Penny Wong

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, 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 allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be put.

Slade Brockman

Senator Cash has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It has been circulated and is shown on item 13 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need to axe the fuel tax and move the fuel to where it is needed, as Australians are being slugged at the bowser while service stations run dry.

Is consideration of 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.

Michaelia Cash

I move:

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

The need to axe the fuel tax and move the fuel to where it is needed, as Australians are being slugged at the bowser while service stations run dry.

We now know that Mr Albanese has been dragged kicking and screaming to an announcement that the coalition, days and days, ago told the government it needed to do. But the government had its head buried in the sand. We were told that, if we were to ask for government to halve the fuel tax, we were 'hyperventilating'. Well, guess what. We were hyperventilating on behalf of the Australian people who, when they were going to the bowser, if they could find fuel, were actually paying in excess of $3 a litre for it. We were also told that apparently telling the government that Australians are in pain and that they need relief at the bowser by way of a halving of the fuel tax was 'hyperpartisan'. Again, I don't know what hyperventilating or hyperpartisanship are when it comes to standing up on behalf of the Australian people and saying to the government, 'They are experiencing what you are denying on a daily basis.'

For the last five week, this government sadly has had its head in the sand. They are denying what Australians have known now for going on five weeks is their reality. They drive into a servo—870 servos across this country have now run dry. The government doesn't seem to understand what that means. It means they have run out of fuel. If they do find a servo that has fuel, they have to think twice about whether or not they top up their tank. Why? Because the price of fuel in Australia now is absolutely exorbitant. This is what we've seen from the government for almost five weeks now.

First they denied there was a problem, despite the Australian people and the coalition saying to them, 'There is a fuel crisis in this country.' What's worse is that they then had the audacity to blame the Australian people. They said to the farmers, who were actually topping up their tanks: 'You're taking one too many. There's a demand problem in Australia. It's your fault.' They said to mums and dads who were topping up again because they'd lost confidence in this government that it was their fault that bowsers were running dry. When does this government actually have a good look at itself and take responsibility and say: 'We have actually failed the Australian people. We put our head in the sand. We denied there was a crisis. We told the Australian people everything was okay. When we started realising it possibly wasn't okay, we blamed the Australian people'?

We are now in a full blown fuel crisis across Australia. We are now paying record prices for fuel. In other words, mum-and-dad Australia are being smashed at the bowser. You've got doctors saying people are now not going in for medical treatment because (a) they can't afford the fuel and, worse than that, (b) if you're in rural regional Australia, you can't find the fuel. You've got the waste management industry in Australia saying, 'If we don't get access to diesel soon, we aren't going to be able to pick up the rubbish.' Do you know what happens when you can't pick up the rubbish? Within 48 hours, in the health industry, you have what the waste industry themselves have said is 'potentially catastrophic'.

Then what do we have today? Mr Albanese calls a National Cabinet meeting, and they announce a plan. The problem with the plan is this, though: it does nothing to address what Australians are experiencing today—870 servos across Australia are running dry. That means that, when you go there, there is no fuel to take. You have now got farmers pleading with the government, 'We are not going to be able to seed our crops.' The government doesn't seem to understand what that means. If the farmers can't plant their crops, it means the crops can't grow. Do you know what happens when crops can't grow? You end up with a food security issue in Australia, which ultimately means Australians pay more at the bowser. Axe the tax, but, more than that now, get the fuel to where it needs to be because, without the fuel, Australia can't move, and we need to keep Australia moving.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah

We are in the midst of a global oil shock that is not of our making. It is having wide-reaching impacts right through our economy. The people it's perhaps hurting the greatest are those in regional communities, in our industries—particular mining and agriculture—and in logistics companies. We have adopted a multifaceted response which is targeting supply, distribution and, of course—announced through National Cabinet—price.

I'll go to price first, because price is perhaps what most Australian motorists and industries are most sensitive to. Today, through National Cabinet, the Prime Minister announced that we will be halving the fuel excise, so roughly 26c will be coming off the price of fuel at the bowser. In addition to that, we are suspending for a period of three months, along with the fuel excise, the heavy-vehicle road user charge. This will give companies, particularly our logistics and transport companies, the kind of breathing space that they need right now. It will release some of the pressure in the system. In terms of supply, we released 20 per cent of our fuel reserves—reserves that are now positioned right here in Australia, not in Louisiana and Texas, which are where they were under the previous government—and that fuel has been prioritised for regional Australia, for regional communities, for our primary producers, for our miners and for our big and small industries that are positioned in regional Australia. We also changed our fuel standards to ensure that we can supply a greater amount of diesel and petrol, refined in Australia, to the Australian domestic market. So we're not exporting any fuel; we are retaining it right here in Australia. We have doubled the penalty that can be imposed by the ACCC for price gouging from $50 million to $100 million. We've also appointed a fuel tsar; Ms Anthea Harris has been appointed to help coordinate this national response. In addition to that, we have put aside $2 million for financial counselling to help, particularly, our farmers during this difficult time.

The most important thing, though, is that the Prime Minister has emphasised from the very beginning that he wants a nationally consistent approach, because, obviously, our economy relies on fuel to move goods and services around. We do not want to return to the days of COVID, when there was a confused, fairly incoherent response throughout the country. That only exacerbated the pressure and stress on ordinary Australians and businesses.

But this is not all we're doing. These are some temporary measures that I've talked about, but we also need to look into the long term, into the future, as to how we make Australia more energy resilient, and that means that we need, as much as possible, to decouple ourselves from the crazy volatility of Middle Eastern oil. To that end, we are pumping $1.1 billion into developing cleaner liquid fuels, low-carbon fuels, like sustainable aviation fuel, synthetic fuels and biodiesel. These will be developed through products that are grown right here in Australia by our farmers. Our farmers and our regions will be the beneficiaries. We will be using canola and sorghum and sugarcane as well as tallow. These are waste products which can be repurposed and redeveloped into low-carbon fuels. But that's not all we're doing. As of today, along with previous announcements, we have announced $25 million from ARENA that will be going towards developing heavy trucking electrification. That money is being put into three hubs in Victoria. Just this morning, I had the privilege of seeing an electric prime mover roll into Parliament House. It was parked outside the front.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Michelle Ananda-Rajah

It would have been good if those interjecting had actually gone out and had a look at this thing. It did the journey from Sydney to Canberra on a $50 charge. Heavy vehicle electrification is not science fiction; it is a reality. It is something that we need to scale up in order to reduce our reliance on volatile international oil markets. That is something we in the Albanese government are committed to doing.

Tyron Whitten

One Nation was the first party to call this fuel shortage a crisis. We asked how much fuel we had on hand and we were all told there wasn't a problem. The government is playing catch-up. Our policy will cut through the fuel excise completely. Labor's cuts don't do enough. Our policy will also cut the GST paid on fuel. Currently, the Albanese government is profiting $300 million a month from the soaring spike in fuel prices while Australians are struggling. As the pain at the pump increases, so does the government's GST take on every litre. The government halved the fuel tax, but they are still applying 10 per cent GST on top of the total sale. It's an absolute disgrace.

We've seen the price of diesel double over the past few weeks, and that's if you can get it. Our families are hurting, our farmers are hurting and small business is hurting. WA farmers are seeding soon, putting a crop in at much greater cost. It's a double hit; due to the availability and cost, they can't access enough fertiliser. If our farmers aren't getting the fuel and support they need, where is our food going to come from? Australia has got to have a better plan.

One Nation's plan is clear: trigger the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Force supply to be delivered to regional areas and independent distributors. Prioritise defence and essential services. Drop the fuel excise completely. Provide GST relief on fuel for three months. Develop policies that allow Australia to find, process and distribute fuel. Refine our own fuel, build new refineries and increase our fuel storage capacity. Strategic fuel storage must be controlled by Australia on Australian shores. Consider a national reserve, with crude oil companies to prioritise the supply to Australia. The needs of Australia must be catered to first. Remove the impediments to using domestically produced fuel. The fuel crisis has been created by decades of net zero destroying our ability to use our own resources. One Nation will abolish net zero and stop the billions in subsidies that Australians are paying for wind turbines. This will put $30 billion back into the pockets of Australian by abolishing the department of climate change.

One Nation has been saying for decades that we need to be self-reliant. We need to regain our sovereignty. We must take control of our country back.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Andrew Bragg

I rise to make a contribution in relation to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. The main point to make is that the nation's finances are no longer within the control of the government. We are now looking at a situation of an almost $40 billion deficit this year and a well over $100 billion deficit over the forward estimates. The reality is that public finances in Australia are completely broken. They're completely broken because the government has decided that it wants to spend at beyond pandemic levels on an ongoing basis—at 27 per cent of GDP—and, as a result, it has needed to find new tax revenues.

The other point to make is that the government has completely debased the integrity of public finances with its commitment to significant off-budget funding. When you look at the overall position of the Commonwealth government, we can talk about the deficit, we can talk about the structural deficit, we can talk about the spending and we can talk about the overreliance on a small number—a shrinking number—of Australians for the tax base. But I think one of the biggest problems is this issue of integrity. This government has sought to provide all sorts of different boondoggle funds, like the Future Made in Australia fund, the housing fund, the rewiring fund and the reconstruction fund—I'm still not sure what we're reconstructing from—but all of these funds are off budget. None of them come into the main picture when the Treasurer hands down the budget.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when, at one level, you look at the budget deficit and you think, that's a pretty bad position—$40 billion this year, $100 billion over the forwards, at least, and we're approaching $1 trillion in debt. The budget itself, even in the way the government presents it, is extremely sick. But then, when you build all of the off-budget items into the picture, you realise that it is actually beyond sick and that we are never going to recover our position unless we are able to significantly rebalance the budget.

I think it's reasonable to say that the Australian people are, rightly, frustrated with politicians. I think they're frustrated with the fact that the offerings they get at elections look more like bribes than proper stewardship of an economy. If you go back in time, I think it's reasonable to say that the Liberal Party in the early nineties, with its Fightback! program, was at that time very committed to putting together a program that was going to address some of these underlying structural problems. The question is: what is leadership of today going to do—the leadership of all parties—to arrest the decline the nation is in?

You can measure the decline that we're in by virtue of looking at the absolutely busted budget. You can look at the way the Australian people are struggling because the government has failed on the supply side in relation to energy and in relation to housing. The fact that Mr Chalmers says he's read this book called Abundance_it can't be true, because if he'd read the book _Abundance he would've discovered that supply-side reforms are necessary in this country if we're going to unleash the energy abundance that we need and the housing abundance that we need. We need to see a position where we get more of everything. We need to see more housing and more energy—all forms of energy—because we need to have more stuff.

I think the Australian people are rightly frustrated. They look at the position that we are in as a nation, and they say: 'Well, I can't get a house. I can't get fuel in the car. The federal budget is stuffed and will never be fixed. I've got to pay higher taxes. Maybe I'll have to pay more taxes if Mr Chalmers—or Dr Chalmers or whatever he calls himself—wants to fiddle around with the tax settings.' I think that they're rightly frustrated. I understand that that leads to people thinking, 'The political system is broken, and so we're going to try and do something to shake it up because we can't get even basic stuff right.'

I think the fact that a person on an average income really has no realistic prospect of being able to buy a house in some of the capital cities is hugely disappointing, frustrating and upsetting. People will feel anger about that. You've done the right thing. You've trained yourself as a tradesperson, or you've been to university. You've worked and you've saved, and you still can't make that happen. Then, beyond that, there's this current fuel crisis. I think this has completely exposed the frailties of the nation and the fact that we are so reliant here, at the bottom end of the supply chain, in the South Pacific, with an abundance of resources we haven't bothered to dig out or suck out of the ground. These are some of the reasons why people quite reasonably say, 'Why are we paying you people to go to Canberra and argue with one another and sometimes with yourselves?' I think that's a reasonable question.

So the job for all of us in a debate on an appropriation bill around the quality of public finances is to reflect on that and to think, 'Are we doing everything we can to put forward the most ambitious program that we can muster?' And I think the answer is, invariably, no. I think the answer has been no. The government, although it has some well-meaning, nice people in it, effectively runs on the basis that the people that they're close to—the unions and the super funds and all the other people that they're mates with—write their policies for them and they say, 'This is a good idea; we'll do that.' But there's no broader vision about what they can do for the country. There doesn't appear to be any ambition.

Dr Chalmers has been the Treasurer for four years. He gave a speech last week and said he'd done tax reform. This was one of the funniest speeches I'd ever heard. His idea of tax reform is bringing back bracket creep, increasing taxes on small business, fiddling around with Future Made in Australia, which is a boondoggle, and increasing the tax compliance burden. What tax reform has Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, done? What has he done? I'm none the wiser. I don't think anyone knows. Certainly he has said that he likes Paul Keating. I think Paul Keating did a lot of good things for this country. I think he was very brave and had ambition for this country. If Mr Chalmers wants to model himself on Mr Keating, he needs to study that former treasurer, who did some actual reform. He did some actual things. Yes, he was good at politics. I worry that, when he read Paul Keating's memoir, all he learnt was how to do the political spin. That's what I think happened. He read Paul Keating's memoir, and all he was able to retain was the political spin, not the economic reform. That is ultimately what the country is going to need if we are going to recover this position.

In the spirit of a contribution to the appropriation bill debate, of course, the appropriation bills are the government's expenditure. There's no question that at 27 per cent of GDP, when we're already living in a country which has got a high tax burden on people in particular, the government is spending too much. So the question for all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives over the next couple of years as we get closer to the election is, 'Are members of the parliament going to be honest with the Australian people about the sustainability of public finances?' because, after four years of Labor, the budget trajectory is never going to recover. They have broken the budget. Public finances in Australia are stuffed, and that's why the high taxes have to be considered in the budget.

The only way to get the country back to work on a sustainable basis is to also look at spending. I get that politicians are very scared about the idea that people won't vote for them if they say they're going to cut something, but this is lowest-common-denominator stuff—the fact that we don't have more means testing and that, in relation to programs that are available in Australia, we don't consider restricting them to Australian citizens. I think there are a lot of things that we can do to rein in spending, and I commend anyone who is prepared to make a serious policy contribution even if I don't agree with that, because I think that's the job of being a parliamentarian and a policymaker. I commend the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, for at least doing something. She has done a terrible tax policy, but at least it is a tax policy, and it's more of a tax policy than the government has done in four years.

We are living in a time of low ambition for our country, and you can see it in the budget trajectory, which is completely cactus, and in the quality of the tax debate. I mean, fair dinkum! You have people in this place who say, 'Well, we can fix the housing crisis with more taxes and we can fix the energy crisis with more taxes.' It's absolutely insane. People who are members of the Labor government who say they've read the book Abundance are lying, because that is against the grain of the supply-side theory that is expounded by Klein and Thompson in their book.

Ultimately, it comes down to a pretty simple equation. How are we going to reduce the amount of public spending below 27 per cent of GDP? How are we going to have that honest conversation about how the country has its backside out of its pants and cannot afford to spend at this level on an ongoing basis? We cannot continue to run on the basis that our budget deficit will exceed $1 trillion. It will be $1 trillion very soon, and Dr Evil will not be here to save us. We'll have to bail our way out of this in some way. It is a tax on future generations. The younger people of today—those people who are under 40—should take notice. When we tick over to $1 trillion of debt this year under Labor, they should take notice. The younger people of Australia should be very aware. They should switch on and keep a close eye on this, because, when we tick over to $1 trillion of debt this year, that will be a tax on them. They will be paying higher taxes in the future unless we restrain spending and get back on track today. It's that simple.

You also have to look at the broader question about the tax system very seriously, because the burden on people who are working is absolutely unbearable. The idea that the working person in Australia has to pay such a high degree of their ordinary salary and wages off to the taxman is absolutely soul destroying, and it cannot be sustained. It is a hard country to do business in and a hard country to be a worker in, unless we get serious about these facts around the sustainability of public spending, the broken tax system and the necessity of supply-side reform. If you want to fiddle around with the tax system, fine, but you have to do it on a basis of actually reducing the heaviest burdens on people and companies. We've got to be realistic. We are living in a market—in a world—where there is competition for capital. If people can mine things in other jurisdictions at a lower tax rate, they will, and that's where those jobs will go. If a company can build houses and make money out of it in another jurisdiction, they will. These are the facts. We cannot pretend that we're living in some socialist utopia where we can continue to tax the backside out of the country and effectively run programs which are unsustainable and unaffordable.

These are the questions for Australian people to ask their parliamentarians: What ambition do they have for our country? Where do they see fixing public finances on the list of the priorities? Surely, we can do a better job than running a $40 billion deficit, $100 billion over the forwards and a never, never, never return to surplus which is only going to result in higher taxes on future generations.

Long debate text truncated.

Jonathon Duniam

It is a great day when non-government bills pass this Senate. It shows that democracy is alive and well. The world is alert and alive to the con that is this government. They call themselves the most transparent government in history; the rest of the world disagrees. So I was pleased to see the passage of the last bill. But now, to speak on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 brought forward by my colleague Senator Bragg, it's an important piece of legislation that relates to the governance of the HAFF and how those funds are to be used and distributed, what they can use those funds to invest in and what they cannot use those funds to invest in.

The bill in essence limits the capacity for the HAFF to invest in projects or entities associated with the CFMEU, which I think is a very sound measure to put in place. We are talking about, by extension, taxpayers money. Of course, we know how the HAFF was set up. It was money borrowed which was being paid for by the taxpayer of Australia ostensibly to construct homes, and here we are, a number of years on from the establishment of the HAFF, and we haven't got many homes, and they've had to borrow money to set up a fund to build these homes that aren't being built. Putting all of that to one side, how the funding is used and which organisations are able to access funds is important.

Across the country, there are extreme concerns about the operations of the CFMEU. In the state of Victoria, nothing short of corrupt activity is occurring when it comes to public infrastructure projects and goodness knows what else when it comes to construction. Prices have been blown out of the stratosphere because of the corrupt influence of an organisation of this nature. When you have union super funds linked to this union, and a fund of this nature controlled by the government, we need to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that taxpayers' money is protected. Whether it be money directly contributing to building homes or paying down the debt associated with the establishment of the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund—which has yet to properly build enough homes for us given the government's target was 1.2 million homes over five years, which was the set target—we need to ensure they are putting in protections, which is what this bill seeks to do now.

Of course, the government will no doubt oppose this legislation. This is a government that can't be held to account on its targets because they mean nothing. They were just promises made at election time along with a range of other promises relating to the cost of living, power prices and the like. They don't care. They say these things at election time; there is no follow-through. There is no commitment to deliver on these things. Promises are just words, and those words are certainly not bonds, despite the claims by the Prime Minister to the contrary.

This government is in denial about so many things. They are in denial about what's happening when it comes to fuel in this country, which will have an impact on the construction industry. They are in denial about the impact that that crisis, which they have been caught flat-footed in responding to, will have on Australian households and businesses, including those seeking to build a home. They're in denial about the issues facing anyone who wants to build something in this country—around labour shortages, around the cost of materials and around delays in approvals. They are in denial about the ineffectiveness of their own schemes, and they're in denial about the corruption associated with the union, one of their paymasters, who can access funds from this program as at today, unless these laws pass the parliament.

They're also a government that's all about blame, not responsibility. When there's a problem, they look everywhere else: former governments, overseas conflicts, things outside of their control. It's always someone else's fault, and there is nothing this government can do or will do to address these issues. It's beyond our control; it's lamentable that you are all paying the price. This is not what governments should do.

Along with denial and blame, all of this sadly leads to an outcome for the Australian people, which is being let down. Again and again, Australians are being let down by this government, a government that has lost control of what it is they need to do in Australia's interests on housing, on fuel. Whatever the issue confronting Australians might be, and there are many, they are let down by a government that's lost control and has no plan to address these issues.

A government that is actually one of integrity, a government that is one that genuinely wants to resolve the issues that are at the heart of the housing crisis in this country, would support this legislation. It would cut out the cancerous influence of this union and its proxies when it comes to projects of a significant nature or even minor in nature. That example of cost blowouts of between $15 billion and $30 billion in Victoria—it's not just pretend money and it's not just some line in a press release or a news article; that is taxpayers' money that could have otherwise been spent on things that would be of benefit to the people of Victoria and the people of this country. Health infrastructure projects, public infrastructure, roads and rail, sports, public housing—all those sorts of things could've been done a lot better, and a lot more of them could have been undertaken and completed by now, if the influence of this corrupt organisation was cut out of public spending when it comes to infrastructure. I think that's why this legislation is so very important.

Again, as I say, this government is in denial. They spend all their time blaming everyone else, going deep into history. This government has been in power now for four years. We're approaching half a decade of Labor rule in this country, and, of course, it's still everyone else's fault in the past: former governments or overseas conflicts that started a long time ago. They've done nothing to offset the impact, and, as I say, Australians are being let down.

That is why the opposition, through our shadow minister Senator Bragg, have brought forward this very sensible legislation to ensure that we can control a government that would rather put the interests of their union paymasters ahead of the interests of Australians who can't get into houses, who can't afford to make ends meet every day of every week and who can't put fuel in the car, because, of course, they've been let down by a government that didn't think there was going to be a crisis, despite the months of notice that the rest of the world seemed to have to put in place measures to address what is now a terrible crisis. I really do implore this government to support Senator Bragg's bill, because it is the right thing to do. There is not a good reason to prevent the government supporting this legislation in the interests of good outcomes for our country—for those people who want to access housing and for those people who just want a fair go in this country. If they don't vote for it, well, again, it shows what their priorities are and how out of touch they are with Australians doing it tough. I hope they support the legislation.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading on the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I understand no amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call Senator Bragg to move the third reading.

Andrew Bragg

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Sue Lines

The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

Ellie Whiteaker

I'm pleased to be able to continue my contribution from 4 February because a lot has happened since then. There are lots of homes underway thanks to the work of our Labor government, and while some things have changed, like there being a new leader of the Liberal Party, what has stayed the same is that it's the same old Liberal Party, it's the same old shadow minister, it's the same bad housing ideas and it's the same approach that will do nothing to get Australians into homes.

Since Senator Bragg brought this bill before the chamber, under Labor's plan more homes are being built—not promised, not modelled, not talked about, not just funded, but built. I see it every single day. I wonder if Senator Bragg drives around with his eyes closed, because what I can see in my community is real action on housing, and it's happening fast.

On my drive into my electorate office in the morning, just down the road, in the electorate of my good friend the member for Swan, Zaneta Mascarenhas, there is a Housing Australia Future Fund project underway in Rivervale. It's 171 affordable apartments in the heart of Perth, very close to the CBD and in an absolutely beautiful part of our great state, right on the banks of the Derbal Yerrigan. These are homes for frontline workers, for veterans and for older women at risk of homelessness. This is what housing delivery looks like. Just across the road from that project in Rivervale, there are more developments, as part of a pipeline of over 1,100 affordable and social homes across Perth, delivered in partnership with the Cook Labor government. This is happening right now. I think this is a really important point for us to talk about in this debate.

We should be honest about what the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 does. It doesn't just block the build of new housing—although it does do that. It creates uncertainty in a system that depends on long-term investment. Housing projects don't just pop up overnight. They require years of planning, financing and construction, and they require dedication from government. I think it's important we remember why we're in this mess in the first place, and that is that, under the former government, there was no commitment to building the homes that Australians needed. After a decade of mismanagement and, frankly, neglect on housing under the former government, Labor is getting on with the job. We are cleaning up the mess that we were left with, and that means there is catching up to do.

A bill like this stands in the way of building more homes in communities like mine and the ones I am privileged to represent in Western Australia. Developers, builders and community housing providers make decisions based on stable policy settings, and what this bill does is threaten to unwind those settings. You can't ask builders to commit capital, hire workers and start construction while also telling them that that could change at any moment. Housing supply depends on confidence, and this bill, the Liberal Party and Senator Bragg undermine that. I am sick and tired of Senator Bragg and the Liberal Party standing in the way of the homes that Australians need. Contracts are being signed, finances locked in, workers are on site, projects are moving—I can see them going up around me in Perth, and this bill stands in the way of that achievement. It would stop it in its tracks. These are homes that Australians are counting on. This bill wouldn't build a single home, but it risks standing in the way of thousands. Our government will not allow the Liberal Party to stand in the way of the homes that Australians need.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

Jessica Collins

At the request of Senator Cadell, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Minister representing the Minister for Education has failed to comply with order for production of documents no. 370, agreed on 4 March 2026; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than midday on 25 March 2026.

Murray Watt

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Slade Brockman

Leave is granted for one minute.

Murray Watt

The government will not be supporting this motion. As the Minister representing the Minister for Education advised the Senate President on 10 March 2026, the minister does not hold these documents, nor does the Department of Education. The minister does not have a role in the day-to-day administration of the university. These questions should be directed to the ANU.

Slade Brockman

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 437 be agreed to.

Jessica Collins

On behalf of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 20 April 2026:

(a) all current and historical terms of reference, workplans, designation agreements and any amendments or renewals for the Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) World Health Organization (WHO) collaborating centres for drug quality assurance and for the quality assurance of vaccines and other biologicals;

(b) all correspondence, emails, meeting minutes, reports and briefings between the TGA (or Department of Health) and the WHO relating to these collaborating centre designations, including annual progress reports submitted to WHO, invitations for input on WHO standards/guidance and any discussions on regulatory alignment or influence since 2015;

(c) any documents, including internal advice and memos, assessing the implications of these WHO collaborating centre affiliations for TGA's independence, decision-making on therapeutic goods approvals or Australian sovereignty in medicines/vaccines regulation; and

(d) a list of any WHO-requested activities, technical support provided or changes to TGA processes resulting from these affiliations.

Slade Brockman

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 434 be agreed to.