Sue Lines

The question is that the motion related to the governance and performance of Housing Australia be agreed to.

Jessica Collins

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) Mr Mark Irving KC was appointed as Administrator of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) on 23 August 2024 and will continue to assist the CFMEU as Senior Counsel after his resignation as Administrator takes effect on 1 June 2026, and

(ii) Mr Michael Crosby will replace Mr Irving as Administrator; and

(b) directs Mr Irving and Mr Crosby to attend the Budget estimates hearings of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee in the week commencing 2 June 2026 to give evidence and answer questions regarding the administration of the CFMEU.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

Under the scheme of the CFMEU administration, responsibility for appointing a replacement administrator lies with the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission. The general manager has publicly outlined a consultative process whereby he will seek the views of registered organisations, peak bodies and industry participants in making the appointment. No appointment has been made. Budget estimates is not a forum to compel private individuals for questioning; this is a longstanding practice. Should senators wish to bring forward lines of questioning regarding the CFMEU administration, the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission will be in attendance.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 509 standing in the name of Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move:

That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to publish answers to questions on notice relating to sponsored passes for Parliament House asked by Senator David Pocock during the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, unless the witness answering the question requested that the answer be kept confidential.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 452, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move:

That—

(a) for the duration of this Parliament, any question directed to a witness appearing before any legislative and general purpose standing committee and any current or future select committee concerning the provision of sponsored passes for Parliament House be taken to be relevant to the matter before the committee; and

(b) consistent with the procedure to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses, nothing in paragraph (a) affects the entitlement of a witness to request that evidence be given in private session, or to object to answering any question.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 451, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Karen Grogan

I present the sixth report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated into the Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 6 OF 2026

14 May 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator Ross Cadell (Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 May 2026 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral),

(b) the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2026 (see appendix 2 for statement of reasons for referral),

(c) the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 August 2026, and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2026 (see appendix 3 for statement of reasons for referral).

1. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

13 May 2026

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics

Possible hearing date(s): May-June

Possible reporting date: 18 June

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Defence

Possible hearing date(s): May-July

Possible reporting date: 31 July 2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consider in detail

Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics

Possible hearing date(s): May-June

Possible reporting date: 17 June 2026

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add ", and:

(a) the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2026; and

(b) the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee.

Jordon Steele-John

I move the amendment circulated in the chamber standing in the name of Senator McKim:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 August 2026".

Let's be really clear about what is happening here. Labor is proposing to send the NDIS bill to inquiry. It's the most significant change to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in its history. It's legislation that will enable $185 billion to be ripped out of the scheme over a decade. It's the largest cut made by a government to a government program in the history of the Commonwealth. That's what this legislation will do, and they are seeking to send it to an inquiry that will report by 16 June. That is ridiculous.

Let me be really clear about what that will mean for the people who will be affected by this legislation. It means that there will be 20 working days to review this piece of legislation. Let's be real. Out of those 20 days, only 11 are non-parliamentary workdays for this Senate to review this legislation. And now I hear that we may not even get a meeting of the committee to set out the agenda for this inquiry for another week, which would scrub another three days off the potential period of time that people would have to scrutinise this legislation, to understand what it may mean for them and to be able to share their view on the legislation that will shape their lives. This is outrageous and it is wrong. Fellow senators, this is wrong. These cuts are immoral. This is not what you were elected to do—to cause this harm, to cause this pain, to put these lives at risk, to leave the community in the dark without the answers that they need or the time to get those answers.

I would be happy if this bill went to an inquiry permanently and never passed this chamber. However, we put forward this amendment today as a compromise that would see the inquiry report in August, giving at least some sensible amount of time to engage disabled people, to enable proper hearings and to enable people to make submissions to the inquiry so that we can understand the legislation that we will then be asked to pass. This is a basic expectation of the community. This amendment is reasonable, and in this situation you'd better believe it is necessary. I urge you to support this amendment today.

Many in this place may not have a lived experience of disability, but I do hope that the majority of us have not lost our capacity for empathy and our commitment to curiosity and a belief that we should understand the laws that we are passing and the impacts that they will have on people. One hundred and sixty thousand people now face removal from the NDIS, with $185 billion ripped from this scheme by a government that cannot bring itself to ask the big gas exporters or wealthy end of town to pay a cent more.

This legislation dumped today at the end of a parliamentary sitting week is already proving to be the vessel for terrifying changes for disabled people, for the redefinition of what disability itself means in the eyes of the government, and the provision to the minister of vast new powers that will give government control over the lives of disabled people and our families, that will strip agency from our hands, that will reduce our choices. I urge you to put aside your party affiliations in this moment, connect with your humanity and vote for this amendment.

Penny Allman-Payne

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John's. The number of times we hear people say 'nothing about us, without us' and 'we will not do anything to disabled people without engaging them in a codesigned process', and here is the government proposing to make the biggest change to the NDIS by shutting out disabled people and not allowing them to have a say. Shame on you! And to the other members of this chamber: if you genuinely believe that people with a disability have a right to have a say in their care, you will support this amendment too.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it's a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister's office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won't even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should.

This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers' expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia's fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding.

Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they're helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I'll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians.

I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment.

Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it's the people who pay. We can't normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don't really mean it. I'm just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn't it? Is that right?

One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions.

In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That's why he's got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation.

Tyron Whitten

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026. One Nation is not here to rubberstamp legislation for Labor. We're here to represent the people who have been forgotten, ignored and taken for granted by the two major parties for far too long. Our voters—in fact, your voters—sent all of us here to question and scrutinise legislation that this government is constantly trying to rush through. They are laws that hand more power to Canberra without accountability. We didn't get a copy of the proposed legislation until yesterday. Today we're being asked to consider a bill that gives the Treasurer sweeping new powers to declare exceptional circumstances and then allows the ACCC to grant exemptions from competition law. This is for a crisis that doesn't exist, by the way. We are expected to deal with it in a timeframe that makes genuine scrutiny almost impossible. It is the government of transparency and more tax!

How are we supposed to properly represent our constituents when we have not had a real chance to review this legislation? This is the first and most fundamental problem with this bill. It is being rammed through probably with the help of the votes-for-sale Greens. We have a duty to read legislation; to understand its implications; and to consult with experts, small business, consumers and people actually keep this country running—or have you forgotten about the people you're meant to represent? When the basic process is short-circuited, we can't do our job. If we can't do our job, the people who voted for us are not being represented. It's pretty simple.

This is not an isolated incident. This is typical of the Labor government. You might have heard of them—the government of transparency and more tax. They constantly complain about the Senate not moving fast enough. They lecture us about the need for urgency. They accuse anyone who asks for proper process of getting in the way. They claim we don't support their rubbish legislation. Yet they have done absolutely nothing to cultivate trust with this Senate or with the Australian people. Remember old Mr 'My Word is my Bond'? Trust is not something you demand. It is something you earn, and you are losing the trust of the Australian voters very quickly. This government has done everything possible to destroy what little trust remains. We don't trust them. The Australian people don't trust them, and they have every reason not to.

Look at the budget handed down only this week. Australians were told not once, not twice but over 50 times, allegedly, that there would be no changes to negative gearing. That sounds like Labor. 'There will be no child living in poverty'—blah, blah, blah. Seriously. Australians were told repeatedly that capital gains tax arrangements would not be touched. The Prime Minister himself stood at the dispatch box and said it again and again and again. 'For the 50th time' he said on one occasion. Then, the moment they believed they had the numbers and the political cover—oh, and the little issue of running out of your money—they turned around and slammed through major changes anyway. This is not a change of heart based on new information. This is a deliberate deception. This is not a Robin Hood budget, as it was being sold—you know, 'Take money from the older people who have worked hard and saved and give to the young'. This is a Klaus Schwab budget—'You will own nothing and you will be happy.'

Now they expect us to take them at their word on this bill. If the government genuinely wants support for its legislation, then it needs to start being honest. It needs to start being transparent. It needs to stop treating this parliament and the people of Australia as an inconvenience that gets in the way of its agenda and start treating it as the democratic institution it's supposed to be.

The government says this is necessary because of the current fuel crisis. One Nation understands the pressures on fuel supply and energy prices caused by the complete lack of foresight by this very government. We understand that, in genuine emergencies, there can be a need for rapid coordination between businesses to keep essential goods moving. No-one wants to see fuel shortages or panic buying because the law is too slow to respond. But understanding the problem does not mean we accept any solution the government puts forward, no matter how flawed.

Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers from price gouging. It protects small businesses from being squeezed out by larger players who can coordinate their behaviour. It stops anticompetitive conduct from becoming normal. Any law that carves out exemptions from those protections must be treated with extreme caution. This bill gives the Treasurer an extremely broad power to declare exceptional circumstances. Do we really want this bloke to have more power? It is not limited to the current fuel situation. It could be used in a future pandemic, another economic shock or any situation the Treasurer of the day decides qualifies. Once that door is open, the ACCC can grant exemptions that this parliament cannot disallow. The only transparency requirement is that the exemptions be made public within seven days. In some cases, that might be acceptable. In others, it is nowhere near good enough.

Then there is the retrospectivity. The bill is backdated to 1 April 2026. We ask why that particular date was chosen. The Treasurer's office apparently said they wanted sufficient flexibility. That is not a justification. Is this a belated April fools joke? Who knows. That is an admission that they want to cover their tracks or give themselves room to act without proper oversight. Retrospective lawmaking, especially in the area of competition law, should be extremely rare. It should require a clear, specific and compelling reason and maybe some oversight. 'We want flexibility' does not meet that standard.

One Nation has seen this movie before. Governments of both persuasions use any crisis as an excuse to permanently expand their power. They say it's only temporary. They say the safeguards are adequate. Then, when the next crisis comes along, those expanded powers are still there and the safeguards have been quietly weakened even further. We are not prepared to let that happen again without a fight. This bill should be subjected to a full and proper inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That inquiry should examine whether the existing ACCC powers are genuinely inadequate, it should test whether the Treasurer's declaration power is drawn too broadly, it should consider whether the ACCC exemptions should be made disallowable by parliament, it should look closely at the transparency requirements and whether seven days is anywhere near sufficient, it should demand a clear and specific justification for the retrospective start date and it should consider whether stronger sunset clauses and review mechanisms are needed so that these powers do not become permanent.

None of that is unreasonable. None of that is obstruction. It is the basic responsibility of this chamber, the house of review. Cries of urgency do not justify our trusting a government that has repeatedly broken its word to the Australian people. Our constituents did not vote for us so we would roll over every time a minister said that something is urgent. They voted for us because they are sick of being treated with disdain, sick of being ignored, and sick of watching the power of ministers and bureaucrats grow with every passing crisis.

If Labor wants this bill to pass in a form that commands genuine support across the chamber, they know what they need to do: stop the rush; support a proper Senate inquiry; be transparent about why these particular dates and these particular powers have been chosen; and start treating the Senate and the Australian people with the respect they deserve. Until that happens, One Nation will continue to ask the hard questions. We will continue to demand proper scrutiny. And we will continue to stand with the Australian people who sent us here, rather than with a government that seems to believe it can command a trust it has never earned.

It is time for this parliament to start earning their trust again, one honest debate, one proper inquiry and one transparent piece of legislation at a time. You can screech across the chamber as much as you want that we don't vote for your rubbish legislation, but this is exhibit A of our defence.

Long debate text truncated.

Ross Cadell

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2026:

The extent and impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors,

with particular reference to:

(a) the nature, scale and sources of foreign ownership, investment and control in critical infrastructure, including energy, water, telecommunications, ports and transport assets;

(b) the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks, including the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board, in identifying and mitigating risks to Australia's economic sovereignty and national interest, including reviews of the 'National Interest Test' used by the Foreign Investment Review Board to assess and advise on referred matters;

(c) the potential economic impacts of foreign influence, including effects on competition, pricing, supply chain resilience and long-term investment outcomes;

(d) risks to regional communities, strategic industries and essential services arising from foreign control or influence over infrastructure assets;

(e) the effectiveness of transparency, disclosure and compliance mechanisms relating to foreign investment and ownership; and

(f) any other related matters.

As we are getting down to the nitty-gritty, we're seeing the effect of the war in the Middle East on supply chains throughout the world. It's something we saw in COVID. We are at the end of a very long dependency line right throughout the world. This involves our critical infrastructure as well. If we are not the sovereign holders of our own infrastructure—if we are not the person that makes the final decision—we are at risk of losing access to the key things that keep this country strong and that keep this country operating. Whether it be transport, whether it be ports or whether it be electricity—whether it be any service—these are the key things that keep a nation strong. Sovereignty is the definition of not being at the behest of others but being able to make your own decisions without coming under duress.

As the rule of law around the world is diminishing to the rule of power, I have been approached by numerous organisations, some partly owned by foreign companies or foreign countries, that are seeing an increasing reach down from ownership into the management of their businesses to a level that they have never seen before. This is not always welcome. This is the real risk of what can happen if the basis of law throughout the world goes down and we move to a power based world. That is not good enough for Australia. What I am looking at is to move this to the committee where we can look at these things—the transport sector, airports, ports, electricity holders and so many things—and work out if this is in the best interests of our country.

We welcome investment. It builds services and things, it employs people and it gives us what we want. But do we want the influence? In some cases, the answer will be, 'Not a problem. There is no issue in the world,' because it's not targeting any one nation and it's not targeting any group or ownership structures. It's targeting the very influence right throughout it. I can tell you that there are two specific countries that I have been approached about, and they couldn't be further apart on the spectrum in the world order. They are very different in what they do.

It is no longer good enough for us to trust just our security services to look after the protection of our nation. Every board, every management structure and every CEO across this nation is being put under increasing pressure as countries look to protect their own interests. Australia is no different. If we are not out there with a strong country, with strong systems and with strong companies that can stand up to this, we can lose everything we have. We found out that more than half of the CCTV cameras around military bases could be controlled by other people, and they had to be replaced. We're talking about cars being able to be turned off. We're seeing all throughout the world that we're not masters of our own domain.

All I am asking is for a referral to the committee to examine this in depth over time. I'm not being alarmist. I'm not saying we have to change this. I'm not going out there beating the doors. We've seen the commitment by this government. They have gone silent lately about the sale of the Port of Darwin and the concerns around that.

If we are so concerned about an infrastructure piece that the government is moving forward with the compulsory disposal of that—although it has gone quiet; I'm wondering whether that's still on the agenda—why are we not concerned by other things, not necessarily owned by the same country but owned by other organisations? Is it in our interests to have our water, in our productive use, owned by super funds of other nations? Is it good to have our electricity distribution owned by corporations of other nations?

As I said, we welcome the investment, but if the control is being increased and the fingers are reaching down, simply because the world has turned into a different world than it was 10 years ago, then we need to be ready for it. And if we are not examining that, we run the exact risk we're running now on the fuel supply. If we are not prepared for the changes and for things to happen when they happen, we'll be playing catch-up—just as we are on oil, just as we are on power, and just as we were during COVID on our medicine and safety supply chains. We can go one of two ways. We can say, 'She'll be right,' and do nothing, or we can actually start making plans for what we should do and for weaknesses we have.

I like to quote, and I'll quote again from Sun Tzu: 'Prevention of defeat lies in oneself.' We have no-one to blame for being weak except ourselves. And if we say no to this, if we say, 'Nothing to see here; we'll move it aside'—I'm not out there ringing alarm bells; it is a safety check, an audit, a check-up on Australia's sovereignty, on the strength of our country, the strength of our services—and if something happens, that is on us. I am sick of sitting in a parliament, sitting in an organisation where things happen and we blame other people: the price of this is on Ukraine; the price of that is on the Middle East. For any action, we always blame someone else. It is time to take responsibility and own these things ourselves.

If we say no—and I can count, and I think the chances are that we will say no to this referral today—the next thing that happens because of foreign influence is on this parliament. It's not on any country or any organisation that tends to do it. We've already had all sorts of fingers reaching down, for the first time last year, and the government was strong on this—the IRGC involvement in attacks in Australia. We are seeing governments and organisations doing more, being more active, having more influence in Australia. So it will be on the government, it will be on those who vote against this, if we do nothing and things happen to our infrastructure. So I urge the Senate to support it. It is not an alarm bell. I have been approached, as I said before, by people on boards and CEOs of organisations in this country who are concerned and who have reached out to agencies of this government for assistance. That is the level of concern they have. They are reaching out to agencies, between our security organisation and our Home Affairs, to gather assistance, to get the resources for this, because it has never happened before and they aren't comfortable.

I thank the Senate for their time. I urge their support. All I want is an Australian community that can stand on its own when times get tough, because we're increasingly finding that we don't know who we can trust.

Jessica Collins

I rise to speak in favour of my good colleague Senator Cadell and the senator's motion to refer to the Economics References Committee an inquiry into the impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors. Australia's critical infrastructure is not just an economic asset. It is the backbone of our national sovereignty. It underpins our energy security, water security, communications, supply chains and the functioning of everyday Australian life. In an increasingly uncertain world, this parliament has a clear responsibility, and that is to protect Australians from those who would do us harm. We must ask whether our existing safeguards are strong enough, and we must be honest about the risks we face. This Labor government has its head in the sand on national security, and Australians are paying the price.

We live in a time of heightened strategic circumstances: war in Europe, conflict and tension in our region, pandemics that shut borders that cripple supply chains, and natural disasters that strain energy, transport and communication systems. These events have taught us one clear lesson: resilience cannot be piecemeal; it must be whole of government and it must be built into our economy, our infrastructure and our decision-making. A resilient nation needs an advanced and diverse economy that can withstand shocks, one that can keep food moving, power flowing and communications running when it matters most. Critical infrastructure assets are fundamentally different from ordinary investments. Sovereign ownership and oversight of these assets are key to our resilience. That is why these assets require a higher level of scrutiny and that is what this inquiry would do.

It is against our national economic security to vote against this motion. Let that be a message for the Australians watching. Those acting on your interest will be on one side of the chamber and those against it, the other. Australia has benefited greatly from productive international investment and this inquiry is not about opposing that. Foreign investment has helped build our economy but it must align with Australia's long-term national interest. According to ASIO's annual threat assessment, foreign interference and espionage are now at unprecedented levels. Corporate espionage is at an all-time high, with foreign adversaries attempting to infiltrate our institutions and industries at unprecedented levels. They have surpassed terrorism as Australia's principal security concerns. That is a reality we cannot ignore. Australians expect us in this and the other place to be proactive, not complacent. Political or economic convenience cannot come ahead of national security, and I implore those opposite to act in the interests of Australians, not our adversaries. When it comes to food production, freight, energy and communications, we must legislate defensively and act responsibly. There is no better time for this conversation as we face fuel and fertiliser pressures, global instability and increasing competition for essential resources.

It is a core responsibility of government to protect Australians, and that protection must be across the whole of government, private sector and with industry partnership. To walk away from that responsibility is to abandon the public interest. The coalition understands this. When in government the coalition passed several key pieces of legislation to secure our critical infrastructure. But the work is not done, and the threat environment continues to evolve. That is why we are committed to sovereign resilience, and that is why only the coalition has a portfolio dedicated to this task and why only the coalition has put this inquiry to the Senate. Foreign investment is vital to our economy but, without scrutiny, Australians will be taken advantage of, and that is why I support this motion and ask all other senators to do so too.

Sue Lines

The question is the motion as moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator David Pocock, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red.

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

The need for investment in nature conservation to protect and manage our incredible landscapes and species, given at least half of Australia's GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature and only 0.1% of the federal Budget is spent on its protection.

Is the 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 informal arrangements made by the whips.

David Pocock

I move:

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

The need for investment in nature conservation to protect and manage our incredible landscapes and species, given at least half of Australia's GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature and only 0.1% of the federal Budget is spent on its protection.

Last week was Sir David Attenborough's 100th birthday—a remarkable man, someone who has seen more of the natural world than almost anyone alive. He told us that to restore stability to our planet we must restore its biodiversity, the very thing we have removed. It is the only way out of this crisis we have created. Reflecting on the budget last night, there were undoubtedly good things and some tough decisions made, and I applaud the government for doing that.

But, yet again, nature has missed out. If we look at this through the view of the importance we attach to managing and protecting the natural world, our priority is not there. That is not a priority in this budget. We know that we are in a biodiversity crisis. More than 2,000 species and ecological communities are threatened. Nineteen ecosystems are showing signs of collapse on this megadiverse continent that we call home. Growing up, I used to hear stories from my father and grandfather about what the area we farmed in was like when they were growing up. It sounded like a much richer place—more wildlife, more adventure. I remember feeling a sense of loss and a bit of anger even as a kid—'Why didn't I get to experience that?'

Then you look at the statistics. This is actually what's happening. That was in Zimbabwe. Here in Australia, we've seen a 75 per cent decline in threatened and near threatened species since 1985. That is a disastrous drop. We have an impoverished environment. Growing up, I had no idea that that was what we now call shifting baseline syndrome, where we go into what are still incredibly beautiful landscapes in this country and we enjoy them. The Murrumbidgee River Corridor is a place that I have just fallen in love with since moving to the ACT, but it is but a fraction of what it used to be. There's less birdsong. There are almost no small mammals left along that corridor. Cats and foxes reign supreme. The river is being starved of water. It's in a perpetual man-made drought.

We have a choice as a country. If you just want to look at the economics, there's a strong argument: $893 billion of GDP, nearly half of our economy, depends directly on nature and the services it provides. So, if you don't care about nature—still, if you care about the economy, you should care about investing in the environment. This shouldn't be a left versus right issue. I don't see what is more conservative than actually conserving the environment and protecting our natural heritage. Yes, we need money. We currently spend just 0.1 per cent of the federal budget, $474 million, on protecting it. I think this is both an economic failure and a moral failure.

The Biodiversity Council says that we need to lift that to at least one per cent. If we just took a third of the destructive subsidies in this country, that would solve it—that would be one per cent. This is doable for us as a country. The money is there. This is about priorities. A relatively small investment would be a down payment on our future, both the future of the places and species we love and ultimately our future as a species because our survival is inextricably tied to the environment that we have evolved out of and we rely on.

The ask is for an increase—an investment of one per cent of the budget—and there's a lot at stake. As EO Wilson reminded us:

The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.

Yes, we need money, but clearly we need a change in attitude. We've got to stop viewing land as something that we just own and can demand a return from and view it more as something that we actually belong to and is there not just for us but for everything else that we share it with and for future generations.

Andrew Bragg

I take the opportunity to put on record our disappointment about the budget's commitment to biodiversity and its failure to protect the environment. We think they could have done better.

There is a particular emphasis I want to make in this contribution around invasive species, which is a really big problem for our country. We have so many invasive species across our country destroying local flora and fauna and destroying habitat. I think of my own experience growing up in northern Victoria seeing the impact of the European carp and how the European carp would eat the small native fish and even some of the other introduced species which were not causing any great damage. I note your enjoyment of this contribution, Senator Ayres. It's a small example of a much bigger problem for our environment and our economy, particularly when you think about some of the bigger problems, like the fire ants in Queensland which offer a significant threat to human life as well as the ecosystem that we all rely upon. That's why the 2026 budget's failure to provide the right sort of funding in the invasive species space is particularly disappointing.

The government have rebranded the Saving Native Species fund as Protecting Australia's Native Species, but there appears to be a 27 per cent fall in funding, from $64 million to $46 million, and that then provides uncertainty around fire ant eradication, for example. That is, of course, a huge concern for people in Queensland. It also creates uncertainly for deer eradication in World Heritage zones, yellow crazy ant control and feral cat eradication on Kangaroo Island. These all need sustained focus. Minister Ayres, I'm enjoying your smirking there, but these are serious issues. The rabbits cost $197 million. Almost everyone who's got an interest here is saying that there's not enough certainty on the funding, and we want to see from this government a long-term commitment to the eradication of these invasive species. We also note that the national rabbit coordinator expires in late 2026. There's no replacement funding in sight there for the rabbits. The agriculture portfolio overall faces almost $200 million in cuts. These are serious issues for our future.

We note the budget removes a significant amount of funding, and it doesn't have the certainty that is needed to provide the eradication, which takes many years. It would be no surprise to you, Minister Ayres, on the point I made before, about European carp, that this is still a major issue in the waterways of the Murray-Darling and in other parts of Australia. These things take decades to get rid of. That's why putting it on an annualised basis, where governments look to nickel and dime these programs, creates great uncertainty for people who are worried about our environment. Farmers and the like all have genuine concerns about the funding profile here.

We want to see a stronger commitment, over the next year, from the government on these issues. We will of course be considering our own program on this in terms of a funding envelope and also a policy that is a serious policy that can be put against all these different invasive species. The government so far have had a terrible record here. We want them to do better, and we'll be encouraging them to do better.

Varun Ghosh

Protecting Australia's environment is essential to our future. Our incredible landscapes and unique and magnificent ecosystems are vital to Australia. They're vital to life on this continent. Our environment is important to our economy. Our environment is loved and enjoyed by Australians around the country. I love and enjoy our environment. I cherish time spent in the wilderness. I, as Senator Pocock did, grew up watching David Attenborough. The videotape of The Trials of Life got a repeat run in the Ghosh-Nagarajan household. As an adult, I enjoy bushwalking in our magnificent national parks, swimming at our beaches and fishing in our rivers and oceans.

But I don't agree with the approach set out in this motion. The protection and conservation and management of Australia's environment is not just about cherrypicking a proportion of GDP as a spending amount and then using it as a method of criticism. It's a number selected artificially to create an impression because it's small. But the reality is that this government's environmental agenda has been large. I think it has been the biggest environmental agenda a government has had in this country in terms of its substance, not only in terms of addressing climate change but in terms of those vital reforms we made last year to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. So, while I understand and agree with many of the things Senator Pocock said today, I think the logic of the motion is flawed and I think its purpose is misguided.

But—but—I do just want to take a moment to address my colleague Senator Bragg's comments about the environment. Senator Bragg is a very serious policy person, but he made a number of statements that did not gel with his party's attitude to the most significant piece of environmental reform in this country in a generation last year. He made a number of comments that didn't gel with Senator Henderson's comments on the earlier motion, about wanting to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and not establish or give proper funding to Environment Information Australia. It is well and good to mention yellow crazy ants in some abstract way, but, when you want to address the problems of the environment, you have to do it holistically. You have to do it through a framework that's going to work. Last year, when we were debating and passing these reforms, senator after senator from the coalition stood up and decried them. Now, when Senator Bragg comes in—and, again, I have a lot of respect for Senator Bragg—and suggests they are serious about environmental protection and rattles off some invasive species names and then walks back out, it's a little hard to take seriously.

The Albanese government does, however, take a substantive and broad approach to environmental protection. The government has increased funding for the environment over the next four years in relation to our Saving Native Species program, a highly successful program which ensures that many of our unique plants and animals get a better chance than they had before. These are the same animals that are unique to this country and well known around the world—our koalas and our bilbies. I was heartened to hear Senator Pocock talk about biodiversity and the importance of genetic variance in our environment, because that is something that will ensure that our environment can survive the many challenges that come and are coming as a result of climate change.

The government has taken significant action to try and address the issue of climate change and reduce Australia's emissions, not only through a commitment to a net zero target but through a commitment to significant adaptation in the way we produce electricity in this country and, significantly, through trying to clean up the way we do industry in this country. The government has taken very significant action to protect the Great Barrier Reef, trying to invest to deal with that climate problem and climate adaptation, to improve water quality and to ensure fishing is sustainable around the country and invasive species are managed. Our aim is to conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. Our significant investment in this aim is something that will ensure that species can thrive, that species that are endangered do not go extinct and that species that would otherwise become endangered are safe.

Peter Whish-Wilson

What about the Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour?

Varun Ghosh

Senator Whish-Wilson, we are undertaking these measures. I appreciate you—

Peter Whish-Wilson

Well, it's knocking on death's door.

Varun Ghosh

are very specifically interested in skate, but they are part of a holistic approach to environmental protection which, mercifully, your party supported last year. We are engaged in a process of trying to make Australia's biodiversity safe from the challenges that are coming down the pike. I don't think that one budget number as a proportion of GDP is an accurate reflection of what is an incredibly ambitious environmental agenda.

Long debate text truncated.

Lidia Thorpe

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than Wednesday, 20 May 2026:

(a) the following documents referred to in the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) schedule to the Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment Agreement (NTRAI) 2025-31:

(i) the one-off NTRAI baseline data report that was due on 1 May 2026,

(ii) the MEAL Framework that was due on 1 May 2026, and

(iii) the plan on the agreed approach to capturing NTRAI service user experiences that was due on 1 May 2026,

(b) each final report relating to the previous NTRAI 2024-25, that were due on 30 November 2025;

(c) all progress reports and plans delivered under each schedule to the NTRAI 2025-31, including:

(i) the two-year plans for each output, covering the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2027, that were due on 30 November 2025, and

(ii) the six-monthly progress reports for each output, covering the period 1 July to 31 December 2025, that were due on 1 April 2026,

(d) the sum of all payments made by the Commonwealth under each schedule to the NTRAI 2025-31; and

(e) a breakdown of each payment made against each associated performance milestone.

Sue Lines

Minister Gallagher?

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The government has already agreed to provide Senator Thorpe these documents along with a briefing. Senator Thorpe made this request late last week separately to this OPD. The government continues to identify, collate and work through the large number of documents that relate to both the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth. We are doing this in good faith following Senator Thorpe's request. In light of the steps we've already taken to provide this information, this order for production is not needed and a waste of the Senate's time.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 487 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 14 May 2026, all documents relating to the appointment of the next Chair of the Housing Australia Board.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 484 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.