Jess Walsh

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Scarr:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for the Albanese Labor Government to admit that power bills across Australia have increased significantly since coming to office, despite Prime Minister Albanese saying 97 times before the election that power bills would be reduced by $275 by 2025."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Paul Scarr

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to admit that power bills across Australia have increased significantly since coming to office, despite Prime Minister Albanese saying 97 times before the election that power bills would be reduced by $275 by 2025.

I'm very pleased my colleagues supported the discussion of this very important matter of urgency. In the weeks leading up to the next federal election, now is the time for the people of Australia to consider the promises that were made by the now Labor government before the last federal election. Now is the time for the Australian people to write the report card of the Albanese Labor government. Now is the time to consider the promises that were made before Australians voted and to look at the reality after three years of the Albanese Labor government.

Now Prime Minister Albanese promised 97 times to cut power bills. On 3 December 2021, he said that the Labor Party's plan:

… will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today.

We're now in 2025, and what's the result? Power bills have gone up, not down. They've gone up.

Our Powering Australia Plan will create over 600,000 jobs. It will reduce energy prices in the national energy market for households by $275.

That was the Prime Minister at a doorstop on 4 December 2021.

I've got pages and pages of these quotes. No fewer than 17 times in December 2021, the now Prime Minister promised that power bills would decrease by, on average, $275. He promised it 17 times in December 2021. Then we go into January 2022. It was the same thing. I quote from a press conference on 3 January 2022:

… reducing energy prices by $275 for the average household.

That's what the now Prime Minister said on 3 January 2022. This is what he said on 7 January:

It'll cut average power bills for households by $275 by 2025.

At a doorstop on 7 January, he said:

… reducing power bills for households by $275 by 2025.

It goes on and on. Here's a great one; this one is one of my favourites. On 12 January 2021, this is what the Prime Minister said:

It would see—

that's the Labor Party's power plan—

640,000 jobs created and a reduction in power bills on average of $275 by 2025. It's a practical plan.

That's what the Prime Minister said at a doorstop on 12 January 2021.

Another 10 times in January, he said that power prices would go down by, on average, $275. And then there's more. In February and in March, there were more of these promises. In my home state of Queensland, at a rally on 3 April 2022—about three years ago—he said that the Albanese government would:

… lower household power bills by $275 a year by 2025.

That was the promise that the now Prime Minister made to the people of my home state of Queensland. What's the reality? Power prices have gone up. They haven't gone down; they've gone up, on average, by $1,000 for your average household. We've seen wholesale prices skyrocket by 83 per cent in the past year, with record highs in New South Wales and Queensland, proving that Labor's 2022 pre-election energy modelling was a complete and utter fantasy. Labor's energy approach has, in fact, come at five times the cost that Australians were initially promised. So where my office is located, in the federal electorate of Blair, households in Ipswich and the Somerset region are under financial stress. They are struggling to make ends meet.

Deborah O'Neill

Right now, every Australian family knows that cost of living is front and centre, and it is front and centre for the Albanese Labor government too. We know that one of the points of pressure on household budgets is the power bill, and that's why, instead of just talking about it and fearmongering about it, the Albanese Labor government has made energy bill relief a top priority. We have delivered three rounds of direct relief. That's $75 deducted from your bill each quarter. Go and have a look at the black print on your bill. It shows that we're trying to help, because we know that this is an issue for you.

In addition to that, we've acted to cap gas and energy prices, and now we're going to go even further in helping you with your household bill by taking another $150 straight off your power bill—and it'll be written there for you to see—so that we honour our commitment to you, because, when families are doing it tough, we in the Labor Party and in the Albanese Labor government understand that it's time for us to take responsibility and to step in and help. What we're doing is real, practical support, and it's also sound economic management. We want to provide relief to you while keeping downward pressure on inflation.

The reality is that those opposite talk a big game on economics but, when Peter Dutton and his team last left office, inflation had a six in front of it and interest rates were climbing. Now, under the Albanese Labor governments responsible economic management, inflation has a two in front of it and, thankfully, interest rates are falling. While we're focused on supporting Australians, what's Mr Dutton doing? Well, let's be clear. He stood in the way. He said no. He opposed the $300 energy bill relief that we put in place to help you, and, instead of a real plan, he has cooked up a reckless $600 billion—with a 'b'—nuclear scheme, or fantasy. Really, that's what it is; it's a fantasy so costly that he will have to cut Medicare and slash essential services to pay for it. Let's be clear. Peter Dutton's cuts mean you pay.

What's worse is that Mr Dutton's desire to go nuclear won't deliver. Mr Dutton's own modelling shows that his nuclear gamble won't lower bills. It'll lock in more of the expensive, ageing coal plants already pushing up our prices. The Australian Energy Regulator has made it clear. Coal plants break down, especially ageing ones, and that's what we've got in Australia. Transmission bottlenecks drove 23 high-price events in just the last quarter, because what's really intermittent in our system now is our ageing coal fired power plants. They're past their use-by date.

We're focused on the future, and that's why, in contrast to Mr Dutton, every step we've taken has been to expand renewables and put downward pressure on prices. We did that in 2022. It was true then and it's true now, and that's why we're reforming the whole electricity system to make it easier for Australians to switch to better energy deals, remove excessive fees and ensure everyone gets the concessions that they are entitled to.

Last week's default market offer highlighted the urgency of this task, which we are taking seriously, but it also showed that competition is working. Plans up to 25 per cent cheaper than the benchmark are out there, and we want every family to check that they are getting the best deal. Visit the Energy Made Easy website. Don't leave money on the table for the energy providers; keep it in your family's income and in your own budget. Let me be clear, Australians face a real choice: a government that's honest and that backs them in tough times, or Peter Dutton, whose cuts you will pay for. Don't take the risk.

Malcolm Roberts

No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they're still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher.

This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that's net zero. There's only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that's One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can't. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices.

There's a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won't say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let's have a serious look. Australia's annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia's coal and use it, yet Australians can't use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what's known as baseload power; it's designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren't designed for.

The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket.

Long debate text truncated.

Michaelia Cash

I seek leave to move a motion related to further revelations about the CFMEU's links with organised crime and the consideration of legislation as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to further revelations about the CFMEU's links with organised crime and the consideration of legislation.

Let us be very clear about the legislation that the coalition is seeking to bring on today and pass through the Australian Senate. It is, of course, to restore the tough cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.

Quite frankly, what we saw on _60 Minutes_were utterly vile revelations. Seriously, you had a health and safety rep—the irony of this person's title—standing there kicking a woman on a construction site. I cannot think of anything more shameful, more degrading and, quite frankly, more in need of this Senate coming together today and restoring the tough cop on the beat to ensure that the construction industry in Australia has half a chance of competing against organised crime.

Organised crime in Australia has infiltrated the CFMEU, is running the CFMEU and, in doing that, now controls the construction industry in Australia, and the Labor Party sit back and do nothing. We all know why. It is because in the time that Prime Minister Albanese has been leading the Labor Party the Labor Party has received from the CFMEU $11.5 million either in donations or in electoral support. What an absolute disgrace! Money talks in this country—dirty money flowing from the CFMEU, infiltrated by organised crime, into the Australian Labor Party. A very good question that needs to be asked is: given these ongoing revelations, is the Australian Labor Party going to return that money to the hardworking members of the CFMEU who, quite frankly, are not properly represented by the organised crime that is now allegedly infiltrating them?

This is what we saw on that Sunday night. We saw bikies perpetrating domestic violence on job sites for taxpayer funded projects. Someone kicking a woman played out on our TV screens across Australia. We stand here today willing to work with the government to bring on these two bills to restore the tough cop on the beat and ensure that there is legislation to remove these criminals from worksites. We all know that the government hasn't given us leave to do that, and we know why—because money talks. The money this government has taken from the CFMEU is the reason it refuses to do anything about it. But what is worse is that the first thing Mr Albanese did when he became Prime Minister of this country was to abolish the tough cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And why did he do that? Because that was the No. 1 wish-list item for John Setka, the CFMEU and the ACTU. You have to be kidding me—the ABCC. I'm sure those on the other side will stand up and tell us how they were not successful. Well, of course they would! They have a financial interest in ensuring that there is no tough cop on the beat in the construction sector.

This is the reality that Australians face at the moment. The CFMEU is a modern-day mafia organisation. The culture of criminality and corruption is now so entrenched—and we saw it again on 60 Minutes last Sunday night—that it will never ever change, especially under a government that is still to this day completely, totally and utterly beholden to the CFMEU. There is only one party that will stand up, and that is the coalition, because we're not beholden to them.

Murray Watt

The government will be opposing this motion.

Michaelia Cash

Seriously. Shame!

Murray Watt

Deputy President, I might point out that Senator Cash was heard in complete silence.

Andrew McLachlan

Yes. Order, please, for the minister!

Murray Watt

It would be a good thing if similar respect could be shown to all speakers, whether it be me or anyone else. I know you don't want to hear the arguments against this, but I'm here to provide them to you. The government will be opposing this motion. First of all, it's an attempt to disrupt the program, which has already been set, which is to deal with matters including the workplace gender equality amendment, setting gender equality targets. We've just heard from Senator Cash about why supporting women in workplaces is important, but her political stunt now is about stopping debate on workplace gender equality amendment legislation, which is about setting gender equality targets. So it's a political stunt designed to disrupt a program which has already been listed.

But let's go to the substance of what Senator Cash is trying to do. The allegations we saw again on 60 Minutes and in other media reports a week ago were completely unacceptable, were appalling and were the direct result of the investigations commissioned by the administrator of the CFMEU. I know Senator Cash isn't prepared to listen to arguments and would rather yell than listen to those arguments, but the reality is that many of the allegations that we have seen on our TV screens over the last 12 months occurred while the coalition was in power and while it had an ABCC in force. These things were going on under the nose of the ABCC while it was prosecuting workers for putting stickers on their helmets and while it was prosecuting workers and unions for displaying flags on worksites. All of this criminality was not just occurring but flourishing while the ABCC was in place under a coalition government. Do you know what started to change that? It was the actions of a Labor government, which took the unprecedented step of passing legislation through this parliament that enabled the appointment of an administrator to the CFMEU who is beginning the long, difficult job of cleaning up an organisation that desperately needed cleaning up.

We also need to recognise, of course, that, as horrifying as some of the allegations we've seen about activities within the CFMEU are—and they are horrifying—there has also been terrible misbehaviour on the part of some employers and some labour hire firm operators in the sector. You never hear anything about that from the coalition; it's only about unions and workers. This government is about cleaning up the construction sector as a whole—including the CFMEU, gangland figures like Mick Gatto and the other corrupt individuals who are involved in this industry. Senator Paterson may have observed that only a week or so ago, as a result of investigations by the CFMEU administrator that are occurring, the Australian Federal Police raided a number of premises that seemed to be connected to these gangland figures. It might be politically convenient for the opposition to argue that things haven't changed enough within the CFMEU in the six months that the administrator has been in power, but the only reason we are seeing these revelations in the media, the only reason we are seeing police raids and the only reason we have seen a number of officials, organisers and delegates sacked from the CFMEU for misbehaviour is the appointment of the administrator. So the administrator should be able, unimpeded by political stunts like this one from Senator Cash, to continue the job of cleaning up the CFMEU and ensuring that workers in the construction sector have a strong and effective union to defend their rights and their safety at work.

Just very briefly, in the time I have left, I might go to what Senator Cash's bill seeks to do. We saw that press conference in Melbourne the other day with the opposition leader, Senator Cash and Senator Paterson—and every other senator who wanted to try to get their mug on TV. What did they say they wanted to do and what is contained within the bill? Well, for all their complaints about the activities of the CFMEU and John Setka and people like that, if this bill passes it will deregister the CFMEU. It will mean the CFMEU is not subject to any regulation whatsoever. You are effectively handing the keys for the CFMEU national office back to John Setka. You are handing the keys to the CFMEU back to the criminals and crooks who'd been thrown out of the CFMEU, because you are going to allow them to operate in an unregulated environment. Do you really think that's going to make things better? You will bring back the ABCC, under which this activity flourished with no consequences. You will put in place a police taskforce that already exists. This will let the worst elements back out on construction sites— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie

Well, here we are: another day, another minister standing up running a protection racket for the CFMEU here under the Albanese government. They like to think that, because they've put an administrator in charge, we can now throw the Harry Potter invisibility cloak over the corruption issues within the construction industry in this country. But meanwhile they pay their preselectors, they take the donations, they line their pockets, they take their Senate seats—thank you very much, captains of the construction industry—and we see, in Victoria alone, $5 billion of cost blowouts for infrastructure projects.

It is not just the men and women working in this industry day in, day out who are subjected to the horrific behaviour on construction sites around this country that was exposed by the 60 Minutes investigation and by the excellent journalism of the Sydney Morning Herald and Age, including Nick McKenzie—brave stuff, because these are very, very dangerous people, and threatening people's lives is something they do quite easily and willingly. So well done to our journalists. But, aside from the men and women who are being subjected to this type of behaviour on construction sites around the country, it is our infrastructure pipeline of funding where the federal taxpayer is being ripped off. I wrote to Catherine King, the minister responsible, on 17 July 2024, when these revelations first were made and we found out that another $5 billion had to be shovelled to Victoria, not for one more kilometre of road or one more railway station but because of cost blowouts—and we didn't know why.

I wrote to the federal minister and said: 'Can you assure me, on behalf of the Commonwealth taxpayer, that this money is not going to the CFMEU and not going to organised crime? And how do you know?' I got a lovely letter back from the minister—and I foreshadow that if the chamber allows me I'll be tabling that letter—wherein she told me that she has directed her state and territory counterpart ministers to account for all their dollars. But it would seem, despite the administrator being appointed and despite Catherine King's explanations that she had it all under control, that it's not all under control. I actually had to write to her last week to ask her whether the Victorian government had complied with her direction about funding, what action the Victorian government and the federal government have taken with respect to the conduct that has been exposed again by 60 M__inutes and Nick McKenzie and fellow journalists, and what measures Catherine King initiated to satisfy herself that there had been no improper or unlawful conduct on Commonwealth funded construction sites in Victoria. As yet, there has been silence—silence from the minister.

What we know on our side of politics is that this is not just restricted to Victoria. This is not only a Victoria's Big Build problem. We saw evidence to this parliament that construction costs in Queensland had skyrocketed in excess of 30 per cent simply because of the involvement of the CFMEU. That is a fact. That means the Olympics infrastructure will cost more. That means the Bruce Highway safety upgrades will cost more. Australians are getting less for their tax dollar because of this unholy alliance between the Australian Labor Party, the CFMEU and organised crime.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Stop being apologists for this behaviour, and stand up. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. You've been given the evidence by us, by auditors, by whistleblowers, by construction owners and by the ABCC, and you've done nothing. You do nothing. You stand up in this chamber time and time again, take their money and their votes for your preselections and do nothing against this criminality.

Long debate text truncated.

Michaelia Cash

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of Labor's super tax bills from the Notice Paper, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the N otice_ _P aper.

Colleagues, super tax bills are exactly what the coalition is against. Let's recall what the Prime Minister said prior to the election. He looked the Australian people in the eye, like he did on so many occasions, and he promised no changes to superannuation. Yet what has he done with the Australian Greens? What has he done? They have a bill on this Notice Paper that will take more money from the pockets of Australians, as if Australians were not doing it tough already under this government.

You promised the world to Australians prior to the last election, and the only thing—the only thing—that you have delivered to them is a cost-of-living crisis. On top of that cost-of-living crisis, you now have the audacity to say to hardworking Australians, who go into work every day, who work hard and who are putting money away for their retirement: 'It's not your money. It's the Labor Party's money and it's the Greens' money. And it doesn't matter how hard you worked. Guess what? We want it. It's a pot of money, and we are going to take it from you.'

Let me be very, very clear. This is an election issue, and the coalition proudly stands with hardworking Australians—mums and dads, small-business people—who go into work every day, who do a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. They put money away for their superannuation. Our fundamental principle is: your money, your super. We will fight this government and the Australian Greens every single step of the way to ensure that they do not get their dirty little hands, their little mitts, on your hard-earned cash.

Let's look at the detail of what they want to do; it gets worse. They tell Australians—it's simple, seriously—80,000 people will be affected. Actually, their own figures, from the Treasurer's own department, show it is not 80,000 people. More than two million Australians under the age of 25 today will be slugged with Labor's latest tax grab. So to all those young people out there who might be thinking, 'I'm going to vote Greens,' I say: just remember you will be working hard for many decades to come. You will be putting money away into your superannuation for your retirement. And guess what? There are not 80,000 of you. The Labor Party and the Australian Greens are going after literally one in 10 Australians to take their hard-earned money. Think about that carefully before you vote, because, even if they voted to discharge this from the Notice Paper today, guess what? You've done a dirty deal today to kill off gas, to stop gas—and we know you need to pop more of that into the market—with the Australian Greens. The end result is that Australians will now pay more for their energy under this dirty little backroom deal that has been done by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens.

James McGrath

Your preference mates!

Michaelia Cash

Absolutely, their preference mates. It's not only that—and I hope Senator McKenzie gets to speak to this motion. I think one of the most offensive parts of Labor's super tax on the Australian people is the taxing of unrealised capital gains. Do you know what that means for all of the retirees and all of the farmers out there? They will pay tax on money they haven't even made yet. Farmers have warned the Australian Labor Party—this is what they've told them: 'You rely on us each and every day to feed Australians. We are doing it tough as it is, and now you are going to tax our unrealised gains.' It is unfair. It sets a dangerous precedent.

On behalf of mum-and-dad Australians and all the young people who are going to be working hard for decades to come, we will vote to discharge this bill from the Notice Paper. It's a clear commitment to the Australian people: we will not tax your super. On the other hand, Labor and the Greens cannot wait; they're salivating at the prospect.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting the suspension or the motion. I do find it rather amusing that Senator Cash gives such a passionate statement about protecting people's super when those opposite oppose super. They oppose superannuation every time. They've voted against superannuation from its inception to now, when they continue to look at ways to undermine it because they cannot stand working people having access to capital to fund their retirement. That's ultimately what this is about. You cannot bear it. You can't bear the size of the superannuation industry. You can't bear that industry funds actually have resources in this country to invest on behalf of their members.

Nobody thinks you're serious, Senator Cash—that you have some concern about people's superannuation. It's not about that at all. All of this term, you have sought to undermine every effort we have taken to provide cost-of-living support and help to Australian families. You walk in here, at the end of a sitting fortnight, to pull a stunt that you argue is trying to protect people's superannuation. It is Labor that built superannuation, it is Labor that has ensured that it works in the interests of working people and it is only Labor that will continue to do that. I accept that you, in seeking to discharge this, do not agree with the position the government has put in the legislation. I accept that you don't support a very modest change that allows high-balance superannuation—

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! This is a five-minute contribution, but I've had to call order at least half a dozen times. You are being disrespectful to me. The minister will be heard in silence. Otherwise, you can leave the chamber.

Katy Gallagher

I must say, the louder they shout the more I feel like my points are being well made. You make a good point; the volume goes up.

Sue Lines

Senator McGrath, I've just called order.

Katy Gallagher

Those opposite—let's just be clear—the government accepts that you don't support lowering the concessional tax rate for those with balances higher than $3 million in their superannuation account. I would say to you that the average super balance is in the order of $270,000 at retirement age. The average working Australian retires with about $270,000.

Jane Hume

Is it indexed?

Sarah Henderson

It's unrealised.

Sue Lines

Senator Hume and Senator Henderson, I've called you to order.

Katy Gallagher

The average working woman, of course, retires with a lot less than that. This is about lowering the concessional rate. It's still very concessional, in the tax system, but just lowering it for high-balance superannuation accounts. I accept that you don't agree with it, but this stunt today, seriously, under the guise that you're trying to protect people's superannuation balances at the same time that you have Senator Bragg there grinning at the thought of dismantling the superannuation system—nothing gives him greater joy than the idea that he might be able to systematically undermine superannuation in this country.

They're quite open about it. We have conversations about how the Liberal Party doesn't support superannuation. I think you should just say it. You don't support super, you've never supported super and you will never support super. But the thing that you didn't support, the superannuation guarantee going up for working Australians, you wanted to keep at 9½ per cent. You tried to undermine it there. You don't like the fact that it's getting to 12 per cent. Yet you'll fight tooth and nail to stop this legislation passing, about lowering a concessional rate slightly for balances over $3 million.

Let's just be clear what's happening here. Whilst you're trying to get rid of it for everyone else and dismantle it and lower the standards and ensure that more people are pushed onto the age pension than need to be, instead of living a dignified retirement, you will go into bat to make sure that those who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million get a slightly lower concessional tax rate. That is what you are saying here.

We don't agree. We don't agree with the suspension, we don't agree with your attacks on super and we will always stand against it.

Gerard Rennick

Can I just highlight, Senator Gallagher, that you're actually incorrect when you say that the Liberals have always opposed superannuation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Katy Gallagher

Don't give me that!

Gerard Rennick

Hear me out. Vocally, they will oppose it in the chamber and talk about how it is all bad, but, in the dead of night, 'Little Johnny Howard' and Peter Costello ran down to the sewer with their mates from the banks, CBA, National Australia Bank, Westpac and ANZ. CBA did a joint venture with Colonial Mutual. National Australia Bank did a joint venture with National Mutual. Westpac took over Bankers Trust and ANZ did a joint venture with ING. Colonial Mutual's return on equity, when they were owned by the Commonwealth Bank, was 66 per cent.

So don't believe it when you think the Liberals don't support superannuation. I pleaded with the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, not to lift the superannuation levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent. He didn't block it, because, at the end of the day, the banks love superannuation. You know why? It increases the mortgage. If you can't pay your mortgage off quicker, because your money's tied up in superannuation, it means you've got to pay more interest on your mortgage.

That's why the banks love superannuation and that's why the Liberals love to pretend they hate superannuation. But they don't. Had they been serious about it, they would have listened to me when I was secretary of the finance backbench and pleaded with them to enable people to keep their own wages. Senator Gallagher just belled the cat again, because she said the average balance of superannuation is $267,000. Guess what the threshold is for the full pension, to start getting off the full pension? It's $312,000. That means, after almost 33 years of superannuation, it hasn't shifted the dial.

I'll accept it's not fully matured yet, but guess what? This is what's going to happen when superannuation becomes fully matured. You are going to get people to start withdrawing a lifetime's worth of savings, you're going to get someone pulling out 40 years worth of savings and you're going to need 40 people coming in to replace those savings. You're going to start to see withdrawals exceeding contributions. You're going to see forced asset sales, which is going to induce a liquidity crisis, and then you'll see the government having to step in and solve the problem.

I've approached a number of Labor people and said, 'If you got rid of the tax on the unrealised gains, I'd consider the legislation.' But here's the thing: the whole taxing of superannuation is fundamentally flawed. It was Howard and Costello that ramped up superannuation from four per cent to nine per cent. They should have killed it stone-cold dead when they got elected in 1996. They didn't, but I will acknowledge former senator Richard Alston, who did a great job in 1992 when it was introduced. He tried to oppose it, and the Liberal Party then opposed it. But, of course, Howard was always the bankers' servant—and Costello—and he rolled over on superannuation. To listen to the Liberals come in here and slag off superannuation—I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. You had your opportunity to kill it stone-cold dead, and you didn't.

Here's the other tragedy about superannuation: today, 40 per cent of people retire with a mortgage, and those 40 per cent are the low-income workers. They are pulling out their superannuation and going on the pension anyway, so we're wasting $40 billion a year on fees for the financial engineers in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne. Here's the other tragedy with superannuation: last year's MYEFO exposed that superannuation now costs $60 billion a year in tax concessions. It goes to the upper 20 per cent, the very people—and I'm one of them—that don't need the pension and were never going to go on the pension anyway. It costs $60 billion. You could give 14 million workers a $4,000 tax cut and you could lift the tax-free threshold to $50,000 if you abolished superannuation. That would enable young people to save up for a mortgage quicker.

At People First, we're not going to base your tax on how much money you have in superannuation; we're going to give you a tax-free threshold of $25,000 in superannuation and $40,000 outside of superannuation so that your first 65 grand a year is tax free. We're going to fund that because we're going to abolish those absurd tax concessions in superannuation, we're going to get rid of the financial engineers, and we're going to bring back the civil engineers, the mechanical engineers and the electrical engineers to start building infrastructure in this country, not paper castles in the air based on the sand of superannuation, the lies of superannuation, the rorts of superannuation and the dead carcass of corruption.

Sue Lines

Thank you—

Senator McKenzie, the tradition is government, opposition and then around the table. Senator Cash has spoken. I'm going to go to Senator McKim.

Bridget McKenzie

The precedent—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, you're not in a debate with me. I've just told you what the custom is. I've given the call to the opposition. I'm going to go to Senator McKim.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I understand the minister has a document to table.

Katy Gallagher

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens' amendment on sheet 3252 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) Robodebt was the worst failure of public administration in Australian history, raising an estimated $1.73 billion of illegitimate debts from over 430,000 vulnerable Australians,

(ii) there is widespread community outrage due to a lack of accountability and insufficient findings from completed investigations; and

(iii) the Robodebt scheme flourished because of a political and media culture that stigmatises income support recipients, and failures in public sector leadership and culture in key departments; and

(b) calls on the Albanese Government to:

(i) implement all 57 recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission in full to ensure that Robodebt can never happen again,

(ii) immediately release the confidential additional chapter of the Robodebt Royal Commission report,

(iii) provide the Parliament with an update regarding the status of any civil or criminal referrals made in connection with Robodebt,

(iv) reinstate the six-year limitation on debt recovery as a matter of urgency,

(v) abolish the punitive Work for the Dole and the Targeted Compliance Framework, that have propagated a culture of punishing income support recipients; and

(vi) ensure that the lessons for public sector leadership, management, culture and policy are learned by incorporating study of this failed chapter across public sector leadership education and development training".

Katy Gallagher

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3327:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the view that:

(a) Australians are increasingly concerned about the privacy and security implications of increasing use of centralised Digital IDs and other government data frameworks;

(b) My Health Record was originally promised to the Australian people as an   .opt-in, opt-out, voluntary system; and

(c) sharing sensitive medical information by default to My Health Record breaches this promise to the Australian people".

Question negatived.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—I move my amendment on sheet 3258:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) significant barriers exist in accessing and transferring medical records for people in prisons, including minimal use of My Health Record, which disrupts continuity of care,

(ii) the National Review of First Nations Health Care in Prisons (the Review) identified urgent reforms needed to address substandard healthcare in prisons, including improving access to medical records upon entry, transfer and release,

(iii) recommendation 157 from the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (the Royal Commission) states that:

… efforts must be made by the Prison Medical Service to obtain a comprehensive medical history for the prisoner including medical records from a previous occasion of imprisonment, and where necessary, prior treatment records from hospitals and health services. In order to facilitate this process, procedures should be established to ensure that a prisoner's medical history files accompany the prisoner on transfer to other institutions and upon re-admission and that negotiations are undertaken between prison me dical, hospital and health services to establish guidelines for the transfer of such information,

(iv) systemic issues, such as incompatible information systems, force individuals and their advocates to submit freedom of information requests to access their own medical records, further delaying appropriate care,

(v) Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations are already understaffed and subjected to high administrative burdens, which will be further strained by these reforms to My Health Record,

(vi) there remains significant privacy concerns amongst the public about their digital rights relating to My Health Record; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) work with States and Territories to:

(A) resolve the issues highlighted in the Review regarding medical record access and transfer in prisons, and

(B) urgently implement the Review's recommendations to improve continuity of care for people in prisons, many of which reflect recommendations from the Royal Commission still yet to be implemented; and

(ii) ensure privacy protections and cybersecurity practices adequately protect health data and prevent the unauthorised sharing of health data with third parties,

(iii) provide additional support, including financial compensation where appropriate, to smaller healthcare providers, particularly Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, for the additional staffing requirements and administrative burden associated with uploading data and complying with these reforms; and

(iv) allocate resources to ensure that consumers are aware of the changes and the much more active role they will have to play in ensuring that the information they don't want on My Health Record is not uploaded".

Sue Lines

The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3258 be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to have a new vote held for part (b) of motion 791 and for that to be recommitted.

Leave granted.

Sue Lines

Senator McGrath?

James McGrath

Can we find out why the government wishes to recommit?

Anthony Chisholm

My understanding was that the vote was called and it didn't reflect the will of the Senate and a division wasn't called.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

I couldn't quite hear Senator Chisholm's explanation. It's the usual practice of the Senate that, if you want a vote to be put again, you be very clear. Suggesting that the vote didn't reflect the will of the Senate is not a satisfactory explanation for having a vote recommitted.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, it is a clear indication of Senator Chisholm's position. He has put it in that way. We will put the vote again, and it's really up to senators.

Order! Senator Lambie, Senator Chisholm has indicated that, in his view, it does not reflect the view of the chamber. I'm going to put the question.

Senator Lambie! Firstly, I haven't called you. You've just stood there and yelled out at me.

Jacqui Lambie

That is not a reason. We want to know why it does not reflect the Senate's wishes. Why is that? If you are embarrassed, too bad, but why?

Sue Lines

That is the exact question Senator McKim asked. I've given an explanation. I'm going to put the question. The question is that paragraph (b) of general business notice of motion No. 791, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Roberts proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to have that deferred vote now. The question is that the deferred motion be agreed to.

Richard Colbeck

It gives me great—well, I would say 'pleasure' but I'm concerned that we actually even have to have this debate in relation to this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024, because it's a problem of this government's own making that this piece of legislation addresses.

We shouldn't need to have this debate, but we do because the Minister for Environment and Water took the word of organisations such as the now discredited Environmental Defenders Office over that of the Tasmanian government in relation to a decision on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. Instead of taking the word of the Tasmanian government, who in their submission to the Commonwealth in relation to this matter indicated that there had been no substantial change in circumstances that weren't foreseen in relation to salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, the government went with the environmental groups. It's a pattern that we have seen in Tasmania for a considerable period of time, unfortunately.

Of course, the Environmental Defenders Office are an organisation that have recently had a significant finding against them in the courts in relation to other matters, where they have been found to have fabricated evidence, so it's even more disturbing that the government would take the word of an organisation like this over that of the Tasmanian government. That decision set a precedent, which is that more than 11 years after a decision was made to support salmon farming in Tasmania—a decision that it would not be a controlled action—the government can come back, after all of the businesses involved have made all of the investments they have made, and reconsider the decision. What sort of circumstance is that? What if a council gave you approval to build a house and then 10 or 11 years later they came back and said: 'Hang on a minute. We're not sure about that. We might have another look. In fact, we might make you take your house down. We might make you demolish your house, because we don't think we should have approved it in the first place'? What an absurd circumstance! What level of sovereign risk does that generate?

In respect of this bill to amend the EPBC Act we've seen exactly the same attitude. Those who invest their resources to create jobs in our economy, for whom everything is at risk—every single one of them, from a range of different circumstances—supported this amendment to the act. Obviously, the salmon industry supported it, as did the Forest Products Association; the renewable energy industry—Tilt Renewables; the Business Council of Australia; Senex; Santos, who obviously were the victim of the Environmental Defenders Office, with its corrupt evidence to a court; the Australian Airports Association; the Minerals Council of Australia. These are the organisations that invest tens of thousands of dollars—millions of dollars—in gaining environmental approvals, and every single one of them supported this very simple amendment to the EPBC Act to provide them with some certainty and remove the sovereign risk that this government had created. What does the government do in its majority report on the bill? It sides with the EDO, the Environmental Defenders Office. It sends a message.

The government will get up and say: 'Yes, well, we're going to amend the EPBC Act on a broader scale. There's the nature-positive legislation.' Well, there's not. The government themselves voted against debating that this week. So there is no change on the horizon from this government. That's unless they do a deal with the Greens, which we've seen a fair bit of lately. They stand here today against every user of the EPBC Act—those who invest to create jobs in our economy. That's all that these people are asking for: some certainty that, when a government makes a decision, the decision stands. That's what this very simple piece of legislation does.

This legislation doesn't even remove the capacity for reconsideration down the line in the case of a genuine change in circumstances. It leaves the act exactly as it is for three years, and then, after three years, any reconsideration request must come from an appropriate minister in the state government where the project is being developed. It's a simple piece of legislation. It should be easy for the government to support. They currently don't have anything on the table with respect to changes to the current act but they are prepared to oppose this change simply because the environment group said so.

Let's hear what some of these organisations that submitted to the Senate inquiry had to say. It was an inquiry that wasn't allowed to have public hearings, that was punted back to a time after sittings in the last part of last year. Really, there was zero respect for this piece of legislation shown by the government all the way through, which is a bit of a trademark, I suppose. Senex Energy said:

The Bill under consideration … would provide greater certainty in approval conditions for project proponents. Such certainty is essential for investor confidence, particularly in capital intensive industries involving multi-decade investments such as the natural gas industry.

We know the Greens won't support it, because they're the anti-everything brigade, but the government talk about having a future gas strategy as being important for our future energy needs. We know we need more gas in the system. This is what a major investor is saying in respect of this legislation. It's a simple piece of legislation; it should not be difficult to support.

Santos wrote:

Challenges in the form of reconsideration requests will continue to cause delays and uncertainties for proponents, investors and the community if deficiencies in the Act are not addressed.

Santos supports the Bill.

Santos also wrote:

Santos supports any reform which will bring clarity and greater investment confidence to the approvals regime.

It's pretty clear. But, of course, the government reject that. They've gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.

The Australian Forest Products Association wrote:

The proposed changes in the Bill will substantially improve regulatory certainty for investors in projects that require environmental approvals, increase investment overall and directly assist the government's efforts to promote expansion of, and investment in, the plantation forestry sector.

The government have a policy to increase plantations, and here's the forest industry saying this piece of legislation will enhance that, but Labor's gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.

The Business Council of Australia wrote:

One of the key criticisms of the existing EPBC Act is the lack of certainty provided to proponents in pursuing a decision via the process. When multi-million and multi-billion-dollar investments, supporting thousands of direct and indirect jobs, are being developed and delivered there must be certainty in process and approvals.

It can't get much clearer. Yet the government, again, poignant in the Santos circumstance, are going with the discredited, corrupt Environmental Defenders Office evidence. BCA continued:

The recently highlighted ability under the existing Act for third parties to challenge an approval, years after it has been given, has the potential to undermine investor confidence in any project that may have an interaction with the EPBC Act. Decisions under the Act range from renewable energy projects to mining, to housing supply—

hello, national housing crisis—

and tourism, and to agriculture and aquaculture.

All users of the act that submitted to this inquiry supported this change. The government has chosen in its report to go with the anti-everything brigade.

The Clean Energy Investor Group wrote:

CEIG also wrote:

Here we are with a government with a renewables policy for transition of the Australian economy. This is what the investors into clean energy are saying to the government, and they snub their nose at it. How absurd!

Tilt Renewables, one of the largest owners and operators of wind and solar generation in Australia, with 1,700 megawatts of renewable energy capacity across a number of projects, wrote:

The rationale for this is clear as investors need certainty that a planning approval … is final and will not be overturned as they continue to invest in developing, and then constructing, the project.

…   …   …

… the Bill would be a worthwhile reform and improvement to the current open-ended EPBC appeal process.

I went about developing this piece of legislation after a conversation with a state environment minister who had told me about the alarm amongst other environment ministers around the country as to the actions of Minister Plibersek in reopening this over-a-decade-old approval in Tasmania. It wasn't just about the salmon industry; it was about all of the other sectors that I've talked about during my contribution. We'll be accused of running a wedge or something of that nature in relation to salmon farming, but this was a genuine concern that was brought to me by a colleague in another parliament who happened to be the environment minister. They were all concerned about the precedent that had been set that would allow any similar approval to be reconsidered by the minister. And this was not through some sort of substantial submission. Three environmental groups—anti-everything brigade groups—wrote a letter to Minister Plibersek. They didn't write a substantial submission; they wrote a letter. On the basis of that letter, an approval process that has been in place for over a decade has been thrown into upheaval, and everybody is asking questions, including environment ministers at a state level.

This is a simple piece of legislation that can provide certainty for investors. Yes, there's a process that may come to fruition, perhaps in the next parliament, with respect to the EPBC Act more broadly. But, quite frankly, people who are putting up million, tens of millions or billions of dollars to invest in projects that support this sector, support industry and support jobs around the country should have the certainty of the decisions that are made by government. It is only reasonable that they do.

As I said earlier, consider if a council approved your house and came back 10 years later and said, 'Sorry, we're going to look at this again; you might have to take the extension down or we might make you take the house apart.' It's an absurdity, and the government should be supporting this legislation. They should be supporting jobs in Tasmania and across the country.

Karen Grogan

There were so many things that one could respond to in that contribution. I am amazed by the scaremongering that's going on here. The EPBC legislation, as it stands, has stood for a very long time. Senator Colbeck trying to frighten people, saying that someone's going to take down their house, is beyond absurd. It's offensive and unnecessary, and he probably should be quite ashamed of himself.

Richard Colbeck

Debate the issue, go on!

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 11 February 2025, from Senator McKim:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following matter is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to support the Greens plan to tax Australia's billionaires and use the revenue to help fund urgent cost of living relief, including getting dental into Medicare and making it free to see the GP."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Nick McKim

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to support the Greens plan to tax Australia's billionaires and use the revenue to help fund urgent cost of living relief, including getting dental into Medicare and making it free to see the GP.

Australia's billionaires are making off like bandits. There are just 150 of them and, collectively, their wealth has doubled in the last six or seven years. Collectively, the 150 billionaires in this country have now hoarded an eye-watering, a staggering $585 billion between them.

If you are a nurse, teacher, carpenter, plumber or cleaner, you go to work and you work hard, but you don't get to keep everything you earn. You pay taxes on what you earn—in income tax. That is actually a good thing that people pay tax because it allows governments to provide services. Some of those services are universal, others are deliberately targeted—and rightly so—at the people who most need assistance.

What about the billionaires? Why don't billionaires have to pay a tax on their wealth? If billionaires paid just a 10 per cent tax on their net wealth over $1 billion that would raise about $50 billion over the next decade. That just happens to be exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Office have costed for the Greens of what it would cost to allow every Australian to see their GP, for free, whenever they needed to. If we as a country were prepared to make billionaires pay their fair share of tax, that would raise enough revenue for every Australian to be able to see a GP whenever they needed to with no out-of-pocket expenses.

Let's weigh this up. This should not be a difficult calculation. Let's weigh it up. On one hand, we could ask 150 people who collectively have hoarded nearly $600 billion in personal wealth to pay a 10 per cent tax—over billion dollars—on wealth they own so that every person in this country could see a GP whenever they need to with no out-of-pocket expenses at all. Let's think: every person could get a free GP visit, or we could just keep looking after the billionaires and keep allowing them to accumulate even more of their already eye-wateringly large hordes of money.

The billionaires, or everyone getting a GP visit for free with no out-of-pocket expenses—this should not be a difficult choice for our country. Somehow it is a difficult choice for the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. In fact, it doesn't seem such a difficult choice for them because they're just going to end up on the side of the billionaires. In doing so, they're basically saying to Australians that in a wealthy country you should keep having to pay to see your GP.

Matthew Canavan

The Australian people just got a small insight there as to why they should be very scared of the potential Labor-Green minority government in the next few months, because these guys over there, the Greens, don't understand basic economics, they don't understand basic finances and they don't understand the difference between wealth and income. What we just heard there is that they are going to put a tax on billionaires. I don't even know if their figures are exactly correct, but let's say they're right. I'm going to accept their figures that there are 150 with $600 billion in wealth. If they're going to tax them at 10 per cent and take $60 billion, that's a wealth tax. They'll get $60 billion or so for that, and that's apparently going to fund their dental plan, which is costed over four years at $50 billion, I just heard.

What do we do at the end of the four years? Once you tax the billionaires, you have no billionaires left, or they have much less wealth. This plan is a plan to fund it for only a few years. That doesn't provide any income over time. It simply takes the wealth that we have today to fund something very temporary and leaves the bills for future Australians going forward. This is not a plan. This is a slogan, something that the Greens specialise in because they don't really have a sustainable plan for our country.

The sustainable plan for our country to deliver public services is to make sure we continue to create companies and businesses that produce much wealth going forward. We need billions of dollars of wealth to be created every year to fund the public services we have here in this country. We have just been through this experience with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was costed originally at just $16 billion, and that was in gross terms. There was some state funding included in that figure. Today, it's costing the budget almost $50 billion, and it's projected to go to over $80 billion at the end of this decade. That was an example of where we haven't planned very well, and it's putting an enormous strain on our budget, our economy and our labour market because we haven't planned for it correctly. We made some mistakes there, clearly, that have to be fixed up.

It is easy, of course, to promise everybody better public services, new public services and free public services, but I don't take the costings of the Greens with any grain of salt. I don't care who's done them, because lots of those bodies costed the NDIS and got that wrong. We need to be very careful about that. If we're going to fund something like this, we also need to make sure that on the other side of the ledger we have a sustainable revenue stream that can fund it, otherwise we are going to bankrupt this nation. We've been riding high the last couple of years, and it's easy to be lulled into a sense of complacency with a couple of years of budget surpluses, which have come almost exclusively on the back of a massive mining boom, bigger than what we experienced in the late 2000s and early 2010s. What we've had since the Ukraine war is the biggest trade boom in our history. That has delivered a temporary, illusionary surplus for the Commonwealth budget, but in the years to come—it's starting this year—the deficits are going to grow bigger and bigger every year. Our debt is already at very high levels post-COVID, and we need to be very careful with what we spend.

I hope, God willing—let's pray—that the Greens political party do not get control of the finance benches in a few months time. This is a small window—this is just one of their policies; they've got even more crazy stuff out there—into how they would destroy this nation's finances, and the only way they'll get anywhere close to doing that is if the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is in a position to form a minority government. There's no way, of course, the Greens will agree to form government with us or with Mr Peter Dutton, but they very well could. But I know they're licking their lips at forming government with the Labor Party. These little asks here are just the precursor for the negotiations that are to come with the Australian Labor Party.

Whatever Labor senators say right now you can totally discount. No matter what they say before an election, they will completely change their tune if an alliance with the Greens is the difference between them staying over there and coming over here. If they need to agree with the Australian Greens to stay over there on the government benches, they'll sign away their mother-in-law, maybe even their mum, because they want to stay in government. They'll be desperate to stay in government. You can't trust them right now. The only way to avoid a Labor-Greens government is to not vote for the Labor Party. That's it. If you don't want that chaos, that destruction of our finances, do not vote for the federal Labor Party at the next federal election.

Deborah O'Neill

I rise after two contributions: one from those who have no sense of managing a budget in any possible way, where money comes from nowhere and everything can be provided for immediately; and a negative one from the senator opposite who is from the party that wants to cut and cut and cut—$350 billion. They're the party that said Medicare was an impossible thing to deliver and that said superannuation was an impossibility to deliver. In between those two gross extremes that have no responsible vision for the nation, there sits the Labor Party governing with integrity, creating not simplistic solutions to complex challenges, as proposed by Senator McKim in this urgency motion, but solutions that will involve the hard work of the kind that the Albanese Labor government has undertaken to ease the cost-of-living pressures that are a real thing for Australians.

Let's be clear. We in Labor don't just talk about fairness; we deliver it. We believe in making multinationals pay, and we delivered that in legislation in November 2024. We believe in ensuring that every taxpayer gets a tax cut, so we delivered stage 3 tax cuts to every working Australian, whereas Senator Canavan would have only given them to a much smaller number of people and certainly left those in the lower end of the income band stranded, ignored and without any increase in their tax return. We believe in strengthening Medicare so that every Australian can access quality and affordable health care. Here we are in government, doing what we've done now for five decades—after delivering Medicare, we've had to rebuild it time and time again. And then there was that miserly, penny-pinching, cost-of-everything, value-of-nothing contribution that we had from Senator Canavan, which leads nowhere good for our nation.

The Greens want to claim that they're the only party concerned with the cost of living, but the reality is that, while they grandstand here in the parliament and make demands without a plan, the Albanese government is delivering real relief. For millions of Australians, being able to see a GP without an out-of-pocket cost is the difference between getting the care that they need and delaying an appointment until things have got much worse, they end up in hospital and it costs even more. It's a ridiculous proposition. That's why we had to fix it once again, and we tripled the bulk-billing incentive. That is the single biggest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history. When Labor returned to government after a period of attack on that fundamental need of Australians, it was clear that Labor was the only party that would deliver for Medicare and for the health of Australians.

So we introduced this policy this time, in the last three years, and more than six million Australians have had additional GP visit that have been bulk-billed. That's really a massive change for pensioners, parents and low-income Australians who are no longer forced to pay to see a doctor. It means fewer people having to make the difficult choice between medical care and paying their bills. We need healthy Australians who can afford care who are able to continue to contribute to our society. This isn't theory to us as Labor people. We are making sure that Medicare holds up. Bulk billing rates, which were in freefall after the nine years of Liberal cuts, are now rising again, and that's just one part of our $2.8 billion of investment of your Australian taxpayer dollars to strengthen what we know you value: Medicare—that little card in your wallet that you wouldn't have except for the Labor Party delivering the whole policy and rebuilding Medicare after the vandal-like attacks of those opposite.

We're investing in urgent care centres. Millions of Australians have already had the benefit of that since we came to government in 2022 and brought that into being. There are more free mental health services and higher rebates for essential tests and treatments. This is real relief for Australians who need it most. Now, the Greens demand a whole raft of new taxes. This government has ethically and in a principled way taken deliberate action to ensure multinationals pay their fair share, and we will make sure Australians get the benefit of that investment.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.