David Pocock

I move:

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

(a) reaffirms its support for creators and rightsholders and the fundamental principle that they should control, and be fairly paid for, the use of their works; and

(b) rejects any proposal to introduce text and data mining exceptions or any other provisions that would allow Big Tech to use copyrighted material without authorisation or payment".

Slade Brockman

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

David Shoebridge

I move the second reading amendment that was circulated in my name and which makes clear that there is much more work to be done when it comes to the section 28 issue in relation to the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026:

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

(a) notes that the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 permits teachers to use copyright material in online lessons delivered via platforms such as Zoom;

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that copyright law delivers genuine clarity for educational institutions operating in a modern learning environment by progressing amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act 1968 to allow lessons to be recorded for a limited period, with appropriate access controls and destruction requirements in place, so that students who cannot attend lessons due to illness, disability, or other reasons are able to catch up; and

(c) notes that ensuring educational institutions are able to operate in rapidly changing digital environments will be critical going forward".

When we've been speaking with stakeholders in this space—and I particularly want to reference the education providers—they point out that so much of what happens now in universities and in TAFEs is education that is provided online. Often there'll be a lecture recorded in real life. It is beamed out, sometimes, and put live online so that students can remotely access it while the lecture is being delivered. We understand that the proposed section 28 amendments would largely capture that and ensure that copyright isn't payable for copyrighted materials that are transmitted live.

But, of course, Acting Deputy President, as you would know, as would anyone who's spoken to students studying at universities and TAFE now would know, quite often what happens is, if students are unable to access the lecture in real life and unable to see it when it's being broadcast—they may be ill, they may have a clash in their timetables or they may have work—they rely upon a recording of it. They log in using their student ID; they access the recording of the video.

As I understand it, the government doesn't intend section 28 to provide protection for education institutions when students are accessing their educational materials from a recording. There is no mechanism in place currently to provide for payments for that because it hasn't traditionally been the provision of copyrighted material that copyright owners have previously sought to recover payments from education providers. Our second reading amendment on behalf of the Greens addresses that pretty fundamental problem in section 28.

I want to be clear on the part of the Greens. We believe that we should be removing all barriers we possibly can so that public education providers—our universities, our schools and our TAFES—can have as great a penetration as possible into the community and the community can have as great an access as possible to education resources. It should not be constrained by arcane provisions in copyright law. I don't know why it is that the Labor government doesn't also back in public education like the Greens, but it's for those reasons that I commend the second reading amendment as moved.

(Quorum formed)

Malcolm Roberts

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that's existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.

The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what 'reasonably diligent' means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it's quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.

The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It's the copyright owner's discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there's that word again. There's a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I've seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like 'reasonable' to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.

One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.

The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI's output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google's page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.

David Pocock

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 is a good bill. I thank the government for bringing it forward, and all the public servants who worked on it and those in the minister's office.

I want to talk briefly about copyright at this critical point in history, where we're seeing AI companies and big tech hoovering up copyrighted works to train their models with what seems like no regard for copyright holders. This is the role of governments—to step in and say: 'We have a system of copyright, and it's served us well. We have it in recognition of people who create works—artists, authors, and others—in recognition that their work is theirs. They own it. Utilising that work should be a negotiation, and they should be paid for the use of that work after the negotiation.'

It seems there are only two instances in Australia where we infringe upon that right. One is with artists, when it comes to the cap on what commercial radio and the ABC have to pay artists. There's no negotiation there; we have a one per cent cap. The other is when it comes to AI—and I have very serious concerns about what artificial intelligence means for creatives, for copyright and more broadly for our economy. I just haven't seen anything from this government—or both the major parties in this country—that shows they are willing to stand up to big tech, particularly in the time of President Trump and his relationship with big tech, and what that means for our ability to stand up to big tech given our reliance on the US when it comes to AUKUS and other things.

There are many Australians both questioning AI and questioning why we aren't allowed to stand up for our own artists in this country, for creatives here in Australia. It is important that the Senate says, 'We will protect copyright of creatives.' It's not good enough that you are a multibillion dollar company that has a huge amount of clout; that doesn't matter. You've got to pay copyright holders to use their works. I think it will get caught up in the guillotine, but I foreshadow a second reading amendment that very simply states that—and I would urge Senate colleagues to back copyright holders in Australia and back that second reading amendment.

We need to stand up to AI companies. We need to stand up to big tech. We need to stand up to this surveillance capitalism that is not working for us. They are monetising our attention. They are making, when it comes to big tech, extraordinary profits and finding some pretty creative ways of not paying us here in Australia. My sense—and we canvassed this a little bit during question time—is that some expectations from the government are not going to cut it. We need a government that is willing to stand up to big tech, to stand up to the AI giants who are in this arms race to develop the best model, to develop artificial general intelligence, and what that may mean for our economy and for societies around the world. We haven't even got into the some of the potential job losses from artificial intelligence; I don't think we're even tracking them at the moment here in this country—no safeguards, let it rip. It really doesn't cut it more broadly with AI. When it comes to copyright, we need to reaffirm that we believe that copyright is a really important part of how we deal with people's creative works in this country.

Nita Green

I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026. This bill implements two priority legislative reforms. Firstly, there is the establishment of an orphan works scheme, which will facilitate publicly beneficial use of genuinely orphaned materials by reducing legal risks for good faith users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners. Secondly, the proposed amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act will ensure copyright material is treated consistently, regardless of whether it is used in a physical, online or hybrid classroom, so long as the other conditions of that section are met. They will also promote collaborative learning, involving parents and members of the community, without impacting existing licensing arrangements.

The bill will also strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act through various minor and technical amendments to simplify, update and clarify certain provisions. I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over the recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed.

I do want to assist the chamber in some way, given the motion's time of an hour is upon us, and address some of the second reading amendments, if that's helpful. The government opposes the amendment put forward by the Greens. The government has been clear that the bill is intended to achieve outcomes that stakeholders agreed could be progressed with broad support. Stakeholders have broadly agreed that section 28 of the Copyright Act could be clarified to ensure that it applies in the same way to an online remote class as to in-person classes. The bill has been carefully drafted to achieve this intent.

Additional measures to extend section 28 to cover recording of lessons for later viewing do not have broad stakeholder support. Rights holders remain strongly opposed to such an extension, evidenced through a joint media release issued by several rights holders representatives on 20 March 2026. This is a complex area of law and a contested policy space; we accept that. It requires careful consideration and detailed analysis to balance the interests of all stakeholders and to avoid any unintended consequences.

This is what the bill, as currently before the Senate, achieves. It represents several years of work with key stakeholders to achieve pragmatic outcomes that benefit the education sector, while not impacting rights holders' legitimate interests, and it has broad stakeholder support. This is not the case for the amendment moved by the Greens, and, for this reason, the government opposes that amendment.

The government also opposes the second reading amendment foreshadowed by Senator David Pocock. The government has already been clear in strongly supporting Australian creators and media organisations. That is why the Attorney-General announced in October last year that the government is not considering a text and data mining exception. Under such a proposal, artificial intelligence developers would be able to use the works of Australian creatives for free, and without permission, to train AI systems. The government stands behind Australia's creative and media industry. The Australian government has consistently said that there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning for the benefit of the Australian community, without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners.

Slade Brockman

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

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 371, relating to Housing Australia staff surveys, required the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, and

(ii) the order has not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 474, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

by leave—On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 391, relating to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regulatory Guide 97, with a compliance date of midday on Wednesday, 11 March 2026,

(ii) on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, the Minister representing the Treasurer provided an interim response from the Treasurer stating that additional time was required to comply with the order and advising that the order would be responded to as soon as practicable,

(iii) on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, the Senate agreed to a further order requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the original order by midday on Thursday, 26 March 2026, and

(iv) the order has still not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate after question time on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government tabled these documents today. Senator Bragg's office was notified that the government had complied with this motion. In light of this information, I urge senators to consider voting against this motion.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 473, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

by leave—on behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on Monday, 2 March 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 347, relating to Housing Australia's expenditure on furniture, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply by midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026,

(ii) on Thursday, 5 March 2026, the Minister for Housing provided an interim response stating that additional time was required to finalise the response to the order and advising that the order would be responded to as soon as practicable, and

(iii) the order has not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 472, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Michaelia Cash

The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, 'Why does One Nation want to ban cash?' Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does. Right now, today, if any Australian walks into a Coles or a Woolworths anywhere in our country, that store, because of the regulations that One Nation is seeking to disallow, is legally required to accept your cash. So, Mum and Dad, if you go down to your local Woolies or Coles today and you want to hand over a $50 note, you are entitled to. It's the same with a fuel station. If you fill up your car at a BP or an Ampol or a Shell, you could actually walk into one of those servos and hand over your $50 note or $20 note and, because of this regulation, they are legally required to accept your cash.

That is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow. So if this motion passes the Senate, when you walk into Coles or Woolies and when you walk into Ampol or Shell or BP, then, because of the actions of One Nation, when you pull out your wallet and pull out your 50 bucks or your 20 bucks and seek to provide that as legal tender, they can look at you and say, 'Thanks to One Nation, the bad news is, we no longer have to accept that.'

I honestly do not understand why, when cash is still so important to so many people in Australia, a political party—in this case, One Nation—would seek to disallow a regulation that does what we all want to do: ensure that as much cash as possible is required to be accepted as legal tender in Australia. If this motion passes, as I said, the obligation disappears—immediately. Don't try to walk into Coles or Woolies with money in your wallet, because they will not be legally required to accept it. They do not have to take that money.

And what replaces it? What is One Nation's big plan to replace the obligation on these big companies to take your money? What replaces it? Well, nothing. So the bad news, for those people who still like to use cash to fill up their tank or nip into their local Coles or Woolies, is that they will not be able to, because those places do not legally have to accept it. No alternative regulation has been put forward. There's no bill on the Notice Paper. However, the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will be seeking to address that. But there's no framework suddenly sitting in the top drawer of Treasury.

The effect of this disallowance is that we would go back to the position that existed before 1 January this year, which is that no company in Australia has any legal obligation to accept cash for anything. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. So if the Senate supports One Nation's disallowance motion today, Woolworths and Coles can literally turn around tomorrow and say they are 100 per cent cashless. So can the fuel companies. They can turn around and say: 'We are 100 per cent cashless. You cannot use that $50 note or that $20 note here as legal tender'—because for some strange reason One Nation wants to ban cash.

So I'm going to ask again: why would any senator who says they care that there are people who use cash in the economy actually want to remove the only cash acceptance obligation that has ever existed in Australian law? Quite frankly, the tactic of One Nation is bizarre. It's a bit like a politician complaining about getting only $15 million in funding to fix roads in their electorate when $50 million is needed and saying, 'I'm not going to take any money.' Well, guess what? You now have zero.

So let me be very clear about the coalition's position. Is the cash mandate adequate? No, it is not. And we have been very clear on this. It does not go nearly far enough. We agree with Senator Roberts on that point. The government themselves failed when it came to bringing in a regulation that aligned with the promise they'd made to the Australian people, which was a broad mandate covering essential goods and services. In fact, the Treasurer himself said in 2024 that pharmacies should be covered. The original consultation paper included medicines, utilities and children's clothing. For some reason—and we would like to get to the bottom of this—all of that was quietly dropped. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

What we did end up with was a mandate covering supermarkets and fuel retailers—and nothing else. That is plainly too narrow. The coalition have said so, we will continue to do so, and we will be bringing in a private senator's bill to address this issue.

But where we have to part company with Senator Roberts is on what you do about it. You do not fix a mandate that is too narrow, one that says Coles, Woolies and the servos have to accept cash, by abolishing that mandate. Quite literally, you would then be at the whim of the Australian government; Australians would have no protection at all. I have to say, Senator Roberts and One Nation, I think it's great that you live in hope, but hope is not going to be good enough for these people who are going to turn up to a supermarket, Coles or Woolies, and be told, because of your actions, 'You cannot use that here'—that $50 note, that $20 note, that $10 note—because that is exactly what the law will entitle them to do.

If you go back and review the submissions that were presented when this was looked into—let's have a look at what those organisations themselves, which actually represent some of the greatest cash users in society, said. National Seniors Australia are the peak body for nearly nine million Australians over 50. They described the cash mandate as 'a step forward'. They're happy with the cash mandate, because, as they pointed out, there is currently no obligation at law on any retailer to accept cash. In fact, the recommendation of National Seniors Australia to the inquiry was to actually expand the mandate, not to scrap it.

CHOICE, together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and three other community organisations, admitted, just as the coalition does, that the government has 'watered down' its original proposal—as I said, shame on the government for doing that—but they did say that the mandate itself does, at least, cover supermarkets and petrol stations. They did underline how limited it is, but, again, their recommendation was not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It was to support the mandate—even though, yes, it is in a limited form—and to restore the original scope and strengthen it.

COTA Australia are the leading advocacy body for older Australians. Do you know what they called the mandate? They called it 'sensible reform'. But, yes, they did say it needs to go further, and we agree with them. Not even the business groups—COSBOA, MGA, ACAPMA—called for the mandate to be removed, not one of them.

So I have to say this to One Nation: Which consumer groups support what you are proposing? Which seniors organisations? Which disability groups have called for the answer to a mandate that does not go far enough to be no mandate at all? The answer is none of them—not one.

There are currently 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. One in two Australians over the age of 65 uses cash regularly. In regional and remote communities, as we all know, cash is not a convenience; it is the payment method that works when the power goes out, the internet drops or the card terminal fails. These Australians absolutely deserve better than what the Albanese Labor government has given them, and the coalition will continue to press for the mandate to be extended.

But I have to say I am surprised that anybody in this chamber would actually support the disallowance of a regulation that—if it were the will of the Senate today to take it away—would make Australians immeasurably worse off. You would be taking away the one legal protection that Australians currently have. It may not go far enough, but, at least, tomorrow, when they front up at Woolies and Coles and the servos, they will still be able to use cash. It won't be because the One Nation, and it won't be because of the Australian Greens. A vote for this disallowance doesn't send a message to the government—for goodness sake. Seriously—it doesn't pressure the government to do any better. All it actually will do is remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their groceries with cash at Woolworths and Coles. It'll remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their fuel at the servos, at BP, at Ampol, at Shell and at others. The reality is: it doesn't matter how you argue for this disallowance.

You can live in hope that the government will do something, but you will then need to go and answer to CHOICE, Financial Counselling Australia, National Seniors Australia, COTA and all of the others who have said: 'The mandate doesn't go far enough. But, please, for the sake of our members—the people who do use cash each and every day—do not get rid of it. Do not take away the ability for them to pay for their groceries. Do not take away that legal right that they have when they walk into Coles, when they walk into Woollies and when they walk into their servos to pay that bill. Please ensure that, when they open up that wallet, there is a legal mandate on these companies to say to them, "Yes, that is legal tender, and we have to accept it."' As I said, we will oppose the disallowance. Why? Because we actually believe in the right of all Australians to use cash. It is legal tender in this country. We do not agree with the Australian Greens—this is going to be very ironic because I'm saying it in the same sentence—and One Nation, who want to take away the one protection that these people have. In particular, again, when I look at the statistics, one in two Australians over 65 use cash regularly.

Well, guess what? The coalition today is going to stand with the 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. We are going to stand with the one in two Australians over the age of 65 who use cash regularly. We are going to stand with National Seniors Australia, the peak body for nearly 9 million Australians over 50. We are going to stand with CHOICE together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and other community groups who have said: 'Please. We are with you that the cash mandate does not go far enough. We absolutely agree with you there, but please. You are the Australian parliament. Do not take away from us, when we so desperately need it, that one legal right that we have, and that is the ability to walk into Coles, to walk into Woollies, to walk into the servos and to actually use cash.'

To the Greens and to One Nation who mock me and laugh at what I say: shame on you. The outcome is: you don't support cash, and you don't support the right of those Australians.

Nick McKim

Firstly, I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens will be supporting this disallowance moved by One Nation. It's fair to say that we don't often agree with One Nation, but, on this very narrow circumstance, we absolutely agree with One Nation. We agree on this because cash is absolutely critical in our society and in our economy. Cash matters, and it matters because so many different people rely on cash for inclusion. They rely on cash for choice. They rely on cash to purchase the essentials of life. Cash is necessary to ensure basic resilience in our society and our economy when digital systems fail as they inevitably do from time to time.

Let's just rewind to when Labor put out the consultation paper on cash. That proposed a far broader cash mandate than the one Labor actually bought into the parliament with the instrument that this debate seeks to disallow. So Labor watered down their own original proposal. As a result they've presented to this parliament a cash mandate that is extremely narrow in scope.

The Greens will vote to disallow this instrument because it would have forced the government back to the table to introduce a cash mandate that was more broad and that provided greater protections and a broader mandate for the use of cash in our society. It would have done except for one thing, and that is the speech we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

I don't know who wrote that rubbish for Senator Cash, but let me be very clear: everyone in this chamber knew the Liberals were supporting this disallowance last week. My first question is how did you get bought off? What did the government buy you off with to make you change your position from last week?

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan

Impugning motives. I would like to know what the Greens got for their $22 billion—

Sue Lines

Senator O'Sullivan, let's not play games. Senator McKim.

Long debate text truncated.

Nick McKim

by leave—Could I please have Senator Payman's support for that vote recorded.

Maria Kovacic

The question now is that the amendment on sheet 3751 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 36 (after line 22), after subsection 45(3B), insert:

(3BA) However, the CEO must not require under subsection (3B) the person to give information or documents unless the CEO is satisfied that requiring the information or documents would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person's privacy.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to have Senator Payman's position recorded.

Leave granted.

Senator Payman opposes that amendment.

Maria Kovacic

The question now is that the amendments on sheet 3758 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 38 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Whistleblower amendments

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

1 Subsection 73ZA(1)

Omit "is" (wherever occurring), substitute "is or was".

2 Paragraphs 73ZA(1)(a) to (c)

Omit "has", substitute "has or had".

3 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

4 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(c)

Omit "Act; and", substitute "Act.".

5 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

6 After section 73ZB

Insert:

73ZBA Confidentiality of identity of disclosers

(1) A person (the first person) contravenes this subsection if:

(a) another person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information (the qualifying disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Division; and

(b) the first person discloses either of the following (the confidential information):

(i) the identity of the discloser;

(ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; and

(c) the confidential information is information that the first person obtained directly or indirectly because of the qualifying disclosure; and

(d) the disclosure of the confidential information by the first person:

(i) is to a person other than the discloser; and

(ii) is not authorised under subsection (2).

Civil penalty: 30 penalty units.

(2) A disclosure of the confidential information by the first person is authorised under this subsection if:

(a) the disclosure is made to the Commissioner or the Agency; or

(b) the disclosure is made to any of the following:

(i) a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979);

(ii) a special member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of that Act);

(iii) a member of the police force or police service of a State or Territory;

(iv) a prosecutor; or

(c) the disclosure is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Division; or

(d) the disclosure is made with the consent of the discloser, or the discloser has acted in a way that is inconsistent with keeping the discloser's identity confidential; or

(e) the disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the safety, health or wellbeing of one or more individuals; or

(f) the disclosure is made to a court, tribunal or a Royal Commission (within the meaning of the Royal Commissions Act 1902); or

(g) the discloser elects to have the qualifying disclosure managed as a complaint, and the disclosure is for purposes relating to making, managing or resolving the complaint; or

(h) both of the following apply:

(i) the confidential information is in the public domain before the disclosure is made;

(ii) the original disclosure of the confidential information into the public domain (before the disclosure is made) was not in contravention of subsection (1).

Note: For paragraph (g), the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may deal with how complaints may be made, managed and resolved (see section 73X).

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the confidential information disclosed by the first person:

(i) is not the identity of the discloser; and

(ii) is reasonably necessary for the purposes of dealing with the contravention that the qualifying disclosure indicates an NDIS provider has, or may have, made; and

(b) the first person takes all reasonable steps to reduce the risk that the discloser will be identified as a result of the disclosure of the confidential information.

(4) In this section, prosecutor means a person who institutes or is responsible for the conduct of a prosecution of an offence.

7 Application

(1) The amendments of section 73ZA of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a disclosure of information by the discloser on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) Section 73ZBA of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a disclosure of information by the first person on or after the commencement of this item, whether that information was obtained by the first person before, on or after that commencement.

All those in favour, say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it? Is a division required? Ring the bells for one minute.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Sean Bell

by leave—We would like to cancel that division and not call for a division.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to have Senator Payman's position recorded.

Leave granted.

Senator Payman supports that question.

Maria Kovacic

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3647 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 2, page 38 (after line 15), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Plan management

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

13 Subsection 43(2AA)

Repeal the subsection.

14 Paragraph 43(3)(c)

Omit "or (aa)".

15 Paragraph 43(6)(d)

Omit "or (aa)".

16 Paragraph 43(7)(a)

Omit "(2AA),"

17 Paragraphs 44(1)(aa) and (2A)(aa)

Repeal the paragraphs.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024

18 Paragraph 132(e) of Schedule 1

Omit "and".

19 Paragraphs 132(f) and (g) of Schedule 1

Repeal the paragraphs.

Anne Ruston

I move:

(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 35 (after line 6), at the end of section 29A, add:

(7) Any notice given under this section to a participant must also be given to the participant's plan nominee.

(2) Schedule 2, page 35 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:

2A After paragraph 78(1)(b)

Insert:

or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A;

2B After paragraph 78(5)(b)

Insert:

or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A;

2C After paragraph 79(1)(b)

Insert:

; or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A.

2D Subsection 79(2)

After "a request", insert "(other than a request under section 29A)".

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), to be opposed.

As mentioned in my speech, we've circulated this amendment to close off an unintended loophole with the introduction of the 90-day cooling-off period. This loophole would allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme or cancel a withdrawal, even against the participant's wishes. The correspondence nominee is there to assist, not to make decisions against the participant's wishes. If that line is blurred, it risks removing agency from the people the NDIS is meant to empower.

The coalition amendment makes it clear that these decisions must remain with the participant. We have worked with the government and we are pleased that the government has indicated that it will agree to our amendment and support this. We believe this is a sensible and practical change that will close the loophole to protect participant choice.

Jenny McAllister

I can indicate, as I did in my second reading contribution, that the government supports the amendment moved by the coalition. We thank the coalition for reaching out to us and working with us to draft an appropriate response to the issue that was identified during the committee stage.

The committee identified that an unintended consequence of the way that the provisions had been drawn in the bill would be to allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme. That is beyond the scope of what was intended as the role of the correspondence nominee, and the government supports clarifying that the planned nominee is best placed to exercise this function.

Maria Kovacic

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3719 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that item (3), schedule 2 on sheet 3719 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Jordon Steele-John

I move the amendment on sheet 3687:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 38 (lines 1 to 15), to be opposed.

To facilitate the quick passage of the legislation, I'm happy not to speak to it.

Maria Kovacic

The question is that part 3 of schedule 2 stand as printed.

Anne Ruston

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. For Australians with significant and permanent disability, the NDIS is more than a program; it's a pathway to independence, dignity and opportunity. That's why the coalition's support for the NDIS remains unwavering, but it is also why we must be honest about the challenges the scheme now faces.

The NDIS is at a critical juncture. It was designed to support around 410,000 Australians. Today, it supports more than 760,000 Australians. That growth underscores the importance of ensuring the scheme is sustainable, because sustainability is not an abstract concept; it is what guarantees the NDIS will be there not just for those who rely on it now but for future generations. The government must bring the escalating cost of the NDIS under control before the scheme becomes unsustainable. While the need for reform is clear, the government's progress against its own targets remains uncertain.

The coalition supports the intent of this bill. We support stronger protections for NDIS participants. We support tougher civil and criminal penalties for providers who are doing the wrong thing, because any provider who exploits a person with disability or misuses taxpayer funds must face serious consequences. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and there is no place for it in the NDIS.

We also support the introduction of antipromotion orders. Providers must not be advertising or selling services that are outside the purpose of the scheme. We support giving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission stronger powers, including banning powers to act against providers delivering poor-quality or unsafe supports.

While we support the introduction of a 90-day cooling-off period, we have circulated an amendment to close an unintended loophole with this measure. It is a loophole that would allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme or cancel a withdrawal, even against the participant's wishes. A correspondence nominee is there to assist, not to make decisions against the wishes of the participant. If that line is blurred, it risks removing agency from the people the NDIS is meant to empower. The coalition's amendment makes it clear that these decisions must remain with the participant. We have worked with the government and we are pleased it has agreed to support our amendment. This is a sensible and practical change that will close the loophole, to protect participant choice.

In relation to the antipromotion orders, a report by the ACCC earlier this year found that providers are advertising services clearly not covered by the NDIS. These services include all-inclusive holidays, flights, cruises, dining out and even the cost of ingredients for meals. We are seeing participants being sold equipment that does not match what they were promised. With around 94 per cent of providers operating unregistered, there remains a massive regulatory blind spot. The bill fails to establish direct fraud controls for the majority of the market. Some bad actors within the system are exploiting vulnerable participants and the taxpayers who fund this support. They're getting away with it because weak checks and inconsistent oversight have opened the door. It is essential that the NDIS has greater controls to detect fraud early and to stop exploitation before it harms participants.

The Australian National Audit Office estimates that six to 10 per cent of payments could be non-compliant, incorrect or fraudulent. In 2025, $48.83 billion was spent on the NDIS. If 10 per cent of these claims are fraudulent, we are looking at a staggering loss of $4.8 billion every single year. These losses are driven by systematic misconduct, fraud, false claims or claims for services never delivered.

Law enforcement has also warned that organised crime is now targeting the scheme. In March this year, the Federal Police raided a Sydney home linked to a suspected $3.5 million NDIS fraud syndicate. In February, a Darwin NDIA employee was charged over an alleged $5 million fraud. In my home state of South Australia, a provider overclaimed and charged for services never provided. Another two men defrauded the system of over $465,000. This is systemic exploitation.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but tougher penalties alone will not fix the problem. If the system itself is weak, bad behaviour will continue. The coalition's goal is to deliver a stronger NDIS which delivers better outcomes for participants, providers and the taxpayers who fund it.

Dorinda Cox

I rise to speak also on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and thanking the secretariat and my fellow senators for their considered engagement. The committee's report makes it clear that these reforms are not just necessary but also overdue. It highlights persistent gaps in safeguarding and enforcement within the scheme and the need for stronger regulatory tools to protect participants and absolutely uphold the integrity of the NDIS.

At its core, this bill is something very simple but also something very important. It is about respect, dignity and safety for people with disabilities. The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms in this country's history, and it represents a promise that people with disability will be supported to live full, independent and dignified lives. But a promise is only as strong as the system that it upholds. What we know from the royal commission, from the independent review and from the lived experience of participants is that the system has not always been safe. We have seen abuse, we have seen neglect and we have seen exploitation. When that happens, it's not just a failure of compliance; it's also a failure of justice. This bill responds directly to those failures.

When Labor came to government, the NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and noncompliance. Our government acted. We invested over $550 million to establish the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and began the work of putting the scheme back on a sustainable footing.

But there is more to do. The committee heard clearly that regulatory gaps remain and, in too many cases, the system has not been able to prevent harm or respond effectively when it occurs. There was also strong support across the sector for reforms that strengthen accountability and safeguard participants. This is absolutely what this bill delivers. It strengthens the power of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; it enables early intervention, stronger enforcement and real accountability. Most providers are doing the right thing. They are committed, professional and working every day to support people with disabilities. But, unfortunately, some are not. Some exploit a system designed for care. Where there is fraud, there is too often harm, violence, abuse and neglect. This is why this legislation matters.

This bill introduces a stronger and more proportionate penalty framework. It includes higher civil penalties for serious breaches, new criminal offences for the most egregious conduct and real consequences for those who deliberately put participants at risk. Penalties should not be seen as a cost of doing business. They should send a clear message that harm to people with disabilities will not be tolerated. This bill expands on banning order powers. It closes loopholes that have allowed individuals to move across roles to continue operating despite unacceptable conduct. If someone is not fit to work in this space, they should not be able to re-enter through another pathway.

It also introduces antipromotional orders to address predatory and misleading marketing practices. Choice and control must be grounded in honesty and transparency. This bill further strengthens information-gathering powers; this allows the commission to act more quickly and address risks before they escalate into harm. Importantly, this legislation also includes participant safeguards. The 90-day cooling-off period for participants seeking an exit to the scheme is a practical protection. It ensures decisions are informed and are not made under pressure.

This bill is not about punishing providers. It is about protecting people, it is about restoring confidence in the NDIS, and it's also about sustainability. A system that tolerates exploitation is not sustainable, it is not financial, and it certainly is not moral. The NDIS must have a stronger regulatory backbone. It must be proactive, consistent and centred on participants' safety. The Albanese Labor government has been very clear. We will protect the integrity of the NDIS. We will support providers who are doing the right thing. We will act against those who are not, and people with disabilities deserve nothing less.

Jordon Steele-John

Today, I speak to the changes to our NDIS and focus on integrity and on safeguarding. Day after day, disabled people experience violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. These injustices must be eliminated. This bill moves us steps in the right direction, and, for that reason, the Greens will be supporting it.

That said, there is still much work to be done to ensure that disabled people are free from abuse, from neglect and from violence. We must continue to strengthen our laws, and the NDIS must evolve so that participants and their individual needs are truly at the centre of the scheme. Today, I am putting forward amendments to address key gaps in the NDIS, backed by disabled people, advocates and service providers. One of the key ways that we can strengthen our NDIS is by making it easier for people to speak up when something is going wrong.

A critical reform is strengthening whistleblower protections. Right now, support workers who speak up about neglect or fraud risk discrimination, punishment or the loss of their livelihoods. That is unacceptable. Stronger protections exist in aged care, and the disability sector should be no different. People who come forward to expose wrongdoing deserve protection, not punishment.

Our amendments will allow anonymous disclosures and expand protections to more people, including former workers and participants, so that fear of retaliation does not silence them. I understand the government will be supporting the Greens's amendment. That is a positive step—one that will help more people come forward and expose wrongdoing within our National Disability Insurance Scheme—and I am proud that it will improve the safety and wellbeing of people.

We must be clear: there is still more to do. Even with these amendments, whistleblowers in the NDIS are not yet fully protected. While we have not secured every single change today, I welcome the government's commitment to further consultation. In this bill, the NDIA will get new power to request information from a participant or from a provider. There aren't a lot of guardrails around this change. That's why I'm proposing that the NDIA must consider privacy when it is requesting information. This will mean better protection for participants and those providing a service. It'll mean the participants won't have to choose between exposing their personal information and paying a bill.

Now, I must take this opportunity to raise the deep challenges that disabled people and our families are experiencing because of the significant changes to the NDIS as a result of Labor and the Liberals teaming up in this place. What I am hearing from the community is consistent—cuts, concern, uncertainty. One of the big stinkers that the Liberals and the Labor government teamed up to do was removing the 'reasonable and necessary' supports definition. This definition guaranteed that each NDIS participant would be able to argue for the individual support that they needed. In its place, we have a yes/no list. That yes/no list is too restrictive, leaving disabled people across the country without the support that they have relied on for years.

We need to return to 'reasonable and necessary', and my amendment today would make that happen. Sadly I do not expect the government or the opposition to support this. I nevertheless commend these amendments to the Senate. Each disabled person is different. The supports we need are different and unique, and that should be reflected in our NDIS.

Long debate text truncated.

David Pocock

by leave—Please note my opposition to sheets 3741 and record Senator Payman's support for sheets 3738 and 3742.

Tammy Tyrrell

by leave—May I note my support for sheet 3738 and sheet 3742.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3743 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Time-sensitive road transport contractual chain orders".

(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (line 16), after "by", insert "Schedule 1 to the".

(3) Page 10 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Mandatory terms of workplace determinations must not be less favourable

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Section 270A (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

270A Certain terms must not be less favourable

2 After subsection 270 A( 2)

Insert:

(2A) A term that is included in the determination to comply with subsection 273(2), (4), (5) or (6), must be not less favourable to each of those employees, and any employee organisation that was a bargaining representative of any of those employees, than a term of the enterprise agreement that deals with the same matter as the term included in the determination.

Note: In addition, the delegates' rights term included in compliance with subsection 273(6) must not be less favourable than the delegates' rights term in any modern award that covers a workplace delegate to whom the determination applies (see subsection 273(7)).

3 Subsection 273(4)

After "must include the model flexibility term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

4 Subsection 273(5)

After "must include the model consultation term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

5 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 24 — Amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026

133 Definitions

In this Part:

amended Act means this Act as amended by the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026.

134 Application of amendments — workplace determinations

(1) Sections 270A and 273 of the amended Act apply in relation to workplace determinations made on or after the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 including:

(a) for intractable bargaining workplace determinations—determinations in relation to which the intractable bargaining declaration concerned, or the application for the declaration concerned, was made before that commencement; or

(b) for an industrial action related workplace determination—any conditions necessary for the making of the determination were satisfied before, on or after that commencement.

(2) Sections 270A and 273 of the amended Act also apply in relation to intractable bargaining workplace determinations made before that commencement, in the circumstances described in clause 135.

135 Application of amendments to intractable bargaining workplace determinations made before commencement

(1) This clause applies in relation to an intractable bargaining workplace determination made before the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 (the original determination).

(2) On application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by the original determination, the FWC must make a determination (a variation) varying the original determination where required so as to give effect to the amendments made to sections 270A and 273 by the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026.

(3) An application under subclause (2) must be made before the end of the period of 12 months commencing on the day Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 commences.

(4) The FWC may make a variation despite paragraph 603(3)(c).

(5) Any variation must be made by a Full Bench.

(6) A variation operates from the day specified by the FWC in the variation, which must not be a day before the variation is made.