Take Note Debate
Senate · Wednesday 1 July 2026
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
Senators debated the government's responses to questions on housing output, superannuation tax changes, and corporate influence in education. Coalition senators criticised the government for failing to abolish a tax on widows and for building fewer homes than the previous administration despite increased spending. Labor senators defended their housing record and tax cut policies, while accusing the opposition of opposing worker benefits. Greens senators raised concerns about fossil fuel companies sponsoring school programs and receiving tax-free fuel subsidies.
The questions were agreed to.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Kovacic argued that the government and Greens passed flawed legislation containing a 'widow's tax' without proper scrutiny or urgency. Kovacic claimed the government prioritised political theatre over fit-for-purpose laws and failed to protect self-managed superannuation fund rights. Kovacic also stated that the government had built fewer homes than the previous coalition government and criticised the Greens for trading away superannuation protections for other policy gains.
Tyrrell defended the government's $47 billion housing plan, stating that home starts had risen by 26 per cent and construction cost inflation had fallen significantly. Tyrrell highlighted that 660,000 homes had been built since the election and that building approvals had increased for three consecutive years. Tyrrell argued that the government was actively working with states to reform planning and invest in social and affordable housing.
Collins argued that the government's policies would impose $77 billion in new taxes on Australians and drive up inflation. Collins questioned whether the retention of the widow's tax was due to incompetence or a deliberate deal with the Greens. Collins also raised concerns about the lack of housing for vulnerable women and children, noting that promised units had not been delivered.
Ciccone criticised the Liberal Party for consistently voting against tax cuts for workers and for pandering to far-right politics. Ciccone argued that the government was working with the crossbench to secure the best deal for Australian workers, including nurses and retail staff. Ciccone stated that the opposition had a poor track record of defending workers and had promised to repeal tax cuts during the previous election.
Colbeck argued that the government was dishonest and failed to properly scrutinise legislation before voting, citing issues with firearms laws and the widow's tax. Colbeck claimed that housing completions had dropped from 200,000 per year under the coalition to 170,000 under the current government, despite higher spending. Colbeck listed several broken promises regarding energy prices, superannuation tax, and capital gains tax.
Allman-Payne raised concerns about fossil fuel companies accessing school children through sponsorships and educational programs, citing a report identifying over 260 such initiatives. Allman-Payne argued that public schools were underfunded, leaving gaps that corporations exploited with their own agendas. Allman-Payne called for a ban on fossil fuel advertising in schools and a parliamentary inquiry into industry influence.
McKim criticised the government for providing tax-free fuel subsidies to profitable mining corporations like BHP and Rio Tinto. McKim argued that this corporate welfare contributed to climate change and increased costs for consumers through insurance and disaster recovery expenses. McKim stated that the money spent on these subsidies should instead be used to improve affordability for Australians.
Hodgins-May argued that fossil fuel companies were using schools and community organisations to build social licence rather than providing genuine education. Hodgins-May cited examples of sponsorship deals that turned children into advertising platforms for companies like Woodside and Santos. Hodgins-May urged the government to prevent these corporations from using children as marketing spaces and to enforce stricter boundaries on their influence.