer, and adults certainly can't be children. Yet our sex discrimination commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, paid $400,000 a year, recently told Senate estimates she did not understand the term 'biological man'. How can the nation's top official for women's rights not grasp basic biology? If she cannot define a woman, how can she defend one? I call on this government to sack Dr Cody immediately. Since 2013, gender identity has overridden sex in the law. The result is the erasure of women's rights, and parliament must act to restore clarity to protect single-sex spaces, services and opportunities as lawful and necessary. This is not intolerance; it is reality and it is fairness. Without sex based rights, we cannot protect women. Gender identity must never override biological sex.