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.

David Pocock

by leave—Senator Payman asked that her support for part (a) be noted and her opposition to part (b) be noted.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Pocock.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3738, 3789, 3741, 3742, and 3746 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3738

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

Requirement to conduct review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must:

(a) commence the review as soon as practicable after the end of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) complete the review before the end of 90 days after the day the review commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable after the review is completed.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3739

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 21), at the end of section 536PEA, add

(4) However, the Minister must not make a determination under subsection (3) unless a declaration of a national liquid fuel emergency is in force under section 16 of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984.

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", but are not limited to,".

_____

SHEET 3741

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

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

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

Schedule 2 — Repeal of Schedule 1 amendments on 31 March 2027

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Section 12 (definitions of emergency application and time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order )

Repeal the definitions.

2 Subsection 536 NT( 4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) Despite subsection (3), the specified day may be a day not earlier than 6 months after the relevant notice of intent for the order was published, if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.

3 Section 536PB (paragraph beginning "Normally, a road transport contractual chain order")

Repeal the paragraph.

4 Subsection 536 PD( 1) (note 1)

Omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

5 Subsection 536 PD( 1) (note 2)

Repeal the note.

6 Subsection 536 PE( 1) (note 1)

Omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

7 Subsection 536 PE( 1) (note 2)

Repeal the note.

8 Section 536PEA

Repeal the section.

9 Subsection 536 PF( 3)

Repeal the subsection.

10 Subsection 536PH(1A)

Repeal the subsection.

11 Paragraph 536PJ(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) follow the process set out in section 536PH in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).

12 Subsections 536 PJ( 3) and (4)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(3) Despite paragraph (2)(c), the FWC may reduce the consultation period mentioned in that paragraph to a period not shorter than 6 months if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.

13 Subsection 536 PQ( 1)

Omit ", other than a time-sensitive roadtransport contractual chain order,".

14 Subsection 536 PC( 2)

Omit "that is not a time-sensitive roadtransport contractual chain order".

15 Subsection 536 PQ( 3)

Repeal the subsection (including the note).

16 Section 536PQA

Repeal the section.

17 Section 536PS (note)

Repeal the note.

18 Subsection 536 PT( 1) (note)

Repeal the note.

19 Paragraph 536PX(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) must not be longer than 12 months; and

20 Subsection 536 PX( 5)

Omit "the relevant period" (wherever occurring), substitute "12 months".

21 Subsection 536PX(5A)

Repeal the subsection.

22 Section 536PY (heading)

Omit "generally".

23 Subsections 536 PY( 1) and (2)

Omit "the relevant period starting on", substitute "12 months of".

24 Subsection 536 PY( 3)

Repeal the subsection.

25 Paragraph 536QG(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) must not be a period of more than 12 months; and

26 Subsection 536 QG( 5)

Omit "the relevant period" (wherever occurring), substitute "12 months".

27 Subsection 536QG(5A)

Repeal the subsection.

28 Subsection 536QM(1A)

Repeal the subsection.

29 Paragraph 536QN(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) follow the process set out in section 536QM in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).

30 Subsections 536 QN( 3) and (4)

Repeal the subsections.

31 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 23 — Amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026

132 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 apply in relation to:

(a) an application for a road transport contractual chain order; or

(b) an application for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order;

made on or after the commencement of that Schedule.

(2) Despite the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026, this Act as in force immediately before the commencement of that Schedule continues to apply in relation to:

(a) an application for a road transport contractual chain order; or

(b) an application for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order;

made before that commencement.

_____

SHEET 3742

(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 20), after subsection 536PJ(4), insert:

(5) Nothing in subsection (4) limits or removes the requirement for consultation to be actually undertaken.

(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (after line 13), after subsection 536QN(4), insert:

(5) Nothing in subsection (4) limits or removes the requirement for consultation to be actually undertaken.

_____

SHEET 3746

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraphs 536PQA(2)(c), (d) and (e), substitute:

(c) rate reviews involving fuel;

(d) charges involving fuel.

Sue Lines

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier, the Senate will now consider the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. I will now put the questions before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3750, moved by Senator Hume, be agreed to.

Jane Hume

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

Thank you very much. This is an extraordinary decision that we've seen today. This was a bill that was introduced only last Thursday and was rammed through the House of Representatives without any debate, without even time for anybody from the opposition to read the bill before it was rammed through. Now, the government is trying to do the same in the Senate. This is extraordinary. It's absolutely extraordinary. This is the government's idea of responding to a fuel crisis that has been going on for five weeks. We have told the government time and time again, 'Look out the window of Parliament House, and you can see that the bowsers are dry.' In fact, the petrol station closest to where the Prime Minister lives, closest to the Lodge, had run out of fuel last week.

Somehow, it wasn't a crisis. First, we heard from the government that there wasn't a crisis, then, we heard it was a crisis, but it was only caused by people buying fuel—which was un-Australian. Apparently, you're all un-Australian for doing something as basic as filling up your car when the prices are lower than you know they're going to be next week. It's just extraordinary. This is how the government has responded. Now, when they finally come to the House of Representatives with a bill to do one tiny little thing to help the trucking industry—they've asked for heaps of things; the government are doing one tiny little thing—they ram it through without any debate.

This is a pretty serious piece of legislation. It's an amendment to the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act is the entire framework for employee-employer relationships. It's all about making sure you have an appropriate balance of power. Adjust this without scrutiny and it can have incredibly dire unintended consequences, but, for some reason, the government does not want to have any debate on it. We took this very seriously, and have proposed some pretty basic amendments—things like, if you're going to have emergency provisions, how about you have a sunset clause? You only use your emergency provisions during an emergency. Who would've thought that that would be so controversial? But, no, the government doesn't want to consider that.

We suggested that, perhaps, if we're not going to have sunset provisions, you might like to have an independent review of the provisions after a couple of months—six months—of the bill being in place. I would have thought that that would be pretty reasonable, considering there is already a statutory review of the closing the loopholes bill, and we're changing legislation before it's reviewed. I would have thought that an additional review of this particular provision would not be unreasonable, but, no, that's not something the government wants to consider. They also don't want to consider enforcing consultation for the exercise of the powers that they are giving the Fair Work Commission. That's extraordinary, considering that was the one thing that the trucking industry asked of the government in the closing the loopholes legislation. That was what they wanted. They wanted that consultation period. But no, the government doesn't want to consider that.

They don't want to consider only using these provisions in an emergency. In fact, they'd rather like to use these provisions in times that aren't emergencies as well. They don't want to align the definition of emergency in one piece of legislation as well as another, so you can have one minister declaring an emergency and another one saying, 'Well, it's not really an emergency,' but still using the provisions. That's entirely inconsistent. There's an idea that you would use these provisions—that the minister would have these increased powers—without any checks or balances for something than other than fuel. They might want to change the terms of the contract for other reasons. They might want to change it for industrial relations purposes. That is sneaking through legislation without scrutiny. That's what's happening right now. First of all they rammed it through the House of Representatives. Now they're trying to ram it through the Senate, without answering these very basic questions.

We said we would not stand in the way of the trucking industry getting a better deal. That was why we announced a cut to the fuel excise well before the government did. That was why we pushed for that. That was why we pushed for a cut in the heavy vehicle road user charge. Now finally the government has come onboard, but this tiny little nod to the trucking industry is being pushed through without any scrutiny. The implications of that are far reaching.

We stand behind Australia's trucking industry. We want to make sure we see more trucks on the road, that they get access to the fuel they need and that they do so at a reasonable price, so that Australians don't end up paying the cost. But this government doesn't care about the cost to Australians. What they—

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Hume. Senator Green?

Nita Green

On behalf of the truckies in the gallery, I move, so that we can pass this bill:

That the question now be put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Larissa Waters

I move:

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 Albanese Government to provide urgent Commonwealth funding for the states and territories to provide free and more frequent public transport, paid for by a tax on gas exports."

Yesterday Victoria and Tasmania announced plans to make public transport free, like the Greens have been campaigning for for weeks. It turns out everything is impossible until it's not. The Prime Minister could have used National Cabinet this morning to make it happen elsewhere. Free public transport in a fuel crisis just makes sense. It's immediate cost-of-living relief for people in our cities, it takes the pressure off fuel supplies so that farmers can fill up and regional servos aren't running dry. Since the federal government continues to back Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war, they should pick up the tab and make public transport free.

That's just one piece of the puzzle. We also need to reduce our reliance on imported oil, and that means investing in our own renewable independence in the long term. We know that, in the mean time, making public transport cheaper makes more people use it. After years of campaigning in my home state of Queensland, the government picked up a Greens policy and introduced a 50c temporary fare in September of 2024. The uptake was so significant, they made it permanent. And it's not just Brisbane. There's increased public transport usage in Gympie, on the Sunny Coast and right across regional centres. Dropping public transport to 50c in Queensland made more people use it, and it provided immediate cost-of-living relief.

While people are paying the price of this illegal war, fossil fuel companies and weapons corporations are making eye-watering wartime profits. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports would generate around $17 billion annually, and that $17 billion of revenue could be used to fund public transport or any other cost-of-living relief to help people. If Labor had the guts to stare down the greedy gas companies, we'd have more than enough to help people through the fuel crisis. (Time expired)

Susan McDonald

It is an enormous responsibility to come to this parliament, the federal parliament of Australia, and it behoves us to act in a way that is at all times responsible, particularly economically. It is the decisions we make today that chart the course of Australia for our children and grandchildren.

We've seen, under Labor, some of the most reckless decision-making over the last four years—things that have turned the ship of Australia away from the prosperity we've enjoyed in past generations, that have turned it away from our children believing they would have the same or a better quality of life than we have had. This is the first time in generations that young people feel they will be worse off than previous generations. The last four years under the Labor government have seen those opportunities squandered. We've seen the war on fossil fuels. We've seen them turn their back on the energy sources that would mean Australians would continue to be the First World country we've enjoyed being.

I've been disappointed to see the Greens embrace this same kind of economic nihilism, and this urgency motion to expand public transport around Australia, whilst well meaning, is incredibly poorly thought through. Senator Waters proposed the expansion of public transport across the country but then went on to use examples in Queensland, where there is no public transport in the vast amount of the state. Sure, there's a bit of public transport in Gympie and on the Sunshine Coast, and Brisbane and the Gold Coast. But the rest of the state does not enjoy public transport. Once again, we're cementing the disadvantage. You come to Townsville, Senator Waters, and find out just how little public transport there is.

Anyway, it's my turn now, Senator Waters. I didn't interrupt your input.

Helen Polley

Senators, I think it's fair to say that everyone listened to Senator Waters in her contribution. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Senator McDonald, you have the call.

Susan McDonald

Thank you. So, we further cement this disadvantage between our regions and rural parts of the state and the cities, where we continue to subsidise those public transport arrangements. But I am pleased that the Crisafulli government has embedded 50c fares in Queensland for those people who are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy it.

I want to continue, though. The Greens, with this urgency motion, have continued to somehow think that they can hypothecate gas taxes with public transport. Given that the government doesn't hypothecate fuel excises to road maintenance—to a whole lot of things that you would normally think would be linked—I think it would be reasonable to think this is a complete fantasy. The Greens are continuing to ignore the fact that gas is so important to our energy security, particularly at a time when we rely on the countries that we export to for liquid fuels. The Greens are proposing that we tell those countries that we're going to increase the cost to them of gas—something that's critical for their energy needs—at the same time as we are begging them for fuel; the Prime Minister is out there negotiating with those countries to maintain liquid fuel supplies to Australians.

We've heard today just how desperate Australians are to receive fuel. It is more than $4 a litre for diesel in parts of Queensland now, if you can get it. So this idea that we are going to damage those relationships by increasing gas taxes—future investment will be frozen and damaged. It is extraordinary. It is a dismal state that our economy exists in now under Labor. Inflation is high. Interest rates are high. Real wages are lower. We have a high cost of living because of this government's out-of-control spending. All of this happened prior to the conflict in the Middle East. This is not new. So we want to see reduced red tape and streamlined approval processes so that we can get more investment into Australia and more prosperity, not less.

Lisa Darmanin

The government is under no illusion that the spike in fuel prices as a result of the war in the Middle East is causing financial stress and placing serious pressure on Australian households and businesses. But there is not one single solution, and responding effectively requires actions and coordination at every level of government. Families are feeling it at the bowser, and businesses—particularly transport, agriculture and those in regional communities—are feeling it. That is, of course, the driver of this urgency motion.

This is a global crisis driven by instability well beyond Australia's control. Nonetheless, this global crisis requires a national response, and that is exactly what this government is delivering. This morning, the Prime Minister convened National Cabinet to ensure national coordination and a unified approach that ensures we are prepared for any circumstance. In this period of instability, the federal government's immediate priority is fuel security. We are securing the supply, keeping distribution moving and ensuring essential services can continue.

I think it is also important to be clear about roles and responsibilities. Public transport is a responsibility of state and federal governments. They set services and fares. Where states have the capacity to act, we are already seeing them step up. It's pleasing to see, in my own state of Victoria, that the Allan Labor government has announced that all metropolitan and V-line public transport will be free from this Tuesday, tomorrow, until 30 April. I congratulate the state Labor government for that. And Tasmania has announced that public transport, including buses and ferries, will be free statewide starting today and going through to 1 July 2026. These are sensible temporary measures that can help take the pressure off families now, and we also welcome the other states that are looking at what they can do in the circumstances that they see themselves in.

However, we know that this won't solve every problem, because we know public transport is not the answer for everyone, particularly in regional areas and for workers in the cities and suburbs who need to drive—blue-collar workers, in-home aged-care workers, even hairdressers. But free public transport and reduced public transport costs will make a difference in the immediate term for those who rely on public transport and those who can take the train or the bus instead of using their cars. When those of us who are able in the cities and suburbs to reduce our fuel consumption do so, we are freeing up supply for those in regional and remote communities and for workers who cannot use public transport in their daily jobs. This is the Australian way—all of us doing our bit in the way that we can to support our communities as a whole.

Whilst this motion sparks an interesting debate, let's look at the extensive action taken by this government to address the immediate challenges facing us right now as a nation. As the Treasurer said this morning, while we cannot choose what is happening in the Middle East, we can choose how we respond as a federal government here at home. That is why the government announced today that we are halving the fuel excise for three months, starting on Wednesday. This will reduce petrol and diesel prices by 26.3c per litre, providing immediate relief to households and businesses. We are also reducing the heavy-vehicle user charge to zero for the same three-month period to ease pressure on freight, food supply chains and essential transport. And of course these announcements are in addition to the measures that we have already announced.

The government has already released 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, with a focus on getting fuel to regional communities where it is needed. And we have appointed a fuel supply taskforce coordinator to work directly with industry to help keep fuel flowing where it is needed. We have amended fuel standards to bring more supply onto the market and we have passed legislation to strengthen the ACCC's powers, doubling penalties for companies that unfairly jack up fuel prices. This is in addition to the other things that have already been spoken about many times in this chamber today. All of this is about taking the sting out of a very difficult period. So while free public transport can play a role where states choose to implement it, the national task before us is bigger than any single measure. Our job is to ensure fuel security, protect essential services, support households and businesses and respond to this global crisis with a coordinated national approach—and that is exactly what this government is doing.

Long debate text truncated.

Peter Whish-Wilson

I move:

That there be laid on the table, by the Minister for Science, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, any report and ministerial briefing papers delivered by the Chief Scientist or the Australian Academy of Science to the minister or the Government relating to an analysis of the integrity of the Australian information environment and/or the impacts of disinformation and misinformation on the Australian public and/or our scientific sector.

Slade Brockman

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 465, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

Steph Hodgins-May

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 464 in the terms circulated in the chamber before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the tax treatment of Australian oil and gas resources, including any proposals for changes to the tax treatment of gas production and export;

(b) the expected outlook for gas and oil prices in response to the conflict in the Middle East, including impact on Australia, Australia's regional trading partners, and the Pacific;

(c) the impact of this outlook on the profitability of Australian liquefied natural gas exporters and on the stability and reliability of global energy markets;

(d) the impact of this outlook on households, businesses and government revenue;

(e) alternative tax arrangements for oil and gas production and export that other countries have put in place, and the revenue implications if those arrangements were adopted in Australia;

(f) how any additional revenue generated could be used to provide cost of living relief for households and businesses and reduce our dependence on imported fuel; and

(g) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 7 May 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by Leader of the Government in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee has power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Slade Brockman

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 464, moved by Senator Hodgins-May, be agreed to.

Helen Polley

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time allocated for the debate on the bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will begin with the Committee of the Whole amendment moved by the Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3735 be agreed to.

Maria Kovacic

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Anne Ruston

I wish to continue with my remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. As I was saying, the coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework to ensure that payments are being received appropriately, however we have questions on how the removal of an annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will exist to prevent people from a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship.

The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment services including Centrepay. We are concerned however that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled program. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial distress rather than relieve it.

We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians are currently living. Under this Albanese government, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs are up by 38 per cent. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent if you can get in. Education costs are up 17 per cent, and food costs are up 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. These are fundamental costs of everyday life that all Australians use daily.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly relying on urgent payments and other emergency measures simply to get by. We know, troublingly, that in 2024-25 alone 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on Australians from its failed economic policies. Australians are hurting, and Labor has no viable plan to change that. This impact should lead to serious consideration of whether urgent payments are being used to fuel the systemic gaps in financial stability rather than serving their intended purpose as an emergency measure.

As highlighted in the government's own explanatory memorandum for this bill, urgent payments are primarily accessed by vulnerable people. Of all recipients of urgent payments, 45 per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people even though only around six per cent of all income support recipients identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. With this evidence of daily struggle, it is clear that closing the gap is also becoming out of reach. This raises serious and legitimate questions about how these changes will operate in practice, particularly in vulnerable and remote communities. The government must explain what concrete measures it has implemented to prevent urgent payments from being exploited or diverted towards harmful activities, including gambling and excessive alcohol consumption, especially in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It must also explain how it will ensure that the promised support, including financial counselling and access to social work service, will be available to all Australians who need them, regardless of where they live. The coalition calls on the government to guarantee that the changes in this bill will not have a negative impact on our most vulnerable Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote communities.

Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of social security payment. It expressly provides that income attribution rules may apply to the attribute employment income paid to the social security recipient or their partner for the purposes of working out the recipient's rate of pay regardless of whether the relevant payment is a social security payment or a benefit and whether the partner receives a social security payment. It also ensures that the attributed income continues to apply for the full attribution period, including where a payment is cancelled or suspended. The coalition accepts that clarity in income attribution rules is essential for both recipients and the administrators. Clear language and certainty will reduce errors, disputes and administrative complexity and help ensure the payments are calculated consistently and lawfully.

Taken together, these three schedules are designed to provide legal clarity, certainty to practices and policy intentions that have existed for some time. However, notwithstanding our decision to not oppose the bill, we will continue to scrutinise the government's approach, particularly in relation to schedule 2. Urgent payments are being used at scale because people are struggling under the weight of the economy and a government that's failing them. They are being accessed disproportionally by vulnerable Australians and are being relied upon in an economic environment where the cost of living continues to rise. The government must demonstrate that it has put in place robust safeguards to ensure that this change does not unintentionally or inadvertently increase financial stress or hardship for people who are already doing it tough. It must also demonstrate that it has effective systems in place to identify repeat use, emerging risk and patterns of vulnerability and that it is actively intervening with appropriate support, not simply processing a higher volume of advance payments.

The opposition recognises the broader intent of the legislation and the need to clarify technical aspects of the social security and child support frameworks. For that reason the opposition will not be opposing the passage of this bill. We do, however, put the government on notice: the government must follow through on its commitments. It must ensure that robust safeguards are implemented. It must ensure that financial counselling and social support services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families who rely on them during periods of financial stress. And it must guarantee that the changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians our social safety net is meant to protect.

Australian's welfare must strike the right balance between supporting vulnerable Australians and remaining sustainable, responsible and fit for purpose so it can maintain public confidence and long-term viability. That is the expectation of the coalition and that is the benchmark to which the Albanese government must be held.

Dorinda Cox

I rise to provide my support to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we've been working to restore trust in Australia's social security system, and that trust matters. Without it, the system loses its legitimacy both for taxpayers and for recipients—and also for the broader community.

We all remember what happens when that trust breaks down. The legacy of robodebt showed us what occurs when governments ignore legality, ignore fairness and ignore the human consequences of administrative failure. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to take a very different approach. We've raised working age and student payments and increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker by almost $4,000. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by nearly 50 per cent. We've expanded parenting payments single to support around 106,000 additional single parents. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, with superannuation now included, and we are increasing the small debt waiver threshold to $250, with around 1.2 million debts expected to be waived or not raised at all. We've also expanded debt waivers for victims-survivors of financial abuse. All of this is about rebuilding a system that is fair, that is lawful and that is humane. This bill is the next step in that work.

This is a technical bill—not just a technical bill but an essential one. The bill makes targeted amendments across three schedules: child support, urgent payments and employment income attribution. Each of these is about aligning legislation with the longstanding policy intent, improving administration and ensuring legal certainty.

First, on child support, this bill improves the administration of child support periods and fixes unintended consequences from earlier legislative changes. It also clarifies when a new child support period begins following a new tax assessment. Where an assessment is made after the 15th of the month, the new period will begin not in the next month but, in fact, in the month after. This is a practical reform. It ensures that parents are not given just days to adjust to changes in their financial obligations, which is the difference between thriving and surviving for families in real time. Instead, they are given sufficient time to plan and manage their finances.

Just as importantly, the bill corrects an anomaly that could allow a parent with less than 35 per cent care of a child to receive child support. This was never the intention of the parliament. The child support system is based on a clear principle: that the financial responsibility reflects the level of care. Where a parent has less than 35 per cent care, they are not bearing the primary costs of raising a child and should not receive child support. This bill restores that principle across all cases and across all formulas. It does so by retrospectively applying the correction to ensure consistency since 2008 whilst preserving the validity of past decisions and maintaining certainty for families. Importantly, as set out in the statement of compatibility with human rights, these changes promote the best interests of the child and support the right of the child to an adequate standard of living by ensuring that child support is distributed fairly and appropriately.

Secondly, on urgent payments, this bill provides a clear legislative framework for urgent payments, a longstanding feature of the social security system that, until now, has not had a sufficiently explicit legal basis. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is not an additional payment. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing those exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is their lifeline, enabling people to manage sudden costs like medical expenses, housing instability or family emergency. Within this bill, it formalises that system. It establishes clear eligibility criteria, clear limits on payment amounts and safeguards to ensure that people do not overdraw against their entitlement. It also ensures that the system can be delivered efficiently through automated processes while still providing human support where needed, particularly for those who rely on urgent payments frequently. And it sits alongside broader investment, including increased funding for emergency relief services and expansion of the No Interest Loans Scheme to ensure people have access to safe, fair financial support. These reforms promote the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living by ensuring people can access support when they need it the most.

Thirdly, on employment income attribution, this bill clarifies how employment income, including a partner's income, is assessed for the purposes of social security payments. It is about ensuring that the income test operates as intended. It makes clear that employment income attribution applies to both the recipient and their partner and that income continues to be attributed across the relevant periods, even where payments are suspended, cancelled or restarted. Again, this is not a policy shift. It is a clarification. It ensures consistency. It removes ambiguity. It strengthens the integrity of the whole system.

This bill is about responsible government and about identifying where the law does not align with policy intent and fixing it. It is about ensuring that longstanding administrative practices have a clear legal foundation, and it is about continuing the work of rebuilding trust in Australia's social security system after years of neglect and failure. This bill strengthens the fairness, clarity and effectiveness of the system. This bill also supports families. It supports vulnerable Australians, and it supports confidence in the rule of law. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 372, relating to users accessing the Home Guarantee Scheme, required the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Thursday, 5 March 2026, and

(ii) the order has not been complied with;

(b) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 30 March 2026; and

(c) if the order has still not been fully complied with by midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the Tuesday of each sitting week, starting with, Tuesday, 12 May 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, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. This order seeks aggregate data of users accessing the Home Guarantee Scheme since 1 October 2024. While the motion as agreed to by the Senate gave a period of less than 24 hours to produce more than a year's worth of data for about 230,000 Australians—including age brackets, individual income, household income, occupation group, property purchase prices, single or joint borrower status and loan-to-value ratio—I'm happy to advise the documents relating to this order have been tabled this morning.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 462 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.