Slade Brockman

I will now put the question on Senator David Pocock's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3493. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The Minister must not appoint a person as the Director-General unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints an independent selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise;

(ii) qualifications or experience in public health matters;

(iii) integrity;

(iv) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by the independent selection panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

(2) Clause 30, page 28 (line 25) to page 29 (line 10), omit subclause (4), substitute:

Process for appointment

(4) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Advisory Council unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints an independent selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following:

(A) public health matters;

(B) clinical practice;

(C) economics;

(D) human rights;

(E) data and statistics relating to public health matters;

(F) emergency management;

(G) communications;

(H) any other field that the Minister considers appropriate;

(ii) integrity;

(iii) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by the independent selection panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

Question negatived.

Wendy Askew

by leave—Could I please record Senator Lambie's voting preferences as support for amendments on sheets 3493 and 3492.

Slade Brockman

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, as circulated by the opposition on sheets 3450 and 3451. The question is that the following items stand as printed : _schedule 1, items 2 to _4 , 7_ _and 8 , _and 11 to 13 and part _4 ; and schedule 2__, items 6 to 9.

Opposition's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025—

SHEET 3450

(1) Schedule 1, items 2 to 4, page 3 (lines 12 to 22), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, items 7 and 8, page 4 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, items 11 to 13, page 5 (lines 15 to 20), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 2, items 6 to 9, page 32 (line 3) to page 33 (line 28), to be opposed.

_____

SHEET 3451

(1) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 25 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

Wendy Askew

by leave—I ask that Senator Lambie's voting preferences be recorded: sheet 3478, abstain; sheet 3484, oppose; and sheet 3485, support.

Slade Brockman

I'll now deal with an amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that subdivision B of division 2 on part 4 stand as printed.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

(7) Subdivision B, clauses 45 to 49, page 39 (line 20) to page 42 (line 11), to be opposed.

Wendy Askew

by leave—Senator Lambie wishes to be noted as supporting the amendments on sheets 3448 and 3449.

Slade Brockman

I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheet__s 3478 revised, 3484 and 3485 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

SHEET 3478 REVISED

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of Aboriginal person, insert:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee means the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control established by section 38B.

(2) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 5), after the definition of foreign government body, insert:

Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles: see section 70AA.

(3) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 19), after paragraph (e) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(ea) the health of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders;

(eb) social, systemic and structural determinants of health;

(4) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 35), after paragraph 11(i), insert:

(ia) conducting, promoting and supporting initiatives directed at achieving health equity for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, including initiatives directed at addressing social, systemic and structural factors that contribute to health inequities for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, in collaboration with:

(i) bodies representing Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both); and

(ii) bodies known as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Community-Controlled Organisations; and

(iii) State or Territory government entities;

(5) Clause 30, page 28 (lines 21 to 24), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The Minister must ensure that at least two appointed members are Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both) who have expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both).

(6) Clause 30, page 29 (after line 9), after paragraph (4)(g), insert:

(ga) the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both);

(7) Page 34 (after line 3), after Part 3, insert:

Part 3A — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control

Division 1 — Introduction

38A Simplified outline of this Part

This Part establishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. The Committee's function is to provide advice to the Minister and Director-General.

Division 2 — The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

38B Establishment

(1) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee of the Australian Centre for Disease Control is established by this section.

(2) The Minister is to determine, in writing, the composition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee, including the expertise, qualifications and experience of its members.

(3) The Minister is to appoint the members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Committee.

38C Function

(1) The function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the Minister and the Director-General on:

(a) the operation and effectiveness of this Act, particularly in relation to the health needs of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders (or both); and

(b) any other matter on which the Minister or the Director-General requests, in writing, the Committee to provide advice.

(2) The Minister may give the Committee written guidelines about its function.

(3) Neither requests under paragraph (1)(b), nor guidelines under subsection (2), are legislative instruments.

(8) Page 53 (after line 20), after clause 69, insert:

70AA Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

Director-General to determine Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

(1) The Director-General must, by legislative instrument, determine principles to be followed in the collection, use and disclosure under this Act of information that relates to, or affects, Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders.

(2) The principles determined under subsection (1) are to be known as Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles.

When Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles must first come into force

(3) The Director-General must ensure there are Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles in force at all times after the end of the period of 6 months beginning at the commencement of this section.

Consultation

(4) Before determining Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles, the Director-General must:

(a) publish on the Centre's website:

(i) a draft of the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles; and

(ii) a notice inviting submissions on the draft on or before a day specified in the notice; and

(b) consider any submissions received on or before the day specified in the notice.

(5) The day specified under subparagraph (4)(a)(ii) must be at least 30 days after the day on which the notice is published.

(6) Subsection (4) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.

Effect of Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles

(7) A provision of this Division that authorises the collection, use or disclosure of information that relates to, or affects, Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders has effect only to the extent that the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles are followed in the collection, use or disclosure that information.

(9) Page 63 (after line 21), after clause 77, insert:

77A Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health reports

(1) The Director-General must, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, prepare a report on the state of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health in Australia during that year.

(2) The report must contain (without limitation) information about progress towards health equity for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, including progress towards addressing social, systemic and structural factors that contribute to health inequities for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.

(3) The Director-General must publish a copy of the report on the Centre's website.

(4) The Director-General may, in preparing the report, seek assistance, input or information from such persons as the Director-General determines.

_____

SHEET 3484

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 20), after paragraph (f) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(fa) the health effects of racial discrimination;

_____

SHEET 3485

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 21), after paragraph (g) of the definition of public health matters, insert:

(ga) the health of prisoners and persons detained in custodial settings;

(2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 25), after subparagraph (11)(h)(viii), insert:

(viiia) bodies providing health services to prisoners and persons detained in custodial settings;

Wendy Askew

by leave— Under the standing orders I ask that Senator Lambie's name be recorded as being in support of the Australian Greens amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 on sheet 3441 and abstaining on all others in that group.

Slade Brockman

I will now deal with the remaining amendments relating to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, starting with the amendments on sheets 3447, 3448 and 3449, circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

SHEET 3447

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "other".

(2) Clause 28, page 28 (line 7), omit "appointed", substitute "other".

(3) Clause 29, page 28 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute:

29 Director-General not Advisory Council member but may attend meetings

(1) The Director-General is not a member of the Advisory Council and must not be appointed under subsection 30(1) as such.

(2) However, the Chair of the Advisory Council may invite the Director-General to attend a meeting of the Advisory Council:

(a) to observe the meeting; or

(b) for the purpose of advising or informing the Advisory Council on any matter; or

(c) for any other reason.

(4) Clause 30, page 28 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the Director-General and".

(5) Clause 34, page 30 (lines 18 and 19), omit "(other than the Director-General)".

_____

SHEET 3448

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 31) to page 6 (line 32), omit the definition of exempt material, substitute:

exempt material: a document or other material is exempt material if the document or material is an exempt document under any of the following provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (or would be such an exempt document if it were a document that was proposed to be released under that Act):

(a) section 33 (documents affecting national security, defence or international relations);

(b) section 34 (Cabinet documents);

(c) section 37 (documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety);

(d) section 38 (documents to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply), disregarding subsections (1A) to (3A) of that section;

(e) section 42 (documents subject to legal professional privilege);

(f) section 45 (documents containing material obtained in confidence), disregarding subsection (2) of that section;

(g) section 46 (documents disclosure of which would be contempt of Parliament or contempt of court);

(h) section 47 (documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information), disregarding subsections (2) and (3) of that section.

_____

SHEET 3449

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 21), after the definition of designated data service provider, insert:

designated enforcement entity: see section 69A.

(2) Clause 67, page 52 (after line 15), after subclause (5), insert:

Australian Information Commissioner agreement required

(5A) The Director-General must not make a data sharing declaration unless the Australian Information Commissioner has agreed, in writing, to the making of the declaration.

(3) Clause 69, page 53 (line 2), before "At any time", insert "(1)".

(4) Clause 69, page 53 (line 3), after "may", insert "(subject to subsections (2) and (3))".

(5) Clause 69, page 53 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) A designated enforcement entity must not collect or use information in accordance with subsection (1) unless the collection or use is authorised by an order under section 69A.

(3) An entity must not disclose information to a designated enforcement entity in accordance with subsection (1) unless the disclosure is authorised by an order under section 69A.

(6) Page 53 (after line 20), after clause 69, insert:

69A Data sharing declarations — court orders required for collection, use and disclosures in certain circumstances

Designated enforcement entities

(1) An entity is a designated enforcement entity if:

(a) the entity is an agency, or a State or Territory authority, within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988; and

(b) the entity is not a court, tribunal or coroner; and

(c) either or both of the following apply:

(i) the entity has power under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory to require persons to give information to the entity;

(ii) officers of the entity are, in the ordinary course of their duties, authorised to execute warrants to enter premises and seize things found, including documents.

Application for and making of order

(2) An entity may apply for an order under this section authorising the entity to:

(a) if the entity is a designated enforcement entity—collect and use information in accordance with a data sharing declaration; and

(b) in any case—disclose information to a designated enforcement entity in accordance with a data sharing declaration.

(3) The application for an order under this section must be made to:

(a) a magistrate of a State or Territory; or

(b) a judge who is eligible under subsection 69B(2).

(4) The judicial officer may make the order if the judicial officer is satisfied that:

(a) there are no effective means, other than by way of an order under this section, for the applicant to:

(i) collect or use the information; or

(ii) disclose the information to a designated enforcement entity; and

(b) the order is necessary to respond to the threat to public health in relation to which the data sharing declaration was made; and

(c) the order would not, on balance, result in an unreasonable interference with the privacy of an individual.

(5) The judicial officer must not make the order unless the applicant or some other entity has given the judicial officer, either orally or by affidavit, such further information (if any) as the judicial officer requires concerning the grounds on which the order is being sought.

(6) The order must specify:

(a) the data sharing declaration covered by the order; and

(b) the entity for which the collection, use or disclosure of information is authorised by the order; and

(c) the designated enforcement entity to which the disclosure of information is authorised by the order; and

(d) the day on which the order ceases to have effect; and

(e) the purpose for which the order is made.

69B Judicial officers for orders under section 69A

Eligible judge of a court created by the Parliament

(1) A judge of a court created by the Parliament may, by writing, consent to be nominated by the Attorney-General under subsection (2).

(2) The Attorney-General may, by writing, nominate a judge of a court created by the Parliament in relation to whom a consent is in force under subsection (1) to be eligible for the purposes of paragraph 69A(3)(b).

(3) A nomination under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

Magistrates

(4) A magistrate need not accept the functions conferred by section 69A.

(5) The Governor-General may:

(a) arrange with the Governor of a State for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as magistrates of that State, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A; or

(b) arrange with the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as magistrates of the Australian Capital Territory, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A; or

(c) arrange with the Administrator of the Northern Territory for the performance, by all or any of the persons who from time to time hold office as Judges of the Local Court of the Northern Territory, of the functions of a magistrate conferred by section 69A.

Judicial officers exercising powers in personal capacity

(6) The functions conferred on a judicial officer by section 69A are conferred on the judicial officer:

(a) in a personal capacity; and

(b) not as a court or a member of a court.

(7) A judicial officer performing a function conferred by section 69A has the same protection and immunity as if the judicial officer were performing the function:

(a) as the court of which the judicial officer is a member; or

(b) as a member of the court of which the judicial officer is a member.

David Pocock

I ask that the question on sheet 3447 be put separately.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the opposition amendments on sheet 3447 to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the amendments moved by the Australian Greens on sheets 3439, 3441, 3440 and 3443 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that these bills be now read a second time.

Sue Lines

Pursuant to the order just agreed, the time allotted for the second reading of the bills has expired. I will deal with the second reading amendment previously moved by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3475 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) non-communicable and chronic disease is among Australia's biggest public health challenges, contributing to nine in ten deaths and 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, and

(ii) public health experts have repeatedly called for the inclusion of non-communicable and chronic disease within the scope of the Australian Centre for Disease Control; and

(b) affirms that expanding the Australian Centre for Disease Control's remit to include non-communicable and chronic disease will improve national action on disease prevention and management; and

(c) calls on the Government to include non-communicable and chronic disease within the scope of the Australian Centre for Disease Control as soon as practicable".

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

I thank the chamber, and I won't take up too much time up this morning. I want to table a letter that I have written to you, President, in relation to order for production No. 10 that was passed last week explaining the government's position about why I have not been able to provide that document and also offering a briefing to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the report in camera. I've provided that to all leaders, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to that.

Leave granted.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate resolves that the order for the production of a document relating to the review of public sector board appointments processes has been satisfactorily complied with; and

(b) the order agreed to on 29 October 2025 relating to arrangements for question time no longer apply.

I want to speak very briefly to this. I acknowledge the Senate's interest in this and the important role that orders for the production of documents play in terms of a power of the Senate, and I really appreciate the discussions that I've been able to have around the chamber, in particular with the opposition and the Greens, around ways to comply whilst that document remains an active document before cabinet. In fact, cabinet is considering it presently. I am hopeful that this offer of a briefing finds that interim step until we are in a position to release that document once cabinet has finished considering it. In the letter, I have said that will be before the end of this year. I move this motion, and I seek the Senate's support for it.

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

At the end of the motion add:

(c) if order for the production of documents no. 10 has not been fully complied with by 31 December 2025:

(i) the order of the call for question time be as follows:

(ii) the Senate requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

(B) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 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.

It was circulated electronically. Parties may not yet have it, so I'll just speak to it briefly. Our amendment to the motion outlines that if the order for the production of documents hasn't been complied with by the end of this year, 31 December, question time will revert to the order and number of questions as was stipulated in the motion that the government is seeking to overturn—15 questions per day with questions 11 to 15 being for non-government senators only. There's an additional element to the motion which requires the Minister for the Public Service to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings each sitting day to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order and that any senator may move to take note of the explanation. Any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes. It will have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than five minutes each.

While we appreciate the government's attempt to comply with an order they should have complied with some time ago, we want to put in place this measure to ensure that this transparency which we are now being told we will be provided—there will be a briefing to the committee, and I accept that. But we want that document tabled. In order to ensure that it is provided—as the government has promised it will be—and in the spirit of seeking transparency and making sure this government actually honours the promises it made not just at the last election but at the one before that, the opposition will be putting in place this amendment.

We hope the crossbench will support this, and, indeed, if the government is true to its word and will table this document by the date that they have specified, it will support this amendment as well.

Sarah Hanson-Young

On this motion put forward by the government today, I actually think this is a very good discussion that we're having here this morning, because it really is focusing the Senate's mind on how we use the powers of this place, which are incredibly important to ensure transparency and accountability of government.

We're in this position because we have asked numerous times for this document. We've also asked numerous times for other documents, and there is a growing view—not just across this chamber but outside this chamber in the community—that this government is not being upfront nor as transparent as they promised to be. I think that's a problem for the government, and I urge ministers, whether they're in this place or the other, to think hard about how they want to reflect the values that they promised the Australian people at the election.

Our job in the Senate is to hold the government to account, to scrutinise legislation, to scrutinise regulation and to ask the tough and difficult questions so that the public can have certainty that the government is doing what it promised to do. It's also part of our job in this scrutiny role to try and improve the processes not just in the parliament but within the government. Is there legislation that needs to be amended to be made better? Are there government processes that need to be fixed because they're failing to deliver for the community? Is there more need for transparency in areas because the government isn't responding the way they should?

Of course, this isn't just about being on the other side of the government; this is actually about trying to deliver better outcomes for the community and for people. That's actually why these powers that we have in the Senate, which are extremely important, exist. It is up to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we can get better outcomes for people, get better outcomes from government decisions and ensure that communities are getting not just the information but the services that they deserve.

We know that the community has been increasingly worried. They were worried under the previous Morrison government, and 'jobs for mates' was an issue. There's a reason why this report was commissioned in the first place. It's because there has been a problem. There is a view that 'jobs for mates' is an issue within successive governments. That's the whole point of this report. I commend Minister Gallagher for commissioning the report in the first place. It's an important piece of work, but that is why we have insisted that it be released.

I want to acknowledge that this is a step forward. We've had quite a bit of argy-bargy in this place—some serious, some not so serious, sadly—over the last week as to how we can force the government to comply with orders of the Senate. I want to acknowledge that this is an important step forward and a way of acknowledging the powers that the Senate has—the importance of our role as a chamber that scrutinises and that can hold government to account. I also acknowledge that we referred the matter of OPDs and transparency to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure last week. We've had one meeting so far, and I think, so far, it's good. I think there is a general sense across the parties that how we manage OPDs—orders for production of documents—and how we manage and use transparency levers in this place more effectively are good. But that work is not complete.

I put it to both sides—the opposition and the government. I understand that this motion will pass today because the two of you have agreed. The parties of government have agreed—reverted back to the parties of government. But I put it to you that this broader issue of transparency is not going to go away unless we reset how the government responds to orders for production of documents, how this chamber manages that serious power and how we go through the steps of requiring transparency at various stages. I urge the government to do more to ensure that, when we ask for information on behalf of our constituents, the government give it and are willing to be transparent with their own constituents and with their own communities and work with us across all sides to do that.

I understand that the Labor Party and the coalition have agreed that this is a reasonable step forward. We think it's too weak. We would prefer the document to be released as requested, but, of course, it's going to go through because the parties of government, the two big parties, have decided to sort it out. After a spat over the last week, they've decided to work it out. They're hugging it out. Look over there; they're hugging it out over there! I think, however, that the role of the crossbench in this debate over the last week has been a good one, because, for too long and so often, the major parties think that they only have to share information amongst themselves and that if the Liberal and National parties—or do I just say the Liberal Party these days? If the coalition and the Labor Party come to an agreement, it doesn't really matter what the crossbench thinks. Well, we are showing you more and more and more that we will insert ourselves in these discussions, because our constituents deserve it. They expect it, and we will use the powers we have.

Long debate text truncated.

Helen Polley

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator David Pocock, which is also shown at item 13 on today's Order of Business:

The need for the government to legislate to redirect uncontracted export gas into the domestic market and bring down the price of gas and electricity for Australian industry and households, to recognise that Australian gas is for Australian households and businesses.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

David Pocock

I move:

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

The need for the government to legislate to redirect uncontracted export gas into the domestic market and bring down the price of gas and electricity for Australian industry and households, to recognise that Australian gas is for Australian households and businesses.

Fellow colleagues, representatives of states and territories in this great country, this urgency motion today is truly urgent when we look at electricity prices, when we look at Australian manufacturers and businesses doing it tough and when we look at smelters announcing that they are no longer viable. We hear many talk about a gas supply problem here in this country, but there is no such thing. We do not have a gas supply problem. We have a gas export problem in Australia. We are one of the biggest gas exporters in the world. We just happen to have a system that doesn't recognise that Australian gas actually belongs to Australians in the first instance and is happy to give away half of our gas for free—royalty free. And we have a situation where, as one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, we have a trillion dollars of national debt. Look at Norway, which has taken a different approach where they believe that natural resources belong to Norwegians and future Norwegians, and they are sitting on a $3 trillion sovereign wealth fund—two very different approaches. But that is not the focus of the urgency today. The urgency today is about pulling a lever that we have as a parliament when it comes to ensuring that Australian gas benefits Australian people, that Australian gas benefits Australian manufacturers, businesses and households.

Eighty-three per cent of gas extracted in Australia is used for LNG export. We export more than four times as much gas as is used domestically. Despite this, wholesale gas prices in Australia are more than three times higher than in the USA and seven times higher than in Qatar and Canada. Again, we don't have a gas supply problem; we have a gas export problem. According to the June 2025 interim report of the ACCC gas inquiry, there was 122 petajoules of uncontracted gas in 2024 and 79 per cent of that was exported. That is more than double the projected shortfall of 49 petajoules next year. We should be saying uncontracted gas has to go to Australian manufacturers, businesses and households. This is a solution that is on the table now. There is no sovereign risk. This is uncontracted gas that belongs to all Australians and I urge the government to actually do this. This is something you could do tomorrow, and I believe you would have the support of the vast majority of Australians. You would certainly have the support of the smelters and many other manufacturers who are really feeling the pain when it comes to gas prices.

We will potentially hear from the coalition saying that the answer is actually just more supply. 'We need more supply. We need more projects. We need Narrabri. We need all sorts of things.' Everyone knows that those things take a very long time to develop. And, again, we do not have a supply problem. We have more than enough supply. We just choose politically not to say Australian gas needs to benefit Australians. While that may be their line, they are missing the fact that uncontracted gas can solve issues for smelters and manufacturers. It would bring down the price of electricity because 17 odd per cent of electricity is firmed with gas, and that sets the price. Here is an opportunity.

The government will likely say: 'Well, we've got all sorts of reviews on foot. We've done a lot. We've got a $12 per gigajoule cap'—which I'm hearing is more of a floor at the moment. 'No need to hurry us. We've got time.' At the same time, we're spending billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer money bailing out smelters and heavy industry when we could just ensure that they had Australian gas to run on. This is nuts. Here is a solution that has broad backing from industry and from Australians, and I urge the government to get on with it.

Susan McDonald

If only solving our gas market problems was as simple as Senator Pocock has proposed. I truly wish it was. We can see that, in the last three years, Labor's interventions have not only failed; they have made the gas market shortfall even worse. We warned that the legislation that came into this place with the ink barely dry, poorly consulted, would result in worse outcomes, and what happened? The minister had to provide exemptions to the entire market. They have made our gas market more complex, more confusing and less secure. And guess what that means. It means there is less supply, prices have gone up and investors are worried.

Senator Pocock would have you believe that Australian gas being owned by Australians can be simply and easily extracted. Of course, that's not the case. These are multibillion dollar industries. For that reason, investment, certainty and confidence determine whether we bring more gas to market. In Australia, over generations, we have seen ebbs and flows of investor confidence, and what has undermined it the most? Unfortunately, it has been activist organisations like the Environmental Defenders Office currently, the Australia Institute and others who have talked down confidence in the Australian market. Some have funded appeals that have locked up more gas coming into the Australian market.

I'm delighted that in Queensland more gas reserves are being released. We're seeing great companies producing more gas for Australians. But guess where it's not happening. It's not happening in Victoria, where activists have shut down future gas investment in that state—the place that uses the most gas. It has a long history of gas production in the Bass Strait and a great reliance on manufacturing and domestic use. Guess where those jobs are going. They are leaving Australia because they cannot compete with the gas prices because it's not being produced locally. Moving gas around in pipelines costs dollars per gigajoule. It is expensive, so it's important that gas is produced where it's needed. But activist actions have meant that Victoria is off limits. The Narrabri project in New South Wales has been slowed for a decade. This is outrageous because those activists are undermining Australia's domestic energy security.

The gas market interventions that Labor has come in with more recently have clearly failed. They have had to introduce additional regulations, the gas code, to try and fix their mistakes. The ACCC has publicly blasted the government's intervention, stating that they have failed to reduce prices. They have worsened supply and have incentivised gas companies to produce less uncontracted gas for the domestic market and the increased shortfall risks.

We know that repeated interventions will not drive down prices or secure supply. They will only worsen it. The best example I can think of is Argentina in the 1980s. They followed exactly the advice that Senator Pocock and his advisers are providing, and what did that do? It meant that Argentina had to pay people to come back later to invest and produce their own gas. This is not simple. The US, Qatar and Canada are places that have been identified as having lower prices than Australia. That is because they are producing it. They are producing it by the well load. They have a glut of gas in the US, thanks to shale gas coming up with liquid fuels. That is what has driven down prices.

The idea that we are going to start interfering in the gas market further—I can guarantee what will happen. We will see additional Australian companies invest offshore. Gas will get increasingly expensive here. We would be much better off getting the Labor government out of the way. Stop funding the EDO. Stop encouraging activists to slow down investment and let the gas run, because that is in the best interest of Australians.

Glenn Sterle

It's my pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on this energy motion raised by Senator Pocock about Australian gas. As a proud senator representing the greatest state, Western Australia, in the best nation on this earth, I know how critical gas is to Western Australia's domestic economy. Gas powers 60 per cent of WA's electricity, providing energy for many businesses and homes. While the Greens continue to criticise gas, I'd like to read a couple of figures into the Hansard for their benefit. Australia's oil and gas industry contributes approximately $105 billion a year to the national economy and supports 215,000 jobs around Australia, including many in regional and remote communities and many in my state and Senator Ghosh's state.

Last week, in fact, I had the pleasure of meeting some of these workers, here with a delegation of gas industry leaders and local community representatives, who met with parliamentarians to share their positive experiences working in and with Australia's natural gas industry. To those workers I met: thank you for your time; I wish you well in your careers.

Unlike those opposite, the Albanese government is committed to fixing the gas market mess left by none other than the former government, that mob. In the previous term, the Albanese government took strong action on gas supply and price, ensuring more gas was available for domestic use. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, Australia has a stronger heads of agreement with LNG producers so gas is offered to the Australian market before it can be exported; a reformed Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which can reserve gas as a last resort if there's a shortfall; stronger powers for the market operator so it can issue directions to gas industry participants to resolve an imminent supply shortfall; and the gas code, which has secured more than 644 petajoules of gas for Australian homes and businesses. We have also legislated emissions targets, reformed the safeguard mechanism and invested in electrifying homes. We are building renewables at record rates. We also published the Future Gas Strategy, which maps out the role of gas in Australia and for our key trading partners as we decarbonise.

The Albanese Labor government has done a lot to make sure there is sufficient gas supply. To be very clear, no gas supply shortfall has eventuated. The Albanese government is focus on practical solutions that deliver affordable and reliable gas to households and businesses. Successive governments have put in place a range of policies and regulations to manage a crisis of supply or price or both.

Now for the best bit—way back in 2006, former Western Australian Labor premier Alan Carpenter, a very decent man, introduced a policy where between 10 and 20 per cent of domestic gas from the reserves around Western Australia would be made available to the Western Australian economy. How's that for leadership? It wasn't done by the Howard government; it was done by the Western Australian Carpenter government. When speaking about the WA domestic gas reservation policy in the Western Australia Legislative Assembly on 27 September 2006, Mr Carpenter said:

That policy is good for not only the Western Australian economy because it will establish our energy security for the next 30 to 40 to 50 years and in the absence of that policy, there will be no energy security, but also the national economy because what is good for the Western Australian economy is good for the national economy …

How true is that, Senator Ghosh?

Varun Ghosh

I couldn't agree more, Senator Sterle.

Glenn Sterle

Ain't that the truth! We Western Australians are very well aware of the contribution our economy makes to the success of the national economy. We are the engine room of this nation. Much like Alan Carpenter, whose visionary policy safeguarded Western Australia's energy security, the Australian government is committed to ensuring that our gas markets have a robust regulatory framework that safeguards Australia's energy security, delivers gas at a reasonable price and smooths the transition to net zero while continuing to meet our obligations to the trade partners.

A clear example of how we are doing this is the review into gas market regulations, which we opened in June of this year. The intent of this review is to carefully examine how our gas policies work for our economy as part of our energy transition. The review is examining the effectiveness and coherence of existing regulatory mechanisms and is identifying possible improvements with the aim of creating long-term stable regulatory environments. The review is considering the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, the Gas Market Code and the heads of agreement with east coast LNG exporters. That's not bad for four years in the job, is it?

Long debate text truncated.