Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 29 September 2025, all communications, including emails, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes and text/instant messages between the Digital Industry Group Inc. or its employees, agents or officers and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner or its employees, agents or officers for the period 1 July 2024 to 14 July 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 116, standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now move to general business notice of motions No. 114 and 115.

Lisa Darmanin

I seek to have these have treated separately.

Sue Lines

Sure. Senator Roberts, would you move 114 first and then 115.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 29 August 2025, in relation to the deaths of four soldiers in the 2023 Whitsundays Taipan helicopter crash:

(a) the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' (CDPP) final assessment of the brief of evidence provided by Comcare; and

(b) all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction held by the CDPP or the Attorney-General in relation to the decision not to commence a prosecution.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

We recognise the tragic loss of the MRH-90 aircrew on 28 July 2023. We remember the lives, dedication and spirit of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph 'Phillip' Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. The documents requested by this order go directly to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions's decision-making about whether a matter is to be prosecuted or not.

This concerns the release of potential legal advice prepared by the CDPP. A decision to prosecute a matter is one that lies with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions which is an independent statutory agency. As has been widely reported, the families have requested a review into this decision, and it would not be appropriate to require the CDPP to release this information. I understand another OPD related to this matter will be supported by the government.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 114, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I move:

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

(a) the Labor Government has broken its promise to review and standardise the definition of small and medium business across legislation, creating ongoing confusion for industry and adding to compliance burdens; and

(b) small businesses continue to face significant financial pressures, and that a lower company tax rate of 15 per cent for small businesses would provide meaningful relief, strengthen viability, and encourage job creation".

Murray Watt

I don't think we've seen it.

Dave Sharma

Senator Lambie, I don't believe that amendment has been circulated. Can you explain the terms of that amendment?

Jacqui Lambie

I certainly will. Senator Pocock and I were promised, nearly a year and a half ago now, that we would have a statement from the government saying exactly what a small business is—whether that's 20 people, 25 people. That was an agreement that was done between us and the government. They have failed to enact that agreement. That's the first thing. The second thing is that small business is doing it extremely difficult. I will ask you again to drop the tax rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. That is what that's about—which you've done nothing about.

Dave Sharma

Senator Lambie, you are moving the amendment in your name on sheet 3421. Is that correct?

Jacqui Lambie

That is correct.

Dave Sharma

Senator Watt?

Murray Watt

A point of order, I'm sure it was inadvertent, but this amendment has literally just been put before our eyes now. Can we just get a little bit of advice procedurally about whether it can be considered? I genuinely don't know the answer to that.

Dave Sharma

Yes, of course. Let me consult the clerks. Senator Watt, the advice is that, as Senator Lambie was given leave to move this amendment, we are able to consider it. The amendment is now before you on sheet 3421.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Lambie on sheet 3421 be agreed to.

Dave Sharma

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Matt O'Sullivan

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It is shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need for the Government to immediately release the NCRA Report, so Australians can assess whether the Government's proposed climate response will adequately protect the future of coral reefs, and the communities and economies that depend on them, from coastal flooding, coral bleaching, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse."

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.

Larissa Waters

I move:

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

The need for the Government to immediately release the NCRA Report, so Australians can assess whether the Government's proposed climate response will adequately protect the future of coral reefs, and the communities and economies that depend on them, from coastal flooding, coral bleaching, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.

After burying it for nine months, Greens pressure has forced the Labor government to commit to releasing the National climate risk assessment, but they're still refusing to release it before they set the 2035 targets, claiming public interest immunity. I thank the Senate for their support—in fact, just a few minutes ago—in rejecting that claim. I look forward to the government tomorrow, hopefully, complying with the order to produce the report, although, frankly, I won't hold my breath. I would also like to thank the Senate for supporting my motion to establish an inquiry into the government's secrecy in withholding this climate risk assessment report.

This is an opportunity to investigate why the Labor government has withheld this report for so long—nigh on nine months now—as well as recognising the hard work that the report's researchers have done in establishing how truly devastating unmitigated climate change would really be for Australians and nature. This inquiry will investigate what's in that secret report, whether Labor releases it or not. But they should release it immediately so Australians can understand and see for themselves whether the climate response will adequately protect their future and their children's futures.

People deserve to know exactly how global warming is making our country less safe, destroying the environment and supercharging climate disasters that are already costing communities dearly. Australia has done too little for far too long, and now science based targets that keep warming below two degrees require the monumental effort of reaching net zero in the next ten years, not by 2050—and not by never, as the coalition proposes. Labor has to announce Australia's 2035 target this September, and people need to see the true impacts of the climate crisis before the government announce their climate targets.

Ross Cadell

I rise to say that the coalition supports this urgency motion today. Colleagues, we don't live in a fictional world; we live in the real world, where Australians experience fires, floods and storms. They're not abstract possibilities; they are lived realities. Every farmer from where I come from in the Hunter, every small business out in Bourke, every family that has suffered floods in Lismore and recently on the Mid North Coast where I come from knows that it's not theoretical; it is personal and it is growing. That is why the Commonwealth first set about doing this report, Australia's first national climate risk assessment.

It has taken years of work. Hundreds of scientists, analysts and consultants, with government models, have pored over data for a huge amount of time. They've reviewed international models and consulted with communities. Millions of our taxpayer dollars have been invested into what the guiding document should be about the risks of the changing climate. Yet, despite all that effort and cost, despite the promises of transparency, this report is sitting in a drawer. Millions of dollars sitting in a drawer, hidden from the very Australians who paid for it. If the government thinks that hiding in a drawer is somehow making it safer, they are wrong—in fact, it does the opposite. A risk that is hidden is a risk that is ignored. Risks that are ignored quickly become disasters. Let's be clear: this isn't about one party's ideology or another's. This is about whether the people of this country are able to see, in black and white, the assessment of the challenges they face. It's not too much to ask, is it? We've paid the money and done the work. Can we see it? The initial report identified 56 national significant risks across health, defence, food, finance, ecosystems and regional communities. Eleven of those were judged so serious that they warranted the deepest analysis. Those findings should not have been locked away until after the election, and they should not be locked away now.

The government cannot credibly say it takes climate resilience seriously if it spends millions of dollars commissioning work from Australia's best minds and then buries the findings. You don't reduce risk by hiding it; you reduce it by confronting it, planning for it and resourcing the communities to be ready for it. Think of all that wasted effort if this report stays hidden. Farmers are planning their water infrastructure, councils are trying to design flood levies and insurers are recalculating premiums in regional towns for things that may or may not happen because they don't know the government is holding the data. All these people are left guessing because this government doesn't trust Australians with their own data.

Think of that wasted cost. Taxpayers paid for this. Ordinary Australians have every right to see what their money has produced. If we commission the first-ever national climate risk map but don't release it, what message does that send to people who may suffer and who want to know what's going on with our environment? What happens if we spend all this effort on it and say, 'You don't need to know'? That millions can be spent on a report that gathers dust on a minister's shelf is not leadership, is not accountability and is not that word we hear so often from the other side: transparency. They should not use words they don't know the meaning of.

Transparency builds trust. Hiding reports breeds suspicion. If these findings are confronting—and I think they may be—let's confront them together as a nation. If the report shows risks that are 'intense and scary', as some who have seen the draft say they are, then bring it out; let's all see it. That is all the more reason to tell Australians why it is going on and why we must see it. Resilience is not built on comfort; it is built on honesty, preparation and hard choices in the light of day. We cannot keep telling our nation and communities that we are preparing them for the future while refusing to share the very information that should underpin these decisions.

Release the report. Give local government, industry, farmers, health services, environmental sciences and families the data they need. Let them plan, let them adapt and let them have the respect of being trusted with the truth. Anything less is a betrayal of the work already done. The costs to the taxpayer are already borne. For once, let's be transparent. For once, let's not waste the work. Let's put it to use. Release the report so all Australians may have comfort in what they need to do to protect their environment and their own assets.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah

I thank the Greens political party for moving this urgency motion, but, I have to ask, what is a climate change risk report going to tell us that we don't already know? We have the Ningaloo Reef undergoing a mass bleaching event. We have a catastrophic algal bloom in South Australia. We have the eastern seaboard flooding every five minutes. We are in the teeth of this climate emergency. There is absolutely nothing, I promise you, in that report that I don't already know, that you don't already know and that all Australians don't already know.

We may not have been in this situation, such a dire situation, had the Greens political party and the Liberals, in 2009, passed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Hon. Senators

Honourable senators interjecting—

Michelle Ananda-Rajah

That old chestnut—yes, I do remember it; we keep receipts. We would not be having this conversation at all. In fact, what would be happening today is the dead hand of government would be retreating and the free market would take over—the most efficient mechanism. The carbon tax would now be running in our economy and the free market would be cleaning up this mess, and we wouldn't be in this place right now. But that's not the reality, because the Greens, in their wisdom back then, in their search for perfection, ruled out the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

What are we left with? We're left with second-order and third-order policies, and we are doing our level best as a government. We legislated an emissions target—82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. According to the Climate Change Authority, we're on track to meet that. We're within striking distance, but it's not easy. We have headwinds.

In Australia, we have also got—and this is something to be genuinely proud of—the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world; 4.1 million households have taken up rooftop solar. That is thanks to a Labor government setting a renewable energy target years and years ago. We are reaping the benefits. To all of those people who do not believe in targets: targets matter; they do matter. As a government, we brought in tax breaks for electric vehicle uptake, and what we have seen is a surge in electric vehicle uptake. When we came in, sales were at a moribund two per cent; they are now at 13 per cent. We have 300,000 electric vehicles on the road today, plus a whole bunch of plug-in hybrids. We also brought in efficiency standards for new vehicles, helping Australians gain access to the most fuel-efficient vehicles—also reducing our emissions.

Then we have the home battery scheme, a complete runaway success, which has exceeded all our expectations. A total of 30,000 home batteries have been taken up by Australians since 1 July. That's a thousand batteries per day. Australians get it. They want to reduce their bills. They want to reduce their emissions. We're giving them the opportunity to do so. On top of that, we're also looking at how we help heavy industry and the high emitters in this country decarbonise. We brought in the safeguard mechanism, which the Greens political party also supported. It enabled our largest emitters in the country to get onto the path of net zero by reducing their emissions by five per cent year on year on year. That's not easy for them, but they are now compelled to do so.

We also brought in the Capacity Investment Scheme. What is that? That is basically a government backed scheme to increase large-scale solar and wind generation in this country backed by storage. This has been, again, a huge success. It has been wildly popular to the point where we have increased its ceiling to 40 gigawatts by 2030. We've had interest from industry which has outstripped the tender process. We've also allocated offshore wind zones around the country and committed $27 billion in production credits for industry to help create green metals and green hydrogen in this country. That is about reshaping our industrial base.

That's not it. The next piece is to repair nature. This is why, while this country is in the grip of a nature crisis, it is imperative that this chamber passes our nature-positive environmental reform laws. Otherwise, we do not get to actually fix this emergency properly.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Monday, 1 September 2025, all volumes of the incoming government brief prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 57 relating to the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, was agreed to by the Senate on 30 July 2025,

(ii) ministers are expected to fully articulate why the release of a document will harm the public interest if an order is not complied with, including in relation to claims that a document is Cabinet-in-confidence, and

(iii) according to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, for such a claim to be established it is necessary that disclosure of the document would reveal Cabinet deliberations;

(b) agrees that the minister has not sufficiently established that disclosure of the document would reveal actual Cabinet deliberations;

(c) rejects the public interest immunity claims made by the minister; and

(d) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to table all completed documents and data sets that make up the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan by 9 am on 27 August 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 106, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Larissa Waters

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2025:

(a) the Government's secrecy and withholding of the Climate Risk Assessment (the assessment) from the Australian public since December 2024;

(b) the research, consultation and preparation of the assessment by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water;

(c) the expected ongoing impacts upon the Australian community that are contained within the assessment;

(d) the budgetary costs of both climate driven natural disasters and any government adaptation plans;

(e) the Government's ongoing approach to transparency related to reducing emissions and adaptation to a world currently on track for 2.6 to 3.1 degrees of warming; and

(f) any other related matters.

Anthony Chisholm

():  I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will not be supporting this motion. As explained by the minister in the letter tabled yesterday, the documents and questions are submissions to cabinet and informed cabinet deliberation. The confidence of ministers and the confidentiality of the cabinet process now and into the future would be diminished if the details of cabinet deliberations were to be disclosed prior to the open-access period provided for in the Archives Act.

The government is committed to releasing Australia's first-ever comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by climate change and how we can adapt. The government initiated this assessment and released the first pass assessment report of the National Climate Risk Assessment in March 2024. The government is now in the process of finalising the assessment for public release in a manner that respects the extensive work of Australia's leading climate scientists.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 5, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Steph Hodgins-May

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

David Pocock

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that on 23 July 2025, the Senate ordered the Minister for the Public Service to produce the final report of the public sector board appointments processes, and

(ii) the minister has refused to comply with order for the production of documents no. 10, stating that the document has been prepared for Cabinet deliberation and is therefore protected by Cabinet confidentiality;

(b) rejects the claim made by the minister, and notes the guidance of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice that claims of Cabinet confidentiality should relate only to the deliberations of Cabinet itself and not every document that merely has a connection to Cabinet;

(c) further notes that, according to the Australian Public Service Commission's website and in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the final report of the review was expected to be published in late 2023, indicating the report was actually prepared for public release and not solely for Cabinet deliberation; and

(d) orders that the report be laid on the table by the Minister for the Public Service, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 26 August 2025.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Slade Brockman

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting this motion. The report referenced in this motion is being used to inform government decisions at a cabinet level, and actual deliberations of the executive council or cabinet are protected from disclosure. In this case the report is a central document for those cabinet deliberations. It has not been previously released or published, and a decision has not been made on these deliberations. Its release prior to the finalisation of this cabinet process would negatively impact those deliberations. I have spoken to Senator Pocock to convey this—just to explain why we wouldn't be providing it—but I have also previously said that, when we complete those deliberations, this report will be released, and it will be.

Slade Brockman

The question is that motion standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.