﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2026-02-11</date>
    <parliament.no>3</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 11 February 2026</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Claydon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 7 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 2 March. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's deliberations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 10 February 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 10 February 2026, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 2 March 2026, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS PENFOLD: To present a Bill for an Act to protect prime agricultural land, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR SCAMPS: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a framework for transparent and quality public appointments, and to establish Independent Selection Panels and the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2026</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 DR M RYAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Centre for Disease Control Act 2025</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Australian Centre for Disease Control Amendment (Gambling as a Public Health Issue) Bill 2026</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 ENERGY AFFORDABILITY: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 3 November 2025</inline>) on the motion of Mr Tehan—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) condemns the Government for its failures regarding energy affordability and policy transparency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australians were promised a $275 cut to their power bills but under the Government households are instead paying on average $1,300 more;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) energy bills have already surged close to 40 per cent under the Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government has broken its most basic promise to the Australian people; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water advised the Minister for Climate Change and Energy within the Incoming Government Brief of 'a further significant increase in retail electricity prices next financial year'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS CAMPBELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) twelve months into the landmark $792.9 million women's health package, the Government is continuing to deliver on its promise of more choice, lower costs and better care for Australian women and girls; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) since the announcement, more than 660,000 women have accessed more than 2 million cheaper scripts for new contraceptives, menopausal hormone therapies and endometriosis treatment listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Campbell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS LE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australians are still battling a cost of living crisis, with many low and middle income families already unable to absorb surging mortgages, rent, energy bills and everyday essentials as annual inflation sits at about 3.8 per cent, above the Reserve Bank's two to three per cent target band;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the higher than expected inflation outcome has increased the likelihood of a further cash rate rise next month, which would push already stretched households to the brink, forcing many to choose between meeting their mortgage, paying the rent or covering basic necessities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) high mortgage stress electorates such as the electoral division of Fowler, where many families are on low and modest incomes and have little to no financial buffer, are among the hardest hit by the combination of higher prices, higher interest rates and shrinking household budgets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to ensure that any policies it introduces tackle the roots of cost of living, does not further exacerbate inflation rates and that it works with, and not against, the Reserve Bank's efforts to bring inflation back to target.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Le</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR ABDO: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on 1 October 2025, the Government expanded the five per cent deposit scheme to all Australian first home buyers, three months ahead of schedule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) more than 220,000 Australians have now bought their first home with a small deposit of five per cent or less thanks to the expanded five per cent deposit scheme;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that this housing challenge has been 40 years in the making, thanks in part to underinvestment and under-delivery of previous Governments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government's $45 billion housing agenda, which is focused on building more homes, making it easier to buy, and making it better to rent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Abdo</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHESTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian War Memorial (AWM) was built to recognise the service and sacrifice of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel following the Great War;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the role of the AWM has grown to encompass all ADF service including major conflicts, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian aid and disaster relief;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the AWM combines a shrine, a world-class museum, and an extensive archive; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) its mission is leading remembrance and understanding of Australia's wartime experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the former Government committed to a major redevelopment of the AWM with early construction work commencing in 2020 and scheduled for completion in 2028; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the key reason for the former Government funding the redevelopment of the AWM was to provide additional exhibition space to tell the stories of contemporary service in the ADF in a timely and appropriate manner; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to ensure the independent AWM Council remains true to its mission without political interference.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR LAXALE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Government's Key Apprenticeship Program (KAP) is delivering real outcomes, with over 11,400 housing apprentice commencements in the first six months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government for prioritising apprentices to build more houses through providing $10,000 incentive payments for apprentices in housing construction trades in instalments across the apprenticeship to support commencements and completions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the Government's other measures to support apprentices, including increasing the allowance for apprentices living away from home for the first time in more than 20 years, while also doubling support for employers hiring apprentices with a disability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) supports these measures as vital steps towards building a skilled workforce and addressing the worst skills shortage in 50 years which was left unaddressed by the previous Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further recognises that the National Centre for Vocational Education Research data shows there were 22 per cent more apprentices in training within the construction sector at 30 June 2025 compared to 30 June 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Laxale</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR T WILSON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that small and family businesses are being harmed by a rise in e-shoplifting, or chargeback theft, where goods are delivered, but the big banks are illegitimately processing refunds;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on the Government and the big banks to urgently examine chargeback theft and its impact on small businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for the establishment of an urgent parliamentary inquiry into e-shoplifting through chargebacks; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on the Minister for Small Business to demonstrate action the Government has taken to support small and family businesses; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the need for banks, card schemes and payment platforms to introduce fair, evidence-based chargeback processes that protect small businesses from chargeback theft.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 3 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr T Wilson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR GOSLING: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) affirms the significance on the recent signing of the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security, also known as the Jakarta Treaty 2026;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes this treaty reflects:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the close friendship, partnership and deep trust between Australia and Indonesia and our leaders under our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a major extension of the cooperation between Australia and Indonesia, for the benefit of our shared security and that of the region; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges Indonesia's strong economic growth represents an enormous opportunity for Australian businesses and investors, which the Government is working to realise including through <inline font-style="italic">Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Gosling</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 SMALL AND FAMILY BUSINESSES: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 24 November 2025</inline>) on the motion of Mr T Wilson—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that small and family business insolvencies have exploded since the election of the Government, as its policies crush confidence and drive businesses to close;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's industrial relations changes have replaced flexibility and fairness with confusion and compliance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government's energy policies have driven up power bills for shops, cafes, workshops and family enterprises; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) small and family business are being forced to work longer hours for less return, while competing against government-subsidised sectors and ever increasing compliance costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the voices of small and family businesses have been drowned out by union and big-corporate interests within the Government's decision making;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns the Government for abandoning small and family businesses by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) ignoring calls for tax relief and simpler regulation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) pursuing workplace laws that punish entrepreneurship and flexibility; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) failing to provide a clear pathway for small businesses to grow and employ more Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) affirms that the Opposition stands with small and family businesses who back themselves, create jobs and keep communities strong.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR M SMITH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the significant role of air travel and air freight in keeping regional communities connected;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the commitment of the Government to support air travel through regional Australia through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) supporting the conclusion and purchase of Rex Airlines through a commercial loan of $60 million and the restructuring of $108 million in existing debt to keep regional air routes running during the voluntary administration process;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an additional $50 million over three years in the 2024-25 budget to extend the Regional Airstrip Upgrade program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extension of the Regional Airports Program for three years with an additional $40 million for competitive grant funding in the 2024-25 budget; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the establishment of the $5 million Regional and Remote Airport Support Program for local government and regional and remote airports impacted by the Rex Airlines voluntary administration; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the ongoing commitment of the Government to representing regional Australians and investing in the services they deserve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 10 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr M Smith</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 9 February 2026</inline>) on the motion of Mr Ted O'Brien—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) condemns the Treasurer for refusing to take responsibility for the Government's out-of-control spending, which is fuelling inflation and interest rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Treasurer's own budget papers show he has added $50 billion of new discretionary spending in the current financial year alone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) average mortgage holder is already paying around $21,000 a year more in interest than under the previous Government and that burden could rise even further; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Treasurer to adopt measurable budget rules to bring discipline back to the management of our nation's finances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR HUSIC: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government is taking strong action to protect Australian consumers and ensure fairer markets by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) banning unfair trading practices economy wide that cost Australians time and money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending dodgy subscription traps by ensuring that consumers get clear information upfront, timely reminders before free trials end, and a cancellation process that is just as easy as signing up;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ending drip pricing by requiring businesses to display the full transaction costs upfront ensuring consumers know exactly what they are paying for;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) strengthening consumer guarantees so Australians get products that work, repairs that are fair, and refunds they are entitled to;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) banning supermarket price gouging from l July 2026 to prohibit very large retailers from charging excessive prices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) cracking down on shrinkflation, so companies cannot disguise price increases by reducing package sizes while charging the same, or more;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) making unit pricing clearer and more consistent, backed by penalties for non-compliance, so consumers can spot real value at a glance and are not misled by tricky labels; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) consulting on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's recommendations to boost transparency on prices, promotions and loyalty programs at supermarkets, making it easier for Australians to assess value for money; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) supports this comprehensive consumer protection agenda designed to deliver fairer prices, more competition, and a better deal for Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 3 February 2026.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Husic</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 February 2026</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7437" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today, we are really proud to be introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 to the House.</para>
<para>This is all about making Australia's super system stronger and more sustainable.</para>
<para>We are making superannuation fairer from top to bottom to help disability and aged-care workers, retail and hospitality staff, and early childhood educators and nurses get the secure retirement that they need and deserve.</para>
<para>This bill does two key things.</para>
<para>Firstly, it boosts the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO.</para>
<para>This will make sure low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions.</para>
<para>It's another important part of our government's plan to help low-income workers earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well.</para>
<para>Secondly, the legislation will reform super tax concessions, so that they are better targeted for large balances.</para>
<para>From July next year, we will increase the maximum LISTO payment by $310 to $810, and raise the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000.</para>
<para>These reforms will help deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, the majority of them women.</para>
<para>It will mean the total number of Australians eligible for the LISTO will increase to 3.1 million people.</para>
<para>Our changes will benefit all workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000, with an average increase in LISTO payments of $410.</para>
<para>These workers could receive a benefit at retirement of around $15,000, depending on an individual's income over their career.</para>
<para>The LISTO eligibility threshold and maximum payment amount will also automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate.</para>
<para>This will ensure low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions to align with the government's third round of tax cuts taking effect in 2027.</para>
<para>The other part of this bill reduces tax concessions available to individuals with total superannuation balances above $3 million.</para>
<para>This measure will affect less than half a per cent of all Australians and will take effect from July this year.</para>
<para>It will mean the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be a combined headline rate of 30 per cent.</para>
<para>Earnings corresponding to balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent in the accumulation phase, and earnings will remain tax free in the retirement phase.</para>
<para>The concessional rate applying to future earnings on balances above $10 million will be 40 per cent.</para>
<para>Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds will be indexed.</para>
<para>These reforms maintain the concessional treatment of superannuation, but ensure it is provided in a more equitable and a more sustainable way.</para>
<para>Here, I want to thank the superannuation industry and the broader community for their engagement and feedback on this legislation. And I want to thank my colleagues in the Treasury ministers here and behind me in our team for all of the work that has gone into these important changes.</para>
<para>Together, these changes will maintain concessional tax treatment for super across the board.</para>
<para>They make the system more sustainable by better targeting concessions for the biggest balances to help fund more super for people with the smallest balances.</para>
<para>Voting against this bill would be a vote against a fairer super system.</para>
<para>It would be a vote against more super for Australians on the lowest incomes.</para>
<para>And it would be a vote for bigger tax breaks for those who already have millions in their super.</para>
<para>The Australian Labor Party built our superannuation system.</para>
<para>And this bill is another important part of our agenda to make it stronger and fairer and more sustainable.</para>
<para>It's why we've legislated the objective of super—to provide income for a secure retirement.</para>
<para>We've increased the superannuation guarantee so it's finally reached 12 per cent.</para>
<para>We're paying super on government paid parental leave to help close the gender gap in retirement savings.</para>
<para>We've legislated payday superannuation starting from July this year.</para>
<para>We've expanded the coverage of the superannuation performance test from around 80 products to more than 800.</para>
<para>We've legislated to align financial reporting requirements by funds with those of public companies.</para>
<para>We've also announced mandatory service standards and we're reforming the retirement phase of superannuation as well.</para>
<para>And today we're introducing this legislation to better target superannuation tax concessions and increase the LISTO.</para>
<para>Our superannuation system is the envy of the world.</para>
<para>And these changes will make it even stronger and even fairer so it continues to deliver a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7435" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today I am also introducing the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026.</para>
<para>This bill works in conjunction with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 to make our super system stronger, fairer and more sustainable.</para>
<para>For all of the reasons I outlined in my speech on that bill, I commend it to the House.</para>
<para>Full details, once again, of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7438" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I move that this Bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government has been a focus of reform efforts for the Albanese government.</para>
<para>In July 2023, we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission—an independent, statutory agency to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector.</para>
<para>In September 2023, we established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as a statutory authority to make Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces more safe and respectful.</para>
<para>In May 2024, we made ambitious and enduring reforms to the Australian Public Service. These changes codified an expectation that the APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge and supports the public interest now and into the future. In making these changes, we ensured the APS was impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical.</para>
<para>In October 2024, we abolished the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, replacing it with the Administrative Review Tribunal, to ensure effective administrative review of decisions made by the Australian government.</para>
<para>In December 2025, we released the Australian Government Appointments Framework, setting out the principles and guidance to strengthen and support the merit based selection and appointment of individuals to public offices across the Commonwealth.</para>
<para>Ultimately, these reforms have been about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and institutions.</para>
<para>But there is still work to be done.</para>
<para>That is why the government is proud to present the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 today.</para>
<para>The bill makes changes to strengthen appointment safeguards, accountability and integrity of statutory office holders in the Australian Centre for International Research (ACIAR), Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade), Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC).</para>
<para>Existing arrangements have limited provisions for accountability where conduct or performance are unacceptable.</para>
<para>The amendments would expand and clarify the grounds for termination of the statutory office holders and introduce a power to suspend relevant office holders from their duties.</para>
<para>The amendments are sensitive to the inherent independence of decision-making by statutory authorities, particularly in relation to the Director of Safeguards at the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office.</para>
<para>The bill also permits the relevant minister—being the Attorney-General—to exercise a new directions power for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Importantly however, directions issued under this power can only be general in nature—respecting the independence of the OPC.</para>
<para>The community expects public officials to perform their duties with the utmost integrity—particularly those that operate at the highest level by leading our statutory authorities.</para>
<para>Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, discrimination, bullying and harassment, and corruption are types of behaviour that are unacceptable in a modern workplace.</para>
<para>Failing to prevent or stop that type of behaviour is a failure to keep people safe in their places of work.</para>
<para>These amendments will ensure statutory office holders with direct management responsibilities for staff can be removed from office where their behaviour is considered serious misconduct.</para>
<para>Statutory office holders should also be held accountable for their performance. If their performance is unsatisfactory, then the government should have options to terminate them from their position.</para>
<para>This is the standard expected of most working Australians. It should apply to statutory office holders too.</para>
<para>The bill treats the role of the Director of Safeguards differently because of international standards for the chief regulators of nuclear and chemical nonproliferation. It is important for Australia's global standing that the director operates without suggestion of political interference.</para>
<para>For this reason, and in keeping with the principles of regulator independence, the bill limits termination of the Director of ASNO to serious misconduct that is found through a statutory inquiry for breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, or findings by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.</para>
<para>Through these continuing efforts to strengthen appointments provisions, the government has a clear focus on maintaining the public's trust, faith in our institutions, and ensuring the Commonwealth remains a model employer.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7427" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7339" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 stands referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, which represents the next stage in the parliament's consideration of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. This legislation follows the passage of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025, which temporarily extended the compulsory questioning warrant framework under the ASIO Act for a further 18 months until 7 March 2027. The content of this bill adds further weight to that change. It is aimed at providing greater long-term certainty for Australia's intelligence agencies while strengthening safeguards and modernising the framework in light of the many national security challenges that confront us both here at home and around the world today.</para>
<para>At its core, the compulsory questioning warrant regime allows ASIO, with the approval of the Attorney-General and a prescribed authority, to compel a person to appear for questioning and provide information relevant to serious national security threats. In practice, these powers are used only where voluntary cooperation is insufficient and only where the intelligence at issue is of real consequence to the safety of Australians. If passed, this bill would give expression to three key changes. It would make ASIO's compulsory questioning powers permanent rather than subject to repeated sunset extensions—as has occurred in 2006, in 2014, in 2018, in 2019, in 2020 and again in 2025.</para>
<para>Additionally, it would expand the definition of 'adult questioning matters' to reflect contemporary threats. In addition to espionage, politically motivated violence or foreign interference, the framework would now also cover sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. The bill would also strengthen oversight, reporting and administrative safeguards, in particular, by tightening the eligibility and termination rules for prescribed authorities, increasing reporting obligations to the Attorney-General and requiring post-charge questioning to be conducted before a retired judge. These are not cosmetic changes. They go directly to the independence, impartiality and accountability of ASIO.</para>
<para>ASIO's compulsory questioning powers were created in the aftermath of September 11—that horrible terrorist attack where the global threat environment fundamentally changed forever—and were designed to address critical operational gaps in, namely, ASIO's inability to question individuals who refuse to cooperate voluntarily even where those individuals had intelligence of profound national security significance, and terrorism has always proved resistant to our standard mechanisms of justice. Regrettably, the gap hasn't disappeared in the years since. If anything, it has widened, and, in the aftermath of Bondi, I endorsed the government's approach and ASIO's request for these powers to be made permanent.</para>
<para>As we stand here, in 2026, Australia faces a much more complex, volatile and contested security environment than it did two decades ago. Arguably, since September 11, the intelligence framework has gotten even worse for agencies in the west. They are more difficult and more challenging. Intelligence threats are more diverse, more networked, more ideologically fragmented and more technologically enabled. In that context, it's essential that parliament give ASIO a lawful but carefully controlled capacity to compel information from individuals who are terrorists, who want to commit terrorist acts and who would otherwise withhold information for the purposes of terrorist acts—especially when we know that the acquisition of that information could prevent serious harm or danger to large amounts of Australians and Australia's national security.</para>
<para>There are legitimate concerns about overreach. I have to say, while we're here today, I regard the program on <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> last night as an example of undermining our national security agency. We should be careful about the legislative constructs for overreach. But, when we hear the ASIO director-general make an unprecedented intervention in the public domain, we should also know that it is not the role of journalists to undermine national security agencies without absolutely certifiable and trusted information that is reliable, and I think we have to take the director-general's public message about the protection of ASIO seriously. It is, in my experience as a former minister and as a member of this House, one of our best agencies. It works reliably and diligently in the national interest. It's careful, it's lawful, it's methodical, and it does its job.</para>
<para>When it comes to overreach, my colleague and the then shadow minister for home affairs, Mr Hastie, acknowledged that, in the second reading debate on the predecessor bill, there are people on both sides who approach powers with caution. The opposition has always been alive to these concerns. It's why we committed, in 2001 and after, to have these mechanisms sunsetted, to have them closely scrutinised and to go before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We've always believed in the proper construction and the proper oversight of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and inquiries into this bill.</para>
<para>Over the course of that inquiry, including through detailed questioning of ASIO and other witnesses, the concerns have been tested and, I believe, met. Some contributors to that inquiry argued compulsory questioning powers are inherently excessive and should not be broadened; other contributors suggested infrequent use demonstrates that they're unnecessary. Ultimately, while in a parliamentary democracy which is committed to the rule of law and freedom, we understand those arguments. We also understand that terrorism is a very thorny problem.</para>
<para>Agencies require special powers to be able to tackle ideological based terrorism—not just after the episodes happen but in advance and while they are happening. The fact that these powers are rarely used should give us confidence as a parliament that our ASIO is doing the right thing. But they must have the power available. It's the purpose of government and the purpose of ASIO to be available and ready to act to protect the lives and safety of law-abiding citizens at critical moments in time. So that's why we believe the evidence points in the other direction. These powers have been used only 20 times in more than 22 years. That's a reason for every member of this House to have confidence in ASIO. To us, that's not a sign of overreach. It's restraint, proportionality and the disciplined operational judgement of an agency dedicated to Australia's national security. They are in effect a last resort. Those numbers show that, and they've historically been used only where other intelligence gathering agencies and avenues of methods of interrogation have failed. Witnesses before the committee struggled to identify any evidence or abuse of these powers because there is none. They were given no concrete examples of systemic problems or that these powers are inappropriate at a moment of national crisis or when a person wants to commit serious harm against fellow Australians or against our country. These safeguards are working. They've always been firmly in place, and they would remain in place under this legislation.</para>
<para>In the first instance, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that a compulsory questioning warrant is necessary. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security also retains strong oversight powers, including the ability to be present during the questioning and provide real-time scrutiny—another protection, a very important protection. ASIO cannot arrest, charge or prosecute. It remains the case. It cannot gather evidence for criminal prosecution. Its activities remain subject to scrutiny by the IGIS, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the PJCIS and the Attorney-General. We have layers upon layers of oversight and scrutiny, as we should. They exist, they are robust and they work. This bill also strengthens the framework governing prescribed authorities, further reinforcing independence and oversight.</para>
<para>The opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill. We do so because the changes it encompasses are reasonable and responsive to the threats that Australia face. We've just seen the tragic attempt at Bondi to undermine national security, to directly threaten not just Australians of Jewish descent but the safety and order of our streets to strike fear and terror into our whole society. As a society, we stood up and resisted the terrorists at Bondi, and we have said to them that they will not strike fear and terror into our hearts or on our streets or divide us further. The country has come together.</para>
<para>But we would be naive not to understand that we are living through a period of increasingly dynamic and dangerous security risks. Our agencies need special powers to deal with that. They must be contemporary. The risks are more numerous and more acute than were under contemplation in 2001, when the first tranche of this legislation came through when we had 9/11. We now have the prospect of digital and cyber and radicalisation online almost every day all around the world. The critics who are arguing that this legislation is unjust because it could compel innocent people to undergo questioning are not thinking this through. I can say to this parliament that we support the government on this because the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party, the parties of government in this House and in the Senate, understand intelligence work and understand that our security agencies are dedicated to this country and our national security.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment today after a difficult 24 hours for ASIO, after an unwarranted assault on them through the media and after some unwarranted questioning by some parliamentarians over the past few months, to say to ASIO that we know the brave men and women who work there are as brave as every frontline responder in the police and in the other agencies of government that work for our country. We know that they're actually in there protecting our national security every single day, that they care deeply about the safety of every Australian and that their work is vital. Intelligence work in the modern era is as vital as any other part of the government's function, and we must have them supported. We must have them know that this parliament believes in their mission and understands that they are passionate Australians of all backgrounds, working together to prevent strikes and undermining of our country.</para>
<para>In short, the opposition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—and every single member of the Liberal and National parties supports ASIO. We support the work of the men and women who take on that cause every single day on behalf of our country. We know it is serious. We know that what they consider every day is actually a threat to our safety and security. We know that the pressure is high on an agency like ASIO. The capacity for error is high because it is intense, it is fast paced and it is serious. These are bad and evil actors all around the world—and, sadly, within our country—that want to do harm to other people. One of the protections we have is ASIO.</para>
<para>We'll be supporting this bill. We commend the government on keeping pace with national security measures. We especially commend them for keeping pace with those measures in the wake of our worst onshore domestic terrorist incident. We must reinforce our security agencies. We must support the work of our intelligence agencies. For that fundamental reason, we thank the government for the introduction of this bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7425" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7426" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR</name>
    <name.id>315618</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are dramatically overrepresented in systems that intervene when things go wrong, like child protection, out-of-home care and youth detention, while being underrepresented in systems that provide opportunity, stability and early support. When we say Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are far more likely to be removed from their families or detained at a young age, we are not talking about isolated failures; we're talking about patterns that repeat across jurisdictions, across generations and across policy cycles.</para>
<para>During my time at the St Vincent de Paul Society as a regional director, I had the opportunity to look after the Vinnies Support Centre but also to work very closely with Vinnies Services. I recall a number of the workers in those teams telling me that, sometimes, children who come to their attention have already been failed by multiple agencies—a very similar vein of what was presented through the contribution of the member for Warringah. Health concerns are flagged but not followed up, school disengagement is noted but not supported, and family stress is recognised but left to escalate. By the time the system intervenes decisively, the harm is already entrenched. That is the cost of disconnected systems and absent accountability. These bills respond to that reality by establishing a national commissioner whose sole focus is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, not as an add-on to an existing role but as a dedicated national advocate with real authority.</para>
<para>The creation of a national commissioner fills a longstanding gap in our governance framework. While there are many individuals and organisations that are doing very important and vital work at the state, territory and community level, there has been no single independent national voice empowered to look across systems, identify where they are failing and press governments to act. The commissioner established under these bills is not intended to manage programs or deliver services. Instead, the role is designed to ask the harder questions: Why do the same problems keep occurring? Why do the same children keep cycling through the same systems? And why does reform move so slowly when the consequences are absolutely very severe? The commissioner will provide advice that is informed not only by data and policy analysis but by the voices and experiences of children and young people themselves. These bills ensure that those voices are no longer an afterthought.</para>
<para>One of the most important features of this legislation is that it deliberately moves away from a deficient based narrative. Rather than defining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people solely by disadvantage, these bills recognise their strengths—cultural knowledge, resilience, leadership and connection to community. The commissioner's role is not just to identify what is broken but to highlight what works and to promote approaches that are community led, culturally safe and evidence based. That matters because, too often, good practice exists in the pockets but never scales up. Programs that succeed in one place fail to influence policy elsewhere. Lessons are learnt, and then they're forgotten, and then they're relearnt a number of years later. A nationally coordinated commission helps break this cycle.</para>
<para>This bill equips the national commissioner with a broad and practical set of functions. The commissioner will be able to examine how Commonwealth policies and programs affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and to advise government on how those policies can be improved. They will be able to investigate systemic issues, not individual cases, and make recommendations aimed at preventing harm rather than responding to it after the fact. They will be able to speak publicly, to advocate independently and to engage directly with children and young people across the country. Importantly, the commissioner will also play a role in supporting young people to understand and assert their own rights. That empowerment is very critical. This commission helps ensure that children know they have a voice and that their voice matters.</para>
<para>One of the consistent failings in this policy space has been the absence of sustained accountability. Targets are set. Reports are written. Recommendations are accepted. But then what happens? This legislation embeds accountability by giving the commissioner the power to monitor, report and advocate over time. It creates a mechanism that cannot be quietly wound back when attention shifts elsewhere. This is particularly important in areas such as out-of-home care and youth justice, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children continue to experience disproportionate harm. The commissioner will be able to draw attention to systemic drivers like poverty, housing insecurity, intergenerational trauma and a lack of access to services, and to push governments to address causes not just symptoms. That work directly supports the Closing the Gap framework and strengthens our collective ability to meet those commitments.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to listen to a number of contributions, including that of the member for Moncrieff, and I do recall that she spoke about duplications. This commission is not about duplications. The national commissioner will work alongside state and territory children's commissioners, guardians and advocates as well as other Commonwealth roles, including the National Children's Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. The bill establishes clear pathways for collaboration and referral, ensuring issues are handled by the most appropriate body while maintaining a national overview. This coordinated approach reflects the reality that children's lives do not fit neatly within bureaucratic boundaries. Their experiences go across jurisdictions, portfolios and responsibilities, and our systems must be able to do the same.</para>
<para>The decision to establish this commission through primary legislation is deliberate and necessary. Without legislative backing, the role lacks the independence, the authority and the durability required to drive change. Interim or administrative arrangements simply do not provide the tools needed to conduct inquiries, compel information or report formally to parliament. Legislation sends a clear message that this commission is not temporary, discretionary or symbolic. It is a lasting part of our national architecture, and that matters, particularly to communities who have seen too many well-intentioned initiatives come and go.</para>
<para>The call for a legislated national commissioner has not come from government alone. It has come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advocates, leaders and organisations over many years. More than 70 organisations have publicly supported the establishment of this role, recognising the need for an independent national body dedicated to children and young people. The development of this bill has been informed by extensive consultation, and the involvement of the current national commissioner, Adjunct Professor Sue-Anne Hunter, has been integral to shaping its design. The legislation also reflects agreed minimum standards developed through shared decision-making processes, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and governance. This is reform grounded in partnership, not imposed from above.</para>
<para>Since the commission was established in early 2025, meaningful work has already begun. Relationships have been built with community controlled organisations, networks have been formed across jurisdictions and advice has been provided on policy reforms affecting children and young people. Foundational work, including the development of child-safe and culturally appropriate engagement frameworks, has laid the groundwork for the commission's future role. This bill ensures that that work is not only continued but strengthened.</para>
<para>This legislation represents an opportunity to do something that has too often been delayed: to implant accountability, elevate voices and confront systemic failure with honesty and resolve. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people deserve systems that see them, hear them and support them to thrive. They deserve policies shaped with them, not just for them. By passing this bill, we take a meaningful step towards the future—one where government listens earlier, acts smarter and remains accountable much longer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>All children and young people deserve to grow up with their rights, interests and wellbeing protected. I'm very pleased to say that the National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People is joining us today in the gallery to see the final stages of what we hope will be the passage of this very important legislation, the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026 and the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026.</para>
<para>I want to thank all members who spoke in this debate, particularly those members who supported the bills. I say to those members who have indicated that they won't be supporting these bills that I understand what some of them have said about not wanting to replace real action with bureaucracy, and I want to reassure them that that is the very furthest thing from what we intend with these bills. The simple truth is that we have let down children and young people in this country, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, over many decades. We set out some targets in the Closing the Gap strategy, and in many areas we're going the wrong way on those targets, or the inequalities that have been identified are stubbornly persistent. We can't keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different outcome. We need to change what we're doing. In both Lil Gordon, the interim commissioner, and now Sue-Anne Hunter, the permanent National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Young People, we have extraordinary advocates who I am convinced will make a difference to some of these stubborn inequalities that we as a government are determined to shift. We know there is more that we need to do as a government and as a nation to shift this inequality. We expect more from the states and territories. We know that communities and families need to be supported to deliver more for the children they love and care for.</para>
<para>These bills will legislate the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People under new primary legislation. This will be the first permanent statutory agency independent from government with a dedicated focus on promoting the rights, interests, development, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. This bill empowers the national commissioner to speak directly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and drive greater accountability for the systems and policies that affect those young people. The government will invest $33½ million over the forward estimates and $8.4 million ongoing to ensure that the national commissioner can deliver on their statutory functions and responsibilities.</para>
<para>Legislating an independent national commissioner responds to decades of advocacy by many First Nations leaders. When we get it right for children and young people, our nation benefits. When we get it right for this generation, every subsequent generation benefits.</para>
<para>I commend the office of the commissioner and the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [09:49]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Claydon)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>95</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abdo, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ambihaipahar, A.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Berry, C. G.</name>
                  <name>Boele, N.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Briskey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Campbell, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Clutterham, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Coffey, R. K.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Comer, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Cook, K. M. G.</name>
                  <name>Cook, P. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C. J.</name>
                  <name>France, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>French, T. A.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P. P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Gregg, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Holzberger, R. A. V.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jarrett, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Jordan-Baird, M. A. M.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Moncrieff, D. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Ng, G. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. J. H.</name>
                  <name>Soon, X.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Teesdale, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Witty, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aldred, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Batt, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaffey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Penfold, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Rebello, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Small, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Venning, T. H.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, T. R.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7426" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:01]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Sharon Claydon) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>97</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abdo, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ambihaipahar, A.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Berry, C. G.</name>
                  <name>Boele, N.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Briskey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Campbell, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Clutterham, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Coffey, R. K.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Comer, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Cook, K. M. G.</name>
                  <name>Cook, P. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C. J.</name>
                  <name>France, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>French, T. A.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P. P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Gregg, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Holzberger, R. A. V.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jarrett, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Jordan-Baird, M. A. M.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Moncrieff, D. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Ng, G. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. J. H.</name>
                  <name>Soon, X.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Teesdale, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>White, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Witty, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aldred, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Batt, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaffey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Penfold, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Rebello, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Small, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Venning, T. H.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, T. R.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7419" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7418" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To all those that continue to wear the uniform, our veterans and your families: the freedoms that we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles, wars and sacrifice that you have made. Through natural disasters, peacekeeping and combat operations, our Defence Force members have served with honour and distinction. When they transition out, they expect to get looked after and to make sure that their government has the policies and the framework to make sure that they get the support that they need. But, tragically, we have seen far too many of our brave men and women succumb to their war within—served their nation proud but died by suicide. That is a national shame. It is something that we in parliament should never accept as being normal or a reality.</para>
<para>Our veterans, our Defence Force members, deserve the respect, the dignity and the support that they need. Establishing a national commissioner is a step in the right direction. The coalition called for and established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide because veterans and their families deserve truth, accountability and reform. We took that step recognising that too many families had been ignored for too long and that confidence in the system was broken. The royal commission confirmed what families and the ex-service community had been saying: there were systematic failures, and it required systematic oversight and structural reform. It made clear that lasting reform requires independent, system-wide oversight across the Defence and veteran ecosystem, not oversight embedded within departments.</para>
<para>One of its most significant recommendations was the creation of a permanent, independent statutory oversight body to drive reform and measure progress. These bills, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, are intended to give effect to that recommendation, and the coalition supports that objective. Independent oversight with real powers, public reporting and parliamentary accountability are essential if reform is going to be genuine, measurable and sustained. Oversight bodies without teeth do not drive change; they produce reports that gather dust.</para>
<para>Establishing the commission through standalone legislation is the right model, and it is the model the coalition argued for from the beginning. The government's original attempt to create the commission through a late amendment to unrelated legislation was rushed, poorly handled and lacked proper consultation with the parliament and the veteran community. A major structural reform body should never be created through a last-minute legislative insertion that undermines confidence and scrutiny and the importance of it. Parliament was asked to wave through a complex oversight body with limited visibility and limited stakeholder engagement. That is not how serious veteran policy should be made. The coalition supported the amended vets bill only to avoid delaying long-overdue compensation and rehabilitation reforms for veterans, not because we supported the government's process or structure. We made it clear at the time that the commission should be established through standalone legislation, entirely separate from defence and DVA, with stronger independence and guarantees.</para>
<para>We moved an amendment to ensure that a dedicated Senate inquiry could provide proper scrutiny of the commission model. That inquiry confirmed widespread stakeholder concern about independence, structure, powers, family inclusion and clarity on remit. Many of the improvements, including the true independence of this standalone bill, exist because of the scrutiny that was forced, not because they were built into the government's original design. During the Senate inquiry, stakeholders were clear that the commission must be genuinely independent from Defence and DVA, have clear authority and operate transparently, and this bill is stronger because of the contributions of those individuals and ex-service organisations.</para>
<para>The inquiry and information-gathering powers are appropriately strong because weak oversight powers produce weak oversight outcomes. Those powers are balanced with safeguards, warrants, procedural fairness and the rights of response, which ensures both effectiveness and fairness. Public reporting and mandatory tabling in parliament are critical. Oversight only works when findings are visible and cannot be buried inside agencies. Mandatory government responses within set timeframes matter. Recommendations must trigger action, not silence.</para>
<para>It is also important to put on the record that this is not a new idea from this government. The coalition introduced legislation to establish an independent national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention back in 2020. My friend the member for Gippsland stood next to me and the then prime minister in the courtyard after meeting with families and ex-service organisations and announced this as a policy, as a bill, as something that we wanted to bring forward to make sure that we weren't going to be burying any more of our bravest, by having a strong, independent national commissioner who would investigate and shine a light into where the problems had been and to learn from it so we could make sure that our people were not dying by suicide.</para>
<para>The bill that we proposed was for an independent statutory oversight body with basically the same structural features that are now being implemented some six years later. Labor opposed that legislation at the time, and it was for political purposes. Their stated position then was that a royal commission was necessary first, but they then rejected an immediate independent oversight mechanism that could have begun driving reform and accountability years earlier. As a result, the establishment of an independent statutory oversight body was delayed. The delay matters because early independent oversight working alongside the royal commission could have accelerated system reform and earlier accountability across DVA and Defence.</para>
<para>The structure Labor is now implementing closely mirrors what the coalition proposed after having voted against it. It is fair to say that if the coalition's national commissioner model had been supported instead of opposed, independent oversight would already be mature and operating. The coalition will support this framework now because veterans and their families cannot afford further delay, but the history should be acknowledged. Labor put politics ahead of veteran wellbeing five years ago and is finally delivering on the commission. Later today, I'll be moving an amendment to this bill. I will speak to that later.</para>
<para>It is important to note that the national commissioner is not here to pull out every individual case. It is to look at the systemic problems and the failures, shine a light on them and make sure we learn from them. I'd really like the national commissioner to not have a job. I'd like that person to not have to review what the coroner has written, speak to people in Defence or speak to families who are heartbroken because their loved one has succumbed to their war within. We shouldn't have lost more people by suicide on Australian soil than we ever did in combat. It is not good enough, and it's a failure of consecutive governments—I don't care what colour shirt you wear.</para>
<para>I stood in the back corner during the pandemic, when we had to have a lectern; we weren't allowed to sit in our seats. I looked up to the gallery and saw mothers of those sons who have died by suicide holding their photos. I remember looking up and saying, 'I'm sorry.' I think every suicide that has happened since I've been elected means I've failed. We have failed. The families have this part of their heart ripped out. We argued, debated and didn't act in the best interests of these families. We were divided; it was politicised. I don't think any political party was immune to it being politicised. It was horrible. It didn't bring their loved ones back. It didn't make their hearts get filled with love again.</para>
<para>But we have an opportunity now to make sure that we're putting in legislation that is right. I don't want to bury any more of my friends. I don't want families to bury any more of their sons and daughters. I don't want wives and husbands burying their loved ones, children growing up without a parent, or mums and dads growing older without their children. That's not what I want to see. I think it's important that, whilst we debate this and highlight different areas, we do it with one thing in the front of our mind: we only sit in this place because of the brave, heroic actions of our Defence Force personnel, our veterans and their families. We owe it to them to make sure that we're doing everything we can to look after them and make sure we're doing everything we can to get them the help they need if they need it. Not all veterans are broken; some of us are. We're veterans, not victims. We want a hand up, not a handout. But the parliament's job is to make sure that veterans can get the support that they need.</para>
<para>I want to again thank the member for Gippsland. It wasn't an easy time when we were talking about the national commissioner, the royal commission, a global pandemic and everything that was happening. I remember having a long chat with him about what's right. It's very easy to get caught up in the political turmoils and what your political party, the government or the opposition are doing, but it's right to stand up and say: 'Do you know what? This is long overdue. It needs to happen.' We need to be sitting with the families without saying, 'This is what you get.' We're asking them what they need, because we failed them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FRANCE</name>
    <name.id>270198</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I consider myself to be very lucky to be representing an electorate that has a large veteran and defence population. Gallipoli Barracks is right on our doorstep, and we have approximately 3,500 veterans—more than that, I think now—and approximately 2,000 serving members of the Defence Force. They're spread out across Warner, Albany Creek and the hills district. We really value our veteran and defence community.</para>
<para>Last month I had the privilege of visiting Gallipoli Barracks with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Matt Keogh, but it wasn't the first time that I had had the opportunity to visit Gallipoli Barracks. Over 10 years ago, before I got involved in politics and while I was still recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder, I was invited to Gallipoli Barracks on R U OK? Day to talk with serving Defence Force members about my personal experience with post-traumatic stress disorder, to talk through the real struggle, every day, that was getting out of bed and that was combating fear. I got to talk directly with individual Defence Force members, at their desks, about their stories and about the sacrifices that they had made—of family time, of being away a long time, and of witnessing things overseas that almost all of us will never have to experience. I stood next to one serving Defence Force member who had got back to work only recently, in the few weeks before I spoke at the barracks, and we talked directly about our experience of post-traumatic stress disorder. He was in tears, and I was in tears. I can tell you that those stories and those conversations, which I had over 10 years ago, have stayed with me to this day.</para>
<para>Gallipoli Barracks sits just outside the boundaries of Dickson. For decades it's really shaped the character, the rhythm and the identity of our local community. I love that defence personnel and their families proudly call our Dickson suburbs home, and their presence is felt in every single corner of my electorate. They're not just residents; they are neighbours, team mates, volunteers, mentors and leaders. You see our veterans and serving Defence Force members coaching the junior footy team on Saturday mornings, helping out at school fetes, supporting local small businesses and lending a hand wherever our community needs it. Our local RSL subbranches are not just a place for mateship and for recognising the contribution that veterans and our defence community make every single day. They're also a real lifeline for our whole community and for so many families.</para>
<para>Their service to our nation is something we honour deeply. But their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families is something we have, as all elected members, a responsibility to protect. The Albanese Labor government is squarely focused on improving support for veterans and their families. It's why we've launched a new $24 million veteran employment transition program. We allocated, in the last parliament, half a billion dollars to fast-track compensation claims for our veterans, with about 500 extra people being employed to make sure those claims get done as quickly as possible. We also announced $78 million for a new veteran and family wellbeing agency, which I think is incredibly important. That is why the establishment of this independent Defence and Veterans' Service Commission represents such an important and long-overdue step.</para>
<para>For too long, many veterans and their families have been let down by systems that were meant to support them. These are people who stepped forward to serve their country, often at great personal cost, only to find themselves navigating a confusing, fragmented and sometimes indifferent system when they needed help the most.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide laid bare the scale of the problem. It revealed not just isolated failings but deep systemic issues—issues that have persisted across governments, across agencies and across generations of our veterans. The royal commission made it clear that what was needed was not another review, not another temporary taskforce and not another layer of bureaucracy. What was needed was an independent body with real authority, a body with the teeth to look at the whole system, not just individual cases, and the mandate to drive meaningful, lasting reform—a body capable of identifying systemic risks, holding agencies accountable and ensuring that the voices of veterans and their families are not only heard but placed at the very centre of decision-making.</para>
<para>The independent defence and veterans commission is designed to do exactly that. This commission will provide independent oversight and shine a light on the issues that have been allowed to persist for far too long. It will report directly to the minister and the parliament, ensuring transparency and accountability at the highest levels. It will have the power to investigate, to compel information when necessary and to scrutinise the performance of agencies responsible for supporting defence personnel, veterans and their families. Importantly, it will not be limited to reacting to crisis. It will be proactive—which I think is incredibly important—identifying emerging risks and recommending reforms before problems escalate. At every step, it will ensure that the lived experience of veterans and their families is respected, valued and acted upon. For communities like Dickson, this matters deeply. With Gallipoli Barracks on our doorstep, we understand better than most the challenges that defence families face: the frequent relocations, the long periods of separation, the uncertainty and the unique pressures that come with military life.</para>
<para>When defence members transition out of service, they deserve a system that supports them, not one that leaves them navigating a maze of agencies, forms and conflicting advice. They deserve clarity, compassion, a clear pathway to the services that they need. Their families deserve confidence that help will be there when they need it, whether that's mental health support, financial assistance or guidance through the transition process. Our serving members deserve to know that wellbeing is actually a national priority—not something that is considered only after their service ends but something that is protected throughout their entire career and beyond.</para>
<para>This reform is about rebuilding trust—trust that has been eroded over many decades by systems that were too slow, too complex and too disconnected from the real experience of veterans and their families. It is about ensuring that no veteran feels invisible, unheard or left to struggle. It is about acknowledging the sacrifices made by those who have worn our nation's uniform and ensuring that the systems around them finally serve them back. When someone puts their hand up to serve Australia, they should never have to fight for support when they return home.</para>
<para>The independent defence and veterans commission is not a symbolic gesture; it is a structural reform designed to create lasting change. It will help ensure that the lessons of the royal commission are not forgotten, that the recommendations are implemented and that the momentum for reform is maintained long after the headlines fade. It will help create a system that is simpler, more compassionate and more responsive—a system that recognises the dignity of veterans and their families and treats them with the respect they deserve.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering the change that veterans have, for a very long time, been calling for. This is not just a policy commitment; it is a moral commitment. It is coming from the heart. It is a recognition that we owe a debt of care to those who have served, and that debt does not end when their service ends. Communities like Dickson, with such a strong defence presence, understand just how important this reform is. We understand the impact of service every day—the pride, the resilience and the strength, but also the challenges, the transitions and the moments when support is needed most.</para>
<para>I reflect on my own experience with post-traumatic stress disorder. I was one of the lucky ones. I got psychology appointments every two weeks. It was acted upon early, identified early, recognised and supported, and it made all the difference. Many of our veterans have had to go through extremely traumatic experiences of PTSD, and their recovery has been delayed or ignored. They've been embarrassed to talk about it. This needs to change.</para>
<para>By establishing the independent Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, we are taking a significant step toward a future where veterans and their families are supported by a system that is worthy of their service; a future where their wellbeing is protected, their voices are central and their experiences shape the policies that affect them; and a future where no veteran or serving defence personnel feel left behind. I commend the bills to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on these important bills, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, and to support the work of the member for Herbert, all the members of this parliament who have done their duty in service to our nation and everybody who has done their duty in service to our nation in the defence forces. Public service in all its forms is a noble calling, but to be prepared to risk and sacrifice one's own personal, physical and mental wellbeing for the task of defending our nation is one of the most noble things anybody can pursue. The response must be that our nation must back those people who are prepared to take risks to back themselves, and stand up for those who can't fulfil that service in pursuit of defence of our country and, of course, the broader environment of peace and security around the world.</para>
<para>That's the basis on which we always supported a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide and ongoing support for defence and veterans services, with their need for ongoing support and assistance. We know that, tragically, as a consequence of the royal commission, so many men and women who have served this nation honourably and in a decent way continue to endure the consequences of conflict and the risks that lead to a significant reduction in quality of life after their term of service.</para>
<para>These bills are important because they're about acknowledging our responsibility to our veterans. They're about acknowledging the responsibility this nation has to those people who are prepared to make a sacrifice in pursuit of our national interest. I know the member for Herbert has already given a stirring speech. When I go to the RSLs in the Goldstein electorate, this topic of what support we're providing for our veterans continues to come through. A lot of the RSLs in my electorate were established at a time after the Second World War, and, as a consequence, a lot of the veterans that now visit those RSLs are from more recent conflicts, and World War II veterans tend to be lesser in number in comparison to years past. But that doesn't mean the community doesn't have an enduring concern about their health and wellbeing, whether they're in the community or elsewhere.</para>
<para>The overwhelming majority of Australians fundamentally understand the debt and the burden this nation owes those people who wear the uniform in defence of our country, and they want to see agencies and entities exist to support them. We have the DVA, but making sure we have the Defence and Veterans Service Commissioner is an important part of that because we want to address the deep problems of PTSD, mental health and wellbeing, stopping suicide so that service in our nation doesn't become a pathway to a reduction in quality and standard of living.</para>
<para>We know that there's a lot of work to be done. It's an enduring responsibility. It is going to be one that is not going to be solved with a flick of a switch. It's going to be from a nation that commits to invest in their veterans to provide pathways. I know that there is already a lot of work that is done in this space. Many years ago I went and saw the St Kilda Football Club, which at the time was not in my electorate but now actually is in my electorate due to a redistribution by the AEC. They highlighted that a lot of the challenges that veterans have once they cease their service is equivalent to the sense of identity and place that footballers have. That's their commentary, not mine. But I can see what it means—where your identity and your sense of purpose in life is melded and what happens when that sense of purpose is taken away. It's not the only profession, of course. They were looking at the parallels and overlaps between the two, whether there were things they could learn from the ADF and equally whether there were things they could do to support the ADF in their important work and to support people after they finish. Identity, place and purpose, which are connected, once removed raise deep issues for many people about where they fit in the world and the role they play, particularly if they have the consequences of conflict lived out in their memories. That can significantly impact their mental health and wellbeing.</para>
<para>This bill to me is a fundamental proposition about how we show, honour and respect our veterans and how there is nearly no end to the responsibility we share to invest in our veterans so they can live out the best of their healthy lives. For those people who make that sacrifice and are prepared to wear the uniform and defend our nation, what we should want at the end of their service is not just to provide them with the support they need to move on from their service. Of course, in many cases, we want them to continue to act as reservists continuing to support the ADF. But we should also want those who cease their service to go on and live healthy and productive lives. By 'healthy and productive lives' we don't mean just keeping them alive; we mean healthy and productive lives where they form families and live out what they deserve as a consequence of their service. It's what they fought or enlisted for. I'm very happy to be supporting the principles of this process and this legislation, because I think it goes right to the heart of the responsibility, particularly of those who have not worn a uniform, to those who are prepared to step up and do so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to speak in support of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, a bill that goes to the very heart of our responsibility to those who have served our nation and to the families who serve alongside them. Before I turn to the technical provisions of the bill, I want to begin somewhere very human and very local for me. My electorate of Paterson is home to Australia's premier F-35 base at Williamtown. It is also home to the Wedgetail, which has provided such incredible capability in places like Ukraine in recent times. Around 5,000 people not dissimilar to those in this building work on that base each and every day. I could not be prouder to represent those people both serving and who have served there in the past.</para>
<para>It is a popular posting, I have to say. In fact, many people come back to Port Stephens and our local area because of their time at the Williamtown base. It is a beautiful area, and they love it, and they bring their families back. One of the most powerful examples of community led support for veterans can be found on the beautiful waterways of Port Stephens. Invictus Australia works closely with the Port Stephens Dragon Boat Club. It brings together veterans, current serving Defence family members and members of the wider local community in a way that is inclusive, practical, deeply meaningful and can make those shoulder muscles burn. This is not just about sport; it is about belonging, it is about connection, and it is about shared experience and mutual support. Members of this club speak openly about the joy of being out on the water, about the camaraderie that develops stroke by stroke and about how being part of a team again has profound benefits for their overall health and wellbeing. For many, it provides a sense of purpose and identity during those times when they can feel lost post service. For families, it offers understanding, solidarity and reassurance that they're not walking the path alone. It is genuinely incredible to see the effect that local Invictus initiatives like this have in supporting our communities. They remind us that recovery, resilience and wellbeing are not abstract concepts. They are lived experiences shaped by the systems we build and the support that we choose to provide, and it is precisely because of those lived experiences that this bill matters.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was one of the most significant and confronting inquiries ever undertaken in this country. Its findings were sobering, its recommendations were clear, and it deemed recommendation 122—the establishment of a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the entire defence ecosystem—as its most important recommendation. The language was not used lightly. The royal commission recognised that without sustained, independent oversight meaningful system reform would not occur, and what does 'meaningful system of oversight and reform' mean? It means that we save more Australian lives and that we make the quality of our veterans lives better. That's what that really means.</para>
<para>Fragmented responsibility, short-term initiatives and the lack of accountability had contributed to devastating outcomes for serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force. I want to take a moment to remember Julie-Ann Finney. I'm sure those of us who've been in this place long enough will remember her campaigning particularly hard. She had endured the dreadful loss, which no parent should have to endure, of her child taking their life—her son David. She fought absolutely doggedly to ensure that there was a royal commission and that her son's life had real meaning, and I pay testimony to her today.</para>
<para>In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of recommendation 122, the Albanese Labor government acted. In February 2025, it legislated the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and I am proud to say that it has been up and running since the end of September last year. But today's bill is about strengthening that foundation. The role of this new statutory entity is clear: provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform with the explicit aim of improving suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for defence and veteran communities.</para>
<para>We put so much effort—and money, to be frank—into training our defence personnel, and they deserve the best training. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to support them. It is one thing to train people, but it is another to look after them, to not break them in the first place and then to look after them once they have served our nation. It's something that I feel very passionate about. We talk about recruitment and we put a lot of effort into recruitment, but we've also got a concentrate on retention. In retaining our people, their wellbeing is an important thing, and, when they do finish their service, we must care for them and put in place things like this commission to ensure that it is meaningful.</para>
<para>The commission will have a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention. That is imperative. It will ensure that agencies responsible for implementing the royal commission's recommendations are not only encouraged but required in order to deliver long-term change. It will drive the systemic reforms needed to reduce rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members. For that work to be credible and for it to be trusted by defence and, importantly, the veteran community the commission must have genuine independence. It must have clear functions and it must have the powers necessary to do its job effectively, and that is what this bill seeks to deliver.</para>
<para>The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill builds on work already undertaken by this parliament earlier this year, when schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill was brought in and subsequently examined through a Senate inquiry. That inquiry was thorough. It received submissions from veterans, their families, advocacy organisations, experts and stakeholders across the defence ecosystem. It was a thorough investigation. The evidence presented was thoughtful, at times challenging and always grounded in lived experience—often very painful lived experience. Importantly, our government listened, and not only did we listen but we acted. The submissions, the evidence and the committee's report have directly informed and shaped the development of this bill, which implements several key recommendations.</para>
<para>First, the establishment of standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission is critical. Standalone legislation reinforces the independence of the commission and reflects its unique role in overseeing system-wide reform. Independence isn't symbolic; it is foundational for the credibility and authority of the commissioner's work.</para>
<para>Second, the bill ensures that the commission's functions explicitly include reference to veterans' families. This is something we have heard time and time again. I am joined by some of my colleagues, and indeed you, Deputy Speaker Freelander—we were all elected in 2016. One of the first things I did was engage with my veterans community and my defence personnel community, and they were at pains to tell me that their families were pivotal in their lives. That's where this piece of legislation is important. For the first time, we're recognising families. We know the important role they play. They are the additional defence force of our country, and I thank them for their support of our serving personnel and our veterans. The Albanese government is pleased that through this legislation we are formally recognising them.</para>
<para>Third, the commission's function and powers have been reviewed and strengthened. Proposed amendments arising from the inquiry process have been adopted. We listened when there were changes that needed to be made to ensure the commission could operate effectively, without obstruction. This bill further strengthens independence by ensuring the commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General, following a merit-based public recruitment process. This transparency reinforces confidence in the role and ensures appointments are based on capability, integrity and experience. The commissioner's role is an incredibly important role in our country. The bill also strengthens the commissioner's power to ensure accountability. It enhances the ability to access necessary information, and it removes barriers that could otherwise limit the effectiveness of inquiries or, importantly, oversight.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill expands the scope of witness protection. This is a crucial reform. People must feel safe to provide information to the commissioner, without fear of reprisals and without blowback. Protecting those who come forward is essential. If we are serious about uncovering systemic issues and driving genuine reform, this is pivotal.</para>
<para>Transparency is another key pillar of this legislation. The bill improves the transparency of the commissioner's work, ensuring accountability not only for those subject to its oversight but for the commission itself. This includes statutory deadlines for the completion of two major inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations. Those deadlines—2 December 2027 and 2 December 2030—align with the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's response and ensure progress is measured, visible and sustained over time. If you can't measure it, you can't find out whether you're doing the best, so I'm pleased that those dates are locked in. These timeframes recognise that system reform is complex and ongoing, and they also make clear that delay and inaction are not acceptable to this government. At its core, this bill reflects a government that has listened to feedback from stakeholders—who are often family—and taken action.</para>
<para>The changes before the House today ensure the commissioner has the tools necessary to drive system reform and improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and former serving Australian Defence Force members. This legislation will ensure agencies are held accountable to consider and respond to the commissioner's recommendations, and the enduring nature of the commission will ensure that the voices of veterans and their families continue to be heard after the headlines fade. Systemic issues that contribute to suicide in our veteran community cannot be addressed through one-off responses or short-term commitments. They require sustained attention, independent oversight and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. This bill delivers exactly that.</para>
<para>For the veterans paddling together in Port Stephens, for the families supporting them and for every serving and ex-serving member of the Australian Defence Force, who deserve a system that works for them, this legislation matters. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like the member for Paterson, who has just finished her contribution—a good one at that—I too acknowledge Julie-Ann Finney and her role in supporting not just her son's legacy but indeed veterans per se. I acknowledge the veteran serving members in the chamber at the moment and thank them for their service: the member for Solomon and the member for Herbert—the shadow minister at the table—who went through Kapooka, Blamey Barracks, 1st Recruit Training Battalion at Wagga Wagga in 2006, when Simone Wilkie was the first female commandant at that important and strategic training centre. As all politics is local, I acknowledge the role that Kapooka has in turning out the best and the bravest, of whom the member for Herbert was one. I acknowledge he went on to serve at Singleton, 1RAR out of Townsville, and East Timor, appreciating and recognising the fact that the Prime Minister has just made a successful diplomatic visit there, and I acknowledge the role the member for Herbert played in Afghanistan and his tours of duty there.</para>
<para>It's not easy being a veteran, and we need to acknowledge that not all veterans are broken, but, for those who are, we need to be there for them, because we, as a parliament, send them to do their duty for and on our behalf. We, as a parliament, send them into harm's way, and many of them feel the lasting lifelong effects of their service once they hang that uniform up. Given the fact that we do send them into conflict, into battle, and put their lives on the line on the front line, we need to be there for them if they do need that support, and, at some stage or other, they will all need our support. I would urge and encourage any veteran to absolutely make sure that they use all of the services that are available to them. I know that the Department of Veterans' Affairs, for some veterans, is a bit of a trigger, but there are very, very good people in DVA—there are—and they are there to provide you with the wraparound support that you need as a veteran.</para>
<para>I also, given the fact that, as I say, all politics is local—and this is political—I want to acknowledge the role that Bob and Gladys Bak play at Bethungra Integrated Servicepeople's Association and the role that Jacqui Vincent and her colleagues play at Cootamundra. The drop-in centre in the main street, Parker Street, of that town is important. In Wagga Wagga, where there are many veterans, given the fact that we have Kapooka, RAAF Wagga in Forest Hill, where air power starts—it says so on one of the Royal Australian Air Force hangars—and a Navy base, would you believe. It's a long, long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we have a naval presence of 80 or so personnel operating out of Forest Hill, operating in close quarters and in conjunction with those at Kapooka and the nearby RAAF. The veterans avail themselves of the services at Pro Patria in Ashmont, as well as the service provided in the main street, Baylis Street, at the drop-in veterans centre run by the Returned Services League. Every week, just about, we have a commemoration—a service, an event, a marker, a milestone—in the Victory Memorial Gardens, which are also in the main street. It is very much a garrison town.</para>
<para>The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 follows on from the harmonisation that the government is doing with superannuation payments for veterans, and that is a good thing too. It is. For years we have endeavoured to integrate and harmonise MRCA and DRCA and the other various provisions for veterans. It's a big log of work. DVA, of course, are very heavily involved with ministers for veterans' affairs, the defence minister, the government and the opposition. We work as a whole. When it comes to bipartisanship, we need as much as possible to be as one for our veterans, because our veterans deserve no less.</para>
<para>The coalition established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, because veterans and their families deserved truth, they deserved systemic reform and they deserved accountability. There were 122 recommendations from that royal commission. It conducted its eighth hearing block at Mercure Wagga Wagga from 28 November 2022 to 1 December that year and heard some harrowing evidence, sombre evidence, evidence from veterans that needed and demanded an urgent response. But it wasn't just at Wagga Wagga, of course; it was at every hearing the royal commission conducted. We took that step of making sure that royal commission was available to hear from veterans because we knew that too many families had been ignored for too long and confidence in the system for some—not all, but for some—had broken down, and that was indeed unfortunate.</para>
<para>The royal commission confirmed what many, including the Julie-Ann Finneys of the world, had known all along: the ex-service community had been saying that systemic failure was affecting veterans and the services available to them and that we needed to do better as a government, as a parliament and as a nation. It made clear that lasting reform requires independent, system-wide oversight across the veterans and defence ecosystem, not oversight simply and merely and solely embedded with departments. Our departments are very good. Our public servants are exceptional. We should acknowledge that. I do recognise that. But we can always be better. We can always make improvements, and we can always review the performance of what we do as a parliament, the legislation that is in place and the effects that our departments and the law have. And not just the law but indeed such things as the payments, welfare services and health outcomes—all of that, for veterans, prevails across the sector.</para>
<para>One of the most significant recommendations was the creation of a permanent, independent statutory oversight body to drive reform and measure progress. When I was the veterans' affairs minister, for not a very long period between 2017 and 2018, the legislation for veteran-centric reform went into and through the parliament. I'll call that an important first step, because it acknowledged the fact that the lens of veterans had to be placed over every piece of legislation, because our veterans are embedded in all sectors and all areas of endeavour right across society, right across the economy. These bills are intended to give effect to the recommendation of creating that independent, permanent statutory oversight body, and the coalition supports that objective. Oversight bodies without the muscle or the teeth do not drive change. They produce reports, which, unfortunately, gather in in-trays on departmental desks and gather dust. That's not what this is about. That's not what this should be about. I acknowledge the role that the government is playing to endeavour to ensure that that doesn't occur.</para>
<para>Establishing the commission through standalone legislation is the right model, and it's the model that the coalition argued for from the very outset. The government's original attempt to create the commission through a late amendment to unrelated legislation, I have to say, wasn't well done. It was poorly handled. It lacked the proper consultation. One thing I would really urge and encourage this government not to do is rush legislation through this House in haste, because haste leads to poor outcomes. Unfortunately, we have seen that this year already, with the extraordinary sittings of the parliament in January.</para>
<para>The thing is: I know the government has a legislative agenda. I appreciate the government has a huge majority in the House of Representatives. That's the people's wish, and I understand that; I acknowledge that. But don't use that majority to push through legislation, because legislation needs to be debated. Legislation needs to have proper consultation with the stakeholders who will feel its effects the most. Proper consultation through peak groups—and others—is really important because it enables the parliament to get lawmaking right. We have an obligation and a responsibility to the people of Australia to get lawmaking right. We do. I do fear that there is a growing trend that this government is abusing its huge majority in the House of Representatives to push its agenda through. Take the time. Be patient. Be practical; be pragmatic. Make sure that you do that on any piece of legislation—on this and others.</para>
<para>That's why we, from the very beginning of this piece of legislation, urged and encouraged the government to do the work to get it right. Our veterans deserve that bare minimum. They deserve everything that we can do for them. We need to make sure, particularly with veterans legislation, that we don't rush the process—that we don't put it through parliament in record time. A major structural reform body should never be created through a last-minute legislative insertion. It undermines the confidence of sectors in the system, in the people elected to do the job on their behalf. Our veterans do look to us for support, and it must come from both sides.</para>
<para>Parliament was asked to wade through a complex oversight body with very limited visibility and limited stakeholder engagement, and that is not how serious veterans policy should be made. It is not. So I would urge and encourage that we ensure we take the time with this commission and with this bill. I know it will pass this place; it's got the support of the coalition. But we also need to ensure that, if there are any fine-tuning legislative measures that may happen in the house of review, in the Senate, in the upper house, then there's the time taken to do that as well.</para>
<para>Establishing this commission will very much have a flow-on effect throughout our veteran community—certainly in Wagga Wagga, which, as I said, is a triservice military city. It is one of those cities that take our veterans very seriously. It is one of those cities that take our current serving personnel very seriously and ensures that they are welcomed and very much part and parcel of our community—indeed, not just those who are currently wearing a uniform but their partners, their families, their children. I know that providing access to child care, to health services and to all of that—the full gamut—is so very important. Particularly for our veterans, ensuing that the provision of mental health services, welfare and support is there is a crucial part of understanding what our veterans are going through and what they need and ensuring that they can continue to contribute mightily to our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide delivered its final report in September the year before last, it contained 122 recommendations. Recommendation 122, the very last recommendation—last but definitely not least—was that the government establish a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole Defence ecosystem. According to the royal commission, this was its most important recommendation. It went on to say that this recommendation would underpin all the other 121 recommendations that had been made and that it was the most significant action the Australian government could take to address Defence and veteran suicide.</para>
<para>We acknowledged the urgency and significance of the recommendation, and in February 2025 the Albanese Labor government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. It's been up and running since the end of September, and this legislation, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, builds on that early work to have it up and running as a matter of urgency. For people in my electorate of Macquarie, many of whom have families working at RAAF Base Richmond or RAAF Base Glenbrook or are connected to the Defence Force in many, many other ways, knowing that something was happening was really important.</para>
<para>The role of this new statutory oversight entity really is to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice so that the system can be reformed to improve suicide prevention and improve wellbeing outcomes for the Defence and veteran community. The commission has a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention, as it should, having come out of that gut-wrenching royal commission. The establishment and the framework will ensure agencies implementing royal commission recommendations will be held to account by promoting long-term change and driving the changes that are needed to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members.</para>
<para>There are a lot of things that have to happen to make sure this is effective, and one of them is that the commission must have independence. It has to have the functions and powers necessary to meet its objectives. Most importantly, it has to be able to maintain the trust of the veteran and Defence community. This bill delivers on the full implementation of these things by enshrining the legislative establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner and the Defence and Veterans' Service commission into its own standalone legislation, as was always intended.</para>
<para>I note that the previous speaker from the opposition talked about things being rushed. Well, let's look at the work that has been done to get us to this point. The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill builds on the work that was undertaken by the parliament when schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 was passed and a Senate inquiry was undertaken. The submissions, the evidence and the committee's report have informed the development of this bill, and it's led to the implementing of a whole range of recommendations that they had. That's why we now have standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, which reflects its independence.</para>
<para>I think it's really important for people to be aware that the commissioner also has a role in recognising veterans' and Defence members' families. There is no doubt that families of veterans and Defence members play a vital role in the health and wellbeing of those who are serving or have served. They also face some unique challenges themselves, whether it's the moving from location to location or whether it's the fact that the hours and the operational requirements that their family member has mean that they're not always at home when they might want them to be. The whole lifestyle of being in a Defence family is a very different thing from what the average family experiences. So we're really pleased that, through this legislation, we're able to acknowledge the significance of veteran families.</para>
<para>Under this legislation, the commission functions and powers have been reviewed, and there have been a bunch of amendments adopted. I'm very satisfied that this has been done at a pace that allowed for sufficient input from all the stakeholders who are important—most importantly from veterans and Defence personnel and their families.</para>
<para>The bill strengthens the independence of the commissioner by ensuring the role is appointed by the Governor-General after a merit based and public recruitment process. The bill strengthens the commissioner's powers in ensuring accountability and accessing necessary information. The bill also expands the scope of witness protection to ensure that a person is protected in providing information to an inquiry by the commissioner. That's a very important improvement. The bill improves the transparency of the work of the commission to ensure accountability for the commission itself and those who are subject to its oversight. It is not unexpected but very important that we have in this legislation the requirement that the commission will be publicly reporting on the government's progress on implementing the government response to the recommendations of the royal commission on the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's first response—that will be in 2027 and 2030. That public reporting will ensure that anybody will be able to measure it against what was set out to be achieved.</para>
<para>In preparing for this bill, the government has listened to feedback from stakeholders and taken action on it. It's one thing to listen; it's another to act, and that's what this bill does, so that the commissioner has the tools necessary to ensure the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission can drive system reform, because we do need to see an improvement in suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members.</para>
<para>This legislation is one of the steps that we're taking. It was recommendation 122, one of the most important things to do. But we've already seen improvements happening on the ground that go to the objectives of this legislation in my own community, where, as I say, we have the Richmond and Glenbrook RAAF bases, which have been there for a long time. The new Hawkesbury Veteran and Family Hub is part of ensuring that there is an easy point of access for current serving personnel and their families and for veteran personnel and their families. I'm very pleased to be attending an open day tomorrow—sorry, Friday. I'm a day ahead of myself—wishful thinking! I will be back in my electorate on Friday attending the open day for the Hawkesbury Veteran and Family Hub to really showcase the work that has already been done in a temporary location, underneath the Windsor RSL, while there is work being done for the permanent home of the Hawkesbury Veteran and Family Hub. I congratulate Brett and his team on the work they're doing in this interim period, and I also congratulate all of those working to restore the historic former Richmond Court House, which is right in the heart of historic Richmond. It's a building that has not been used and has had no purpose for many years but will come to life to provide a hub and support for the many veterans and defence personnel and their family in the Hawkesbury.</para>
<para>When it's complete, around 20,000 veterans and families who live in the Hawkesbury—and then it will be linked to one in south-west Sydney—will be able to access tailored support close to where they are. What we've seen from the hubs really speaks to the piece in this legislation that is focusing on the recognition of mental health and wellbeing as being fundamental. The hubs offer better access to support, resources and services all in one location and—in some ways, more importantly—provide an opportunity for that social and community connection. I'm very excited to see it evolve, and, of course, I can't wait for the beautiful renovation to be complete.</para>
<para>At another part of the electorate, the same issues that this bill is seeking to address are being tackled in a different way, and that is through Taskforce Veteran, formerly known as the Hunter Anzac Memorial Limited, who have been working on the properties at Scheyville. They're working on historic veterans' housing—it has been a veterans' and migrants' centre at different times—and, thanks to a $5 million federal grant, are transforming dilapidated buildings into something really special. I particularly want to mention the key person who has driven this: Brett Wild. I want to wish him all the best, because he has suffered a stroke and is in hospital.</para>
<para>I really want to see him continuing the fantastic work he's done at Scheyville. All our thoughts are with Brett. He has an amazing committee who are continuing the work in his absence. The Scheyville National Park transformation means that a very dilapidated part of our community is now alive with activities and has such a bright future thanks to the very caring work that has been done, and it's been done with the work of local tradies and builders. I know Allscope Constructions had a very large hand in it, and I suspect they were very generous with the rates that they charged to do this important work. These are the sorts of things that are already happening on the ground to ensure that veterans and their families have places they can turn to so they don't feel isolated.</para>
<para>My experience of being a member of the Defence liaison program, spending time in Iraq in Camp Taji and spending time at Amberley in Queensland, has shown me how tight the defence family is and what a big wrench it must be when you leave that defence family, particularly when it may be driven by a health reason and not necessarily the natural timing that you might have chosen. I've talked to many veterans who tell me that stepping away from Defence is one of the most scary things that they've done, and we hope that the veterans' hubs create a sense of place for people so that they can feel welcome in those places.</para>
<para>As well as being so pleased to see this legislation as a key part of it, I've also been very pleased to see the work that we have been doing to improve veteran wellbeing outcomes. That includes the latest commitment in the announcement we've made around how veterans health is treated. We've often focused on reactive treatment. When something goes wrong, it gets treated. But, consistent with the findings of the royal commission, DVA will now have a greater focus on early intervention and prevention, working really closely with the Department of Defence to identify risks earlier and act sooner. The announcement this week around these improvements will make a real difference to people's lives.</para>
<para>It includes using insights from the claims decision-making to support Defence's proactive approaches and making it easier for veterans to access treatment and rehab early. I want to let veterans know we are taking action against bad actors who have been seeking to take advantage of the improvements in government service delivery and who have been putting in false claims for veterans health. Veterans should know that they can come directly to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Claims are being processed promptly, there are independent processes in place and the integrity of that system is much improved in the changes we've made. We will stop medical practitioners and unscrupulous people from exploiting these veterans.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VENNING</name>
    <name.id>315434</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our veterans matter. This seems obvious, but it is a fact too often forgotten here as the years progress and the memories of war fade. These bills before the House, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, are about setting up a permanent independent watchdog to look after our veterans—and what's more important than that? The coalition supports this objective wholeheartedly, and I support it. Veterans have fought for us so we can live in the best country in the world, and some have given the ultimate sacrifice for that.</para>
<para>But we have to be honest about the history, and we must be honest about who has truly stood up for veterans when it mattered. It was a Liberal-National government that established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We did it because it was right. We established it because veterans and their families deserved the truth. They deserved accountability. They deserved to know why their system was failing them. We took that step because we recognised a hard truth: too many families had been ignored for too long. Confidence in the system had broken down. We listened to the mothers, the fathers, the partners and the children who had lost their loved ones.</para>
<para>The system was indeed broken, and the royal commission confirmed exactly what those families had been saying. It made clear that if we want lasting reform, if we want to stop these tragedies from happening, we cannot trust departments to mark their own homework. We need independent, system-wide oversight. We need eyes on the problem that are outside of the bubble that is this God-awful Canberra bureaucracy. One of the most significant recommendations from the royal commission was the creation of a permanent independent statutory oversight body—a body to drive reform. That is what these bills intend to do, and that is why the coalition supports them.</para>
<para>However, it is important to put something on the record. This idea of an independent oversight body is not an invention of the Labor Party. In fact, the coalition introduced legislation to establish an independent national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention back in 2020, five years ago. That bill proposed an independent statutory oversight body with basically the same features Labor is implementing today. And what did Labor do in 2020? They opposed that bill. Because of Labor's political games, the establishment of the body was delayed—and that delay matters. It matters because early independent oversight, working alongside the royal commission, could have accelerated system reform. It could have brought earlier accountability to Defence and the DVA. The structure Labor is now implementing closely mirrors what the coalition proposed at the very same time Labor voted against that bill. The coalition will support this framework because veterans and families cannot afford any further delay, but the history should be acknowledged: Labor put politics ahead of veterans' wellbeing five years ago.</para>
<para>While we are debating how to best support our veterans and secure their future, we must look at what Labor is doing to our strategically important Defence assets across Australia. It's important to me because in my electorate of Grey we have three Defence assets: the proof range south of Port Wakefield; the Army base at Cultana; and Woomera, a significant asset to our Western alliances over the past 100 years. We've learned this week that the Albanese Labor government is planning a fire sale of more than 60 Defence properties. They are planning to sell off historic sites like the Victoria Barracks in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. They want to sell HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Penguin</inline>. They want to sell RAAF Base Point Cook. The shadow minister for defence, the member for Hume, has rightly called it what it is, a fire sale. We are currently facing the most dangerous strategic environment in generations. The world is less safe today than it was yesterday. And what is Labor's response? To sell off the assets that support the recruitment, training and retention of ADF personnel.</para>
<para>The RSLs have spoken out, and we should listen to them. RSL National President Peter Tinley puts it perfectly. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But these aren't empty paddocks on a spreadsheet …</para></quote>
<para>He is right. These are places of history. These are places of heritage. These are places that matter to the veterans who marched on those parade grounds. There are 30 RSLs in the electorate of Grey, and they have such an important role for our community. I'd like to give a special shout-out to the RSLs in Port Lincoln, Coober Pedy, Cummins, Port Augusta and Port Pirie for welcoming me into their communities. I'd like to give a special shout-out to the Port Augusta RSL, who, at Anzac Day last year, offered me the first gunfire breakfast. If you don't know what a gunfire breakfast is, it's at 8 am and you have milk and rum—a good way to start the day!</para>
<para>Labor want to sell off the assets that support the recruitment, training and retention of our ADF personnel. They claim that this will raise billions of dollars, but the RSLs have warned that remediation and cleaning up these sites could also cost a fortune, and it could take a decade. We have seen this movie before. We saw failed divestment processes at North Head in Sydney and Portsea in Victoria. We urge the government: do not repeat these mistakes.</para>
<para>The New South Wales Premier is worried about the heritage of Victoria Barracks, the Greens want to turn our military history into housing blocks and the Minister for Defence seems to think that this is only about 'value for money'. Strategic assets are not just about money; they are about capability and they are about history. To sell off these sites without proper scrutiny, without a clear plan and potentially just to plug a hole in the budget or to cover for the government's failures on housing is short-sighted. It is risky. As the RSL said, the headline figure on the sale might look very different when the final accounting is done. The coalition stands with the veterans who are worried about their heritage being sold to the highest bidder, we stand with the communities who want these sites protected, and we stand against a fire sale that treats a national security asset, our national security estate, like a garage sale.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to address the broader context of support for our veterans. We often hear criticism from those opposite, but let's look at the record. When the Liberal-National coalition was in government, the portfolio of veterans' affairs was given cabinet status. That is a clear indication of respect. It shows that veterans' issues were at the heart of government decision-making. The coalition also delivered more than $11 billion every year in support for veterans and their families. We introduced and passed the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Act 2019. We created the veterans' covenant, the veteran card and the lapel pin. We ensured that there was proper national recognition for service and, indeed, sacrifice. We made sure that business and the community could say thank you in a practical way. We provided free non-liability mental health care—this was a game changer. We said that, for any veteran who completed at least one day of full-time service, mental health care was free. We removed the barriers. We didn't ask for paperwork first; we offered help.</para>
<para>We expanded and modernised Open Arms—Veterans & Families Counselling. We made sure it was fit for purpose and accessible for everyone who needed it. We initiated the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program. Veterans lives have been saved by these dogs. This program is now supporting hundreds of veterans across Australia with tailored, life-changing therapy dogs, and this was a coalition initiative. We established the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Award to celebrate employers who hire veterans. We helped ADF personnel transition into civilian careers. We launched the Veteran Wellbeing Centre Program, which put bricks and mortar into communities.</para>
<para>We delivered support hubs in Darwin, Perth, Adelaide, Albury-Wodonga, Nowra, Tasmania, South-East Queensland and Townsville. They are places where veterans can go for help, to meet mates and to find support. We created the role of the veterans family advocate. We ensured that the voices of families, often the unsung heroes of service, were heard in every major political decision. We committed $500 million to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, and what an amazing asset it is. It's so important that younger people can come to the nation's capital and understand the history of what the Aussie diggers did for the beautiful, prosperous society that we have today. We ensured that the stories of contemporary veterans, our modern diggers, are told with the same respect and visibility as the Anzacs of old.</para>
<para>We established the Joint Transition Authority to hold Defence accountable. We delivered provisional access to medical treatment so veterans didn't have to wait for claims to be assessed before seeing a doctor. We increased fees for health professionals to keep doctors in the system. We boosted staffing at DVA to speed up claims and we even added a question in the census to track the number of veterans in Australia, so we finally know where our veterans are and what they need. That is a record to be proud of. It is a record of action, not just words. The coalition stands with our veterans. We stand with their families. We will continue to fight for a system that is transparent, fair and respectful of the service and sacrifice of every Australian who has worn that uniform.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRISKEY</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nestled in the heart of Moonee Ponds stands the Menin barracks, which is home to the 5th/6th Battalion, Royal Victoria Regiment Delta Company. It remains an active Army Reserve base, but it is also a living monument to my community's proud military history. It has a lineage that stretches back to the original AIF and the battlefields of Gallipoli. Last year, to welcome their surrounding neighbours and the broader Moonee Valley community, Delta Company held an open day. Major Braden Holmes walked me through the stations, the machinery and the kit. It was all very impressive. But it wasn't the equipment that stayed with me; it was the people. I met young, enthusiastic cadets. I met men and women who live, work and are raising their families in Maribyrnong and who have made the selfless decision to serve their nation. Major Holmes and I spoke about the unique culture of the Delta Company and how those barracks have served our community for generations.</para>
<para>Our community's connection to Australia's military history runs deep. We see it in the legacy of Essendon airport, which served as a vital defence gateway during World War II. We see it in the names of our streets. In fact, 10 streets in the City of Moonee Valley are named in honour of Australian military heroes. We see it in our three local RSL sub-branches, which carry the legacy forward every single day. But our duty to those who serve is not just about preserving their brave and historic contributions; it is about how we protect the lives of the people who put their hand up to protect us—people like those who I met at Menin Barracks and at remembrance services across my electorate. No veteran and no veteran's family should ever have to fight their hardest battle alone. The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 is how we honour that promise.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was a long, painful but necessary reckoning. It held a mirror up to our nation's soul and revealed a depth of service that was often followed by depth of neglect. The final report contained 122 points of action, but the commissioners were explicit—recommendation 122 was the most important. It was the cornerstone upon which every other reform would depend. They called for a new permanent statutory entity to oversee system reform across the entire Defence ecosystem, not another internal committee, not a body that answers to the very departments it is meant to scrutinise. They called for independent oversight with one sole purpose—to ensure that the systemic failures that led to suicide were identified, challenged and permanently fixed.</para>
<para>The commission recognised that too many had known for too long that suicide in the veteran community was not an isolated clinical issue; it was a systemic one—a product of culture, policy and institutional friction. To address it, we need an entity that exists outside the chain of command, with the longevity to outlast political cycles and the authority to demand change, an entity that ensures no-one is left to navigate a broken system alone. In February 2025, the Albanese Labor government acted on this urgency by legislating the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. It has been operational since September, already undertaking the demanding and critical work of oversight. Today, with this bill, we are strengthening its foundation. We are transitioning the commission into its own standalone legislation, giving it the absolute independence it needs to be respected and the statutory teeth it needs to be effective. We are ensuring that the commission is not just a participant in the system, but a powerful independent force for its transformation.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, my electorate is home to three local RSL sub-branches, and, in October, last year I dropped into the Flemington & Kensington RSL sub-branch in the south of my electorate to catch up with president Andrew Konami-Wood and welfare officer Scott Balestra. The Flem/Ken RSL describes itself as a small sub-branch with a big heart, and that perfectly sums up the crew. Andrew and Scott walked me through the history of the branch and the quiet, essential work that they do to support our local veteran community, especially the growing number of younger veterans. Scott, a combat engineer, outlined the welfare assistance that they provide not just to veterans but also to their families. Flem/Ken RSL may be unassuming, but its social nights and strong welfare program are doing the heavy lifting of supporting veterans as they make the shift to civilian life. That shift is not just a change of job; it's a fundamental change in identity. Andrew and Scott gave clarity to what I know as a qualified psychologist—when you lose the structure, that sense of mission and the tribe that military service provide, the psychological risk factors skyrocket. We know that suicidality is often the result of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness. When a veteran feels that they no longer fit in the civilian world or when they feel like they're a burden to their families because they are struggling with PTSD or trapped in a complex DVA claim, they enter a zone of extreme risk. The current system has, too often, made those feelings worse. It has been a maze of paperwork and, for too many, too many 'no' answers. Where it should have been a lifeline, it became another barrier, and no-one should face those barriers alone. By creating this commission, we are creating a systemic intervention. We are ensuring there is a body whose sole focus is to dismantle those barriers to wellbeing, to move from reactive crisis management to proactive oversight—a system that will support the heavy lifting already being done quietly and with enormous heart by sub-branches like Flem/Ken.</para>
<para>I want to speak now about a change in this bill that I'm particularly proud of—the formal inclusion of veterans' families. There is a group of people who are often overlooked for too long in government responses to veteran affairs. At the Menin Barracks open day and at many services I've attended in my community, I have met the partners holding toddlers, I've met the parents watching their sons and daughters with a mixture of pride and anxiety, and I've met widows and proud children who honour the memory of brave loved ones who have passed on.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the RSLs in Essendon, Keilor East and Flemington-Kensington are full of those family members. They are the silent ranks. They are the primary caregivers, the first responders in the home, and the ones who notice the first signs of withdrawal or the quiet onset of a flashback in the middle of the night. When a veteran is struggling, the whole family feels it. These RSLs understand that because they too have lived it—deeply and personally. I see this in the spirit of community and care at the mighty Keilor East RSL. It is always a great honour to stand with them at their Anzac Day dawn service, their Vietnam Veterans' Day service and on Remembrance Day—all led with such dedication and deep pride by their president, John Johnson OAM. John and his team don't just run a sub-branch; they maintain a sanctuary. Whether it's a solemn commemorative service or a Friday night social event, the focus is always on the person standing next to you and the family standing behind them.</para>
<para>Yet, for too long, our national systems have not treated these families with the respect and care that they deserve. This bill changes that. It legislates that the commissioner's functions must also include reference to veterans' families. As a qualified psychologist, I know that you cannot treat or support a person in isolation. Mental health is social; it's relational. You cannot heal the veteran if you ignore the family holding them up. By enshrining families in this legislation we are telling the silent ranks—the partners, the parents and the children of our veteran communities: 'We see the quiet work that you do. We recognise you and we are making sure you never have to carry that weight alone.' We are giving the big hearts of Flemington-Kensington and the dedicated volunteers at East Keilor and Essendon RSLs the institutional backing that they have long deserved.</para>
<para>One of the strongest messages from the Senate committee and the veteran community was that this commission must be independent in law, in function and in spirit. This bill delivers exactly that by establishing standalone legislation. The commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General following a merit based public recruitment process, ensuring the role is held by an individual with a mandate to speak truth to power without fear and without favour. We have also refined the commission's powers to ensure it is a watchdog with teeth. Based on stakeholder feedback, we have strengthened the commissioner's ability to access vital information and expanded witness protection so that anyone can provide evidence without fear of reprisal. Truth only emerges in an environment of safety. These protections are the foundation of the commission's integrity. We are creating a space where systemic failures can be called out and corrected, backed by the full authority of the law.</para>
<para>Transparency is nothing without a timeline. This bill sets statutory deadlines for the completion of two major inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of reform: 2 December 2027 and 2 December 2030, the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's response. These are not arbitrary dates. They are deadlines of accountability, guaranteeing the commission will remain a sustained, transparent voice for change long after the media spotlight has moved on.</para>
<para>As I reflect on the history of Maribyrnong—the wartime hangars at Essendon airport to the disciplined grounds of Menin Barracks—I'm reminded that we are not just a community that remembers service; we are a community that lives it. The stories of the men and women I met at the 5th/6th Battalion, the grit of the veterans at the mighty Keilor East RSL and the enduring heart of the members at Flem/Ken RSL all point to a single inescapable truth: the system must be as resilient as the people it serves.</para>
<para>This legislation is the institutional embodiment of that truth—a permanent, standalone commission, a watchman on the tower who will never again be silenced or sidelined, a move from temporary fixes to sustained, independent oversight. For a person to heal, they need to know the system looking after them is honest, transparent and safe. Through the strengthened powers and the rigorous accountability deadlines of 2027 and 2030, this bill finally creates the environment of trust.</para>
<para>Most importantly, we are bringing the silent ranks—the families of those who serve—into the fold of our national policy. We're acknowledging that the ripples of service touch every partner, every parent and every child, and we're telling them: 'Your burden is seen, your role is recognised, and you'll not be left to carry it alone.' We stand on the shoulders of proud local legacy, but our duty is to the present and the future. We owe it to every person today who wears a uniform and to every veteran who has since laid it down to ensure that the promise of service is met with the promise of support. No veteran and no veteran's family should ever have to fight their hardest battle alone. With this bill, we are building a system that finally holds itself to the same high standard that they hold for themselves. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to support to speak in support of this Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025. I'm privileged to represent a large and deeply engaged Defence Force community in Wentworth. Our electorate is home to veterans from many conflicts and many, many decades of service. They are a community defined by courage, professionalism and sacrifice. They have served our country with bravery and integrity, and they deserve nothing less than our full support in return. But pride in their service sets a very real expectation that this parliament will stand behind them not just with words but in action.</para>
<para>After countless reports, inquiries and reviews into the wellbeing of service members and veterans, that expectation has never been more justified. Following the release of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommendations, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in late 2024 alongside a number of my crossbench colleagues. In that letter we called on the government to adopt recommendation 122 of the royal commission as a priority, which recommended the establishment of a new, independent statutory entity to oversee system reform across the entire defence ecosystem. We made that call because we'd heard directly from veterans, from families and from stakeholders in our own communities, including people very specifically in Wentworth, where we had conversations with a number of veterans about this very issue. They were clear that this was, for them and for many people, the most important recommendation coming out of the royal commission and that any oversight body must sit independently both from the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs if it is to command trust and deliver meaningful change.</para>
<para>Independence is not a technical detail. It is fundamental to the success of this reform. For too long, veterans and serving members have been asked to provide evidence and lived experience into systems they didn't fully trust. Creating a commissioner that sits separately from Defence and Veterans' Affairs helps reduce that burden. It provides greater confidence that inquiries will be conducted without fear or favour and that those who come forward will be heard and protected. It also ensures that strong protections are in place for those providing information to the commissioner. That is essential. If we're serious about understanding what has gone wrong and how to fix it, people must feel safe to speak openly.</para>
<para>The need for this reform cannot be overstated. Over the past 30 years, more than 50 inquiries into defence and veteran suicide have generated over 700 recommendations. Yet, too often, those recommendations have not been fully implemented. None of the previous inquiries have produced adequate or effective results, in part because successive governments have failed to act decisively on the advice of experts. Today we are living with the consequences of that failure. The incidence of suicide and severe mental health challenges among current and former Defence personnel remain an ongoing national tragedy. Behind every statistic is a life lost, a family grieving and a community changed forever. This bill represents an important step forward to breaking that cycle.</para>
<para>I now turn to the bill. Firstly, the bill establishes the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission and the commissioner as a standalone statutory entity. This is significant because it moves the role out of existing defence legislation and into its own framework, reinforcing its independence and ensuring that it operates with clear authority and accountability to parliament. A statutory footing sends a strong signal that this role is permanent, independent and central to long-term reform.</para>
<para>Secondly, the bill sets out the core functions of the commissioner. These include monitoring systemic issues affecting the wellbeing of serving members and veterans, reviewing the implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and providing independent advice to government. The commissioner will also be empowered to engage directly with veterans, families and communities and to bring lived experience to policy for reform. This ensures that the voices of those most affected remain central to the reform process.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the bill provides the commissioner with strong inquiry and information-gathering powers. The commissioner will be able to initiate own-motion inquiries, conduct reviews at the request of the minister and compel the production of documents and information where necessary. These powers are critical. Without the ability to access information and investigate systemic issues thoroughly, the commission would risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. Properly exercised, these powers will allow the commissioner to identify failures, monitor progress and drive meaningful change across the defence ecosystem.</para>
<para>Fourth, the bill includes protections for those who provide information to the commissioner. This is one of the most important elements of the legislation. Many veterans and serving members carry difficult experiences and may feel vulnerable speaking out. Clear legal protections and strong confidentiality provisions are essential to ensuring that people can provide evidence without fear of reprisal or harm to their careers, reputations or wellbeing.</para>
<para>Fifth, the bill establishes reporting and accountability mechanisms. The commissioner will be able to publish reports and provide advice to the minister, and those reports will be tabled in parliament. This ensures transparency and keeps the parliament and the public informed about progress and ongoing challenges. It also creates the expectation that government agencies will respond to findings and recommendations in a timely and constructive manner.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill includes transitional and consequential provisions to ensure continuity. Existing functions and inquiries will transfer to the new statutory commission without disruption. This will allow the new body to begin work with momentum and clarity.</para>
<para>Taken together, these elements create a stronger and more independent oversight architecture than has existed previously. However, the effectiveness of this new structure will depend not only on the legislation itself but on the commitment of government and agencies to work with it in good faith. Independence must be matched by cooperation. The minister, Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs must be prepared to engage openly with the commissioner and to act on recommendations. Without that, even the strongest statutory framework will struggle to deliver the change that is needed. We cannot allow this commission to become yet another body whose recommendations sit on shelves. Its purpose is to ensure that reform is implemented, that failures are addressed and that the wellbeing of those who serve, and those who have served, our country is placed at the centre of policy and practice.</para>
<para>For the Defence community of Wentworth and for communities across Australia, this reform matters deeply. It reflects years of advocacy, the courage of those who came forward in the royal commission and the collective determination to do better. To those who did so—I thank you. After decades of inquiries and too many lives lost, we cannot afford to fall short again.</para>
<para>This bill lays the foundation for stronger oversight, greater accountability and, ultimately, better support for our veterans and serving members. For that reason, I support the bill, but I continue to offer this challenge to the government of this day and those of future days: we set up these statutory authorities, and they are important, but, if we do not listen and implement their recommendations, then we are literally just doing something that feels good but ultimately makes no difference in the end. That will be the proof of the success of this and whether it makes a difference to Defence families and veterans' families, as it should. It is the implementation that really matters, and that is up to this government and every government after it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025. In this House, we have spoken, on many occasions, about the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which delivered a report in September 2024. This report was the culmination of three years of inquiry into suicide in Australia's defence and veteran population, and it noted that even one suicide is a crisis. The final report, which was an analysis of complex cultural and systemic issues relevant to suicide and suicidality amongst serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members, contained 122 recommendations to government, designed to provide the foundation for meaningful, practical and sustainable reform.</para>
<para>Given this level of significance, the royal commission, the report and the recommendations—including their progress—should continue to be spoken about in this House with an ingrained degree of regularity. The importance of keeping this conversation going, of keeping reforms moving, of continuing to discuss and mitigate risk factors and of providing support to serving personnel and veterans cannot be understated, and it should never stop.</para>
<para>The final recommendation, recommendation 122, was that the government establish a new statutory entity to oversee systemic reform on a whole-of-defence basis. The precise wording of recommendation 122 was that the government establish a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole Defence ecosystem. It reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government should establish a new statutory entity with the purpose of providing independent oversight and evidence-based advice in order to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members.</para></quote>
<para>This was said to be the most critical recommendation of the 122 because of the foundation it would provide to the other recommendations and the fact that it would be the most significant action the Australian government could take to address Defence and veteran suicide.</para>
<para>In response to this recommendation, the government said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government agrees to establish a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole Defence ecosystem as a priority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will appoint an interim head of the oversight body to work across government and provide advice on the establishment of the permanent oversight entity, including legislation required, to enable its establishment by September 2025.</para></quote>
<para>The government delivered on that commitment, and it is important that it delivered on that commitment.</para>
<para>The position of this government and of all Australians and all participants in this House is that the death by suicide of any Australian, including our veterans and current serving Australian Defence Force members, is a tragedy. It is unacceptable that Australia has lost more serving and former serving personnel to suicide over the last 20 years than through operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the same period. It is unacceptable.</para>
<para>So, since September 2025, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, legislated in February 2025, has been up and running. The Defence and Veterans' Services Commission is dedicated to providing independent oversight and evidence based advice to the government in order to drive the necessary system reform that we need to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for current and ex-serving members. It has, at its heart, the goal of facilitating long-term accountability for the systemic reforms envisaged by the royal commission so that the lives of those who protect Australia now and for future generations are themselves protected today. Quite rightly, the commission has a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention.</para>
<para>In order to ensure that it can report on the government's progress in implementing the response to the recommendations of the royal commission, on the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's response, being by 2 December 2027 and 2030, the commission needs to enjoy independence functions and have the powers necessary to meet these objectives and to maintain the trust of the Defence and veteran community. It needs to have the structures, independence and mechanisms to call for accountability in this respect and to call for more progress, for improvements, for changes.</para>
<para>This bill delivers on the full implementation of this by enshrining the legislative establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner and Defence and Veterans' Service Commission into its own independent standalone legislation, as always intended. The bill promotes the required independence, in that the commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General following a public and competitive process.</para>
<para>The bill also operates to prescribe powers of the commissioner, which are entirely appropriate powers and drafted through the lens of accountability. Firstly, in addition to the reporting already outlined, the bill empowers the commissioner to further report to the Prime Minister and minister where they consider that inadequate and inappropriate action has been taken by a Commonwealth entity in respect of recommendations contained in a report to the commissioner. This creates an appropriate duty on those in charge of Commonwealth entities to take steps to facilitate that the entity does use its best endeavours to assist the commissioner in the performance of the commissioner's functions. A similar duty is placed on officials of the entity.</para>
<para>For a commissioner led special inquiry to be successful and produce meaningful, broadscale outcomes, the commissioner needs access to all relevant information needed for that inquiry, so the bill also includes entry-to-premises powers and powers to obtain access to documents by remote means for Commonwealth entities and their contractors for the purpose of a special inquiry. Quite rightly, this bill also includes new offences for the provision of false and misleading information or documents or the destruction of documents or things.</para>
<para>Inquiries can only be successful if relevant stakeholders with actual lived experience of the inquiry subject matter are consulted in an environment where they have the confidence to give full and frank evidence and explanations. That is why the bill expands the scope of witness protections so that a person does not encounter detriment in providing information to an inquiry. This has two outcomes: firstly, the risk that the commissioner will not be provided with all information relevant to the inquiry will be minimised; and, secondly, the person providing the information to an inquiry will be supported and protected. It is critical to the success of the commission that those with relevant information feel supported and protected in providing information to an inquiry by the commissioner. If someone voluntarily provides information, then any necessary and applicable protections from criminal and civil penalties have been expanded.</para>
<para>That the work of the commission is transparent is another key focus of this bill, as is the need to cement accountability of the commission and to cement accountability of the bodies or persons that are subject to oversight. This bill does that in a number of ways: through a focus on procedural fairness, and the bill crystallises procedural fairness by requiring the commissioner to afford a response opportunity to an agency, official or other person who is the subject of any criticism in a draft report; through reporting, as the bill requires Commonwealth entities, officials or other persons to provide to the commissioner information about the implementation of recommendations relevant to them; through accountability, as the bill requires the government to table a statement setting out its response to an inquiry report in parliament; through clarity, as the bill provides certainty that the commissioner may publish reports at the commissioner's discretion and make public statements about an inquiry; through urgency, as the bills include statutory deadlines for the completion of two inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the royal commission recommendations; and through transparency, by providing the terms and conditions of appointment of the commissioner in a standalone bill rather than in rules.</para>
<para>As part of my work as the member for Sturt, I have met a number of incredible veterans who have served our country with distinction. They have sacrificed, endured, felt alone and been asked to draw on every strength within them in order to act with bravery and courage for others. I won't forget one veteran in particular, Tyrone, who served in the infantry and who I met at See Differently in Gilles Plains in Sturt as part of the OPK9 program. Tyrone had a beautiful OPK9 Labrador who was his best friend and who had saved his life. Tyrone explained to me that his mental health trauma from service had previously been so bad that he couldn't get out of bed—a fit, healthy young man who couldn't get out of bed.</para>
<para>Things got better with time, and he could leave the bed, but he couldn't leave the house. He couldn't go onto the street, couldn't go to the grocery shop and couldn't talk to others. Then, over time, things got a little better, and he could leave the house, but only with his wife. He couldn't go out alone. This, of course, affected his wife and her independence and impacted her quality of life as well. Tyrone then joined the OPK9 assistance program and was allocated a support dog named Teddy, and Teddy changed everything. His calming, confident presence has allowed Tyrone to leave the house, to go to the shop and to do things on his own—but always with Teddy by his side. It makes me deeply sad when I think that things could have been different for Tyrone—much worse—without the support of his wife and the See Differently program. That Tyrone received the support he needed to return to being a functioning member of the community is a positive story, but there are too many veterans who do not have the same level of support. There are too many stories that do not follow the same path as Tyrone's. There are too many tragedies, and that, in itself, is a crisis.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will ensure that the commissioner has the tools necessary so that the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission is enabled to drive system reform, to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members. Accountability, transparency and prompt action are facilitated by this bill, and it is our duty in this House to do this. It's not set-and-forget. We must monitor and measure the effectiveness of these measures and continually adapt, make changes and make improvements to ensure that the commission and the commissioner can always be a powerful force for the systematic change that we need. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to welcome the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the accompanying Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These bills implement recommendation 122 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a recommendation the commission described as one of its most important. They established the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission as a standalone statutory entity, strengthening its independence and authority. This is a meaningful reform, and I want to acknowledge the government for progressing it.</para>
<para>The royal commission heard deeply distressing evidence from current and former ADF members. It revealed systemic issues in Defence culture, leadership, transition pathways, mental health care and departmental processes. At every stage, witnesses stressed the need for a body capable of identifying systemic risks, providing frank advice and ensuring accountability across Defence, Veterans' Affairs and the broader government ecosystem. These bills respond directly to that call. The independent commissioner will be able to undertake inquiries, gather evidence, examine systemic concerns and, critically, refer matters directly to the minister, or even the Prime Minister, when required. That authority is essential to driving ongoing cultural and structural reform. Many ADF members live, work or transition back to civilian life in my electorate of Curtin. Their service places enormous physical, psychological and moral demands upon them and their families. They face unique pressures of extended postings, isolation from support networks and the intense responsibility of protecting our country. It's essential that they receive better, more holistic support.</para>
<para>I welcome these bills, and I hope the establishment of an independent commissioner will lead to tangible improvements in the health, wellbeing and lives of current and former ADF personnel and their families. They deserve a system that supports them with consistency, compassion and integrity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the previous speakers and acknowledge the minister in the chamber. I congratulate him on this bill and his work in general, post the royal commission, to really drive the implementation of recommendations. I have the great fortune of having been appointed by the Prime Minister as the Special Envoy for Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Northern Australia. It is my distinct privilege to meet with Defence members and veterans across the country. And, of course, in my electorate, which is Solomon—a garrison town, a defender of the north—we have Navy, Army and Air Force bases. We also host the US marines and many visiting training delegations, which is fantastic because we get to improve our interoperability and learn from each other. Every day that I talk with veterans, I'm keen to share their achievements and to assist them with issues—including in the wee hours of this morning, where I was spending time clearing emails and assisting to connect veterans with help. It's the very least that we can do for those that have put on the uniform and served our country.</para>
<para>Every member of the ADF should be safe in the knowledge that, whatever may happen in their service, they and their families will be looked after and acknowledged by our grateful nation. It's our nation's duty to empower and to support the mental health and wellbeing of our defence and veteran community, and it's something I'm very passionate about as a fourth generation veteran. There is an expectation that we will look after those that have done so much for us in the defence of our nation and the representation of our people overseas.</para>
<para>With the now minister and others, I lobbied hard for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We heard the calls from the veteran community, from their families, and we have acted—initially, in pushing and working with the government of the day to establish it and, now, as I said, the interim report having been released in 2022, in really getting on with implementing those recommendations, particularly those that were most urgent. We've acted on all of those recommendations of that interim report.</para>
<para>One of the 122 recommendations of the final report was to establish a new statutory entity to oversee systematic reform across the whole defence enterprise, the ecosystem. The report said that the establishment of this new statutory authority would underpin 'all the recommendations that precede it' and be 'the most significant action the Australian government can take to address defence and veteran suicide'. In acknowledgement of the significance and the urgency of this recommendation, in February 2025, our federal Labor government legislated the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. That's been up and running since the end of September last year.</para>
<para>The role of this new statutory entity is to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the defence and veteran communities, including our families. The commission will have a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention. It will ensure agencies implementing royal commission recommendations will be held to account by promoting long-term change and driving the systematic reforms needed to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members—and, for that matter, their family members.</para>
<para>To do this, the commission must have the independence, the functions and the powers necessary to meet these objectives and maintain the trust of the defence and veterans community. The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill, then, builds on the work undertaken by the parliament in February last year, when schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 was passed and a Senate inquiry was undertaken.</para>
<para>Let's go to independence. The submissions, the evidence and the committee's report have informed the development of the bill, implementing the following recommendations. First, standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission will reflect its independence. This bill strengthens the independence of the commissioner by ensuring that the role is appointed by the Governor-General after a merit based and public recruitment process. Everyone can apply; it's a public process. The commissioner will be an independent statutory office holder when appointed. The commissioner will carry out their functions and exercise their powers by looking through a system-wide lens. To reflect their independence, the bill confers on the commissioner complete discretion in carrying out their functions and powers and appropriately limits directions, including from the minister. There's a subclause, 12(2), that in particular would ensure that the commissioner has substantial discretion to determine how they will carry out their role. That independent judgement about what is best for the veteran is so important.</para>
<para>Under clause 50, the commissioner is empowered to make public statements, which is important in keeping people informed. Transparency in the goals, function and operations of the commission is paramount. It improves the transparency of the work of the commission to ensure accountability for the commission itself and those subject to its oversight. This includes statutory deadlines for the completion of two inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the royal commission recommendations. Those deadlines are 2 December 27 and 2 December 2030, which are the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations. This bill strengthens the commissioner's powers in ensuring transparency and accountability across Defence and the veteran ecosystem and enables access to necessary information and disseminating public statements.</para>
<para>What I was just talking about went to the independence of the commission and the commissioner; now, I want to go to families. The commissioner's functions include reference to veterans' families. There is no doubt—zero doubt—that families of veterans play the most vital role in the health and wellbeing of veterans, but they also face unique challenges themselves. The Albanese government is pleased that, through this legislation, we're able to acknowledge the significance of veterans' families. The commissioner will be empowered under subclause 10(1) to promote understanding of suicide risks for veterans and factors that can improve the wellbeing of veterans through engaging with people with lived experience and the families of veterans.</para>
<para>Last year, I spoke at the veterans' family roundtable held here in this place, in Parliament House, and was fortunate to attend, with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and my parliamentary colleagues, and speak to the representatives. There was a fantastic event run by the Families of Veterans Guild. I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to the guild and to their CEO, Renee Wilson, for the organisation and for Renee's tireless advocacy for veterans' families, an issue very close to her heart. Theirs is a very worthy cause and one I fully support. At that event, I listened to the stories of veterans' families that have been affected by tragedy and hardship—a genuinely moving experience that all honourable members should seek out in order to expand their knowledge of the challenges faced by veterans and their families. It was, as I said, a very deeply moving event.</para>
<para>We've also held events. I want to pay tribute to Dani Eveleigh from my electorate. She, like Renee, is the partner of a serviceman and has done some great work as well. It was great that people like Dani were able to spend time with the Repatriation Commissioner and the Veteran Family Commissioner in Darwin, Kahlil Fegan and Annabelle, in Darwin, last week. I'm thankful to them for heading up to Darwin and having those conversations with our local veterans and families.</para>
<para>Veteran families often carry a lot of the burden of service as well as being the biggest carer and the biggest enabler of capability. And it's not well enough understood. We've got a lot to learn from the experiences of our families, and we need to do everything we can to support them. In understanding the experience of the families, we can make the system better support them.</para>
<para>On the conduct of the duties of the commissioner, the commissioner can invite the making of submissions under clause 20. A feature of the legislation that I quite like is the ability to invite these from the public—from veterans and, importantly, from their families—so that we can better understand how the system is working for veterans and their families and hear from them on an ongoing and timely basis. And, of course, we want to hear how the system is not working for them so that we can address issues.</para>
<para>Having spoken about the independence of the commissioner and about families, I now want to go to ongoing reform. The commissioner is empowered to be an agent of change and improvement. Their functions would enable them, as an oversight body, to monitor, inquire into, report on and provide advice on systemic reforms, including the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the recommendations of the royal commission. The government has listened to feedback from stakeholders and has taken action. These changes to the bill will ensure that the commissioner has the tools necessary to ensure that the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission is able to drive that systemic reform that will improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for both serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members. This will mean agencies are held accountable to consider and respond to the commissioner's recommendations. The enduring nature of the commission will ensure that the voices of our veterans continue to be heard and that systemic issues which contribute to suicide in our veteran community are continually reviewed and addressed.</para>
<para>As I said, every day I have the privilege of engaging with veterans in our community. I listen to their experiences and work to ensure their needs are met. I also listen to their family members and work to ensure that their needs are met. Those conversations continually remind me of the depth of service and sacrifice that underpins our freedoms in this nation, that underpins our Australian sovereignty and our way of life. This is the guiding light for my work in this parliament, as it is for other members of this place. I hope that, in time, that understanding will continue to grow in members of this place so that they can be a consistent source of support to veterans and their families in their electorates. This bill is certainly a step in the right direction.</para>
<para>In the time remaining, I want to give a shout-out to all those who helped organise and conduct the very successful Welcome to Darwin event at the convention centre on the weekend. It was a fantastic event with a whole range of community stalls. It really was our community opening its arms wide to ADF members and their families who have recently been posted into Darwin, to say: 'Welcome. We're really glad to have you here. We love having you here. We'll do everything we can to make your time in Darwin as enjoyable as possible, and we hope that you elect to go for repeat postings up in Darwin. Make Darwin your home and help us with this enterprise in the national interest, which we're also engaged in, to keep our nation safe and to protect the interests of our nation.' I want to thank all the families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How a nation cares for its veterans and their families is an insight into the character of that nation. As we reflect on the last 120 years, where Australians have gone to distant shores to defend Australia and its interests, we note that more than 100,000 Australians have given their lives wearing our uniform and serving our country. It's right that we remember and honour those people on Remembrance Day and on Anzac Day. I know many Australians have a lot of pride in our Defence Force and in our veterans, and it's always great to see such big turnouts on those two days.</para>
<para>But it's also important that government does its job and looks after veterans and their families, and that process is one that requires constant reform. It's not something that we can just forget about; we have to constantly revisit it as we move forward into the future and as we reconcile with the wars that we've just fought, particularly in the last decade in Afghanistan.</para>
<para>I think it's important to say that things haven't been done well over the last 20 years or so, and that's why the coalition established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, because veterans and their families deserve truth and accountability. Confidence in the system had broken down. I know this myself, being a veteran and having had to work through my own claim through DVA. I remember testing the system more than five years ago in the minister's office, starting my process there, and it took about four years before it was completed. So I got a sense of what many veterans go through when they encounter DVA.</para>
<para>The royal commission confirmed what families and the veteran community had been saying, and that is that systemic failure requires reform. Everyone here in this House, on both sides, is committed to reform. One of the most significant recommendations was the creation of a permanent, independent statutory oversight body to drive reform and to measure progress. These bills are intended to give effect to that recommendation, and the coalition supports that objective. I support that objective, as a veteran. Independent oversight with real powers, public reporting and parliamentary accountability is essential. I believe in our institutions. I believe in accountability, and nowhere is that more important than in the veteran space.</para>
<para>Establishing the commission through standalone legislation is what the coalition has argued for for a long time. It's what we've argued for from the beginning. The government's original attempt to create the commission through a late amendment to unrelated legislation was rushed and lacked proper consultation. The coalition supported the amended VETS bill to avoid delaying compensation and rehabilitation reforms for veterans, but not because we supported the government's process or the structure. We supported it because we always put veterans first and we saw the need for urgency and the need to get things done. That's why we supported it. We also made it clear at the time that the commission should be established through standalone legislation, separate from Defence and DVA, with stronger independent guarantees. So we moved an amendment to ensure a dedicated Senate inquiry could provide proper scrutiny of the commission model, and that inquiry confirmed widespread stakeholder concern about independence, about its structure, about its powers, about family inclusion and about clarity of remit. This bill is now stronger because of the contributions of those individuals and ex-service organisations, and I want to thank every single person and organisation that took the time to make a submission or to appear before the royal commission and enhance this policy, which is now going to be enacted through this bill.</para>
<para>I also want to make the point here that this is not a new idea from Labor. The coalition introduced legislation to establish an independent National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention back in 2020, more than five years ago. That bill proposed an independent statutory oversight body with the same structural features now being implemented. I want to note in the House that Labor opposed that legislation at the time for political purposes, and, as a result, the establishment of an independent statutory oversight body was delayed. The structure that Labor is now implementing closely mirrors what we proposed back in government. If the coalition's national commissioner model had been supported instead of being opposed by Labor, independent oversight would already be underway. The coalition will support this framework now, because veterans and families cannot afford further delay, but I think it's important that that history should be acknowledged, particularly in the veteran community. Veteran care should not be a political issue. I think it's fair to say that where we land today is bipartisan, but it hasn't been perfect. But we're here, and I think we've come together for veterans and their families, and that's an important message they need to hear from this House.</para>
<para>The coalition will be moving an amendment to bring forward the timing of the first implementation review by the commissioner. As currently drafted, the first assessment is not required to be completed until December 2027. We think that's too slow. It's much too slow. We want to bring that back by 15 months, and our amendment would require the first implementation assessment to be completed by no later than 30 September of this year, 2026. I think that's more than sufficient time to assess whether early-stage reforms are being delivered. I think earlier reporting ensures that veterans, families and parliament can see measurable progress, and it falls in line with our overall objective, which is that the reforms recommended by the royal commission be implemented quickly and assessed openly. I think transparency is absolutely critical here.</para>
<para>In the end, what we care about is our servicemen and servicewomen and their families being cared for. They have to respond quickly when their nation calls. I know many have leave disrupted, particularly over Christmas, whether it's to deploy overseas or indeed to respond to natural disasters. They drop everything for our country. I think it's important that we get on with the job of getting this review done. As our ADF personnel move with a bias for action, I hope that, once this bill is passed, the government will move for a bias for action as well and look after our veterans and their families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I pay tribute to the two previous speakers, the member for Canning and the member for Solomon, and recognise that they both have had distinguished careers in the Defence Force and are very capable people to talk on this particular subject. We thank them for their service and for putting themselves on the front lines to protect our wonderful nation.</para>
<para>Governments of all persuasions, including this government, are supporting those that fight for this country. As I said, they put their bodies and minds on the front line for us. They become tough, strong, persistent leaders. However, who is there remaining to help them when they come back home? The role of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner is designed to bring greater openness, understanding and care to the system that supports current and former members of the Australian Defence Force. The commissioner will report publicly to the minister and to the parliament, creating a clear and transparent pathway for identifying what is working well and, importantly, what is not working well.</para>
<para>This role exists to help meaningful reform aimed at improving suicide prevention and overall wellbeing for those who have served. Far too many individuals and families in the veterans community have been touched by loss, grief or a long-term struggle. The commissioner's work will recognise this reality and seek to shine a light on systemic issues that can contribute to the distress among serving and ex-serving members. The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 draws on the findings and recommendations of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's review. It reflects an effort to take those recommendations seriously and respond in a way that strengthens the systems veterans rely on throughout and after their service. It also reflects the royal commission's 122 recommendations.</para>
<para>The commission will play an important role in improving transparency and accountability across the broader Defence and veterans support landscape. By monitoring, investigating and publicly reporting on systemic issues, the commissioner aims to support sustained long-term improvements. This work will help to rebuild trust within the veterans community. We need to build that trust that the veterans' concerns are heard, that their experiences matter and that action is being taken to better meet their diverse and often complex needs.</para>
<para>Importantly, the commissioner's mandate is very broad. Nothing is off limits when it comes to identifying and examining the structural or administrative factors that contribute to risk. This includes looking closely at the Commonwealth's policies, programs, systems and practices. The goal is not to assign blame but to understand why certain issues persist and how they can be addressed with compassion, evidence and, very importantly, accountability. The commissioner's work acknowledges the simple truth that behind every statistic there is a human being, a family, a spouse, a child—a son or a daughter—a network of friends and a community forever changed. By addressing systemic issues openly and thoroughly, we move closer to building a system that genuinely supports wellbeing, honours the service that these people have given for their nation, offers real pathways to healing and offers hope for those who have given so much.</para>
<para>The commissioner has the ability to undertake inquiries on their own account, on their own motion, which will provide a wide net for the niche and unusual. It allows the commissioner to take initiative rather than waiting. It means being proactive and taking preventative measures before families, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers say goodbye too soon. The commissioner is not a role the government has made up to tick a box. This is after extensive research and investigation from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and we heard the member for Solomon speak extensively about the royal commission.</para>
<para>Recommendation 122 of the final report suggested establishing a new statutory entity to oversee the system reform across the whole defence network, and it was deemed to be the most important recommendation. So this is something that hasn't just been a thought bubble. It's something that's come out of that royal commission and its most important recommendation. These bills before us are to establish the role of the commissioner. The role of the commissioner is to complement the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission that was legislated by this government back in February 2025.</para>
<para>The commission has been up and running since September and has been overseeing the whole defence ecosystem; however, that's not enough. We need these bills to pass for our commitment to better the lives of ADF personnel and veterans. We need a commissioner to act in the best interest of veterans and those serving in an independent manner. We need to see proactive steps to prevent the ongoing trend of all the issues associated with veterans when they leave the Defence Force and whilst they're in the Defence Force as well as all the things that we heard during the royal commission.</para>
<para>The commissioner's role is designed to look at the entire system: the policies, structures and practices that shape the experiences of current and former Defence Force members. Their work isn't about investigating individual cases or single decisions. Instead, the commissioner steps back to see the bigger picture and identifies underlying, systemic patterns and issues that may be contributing to harm. This broad perspective is deliberate. It ensures the commissioner can focus on what truly matters: preventing future suffering by recognising system-wide problems that might otherwise remain hidden. To honour this responsibility, the bill gives the commissioner full independence in how they carry out their work. Absolutely no-one, including the minister, can tell the commissioner what conclusions to reach or how to conduct an inquiry. Their loyalty is solely to the truth and to the wellbeing of the people their work is meant to protect.</para>
<para>To ensure the commissioner can uncover the realities that veterans and their families face, the bill grants special powers when an issue is serious enough to require deeper investigation. In these situations, the commissioner can request documents, ask questions and, if necessary, seek a warrant to gather that information directly. These are powers that don't exist at the moment. These powers will exist not to intimidate but to make sure nothing stands in the way of understanding why detrimental situations occur and, even more importantly, how they can be stopped.</para>
<para>At the same time, the law protects the commissioner, their staff and anyone who steps forward with information, and this is essential. People who share their stories, often painful and private stories or difficult stories, must know that they are safe to speak out honestly and openly. Because the commissioner will be entrusted with highly sensitive information, the bill creates strong safeguards. It becomes an offence for the commissioner or anyone working with them to share that protected information unless it is currently allowed under the law. This ensures that personal stories, private information, medical details and confidential experiences are treated with the respect, dignity and care that they deserve.</para>
<para>When the commissioner completes an inquiry, the process is open, fair and designed to ensure accuracy. A draft report must be prepared and shared with those whose actions or responsibilities are discussed. This draft will include the findings, the evidence behind them and any recommendations for change. If an agency or organisation is involved, its leadership is given the chance to respond. This step matters because it recognises that change is most effective when everyone has been heard and when those involved can clarify, correct or contribute to the understanding of what has happened.</para>
<para>All of this is about ensuring the experiences of veterans, including their pain, their courage and their hope, lead to real change. We know that all of the experiences of veterans—Vietnam veterans living alone, young veterans raising families, naval personnel connected to the shipbuilding precinct, RAAF members transitioning into civil life, or reservists balancing service with their careers—can help shape the national picture. So the commissioner's work ensures those experiences are not lost, ignored or dismissed but instead are part of the driving force behind the systemic change. It means veterans are not expected to struggle alone; it means families can trust that someone is watching over the system; it means problems that were once hidden or not brought to light can be brought forward and addressed properly and systematically; and it means every story, every challenge, every frustration and every moment of courage can help create change. Ultimately, it means that veterans and their families can feel seen, respected and supported by a system that genuinely strives to do better.</para>
<para>Just before I resume my seat, I'd also like to pay tribute to a great Australian in my electorate, Julie-Ann Finney, who worked so hard for the royal commission a few years ago and still works voluntarily without pay and without any benefit to have veterans' voices heard. I think that at times like this we come to a certain point with legislation, with royal commissions and with the work that we do here, but we should always think of those people who advocated strongly to bring us to this position and to bring about change. I pay tribute to Julie-Ann Finney today as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, notwithstanding that the coalition will be moving some amendments in relation to the reporting date of the commissioner in the legislation. At the outset, I want to say, simply, 'Thank you for your service,' to the men and women in the Australian Defence Force and our veteran community and particularly to their families who support them. I thank the members in this place who have served in uniform as well. Thank you for what you've done in your previous career and for bringing that expertise and lived experience to either the House of Representatives or the Senate.</para>
<para>The purpose of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is to put in place a system of support for our veterans and their families if it's required. I emphasise the point 'if it's required', because a large number of our service personnel will train well, serve well, be deployed, defend the values of our nation and then transition well and go on to live exceptionally successful civilian lives. But, if they're fed a diet of hopelessness and helplessness, which is often the case in the Australian mainstream media, they sometimes get the feeling that there's no help available to them whatsoever. That is simply not true. I say to anyone who may be listening to this debate that, if you are a veteran and you do need help, help is available. Please reach out through your ex-service organisation or through DVA directly because help is available to you if it's required. In the veterans covenant, there is a term which is very simple. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For what they have done, this we will do.</para></quote>
<para>That is the promise we make, as Australians who haven't served in uniform, that we have this contract with the Australian Defence Force personnel and their families:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For what they have done, this we will do.</para></quote>
<para>That contract requires us to support them after their service—and, obviously, during their service as well.</para>
<para>Those support measures will change over time. Just as our society is changing constantly—sometimes for good, sometimes for worse—the needs of our Defence Force personnel and our veterans will change as well. What a young veteran needs on transition to the civilian workforce is going to be very different to the supports required by a 95- or 98-year-old World War II veteran. We need to acknowledge that the DVA system is there to support veterans through the entire course of their lives as their needs change as well.</para>
<para>I do want to acknowledge that the legislation before the House is intended to make sure there is proper oversight, accountability and transparency, in this place, around the systems put in place by DVA to support our veterans and their families. An independent commissioner has enormous opportunities to make sure that their system remains fit for purpose into the future. Our veterans make a huge contribution during their service, but they also make an amazing contribution when they leave the service and in their civilian lives. It is so important that they are supported in that transition phase.</para>
<para>I say this in the minister's presence: I am sure that, just like me, in his role, the need to reduce the level of self-harm and the need to eliminate suicide is an ongoing battle. There is no acceptable level of suicide amongst Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans, and I'm sure the minister agrees with me that we need to keep working towards zero. That is a challenge that we need to address in a bipartisan way across this chamber. I'm sure it's going to surprise some people listening to hear me say this, but there is an amazing amount of bipartisanship on this portfolio issue—this area of key responsibility. My office works very closely with Minister Keogh's office, and we have a very good working relationship. There have been times in recent months where we've disagreed vehemently, but it was professional, and we got on with our roles. But, wherever possible, there will be bipartisanship between this side of the House and the government of the day in terms of our veterans and their families. Our No. 1 interest has to be making sure veterans and their families are well supported as they move onto civilian lives.</para>
<para>Having said that, I'll also note, in the minister's presence, that most of the easy stuff has been done. In this portfolio, everything's complex, everything is difficult, everything involves personal challenges for the people involved, and the system isn't always fit for purpose. The challenge of reforming it is not something that I suggest for a second is a walk in the park. I do wish him success in his tenure because, if the minister is successful as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, our veterans will flourish. Their wellbeing will improve; the families will do better. I sincerely do extend my best wishes to the minister in his role as he seeks to try and improve the system of support for veterans and their families.</para>
<para>It's important, as we gather today, to talk about this legislation, to acknowledge a couple of simple facts as well. This is not a new idea. Those opposite might think that the world was created on the day the Albanese government came to office in 2022, but, let me assure you, some good things happened before that. This idea—this concept—of a national commissioner was actually included in coalition introduced legislation back in 2020. That bill, which proposed an independent statutory oversight body, with basically exactly the same structural features now being implemented today, was opposed by the Labor Party at that time. I was disappointed as minister that that occurred. I think it was opposed for political reasons. I was frustrated by the decision that the opposition took at that time, because the delays in implementing this independent commissioner have resulted in delays in having an independent statutory oversight body for the system. It matters because, working alongside the royal commission, we could have accelerated system reform in that period of four or five years.</para>
<para>It's fair to say that the coalition supports the national commissioner model being presented today, because it was our idea. It was our idea, and it came from feedback and from the lived experience of veterans and their families. I didn't make it up. It wasn't something I dreamed up one night by myself. It came about through feedback from ex-service organisations. It had strong support in the veteran community, but we weren't successful in getting it legislated back in 2020. I say to the chamber—and I say with all sincerity to our veterans community—the coalition will always look to find ways to put veterans and their families first, and we will support the government in this legislation with the amendment we're proposing, which I'll get to later on.</para>
<para>Our record as a coalition in terms of supporting veterans and their wellbeing is substantial. In our time in government, there were some substantial reforms by me as minister and other ministers on the coalition side, despite the rhetoric we hear from those opposite from time to time. During our time in government, the role of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs was actually in cabinet, and I think it's a mistake to not have it in cabinet. I'm not solely motivated by my best wishes for the minister's political career, but the minister should be in cabinet. There are 600,000 veterans in this country plus their families. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs should be in cabinet.</para>
<para>In our time in government, the support for our veterans and their families was in the order of $11 billion per year. There was the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was established under the Morrison government. We introduced and passed the veterans' recognition act of 2019. We provided free non-liability mental health care for our veterans. We expanded and modernised Open Arms, the veterans counselling service. We initiated the Psychiatric Assistance Dog Program, which has been very well received and has resulted in literally hundreds of veterans receiving the benefit of a psychiatric assistance dog. The veterans themselves and their families have written to me personally and thanked me for that in some of the most beautiful letters I've received as a member.</para>
<para>We also established the Prime Minister's National Veteran Employment Awards, which I note have continued, and I thank the government for doing that. We launched the Veteran Wellbeing Centre Program, and the current government has added to the Veteran Wellbeing Centre Program. I encourage them to keep doing that, because I think those hubs are very important for providing accessible areas for our veterans, particularly in regional areas, to get the support they need when they need it. We created the role of veterans family advocate. We committed $500 million to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, which will ensure the stories of our contemporary veterans are told in a timely manner.</para>
<para>We established the Joint Transition Authority, which is designed to make sure Defence is held more accountable for that critical time when our members leave the Defence Force and go into civilian life. We delivered provisional access to medical treatment. We increased the fees for health professionals. We improved financial support for veterans undertaking additional education. We boosted staffing and resources across the Department of Veterans' Affairs to speed up the claims processing.</para>
<para>We also added, for the first time, a question in the census to track the number of veterans in Australia. You'd think that would be a minor point, but, up until the 2021 census, we didn't know how many veterans we had in Australia. So simply adding that question to the census gave us the capacity to, first of all, measure the number of veterans in Australia—people who served at least one day in the Australian Defence Force—but also track where they are, in the sense of making sure services are provided in a manner that fits the veteran population in those communities. While it may seem like a small point, it's something I think will assist DVA and the minister in his role going forward. And I note, as I said earlier, that work in this space will never really be finished, because the needs of modern veterans will change. They'll be different to previous generations.</para>
<para>We support the extra scrutiny and the transparency in a timely manner, which is at the core of the appointment of a Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner who is going to be separate and independent from the department and separate from the minister. I flagged earlier that we'll also be moving amendment, and the amendment is quite a simple one. We'll be moving to bring forward the timing of the first implementation review by the commissioner. We're not aiming to hinder the passage of the bills, but, as currently drafted, the first assessment of the government's implementation of the royal commission's recommendations is not required to be completed until December 2027. That means that while the government may get the report in December 2027 it may not be tabled for many months after that; we could be well into 2028 before we see the report. We fear that's a bit slow and we feel it's a bit risky in terms of weakening accountability, and we'd be much more comfortable if we could bring that reporting date forward to no later than 30 September 2026.</para>
<para>Our view there is that veterans and their families were promised urgent reform out of the royal commission, and, unfortunately, royal commission reports in this country have a habit of sitting on a desk and eventually being forgotten about. We think bringing forward the reporting date—and that would coincide with the two-year anniversary of the royal commission's tabling of its findings—is a better way of ensuring that veterans and their families have confidence that the bureaucracy in Canberra is not slowing this down, that the commissioner will report back to the Australian public in a more timely manner. We will be able to see some evidence of what's been implemented and where we need to hurry things up a bit, and if there are any changes that need to be made the commissioner would be in a position to make those recommendations at an earlier date. We believe that's more than sufficient time to assess whether the early stage reforms have been delivered and whether the government commitments are translating into real action on the ground for Australian Defence Force veterans and their families.</para>
<para>We think the amendment is credible. We think it strengthens transparency and reinforces accountability, and it doesn't change in any way the commissioner's independence or the commissioner's powers. We commend our amendment to the government and to the crossbench. It is a simple amendment. It's all about making sure that there is increased transparency and that a sense of urgency is instilled into the bureaucracy. As much as I had an incredibly positive working relationship with senior members of the Australian Public Service during my time in ministerial offices, there were times where I was frustrated by the lack of urgency shown by some in the department. Let's put it politely: an occasional push along wouldn't hurt Australian public servants on some of these issues.</para>
<para>I'm going to finish where I started, with that simple line: 'For what they have done, this we will do.' It's a contract but it's also an action statement. 'This we will do'—it requires our action. These are not pretty words on a piece of paper just to be forgotten about. The veterans covenant is the contract for men and women who have never served, to recognise that there are people who have put on that uniform, have been willing to place themselves in harm's way and sometimes get physically or mentally injured in that process. 'For what they have done, this we will do.' We honour them and we respect them by living up to our side of that contract. They have done their job. We have to do our job. It's an action statement, and it requires us to take the action required to support our veterans and their families.</para>
<para>I urge the minister to think seriously about the amendment put forward by the coalition in this place. To every member in this place: we have the opportunity, and it's an incredible opportunity, to stand up here and make speeches which require action to be taken which improves the lives of veterans and their families. Subject to the coalition's amendment, I commend the bills to the House and I look forward to working in the same spirit of bipartisanship I've demonstrated in these comments today with the minister when I return from the sin bin on 1 March!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, introduced by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I commend him for doing so, and I note his presence in this chamber today.</para>
<para>I'm proud to come from a family who has served our country. My grandmother Jean Lynette Jordan and her sister-in-law, Sergeant Margery Steele—also known as 'Sarge Marge'—supported the Second World War effort from Australia through their work with the Australian Women's Land Army. My grandfather Stanley Jack Jordan served in the Air Force in the Second World War. My dad's grandfathers, Robert Bruce Baird and Alfred Caldwell, also served in the Air Force in Darwin during the bombings of 1942, but returned home to Melbourne postwar. My great uncles were not so lucky, and, sadly, perished while they were serving overseas. These men gave their lives to our country, and I'm proud to stand on their shoulders.</para>
<para>Once the soldiers returned home from the Second World War, many received pieces of land in regional Victoria—including my great grandfather, Stanley Jack. Stanley Jack was my grandfather's dad. He was provided a soldier settlement farm by the Australian government near Tatura, along with many veteran families. But living postwar wasn't easy. My grandfather recalls a time postwar when his dad, Stanley Jack, had woken up in the middle of the night and jumped out of a window from the fear of a nightmare. This is post-traumatic stress disorder, and it's a reality that many veterans live with every single day.</para>
<para>There's a reason we tell these stories. It's a part of us, and it's a part of our nation's shared history, shared heritage and shared culture. We tell these stories to keep them alive, to honour and remember those they're about, those who are no longer with us, those lives that were cut short at too young an age, like my great-uncles.</para>
<para>I'd like to tell you another story, about one of my mum's relatives. Hugo Throssell VC was an Australian soldier in the First World War. He served in Gallipoli, Sinai and Palestine, and he fortunately returned home to Australia safely. He was the first Western Australian and the only light horseman to receive the Victoria Cross, or VC, the highest award for valour in battle that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time. Unfortunately, even an honour like this doesn't take away from the pain. Hugo physically came home, but his mind never truly left the battlefield. Fifteen years later, Hugo committed suicide. These service men and women see unimaginable things. They go through unimaginable trauma and are plagued with this mental harm forever more. A statue of Hugo now stands in the Avon Mall in Northam, and his Victoria Cross can be seen in the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra. His legacy lives on and is a reminder to us all that we must do better. We must do better for veterans in our country, and that's exactly what this bill is about.</para>
<para>This bill is a response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which delivered its final report in September last year. I'd like to thank the current and former serving personnel and their families who have bravely shared their stories with the royal commission. The royal commission was an important moment for our country. It was a moment to give proper recognition to our ADF personnel and veterans for what they do for our country and at what cost. This recognition extends to the families and communities of ADF personnel and veterans. The royal commission was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to learn and strengthen Defence's approach to mental health and welfare and to create a better workplace experience for personnel. Most important were the findings. The royal commission found that, for our veterans and our servicemen, the system wasn't working.</para>
<para>The commission made 122 recommendations. Recommendation 122 was that the government establish a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole defence ecosystem. The royal commission said that this was its most important recommendation. It said that this recommendation would underpin all of the other recommendations that preceded it. This is the most significant action the Australian government can take to address defence and veteran suicide, so that's what we're doing.</para>
<para>In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of this recommendation, in February 2025, the Albanese Labor government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and it's now been up and running since the end of September. Now we're establishing the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner and commission into its own standalone legislation, as it was always intended, and we're strengthening it. The role of the new statutory oversight entity is to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the defence and veteran community.</para>
<para>What's unique about this statutory oversight is its focus. There is a dedicated and sustained focus here on suicide prevention. Since this underpins the rest, it really matters that we get this right. We're ensuring that agencies implementing the royal commission recommendations are held to account in promoting long-term change and building the structural change the system needs to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality amongst serving and ex-serving ADF members.</para>
<para>The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee gave a list of recommendations for what should be included in this bill. I'd like to thank the committee for their work, and I'd like to run through some of those really important recommendations now. The first recommendation is the implementation of standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, to reflect its independence. As I've mentioned previously, this bill is about delivering on this commitment. Recommendation 2 was that the commissioner functions include reference to veterans' families. The Senate committee review did just that. It means that stakeholders have an opportunity to raise their concerns with the legislation. These are the people who are closest to the issues at hand, the ones that will feel the impacts of these reforms every single day, and they're the people whose experiences have shaped this legislation.</para>
<para>There's no doubt that families of veterans play a vital role in the health and wellbeing of veterans. These families face their own unique challenges as well. That's why it's so important that these community members, the real people, form the building blocks of this legislation—because they really are the centre of it. I'd like to thank every member of the community who contributed to this committee's review. Your insights, your experiences, are invaluable.</para>
<para>This bill also strengthens the commissioner's independence and powers. The commissioner will be empowered to report to the Prime Minister when they are of the opinion that adequate and appropriate action has not been taken by a Commonwealth entity in respect to recommendations contained in a report of the commissioner. This is so powerful, because it truly puts the duty on the heads of Commonwealth entities to make sure that the commissioner is being assisted properly in carrying out their functions.</para>
<para>This bill will also make sure that the commissioner has all the relevant information needed for a special inquiry, enabling them to gain access to documents by remote means. It includes new offences for the provision of false and misleading information or the destruction of documents or things. These are all to support the commissioner to carry out their job to the best of their ability.</para>
<para>As for ensuring the commissioner's independence, a person will not be eligible to be appointed as commissioner if they have served in any capacity in the ADF within the past five years. The commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General after a merits based and public recruitment process. This is important to mention. It's important that the commission and the commissioner remain independent so that we can ensure the purpose of this bill is met: independent oversight and evidence-based advice.</para>
<para>The bill also expands on the scope of witness protection by ensuring a person providing information to an inquiry is protected in doing so. And it improves the transparency of the work of the commission to ensure accountability for the commission itself and those subject to its oversight. This includes statutory deadlines for the completion of two inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the royal commission recommendations.</para>
<para>Veterans are really important. They have done so much for our country, and they do so much in our local communities. I'd like to share a little bit about the amazing Caroline Springs RSL sub-branch in my electorate of Gorton. This sub-branch RSL was established in November 2013 by Vietnam veterans Peter Burquest and Murray Lewis to support the growing number of veterans in Melbourne's western suburbs. The Caroline Springs RSL sub-branch began with just $65 in the bank. It officially opened in February 2014, and has grown into a thriving non-profit community hub with over 300 members. These 300 members are service personnel, veterans who have themselves served and their families, who have supported and stood by them.</para>
<para>This group is focused on welfare, companionship and supporting veterans from World War II to Afghanistan. This sub-branch is known for not having poker machines in their venues because they understand the potential for gambling harm. They're known for fostering veteran and family welfare and have strong community ties with local schools, scout groups, football clubs and other local community organisations. They're out and about in schools, talking about their experiences as ex-service personnel and about the impact of war. I'm proud to say that the SBS aired a documentary highlighting the history of the Caroline Springs RSL sub-branch, interviewing a number of members. The documentary shared the sometimes untold scares and sacrifices in the service of the Defence Force. It looks honestly at the impact of service on these veterans.</para>
<para>If I may, I'd like to share a brief story of Bryan Ross. Bryan served in East Timor in 2002 and struggled with the transition to civilian life after his return. He found himself snapping at his wife and children. The turning moment for Bryan was when his son came home and told him that he'd never been the same since he'd come back from East Timor. It was then he knew that he needed help and he turned to Open Arms for counselling. Open Arms—Veterans & Families Counselling was founded by Australia's Vietnam veterans. It is Australia's leading provider of mental health assessment and counselling for Australian veterans and their families. Bryan is now actively involved with the RSL and is in a much better headspace with his family.</para>
<para>Early intervention and supporting mental health are so incredibly important for our veterans and their families. Our veterans and their legacy are ingrained in my community. We have a walk of honour in Aintree, which is a 600-metre walk in Woodlea Estate that features 150 individual plaques honouring veterans—each with their own story, their own experience and their own legacy. The 'Ode of remembrance' is played at 6 pm every Friday at the WestWaters Entertainment Complex in Caroline Springs. This social gathering provides a constant in the lives of veterans and their families and in our wider community as well.</para>
<para>The health and wellbeing of our veteran community is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. There's no doubt that we're committed to providing more effective and efficient support to veterans and their families. On Monday, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced that the Albanese Labor government is investing $739.2 million to improve the provision of the treatment and rehabilitation for veterans to reduce the impact of injury on them and improve their lifetime wellbeing. Modern clinical evidence shows that early access to the right care helps in a number of ways. It helps to improve daily functioning, prevent conditions from worsening, reduce long-term impairments, support mental health and strengthen long-term wellbeing and quality of life.</para>
<para>This reform is one of our government's responses to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It's a response which recognises that fostering the wellbeing of veterans is one important protective factor against suicide. Mental health is so important. For so many, government mental health measures are a lifeline. This includes our veterans. These veterans have served in our communities and defended our country. They deserve their wellbeing to be accounted for—and their families too.</para>
<para>In my local community, in Melbourne's western suburbs, we have a beautiful war memorial opposite Lake Caroline. Like many in our community, I often go there for moments of peaceful reflection. I think about those who have given their lives to serve our country. I think about those who return home but live with the mental anguish of war. I think about those families who have grieved for their loved ones. I think about my own family and the legacy of Hugo Throssell VC. This bill is for all of you. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025. As the shadow minister for defence personnel and shadow minister for defence industry, I'd like to first acknowledge our veterans and those currently serving in our Defence Forces. When the coalition was last in government, it established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It was imperative for us as a government to deliver families and veterans the truth, accountability and systemic reform that they needed and deserved.</para>
<para>That royal commission confirmed what the ex-service community and families had been saying for many years: systemic failure requires systemic oversight and structural reforms. It made clear that lasting reform requires independent, system-wide oversight across defence and veteran departments—not embedded within one department. Amongst the recommendations was one of the most significant, which was the implementation of an independent and permanent statutory oversight body to drive reform. The coalition supports the objective of this bill to give effect to that recommendation. We have always advocated for independent oversight with real powers, public reporting and parliamentary accountability, because only then is reform able to be genuine, measurable and sustained.</para>
<para>As an opposition, we will continue to hold the Albanese government to account for their attempt to create the commission through a late amendment to unrelated legislation. This attempt was frankly insulting to our veteran community. That bill was rushed, was poorly handled, lacked proper consultation and showed a lack of respect for our veteran community by the Labor government. Quite simply, our veterans deserve a body with teeth, established through standalone legislation—a model the coalition has argued for from the beginning. It should never have been the case that it was created through a last-minute insertion. This simply undermines confidence and scrutiny.</para>
<para>I call on the government to acknowledge their mistakes and their lack of judgement with the original commission proposal. The government asked the parliament to wave through a complex oversight body with limited stakeholder engagement and visibility. That is not how serious veteran policy and legislation should be handled and ultimately made. The coalition moved an amendment to ensure that a dedicated Senate inquiry could provide scrutiny on the commission model. From that, many of the key improvements, including the independence of the standalone bill that we are debating at this point in time, only exist because we forced that scrutiny and fulfilled our duty to scrutinise the legislation presented to us. It was not in the government's original design.</para>
<para>It is important for us to acknowledge and to remind the Albanese government that what we are debating today was not an original idea, and no amount of their political spin or press releases will make it theirs. The coalition tried to establish an independent national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention back in 2020. The bill proposed an independent statutory oversight body with essentially the same structural features being introduced now. You have to ask yourself: what did the then Labor opposition do at that time? They opposed it purely for political purposes. The Albanese led opposition prevented its establishment. Unbelievable! But now we have the very same people proposing a model that exactly mirrors what the Labor Party voted against. If Labor had supported the coalition's national commissioner back in 2020 rather than opposing it, independent oversight would already be mature and operational. Instead, there has been an unnecessary five-year delay because Labor prioritised politics over veterans' welfare and wellbeing but are now finally delivering a commission. Some would say, 'Better late than never,' but it's six years too late.</para>
<para>The DVSC will lead an independent inquiry into military sexual violence within the ADF. The coalition welcomes the government's decision to launch an inquiry into sexual violence in the Australian Defence Force but notes that it has taken more than a year—yes, a year—since this action was recommended in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's final report. This is an important and overdue measure. The royal commission found that sexual violence remains a systemic issue within the ADF and is directly linked to suicide and suicidality. As the commission stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This has been the case for decades, and it will continue unless the ADF commits to deep, systemic reform.</para></quote>
<para>No member of the ADF should ever be subjected to sexual violence, harassment or abuse. The Australians who serve in uniform, our men and women, are there to protect us, and it is equally essential that they are protected by the institutions of the ADF. Military sexual violence disproportionately affects women and can profoundly shape their experience of service. The fact that ex-serving women are twice as likely to die by suicide as women in the broader community who have not served cannot be ignored. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel has requested the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission to lead this independent inquiry. The inquiry will implement recommendation 25 of the royal commission and aligns with the DVSC's remit to examine systemic reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving ADF members. However, it should be acknowledged that the government's handling of the announcement itself was confused and poorly executed, which is incredibly troubling, given the sensitivity of the subject matter.</para>
<para>On 2 December, the minister, at the National Press Club, announced that there would be an inquiry. Later that same day, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs told the ABC that, in fact, no final decision had been made about how it would be conducted or, indeed, who would lead the inquiry. The minister stated that these decisions would be made after consultation on the terms of reference had been concluded. You have to ask yourself why he said that everything was sorted when it wasn't. Despite this, just over two weeks later on 19 December, the government announced that the DVSC would lead the inquiry, even though the consultation process remained ongoing. For an issue as serious and personal as military sexual violence, Let me tell you, attention to detail matters. Survivors, serving members and their families deserve clarity, consistency and confidence—particularly, confidence that the minister is across his brief. Announcing an inquiry, publicly conceding uncertainty about its structure and then pre-empting the outcome of consultation risks undermining confidence at the very moment that trust is most needed.</para>
<para>It is essential that this inquiry is appropriately resourced, that it allows serving members to remain anonymous and that it enables people to come forward without fear or hesitation. This inquiry is expected to commence by mid-2026, with the DVSC to publish a report of its findings. The coalition continues to stand ready to support the government in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission and will assess the outcomes of this inquiry once they are released.</para>
<para>I would just like to note, in light of this very sensitive subject matter, I think it is important that we do remind anyone who might be listening to this broadcast and who is affected by this issue about the help that is out there. Help is available through Lifeline on 131114 or through Open Arms on 1800011046.</para>
<para>The coalition will be moving an amendment to bring forward the timing of the first implementation review by the commissioner. Veterans and families were promised urgent reform, not delayed reporting. Independent oversight only works if it is timely and if it is visible. The amendment would require the first implementation assessment to be completed by no later than 30 September 2026. Earlier reporting ensures veterans, families and the parliament can see measurable progress, not just promises. If the government is confident in its reform program, it should welcome early independent assessment and should support the amendment. Our amendment strengthens transparency and reinforces accountability. It does not change the commissioner's independence or powers.</para>
<para>The coalition's objective is simple—reforms recommended by the royal commission must be implemented quickly and assessed openly. The opposition's commitment to veterans will remain unwavering. When in government, our minister for veterans' affairs was given cabinet status. Disappointingly, in the current Labor government, the responsible minister has not been. That is a clear indication of how Labor views veterans and their families. The coalition's track record on veterans' affairs speaks for itself. We will continue to support and advocate for veterans and their families because that is what those who serve their country deserve the most. The coalition will support this bill with our amendment. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COMER</name>
    <name.id>316551</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was one of the most confronting and sobering inquiries this country has ever undertaken. It heard testimonies that no family should ever have to give or experience—parents speaking about the children they lost, partners describing the lives forever changed and mates remembering those who never made it home, not from war but from the aftermath of service. Again and again, the royal commission was told the same story of people who served their country with pride, who asked for help when they needed it and who became lost in a system that was fragmented, a system that was too was complex and too often unresponsive, a system that failed to see the human cost of delay, confusion and silence.</para>
<para>The royal commission made clear that these deaths were not inevitable. They were not isolated tragedies. They were the result of systematic failures that compounded trauma, injury and distress over time. That is why the royal commission identified its recommendation to establish a new independent statutory entity to oversee reform across the entire defence ecosystem as a key recommendation—not because it was easy but because it was essential. This was a call to action and a call for enduring oversight, real accountability and sustained reform long after the headlines fade and the hearings end.</para>
<para>The families who came forward did so not just in grief but in hope—hope that their loss would lead to change and hope that the future generation of serving and ex-serving members would be better supported than their loved ones were. This legislation is part of how we are going to honour that courage. It is how we ensure that the findings of the royal commission do not sit on a shelf but instead drive lasting cultural and structural change. It is about saying clearly and unequivocally that the lives of our defence personnel and veterans matter not only in service but long after it ends.</para>
<para>I'm honoured to speak in support of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. Together they represent an important step in strengthening the independence, authority and effectiveness of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner. They reflect the government's commitment to ensuring that the system reform across the defence and veterans system is enduring, transparent and accountable, and that it has sustained focus on suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes.</para>
<para>This Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 replaces the current enabling legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. In doing so, it transitions the commission and the commissioner out of the Defence Act and into standalone legislation. This approach is deliberate. It reflects the seriousness of the role the commission is intended to play and reinforces its independence from the agencies it oversees.</para>
<para>This bill also reflects the government's response to the recommendations from the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee following its report on 29 August 2025 into the existing enabling legislation. That committee recommended, among other things, that the functions of the commissioner explicitly include reference to veterans' families. Wellbeing does not exist in isolation. Supporting veterans means supporting the people who stand behind them. This recognition strengthens the commission's work and ensures reform is informed by the lived experiences of the entire defence and veteran community. The government has listened carefully to the committee's findings, to the evidence put forward by stakeholders and to the concerns raised during the inquiry process.</para>
<para>A key feature of this bill is strengthening the independence of the commission. To support that independence, it provides for the appointment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner by the Governor-General. This is a significant safeguard. It ensures that the commissioner is appointed through a formal, merit based and public recruitment process, and that the role is clearly established as independent of Defence and other agencies. Prompt passage of this bill will facilitate the appointment of the inaugural commissioner in accordance with the provisions relating to appointment and terms, ensuring that the commission is fully operational and able to carry out its critical functions.</para>
<para>These reforms must also be understood in the context of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commission deemed recommendation 122 of its final report to be the most important recommendation. The recommendation called for the establishment of a new statutory entity to oversee systems reform across the whole defence ecosystem. The royal commission was unequivocal in its findings. It identified that fragmented responsibility, insufficient oversight and a lack of sustained accountability had contributed to systematic failures with devastating consequences for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members and their families.</para>
<para>In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of the recommendation, the Albanese Labor government legislated the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission in February 2025. The commission has been up and running since the end of September last year. These bills build on the foundation by ensuring that the commission is placed on the strongest possible legislative footing. The role of this new statutory entity is clear: it is to provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to drive system reform, with the objective of improving suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the defence and veteran community.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Stedman, Ms Carolyn, Stedman, Mr David (Dave)</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BOELE</name>
    <name.id>26417</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take this opportunity to congratulate two very special constituents in my electorate of Bradfield—Turramurra residents Carolyn and David Stedman—on an extraordinary milestone. Carolyn and Dave are foster parents, and 2026 marks 50 years since they first welcomed a child into their home—and, now, they are fostering their 75th child. They have dedicated their lives to helping children of all ages by offering them a safe and loving place to call home. The couple currently fosters children through Wesley Mission's foster care program.</para>
<para>Jim O'Rourke, who reported on the milestone in the <inline font-style="italic">Manly Daily</inline>, quoted Mr Stedman as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are both Christian people … who have a good home, good health and a good family and we're just giving back to these people who have nothing.</para></quote>
<para>According to Carers for Kids NSW, in New South Wales alone there are around 14,720 children and young people living in foster care or kinship care, of whom 45 per cent are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. In November last year the New South Wales government launched a statewide campaign urging people across New South Wales to change a child's life by becoming a foster carer. If there's anyone out there who has ever had an inkling that they might like to become carers of kids in need, I offer the incredible example of Carolyn and Dave Stedman as inspiration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scott, Mr Paul Brian</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to a much-loved local identity, Paul Scott, who passed away last month. I extend my deepest condolences to his beloved daughters, Emma-Jane and Grace; his partner, Victoria; and his friends, his colleagues and countless members of our community who mourn his loss.</para>
<para>Paul was a true Novocastrian in every sense—a passionate advocate for our region's heritage, a trusted voice in our local media and a guiding mentor for students and young people who benefited from his insights and generosity of spirit. His work to protect and celebrate community institutions from Surfest through to our historic Newcastle Post Office helped shape the cultural fabric of Newcastle and gave voice to the pride that all Novocastrians feel about our city.</para>
<para>In the face of health challenges later in life, Paul made the deeply personal decision to access voluntary assisted dying—a choice he spoke about with courage and clarity, guided by his values of dignity and self-determination. His passing reminds us of the importance of compassion not just in how we live but in how we support people at the end of life.</para>
<para>We remember Paul as a storyteller, a champion of community and a thoughtful, generous human whose legacy will endure in the people he inspired and the places he helped protect. Vale, Paul Scott.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australia: Gun Control</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister doesn't decide South Australia's gun laws; Premier Peter Malinauskas does—and unless he rules out changes, law-abiding firearm owners in my electorate of Barker remain squarely in the firing line. Responsible, law-abiding, licensed firearm owners should never be punished for the actions of criminals or extremists. While other state premiers have already ruled out changes, Premier Malinauskas, in the shadows of an election campaign, continues to leave the door open to enforcing a gun buyback in South Australians.</para>
<para>In Barker, firearms aren't a political talking point; they're essential for farm safety, for animal and pest control, for hunting and for sporting shooting. From the Murray Mallee to the Barossa, from the Riverland to the Limestone Coast, more red tape won't stop criminals or extremists but will impact law-abiding people who are doing the right thing day in, day out. This is a decision the Premier can make, and he's got to make it now. That's why I'm calling on Premier Malinauskas to rule out any changes to South Australia's gun laws and why I'm asking people right across Barker to sign my petition to get him to do the right thing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anthony, Ms Jakara</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to recognise an outstanding achievement by a remarkable local sportswoman, Jakara Anthony, who has once again shown why she is Australia's most successful winter athlete and our nation's flag bearer at the Winter Olympics. Last night, Jakara delivered a dominant qualifying performance at the Winter Olympics in Italy. She showed the composure, precision and grit that have become her trademark on the world stage. The result reflects years of discipline and relentless training and the ability to perform under immense pressure when it matters most. Jakara, a proud Barwon Heads local from my electorate of Corangamite, carries the pride of our coastal community whenever she competes. She has already etched her name into sporting history and now she stands on the brink of adding another extraordinary chapter with the prospect of a second Olympic gold medal.</para>
<para>What makes Jakara's success even more inspiring is the pathway behind it—the early mornings; the winter training at Mount Buller; the support of family, coaches and community; and the resilience to come back from injury setbacks. For young people across my region watching her compete, Jakara represents what is possible. She proves that growing up in regional Australia is no barrier to reaching the pinnacle of world sport. As she prepares for tonight's final, our entire community stands behind her. Jakara, Corangamite and the whole of Australia are cheering you on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the past, reforms to how we tax property have been constrained by fears of political backlash, particularly following the 2019 federal election, but the political landscape has changed and the appetite for reform in my electorate of Curtin demonstrates this. Curtin has high rates of investment, property ownership, benefiting from the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. Yet, in late 2024, when my office surveyed 370 constituents, three-quarters supported reform to both the capital gains tax and negative gearing systems. In November 20205, I undertook a community consultation with 240 participants, and two-thirds of those owned at least one investment property. The results were striking. More than 80 per cent supported reform to the capital gains tax discount, and more than 90 per cent supported reform to negative gearing.</para>
<para>Of course, in both instances, those who chose to participate may have been more open to reform, but the overwhelming support shows that community views have evolved as the housing crisis has worsened. This is driven by a fundamental belief that came through strongly in the consultations. Housing should be treated as a necessity, not as an investment for building wealth. People want the next generation to be able to afford to buy a house to live in. The government must consider options for reform and must make these decisions based on the impact on housing affordability, intergenerational equity, budget sustainability and productivity, not politics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Makin Electorate: Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every day, thousands of Australians quietly go about their day doing invaluable community work. And today I acknowledge those people who were this year recognised with Tea Tree Gully and Salisbury councils' Australia Day awards.</para>
<para>In Salisbury, the citizen of the year was Sheryl Smith who, with her daughter Chloe, rescues animals and supports homeless people. Young citizen went to Alina Ali for her work in promoting social cohesion. Senior citizen was awarded to Paul Dittmar, a lifelong stalwart at the Pooraka football club and who, with his wife Bronwen, has created a very popular community hub through their bakery shop, the Fabulous Baker Boys Bakery. Sorng Nou received the Active Citizenship Award for his work within the Cambodian community, and Jim Binder received the Community Achievement Award as the longstanding leader of the Salisbury Bicycle User Group. Community event of the year went to the Salisbury Business Association's John Street Family Fun Day and Emergency Services Appreciation Day, which recognised the service of the Salisbury CFS, the Salisbury SES and the Playford St John cadet division.</para>
<para>In Tea Tree Gully, Noelle Wallis was the Outstanding Citizen of the Year for the terrific work she and her team do at the Pathway Community Centre, and the Jubilee Way parkrun was the outstanding community group for their Saturday morning community fun runs.</para>
<para>Congratulations to all of those recipients. Thank you for all you do for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Often in this place I talk about the importance of a strong economy. That's not because it's the end game; it's the means. It's the means by which we build the hospitals and the schools. It's a means by which we build the roads and the rail and by which we ensure that everyday Australians can have a good standard of living, that they can have a roof over their head, that they can put food on the table and that they can otherwise enjoy a fulfilled, happy and healthy life.</para>
<para>But, today, the economy is not strong; it is weak. That is why we see symptoms right across the country of people who are doing it tough. There is no more alarming consequence than that of homelessness. In my own electorate on the Sunshine Coast, the town of Nambour is experiencing an enormous amount of homelessness at the moment. Everyone's trying to do their bit, everyone from Mayor Natoli and state MP Marty Hunt to the local chamber, charities and churches. But there's still more we can all do, and, as a community, I believe we can do more.</para>
<para>An initiative I want to raise in the House today is the Sunny Coast Sleeper. This is a bus which has seven sleeping pods. It costs $15 for someone who would otherwise sleep on the street to have a good, safe, sound, secure night's sleep in the sleeper. I'm going to get behind this initiative and try to raise funds for it. If anybody does have $15 and wants to make a contribution, please do. Let's all do our bit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Solomon Electorate: Medicare, President of Timor-Leste</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, 11 February, is a great day, because I am able to confirm for the people of Solomon, my electorate—Darwin and Palmerston—that due to the actions of this Albanese Labor government there are now 23 bulk-billing Medicare practices across Darwin and Palmerston. Fifteen of them are newly bulk-billing, and eight have shifted from mixed billing to fully bulk-billing. I have worked to continually improve health in my electorate in the far north—before politics, beyond Darwin, with the remote area health corps that I established. Before that, I worked in Timor-Leste to improve the health of babies and mothers in particular.</para>
<para>I'll never forget today's date, 11 February, back in 2008 in Timor-Leste. I was working as a civilian adviser to the President of Timor-Leste, Jose Ramos-Horta. I received a phone call that the president had been shot while returning from his morning walk. Luckily, and thanks to his resilience and to expert medical care—in Dili, from the ADF personnel and from Aspen Medical, and then at the Royal Darwin Hospital—Jose Ramos-Horta lived. So you can imagine my delight in returning to Dili recently with the Prime Minister to meet with Jose Ramos-Horta again, in his capacity as the president, and also to spend time with Xanana Gusmao— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATT</name>
    <name.id>315478</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The cost of living is out of control. In my electorate of Hinkler, one of the lowest socioeconomic regions in the country, pressure points like interest rate rises hit hard. Only yesterday I heard from the Salvos in Bundaberg, where Captain Chris Millard described a 20 per cent rise in demand at Christmas time, more people needing food and essentials than ever before. The growing list of essential needs is simply too expensive under this government. After nearly four years of Labor, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy up 38 per cent, rent up 22 per cent, health up 18 per cent, education up 17 per cent, and food up 16 per cent.</para>
<para>The Salvos in Hinkler, like many service providers, need more support to deliver, and answer the constant and rapidly rising calls for, food, shelter and general expenses. This is about the weekly shop, the monthly power bill, the rent and the mortgage. Inflation rose to 3.8 per cent in December, accelerating at the worst possible time for families—over Christmas. I said in my first speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… all Aussies deserve a nice home, cheaper living standards and a fantastic family lifestyle, but, please, do not make decisions—</para></quote>
<para>in this place—</para>
<quote><para class="block">affecting other electorates that you wouldn't want to implement in your own.</para></quote>
<para>This is Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Labor spend; prices rise; Australians pay.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRISKEY</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Because we on this side of the House are a united team focused on delivering for working Australians, today we introduce changes that will make our super system fairer from top to bottom. This is for the early childhood educators shaping the minds of our next generation, the school cleaners keeping our kids' classrooms safe and the aged-care workers looking after our parents and grandparents—workers who've given so much yet have not been given a fair go on their retirement savings. Today, we're changing that. We're increasing the LISTO rate—and increasing it over time so we secure it as a meaningful lift in the super that gives these essential workers a better retirement.</para>
<para>I'm proud today to speak on what this means for people, including women, in my community of Maribyrnong. In Maribyrnong alone, 7½ thousand people will benefit directly. It will add an additional $3.1 million in super flowing to the accounts of local workers, and two-thirds of those accounts are held by women. This is what a government focused on the job looks like. While those opposite are hopelessly divided and distracted by their own internal politics, we are getting on with the job of delivering for Australians who need it most. This measure rewards work, it closes the gender super gap and it ensures that the people who care for our children, our elderly and our communities are not left behind in retirement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories tried to school us in question time, but maybe it's the minister who needs to go back to school. The fact is that Labor is completely neglecting regional communities, and no amount of trickery and slight increases in one program while scrapping a swathe of others can pull the wool over the eyes of country people.</para>
<para>She talked about Roads to Recovery. Well, Roads to Recovery was a program put in place by the coalition in 2000, and, over its time in government, the coalition increased the funding by 43 per cent, to $500 million. Most significantly, the coalition provided $3 billion in new funding for councils via the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. And listen up, everyone: in 2023, Labor scrapped that program and the $3 billion. Labor's Growing Regions Program has no money. It's a PINO, a program in name only. Stronger Communities has no money.</para>
<para>I have a question for the teacher—I mean minister—who's trying to school me, and I'd appreciate an honest answer: how can regional councils apply for critical infrastructure funding at the moment? One example is Kirwans Bridge near Nagambie, which has been knocked back several times by the Albanese government. The fact is the cupboard is bare and it's just not fair.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is the party of Medicare. We created it, we protected it and, under the Albanese Labor government, we are strengthening it for the future. At the last election, the Albanese Labor government made a clear promise to the Australian people that we would rebuild bulk-billing and make it easier for families to see a bulk-billing doctor, and that is exactly what we are delivering. Thanks to our historic investment in Medicare, Australians can now access more than 3,400 bulk-billing practices across the country, and that number continues to grow every week. Almost 1,300 of these practices were previously mixed billing. That means more families are now walking into a GP clinic knowing that they will need only their Medicare card and not their credit card. In just three months, the national bulk-billing rate has surged to 81.4 per cent, the largest quarterly increase in 20 years outside of the pandemic.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Aston, almost half of the GP clinics are now bulk-billing-only practices, with there now being 22 bulk-billing practices in total. That's 15 additional GP practices now bulk-billing patients due to Labor's reforms. That is real cost-of-living relief for local families in my community in Melbourne's outer east. Because of our delivery, 96 per cent of Australians now live within a 20-minute drive of a registered bulk-billing practice. We promised a stronger Medicare, we promised more bulk-billing and that's exactly what we're delivering.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fiscal Policy</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's spendathon is costing the people of my electorate dearly. Commonwealth spending has blown out from around 24 per cent to 27 per cent of GDP. It's the highest level outside of a recession in nearly four decades. Debt is now projected to climb to $1.2 trillion by the next election, and local families in my electorate are paying the price. They are paying through higher inflation driven by out-of-control government spending. They are paying again through higher interest rates, with more pressure likely to be piled on in 2026. Every mortgage holder in my electorate feels it and every small business feels it.</para>
<para>But the opportunity cost of Labor's reckless spending is just as staggering. The federal Labor government is now paying around $50,000 every single minute just to service interest on the national debt. Imagine what that money could achieve in my electorate, across the Redlands. With just half a day's interest payments, we could green-seal every remaining unsealed road on the southern Moreton Bay Islands. With a single day's interest payments, we could fund stages 2 and 3 of the duplication of Wellington Street in Cleveland, a project of which stage 1 was funded under the former coalition government. With just a couple of weeks of interest payments, we could deliver a much-needed expansion of Redland Hospital. This is the cost of waste, and this is the cost that my community is paying for this Labor government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moreton Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CAMPBELL</name>
    <name.id>312823</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>People have been diligently counting. The numbers are in. It's the hottest topic in the gallery. But I'm not talking about the opposition—no, I am talking about the national bulk-billing stats. And let's have a look at them, because there are some good numbers here. There are 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the breadth and depth of this nation—a whopping 81 per cent increase to bulk-billing practices in just those short three months. My own electorate on Brisbane's south side in Moreton, much like the member for Aston and much like the member for Solomon, has had a good increase here too. Eleven formerly mixed-billing practices are now fully bulk-billing, and that's a total of 23 fully bulk-billing practices in my local community. That's 23 places where you don't have to check your bank balance before you go to the doctor. It's 23 places where all you need is that little green card, and it's 23 places where you getting better is the only currency that counts. I had the great privilege of being able to visit one of those—Beaudesert Road Surgery in Moorooka—with the fabulous Dr Gary Chang. On top of the urgent care clinics in Canossa and at the PA, my community is reaping the benefits of the Albanese's laser-like focus on health care for Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Calare Electorate: Public Works</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm calling for an independent inquiry into Orange City Council's management of the Orange Regional Sporting Precinct project. This $75 million development is made up of state and federal funding that should deliver a world-class regional sporting facility. Unfortunately, some serious questions need to be answered about what's gone on with this project. One whistleblower, who is also an expert, has provided me with council documents that include scientific lab tests which show that sand supplied to the site for the playing fields contained too much clay and silt, in breach of the contract. Despite failing lab tests multiple times, the sand was apparently spread anyway. The lab test results sourced from council also show that sand failed drainage tests. Questions have also been raised about whether turf laid on the playing fields was washed first in order to remove silt, as required by the contract. Another whistleblower has come forward and stated that, before sand was delivered to the site, unwashed sand was mixed in with washed sand. Washing the sand removes silty particles. When I first raised this with council, their first response was, in effect, 'There's nothing to see here.' Now they've finally admitted that there are problems with the construction of several of the fields but, bizarrely, state that there are no issues with the sand. This isn't good enough. We need full transparency and accountability from Orange City Council. The public needs to know what's gone on here, who's responsible and how much it's all going to cost to fix. We need an independent inquiry to investigate Orange City Council's management of this project.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Doctor, doctor, give me the news! In the Hunter, for too long the news was not great. Too often the next line felt like, 'And here's the bill.' Every family in the Hunter want to know they can see a doctor with their Medicare card, not their credit card. Before this government strengthened Medicare, bulk-billing in the Hunter was in real trouble. Just 10 out of 50 GP surgeries were bulk-billing. That's only 20 per cent. For too many people, seeing a doctor meant pulling out a credit card instead of a Medicare card. But today that picture has changed. Twenty-five out of 50 GP surgeries in the Hunter now bulk bill. That's 50 per cent of practices and growing. This is real progress for local families right across the Hunter electorate. It happened because this government, the Albanese Labor government, made the largest investment in Medicare in our nation's history. We backed doctors to bulk-bill and made sure the system worked for patients as well. After years of neglect, bulk-billing was in freefall. We are turning that around, and communities like mine are feeling the difference right now on the ground. This is good for pensioners, families, apprentices and working people. This is good for local clinics and our health system. Labor built Medicare, and the Albanese Labor government will continue to strengthen it to make sure we're looking after the everyday mums and dads and Aussies in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Estate</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week's announcement of Labor's fire sale of more than 60 Defence sites was an absolute disgrace. The sale of these sites is nothing more than a way for the Deputy Prime Minister to raise funds to pay for the defence of our nation. The coalition maintains that defence spending should be at least three per cent of GDP. Labor clearly does not understand nor care about our nation's defence needs.</para>
<para>It beggars belief that, during Australia's most dangerous strategic environment since World War II, the Albanese government has failed to equip our men and women in uniform with the resources that they need to defend our nation. The number of training facilities that have been earmarked for disposal leads to the obvious question: where are you going to train our defence personnel? To quote retired Brigadier Ian Langford:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How do you recruit and retrain a workforce that is unable to serve in populated areas?</para></quote>
<para>To make matters worse, this morning in Senate estimates, we've learned of the disrespect Labor have for our service men and women. It is incredibly disrespectful that the media found out about this fire sale of defence assets before our defence personnel. Maybe Labor thought it was going to be a good news story. Well, let me tell you, the defence community certainly does not think so.</para>
<para>To the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister: if you are looking to get more Defence funds for the defence of our nation, rather than selling off our heritage and our history, just fund Defence properly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What happens in this place matters. What programs we fund, what laws we pass and what decisions we make all have the potential to change lives for the better. When it comes to Medicare, I'm so proud that this Labor government has worked hard to make Medicare better each and every day since we were elected in 2022.</para>
<para>In October last year Healthdirect listed nine bulk-billing general practices in Bennelong. Today's data shows that there are 18 fully bulk-billed practices in Bennelong. Now we all know that the member for Hume has been doing the numbers lately, and he told me that 18 is double what it was in Bennelong only three months ago. One in three practices in Bennelong now fully bulk-bill meaning free care for those who need to see a GP.</para>
<para>Australians rely on Medicare every single day, and most of us expect health care to be accessible when we need it. But there are some in this place who don't think the same. Never forget what the Liberals and the Nationals do to Medicare when they take government. Last time, they cut $50 million from hospital funding and they froze the Medicare rebate for six long years. Labor understands that Medicare is in Australia's DNA, so be it for Medicare urgent care clinics, Medicare mental health centres or more bulk-billing practices, we'll always strengthen it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it has all now been revealed. When Geoffrey Watson SC started an inquiry into the Queensland CFMEU, what he found was CFMEU officials standing over public servants and directing them like they were the government. At the end of last year, Mr Watson outlined that he was going to table this latest report about CFMEU corruption in Victoria. We FOI'd it. We wrote to the minister. No response. Now we know why she's refusing to answer our questions and release documentation—because a secret report has now been revealed for the nation to see, titled <inline font-style="italic">Rotting from the top</inline>. That is a lived reality of the CFMEU Labor cartel and the kickbacks that are being paid.</para>
<para>And what does this report show? It shows $15 billion of public money has been laundered from Albanese government projects and Allan government projects, and the Allan government knew exactly what was happening.</para>
<para>They turned a blind eye to the theft of public money going to organised crime and to bikie gangs. The Albanese government's response is to keep corrupt power structures in place in the CFMEU and take it out of the media cycle. But, because we know that two chapters were removed, I seek leave to table this report so it can never be whitewashed from history again.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Running interference for CFMEU corruption.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sit down please, Mr Wilson. Order! The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>An imputation was made in the last comment from the member for Goldstein and should be withdrawn.</para>
<para>An honourable member: A hundred per cent.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should reflect on what you said and withdraw any imputations made on the reputations of other members. Would you assist the House and withdraw? I believe that would help.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To assist the House, I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here's a report: 'Because of the Albanese Labor government, more people in the seat of Brisbane can see a GP for free.' This is just one step we're taking to rebuild Medicare, our world-class health system. In November last year this government made the single-largest investment in Medicare in its history. We extended the bulk-billing incentive to cover every patient, not just pensioners, concession card holders and families with children, and we tripled the incentive for doctors to do this. Why? It's because this Labor government believes all Australians should be able to see a GP for free. My message to the young people of Brisbane is: if you've put off going to a GP because of the costs, as many of you have admitted, you can now go with only your Medicare card. My second message is: if you're at the GP and you're not getting bulk-billed, you might want to ask them why.</para>
<para>Bulk-billing, though, is only part of the story. This government is delivering across our healthcare system. This week marks the one-year anniversary of our historic women's health package, putting women's health and equity at the heart of this government's agenda. For too long, women's health has been overlooked, underfunded and misunderstood. Labor has changed that. Labor is delivering on its commitment to more affordable and accessible health care. We built Medicare, and we'll protect it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week has been a particularly combative week in the chamber, and this behaviour does not reflect well on the House. I shouldn't have to say this, seeing as I've already made a statement, but further incidents have occurred. It leaves me with no other choice.</para>
<para>The standing orders have been changed. I want all members to understand that I won't hesitate in using the naming powers I have. Of course in parliamentary debates members will have differing opinions, even in question time. That is to be expected. But the House has to find ways of engaging in debate that maintain respectful behaviours. We have a shared responsibility to display exemplary leadership. Regardless of the challenges inside this chamber or the challenges outside the chamber, we must exercise that shared responsibility to ensure people are always treated with the highest standards of respect.</para>
<para>We all know that everyone is looking to the parliament and looking to us. They have expectations of how we speak and how we behave towards each other. If recent reforms for behaviour codes and standards at parliament are truly to be meaningful, then we must act with intent to set the standard for an inclusive, respectful and professional workplace in Parliament House and across Australia. I'm asking all members to rise to this challenge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I'm regularly told by members of the public that the behaviour in this chamber is out of step with what modern Australia expects. People often tell me that, if they behaved like we do in their workplaces, their schools and their community centres, they would be thrown out or suspended. I know we are all genuinely concerned about social cohesion. As a country, we disagree passionately about many issues and, as politicians, we keep on asking everyone to have a robust debate but with respect. People are sick of politicians saying, 'Do as I say but not as I do.' If as a parliament we expect this from our country, then we must lead by example and start by doing it here.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rick Wilson</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can everyone have a go?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Member for O'Connor, I cannot believe you just said that.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Australians learned that sections of a report into CFMEU corruption were removed by the Prime Minister's hand-picked administrator. These sections included 'Government inaction on the CFMEU' and 'The cost of inaction to the taxpayer'. The probe's chief investigator said, 'I did not suggest the changes; I was directed to make the changes.' Prime Minister, did any individual in the Albanese government have any involvement in the removal of these two sections?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. The CFMEU administrator commissioned Geoffrey Watson to provide a report into the Victorian branch of the CFMEU to help him with his important work. Let me be very clear, this is a report to the administrator, not a report to government. The handling, distribution and publication of reports commissioned by the independent administrator is a matter for him.</para>
<para>To be abundantly clear, my office received this report on 9 February, and at no stage have we requested any changes to the report or made any requests for amendments to the contents of the report. Any suggestion is misleading the parliament. Let me be very, very clear, Mr Irving has been clear and transparent about why parts of the report had been removed, and it is because he was not satisfied that they were well founded or properly tested.</para>
<para>In terms of the transparency, the Watson report has been tabled by the administrator, and he has responded publicly. We retain full confidence in the administrator, respected KC Mark Irving. Not a single bad actor referred to in this Watson report still works for the CFMEU, and all have been removed by the administrator. Those opposite have irresponsibly called for his sacking of an administrator that achieved more progress in cleaning up the union in 18 months than they achieved in their whole time in government. Over 50 per cent of the organisers in the Victorian branch have been removed, 90 per cent in New South Wales, and, in Queensland, 50 per cent. Let's remember how many those opposite removed—a big fat zero.</para>
<para>I will also refer—considering that the Leader of the Opposition has referenced Geoffrey Watson, he has provided evidence to say, today: 'If anything I have said here today would suggest there is an outcome about removing the administrator, they should think again. They would be mad to get rid of Mark Irving.' Those opposite might want to distract from their chaos and disruption. Nothing will do that. We have been very, very clear about this. They can say there are smoke and mirrors, but we have been very clear, and they need to think again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEESDALE</name>
    <name.id>314526</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in bulk-billing and strengthening Medicare for every Australian after a decade of cuts and neglect? How have the government's policies been aimed at correcting past policy mistakes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In February last year, I proudly stood in Launceston with the then Labor candidate for Bass and announced that a re-elected Labor government would make the biggest ever investment in bulk-billing. On 3 May, Australians voted to strengthen Medicare, and, on 3 November, our commitment to tripling the bulk-billing incentive for every Australian began to roll out. Three months later, it's clear that what we promised is delivering for Australians.</para>
<para>Around Australia today, more than eight in every 10 visits to the GP are fully bulk-billed. Millions of people are getting the healthcare they need with just their Medicare card, not their credit card. Now, nearly 3,400 GP practices are fully bulk-billed—an increase of 1,300 clinics since November, in that short period of time. There is more bulk-billing, in fact, in every single state and every territory, giving Australians access to the health care that they need.</para>
<para>We don't know who the Liberal leader will be next week, but we do know that they'll be against Medicare. We know this because the member for Hume wanted Tony Abbott's GP tax. He said this: 'We know that the GP co-payment is reasonable.' They were against any free visits to the doctor because they wanted a co-payment on every single visit! But it gets worse. In 2015 the current Leader of the Opposition and the then health minister decided to extend the freeze on the Medicare rebate. That's bad enough—but the member for Hume called for her cuts to go even deeper and further. In an opinion piece from 2015, he said, 'The member for Farrer's program of cuts should extend across the health system.' We all remember when they came to office the last time, in 2014, ripping money out of health and ripping money out of education. But, for the member for Hume, that didn't go far enough. They wanted to rip even more out.</para>
<para>Only Labor is committed to strengthening Medicare. It's what we do—through cheaper medicines, the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, the urgent care clinics, the increased hospital funding and the Medicare mental health clinics. All of these measures are aimed at strengthening Medicare and repairing the damage that those opposite did over their time in office.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Frankcom, Ms Lalzawmi (Zomi)</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The grieving family of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, killed in Gaza nearly two years ago by Israeli air strikes, still seeks answers. The conflict has been among the deadliest on record for journalists and aid workers, with over 200 journalists killed and 400 aid workers killed. Zomi's brother raised his concerns directly with the Prime Minister about no-one facing accountability. Will the government now push for an independent war crimes investigation into her death and the targeting of aid workers and journalists? What accountability will the Prime Minister request of President Herzog?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that if President Herzog hadn't been here, I wouldn't have been able to raise the issue of Zomi Frankcom with him—which is precisely what I did this morning, along with a range of other Australian government concerns. That's one of the reasons why you have dialogue in a respectful way: to get outcomes and to advance Australia's national interests. So one of the issues I raised was Zomi Frankcom and her six World Central Kitchen colleagues. These deaths were a tragedy and an outrage. We said that at the time and we've made it clear that that remains the Australian government's position.</para>
<para>We've also made clear our expectation that there be transparency about Israel's ongoing investigation into the incident. We continue to press for full accountability, including any appropriate criminal charges. Last year at the United Nations, Australia and our partners launched the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel. That was led by our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, who engaged with her colleagues right around the world to issue that statement—more than 100 nations signed on—attempting to get a global position.</para>
<para>The member referred to figures. Every one of them is a tragedy, and every one of them is an outrage. Journalists and aid workers lost their lives while going about doing their jobs—reporting on what was occurring in Gaza and in the Middle East or doing critical work providing humanitarian support to Gaza in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe. Australia has increased our aid and will continue to do so. We have spoken about humanitarian aid with the Israeli government and with the Israeli president. I must say the Israeli president has said that he will engage and come back to the Australian government about the issues that we have raised.</para>
<para>The issue of the protection declaration is about honouring the courage and kindness of Zomi Frankcom and her fellow aid workers. This is someone who provided aid not just in that area of the world but along with other World Central Kitchen colleagues, the head of whom is based in New York and is known to President Herzog, who have done extraordinary work in war zones and under extreme difficulty, taking risks in order to help their fellow humans. We honour Zomi Frankcom. We give her family our sincere condolences for what is a tragic loss, and we'll continue to work each and every day to do our best to ensure there is transparency and there is appropriate action.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR</name>
    <name.id>315618</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are the Albanese Labor government's record investments in Medicare making it easier for Australians to see a doctor for free, and why is it important to lift bulk-billing rates after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Barton. She told me that her time at St Vincent de Paul before she came to this place reinforced, for her, the importance of health care being more accessible and more affordable for all Australians. That's why we have a Strengthening Medicare agenda that rests on four core pillars. Rolling out 137 urgent care clinics—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about Taree?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>including the Carlton urgent care clinic that we visited 18 months ago and has already seen more than—I'm not going to respond to this provocation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, come on!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not going to respond again. I got suckered yesterday. I'm not going to be suckered again.</para>
<para>More doctors and cheaper medicines as well—but the central pillar of our agenda is turning around bulk-billing rates, which were in freefall when we came to government after a decade of cuts inflicted on our cherished Medicare system by those opposite, including the now Leader of the Opposition. Our first decision back in 2023 was to triple the bulk-billing incentive that GPs receive when they bulk-bill pensioners, concession card holders and kids. I'm pleased to report to the House that the bulk-billing rate for those 11 million Australians now sits at 92½ per cent.</para>
<para>But we were also very worried about the bulk-billing rate for people who don't have that concession card, which was continuing to slide after the cuts made by those opposite. That is why, as the Prime Minister said last year, for the first time ever, we extended bulk-billing support to every single Australian and also decided to pay an incentive to general practices that switched to bulk-billing all of their patients all of the time. I'm happy to say that, in just three months, an additional 1,300 general practices have switched from charging gap fees back in last October to bulk-billing everyone.</para>
<para>I'm particularly pleased to report to the member for Barton that more than three out of every five general practices in her electorate are now 100 per cent bulk-billing practices, because it's good for the practice, it's good for the doctors, and, most importantly, it's good for their patients. It means more Australians can feel confident that they can go to their doctor whenever they feel they need to rather than when they feel they can afford to. I also want to say that this has been especially good for those Australians who don't have the benefit of a concession card. In just the last three months, the bulk-billing rate for those Australians has climbed by eight per cent, delivering millions of additional free visits to the doctor.</para>
<para>We know there's more to do. We know there are more improvements to make, but our record investment here is already making a huge difference to millions of Australians and delivering a stronger Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Acknowledgement</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before we move to the next question, I'll just do some quick acknowledgements. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is Tony Stewart, the former Deputy Speaker and former member for Bankstown in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Accompanying Mr Stewart is Ms Judy Barraclough, the CEO of Youth Off the Streets; they're guests of the Leader of the House. I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is David Ballantyne, the CEO of HomeFront Australia, an Australian veteran success story. And—it's a bit dangerous—I'm also pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives of the Richmond Football Club, who are here for Tigers on the Hill, hosted by Minister Catherine King and the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan. Welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Revelations in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> today expose that the Prime Minister's handpicked CFMEU administrator has requested the deletion of two chapters from the report of the independent probe highlighting the CFMEU-Labor cartel, which calculated that $15 billion of washed taxpayer subsidies have ended up in organised crime. In your previous answer, you said that the report was received by your office on 9 February. Did your office seek a copy before that date, and which version did you get—the full version, the redacted version or the version with two chapters missing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I need to be very, very clear to the member for Goldstein that at no stage has my office in any way requested any changes to the report that was provided to the administrator. We received the report—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. The minister's 30 seconds in. You can have your point of order now, but you'll only get one shot at it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Goldstein on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: the question was specifically about whether a copy was requested, not—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Resume your seat. The minister was in mid-sentence talking about the copy of the report when you took that point of order. I'm going to make sure she's being directly relevant, but we've had the point of order on relevance now, so we can't ask that again. I'll make sure she is directly relevant, and she may continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My office received the report. I need to be very clear to the member for Goldstein that at no point has my office requested any changes, any omissions or anything different in this report. We received the report, but I need to be clear to the member for Goldstein: this is a report to the administrator, not a report to government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in bulk-billing and taking women's health seriously, and what are the risks that this investment faces?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I very much thank the member for Gorton for her question. Her electorate is now home to 23 Medicare bulk-billing clinics, an increase of 10 bulk-billing clinics since we made our record investment in bulk-billing, the heart of Medicare. Both in the member for Gorton's electorate and now in my own electorate of Ballarat, more than 70 per cent of our GP clinics are now fully bulk-billed, joining more than 3,400 fully Medicare bulk-billed practices right across the country, and this matters. This matters a great deal to the accessibility of health care in this country, because we know general practice is absolutely at the core of Medicare.</para>
<para>I also note that at least half of the member for Gorton's constituents have seen their access to health care improve as a result of the $792 million women's health package. Since we announced that just last year, it has been delivering the results for women around Australia that they have been asking for for a long time. In just one year, women have saved $73 million on contraceptives, menopause and endo treatments. Seventy-one thousand women have had a menopause health assessment covered by Medicare. In March, 33 endo and pelvic pain clinics will be up and running all around the country, and by the middle of the year those same clinics will be providing peri and menopause care as well. PBS scripts are now capped, meaning every single woman accessing PBS medications is now paying less for their medicines.</para>
<para>This is groundbreaking work that treats women's health with the seriousness that it deserves, and it doesn't happen by accident. It's what happens when you support women and when you support women to be in the room making decisions in a majority female government with a majority female cabinet, instead of undercutting women who are brave enough to put their hands up to lead.</para>
<para>While we wait for the men in the Liberal Party to draw straws on who their next leader will be, we know exactly what their next leader and the one after that will do to Medicare, because they have form. Liberals always cut our health services and always cut Medicare, and that includes the health services and care that Australian women rely on each and every single day. They let the cost of PBS medicines blow out. They tried to end bulk-billing and add the GP tax, a compulsory co-payment, and, as shadow minister for health, leading the charge, when I stopped that in the Senate, what we then saw was the then government decide that they were going to freeze the Medicare rebate and we basically saw bulk-billing in this country absolutely collapse. They have got form when it comes to health care. We know that the pretender, the person who wants to be the leader, has form on it as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why can't the minister just be honest and give a straight answer to the Australian families who were promised a $275 reduction in their power bills by 2025?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the question. I'm not entirely sure what it is, though. He asked me why I won't answer a question and then he didn't ask a question. But I'm happy to say we believe energy prices are too high and we believe governments should take action to reduce them, and that's what we're doing. When you are dealing with higher energy prices, you can have a policy of introducing more of the cheapest, most reliable form of energy available, which is renewables, or you can have a $600 billion plan, which is the most expensive form of energy available and which is what the honourable member and his friends took to the Australian people at the last election—and they appear to be going down that road again.</para>
<para>If you think energy prices are too high, as we do, then you take action to deal with it. You can take action through energy bill rebates, which we've done three times. You can take action through supporting renewable energy, which we are doing and which has seen wholesale prices fall 44 per cent in the last quarter of last year. You can take action to ensure that as much of that as possible flows through to retail prices, which we're doing with things like solar sharer, which sees three hours of free power in the middle of the day to those Australians whom we're able to provide it to, which we support and those opposite oppose. So you have a choice: take action to help Australian families or have policies which will make the situation worse, which is what the National Party and their coalition partners, the Liberal Party, are proposing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Nationals and the member for Fisher interjected continuously during that answer, and I'd ask them to assist the House by ceasing their interjections.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping people tackle the cost of living now and into retirement, and how does that compare to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an absolute champion the member for Lalor is for her community and for our team here, in Parliament House. The member for Lalor knows—we all know—that people are under pressure, but, more than acknowledging that and recognising that, we're acting on it. We're delivering when it comes to more help with the cost of living. On that front, today is a really, really important day, because we've got this new data out which shows that Australians now have access to more bulk-billed GP clinics than ever before—with something like more than 3,400 practices across the country, which is also more than ever before.</para>
<para>I pay tribute here to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the PM and my colleagues for the work that we have put into lifting bulk-billing in this country, because we understand that when there's more bulk-billing there's less pressure on families. It's a really important way that we're helping to ease the cost of living, but it's not the only way that we're going about that. We're also making sure that people on lower incomes can get a boost to their superannuation balances. Just today, we introduced legislation into this parliament to make superannuation fairer from top to bottom by boosting superannuation for people on the lowest incomes and funding it by making the tax concessions for people with the biggest balances still concessional but more sustainable. That's what today's legislation is all about.</para>
<para>If those opposite vote against that legislation, they'll be voting for less super for people with low balances and bigger tax breaks for people who've got $20 or $30 or $40 million in their superannuation accounts. That wouldn't be the first time that they have voted against people on low and middle incomes in this parliament. Perhaps the most egregious example was when, just before the election, when we legislated our tax cuts, those opposite, at the urging of the member for Hume, not only voted against those tax cuts but said if they got the opportunity in government, they would repeal those tax cuts. That would mean higher income taxes for every one of the 14 million Australian taxpaying workers in this country.</para>
<para>On this side of the parliament, a tax cut for every taxpayer; on that side of the parliament, because of the economic genius of the member for Hume, every single taxpayer would get a tax increase. I notice the Leader of the Opposition is not leaping to his defence. The point that I am making is this: whether it's bulk-billing, whether its superannuation, whether it's tax cuts that we're rolling out for the second and third time in the life of this parliament, this side of the House is delivering more super, more tax cuts and more bulk-billing. That side of the House is divided, and they look like a total shambles.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Treasury has advised the government that its target to build 1.2 million new homes could not be met, and that it is more than 80,000 homes behind. But instead of cleaning up union thuggery on construction sites to make it cheaper to build houses, the Prime Minister's hand-picked CFMEU administrator suppressed entire sections of a union corruption probe. Prime Minister, why are homebuyers paying the price for Labor's failure to stand up to union corruption?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, which draws some very long bows. Some very long bows indeed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wright will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite sat on this side of the chamber for nine years. John Setka, during that period, increased his influence over the CFMEU. They did absolutely nothing. I'll tell you what I did after I became leader of the Labor Party. I expelled John Setka within weeks. That's what leaders can do when they lead their party with authority, when they actually have people behind them, as part of their party, who are working for them and not undermining them. That is what we did on this side of the House, which is why we were able to take strong action when we came to government. We took strong action to intervene, to insert the administrators, which has seen people leave that union and the industry.</para>
<para>When it comes to our target, construction cost inflation has fallen from a half-century high under the coalition. Housing construction costs were rising at 17 per cent when we came into office; now they're 1.8 per cent.</para>
<para>Mr Wallace interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fisher is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are more first home buyers under Labor than there were under the coalition. We've directly helped more than 220,000 Australians into home ownership sooner. New home starts are up. New dwelling commencements are up 11.6 per cent compared to a year ago. And we're doing something that those opposite never did, which is to actually build social housing. We on this side don't look down our noses at people.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're building less houses!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wright is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We understand that social housing is an important part of what we want to achieve. The Master Builders Australia CEO said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The 1.2 … is achievable. … for the first time, we've seen a Federal Government actually recognise that they've got a leadership role in resolving this problem. Up until the Albanese Government, we have seen Federal Government say, no, it's the problem of the states, it's the problem of local government.</para></quote>
<para>That's Denita Wawn, the CEO of the Master Builders Australia. We are getting on with the job of building homes for Australians; those opposite are just trying to tear down their own house.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government improving access to health care for people in regional Australia, and how does increasing the bulk-billing rate improve health outcomes after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Braddon for the question. Her advocacy on health care across Tasmania is legendary. The winter Olympics may be on in Italy at the moment, but there are green and gold signs popping up all over regional Australia because the government is strengthening Medicare, because, when you're sick, seeing a doctor shouldn't be a struggle. The Albanese government is laser focused on improving access to health care for people across regional Australia. We're doing this by encouraging more GPs to bulk-bill and by opening Medicare urgent care clinics around the country.</para>
<para>Since the Albanese government expanded the bulk-billing incentive on 1 November, Australians can now access over 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing clinics across the country. From Burnie in Braddon to Saint Georges Basin in Gilmore, there are more GPs bulk-billing in our regions than ever before, because your postcode shouldn't determine your access to health care. I'm proud that the Labor government is helping more people in our regions access urgent care when they need it. In just three months, the bulk-billing rate for Australians has jumped to 81.4 per cent nationwide. It's the largest quarterly jump in 20 years. Bulk-billing rates are up 6.4 per cent in our regional areas, 5.5 per cent in rural communities. There's been an increase in GP bulk-billing in every state and territory across the country.</para>
<para>Medicare urgent care clinics are critical to improving health outcomes in our regions. More than two million Australians have already received free urgent care at Medicare urgent care clinics. Just recently, I joined my local healthcare professionals at the launch of the Bega valley urgent care clinic—one of 123 urgent care clinics that have opened, with 40 of those being in regional, rural and remote areas. So, if you have a nasty spill on your bike or in a party room, you can just pop over to your local urgent care clinic. They'll patch you up. They might pat you on the head. They'll say: 'Fantastic. Great move. Well done, insert name here.'</para>
<para>Not only are we investing in Medicare; we're investing in more places for doctors to train in rural and regional communities, making it easier for people to see a bulk-billing doctor. This year, 2,100 junior doctors are starting their training as GPs or rural generalists. That is 500 more than the intake under those opposite. While we're focused on health care and the access that we have in our regions, those opposite are still focused on themselves.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Does the—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't worry, it's coming!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right and members on my left! We're going to apply the same standards to everyone. The member for Lyne is entitled to ask her question to the minister. I'm going to ask her to begin again, and she's going to be heard in silence, just like everyone else.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Does the minister think he's being clever by refusing to answer specific questions about the Albanese government's broken promise to reduce household energy bills by $275? Why won't the minister respect Australian families with an honest answer here?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The standing orders regarding questions are pretty clear, regarding standing order 100(d)(iv)—I just want to remind members. Both of those last questions are within that band of not being acceptable. I'm just going to make sure the House is following all the standing orders. When you're impugning those sorts of motives, we're getting into dangerous territory. We'll move forward. I'll allow the question, and the minister will continue.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As someone who holidayed in Taree as a kid, I'm happy to get the question from the honourable member for Lyne, because she represents a beautiful part of Australia. I'll give her that. It's a magnificent part of Australia. But I'd say this to the honourable member: every honourable member should be honest with the Australian people about their energy policies. Every honourable member should be honest about the impact of their energy policies on Australia. If you were inserting the most expensive form of energy known in the world—nuclear energy—you should be honest about the impact that would have on the people you purport to represent. I say this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Barker, I'm trying to hear the member for Wannon, and you're making it very difficult to do so. I know you'd love to assist the House, so I'm going to hear from the member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It goes to relevance. The question had nothing about the opposition in it. It was a very direct question talking about the $275. I'd ask you to draw the minister back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to the point of order and the audition that was just taken—can I say that, whenever a question is out of order, as you've indicated that was, when it's allowed to go ahead, there is always a very broad ruling that's given with respect to relevance.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. It's not like a question we had earlier in the week, which was, 'Provide a figure; provide a number,' which I dealt with. When you're asking if the minister thinks he's being clever, with those sorts of questions—as I indicated to the House under standing order 100(d)(iv)—it's pretty difficult to say it's a tight question. It's not. I'm just going to make sure that, when he's asked about energy policy and about the reduction in energy bills, he has been directly relevant. If you ask that question, you're going to get this answer. I think that's pretty commonsense. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the members of the National Party: if you're going to ask the government about climate and energy policy, how about you be honest with the people you represent that climate change is real and that people in rural and regional Australia will pay the price for that climate change. And policies which delay action will see people in rural and regional Australia—farmers who've already seen their productivity fall because of climate change—pay the price. And future generations in regional Australia will pay the price. And people in rural and regional Australia have a lot to benefit from well calibrated policies to see jobs and investment. And the Morrison-Joyce government told the Australian people that net zero was good for people in regional Australia, and, since then, they have walked away from the people of rural and regional Australia and are betraying them by their actions.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland has had a really good go, so he's now on a warning too. We've got the member for Fisher, the member for Wright and the member for Gippsland.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, member for Wright. You're in that mix. I'm just reminding the House where everyone sits.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors. How are the Albanese Labor government's changes to bulk-billing delivering better health outcomes for older Australians? Why was this necessary after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Gilmore for her tireless advocacy for older people across her community on the beautiful South Coast of New South Wales. I'm grateful for the opportunity to tell the House how we're supporting senior Australians to access the services they need, no matter their means. I'm happy to inform the House that bulk-billing for over-64s is now at over 88 per cent thanks to this Labor government. New data shows that older Australians can now access over 3,400 Medicare bulk-billing practices across the country. In the member for Gilmore's community, 32 clinics are now fully bulk-billing. That's an extra 12 clinics since our changes came into place, delivering free health care to seniors close to home. And that number continues to grow across Australia every week and means that more than 96 per cent of older Australians now live within 20 minutes' drive of a bulk-billing GP. To all the GPs across the nation who are now supporting seniors to see a doctor for free, our government says, sincerely—fantastic. Great move. Well done, doctors.</para>
<para>All of this work builds on our government's other investments to support Australians, including older Australians, with the cost of living. On 1 January, we delivered the next stage in our plan to make the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS, with all PBS medicines available for $25 or less. For seniors who hold a concession card, PBS medicines cost only $7.70, with an annual cap of 277 bucks. We're opening 137 Medicare urgent care clinics. More than two million Australians have already received free urgent care at an urgent care clinic. We've boosted Medicare, with $25 billion in extra hospital funding, helping older Australians get the quality, affordable health care they deserve.</para>
<para>It's a long list, because it was a big job to claw back Medicare after those opposite left it on its knees. They tried to cut $50 billion from public hospitals. They tried to end bulk-billing for all Australians with a GP tax. They tried to jack up the price of medicines, and, when they couldn't get any of that through, they started a six-year-long freeze on the Medicare rebate, which tore $8.3 billion out of the Medicare system. For nine long years, those opposite took Australians for granted. This government is relentlessly focused on the needs of older Australians. Health care is a critical component of their happiness and their ability to live with dignity in the community. We'll continue to invest in Medicare so that older Australians can get the health care they need at every opportunity.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question goes to the Treasurer. According to the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline>, the Treasurer's medium-term budget forecasts have blown out by around $57 billion since the election. The Treasurer has been unable to explain why; the Independent Parliamentary Budget Office has been unable to explain why, and today the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to explain why. Nobody seems to know. Why won't the Treasurer come clean about his $57 billion budget black hole?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the honourable member for his question. I wanted to begin my answer by putting him at ease. He shouldn't read anything into the fact that the member for Goldstein got all the early questions today or that the member for Hume has had a haircut. He shouldn't read anything into any of those things. When it comes to the substance of his question—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's Timmy time!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will pause. The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The member for Bruce then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a couple of important elements to the answer to his question. The first one is, and he may not be aware, that in the last few minutes, as I understand it, in estimates where the fiscal group were, they did talk about the change that you're referring to. I think they answered a number of questions about it, and so it may be that you've not yet caught up with that, but that's understandable because you've been in here with us. That's the first point. The second point is that, as I said on the day of the release of the mid-year budget update in the middle of December, a big driver of the medium-term change has been the provision that we made for the hospitals deal that has subsequently been struck by the health minister and the Prime Minister. So a big part of the change over that 10-year medium-term period, as I said on the day of the MYEFO release, is the provision that we made for hospitals.</para>
<para>The third point is, if you look at the last year of the medium term—in the middle of the 2030s—in the last year, the biggest driver of the change is a change in receipts. There will be lower receipts. I think I made that point in response to a question from a journalist in the last couple of weeks—two or three weeks—so we have answered his question comprehensively.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you haven't!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been answered in estimates and now it's been answered—what? Are you serious?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hang on a second, Manager of Opposition Business. We're going to do this in an orderly way as we always do. The Treasurer is going to pause. The manager, under the standing orders, is allowed to make his point of order, and I'm going to allow him to do so now.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hawke</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, the Treasurer is speaking about an answer given by other people in another place. He's been asked here in the House of Representatives to answer a question. He's saying someone else has answered it somewhere else, but won't tell you what—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. You've made the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Defence Industry is now warned. When the Treasurer was asked about the department and was unable to explain why, the Treasurer is providing—I'm listening carefully, trust me.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer, let me deal with the manager. I'll come back to you. He's giving information to the House. He spoke about the official speaking at estimates providing that information, so he's answering directly that part of the question and providing information. You may disagree with what he's saying, but he is being directly relevant in providing information to the House about what he was asked about. You're correct to raise it, but he's also correct in answering the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've answered his question comprehensively in at least three different ways. I refer him to the estimates transcript. I'm trying to be respectful in case he doesn't have many more question times as the shadow Treasurer. I'm asking him to refer to that. Now, the number that the Treasury has provided is 54. You really should know that; they've done that publicly. The budget papers don't provide that number, but that number has been provided in estimates. The two main drivers of that number are lower receipts and a provision for the hospitals deal.</para>
<para>I finish on this point: if those opposite think that we shouldn't be investing that money in our hospitals, then they should tell the Australian people how much they'll cut from hospitals, because, on the spending side, the major driver of the difference is hospitals. What this tells us is that they haven't changed a bit since, the last time they were in office, they went after Medicare and went after health funding. They'll go after hospitals if they get into office. This is the second, related point. He asked about the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Budget Office—get this—says that their medium term, their 10-year period, would be $142 billion weaker than ours. So the deterioration in the budget, if they had won the election, would be three times bigger than the deterioration that the shadow Treasurer is asking me about. I conclude by saying it's no wonder he's unlikely to last the week.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COMER</name>
    <name.id>316551</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for defence, and what are the alternative approaches and policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service since coming to office in 2022. The government has undertaken the Defence Strategic Review, which is the most comprehensive reassessment of our strategic posture in 35 years, and we are now building a Defence Force to meet that moment. We've taken the idea of AUKUS and given substance to it, providing for the biggest industrial project in our country's history. We inherited a shrinking Defence Force. We have now turned that around, and it is growing again, and we are undertaking the biggest reform to the Defence estate ever. All of this is being underpinned by the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our nation's history.</para>
<para>Now, in our system of government, it is important to understand alternatives, as the honourable member has asked. That really invites me to make a critique of the shadow minister's positions on defence. The issue here is that, when it comes to the shadow minister and defence, what we have is a completely blank page because he has said absolutely nothing. I mean, as the shadow Treasurer in the last parliament, he did say that defence spending should be confined to the fiscal envelope that the Liberals took to the 2022 election, which would mean that he is against the $70 billion worth of investment that our government has made in defence.</para>
<para>On the other hand, and to be fair, in the last couple of weeks he has visited, with the member for Flinders, HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Cerberus</inline>, after which he posted a video in which he said 'massive investments in recent years making a real difference', then:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Zoe tell us about it.</para></quote>
<para>Helpfully, the member for Flinders chimes in with 'never been more recruits coming into the Navy than there is now'. In response to that, let me say: fantastic, great move—well done, Angus! I actually spoke to my social media team—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we'll deal with this in an orderly way. I just want to make sure he was quoting. I'm not sure; I couldn't hear what he was quoting or if he was quoting a social media post or whatnot. The member for Gippsland on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, in your exhortation at the start of question time for a kind of parliament, the minister should really direct his—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The member for Gippsland is correct. If the minister was quoting directly, this gets into dangerous territory. The easiest way to do that is simply for everyone to refer to them by their titles—not first names, not surnames, just their titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I suggested to the social media team that we actually repost the video, but they said, 'In a two-party system based on a contest of ideas, it's really not the done thing.' But the problem here in contesting ideas with the shadow minister is he literally has no idea. When it comes to the two-party system, the Liberals are single-handedly trying to dismantle that concept. The only statement of substance that the shadow minister has said since being the shadow minister is that he wants to be the leader. But, if those opposite are going to turn to the shadow minister, I can assure them what they will get is a giant vacant space.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I understand that Civil Aviation Safety Regulations part 43 that simplifies field maintenance requirements for aerial work by Australian aviation companies has been on the desk of the minister awaiting approval since October 2024. The delay is causing frustration and hardship for Australian aviation businesses such as crop dusters or aerial firefighting businesses. When will the minister approve these regulations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I invite the member: if you do want to come to my office at any point to talk to me about those matters, I'm very happy to do that. You know, I have a drop in clinic. In fact, I have one this afternoon; you'd be welcome to that. I'd be happy, if I have it, to provide an answer to the member then.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NG</name>
    <name.id>316052</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to support hardworking Australians and their small businesses, and what puts this at risk?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do want to thank the member for Menzies for his question. We've spent a lot of time in Menzies, the member and I, visiting local businesses in his electorate. More recently we visited the Box Hill markets where we stopped at Blissful Station and met the owner-operator there, Lan, who treated us to some pretty delicious vegan dumplings. Now, I'm not very big on vegan dumplings, but I have to say those from Blissful Station were pretty good.</para>
<para>From Box Hill to Broome, right across Australia, Australian small businesses create jobs and they support families and local communities and economies in our regions and in our cities. That's why the Albanese government is backing Australia's record high 2.66 million small businesses to run and to grow and to succeed. Australians have started 800,000 new small businesses since we came into office. That's a clear sign of ambition and resilience and belief in the future. As someone who has owned and operated small businesses—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. The minister is giving information to the House. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Moncrieff continually going on like that—just give it a rest. I want to hear the minister. That is disruptive; you're doing it to disrupt the minister, but it's disrupting the House. So we'll just pause for a while on that. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, Australians have started over 800,000 new small businesses since we came into office—a clear sign of resilience and belief in the future. As someone who's owned and operated small businesses, I know how rewarding it can be, but I also know how difficult it can be. I just want to take a moment, if I may, to thank the hundreds of small businesses who have taken the time to meet with me and speak with me and share their experiences with me. I want to assure them that their insights have been invaluable to shaping what we do as a government.</para>
<para>Today, I announced an extension of the NewAccess for Small Business Owners program and the Small Business Debt Helpline, delivering small businesses the help that they need, when they need it. It's just one of the ways that our government are helping to ease pressure on small businesses in line with our National Small Business Strategy—the very first strategy of its kind. That strategy outlines how we will work with states and territories to drive a coordinated and collaborative approach to helping small businesses. We're easing pressure on small businesses by extending the instant asset write-off, and we've given tax cuts that have benefited 1.5 million sole traders. We're levelling the playing field by extending unfair trading practice protections to small businesses and ensuring that large businesses pay them on time. While those opposite continue to focus on themselves, we continue to focus on backing Australian small businesses, giving them the certainty that they need to thrive.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. In the almost three years that the National Anti-Corruption Commission has been operating, there've been one finding of officer misconduct, a new investigation of officer misconduct and no public hearings. The NACC's most significant investigation had to be reopened and referred to an independent assessor. The public has heard more about the commissioner's conflicts of interest than about findings of corruption. Attorney-General, do you accept that changes are needed to restore public confidence in the NACC?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question, and I note both her longstanding involvement in the establishment of the commission and also the important work she does as part of parliamentary oversight. The honourable member continues to do that in a principled and consistent manner, and my response will reflect that.</para>
<para>The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has announced that she will investigate complaints about the NACC commissioner's involvement in Defence related referrals and the commissioner's ongoing role with the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. As the House will know, the inspector is independent of the Australian government and the commission. It's also important to note that the inspector is not subject to anyone's direction when performing her functions.</para>
<para>The member also raises issues regarding the NACC's work and some of its findings. This government was elected on a platform of legislating an independent anticorruption commission with strong oversight. That oversight is working as intended. We honoured, as I said, that commitment, and it will interest the House to know the following. Since it commenced operations, the commission has received over 6,000 referrals. It is currently conducting 30 preliminary inquiries and 35 corruption investigations. Since 1 July 2023, there have been 11 convictions resulting from commission investigations, and there are a further four matters currently before the courts. The commission publishes regular updates about its work on its website, and I encourage all members to avail themselves of that information at nacc.gov.au.</para>
<para>As I said, I appreciate the honourable member's ongoing involvement in this area, but it does reflect also a number of important pieces of work that this government has delivered on integrity. But I do say, in all sincerity, to the member there is much more to do. There is much more to do in a lot of these areas. Legislating a powerful, independent and transparent NACC was an important role. Introducing a new Commonwealth Fraud and Corruption Control Framework, imposing stronger anticorruption obligations on all Commonwealth agencies, is another of them. Others include making sure that we had the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme and implemented its findings, and ensuring that in other portfolios we strengthened our anti-money-laundering regime through the passage of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act. What this points to is the important work not only of the commission but also of oversight. But I take on board the honourable member's comments. They have come from a sincere place. There is much more work to do, and we support the NACC in undertaking that work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fiscal Policy</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WITTY</name>
    <name.id>316660</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government cutting taxes for working people at the same time as it is improving the budget? What risks are posed by other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, from engaging with the member for Melbourne on a whole range of issues, what a wonderful advocate she is for the people of that great city. Really the biggest difference at the last election was on economic policy, because we had a plan to cut taxes, to help with the cost of living, to repair the budget and to invest in the future, and those opposite had a policy for higher income taxes, bigger deficits and more debt. That's what their election document made clear when the member for Fairfax and his nuclear reactors got together with the economic incompetence of the member for Hume and together they nuked the opposition's economic credibility. That's one of the reasons why sensible Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull have said that those opposite have run off into la-la land. This is why Peter Costello told Troy Bramston:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the last election, they got themselves into a position where they were proposing to increase income taxes, run bigger deficits, no real plan to—</para></quote>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. Order! Members on my right! Member for Wannon and a few others, if you can just—I couldn't hear a word the Treasurer was saying. He mentioned a name, and there was a reaction. Let's just return to the question and then get through the answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So this is the feedback from Malcolm Turnbull, the feedback from Peter Costello and also the feedback from some of the member for Hume's colleagues, who said to Sam Maiden that he was 'an absolute disaster' in that role. Another one told Karen Barlow that everything he touches 'turns to custard'. He was a disaster as energy minister. He was a disaster as shadow Treasurer. The definition of insanity would be to put someone with a disastrous track record into the top job, hoping things would be different.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to hear from the member for Page, who's on his feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He can't speak from the dispatch box. That's my point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll deal with this matter. This came about on Monday. I can advise the House, on advice from the Leader of the Opposition by her staff in relation to the Leader of the Nationals and the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, that, by their appointment, they are members of the executive.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Yes, of the shadow executive. The Leader of the House is entitled to ask that question, because that was never explained to the House, to be fair. In normal practice, someone will advise the House of those arrangements. That didn't happen, so I'm entitled to address the House and the leader's entitled to raise that question, just to deal with this matter. Then we'll get to the point of order. Don't worry. We'll get there. So just pause for a moment. If you take your seat, we'll deal with this matter about the frontbench, and then we'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As you referred to, it's page 111 of <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> that makes clear that only members of the opposition executive can speak from the dispatch box. The public comments from the Leader of the Opposition on 8 February are that the shadow ministers do not return until 1 March.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. I said: we'll deal with this and then you can respond. I said I would hear from the Leader of the House and that he was entitled to that. Then we will come to you, Manager of Opposition Business, and you will have your point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And the Manager of Opposition Business is right. This is a matter for the opposition—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hawke</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is. It's not a matter for you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>which is why I'm quoting the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Nationals 'will attend meetings of the leadership group' but said that this is only to 'ensure joint representation and accountability in decision-making during this interim period'. It does not make them shadow ministers and it does not make them members of the opposition executive.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The Leader of the House is correct. This was not addressed on Monday. To be fair to the House, it is the responsibility of the opposition and the government to update the House. That didn't occur. But, under the standing orders, it is also within the Speaker's purview to resolve these matters, and I chose to do that on advice from the Leader of the Opposition, who advised me that, by the nature of those positions and within consultation, they are able to be members of the executive, or to sit there. To assist the House moving forward, if there are changes in the future, it would be helpful to the House if someone could advise the House of that so that the Speaker isn't placed in that position and this matter doesn't have to be resolved in such a way. We're clear on that matter. We'll deal with the point of order from the Deputy Leader of the Nationals.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. The Treasurer was asked a question about government policy. He spent a minute and a half basically deflecting and insulting members opposite—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The question contained 'What risks are there to other approaches?' It's bordering on abuse of the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hawke</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because he was asked about this. The question was: 'What risks are there to other approaches?' Listen to the question. That's why the Treasurer has this opening to do that under the standing orders. We've got a minute and 20 seconds to go. We're going to listen to him conclude the answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point that I'm making is that this side of the House is cutting income taxes and getting the budget in better shape, and the member for Hume took to the last election a policy to jack up income taxes and to make deficits bigger and debt worse. That's why those opposite are baulking at him now. In every portfolio that he's held, he's failed badly and he's failed upwards. The worse he performs, the more entitled he feels to a promotion, no matter what happens. At every stage of his life, he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter, he reminds me of a famous saying. The member for Hume was born with a silver foot in his mouth!</para>
<para>Just when we thought that they couldn't go any lower on economic credibility, the member for Hume says, 'Hold my chardonnay.' He is a living, breathing reminder that the Liberal Party has become the party of higher income taxes, higher deficits and higher debt. He goes months without asking questions in this place. Those opposite should ask themselves if they really want him to do to their party this term what he did to their economic credibility last term.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">V</inline><inline font-style="italic">otes </inline><inline font-style="italic">and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government turning a blind eye to union corruption.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is a landmark day in the exposure of union corruption in this country. We know that, last year, Geoffrey Watson SC was commissioned to deliver a report into the corruption of the Queensland CFMEU—not just the corruption but the violence. The report directly catalogued the scale of corruption that sits at the heart of the Queensland CFMEU, including a time following a Queensland Labor government election when CFMEU officials walked into consultations, stood over and intimidated public servants and said, 'You work for us now.' This is a fundamental issue of corruption that goes to the heart of the CFMEU-Labor model in Queensland, and now we are seeing it directly in the context of Victoria.</para>
<para>Yesterday, Transparency International released its latest report on corruption in Australia, and, under the Albanese government, corruption has increased and our international ranking has fallen. We are seeing explicitly why in the report that was finally tabled for public consumption looking at CFMEU corruption in the context of the state of Victoria. This report, which we know was provided to the CFMEU administrator on 1 December last year by testimony from Geoffrey Watson SC in the Wood inquiry in Queensland—it has been exposed in the Nine press that there has been a deliberate attempt to redact two chapters of this report. Why are they seeking to redact those chapters? Because those chapters go to the heart of the CFMEU-Labor cartel business plan, which has seen $15 billion of taxpayer money laundered through a process of Albanese government funded projects and Victorian government projects under the Allan government. And it's found its way where? Into the hands of organised crime and bikie gangs. This is the most disgraceful example and abuse of public money that could ever have been proposed. In fact, had someone suggested at the start of this inquiry that that was what was going to be revealed, I suspect most of the members on this side of the chamber would say it was impossible. This is now the lived reality of the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption and the consequences. The tragedy is the minister still won't answer basic information in this House.</para>
<para>Yes, it was absolutely a report that was commissioned by the CFMEU administrator. Yes, we now know that she received a copy of it on 9 February—only a few days ago. But what she's refusing to admit is whether she's been in contact with the CFMEU administrator, whether she asked for a copy of the report—we wrote to the minister last year saying: 'This report has been published. You should be requesting it, and why haven't you requested it? If you do have it, release it.' It's very clear to me that the minister knew full well that she didn't want to receive a copy because she knew how scandalous it was, and it took whistleblowers coming forward and saying the report had been redacted and the information had been kept from the public square—it is now clear that the minister is engaging in 'see no corruption, hear no corruption' so she does not have to answer for CFMEU-Labor corruption.</para>
<para>She also can't tell us what reports she received. We asked today in question time what version of the report she had on 9 February—whether it was the full report, a redacted report or the report that excluded two chapters. She hasn't answered that. There will be further questions, because we know exactly the consequences of when the minister won't reveal this information—she is running away from the consequences of CFMEU-Labor corruption because she knows how directly it connects back to the heart of the Albanese government. We know it. The Australian taxpayer knows it, and now an independent report to the CFMEU commissioner has confirmed it.</para>
<para>It's not just that part of the dishonesty that we are facing from this report. We know—once it was revealed that the CFMEU had become an enabler of organised crime and bikie gangs to launder money through Victorian government big build projects, the Prime Minister and various state premiers and leaders from the Australian Labor Party said: 'We'll never take money from the CFMEU anymore. We don't want their tainted cash.' But what we know from AEC disclosures from just last week is that that has been exposed as a falsehood. They might say they're not going to take the cash, but they seem happy to cash the CFMEU's cheque. When you think about the $15 billion that has been laundered through these public projects into the benefit of organised crime and bikie gangs and about how now some of those cartel kickbacks are going into the Labor Party's coffers, it directly compromises the foundations of this government.</para>
<para>More than that, the licence of this government and their willingness to tackle corruption is brought directly under question. While the minister stands here and boasts at the dispatch box that there are all these people removed from the CFMEU who have serious allegations to answer, what she won't tell you is that they're resigning just before they're sacked, and then they're walking over to the Electrical Trades Union to propagate the business model—the CFMEU-Labor business model—so that they can continue the extortion racket that is going on in public projects in this country. That's why the Labor Party wants multi-employer bargaining. It empowers the unions to engage in an extortion racket of public money to drive the cartel kickbacks and send them flowing through from the unions to organised crime, and some of it is ending up in the coffers of the Australian Labor Party.</para>
<para>We know that Labor has actively sought to undermine the limitations that we want to put on the flow of cash that has gone into redundancy funds. Why? Because it provides a slush fund for the unions to wash money around as they see fit. But, when it comes down to this report that was tabled by the author in the CFMEU inquiry in Queensland today, we get a shocking picture of the lived reality of union corruption that has been presided over during this period. You just need to go to the report. You can quote from it directly, but, of course, we can't quote from it directly as a document tabled in this parliament, because the Leader of the House refused to allow it to be tabled in the lead-up to question time. He wouldn't make it a permanent and public document so that it can never, ever be silenced or whitewashed again.</para>
<para>But let's go to what the report says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But from those great heights the CFMEU in Victoria collapsed into a squalid mess. It slid from being a union which fought hard for workers to one which started a fight just for the sake of it. It devolved from being a union which honoured the dignity of working Australians to a union which cultivated the company of underworld figures. It deteriorated from being progressive, tolerant and respectful—</para></quote>
<para>I would contest that, but I'll accept the author's claim—</para>
<quote><para class="block">into a violent, hateful, greedy rabble. It degenerated from being a union where people were respected for their honesty and decency—</para></quote>
<para>again, a contestable claim—</para>
<quote><para class="block">to one where a good person, a decent person who spoke out against corruption, was shouted down and told they were a "dog," or a "rat", or—</para></quote>
<para>a word I will not mention in this parliament. The report continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The cause of the collapse of the CFMEU was not from within, it came from the top.</para></quote>
<para>To continue:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it was shocking to see so much crime, so much corruption, such a perversion of values. The CFMEU was no longer on the right side of civil society, it was proudly on the wrong side. The Union was no longer the champion of the working class—</para></quote>
<para>in fact, it turned to—</para>
<quote><para class="block">… looking after gangsters, standover men, bikies, heroin traffickers, and even killers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By the end of this investigation I have been left with the empty feeling that the … Victorian branch of the CFMEU was no longer a trade union, it was a crime syndicate.</para></quote>
<para>This is how $15 billion was fleeced from Victorian and Australian taxpayers, through big build projects that have been contributed to by the Victorian government, the Victorian taxpayer and the Australian taxpayer, and found its way into organised crime, criminal syndicates and bikie gangs. The least the minister and the Prime Minister could do is actually answer basic questions truthfully and honestly in this parliament about what they knew when, what they requested, and, more to the point, the type of the report that every single member that opposes this motion is going to be condemned for—seeking to run interference for that agenda.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let us be clear. Under this government, 121 individuals have been removed from that union. Under those opposite, over nine years, how many were removed? That's right. Zero. Not a single official was removed from that union while they were in office, but 121 were removed during Labor's time cleaning up the mess that was left behind by those opposite. Your policy solutions did not solve any of these challenges—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Goldstein, I'm not taking your point of order just yet. I'm going to deal with the member for Fisher. That was a very aggressive interjection right by my ear. It couldn't be missed. Don't repeat it. You were warned by the Speaker during question time. You will be leaving if it happens again. Have you got a point of order, Member for Goldstein?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do. The member reflected on the chair rather than members opposite.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Take a seat, please. I will deal with any points of orders. I couldn't hear it, because of your colleague yelling in my ear. But I will ask all speakers to direct their comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw that last comment, Chair, and thank you very much. Let us be very clear. This government has no tolerance for corruption. We have no tolerance for criminal activity in the construction sector. That is why this government took the strongest action of any government of any persuasion when it came to cleaning up the CFMEU. We appointed an administrator. We support the administrator to do their work. We've had 121 individuals removed and we've made more progress in 18 months than those opposite made in nine years of government.</para>
<para>I want to make very clear, as was made clear to the shadow minister in question time, that the minister received the final report and did not request a single change. We can have 10 minutes from those opposite telling us a whole range of things, but it was clear from the contribution from the shadow minister that, despite asking questions in question time—and I congratulate the shadow minister for doing very well in their tactics of getting a large number of questions; I could see the jealousy of those behind you from that very odd place that I sit at, over there, during question time—they were not listening to the response. But what I think we also saw just then was 10 minutes of a brand-new television channel that has launched today.</para>
<para>Today, I watched with interest the interview with the shadow minister on Laura Jayes—he said two very interesting things. Firstly, he said, 'It doesn't matter who sits in the swivel chair.' Well, I think that is very interesting. He looks pretty comfortable there right now. I did note that the member for Farrer stayed for the shadow minister's remarks; I noticed that the member for Hume managed to get out of here pretty quickly. But I'm sure it was a great comfort for the Leader of the Opposition when the member for Goldstein said it didn't matter who sat in the swivel chair. But that wasn't the bit of the interview that excited me. The bit that excited me was the launch of a brand-new—I assume it's free to air—station. It might be pay per view. I don't know; you'd have to ask. The member opposite said, 'It has, on "channel Tim"'—and Laura Jayes said: 'Channel Tim. I like it.' Well I've just seen 10 minutes of 'channel Tim' and I don't know if I really liked what I saw. I think we'll leave it to the public to review.</para>
<para>We know the sorts of things that will get on 'channel Tim'. You can be guaranteed that 'channel Tim' will have a lot of self-promotion. We have seen that on <inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">olitics Now</inline>, very openly. On Boxing Day, which is a day for giving gifts, there was a gift from the member for Goldstein. When asked about his possible desire to seek higher office and to possibly get into the leadership role, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think there's a scenario where that can happen, but I think events will have to turn in my favour.</para></quote>
<para>That's what he told the podcast. But he's been out there—every couple of months there's a new thing. If you go back a month earlier and look at the great industrial relations policy—the only industrial relations policy that's actually been released by those opposite was their commitment to not have parliament sit on Melbourne Cup Day. The member for Goldstein guaranteed:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I make this commitment: this will never happen under a Wilson government.</para></quote>
<para>A singular policy—wanting to make sure that he and his colleagues get a day off on Melbourne Cup Day. But, while he wants to give himself—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order in relation to relevance. This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can just take a seat, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe I've been unfair on the member for Goldstein by saying that he only has one policy, which is to give himself a day off for the Melbourne Cup. He has another policy. Just a few weeks after the election last year he dived in with Ronald Mizen at the AFR with this headline: 'Liberals' IR man Tim Wilson wants school kids taking up 'side hustles''. So we've got 'bring back child labour' and 'give the politicians a day off for the Melbourne Cup'. That is what we've got from someone who's been described by a mutual friend of ours, former member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, as possibly the next Liberal leader.</para>
<para>It's amazing to see, if you go back all the way to May last year, the foresight that Mr Falinski had about what was going to happen in the Liberal Party. He wrote this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Gather round—all who dare—as the Liberal Party indulges in its triennial version of <inline font-style="italic">The Hunger Games</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>Well, indeed, they've gone longer than the book series did. But Mr Falinski also said one thing which I think both sides of the chamber would agree on, and it was this quote—to be clear, before someone gets up with an interjection, I'm just quoting.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give a reminder that quotations are no explanation for—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It refers to a member by name, but I'll adjust it to be compliant with the standing orders.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'The member for Goldstein is not the Messiah.' That was the quote, and I think that's the one thing we can all agree on. But if the member for Goldstein is to achieve his goal of coming to a higher office, as he himself expresses, then he will have to do so as part of this new coalition of chaos that has been formed between the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. We know they voted together when it came to opposing cutting student debt. We know that he voted happily with One Nation when it came to opposing the three-day guarantee for child care. We know that they voted together with One Nation to oppose closing loopholes and, indeed, to oppose free TAFE.</para>
<para>The other thing that no-one opposite wants to talk about is that this government has a record of delivering for working people. This government has delivered when it comes to wages. I remember when they opposed a single-dollar increase in the minimum wage. They refused and went into an election saying, 'Don't give people a $1 increase.' Under this government, we've seen those on the minimum wage get a wage increase per hour of $4.62, and those opposite are now interjecting again, opposing even a $1 increase, let alone $4.62 per hour. Those opposite might not care about those on the minimum wage, but I care and people on this side of the House care that those on the minimum wage are now earning, as a result of the efforts of the Albanese Labor government, an additional $9,120 a year.</para>
<para>It is similar when we talk about what's happened when it comes to penalty rates. Again, those opposite contested that we should not do anything to protect penalty rates. We had a different view. We saw the benefits of making sure that we protected the penalty rates of working people, and 2.6 million Australians have benefited because of our efforts to protect penalty rates. Further, those opposite opposed measures for those who work in early childhood education, but we thought it was necessary to support the early childhood workforce. As a result of the wage supports that we have put in place, now fully delivered, some 15,000 additional people have gone into the sector, removing the shortages that had been hurting parents, hurting families and denying children the education and care they deserved.</para>
<para>I will finish with some facts that I know those opposite don't like. Under this government, a record number of Australians are in work. Under this government, Australia's unemployment rate is just 4.1 per cent. We have incredibly high participation, at 66.7 per cent. In December alone another 66,000 Australians were in work. Did we see any celebration of that from the shadow minister? No, he must have been too busy on 'Tim TV'.</para>
<para>We will always look for ways to support working Australians so that they can earn more and keep more of what they earn. I think Australians have already seen enough of the clown show opposite. They have definitely seen enough of 'channel Tim'.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've just heard 10 minutes of unadulterated, unobscured, constant attack on the shadow minister, who has raised a matter of very significant importance about alleged corruption in the building industry. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have heard me speak about corruption in the building industry for 10 long years. I have spoken about this up hill and down dale. Whenever I spoke about it, those opposite—'Nothing to see here.' It was all white noise, nothing, there's no problem with the CFMEU. They kept taking their money, their donations, from the CFMEU.</para>
<para>It wasn't until, I think, last year, when Channel 9 did an expose which put the issue beyond doubt, that we saw the member for Watson and the Prime Minister say, 'We had no idea about the extent of this problem'—or that there was, in fact, a problem at all. It reminds me of the old Suncorp ad. The Queenslanders on my side will get this: 'Charter boat? What charter boat?'—nothing to see here. Well, Geoffrey Watson has belled the cat and identified that there is likely somewhere between $15 billion and $30 billion worth of corrupt payments that have been made within the building industry.</para>
<para>Madam Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I know—and many people in this chamber would know—that I used to work as a carpenter in the building industry in Victoria. On my first day in the building industry in Victoria, I experienced the bullying and corruption of the CFMEU predecessor, the Builders Labourers' Federation. As an 18-year-old kid, I experienced it, and that's part of the reason why I'm sitting on this side of the House today, because Norm Gallagher was a rookie at the end of the day. What we have seen time and time and time again—businesses have come to see me, consistently over the last 10 years, and talk to me about the standover tactics of the CFMEU, the fact that they can't get a start on a job unless they agree to pay kickbacks to the CFMEU. When I start talking about this, those on the other side of the House go very quiet, because I'm not talking out of a textbook; I'm talking out of experience—35 years, now close to 40 years, experience in the building industry as a chippie, a builder and then a construction barrister.</para>
<para>The CFMEU has overseen the greatest corruption in this country, in Victoria and in Queensland, and that's terrible in itself. But do you know what makes it even worse? You guys, the Labor Party, have taken millions of dollars in donations from the CFMEU. The Prime Minister, last year, said, 'We're going to stop taking donations from the CFMEU'—but they didn't. Not only did they not stop; you would think that, with this sort of an expose, the Labor Party would say: 'You know what? We'll do the right thing and we'll donate that money to charity'—to Mates4Mates or some charitable organisation. But, no, that money has stayed in the Labor Party coffers. I say, 'Shame on you.' Shame on the Labor Party, because that money is blood money. I don't use that term loosely, because the CFMEU have overseen physical harm on building sites and threats, particularly against women working on building sites—and even against public servants. I was in here every day talking about it, and the Labor Party did nothing. The Labor Party continued to take the money from the CFMEU. You continue to take the donations—'Nothing to see here.'</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The level of interjections is really unhelpful—on both sides. I would like to hear the member for Sturt without interjections.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The suggestion today is that the government is turning a blind eye to union corruption. That claim, made with a lot of drama, does not reflect the facts. It's a tired refrain—that Labor is beholden to trade unions and that it turns a blind eye to corruption for its own benefit. Those claims are tired, boring, unoriginal and incorrect. Trade unions have a long and important history in protecting workers' rights, improving safety and ensuring fair pay and conditions across industry, including the construction industry. That contribution, which is ongoing and which adapts to the ever-changing way in which we work, should be acknowledged. But acknowledging the positive role of unions does not mean ignoring misconduct when it occurs. To be clear, despite the comments from the member for Goldstein, multi-employer bargaining does not facilitate misconduct or kickbacks or corruption. It's designed to allow negotiations between employers, unions and workers to boost slow wage growth, to reduce pay inequality and to collectively negotiate for improved conditions.</para>
<para>This is why, because unions matter, integrity within them matters. Any corruption or lack of integrity within any union or indeed any trade organisation needs to be stamped out. Otherwise, the benefits enjoyed by Australian workers will be at risk. And Labor is the party of the Australian worker and of working families and the party that will take all necessary steps to protect Australian workers, jobs, wages and conditions. The construction industry is central to Australia's future, from delivering housing to building the infrastructure our economy depends on. To attract and retain workers, that industry must be safe, lawful and free from corruption, intimidation or criminal influence. When those standards are compromised, everyone loses, workers most of all. We cannot afford to lose workers.</para>
<para>In South Australia, my home state, we are building, building, building the submarine construction yard at Osborne, the new women's and children's hospital, the River Torrens to Darlington Project and record housing developments, particularly in the north and inner city. We need construction workers, and we need good conditions for those workers. The suggestion that Labor would turn a blind eye to corruption within a trade union, where the whole point of trade unions is to support workers, is plain wrong. That is also why strong TAFE and VET systems matter in this discussion. The people training the next generation of construction workers, apprentices, educators and supervisors need to operate in an industry that they can trust. When young people enter the system through TAFE or vocational training, they should see a sector defined by professionalism, safety and respect for the rule of law. A construction industry that is free from corruption supports better training outcomes, stronger workforce participation and greater confidence amongst educators and students alike.</para>
<para>The challenges faced within parts of the CFMEU did not arise overnight, and addressing them requires more than rhetoric alone. It requires careful, sustained reform that strengthens lawful union functioning rather than undermining unionism itself. That is why our approach has focused on intervention and support, not abandonment. The scheme of administration of the CFMEU's construction division is a clear example. It is a measured step to restore confidence, accountability and proper governance within the union. In a relatively short period, significant changes were made by the administrator, including staffing changes, the introduction of a national code of conduct, clearer expectations around behaviour and inquiries into state branches. These actions are about ensuring that the union can continue to represent its members effectively, lawfully and with public trust. So, rather than turning a blind eye, the government is taking a balanced approach, acknowledging the essential role of unions while acting responsibly to address misconduct, rebuild confidence and protect workers. That is not avoidance; that is responsible leadership.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today shines a light on what so many Victorians have known for a very long time—that the Labor Party has worked with the unions and been paid by the unions—and particularly exposes the corruption of the CFMEU. The investigative report is horrifying to say the least. And I want to quote from the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> today, who have said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Major infrastructure projects funded by the Albanese and Allan governments hosted drug trafficking, systemic corruption and bribery, bikie gangs and the shocking sexual exploitation of women at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of $15 billion, according to a landmark report into CFMEU corruption.</para></quote>
<para>There was the bombshell release of an unredacted version of the report <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">otting from the top</inline>—note the heading—by barrister and CFMEU investigator Geoffrey Watson SC into the CFMEU Victorian branch, where Labor has done nothing to address union corruption or organised crime, costing taxpayers an estimated $15 billion in Victoria's Big Build.</para>
<para>Now, why is that a problem? Why is that a problem for every Victorian? Why is it a problem for every Australian? It's because $15 billion—and some other suggestions are that it could be up to $30 billion—has been funnelled off into crime. That is outrageous. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. People are struggling to put food on their tables. They're struggling to turn their air conditioners on. Many won't turn their heaters on in winter. And yet here we have the government of Australia, the Labor Party, turning the other way, only coming out and saying, 'Well, you know, there's a problem.' Really? There's been a problem since 2015, under John Setka—as if the Labor Party knew nothing about this. This is absolutely outrageous, and every person in Australia who is suffering under the cost of living ought to be appalled, because the corruption continues to bleed into this government. The government must give answers. So far we have seen nothing, no answers at all.</para>
<para>Let me just pass on to the House and put on record that Victoria's debt at this point in time is $192 billion net debt by 30 June 2029. It equates to at least $22,000 per capita—per man, woman and child—at current levels, rising to $25,500 by 2029. If you think it's bad now, folks, let's wait. Interest rates are at $18 million a day. Are you joking? Victorians should not have to put up with this. This is a government that is out of control in Victoria. The fact that the Labor Party have stood side by side with the CFMEU for so long boils my blood, if that isn't apparent. It ought to boil the blood of every person in Australia because every one of us suffers under this incompetence. Worse than that is the fact that women are being exploited on these sites and nothing is being done. We have a government that is constantly lecturing us, and a crossbench that is constantly lecturing us, about kinder, gentler ways and nicer ways of speaking to one another. How about dealing with the corruption? How about dealing with the exploitation of women? This is outrageous, and every Australian ought to be offended by the behaviour of this government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRENCH</name>
    <name.id>316550</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to address this proposition directly. This government does not turn a blind eye to corruption—in unions, in corporations or anywhere else. The rule of law in this country does not depend on ministerial preference; it depends on independent regulators, independent prosecutors and independent courts. Where there is unlawful conduct, it should be investigated and prosecuted. That is the position of this government. It is clear. It is consistent. It is not selective. I did not realise when I came into this place as a sparky turned lawyer that I would have to become an amateur historian to remind those opposite of their collective amnesia and that history actually matters.</para>
<para>For nearly a decade, those opposite presided over systematic wage theft across multiple industries: hospitality, retail, construction and franchising. Underpayment was exposed repeatedly. Large corporations admitted to short-changing workers by millions of dollars, yet the penalty framework remained weak. Enforcement was under-resourced and criminalisation was resisted. That was the blind eye not to allegations but to structural exploitation. They resisted the federal Anti-Corruption Commission for years. They argued against it, they delayed it and then they diluted it. This government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We did so because integrity cannot be factional; it must be institutional.</para>
<para>The opposition's argument today implies that unions operate without oversight. That is demonstrably incorrect. Registered organisations are subject to strict financial reporting obligations, officer duties, audits and disclosure requirements under federal law. Breaches attract significant penalties. In many instances, penalties imposed on unions for industrial contraventions exceed those imposed on corporations for comparable regulatory breaches. That is not an argument for impunity; it is an argument about proportionality. The question is not whether misconduct should be sanctioned. It should. The question is whether one class of lawful organisation should be subject to extraordinary penalty settings while corporate misconduct that distorts markets and harms workers is treated as a compliance matter.</para>
<para>During the previous government, industrial relations policy was framed not as economic management but as a cultural contest. Legislation such as the so-called ensuring integrity bill sought to make deregistration of unions easier than the removal of corporate directors for serious misconduct. That was not a neutral integrity measure; it was targeted regulation.</para>
<para>This government does not defend unlawful conduct. We defend consistent application of the law. The same job, same pay legislation is to me one of the greatest pieces of legislation this government has passed. When I was on the tools, I was building on a construction site up in the hills in Perth. We were building a crushing plant and there were four rates of pay for different sparkies. Because of that people just quit. And they wonder why productivity was low under the previous regime.</para>
<para>We've criminalised deliberate wage theft, because honest small businesses were being undercut by competitors who avoided paying lawful entitlements. We strengthened the enforcement so that those who do the right thing are not commercially disadvantaged. That is not turning a blind eye; that is correcting imbalance.</para>
<para>The opposition's pattern is familiar: amplify allegations in the Labor movement while remaining comparatively subdued about misconduct in the boardrooms. Integrity should not operate on a partisan bias. If corruption is the concern, then all corruption should be pursued without favour, without political narrative and without selective outrage. This government supports independent regulators doing their job. We do not interfere in their investigations. We do not issue instructions about targets. That is precisely what integrity requires.</para>
<para>The Australian people expect fairness and consistency. They expect that laws apply equally. We do not accept the proposition that equates supporting the union movement with excusing illegality. That is a false dichotomy. Unions are lawful institutions representing millions of Australians. They are regulated. They are accountable. When individuals breach the law, they face consequences like anyone else. The opposition is entitled to prosecute political arguments but is not entitled to rewrite its own record.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SMALL</name>
    <name.id>291406</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whilst it isn't always the crime that gets you, by golly, the cover up always does. Isn't it amazing that at the first rays of sunlight shone here on union corruption and the stench of its ties to the Labor Party we see the cockroaches scampering for the corners, seeking refuge in the only place they know: the dark shadows of the underworld in Victoria. It is staggering to listen to the member for Moore speak of amnesia and selective amnesia whilst completely neglecting that the very first act of this government in terms of its industrial relations agenda was to defund and abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the very independent regulator that we put as a tough cop on the beat to address union corruption and the cost impacts that it has on the construction of literally everything in this country, from homes all the way through to the big-build infrastructure projects that are the focus of this.</para>
<para>Is this somehow a right-wing hit job? No. Let's go back through the very history of how Geoffrey Watson SC came to investigate these matters. This wasn't initiated by the Liberal Party; this was initiated by Zach Smith, the then national secretary of the CFMEU, responding to unthinkable allegations made public by Nine. His report—two chapters of that report—addressed some $15 billion of taxpayer money, worse than sprayed up against the wall like the rest of the waste this government oversees, funnelled to organised crime in this country. If the government were serious about addressing corruption and underworld criminality in this country, that would be worth investigating. But no, instead we find the Minister for Workplace Relations, the minister assisting the Prime Minister and this other cavalcade of Labor MPs come through here blustering: 'This report—what report? It was not a report to government. I don't know about those two chapters.' They do not want to know the answers to the very real questions that Australians need answered here.</para>
<para>In fact, worse than that, the member for Perth crowed about some 121 members of the CFMEU that have been expelled from that organisation. In the context of some $15 billion of taxpayer money allegedly directed to underworld crime in Australia, that equates to some $124 million per individual booted out of that union. If that stacks up to pass the pub test, then I have been drinking at the wrong establishments my entire life. In fact, I look forward to tuning in to 'Tim TV'. I'll be one of the first subscribers provided that we get 'The Possum Hour'. What we got there for 10 minutes from the minister assisting the Prime Minister was nothing short of rip-roaring comedy.</para>
<para>The CFMEU Labor cartel has cost Victorians and indeed all Australians some $15 billion in money now. The intriguing thing is just how much of it ends up back in Labor Party coffers. But of course this is the sort of thing that a government that's committed to scrutiny, transparency, being the most open in history, wants nothing to do with. That's why we saw the Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations shut down parliamentary scrutiny of that. We understand now, in the face of these revelations today, that this corruption is systemic, it is endemic and it is industrial in its scale.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister said that the Labor Party wouldn't accept CFMEU donations, but we know that the AEC disclosures show just how often they've been cashing the cheques of their cartel mates. Minister Rishworth should release the full, unredacted report, including the two dirty chapters that nobody wants to talk about, or else risk being complicit in a cover-up of corruption on an industrial scale in this country. The millions of dollars of CFMEU donations to the Labor Party surely don't buy those sorts of policy outcomes. I understand the pressure that must be brought to bear upon the minister, because you've even got the ALP president, Mr Wayne Swan, chairing Cbus, which is linked to the CFMEU as an industry super fund. The rivers of gold between this corruption and the Labor Party deserve sunlight to disinfect them once and for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR</name>
    <name.id>315618</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that Valentine's Day is coming up in a few days time. I'm feeling a lot of love on this side of the chamber for our union movement and its great work, but, on that side of that chamber, hearing the member for Goldstein talk about unions, particularly with this MPI today, is appalling. Clearly he loves to hate on unions.</para>
<para>I think it's really important that I highlight some other things in embellishment of all the things that have been said today, including in question time. Corruption in any institution, whether it's unions or whether it's businesses—whatever it is, even in government—should be called out. I think everyone on this side of the chamber believes that. It is important to highlight that, because all unions—most unions, I should say—do amazing work to represent millions of workers in this country. This side of the chamber supports many things that have been passed in this new term of government but also in the last term, particularly on protecting our workers, but clearly the other side of the chamber does not support these—things like Baby Priya's bill, which we passed; penalty rates; secure work; and also equal pay. These are really important things that the union movement have been fighting for and that we have delivered on this side of the chamber. The Labor Party was born from the union movement. I don't think we need to do a history lesson on this, but it's important to make sure that people in the community of Australia understand that the union movement has done a lot of work for our Australian people.</para>
<para>No-one on this side of the House supports misconduct. No-one on this side of the House believes that what's happened with the CFMEU is right. We've done things. We've heard about it in question time today. I've heard it from my colleagues here today. No-one is above scrutiny. No-one is above the law. But what I will not accept is this deliberate conflation of what happened with the CFMEU with other unions, and I need to call that out.</para>
<para>The other thing I want to highlight in particular is that, prior to question time, the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> live blog said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Watson told the Queensland commission of inquiry he was "absolutely appalled" to see some calling for Irving's resignation today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"If anything I've said here today would suggest that is an outcome they should think again," Watson said. "They would be mad to get rid of Mark Irving."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He said, "I might have said harsh things—they're my opinion and Irving may have had another.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"I've worked for Irving for two years now, and I've never met a more honest or decent man … I can tell you, everything he did was opposed to corruption and was in favour of fixing the CFMEU."</para></quote>
<para>I think that needs to be identified here today, because I listened to the contributions from those opposite and they don't want to face the facts.</para>
<para>I also want to reflect on my experience. I heard the member for Fisher indicate his experience. I didn't hear about what he did in his time as a chippie. But, as a union lawyer, I have worked for the ETU and for the Nurses and Midwives' Association. They are doing amazing work to support workers who have been underpaid and have been working in unsafe conditions, and it's important to highlight that as well. During my time at the ETU, we did a lot of work, particularly during the time of the royal commission, to make sure we were doing the right thing, which we did. During the coalition's time in government, nothing came out of that—just a slap on the wrist. Now, with an Albanese Labor government, more has been done.</para>
<para>I also need to highlight that I wish the opposition had taken this more seriously. They have a passion for asserting that the government is turning a blind eye to union corruption, but I think it's also important that they're saying nothing about the significant underpayment that's occurring in the corporate world. They should be taking that very seriously as well, along with phoenixing and franchising. We heard about it today, and I wish they could take that very seriously, because they have not said anything about that in particular.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Something is rotten in the state of Victoria, and it's starting to infect Labor federally. Something is rotten in the state of Victoria when, over a long period of time, you've got such a significant undermining of public confidence in public institutions and in government integrity, which has become so much worse under Daniel Andrews and since his tenure.</para>
<para>I only need to look at how state government ministers treat this issue. I go back to 30 September last year. Australia's worst energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, was asked about an IBAC survey on the perception of corruption, and she waved reporters away and was extremely flippant. She said she was more interested in community perceptions, but the reality was that nearly 90 per cent of MPs in the Victorian state parliament were worried about corruption, and the figure was a bit less than that for local government councillors. That is one example of how prolific some of these issues are. We're not talking about some minor infractions here. We are dealing with some pretty profound issues—$15 billion didn't just vanish. It was siphoned off while the government looked the other way. We're talking about strippers being brought into a workplace. In what other workplace or office in Australia would that be acceptable? That's what's happening in Victoria.</para>
<para>This is not incompetence; it's wilful ignorance. I read today about a contract that was taken out on the administrator when he was appointed. This is really serious stuff. We read about this sort of thing internationally. We like to think it doesn't happen here in Australia, but it does when it comes to the CFMEU, and it's allowed to flourish under a Labor federal government that is not prepared to toughen up and deal with it. We're talking about organised crime figures buying and selling workplace agreements. I note that, at the moment, we're paying something like $500,000 a minute on government debt. Every dollar lost to corruption is a hospital bed not funded, a road not fixed, a school not repaired. But that's the Victorian government. That's Labor in Victoria, which has infected Labor federally. The standard that you choose to walk past is the same one that you choose to accept.</para>
<para>It's also impacting regional communities and small businesses. I'll give you an example. In my electorate of Monash, there are many family-run building SMEs. They do a terrific job. They employ young people. They give tradies a go. We've got a wonderful local workforce, but, so often, I speak to them about skills and labour shortages. These corruption issues in Melbourne that relate to the CFMEU have profound, ongoing and institutional consequences for the rest of the building sector and for small businesses, who are expected to abide by a very high level of compliance and regulatory standards. Clearly, the CFMEU are not. There are some really profound flow-on impacts here.</para>
<para>The member for Goldstein has done an outstanding job in holding a light to systemic corruption. The <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">ge</inline>, which is not exactly the bastion of conservative publishing, has been like a dog with a bone on this issue, and I commend the bravery and the persistence of reporters like Nick McKenzie, because we need to get to the bottom of this. We need to see a report that is not redacted. If you are serious about standing up to corruption, putting out that report in full without bits and pieces taken out, redacted and blacked out is important. It's important to get to the bottom of why bikie gangs were running building sites. We need to know what is happening from here on in with that report, with cleaning up union corruption and with CFMEU donations to the Labor Party, because Australians deserve so much better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On this side, we retain full confidence in the administrator, respected King's Counsel Mr Mark Irving. Can I reinforce again, as my colleague did a moment ago, the words of Geoffrey Watson KC—hardly a partisan figure. During the inquiry, after reading reports of coalition calls for the administrator to resign, Mr Watson paused proceedings and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There's something I'd like to say …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I might have said some harsh things here today, but in my opinion … I've never met a more honest and decent man.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They'd be mad to get rid of Mark Irving.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese government has acted decisively to stamp out corruption, criminality and violence within the CFMEU's construction division by placing it into administration, legislation supported by the coalition. These problems are deeply embedded in the industry. They didn't arise overnight—it didn't just happen like that—and they won't be fixed overnight.</para>
<para>Let's be honest about this: the disgraceful conduct outlined in the Watson report, commissioned by Mr Irving under our legislation, flourished under the coalition and the ABCC. After a $61 million royal commission, the same leadership in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria remained in place for nearly a decade. The ABCC issued fines, and judges said those fines were ineffective. Geoffrey Watson found they were treated as a cost of doing business, and even suggested breaching the law became part of the model. How many leaders did the coalition remove? Zero.</para>
<para>Now compare that with what this government has achieved, with what we've done. In August 2024 the scheme of administration removed the entire elected leadership of the construction division across six jurisdictions, 270 union officers and 12 paid officials. Since then, more than 100 additional staff have been removed or have resigned—the majority in leadership roles. Over half the organisers in Victoria are new, over 90 per cent in New South Wales are new and more than half in Queensland are new. Every individual named in the Watson report has been removed. This is action.</para>
<para>I say this as someone who has spent much of their working life in the union movement: before entering this parliament many years ago, before I was on the other side, I was an organiser for over 20 years and later secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union in Tasmania. I represented workers in factories, workshops and heavy industry, and I stood on picket lines. I negotiated enterprise agreements. I dealt with employers, regulators and governments of all persuasions. I know the difference between strong representation and unlawful conduct. The overwhelming majority of union members are hardworking people who want safe workplaces, fair pay and dignity at work, but they also want hardworking, honest people representing them. Corruption does not protect workers. Criminality does not advance their interests. Violence does not strengthen unions.</para>
<para>When I was a union organiser, my job was to lift standards to ensure compliance with the law and improve safety and wages, not to undermine the law. Cleaning up the construction industry is not anti-union; it's pro-worker. It's about restoring integrity so that members can have confidence in their representation and so that law-abiding businesses are not undercut. Under this administration, individuals who were fined for assault, illegal blockades, deplorable conduct and even bribery—people who were allowed to retain their roles under the coalition and the ABCC—have been removed. In just 18 months the administrator has achieved more than the coalition and the failed ABCC did in a decade.</para>
<para>But reform doesn't stop here. Following referrals from this government, regulators and law enforcement now have more than 100 investigations underway right across the construction industry. We know problems are not confined to one organisation. Employers and contractors also have responsibilities. That is why we established the National Construction Industry Forum, bringing together government, business and unions. It was unanimously endorsed as a blueprint for reform. Work is underway on a joint industry charter to lift behavioural standards across the sector, including procurement practices.</para>
<para>This is serious structural reform. The shadow minister's attacks on the administrator may make for headlines, but they do absolutely nothing to clean up the industry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I present the committee's report,<inline font-style="italic">Report 514: Inquiry into the procurement of mandated national support and advocacy services for victims of child sexual abuse</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The report examines the procurement processes used by the Attorney-General's Department to deliver two mandated child sexual abuse related national services. These procurements arose directly from recommendations of the 2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—recommendations that went to the heart of ensuring victims, survivors and their families receive timely, accessible and appropriate support. Given the significance and sensitivities of these services, the Australian National Audit Office conducted an audit of the procurements in 2024-25. The ANAO found that the processes did not involve open and effective competition, were subject to substantial delays, accepted non-compliant tenders for evaluation, failed to meet ethical standards and did not achieve value for money. In particular, the audit identified that preferred tenderers failed to comply with mandatory pricing requirements at the request-for-tender stage. They were nonetheless evaluated and ultimately offered contracts.</para>
<para>The evidence received by the joint committee throughout this inquiry was consistent with the ANAO's findings. Of particular concern to the committee were the significant delays. Although funding for these services was allocated in the 2021-22 budget, the market was not approached until late 2023. A contract for the national offending prevention service was eventually executed in July 2025. However, negotiations for the service intended to support non-offending family members collapsed in October 2024. At the time of reporting this, there remains uncertainty as to when or how that service will now be delivered.</para>
<para>The committee notes the Attorney-General's Department's acknowledgement that, while these procurements were complex, the processes were unacceptably slow. It is particularly troubling that the Attorney-General was not appropriately briefed on these delays and was only advised of anticipated timeframes in mid-2023. The department has accepted all of the ANAO's findings and has indicated a willingness to learn from these failures and improve its future practice. While this is welcome, the committee is not yet persuaded that that the department is positioned to deliver the full suite of services required. This includes a nationally available information and referral service for victims and survivors, which remains under evaluation and was not examined as part of the ANAO audit. Accordingly, the committee makes two recommendations in report 514: (1) that the Attorney-General's Department provide an immediate update on the status of these services; and (2) that the department report again within six months on its implementation on the ANAO's recommendations, including concrete examples drawn from ongoing and planned procurement activities.</para>
<para>Before concluding, I acknowledge the chair, the member for Macnamara; the deputy chair, Senator O'Sullivan; and members of the committee for their considered and diligent contributions to this inquiry. I would also like to thank the Australian National Audit Office and the Attorney-General's Department for their cooperation and the committee secretariat for its continued professionalism and support. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I present executive minutes on reports 502, 505, 506 and 512 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7419" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7418" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COMER</name>
    <name.id>316551</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The commission will have a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention. It will ensure that agencies responsible for implementing the royal commission's recommendations are held to account. It will promote long-term cultural and structural change and drive the reforms necessary to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members. To perform this role effectively, the commission must have the independence, functions and powers necessary to meet these objectives and to maintain the trust of the Defence and veteran community. That is precisely what this bill delivers.</para>
<para>The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 builds on the work undertaken by the parliament in February this year, when schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 was passed and subsequently examined through a Senate inquiry. The submissions, evidence and findings of that inquiry have directly informed the development of this bill. As a result, the government has implemented several key recommendations.</para>
<para>First, the bill establishes standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, reinforcing its independence and clarity of purpose. Second, the bill ensures that the functions of the commissioner explicitly include reference to veterans' families. There is no doubt that the families of veterans play a vital role in supporting the health and wellbeing of our veterans. At the same time, they face unique challenges themselves. They are often carers, advocates and first responders, yet their voices are too often overlooked. Through this legislation, the Albanese government acknowledges the significance of veterans' families and recognises that meaningful system reform must consider the experiences and needs of the families alongside those who serve. Third, the commission's functions and powers have been reviewed and the proposed amendments arising from the inquiry process have been adopted.</para>
<para>This bill strengthens the independence of the commissioner and the commissioner's powers to ensure accountability. It also works to access the information necessary to perform oversight functions effectively. It also expands the scope of witness protection, ensuring that individuals who provide information to an inquiry by the commissioner are appropriately protected. This is essential to fostering trust, encouraging transparency and ensuring that people feel safe to come forward.</para>
<para>This bill also improves transparency in the work of the commission itself. It introduces statutory deadlines for the completion of two inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations. Those deadlines are 2 December 2027 and 2 December 2030, marking the third and sixth anniversaries of the government's response. These statutory milestones are an important accountability mechanism. They ensure that progress is measured, reported on and subject to scrutiny over time. These provisions reflect a clear understanding that system reform is not a one-off exercise. It requires sustained attention, long-term oversight and a commitment to continuous improvement.</para>
<para>The government has listened to feedback from stakeholders and has taken action. The changes contained in this bill ensure that the commissioner has the tools necessary to enable the commission to drive meaningful system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force. Importantly, these reforms mean that agencies will be held accountable to consider and respond to the commissioner's recommendations.</para>
<para>The enduring nature of the commission ensures that the voices of veterans and their families continue to be heard and that systemic issues contributing to suicide and poor wellbeing outcomes are continually reviewed and addressed. These provisions ensure continuity, legal clarity and smooth transition so that there is no disruption to the important work of the commission.</para>
<para>Taken together, these bills strengthen independence, enhance accountability and embed long-term oversight at the heart of the Defence and veterans support system. They honour the findings of the royal commission, respond to the parliament's scrutiny and reflect the government's commitment to listening, learning and acting.</para>
<para>I want to finish by acknowledging the everyday heroes who work tirelessly to support veterans. The RSLs in my electorate are working tirelessly to support our veterans. I want to especially thank Rosemary, who tirelessly volunteers at the Redcliffe RSL. It's people like Rosemary who make all the difference, providing fierce support exactly where it's needed. On our end the government is getting on with the job of removing roadblocks for veterans so that they can access the services they need, the services they've earnt and the services they deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide highlighted the devastating scale and impact of veteran suicide and made clear that this is a national tragedy that desperately needed to be addressed. That is why we've worked to implement the agreed recommendations of the royal commission as quickly as possible.</para>
<para>In my address to the National Press Club on the one year anniversary of the government's response to the final report of the royal commission, I provided an update that 32 recommendations from the royal commission would be implemented by the end of 2025 and that we expected two-thirds of the agreed recommendations to be completed by the end of this year.</para>
<para>The royal commission described recommendation 122, the establishment of an independent oversight body, as its most important recommendation. In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of this recommendation, in February 2025 the Albanese Labor government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. It has been up and running since the end of September 2025. The current enactment within part VIIIE of the Defence Act 1903, by way of schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlement, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, passed the parliament in February 2025 ensuring that the commission would be up and running by September and not be subject to the vagaries of the intervening federal election.</para>
<para>Noting the swift passage of this legislation, government supported a Senate inquiry into this, enabling the defence and veteran community to provide feedback on schedule 9—the establishment of this oversight body. These bills before us today are a direct result of that engagement and demonstrate our commitment to working with the defence and veteran community, because we want to get this right.</para>
<para>The bills address the first recommendation of the Senate inquiry, by establishing standalone legislation for the commission. The bills also add a specific reference to families as part of the commission's function, strengthen the commissioner's independence and powers, improve witness protections and increase transparency. The bill requires the commission to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the measures and actions taken to implement the government response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, first reporting on 2 December 2027.</para>
<para>This is in addition to other inquiries that may be undertaken by the commission, including a recently announced inquiry into the implementation of the government's response to recommendations 9 to 13 of the royal commission's interim report. The time line for the first legislated inquiry will enable a proper consideration of our work and an opportunity to genuinely evaluate if the recommendations have been implemented appropriately and are making a difference for the defence and veteran community.</para>
<para>I note that an amendment has been foreshadowed to bring forward the date of this first legislated inquiry. I note that these bills have been referred also to another Senate inquiry, which is the appropriate place to consider the first reporting date. I want to thank all those that have contributed to this debate and for your unwavering support of our veteran community.</para>
<para>I note that across the chamber there's been bipartisan support for our veterans, as we would expect, with references to local bases in people's communities and their family connections to the defence and veteran community. And I'd like to particularly acknowledge the member for Gorton, who referred to her relative Hugo Throssell VC after whom there is a bridge named in my electorate.</para>
<para>It's important to note that contrary to some of the assertions of the opposition during this debate, though this bill may be about a commissioner, to be clear, it is about a commissioner and a commission that was envisaged by the royal commission. This is not some reheating of the previous government's proposal for a commission in an attempt to avoid holding the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide in the first place. This is quite different.</para>
<para>I think it is also important to remind members of the House that the genesis of the legislation that established the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, via the vets act amendment in schedule 9, was based on very extensive consultation, despite what those opposite have said. There was a royal commission for three years that produced a detailed set of recommendations for the establishment of this commission. That is what was reflected in that legislation, which we ensured was passed by this parliament in early 2025 to make sure that the commission could be up and running by September, as the royal commission itself asked for. That is what this government delivered.</para>
<para>As I said last year in parliament and at the National Press Club, it is our nation's duty to empower and support the mental health and wellbeing of our defence and veteran community to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality as much as possible. The commission is an integral part of this work and will ensure ongoing scrutiny of our efforts to achieve this aim, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 18, page 20 (line 11), omit "2 December 2027", substitute "30 September 2026".</para></quote>
<para>The coalition is moving an amendment to bring forward the timing of the first implementation review by the commissioner. As currently drafted, the first assessment of the government's implementation of the royal commission recommendations is not required to be completed until December 2027. That means the report may not be tabled until 2028, almost four years after the royal commission reported. That is too slow and risks weakening accountability. Veterans and families were promised urgent reform, not delayed reporting. Independent oversight only works if it's timely and visible. Our amendment would require the first implementation assessment to be completed by no later than 30 September 2026. That timing is reasonable and practical. It marks two years since the royal commission's final report and one year since the commissioner commenced operation. That is more than sufficient time to assess whether early-stage reforms are being delivered and whether government commitments are translating into action.</para>
<para>Earlier reporting ensures veterans, families and the parliament can see measurable progress, not just promises. If the government is confident in its reform program, it should welcome earlier independent assessment. This amendment strengthens transparency and reinforces accountability. It does not change the commissioner's independence or powers. The coalition's objective is simple: reforms recommended by the royal commission must be implemented quickly and assessed openly. I believe that it's in the best interest of the parliament to accept this amendment, and it's in the best interests of our veterans.</para>
<para>Many veterans will be tuning in, listening to and watching what this parliament is about to do. People have been waiting a long time for the national commission to be up and running. It's the policy that we brought forward back in 2020 under the then Minister for Veterans Affairs, Darren Chester, who's in this place today. I believe that we want to work collaboratively with the government to make sure that we can get this implemented as quickly as possible but also to make sure that the public—the community, veterans and their families—can see what's happening and whether it's working and can hold the government accountable, as they should. No veteran should die by suicide. No families should be burying their loved ones. No wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters should lose their loved one back here on home soil. We owe it to them to work quickly. We owe it to them to make sure that we're implementing policies that give them support and learn from the mistakes that have been made. I don't think that any government—any colour of shirt at any time—can put their hand on their heart and say they've done everything to support our veterans. This is the opportunity. We need to move quickly. We shouldn't be burying our bravest. The time to act is now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Herbert for his remarks in relation to the amendment that he has moved. I understand the opposition's and the member's desire to move the date of the first report of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission to an earlier time. In that regard I note that 32 recommendations have already been implemented and two-thirds will be implemented by the end of 2026, and of course work is ongoing in relation to the remainder of the royal commission's recommendations. The opposition's amendment, though, would see the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission reporting in the middle of all of this work.</para>
<para>In addition, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission has already started its first inquiry looking into the implementation of recommendations 9 to 13 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's interim report, which was about providing better information access not only for veterans but also, in particular, for the families of those veterans who have taken their own lives.</para>
<para>I think that the opposition's amendment is best considered, however, by the inquiry that has already been established in the Senate to look into this legislation. We will be able to best consider the proposal that has been put forward by the opposition in the context of that inquiry. For that reason, at this time the government will oppose the opposition's amendment as moved in the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:40]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>47</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aldred, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Batt, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boele, N.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaffey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Kennedy, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Penfold, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Rebello, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Small, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Venning, T. H.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>86</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abdo, B. J.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ambihaipahar, A.</name>
                  <name>Belyea, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Berry, C. G.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Briskey, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Campbell, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Clutterham, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Coffey, R. K.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Comer, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Cook, K. M. G.</name>
                  <name>Cook, P. A.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C. J.</name>
                  <name>France, A. A.</name>
                  <name>French, T. A.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P. P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Gregg, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Holzberger, R. A. V.</name>
                  <name>Jarrett, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Jordan-Baird, M. A. M.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Moncrieff, D. S.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Ng, G. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. J. H.</name>
                  <name>Soon, X.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Teesdale, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>White, R. P.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Witty, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7418" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7412" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The coalition supports many of the measures contained in this bill, and that is why this bill should never have been stitched together the way that it has been. Labor has effectively cobbled together a grab bag of largely unrelated measures and wrapped them up around a contentious measure—a measure that it knows the coalition will oppose, and that is a change to superannuation which restricts choice, reduces competition and rewards union aligned industry funds.</para>
<para>Labor has bundled together these various measures not because it makes good policy sense but because it suits Labor politically. Labor is attempting to force a false choice on the parliament: either support the entire bill and accept bad changes to super, or oppose the bill and be accused of blocking unrelated and sensible measures. That is not good lawmaking. It is old-fashioned wedge politics. And some wonder why trust in the political system is eroding! This typical Labor tactic puts politics above policy. Each schedule in this bill should stand on its own merits, or, at least, agreed non-controversial measures should be grouped together. But that degree of respect for the parliament is something sorely missing under this Albanese Labor government. Labor has deliberately denied parliament that opportunity. Because the coalition supports some of the measures in this bill while adamantly opposing others, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Government has cynically cobbled together unrelated measures within this bill in an attempt to play wedge politics, not deliver policy outcomes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Opposition is supportive of Schedules 3, 4 and 6, which deal with tax incentives for the Rugby World Cup, a tax treaty with Portugal and an increase in the Wine Equalisation Tax producer rebate cap;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Opposition wishes to see the smooth passage of Schedules 3, 4 and 6 and are willing to work with the Government on these uncontroversial aspects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Opposition has serious concerns about Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, which restrict choice in superannuation".</para></quote>
<para>The bill contains six schedules, most of which are broadly uncontroversial. There are schedules dealing with an international tax treaty, sporting event tax exemptions and support for the wine sector—measures the coalition has supported in the past and continues to support. Schedule 3, for example, implements income tax exemptions associated with the Rugby World Cup to attract that major sporting event. This is standard practice for major international events like this and mirrors concessions provided under previous coalition governments. Schedule 4 gives domestic effect to the Australia-Portugal tax treaty. This is a routine and sensible measure, and it has our support. Schedule 5, which deals with Labor's priorities in regard to retaining, providing or removing DGR status for various organisations requires further scrutiny. This will be done by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, to which this bill has been referred. Schedule 6 increases the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap, delivering much-needed support to Australian wine producers. We support this.</para>
<para>The problem is that Labor has cynically bundled these schedules together with a very contentious superannuation measure. In fact, that measure goes across two schedules—schedule 1 and schedule 2—and, of course, there's further work that is needed in the DGR related schedule.</para>
<para>Schedule 1, in and of itself, is largely mechanical but, paired with schedule 2, amounts to an egregious intervention into the superannuation sector. Australians now have more than $4 trillion saved for retirement and superannuation, and that figure is on track to reach $5 trillion by the end of the decade. That capital does not just fund dignified retirements; it underpins investment opportunities to help maximise returns for hardworking Australian workers. But the system will only be sustainable if people trust it—trust that it's managed solely in members' financial interests; trust that governments will not retreat from respecting that primary objective of maximising returns for superannuation holders; trust that governments also will not treat superannuation as a political plaything, as a piggy bank to fund the government's priorities.</para>
<para>The coalition understands this instinctively. Superannuation is part of a worker's pay. It is not a gift. It is not a bonus. It is money earned by and owed to Australians. Labor, on the other hand, does not understand this instinctively. Labor sees super differently. Labor increasingly treats super as a pool of capital it can direct, constrain or tax for its own political purposes, and this bill is part of that longstanding pattern. Rather than strengthening competition and empowering Australian workers, Labor is narrowing the ways Australians can engage with their own super. Rather than trusting Australians to make informed choices, Labor wants to make the choice for them. That does not strengthen the super system; it weakens it. It doesn't strengthen trust; it erodes it. We see Labor's approach to super in schedule 2 of this bill. Schedule 2 is described by Labor as 'supporting choice in superannuation'—an Orwellian description if there ever has been one. A ban on advertising does not support choice; by definition, it limits choice.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2026, many superannuation products will be prohibited from being advertised to employees during their onboarding into a new job, the very moment when workers are most engaged and most likely to actively consider their super. On the surface, this might appear benign, but scratch a little deeper and a familiar pattern emerges. This is not about empowering Australians; it is about steering them into choices Labor wants to make on their behalf. Labor claims this change will prevent workers from being pushed into poorly performing funds, but Australia already has a world-leading performance test regime that weeds out underperforming products.</para>
<para>As the Financial Services Council has made clear, this measure inherently benefits industry super funds at the expense of non-default, non-industry and alternative products. Union backed industry super funds already dominate default arrangements. Retail funds and other competitors are structurally disadvantaged. Competition is increasing in Australia's super sector, and this is causing the large, union backed industry super funds significant heartache as Australians exercise their right to move their own money to a fund of their choosing. Recent reports suggest that one million Australians switched super providers last year, representing around $150 million of super switching every single day. Retail funds are large beneficiaries of super switching. At a time when Australians are actively re-engaging with their super, Labor is proposing to close off avenues for comparison and engagement. That is not accidental.</para>
<para>The sector has also raised serious concerns about implementation. Payroll and onboarding providers have been clear that sequencing stapled fund information ahead of permitted advertising is not as straightforward as it may seem, yet the regulatory detail will not be released until after this bill becomes law. Meanwhile, major platforms such as MYOB and Employment Hero have warned that systems are not ready. Once again, Labor is legislating first and thinking later.</para>
<para>This bill forms part of a broader pattern by Labor that favours union backed industry super funds at every opportunity and, despite its rhetoric, is weakening super, not strengthening it. You only need to consider other recent measures of Labor's that put the Labor government and their interests at the centre of the system instead of the interests of everyday Australian superannuants—measures such as forcing mandatory cooling-off periods to advantage industry funds and tweaking the performance test to direct capital to where government wants it to go. All of this spells bad news for average Australian superannuants—less choice, less competition, more government control, more power concentrated in union backed industry funds aligned with Labor, more uncertainty for Australians planning their retirement. Under Labor's approach, trust is not lost in a single moment; it is chipped away at. This bill is yet another chip.</para>
<para>It's worth noting that all of this sits within a broader context of Labor's ongoing obsession with taxing superannuation. Labor's super tax 1.0 was one of the most reckless tax proposals ever put forward. Its most egregious feature was the indexation of a tax on unrealised capital gains. Taxing unrealised capital gains on non-indexed balances was economic lunacy. Morally, it was wrong, especially given the impact it would have had on younger Australians, in particular, as they grew older. That proposal punished aspiration and severely undermined confidence in the future of superannuation. The Treasurer was forced into retreat, and super tax 1.0 was no more. Very quickly, though, he started working on super tax 2.0. In fact, he brought it into the parliament today. It's interesting that Labor are so interested in tax, and I think most economic commentators around the country understand why; in fact, they're just trying to paper over what is the highest-spending government in the last 40 years outside of the pandemic.</para>
<para>The Treasurer's own budget papers show he is injecting into the economy a volume of fiscal stimulus equivalent to Labor's stimulus during the GFC. The Treasurer needs to find a way to pay for all this spending. Debt is to hit $1 trillion over the next few months. Australian workers are already paying an extra $4,000 in personal income taxes under this government. The Treasurer is looking everywhere—in each cupboard, behind each cushion on the couch—to find more money. Thus, they come after people's retirement savings and they come after superannuation. That is the context within which this bill is being debated.</para>
<para>The coalition rejects this approach. We believe in encouraging aspiration, not taxing it. We believe in growing the economic pie, not slicing up an increasingly shrinking economic pie. We believe in Australians. We believe superannuation money is their money, and we will not turn from that view.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRISKEY</name>
    <name.id>263427</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Former prime minister—and the architect of superannuation—Paul Keating once said, 'Superannuation was always about more than just a savings account; it was about the democratisation of capital, giving every worker a stake in the wealth of the nation they are building.' I see the weight of that promise every time I walk down Union Road or Puckle Street, or when I'm visiting local businesses in Essendon Fields. When we talk about Treasury laws and schedules, we're really talking about that stake in the nation. We are talking about the promise that a lifetime of work in Maribyrnong and across the country, whether you're a teacher in Keilor East or a nurse in Glenroy or a retail worker in Kensington, will lead to a retirement where you aren't just surviving but thriving.</para>
<para>In my time as an advocate for working people, I have spoken with parents and workers where the conversation isn't about global tax conventions; it's about the 'what ifs': What if I haven't saved enough? What if my super is being eaten away by fees? The bill before us today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, is this government's answer. We're delivering this alongside our landmark payday super legislation. Payday super is a once-in-a-generation reform to fix a massive integrity gap. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22; that is $100 million every week that workers earned but never received. For a 34-year-old in my electorate, failing to recover these missing funds could reduce their retirement nest egg by $32,000. This bill ensures the system works for you, not the other way around. Today we've introduced additional changes that will make super even fairer from top to bottom and more sustainable in the long term. These changes will make a significant difference to low-income workers in my electorate, boosting their super and giving them a better retirement.</para>
<para>Let's go back to the first day of a new job. We've all been there—the nerves, the excitement and the stack of paperwork, which is often digital these days, that sits between you and your first shift. It's a moment of transition and, for many, it's a moment of vulnerability. Schedule 1 and schedule 2 of this bill focus squarely on this moment. Currently, the onboarding process is a bit of a minefield—a worker starts a new job, and in the rush to get their payroll details sorted they inadvertently open a new superannuation account. They didn't mean to; they already had a fund they'd been contributing to for years, but the system wasn't designed to show them their stapled fund—the one that belongs to them—at the right time.</para>
<para>By streamlining the choice-of-fund process, we are ensuring that a worker's existing fund is visible and accessible from day one. This isn't just about tidying up paperwork; it's about stopping the 'silent thief' of duplicate fees. In my community, we have a high population of young workers and people in the gig economy, who move between jobs frequently. If they open a new account every time they start a new contract, they are paying double, triple or quadruple administration fees and insurance premiums. For a young person in Moonee Ponds, losing just $100 a year to unnecessary fees can result in thousands of dollars lost by retirement age. From 1 July 2026, we are fixing this. We are making sure your super follows you so your savings stay in your pocket.</para>
<para>Further to this, schedule 2 introduces a ban that is long overdue. For too long, some onboarding software providers have treated a new employee's first day as an advertising opportunity. They are being paid to push specific super products, often ones that are more profitable for the provider than they are for the worker. When you're starting a new job, you should be focused on your new responsibilities and your new team. You shouldn't be pressured into a financial decision by a pop-up ad or a payroll app. This bill creates a safe zone for onboarding. It ensures that the information workers see is regulated, transparent and focused on their best interests, not on someone's commission. We are keeping the focus on MySuper products—the gold standard of regulated, high-performing funds—and ensuring that if an advertisement does appear, under the strict exceptions we've carved out, it is accompanied by clear, unambiguous disclosures. This is about honesty. It is about ensuring that the choice a worker makes is an informed one, not one they're pushed into.</para>
<para>I represent communities that are outward looking. We are home to people from every corner of the globe, and our local economy is increasingly connected to international markets. That is why schedule 4, the tax convention with Portugal, is more than just a diplomatic formality; it's a bridge. This is our first ever tax treaty with Portugal, and it will be our 47th overall. For the local businesses in my community looking to innovate, this treaty and others like it remove the hurdles. By reducing withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties, we are making it cheaper for Australian businesses to access Portuguese capital and technology. We are also ensuring that people who earn income in both countries aren't being taxed twice on the same dollar. It's about fairness and it's about making Australia an attractive place for the kind of investment that creates jobs in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne that I represent. It also has a tough-on-tax edge. This treaty strengthens our ability to fight tax evasion. It allows tax authorities to exchange information and assist in collecting debts. It's a clear message from this government that, if you do business here, you play by our rules and you pay your fair share.</para>
<para>I want to turn to schedule 3. I must admit that at first glance it seems a little bit like the odd one out in a Treasury bill. We are debating the mechanics of superannuation and international tax treaties, and suddenly we find ourselves talking about scrums and lineouts. It's a bit weird to see the Rugby World Cup sitting alongside superannuation, but there is a very serious reason it is here. When we bid for major international events, like the 2027 men's and 2029 women's rugby world cups, we make promises to the world. We promise that Australia is a professional, reliable and welcoming host. Part of the entry price for hosting global tournaments involves providing targeted tax exemptions for the organisers.</para>
<para>While it might seem like a strange inclusion in this specific debate, it is about the economic livelihood of our cities. In Melbourne sport is its own religion. We are the sporting capital of the country. We know that a major sporting event brings benefits that ripple out far beyond the stadium. It's the extra shifts for the casual workers at our local bars. It's the bookings for our small transport companies. It's the tourism dollars that help our suburban cafes thrive. Most importantly for me, it's about legacy. I think of the young girls playing at local clubs in Melbourne today. When they see the world's best athletes competing here in 2029, they won't just be watching a game; they'll be seeing a future. So, yes, while it's a bit of a legislative sidestep to talk about rugby in a superannuation bill, it's a necessary one to ensure we remain a top tier destination for the major events that inspire our kids and boost our local economy.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 deals with deductible gift recipient status, and this is where the bill truly touches the heart of my electorate. The not-for-profit sector is the backbone of our community. When the government can't be there, these organisations are there supporting the vulnerable, protecting our heritage and advocating for change. Throughout my career, I have seen the incredible power of people coming together to demand a better future for them and their communities. Whether it's advocating for better education, providing crisis support or championing equality, these organisations need every bit of support they can get.</para>
<para>By granting DGR status, we are making it easier for everyday Australians to donate knowing that their contribution is tax deductible. We are supporting the helpers. From the restoration of St Patrick's Cathedral to the advocacy of Equality Australia, we are ensuring that the diversity of our communities' interests is reflected in our tax system. The removal of certain listings is also a necessary part of this process, ensuring that the system maintains its integrity and that tax concessions are only flowing to those who are actively delivering for the community. These groups are doing the heavy lifting in our civil society, and they deserve a tax system that encourages rather than hinders their growth.</para>
<para>Finally, schedule 6 looks at our wine industry. I'll be the first to admit that you won't find many vineyards in the middle of Maribyrnong. I've checked! I've been up and down Maribyrnong River, and I can confirm we are definitely more suburban sprawl than Shiraz soil. While we aren't treading the grapes in the north-west, we are the ones that move them. Our logistics hubs and transport workers rely on a thriving wine sector. This bill increases the WET rebate cap to $400,000 to give producers breathing room. This complements our broader support, including the increase to the excise remission scheme cap and our two-year draught beer excise freeze to ease pressure on local pubs and clubs. Those opposite, when they aren't fighting with each other, spend their time claiming to be the champions of the regions, yet they left our wine producers struggling under an outdated cap and trade doors that were slammed shut. They talk a big game, but it takes a Labor government to actually deliver the practical tax relief and trade partnerships that keep family vineyards viable and our local supply chains moving.</para>
<para>This bill doesn't reinvent the wheel; it ensures the wheel is turning for the worker. When we came to office, we inherited huge deficits and $1 trillion worth of Liberal debt. We know Australians are under pressure, which is why we're delivering two more tax cuts for every single taxpayer. The fundamental divide in this place is clear. While Labor protects the worker, those opposite still treat retirement savings like a political piggy bank. After a decade of delaying the super guarantee, they now want to raid the nest eggs of young Australians for housing, forcing the next generation to choose between a roof today and poverty tomorrow. They remain the party of 'no', stuck in a worldview where the only way for a young person to get ahead is to rob themselves of their own future dignity.</para>
<para>We are choosing action over obstruction. When the people of Maribyrnong go to work tomorrow, I want them to know that we are in their corner, ensuring that the system rewards their hard work. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the member for Casey.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Goldstein!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I now call the member for Goldstein.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. I am under no illusion that I am an inadequate replacement for the member for Casey. However, in the spirit in which he has appeared in the chamber, I am honoured to nonetheless follow him. It is important to speak on this piece of legislation because the Labor Party wants this legislation to be about, somehow, making the case that they're being generous on the issue of superannuation, but let's be very clear about this. This bill is an omnibus bill. It is running about 10 different agendas under the banner of thinking that it is justified because it has the word 'superannuation' in it.</para>
<para>There is a component in this legislation where the government is saying they're supporting superannuation choice. The problem is it isn't the choice of Australians; it's the choice of the fund managers. Today the modern Labor Party is not a party of organised workers. It is a party for organised capital, where they seek to entrench the vested interests of industry funds, particularly the funds that profiteer and take from people's retirement savings. They take that money. They funnel, siphon, launder or wash—whatever word you want to use—then pass it on through kickbacks to the Australian Labor Party and its campaign coffers. It's either that or the trade union movement. The bigger the volume of money, the more they can just shave money off the top and use it towards ill-gotten and corrupt gains. That is the basis on which this legislation is put before this parliament. It's a way to maximise the revenue in the funds they control. It's a way to maximise their grab, their take and their pathway to get money into the kickback cartel cycle of life, to provide the liquidity for the modern Labor Party to campaign so they can sit in office.</para>
<para>You just need to understand how the cartel kickback circle of life works. You have the trade union movement that takes money from workers' wages. They then, through law, compel people to be in funds that they control. They then campaign and fund the Labor Party to sit on the treasury bench. Once they're on the treasury bench they try and take as much money as they can from Australian workers' wages and force it into funds that they control. And then they use that money to launder it—to drive it through marketing mechanisms or whatever it is—so that it goes back into the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party to keep them entrenched. They always want to take more of Australians' money because they want to control Australians. At a state level, state Labor governments propose projects. Those projects are then used to siphon money and raise the expectations of taking money from people's superannuation funds, again. so that the beneficiaries can be those who are members of the unions. It's the cartel kickback circle of life.</para>
<para>Where has it been enlivened more than the CFMEU? We found out all about that today, about what's been going on, in the Wood inquiry in Queensland, which has directly exposed the CFMEU-Labor Party cartel of corruption. We've heard about the problems through what's been voiced in Senate estimates today. There's what's been going on in the Queensland parliament, the scrutiny today. Then, of course, there have been the nonanswers that the minister has provided in the House of Representatives today. She won't give simple bits of information like whether she requested reports from the CFMEU administrator. She won't address the allegations of corruption in the CFMEU. It could be a choice of wilful blindness because she didn't want to see corruption—and didn't want to hear about corruption—because then she wouldn't be accountable for the corruption. She won't even reveal to this place the report that was handed to her by the CFMEU administrator.</para>
<para>The Labor Party oversees the cartel kickback corruption cycle of life, where they take Australian workers' money and shove it in funds. Those funds then finance projects where they can skive money off the side. Then they also make sure that that funding is then used for marketing expenses, to ensure that Labor stays in government. Literally, the Mafia could not have designed a scheme as sophisticated and sanctioned in law as has been done by the modern Labor Party. And Australians are the ones who pay.</para>
<para>Any time there is a threat to the power structures that sit behind the cartel kickback circle of life, they will fight endlessly to keep it in place. If they don't, they know the revenue sources they need to sit on the treasury bench will dry up. More importantly, they will then have to justify, on democratic grounds, why they should be able to legislate their agenda.</para>
<para>Labor doesn't represent organised workers anymore; it hasn't represented them for a long time. It represents the people who work the public sector and how much they can extract from the taxpayer. The other thing they represent is organised capital and they try and push as much money into that system—no matter how many times the facts are put out there, they won't accept that they're taking too much of Australians' money.</para>
<para>Think about the absurdity of the situation we now face. The retirement income system has three pillars. The first pillar is homeownership. The second pillar is retirement savings through a set retirement savings scheme, which is superannuation. The third pillar is pensions, which are publicly available to those who need it. Ninety-three per cent of people's principal today is left in their superannuation when they die. People have more super than they need to retire with dignity and they're passing on with nearly their total principal intact. That says to me we have our priorities wrong. Young Australians cannot afford to get into the property market and increasingly have huge volumes of savings available at their disposal to get into the market earlier and cheaper, but the Labor Party never wants Australians to access that money, because, if they start putting their own interest from their working life and retirement into homeownership first, they will become far more independent through their working life and in retirement.</para>
<para>Instead, the Labor vision has become this sick joke where young Australians can't afford to buy their first home and they're increasingly trending towards having a mortgage at the point of retirement in which they're able, over many years, to garnish off people's superannuation funds as much money to feed the cartel kickback circle of life that they are beneficiaries of. It is a perversion of the best interest of Australians and it's all done under the annex of claiming virtue. But they are directly assaulting the pathway for young Australians to own their own home. If you had have said to anybody before 1992, 'Do you think it is logical to buy your home first before you focus on your retirement?' everybody would say, 'If you don't think that, you need your head read.' Well, what this government has done, and what successive Labor governments have done, is prioritise the size of somebody's 67th birthday cake over whether they can buy a home earlier, younger and cheaper, and they are paying the price.</para>
<para>It affects women—who desperately want to get ahead and be independent and, in particular, those who are post divorce—and young Australians the worst. Frankly, it corrodes the very basis of the Australian aspiration and the Australian dream for homeownership. But that's fine for modern Labor because it means that they get to control your life. It means that, increasingly, they want superannuation funds to become the new fundie-feudal lords—to buy and build the houses to rent to you for life. The sick idea, and it is sick, that they would deny young Australians a pathway to buy their home earlier and cheaper with their own savings but they're quite happy for those funds where those savings are held to go and build and buy housing to rent back to those young Australians who can't get into the property market is a complete perversion and a deliberate act of economic social engineering to try and turn Australian society on its head.</para>
<para>The debate about housing has always been central to the type of country that we want to be. Australia has always been a land of great promise where young Australians can go on and, if they work hard, save and sacrifice, buy their first home. This is not just some sort of economic idea; it is fundamentally central to the type of nation we are. Because, when people own their own home, they are in a position to be more financially independent, they're more likely to be able to form a family and support them and they're more likely to be in a position to have the foundations and pillars for retirement security. At every stage of life, if you buy your home earlier and cheaper, you will be in a stronger and better position—not just to save on rent but to then go on and build the foundations of the success of a life and to be confident in doing things like becoming self-employed or setting up a small business. But Labor has turned around, torn that social contract up and said: 'We know how to run your life better. We know how to design the rules and regulations so that it benefits our mates over you.'</para>
<para>More importantly, they're increasingly rigging the structure of the Australian economy to benefit themselves. It is the very model of corruption that we should be seeking to expose, and the unions and industry funds are actively ensuring that it is perpetuated. Of course, every member of the Labor Party in some way is a direct beneficiary of the cartel kickback circle of life. If they sit on those Treasury benches, they sit on the Treasury benches because the financing of the campaign increasingly comes from Australians' retirement funds, which are shaved off and laundered all the way through the system under the banner of 'marketing expenses' to the point where they end up in the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party.</para>
<para>When this government extols the virtues of this bill, what they are extolling is—I can assure you it is not a virtue—the argument for their cartel kickback circle of life, where private funds for the retirement security for millions of Australians find their way laundered into the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party. Any pathway that frees people up to take control of their funds through self-managed superannuation funds, they seek to shut down. You just need to look at how the Assistant Treasurer right now is making the case for why self-managed superannuation funds who aren't exposed or don't create the consequences of the compensation scheme of last resort—they are deliberately, maliciously targeting self-managed superannuation funds, just like they did with the retiree tax on refundable franking credits and just like they wanted to do on their proposed unrealised capital gains tax.</para>
<para>Every avenue they have to attack self-managed superannuation funds, they will absolutely take, because they want Australians to take their money out of SMSFs and put them in the industry funds that they can then control, because when they do that, they don't just control your retirement; they control your working life. They are trying to undermine that spirit of independence that has made this country great. More importantly, the trade union movement—particularly the CFMEU, the corrupt CFMEU—is one of the biggest beneficiaries of this cartel kickback circle of life. When the CFMEU gets control of Australians' money, we now know from public reports that have been tabled in the Wood inquiry, it's used to sanction and perpetuate violence, harassment of women and the demonisation of people who are prepared to stand up.</para>
<para>Absolutely we oppose this corruption. What's scandalous is that this Labor government runs interference when we do simple things like try and table a report into CFMEU corruption in this parliament, as the Leader of the House did before question time. There is a time where good people of decency, I would hope, are prepared to stand up and call out the behaviour of this Labor government and the correlation of their behaviour and what they have engaged with. Sitting behind it is a fundamental compromise situation, where the Labor Party is actively participating in a deeply distrustful and deeply dishonest range of conduct for which every Australian is paying.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CAMPBELL</name>
    <name.id>312823</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Listening to the member for Goldstein talk against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, a bill targeted at superannuation reform, reminds me of something very important, and that is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. When I think back on the history of superannuation, my mind goes back to what happened when the first superannuation guarantee was put through this place in the early nineties. What did those opposites say then? They said that we'd all be ruined. They said that it would be a disaster for the economy. They said that it wouldn't work. They called it an extra tax when the proposal was for a three per cent contribution from employers. Things have not changed. They haven't changed because, we know, just like then, this is a coalition that doesn't back in workers and does not back in superannuation, as we see from the member for Goldstein's debate today.</para>
<para>Not only was that the case; he was also incredibly disingenuous in talking about housing. If you want to talk about housing, and if you want to understand what people need when it comes to getting more young people into homes and making sure that parents can have confidence that their children can secure and live in their own home to build for their future, we need to remember what those opposite have said and done when it comes to housing. They have said that a five per cent deposit is not something they'd support. What we need to know from the coalition is: who are the people who are not going to get a house because they don't support that policy? What we know from the coalition is that they didn't build a single social housing home. What we know about the coalition is that they did not have a housing minister for the majority of their last term.</para>
<para>When the member for Goldstein stood here and talked today—not content with the will they, won't they, on again, off again, relentless feudal infighting that subsumes everything those opposite do—he had to squeeze in a discussion to try and amend this not to support the reforms in superannuation that this Albanese government is putting forward today. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to talk about superannuation, a proud Labor initiative and a proud Labor legacy which enables Australians to fund dignified and independent retirement. Of course, that superannuation guarantee that was first enacted in this parliament in 1992 under the Keating Labor government was established because Labor took a long-term, responsible view of Australia's future. It recognised that an aging population would place a burden on the federal budget without a scheme to support everyday Australians. The idea behind super is really straightforward. It is compulsory, long-term savings, where your employer has to kick in. Thirty-four years on, Australia's super system stands as one of our greatest national achievements. It is the envy of the world, and it has delivered stronger, safer and more prosperous retirements for Australians.</para>
<para>When we talk about superannuation, we don't want to leave it where it is, because when you believe in something and you back something, you always want to make it better. That's what this bill does—and it's not just this bill. We heard from the Treasurer this morning about reforms to the LISTO—changes to increase the maximum payment and raise the income threshold, making sure that some of our lowest income Australians and some of our most vulnerable have the support that they need to offset and to make their lives better. It has strengthened Australia's retirement income system, provided workers with peace of mind about their future and acted as a vital partner to the aged pension. Beyond its social benefits, super has also become an economic powerhouse, fuelling national growth through major investments in infrastructure, housing, innovation and productive enterprises. These investments help underpin the resilience of the Australian economy and, crucially, ensure that working people share in the wealth they help create. Its establishment sits alongside other transformative public policy reform such as Medicare, the PBS and the NDIS, which are also Labor government initiatives. It shows what this government's priorities are. It shows what Labor's priorities are: people.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 before the House today strengthens the superannuation system through a series of schedules. Some employees have stapled super funds, and these are funds which are linked, or 'stapled', to an individual employee as they move jobs. The first schedule of this bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. It will enable people with a stapled fund to more easily see their existing fund when they change employment and make an informed choice about using it. This more streamlined approach will mean less duplication of super accounts and less of people's hard earned money going into super fund fees. This amendment gives employers more flexibility to request an employee's stapled super fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. This enables more efficient implementation of payday super.</para>
<para>Payday super is Labor's legislation. It comes into effect on 1 July this year and requires employers to pay super at the same time as they pay wages—not quarterly, not later but on payday. This is because super isn't a privilege. Super isn't a bonus; super is not an extra. Super is wages, and they deserve to be paid when they are earned. The CEO of the Association of Superannuation Funds Australia, Mary Delahunty, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The approach in the Bill strikes a balance between maximising member choice, ensuring workers are presented with options, and knowing that they are in the best performing product for them, while continuing to ensure that the number of Australians with more than one super account continues to reduce.</para></quote>
<para>Schedule 2 amends the Corporations Act and implements a targeted ban on superannuation advertising during the employee onboarding process. This is an important time for new employees, and they should be able to consider their super options in a well-informed, non-pressured and clear way without being hit with sales pitches or feeling compelled to choose a particular product. I spent my younger years cutting my teeth supporting and representing manufacturing workers, and the time for workers to understand their superannuation entitlements is at the beginning. It's not when you've suffered an injury. It's not when your loved one is sick. That's what this legislation is focused on. To keep things practical, there are a few sensible exceptions. Workers will still be able to see information about their stapled fund, their employer's default fund or any regulated MySuper product. These exceptions make sure that people still get the key details they need without turning the onboarding process into a marketing exercise. This amendment ensures the process is less overwhelming for workers and keeps the focus on transparency and genuine choice rather than advertising.</para>
<para>The remaining schedules in this bill concern a range of matters. The first fulfils an obligation to World Rugby as part of Australia's forthcoming hosting duties in the 2027 and 2029 Rugby World Cups, and it follows similar exemptions that were provided for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup. The schedule implements amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax and withholding tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. These measures bolster Australia's reputation as a trusted host for major international sporting events—events that generate jobs, promote tourism and lead to long-term social benefits, such as increased participation in sport. These are events that not only drive economic growth and drive good, full employment but also bring our communities together.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of this bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act and concerns the 30 November 2023 tax convention between Australia and Portugal. This convention is the first agreement of its kind between Australia and Portugal and will promote stronger trade, investment and, indeed, innovation connections. It encourages investment by lowering withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties. The convention also outlines clear rules regarding the allocation of profits from cross-border activity, making processes more efficient and predictable and cutting down compliance costs. This schedule supports Labor's drive to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. It strengthens the integrity of our tax system by allowing tax authorities in both countries to share information and help each other collect tax debts—important tools in tackling tax evasion and avoidance. It's clear—and we know in this House—that Labor is the party of lower taxes for everyday Australians. But what we also want to make sure is that big business, big multinationals, are paying what they owe and are paying what they should.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill concerns measures to maintain trust and integrity in the administration of tax concessions accessed by not-for-profits that have deductible gift recipient status. Specifically, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1997 to update the list of deductible gift recipients, providing transparency and, indeed, clarity for donors.</para>
<para>The reforms in schedules 1 and 2 of this bill build on Labor's significant work to strengthen the superannuation system. This includes legislating the purpose of superannuation—that is, that the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. In other words, it's not a piggy bank that can be raided at the behest of others.</para>
<para>Another Labor superannuation reform that has had a huge impact, both financial and social, is superannuation on paid parental leave. On 1 July 2024, Labor added an additional two weeks to paid parental leave, increasing the total from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme has continued to grow by a further two weeks each year and will peak when it reaches 26 weeks of paid leave this year. As of July 2025, superannuation has been paid on government funded paid parental leave. This directly targets the unfair gap created when women's income drops, on average, by 55 per cent in the first five years of parenthood.</para>
<para>Yes, I say 'women's income' because it reflects the reality that women still shoulder most of the unpaid caring responsibilities in this country. That could be raising children, supporting ageing parents or caring for family members. Taking time out of paid work to do this essential care has a real and unfair financial impact on women.</para>
<para>Earlier in this speech, I mentioned payday super. This generational reform deals with the problem of unpaid superannuation. In 2021-22 alone, the ATO estimated that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid. That's around $100 million, every single week, that workers earned but never received. The payday superannuation legislation passed last year will help ensure employees are actually paid the super they're entitled to at the time they are entitled to it. Under the legislation, employers must ensure that the super payment hits the employee's super fund within seven days of payday.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are important because they bolster Australia's world-leading superannuation system. Together with payday super and the LISTO and backed by previous reforms, they will help ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn and retire with more—retire with dignity. While those opposite delayed the superannuation guarantee and undermined the foundations of the system, Labor is strengthening superannuation. We should all be proud of our super system and the hardworking Australians it supports and back in these changes to make sure that we're delivering for future generations. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I listened to the remarks of the honourable member who just concluded about keeping things safe, about dignity and about making sure that people can get their super and that no-one intrudes on it. That all sounds like marvellous stuff, except for people who were with the First Guardian and Shield funds, where $1.2 billion went missing. There's still well in excess of about half a billion dollars that they're looking for. They were just the people that the member was talking about. These were the schoolteachers. I know one very well—my former wife. The money has gone. It's just disappeared—hundreds of thousands of dollars, reflecting their life as a teacher. It's not just one but multiple people—about 12,000 people. We're expecting these people to become KCs, King's Counsellors, in pursuit of their money.</para>
<para>I've asked Minister Mulino, who I know has been talking to Melinda Kee—that's good—if we can give these people a break. Rather than have them go through this—they have to go to AFCA to get to CSLR and then they've got to go back to the trustees and countersue them and find out the liabilities that reside there. These people did what they were asked to do. They put their money in a super fund. They didn't go wild on the London Stock Exchange; they put their money into super and went back to their jobs. These people are going to have to continue working—I don't know, maybe waiting tables—because they have no money.</para>
<para>What should be happening, if we really believe in supporting superannuation and other measures, is ASIC should pay these people out and then they do the footwork and the legal work to recover the money. That would be a generally decent thing to do, but instead we're going through this bureaucratic fiasco. We're putting people in hospital with stress. I followed this up last year, I'm following it up again now, but there has to be some resolution to this. I am very disappointed, and I put the minister on notice that at the first opportunity I get in question time—I managed to get one question in the last two years; it's a reflection of how things were going for me—I will ask them what we are doing about this. For those who are sitting back in their rooms, Minister Mulino, at the next opportunity I'm going to ask you about where we are with this process.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member for New England to use the correct titles of ministers.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Assistant Treasurer, Minister Mulino. On their behalf I will ask, 'Where are we with these people?' We have to raise the tempo on this. I thought that this would somehow get to a resolution. I commend Macquarie Bank, which has come out as one of the organisations involved with it and it paid the people out. There was one other whose name evades me. The people all need to be paid out.</para>
<para>What we have now is a process where some might possibly get $150,000. That's not going to get you very far. I will revert back to my accountancy days. As a very rough rule of thumb, you're going to live on about 10 per cent of what you've got in your super. If you've got $150,000, you have to work out what you're going to be doing on $15,000 a year plus the pension. That's a pretty meagre life. In fact, for some people that means a life in their car if they don't own their house. We will be making people destitute. Some of these people had more than $1 million in their funds. Quite a number of them that we spoke to had $300,000, $320,000, $400,000—diligent people who've worked hard all their lives. They were not financial advisers; they relied on other people who had licenses to deal in money to do the right thing. But these people who got their super money—even when accounts were frozen and the owners couldn't get access to their own accounts—the money was withdrawn by First Guardian and Shield and basically disappeared. It turned up as jewellery and cars and floated overseas. They were completely swindled out of their money.</para>
<para>The hope that the people and the groups have is that we, in this chamber, will continue to fight on their behalf. I've made it abundantly clear to my colleagues in One Nation that this is a fundamental issue that talks directly to the hearts of people around Australia, the western suburbs of Sydney and in regional towns. We have to try to do more. I won't delay the House, but I think it's important that people know that I haven't forgotten about this. There are other things happening around this building today, where people have a fascination about themselves, but we should have a fascination about the people who are really hurting. Because of a failure in the system, which was no fault of the people who invested in their super, we have put people into destitution and gone completely against all the principles that were just enunciated in the previous speech. Everything the member said about safety, security, reliability, not being able to steal from the balances—all that failed in regard to these people.</para>
<para>What should happen, to be quite frank, is that ASIC should pay all these super accounts out, reinstall the money. Then the government, which has vastly greater legal resources, should pursue the people who created the malfeasance, those who were associated with them and those who were paid a fee—a trailer free or an upfront fee—to hawk the business. Get the whole lot of them and line them up, and then the government can reclaim the money that it's paid out and hit them with costs on top of it. That's fair enough. They broke the law, not the people who put their money in super. If we don't do this, all the narrative and all the discussions about this issue are a total farce. It's a total farce because we haven't actually lived by the principles that we're enunciating in such things as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill. It's just an explanatory memorandum of piffle.</para>
<para>I call on the minister, the Assistant Treasurer, not to confound this with technicalities, legal principles, liabilities and this sort of amorphous regalia of legalese. Just pay the people out and then use the great resources of the Commonwealth of Australia to pursue those who committed the crime—those who defrauded Australians and have left people in destitution—for the money that they stole.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choices in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a bill that may appear complex at first glance, but at its heart it is about something very straightforward. It's about making sure that the systems Australians rely on are fair and transparent and genuinely work in their best interests. It's about strengthening confidence in superannuation, protecting workers at important moments in their working lives and backing regional industries that are essential to Australia's economy, culture and future.</para>
<para>I represent the Hunter, a proud regional community built on hardworking people. It's a region of miners, tradies, nurses, teachers, hospitality workers, small-business owners, farmers and winemakers. It's a region where people understand the value of a hard day's work and expect that effort to be respected and rewarded. People in my electorate are not looking for a shortcut or special treatment. They want commonsense policy, they want fair rules and they want a government that understands that life and work in regional Australia often look very different from life and work in the capital cities. This bill reflects that understanding.</para>
<para>At its heart, this legislation strengthens Australia's superannuation system. Labor created super because we believe Australians deserve dignity and security in retirement. We believe that, after a lifetime of work, people should not be left uncertain or vulnerable. Since then, Labor governments have consistently acted to protect and strengthen the system so it continues to deliver on that purpose.</para>
<para>However, for too long, many Australians have seen their retirement savings quietly erode, not because they made poor decisions or failed to plan but because the system allowed inefficiencies and gaps to be present. Duplicate superannuation accounts, unnecessary fees, and insurance premiums that workers did not even realise they had or were paying have steadily chipped away at balances over time. This bill takes practical and sensible steps to address that problem.</para>
<para>Starting a new job should be an extremely positive moment in life. It should be about opportunity, stability and progression. It shouldn't be a moment where a worker's retirement savings are put at risk without their even knowing it. By making it easier for employees to see and consider their existing superannuation fund when they commence a new role, this bill helps prevent the creation of unnecessary duplicate accounts. It empowers workers to make informed choices while preserving their right to choose the fund that best suits their circumstances. It doesn't remove choice; it strengthens it.</para>
<para>For workers in the Hunter, this is particularly important. Many people in my electorate work in industries where job mobility is common and often unavoidable. Apprentices move between work sites. Labour hire workers move between projects and coalmines. Casual workers pick up shifts across multiple employees. People in construction, coalmining, health and hospitality often change employers as projects start and finish and as new opportunities arise. Without sensible safeguards, each of those job changes can mean a new super account. Each new account can mean new fees and new insurance premiums. Over time, that erosion adds up. It reduces balances, it undermines confidence and it creates uncertainty about retirement outcomes. Over the course of a working life, this can make a real difference. It can affect when someone can retire, how comfortably they can retire and whether they can retire with peace of mind.</para>
<para>These reforms help stop that from happening. They give workers clarity and control. They ensure that more of what Australians earn stays in their super accounts, working for their future rather than disappearing through inefficiencies. This bill also supports employers by providing clearer and more timely superannuation information. That matters as we move towards Payday Super, which will ensure that workers are paid their super at the same time as their wage. Payday Super is about fairness, it is about compliance and it is about making sure workers receive what they are entitled to, when they are entitled to it. These measures will help employers prepare for that change in a practical and manageable way, reducing confusion and improving compliance across this whole system.</para>
<para>Another important benefit of this bill is the way it strengthens consumer protections at a critical point of a worker's journey. Starting a new job can be overwhelming, as we all know. We all started here once. There is paperwork to complete, systems to learn, safety requirements to understand and expectations to meet. It is not a time for workers to be exposed to pressure or influence when making decisions about their retirement savings. This bill ensures that when employees are providing their superannuation details during onboarding they are protected from inappropriate advertising and undue influence. Workers should be able to engage with superannuation in a safe and informed way without being steered or nudged by marketing tactics.</para>
<para>At the same time, the bill preserves access to relevant and important information. Employees can still see their stapled fund, they can still see their employer's default fund and they can still see regular MySuper products that meet strict standards. The focus is on transparency and informed choice, not sales. This approach reinforces trust in the superannuation system. It recognises that superannuation is not just another financial product; it represents people's financial security. Decisions about super should be made with clear information and confidence, not confusion or pressure.</para>
<para>These reforms build on the government's broader work to strengthen superannuation and make it fairer and more sustainable for all. Legislating the purpose of super, lifting the super guarantee to 12 per cent, expanding performance testing and ensuring funds deliver value, boosting support for low-income earners and paying super on paid parental leave are all part of a consistent agenda. That agenda is making sure Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn and retire with dignity in their older age.</para>
<para>But this bill is about more than just super alone. It reflects on a broader commitment to supporting communities and industries across Australia. It supports Australia's role as a trusted host for major international sporting events, delivering jobs, tourism and long-term social benefits. It strengthens international tax arrangements to encourage trade, investment and innovation while ensuring integrity and fairness in the tax system. It supports the philanthropic and not-for-profit sector, which plays a vital role in communities like the Hunter, where volunteers and community organisations often provide essential services and support.</para>
<para>Crucially for my electorate, this bill delivers meaningful and practical support for the Australian wine industry. The Hunter Valley is one of Australia's oldest wine regions and one of its most distinctive. Wine has been produced in the Hunter for generations. It is part of our history and part of our identity. But the wine industry in the Hunter is not frozen in time. It is a modern, highly skilled industry that brings together agriculture, science, tourism and a fantastic group of workers. Wine production in the Hunter supports vineyard workers, winemakers, cellar door staff and logistics operators. It supports accommodation providers, restaurants, cafes, transport operators, event organisers and tour guides. It supports local tradies, local suppliers and local service businesses. It brings visitors to our townships and villages and sustains local employment right across the Hunter region. When people visit the Hunter for wine, they don't just come for a tasting and leave. They stay overnight. They book local accommodation. They dine at our amazing local venues. They shop in our local towns. They attend concerts, weddings and festivals. That flow-on effect is essential to the health and resilience of a regional economy.</para>
<para>The Hunter wine industry also plays an important role in exports and promoting Australia's wine reputation overseas. As we all know, and as I've said in this place many, many times, the best wine in the world comes from the Hunter. Hunter wines carry the story of the region onto the international market and contribute to the Australian brand. That reputation has been built carefully over decades through quality, innovation and consistency, often by family businesses that have weathered the good seasons and the difficult ones alike.</para>
<para>However, Hunter wine producers are facing increasing pressures. Rising costs of energy, packaging, freight and labour are squeezing the margins. Climate vulnerability is adding uncertainty to every single vintage. Global competition is intense, particularly for smaller producers competing against large international brands with far greater scale. For many family owned wineries, the pressures are consistent. These are businesses deeply connected to place. They employ local people. They invest locally. They support community events, sporting clubs and charities. When they face uncertainty, the impact is felt well beyond the vineyard gate.</para>
<para>That is why an increase to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap under this bill is so important. By lifting this cap from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year from 1 July 2026, the government is providing targeted, practical support that reflects the real cost pressures facing wine producers today. This is not about advantage or excise. This is about stability and sustainability. For many Hunter wineries, this additional support will help fund investments in water efficiency, energy upgrades and climate resilience. It will support training and retention of skilled staff. It will help producers innovate, improve quality, diversify offerings and reach new markets. In the Hunter, this kind of support also keeps the entire local supply chain moving. Every vintage relies on regional truck drivers and freight operators, label and packaging suppliers, fitters and plant mechanics maintaining plant and equipment, and the local builders and lecos when winery upgrades or expanded facilities are needed. It supports chefs, waitstaff and cleaners at restaurants and accommodation venues that benefit from cellar door tourism. It supports event crews who run tastings, weddings and festivals that bring visitors into the region throughout the year.</para>
<para>When a Hunter winery can invest in a plan with confidence, that confidence spreads through the local economy, creating more shifts, more jobs, more apprentices getting a start, more bookings for local businesses and more families able to stay in the community they love. Importantly, it also supports people behind the industry. In the Hunter, wine is often a family affair. Parents, children and grandparents work side by side across the vineyards, the cellar door and the back offices. These businesses provide stable employment in regional towns, where opportunities can be very limited. They allow young people to stay local rather than move away for work. They help keep schools open, sporting clubs strong and main streets active. Supporting wine producers through this rebate is ultimately about supporting those families and ensuring the Hunter remains a place where people can live, work and build an amazing future. It will also help protect cellar door operators, which are central to the Hunter's tourism appeal. Keeping those cellar doors open means keeping people employed, keeping visitors coming and keeping regional towns vibrant.</para>
<para>This measure also sends a clear signal that regional industries matter. It recognises that wine is not a niche concern or an afterthought; it is a significant contributor to regional jobs, exports and tourism. Supporting wine producers means supporting entire regional economies. In the Hunter, wine sits along coalmining, manufacturing, agriculture and energy as key pillars for economic strength. A strong wine industry helps diversify the regional economy and makes communities more resilient to economic change and global shocks. This is exactly the kind of practical, targeted policy rural Australia needs. It understands local conditions, it builds on existing frameworks and it delivers real benefits where they are needed most. It reflects Labor's values of fairness, security and opportunity. It reflects a commitment to making sure economic growth is shared and that no community is left behind. That's why I support this bill and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendment moved by the member for Fairfax will be supported by the coalition, and I'm glad that the member for Hunter has acknowledged in his contribution the truck drivers of this country and the freight industry as a whole, because, at the moment, the trucking and transport sector is in freefall. I really think that, as a matter of urgency, the Labor government needs to call a summit and needs to hear solutions to what is a calamity in our country when you have companies such as Ron Crouch Transport and Don Watson Transport going to the wall and third-generation, decades-old companies doing it tough. It's so, so difficult because everything, as you know, gets delivered on a truck. Everything—our food, just about every good—at one stage of the chain process gets delivered on a truck.</para>
<para>This bill before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, contains six schedules providing employers and agents with access to employees' staple fund information earlier, restrictions on superannuation advertising during onboarding, Rugby World Cup tax exemptions, Australia-Portugal tax treaty deductible gift recipient listings and schedule 6, which is an increase to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap. At the early part of my contribution, I want to refer to schedule 6, which is about changes to the WET. Increases to the Wine Equalisation Tax producer rebate cap are important because currently producers can claim refunds of excise up to $350,000 per annum. The bill will increase that refund amount to $400,000 per year.</para>
<para>This rebate will hopefully keep small and medium winegrowers afloat, and, particularly in regional Australia, this is imperative. The Riverina is Australia's second largest wine-producing region. When I say Riverina, I'm being a little bit generous. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area has long been in the Riverina. The Riverina, some could argue, starts at Narrandera and go west. It takes in Griffith, Yenda—amazing wine country. That is well represented by the member for Farrer. You look on any given tourism schedule, any given Wikipedia entry, and it's considered the Riverina, and it is. Five of New South Wales's 16 winegrowing regions are in the Riverina. Wine is also linked to the great immigration stories of southern New South Wales, particularly through Italian communities. You've got the Casellas, the De Bortolis—I could go on and on. Some of those names are synonymous of course not just throughout Australia but worldwide. Yellowtail and other iconic brand names have done so much to boost win production in that outstanding winegrowing area of New South Wales.</para>
<para>Demand for cool-climate wines from the Riverina—again, not just the electorate but the regional geographic areas—is strong. Riesling is seeing a great resurgence domestically. Then you look at the vineyards at Cottontail Wines, Wagga Wagga, Borambola Wines—it's been operating for more than 30 years; McMullen's there. They're doing an outstanding job. These wineries add to the dynamic regional tourism offering and provide perfect venues for birthday parties, meetings and weddings. The Wild Vine are out on the road to Oura. They're an outstanding wedding venue, and their vineyards are very well looked after. Charles Sturt University is doing some great research, and it's home to the next generation of, we hope, Australian and international winemakers, so their own wine stands out as well.</para>
<para>In the world renowned Tumbarumba region, we have premium cool-climate wine and grapes, with 19 vineyards and 3,000 tonnes of grapes crushed annually. They're reasonable numbers for a regional winery. The Murrumbateman wine region is home to 20 world-class boutique wineries: Clonkilla, Nick O'Leary Wines, Helm Wines, Shaw Wines—all outstanding, just to name a few. I know the mayor of Yass Valley Council, Jasmin Jones, is one of the great promoters of the wineries there, and she's also very worried about what she describes as an industrial junkyard with the take-up of arable farmland with 260-metre-high wind towers. She's extremely worried, as she should be. That's cool-climate wine country, and it's tourism country. It should not be, in the reckless race to renewables, taken up with those monstrosities that they call wind turbines.</para>
<para>These wines that I mentioned just a little bit earlier from Murrumbateman and elsewhere around the Yass Valley appear on curated wine lists at restaurants around the world as well as the dinner tables in the Riverina and also sometimes in the Hunter Valley, in South Australia and elsewhere—Margaret River; I could go on. They're very good wine-producing country too, but they all know the value of Riverina and southern New South Wales wines.</para>
<para>The coalition successfully implemented the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, which removed the five per cent tariffs on Riverina wines destined for the UK. This was a win for our producers and the British public.</para>
<para>I have to say that in any tariff arrangements or free trade agreements that are signed—and I know Senator Farrell is well aware of this. He likes a good red. I have been with him on a trip or two, and he knows the value of making sure that our winemakers are looked after in any trade arrangements. I know that the member for Page did a good deal of shadowing in that trade phase, but he also, as a minister in the former coalition government, understood the value of getting the right arrangements when it comes to free trade agreements. I could mention the member for Wannon there too.</para>
<para>We do support many measures in this bill, but—and this probably comes to the very core—it shouldn't have been bundled in this way. Those six schedules are, you could argue, disparate. Labor has stitched together a series of largely unrelated measures and wrapped them around contentious superannuation changes that it knows we oppose. It is clever. It's what Labor does. They are always good at politics and never really that great at policy. This approach is designed to force a false choice on the parliament: accept the superannuation changes or be accused of blocking sensible unrelated measures. It's wedge politics. It's not good lawmaking, but it's what, unfortunately, Labor does. We know that Labor has a 50 seat majority, and we know that this bill will pass. We know that it'll go to the Senate, and we know that Labor will do deals with the senators who hold the balance of power, and so on we go.</para>
<para>When it comes to superannuation, we also understand that it is one of those things that we all have and that we all need, but it's something that we probably hold at arm's length. Not a lot of people truly understand the power of superannuation, but I'll tell you who do understand the power of superannuation: those Australians caught up in the First Guardian and Shield collapse. That, for some, is an absolute tragedy—their life savings just gone in an instant. People don't need, at that stage of their lives, to have the rug pulled out from underneath them, as they have. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, is taking further steps to support thousands of Australians who invested in the Shield Master Fund and the First Guardian Master Fund after the collapse. So they should. I really worry about this whole situation. I know that the then shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Cowper, was very strong and extremely vocal on this.</para>
<para>The ABC reported as recently as 10 February:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government is planning to tighten the rules around managed investment schemes and give corporate watchdog ASIC more power to demand information.</para></quote>
<para>So it should. The article continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It comes following the collapse of major funds Shield Master Fund and First Guardian.</para></quote>
<para>Consultation on Treasury's proposals closes on the 27th of this month. I do hope earnestly that the government has thrown the net out wide enough to get the proper consultation, and I do hope that the right people have been eyeballing those most affected by this corporate collapse—this collapse of superannuation funds for so many people. The ABC article continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">About 12,000 Australians—</para></quote>
<para>not a small number—</para>
<quote><para class="block">poured $1.1 billion in retirement savings into the two funds, which collapsed in 2024 and 2025 amid what incoming ASIC chair Sarah Court has described as "industrial-scale misconduct".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Investors in First Guardian, many of whom switched from highly regulated super funds into the product, face little prospect of recovery directly from the fund, with liquidators in December saying just $1.6 million of $446 million tipped into it had been recovered—not enough to pay their fees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In order to recover money for investors, the corporate watchdog has instead launched a series of lawsuits against companies responsible for overseeing the fund.</para></quote>
<para>Now, at the risk of Labor just saying, 'Well, what did you do when you were in government?' as a parliament entirety, what was done? We should have been onto this, and ASIC should have perhaps been doing more to ensure that these companies just don't go under. If you're somebody near retirement, if you're somebody looking forward to putting your feet up and enjoying your twilight years, knowing that you've got so much invested in these superannuation funds, and that will be what you live off for the rest of your life, and all of a sudden that money disappears—place yourself in their shoes. It must be so worrying, so bad for your health. I know parliamentarians across the aisle feel for those people. We should, we must and we have to in order to do better as parliamentarians. ASIC must do better. Corporate watchdogs must. We must absolutely ensure that this cannot happen again.</para>
<para>I know it's happened before. I know we've had situations that have occurred previously, but it's not right. It's simply not right. The collapses of the First Guardian and Shield schemes have, as the ABC quite correctly reported, exposed deep flaws in the regulation of Australia's $4.3 trillion superannuation sector. It's a massive amount of money, but the ordinary, average, everyday Australians relied on that super. They relied on those two major companies, Shield and First Guardian, and now they have nothing. They face a very bleak prospect.</para>
<para>The ABC also says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The scandal has also thrown into the spotlight gaps in the regulation of parts of the financial services industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Both First Guardian and Shield were managed investment schemes, a type of fund first established in the late 1990s—</para></quote>
<para>and the story goes on. Both sides of government are accountable for this—I'll be perfectly upfront and say that—but it's now up to Labor, who are in government, to do what they can to help rectify a very sad and bad situation for those investors, many of whom now have nothing. They've got absolutely nothing, and they were looking to rely on that to live out their lives in reasonable prosperity, and they have now been left high and dry.</para>
<para>I commend to the House the amendment that's been moved by the member for Fairfax. The legislation has way too much packed into it, in typical Labor fashion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GREGG</name>
    <name.id>315154</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I rise somewhat surprised that there seem to be expressions of controversy and outrage to the contents of this important bill. The bill might not be the thing capturing the excitement of the media right now, but it is nonetheless an important part of the business of governing.</para>
<para>In 2021 superannuation law was reformed to enable a stapled plan to be a key component. When someone changes jobs—we know that 2.9 million Australians change jobs every year—in circumstances where they're unable to nominate a new fund, the employer would then go and find their existing fund and put their money into that. It essentially ensures that duplicate accounts weren't being created to the financial detriment of workers, something we saw for a very long time.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill is a fairly modest addition which extends the stapling provisions—which, by the way, were introduced by the coalition for the very purpose of preventing duplicated funds—so that employers can help facilitate this through the onboarding process by identifying the fund that belongs to the worker, not just after they've been given paperwork and returned it without filling in a choice of fund but from the beginning of the relationship. It ensures that workers are able to have clearly outlined what their options are, including their existing fund, should they have one. It's there to help fulfil the intention behind the stapling reforms that were brought in in 2021 and, obviously, to support the context where payday super is introduced, so as to ensure that businesses are given the flexibility they need to be able to comply with those rules.</para>
<para>The benefits also go to supporting businesses through having a more methodical onboarding process. We know, as other colleagues in the House have said, that there's a lot going on during the onboarding process, so making it as simple and straightforward as possible for businesses to be able to comply with those obligations and support employees in selecting their funds so they can get on with business is very important.</para>
<para>As has been mentioned, this bill brings together a set of targeted and practical reforms. It goes to superannuation, and they're fairly technical amendments which I'll go through in more detail shortly. It goes to a particular international tax arrangement, philanthropy and some sector-specific tax settings on wine. While the measures deal with different parts of the law, they share a common purpose and that is really just making the systems that we rely on work better in practice. This isn't about a high-level ideological argument. This is very practical reform that is included in this bill. It's really where the law and the policy meet in real life—how they work for workers, how they work for businesses and how they work for the community more broadly.</para>
<para>In general terms, you've got schedule 1, which is about streamlining the choice-of-fund process for businesses so that they can find out the account information of their workers from the get-go. Then schedule 2 amends corporations law, which goes to the advertising of superannuation products at the time of onboarding. As we've heard in other contributions, we know that there are super funds which are not high-quality, low-risk funds that have been signed up to, to the great detriment of workers, so it limits advertising to their existing accounts or to MySuper and well-secured superannuation products. We understand that superannuation account decisions are not at the forefront of every worker's mind at every point in time, but we've got to make sure the settings are there so the default position is one where people's money can be looked after to the greatest extent possible.</para>
<para>Australia's superannuation is one of Australia's quiet success stories. It has helped millions of Australians retire with dignity, it has reduced long-term pressure on the age pension and it has turned the savings of working people into a long-term investment that supports the broader economy as well. Superannuation isn't just an abstract; it's not theoretical. It is, at the end of the day, deferred wages—money earned week by week, job by job, and set aside so that retirement is not defined by uncertainty or hardship. For workers, superannuation represents security for the future. For businesses, it's a core part of paying people properly and meeting their obligations. For the country, it is a system built on trust.</para>
<para>This bill is about protecting that trust and strengthening a system that already does a great deal right. But, as we've seen, some flaws have emerged. We need to address those and we also need to ready the system for other reforms that will come. The reforms in this bill are, again, fairly—I would have thought—technical and uncontroversial, but apparently controversy has been found in these times where picking a political fight is the go-to position.</para>
<para>Alongside the payday super bill, which we've already introduced and passed, this is a piece of promised legislation. It was built on a simple idea that workers should share in the prosperity that they have helped create. But over time we've seen that workers starting a new job, experiencing that great moment of change, have found themselves under pressure—pressure to make a whole lot of decisions in very quick succession. One of the things that can pop up is a suggestion of changing funds. We also know it's a stressful time for business getting a lot of things done right quickly—payroll, tax, super and other compliance, making sure that people are ready to get onto the job, making sure the OH&S induction is done and all sorts of things that need to be overcome. It is a busy time, so we need to make sure, to the extent that superannuation policy kicks in, that it is helping people and not hindering.</para>
<para>Stapling was introduced in 2021, and, again, that is essentially the requirement that, if someone doesn't choose a fund, their money, where possible, is put into an existing superannuation account rather than creating a new one, which leads to that duplication that has cost workers for such a long time. We need to make sure that the policy intent behind that isn't undermined by recent phenomena.</para>
<para>As I was saying before, 2.9 million people start a job every year. About 2.5 million of those are onboarded through an online onboarding process, and we've seen a proliferation of advertising in those onboarding systems, which are often offered to business without charge but include advertising. That advertising is for super products that sometimes are not suitable. The issue is if someone, through that advertising, selects a superannuation fund, including one that might not be in their interest, might not be as secure as a MySuper product or another conservatively invested one. We know that about 325,000 workers select an advertised superannuation product when they're using that onboarding software. We need to make sure that they are protected from inadvertent decisions, from inadvertently creating multiple funds, and that they are not signing up to something that is not in their interests at a time of high pressure and with a lot going on at that point in time.</para>
<para>This bill is really quite focused on addressing some of those challenges. We know that each additional account means extra fees. It means extra insurance premiums. It means less money left over time to benefit from that magic of compound interest. I think it was Albert Einstein who called compound interest 'the eighth wonder of the world'. So we need to make sure that workers are enjoying the benefits of that magic as much as possible when it comes time to retire.</para>
<para>We know timing matters. Under the current rules, that information about an employee's existing superannuation account is brought to their attention only after all the forms have been sent out and the process is towards the end on onboarding. This enables that information to be obtained at the start of the onboarding process, rather than a form being handed out and the information being received only when the form comes back. But it doesn't nominate a superannuation fund such that the employee can find out whether an existing account exists. This has created an administrative burden and has also sometimes resulted in undesirable outcomes. The very purpose of stapling is to make sure money is not being put into new accounts all the time to the detriment of workers.</para>
<para>But it is now being undermined by advertising that we are seeing in an increasing number of online onboarding platforms. That is something that wasn't intended. I'm not being begrudging of the reforms made in 2021 by the coalition government. I think many of them were very good. It was back when the coalition were focused on governing, not on other things. But it's something that should attract support, because it really is building on something that has for a very long time been politically uncontroversial in Australia—that multiple accounts are bad for workers.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 essentially enables employers and their agents to access stapled fund details earlier—as I was saying before, a stapled fund is a worker's existing superannuation account—and to provide that information to employees at the point when choices are actually being made by those workers. For workers, it means recognising that they already have a super account—it's clearly set out in front of them—and that they can choose with confidence whether to stick with their current fund or, if they really want to, take on a new fund as well. They might want a change, entering a new industry or the like. For businesses it means fewer errors, fewer delays and a greater certainty that super contributions are really going to the right place from the get-go. Choice is preserved. People can still choose whatever fund they want and change over time, and if they really want to have multiple accounts they can. But the standard form choice still needs to be given and the choice still belongs to the employee under this regime. What changes is the quality and timing of information in the process.</para>
<para>As Australia moves towards paying super close to payday, this becomes even more important. Having accurate fund details early means that contributions flow sooner, more reliably and with fewer compliance headaches. This is good for workers and it's good for employers, and that is how a strong system becomes an even stronger one.</para>
<para>Superannuation works best when decisions are made deliberately, not under pressure, persuasion or commercial influence. Starting a new job is not a shopping experience. It is not the right moment for sales tactics, particularly when the product in question will shape someone's financial future decades down the line. As I was saying earlier, evidence has shown that some online platforms have been using that moment to promote what some would consider higher-risk superannuation products that most would objectively say are not in someone's financial benefit to sign up to. And as we've heard before, getting that superannuation account right, choosing the super fund with the right risk tolerance, is incredibly important.</para>
<para>To use those kinds of tactics undermines the trust the system relies on. At the moment, if a new fund is chosen through that process, all those stapling provisions don't apply. The employer is under no obligation and has no reason to seek information about your other fund details. So it has eroded the purpose underpinning that 2021 set of reforms.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 sets a fairly clear boundary. You can't advertise non-MySuper accounts where the results haven't been audited in line with processes that have been around for awhile now. It's designed to promote only simple, regulated defaults and not any of the ones with bells and whistles or high-risk-tolerance ones. It's not anti-choice; it is just preventing the pushing of higher-risk superannuation plans, knowing that that was a balance of competing possibilities. They could have completely abolished advertising, which would mean that those businesses would face higher costs, because they'd suddenly have to pay for platforms they're currently getting for free. But we also want to make sure the high risks and financial risks are minimised through these reforms. These are quite balanced and proportional, and very much designed with the interests of businesses as well as the interests of employees in mind. Australians should be able to trust that, when they engage in superannuation at the start of a job, the system is there to serve them, not to sell to them.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 looks at the supporting of the Rugby World Cup, both men's and women's; the Men's Rugby World Cup is in 2027 and the Women's Rugby World Cup is in 2029. This is a fairly standard tax measure that happens with a lot of large-scale sporting events, essentially exempting them from income tax and withholding tax over a defined period of time—a very standard procedure that we've seen with other events before. It's not only common Australian practice; it is international practice. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify that tax treatment.</para>
<para>Speaking of the clarifying of tax treatment, schedule 4 goes to an arrangement with the Portuguese Republic, or Portugal. It gives domestic legal effect to Australia's first tax treaty with Portugal. For businesses operating across borders, uncertainty is costly and we certainly don't want to see double taxation because it can deter investment, complicate planning and increase compliance burdens. This treaty reduces those risks while preserving Australia's strong anti-avoidance framework. It follows international best practice, strengthens cooperation between tax authorities and provides clearer rules for resolving disputes. It is about certainty where certainty is needed and integrity where integrity must be protected.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 is about supporting philanthropy with integrity. It updates the list of specifically prescribed deductible gift recipients. In layman's terms, if you donate more than $2 you can reduce the amount of that donation from your taxable income—so it is a very important means by which charitable organisations get support. Generally, there's a whole lot of categories which you need to strictly be aligned with in order to be defined as a deductible gift recipient. Another way of doing it is for some charities that might not neatly fall into one of those legislative boxes to be defined in tax legislation, and that enables them to collect donations—as I was saying, with a tax deduction if that donation is above $2. It is an important thing. It adds several new charities. It extends some listings, because they are defined by period of time, and also removes some organisations—the common reason being that some of the money is used other than for the purpose for which that DGR status was given. It is a regular practice, and it's very important that we maintain up-to-date registers to ensure that good charities are being supported.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 adjusts the existing wine rebate framework. It increases the maximum wine equalisation tax producer rebate from $350,000 to $400,000 per year from 1 July 2026. It builds on an existing rebate system, increasing support without adding any complexity to the system. It's a measured adjustment within a well-understood framework.</para>
<para>This isn't about sweeping change. This is not a radical bill. It's about making systems work better for the people who interact with them every day. It strengthens superannuation, one of Australia's great policy achievements, and improves clarity and confidence. It reinforces trust in systems. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. While I will not oppose this bill, I want to raise concerns I have with schedule 2 of this bill, which could result in less, not more, choice in superannuation products. Reduced competition in superannuation has a hidden cost for all Australians, and we need to be alive to these risks when making what we may think on the surface seems like a no-regrets change—and there are other issues we have had in, for instance, making things like the performance test. Some of those changes we have made in those areas have ended up reducing choice or reducing dynamism in the super industry.</para>
<para>We need to be much more alive to unintended consequences, which is why I have a second reading amendment to this bill. I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) affirms the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) while advertising of superannuation products has led to poor outcomes in some circumstances, advertising does and should continue to play an important role in fostering competition and driving innovation among superfunds;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) while Australians are often disengaged with their superannuation fund, efforts to legislate additional consumer protections in response to this disengagement can unintentionally weaken competition between funds; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) any weakening in the competitive pressures on superfunds to maximise net returns for customers also has a hidden cost to the retirement balances of account holders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to acknowledge this policy tension and commit to reviewing this and other legislative measures for the individual and cumulative impact on fund incentives and performance".</para></quote>
<para>This bill has seven schedules. While I will not go through each schedule in detail, I note that, on balance, there are positive measures held within the bill, but I also note it is quite inappropriate to include some of these schedules as one bill, because they are not the same thing. It means it makes it difficult to support some bits and not other parts.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to see schedule 5 lists six new deductible gift recipients, including in particular some organisations that I've worked with—in some cases, I even supported their DGR status—including Equality Australia, the Great Synagogue Foundation and the Parenthood Project. This represents important recognition for these organisations and for the philanthropic work that they do. Similarly, I note that schedule 6 increases the rebate claimable by wine producers from wine equalisation tax in an effort to provide additional support to Australia's wine industry, and I support these measures. But schedules 1 and 2 are the most consequential changes and the ones for which this bill gets its name.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to allow an employer to request information about an employee's stapled superannuation fund from the ATO if the employee has not selected a product during onboarding. This is an important change that will make it a little bit easier for employers to act in the best interest of their employees by identifying their stapled superannuation product rather than creating duplicated funds when a default is not provided as part of the ongoing onboarding process. Duplication of superannuation products costs Australian workers millions each year—with more than four million Australians holding more than one superannuation account. The more that we can do to minimise unnecessary and unintended duplication is a positive step forward.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 puts a ban on advertising superannuation products during the employee onboarding process subject to certain exemptions. This change has come about after a series of cases in which employers were found to be directing new hires towards underperforming financial products to which the employer had a relationship. Perhaps the most high-profile case of this was MYOB, who was accused in 2023 of directing employees towards an underperforming high-fee fund with the option to stick with their existing fund buried in the fine print. The intent of this schedule is therefore not without cause. We know that many Australians are generally disengaged with their superannuation—perhaps even more so than usual at the point of starting a new and exciting career opportunity. When clicking through the often lengthy onboarding processes, many of us will take the path of least resistance. The tendency can and has been exploited.</para>
<para>But some in the industry and I are concerned that this legislation will have unintended consequences that, in fact, lessen competition in the sector—not strengthen it. Advertising may have certain negative connotations in today's highly commercialised environment, but the ability to advertise is an important mechanism for new products to break into markets and to disrupt the landscape. Without the ability to advertise new products, incumbents can become easily entrenched, and, without constant competitive pressures, performance and consumer outcomes can weaken. While many Australians are disengaged with super, we should not simply take this as an accepted fact. The start of a new job could be an important opportunity for Australians to re-evaluate their retirement savings options. To the extent that we can, we should be encouraging Australians to be engaged. Actually, it is an area where I think it would be appropriate to be spending government money in terms of advertising—perhaps much more so than other government funded advertising campaigns. Advertising, more broadly, has a role to play in this.</para>
<para>Obviously, we don't want this to be used as an opportunity for employers to cross-sell conflicted products, but a blanket ban, as was originally canvassed, is not a viable option, because the obvious beneficiaries of a blanket ban are default funds. It is estimated that about 60 per cent of Australian super fund members are invested through a default super fund option that was selected by their employer—often their first employer. But, even if these funds were a good option at the time, there is no guarantee that performance is sustained. In 2022, ASIC reported that nine of these default products were failing the performance test, which impacted about 800,000 members according to Morningstar. If we put a blanket ban on the advertising of products when onboarding, there is one less opportunity for consumers to assess their current fund and adjust their choices if necessary.</para>
<para>In response to this feedback from industry, the government has made certain exemptions to a blanket ban. For example, in the minister's second reading, he advised that advertising would be permitted if the advertised product was (1) the employees stapled product as confirmed by the ATO, (2) the employer's default product or (3) a MySuper product that meets certain requirements, including passing the annual performance test. These are sensible changes and the legislation requires advertising of new products to be accompanied by information about current stapled products to highlight the benefits or lack of benefit in switching products. But, as the FSC points out, the explanatory memorandum outlines that showing stapled products requires collecting information from the ATO commissioner, which adds an administrative barrier to finding stapled products.</para>
<para>Currently, onboarding platforms are able to use third-party verification services to find stapled products through fund information rather than the ATO. This process is often faster, but can admittedly be less reliable. The FSC is concerned that making the ATO the single source of truth will result in administrative delays that mean, in effect, only default funds will be shown under these exemptions. This, I believe, is not the intention of the bill. So, while I accept that this bill has good intentions, I accept that there is some scope for this bill to create unintended consequences, and I think this is the piece that is really important for the government to measure, keep pursuing and keep an eye on. If it does have these unintended consequences then the government will have to swiftly act to change this. It will take time to implement, but this is important in assessing the effectiveness of this bill.</para>
<para>But I would like to talk to the broader cumulative impact of some of the super reforms that have been put forward in this place over the past few years. Superannuation policy constantly grapples with balancing consumer protections for a relatively disengaged cohort of Australians and the important point of driving competition. I am concerned that the cumulative impact of superannuation policy, including the performance test, which the Treasurer has recently agreed to review and which I think is really important to review—not to remove the performance test but to minimise the unintended consequences of reducing competition and innovation, which I do believe the performance test does at the moment—has created less competitive pressures on funds to outperform and to deliver for their clients. This has a cost, albeit hidden, and I'm concerned that this legislation may add to that cost.</para>
<para>I do want to argue that this should worry us all. Australia has an extraordinary amount of our resources in superannuation—$4 trillion. It's absolutely remarkable. We have one of the biggest pension pots in the world in that cumulative fund. We have some of the biggest pension funds in the world in this small country of ours while only having 27-odd million people. But the issue really is that we need those funds to be as competitive as possible with each other if they are going to be using that $4 trillion worth of Australian assets. That is over 100 per cent of our GDP, so what that money is doing really matters if that money is going to be used for, firstly, the greatest benefit of the members and, secondly, making sure that it is actually serving the country as well. The sole object of superannuation is, frankly, to earn returns for members, and I'm never going to violate that principle, but I do recognise that, with that big asset pool, in some ways a super fund has an enormous impact on our economy. That impact, through different pieces of legislation, can be more or less positive both for the members and for the funds.</para>
<para>I want to draw your attention to a particular example: super funds' investment in innovation. You would think that, with the high level of superannuation funds and pension funds available, Australian super funds would be investing in innovation in Australia, particularly given that VC funds and PE funds have been shown to significantly outperform the ASX and more traditional listed areas. However, what we have seen is that super funds have reduced their exposure to innovation and particularly VC and PE over recent years. Members of the industry—the VC-PE sector—have told me that, in the last five years, the major super funds have not invested in a new VC fund over that period of time. So the super funds are investing in the ones they're used to, but they're not actually investing in the new innovation in the VC and PE area. I think this should be concerning us because who is funding innovation? I think these sorts of industries are perfect assets for super funds in the sense that they are long duration and need patient capital but also have the opportunity, with good ones, to earn really extraordinary returns. So they should be the place, but they're not currently. It's why I've been pushing—and I really respect and appreciate the Treasurer being open to looking at Your Future, Your Super and ASIC and at expanding ASIC's review of RG 97 to include funding for innovation. But I do think this is the stuff that we need to beware of in some of this. We are trying to protect consumers, but, if it ends up that we are just entrenching providers that do not really have to show their worth to consumers and that are not subject to strong competition, we will be doing a disservice to all the people who invest across our country in these superannuation funds. That is the piece that I think it is really critical for the government to be monitoring as it brings in these sorts of changes.</para>
<para>Finally, I urge the government to deal in good faith with the Senate inquiry process and commit to waiting for this review to take place before pushing this legislation through the Senate. I would actually say it would be great if the Senate inquiry could be done before this legislation is once again pushed through the House, because it is hard to vote on legislation without having the full information. But that is literally the modus operandi of this government.</para>
<para>I support the intent of this bill, and my feedback has been that the Assistant Treasurer has done a great job of engaging with industry and really being incredibly consultative. That doesn't surprise me at all, because I think that's been his approach across many different areas. But I do think there is a danger here, and I do think it's important to make sure that this bill does actually strengthen consumer outcomes and we don't lessen competition. We need to be very careful that this bill actually lives up to its title, which is improving choice in superannuation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Ryan</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025—legislation that strengthens fairness, flexibility, and transparency across our superannuation and taxation frameworks. This Bill ensures that every Australian worker, no matter their industry, income, or employer, has genuine choice in how their retirement savings are managed and invested.</para>
<para>Superannuation is, at its heart, a promise—a promise that after decades of hard work, contributing and saving, every Australian can retire with dignity, independence, and financial security. It stands as one of the great achievements of modern Australia and one of Labor's proudest legacies. Yet as our economy and workforce evolve, so too must our super system. We must give workers greater flexibility, reduce duplication, and cut red tape while strengthening the safeguards that protect members' savings.</para>
<para>This Bill delivers on that commitment. It amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund process during employee onboarding, ensuring that workers can easily nominate their preferred fund when they start a new job. It further amends the Corporations Act 2001 to prohibit the advertising or promotion of specific superannuation products to new employees as part of that onboarding process—protecting workers from pressure or confusion at a time when they should simply be exercising informed choice.</para>
<para>These changes strengthen the right of employees to take their super fund with them—their fund for life—eliminating the problem of multiple accounts, duplicated fees, and unnecessary insurance costs. It also removes outdated clauses in industrial awards and enterprise agreements that restrict choice, ensuring that workers are never locked into underperforming or unsuitable default funds because of legacy arrangements.</para>
<para>Importantly, this reform recognises the role of employers. By streamlining processes through the Australian Taxation Office's existing digital infrastructure, employers will have a simpler, clearer system to manage superannuation contributions. For small and medium businesses, this means less paperwork, fewer administrative headaches, and greater compliance certainty. It's a balanced approach one that delivers employee empowerment without adding to employer burden.</para>
<para>The Bill also reinforces transparency and accountability within the superannuation sector. Funds will be required to give members more timely and accessible information about how their retirement savings are invested, what fees they're paying, and how their fund's returns compare to market benchmarks. A system built on openness and comparability helps Australians make informed decisions, holds funds to account, and lifts overall performance.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, the Bill extends beyond superannuation reform to include several other important, practical measures. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax and withholding tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries in recognition of their temporary operations in Australia—a standard practice for international sporting events that supports our reputation as a global host nation.</para>
<para>It also amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the new Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the elimination of double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance. This strengthens our international tax cooperation, promotes cross-border investment, and protects Australian and Portuguese businesses from being unfairly taxed twice on the same income.</para>
<para>Further, it updates the list of deductible gift recipients under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reflect charitable organisations and initiatives that continue to deliver public benefit across our communities—ensuring that worthy causes remain supported through the generosity of Australians.</para>
<para>Finally, it amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum producer rebate claimable by eligible wine producers from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year.</para>
<para>This provides tangible relief to small and medium winemakers, particularly in regional Australia, helping them reinvest, innovate, and remain competitive in both domestic and international markets.</para>
<para>Together, these complementary measures strengthen Australia's economic and policy framework—supporting worker choice, simplifying compliance, boosting transparency, promoting international cooperation, and backing local industry. They reflect an Albanese Labor Government committed to practical, balanced reform that benefits people, businesses, and the broader economy alike.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, this Bill is about more than technical amendments—it's about real outcomes for Australians. A young tradie no longer has to juggle multiple super accounts and can consolidate his savings across different employers. A nurse moving between hospitals can keep her trusted super fund. A local winemaker sees fairer support for their hard work. Even international sporting events and partnerships benefit from clearer, fairer tax arrangements that encourage investment and engagement.</para>
<para>These changes are introduced responsibly, with a transition period to allow employers, funds, and regulators time to adapt systems. The Treasury and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will continue working closely with industry, unions, and stakeholders to ensure smooth implementation. This consultative approach—deliberate, collaborative, and grounded in fairness—is how good policy is made.</para>
<para>Labor built Australia's superannuation system because we believe every worker deserves financial security in retirement—not just the wealthy or those with stable careers. From compulsory super to today's digital and governance reforms, we have continued to evolve a world-class system that safeguards the dignity of all Australians. With this Bill, we reaffirm that commitment.</para>
<para>Superannuation remains a powerful social and economic asset. Our $3.5 trillion national super pool doesn't just secure retirement; it underpins investment in infrastructure, innovation, and job creation—driving productivity and long-term national prosperity.</para>
<para>By making the system fairer, simpler, and more transparent, this Bill strengthens both individual outcomes and economic resilience.</para>
<para>When we get superannuation right, we don't just support retirees—we strengthen the entire economy. Trust is central to that success. Employers must trust that compliance is simple, and employees must trust that their savings are safe, performing, and working for them. This Bill builds that trust. It delivers choice without confusion, transparency without complexity, and progress without compromise.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is good, balanced policy—practical reform that delivers fairness, efficiency, and accountability. It ensures our superannuation system remains robust, our tax laws remain modern, and our workplaces, businesses, and communities remain supported for generations to come.</para>
<para>I commend the Bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is another treasury laws amendment bill, and we have Labor Party government 101—make sure that it has a very impressive-sounding name. That has to be the first thing you get right. If they don't get the name right, there's actually nothing they can talk about, because the detail within the bill never lines up with what it says. We've got a bill that is about supporting choice in superannuation—sounds impressive. Everyone loves choice, except a bill like this narrows choice, and it conveniently narrows choice to those super funds that are industry funds that, purely by coincidence, happen to be connected to the union movement. Then the union movement happens to be connected to the ALP and the government and pulls the strings. It's all just a coincidence that this money cycles around, and the super supports the unions, and the unions bring members in and support the government, and then the government coincidentally does legislation that supports just those industry super funds. What did they say? Oh my God, what a coincidence! Was it Deidre Chambers, potentially? Anyway, we know how that one plays out. We see it all the time.</para>
<para>It goes to the next level of a name, and they've just had to sneak in—because you have to be a level of honest in these things—other measures. They just added other measures—very benign, very plain other measures that could be anything. And that is exactly what this bill does. There are no links and connections at all between anything in this bill. There are six schedules. We have talk about super. We're looking at wineries, which I will talk about in a moment. As the member for Casey, I'm lucky to represent the best wine region in the country. Some, myself included, would argue that it is the best wine region in the world, but I don't want to be that bold, so I'll stay with the best wine region in Australia. I know the member for Fadden agrees with me, because there are no wineries on the Gold Coast, so I've got at least one supporter there. The member for Riverina might have a disagreement with me. We'll take that up out of the chamber, but he will be very happy that he got a mention in this speech.</para>
<para>But we go from wineries to then the Rugby World Cup tax exemptions. I'm not sure of the link from wineries to Rugby World Cup tax exemptions. We're then looking at deductible gift recipient listings—charities with very important work. I'm not sure of the connection to superannuation, the Rugby World Cup or wineries. Those are all completely different issues that could be and should be individual bills that are dealt with on their own merit. Each schedule stands alone as a bill that is worthy of debate and that should be discussed, voted on and passed as individual measures so we can represent our communities fairly and make sure that we support what we can and oppose what we must as well, because there are some really terrible elements to this bill. As I talked about, it's that circle of convenience in super at the start. But this is what Labor does. They like to put all these measures together to force us as the opposition to vote on a whole bill. You don't have a choice to separate it out.</para>
<para>I want to talk specifically about the wine equalisation tax and make it clear for the record and for my community that we do support the government's proposal to increase the WET producer rebate. However, we do not support the moves to limit comparison of super funds and reduce consumer choice—as I said, driving those funds to the ALP, to the union movement and back again. We don't have a choice on how we vote. We have to vote collectively on this bill, so we will be opposing the bill in its full measure. But I absolutely support that. As I said, as the member representing Australia's finest wine region, I'm proud to stand here in support of the increase of the wine equalisation tax producer rebate. It's such an important initiative, particularly for those smaller wineries and cellar doors that need that tax to survive.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, the rebate cap will be increased from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year. I'm going to shock the minister opposite and congratulate the Albanese government on that move. When the government has good policy—which is very rare—I will support it, and I'll put it on the record. Congratulations on increasing the wine equalisation tax from $350,000 to $400,000. The Yarra Valley is home to over 80 cellar doors, many of which are small to medium family owned enterprises. I know, from speaking with local viticulturists, that many of these businesses have been squeezed in recent years by the bracket creep and the pressure of rising production costs compounded with the lack of demand in wines. By raising the cap, these wineries will be supported and encouraged to continue scaling and succeeding, allowing them to retain an additional $50,000 in cash flow to reinvest in their wineries and, so importantly, in local jobs and the local community. We must recognise that every bottle of locally grown wine that is sold at a Yarra Valley cellar door supports a network of regional and rural local jobs, from the winery hands and the winemakers to the hospitality staff to the chefs and the local tour operators.</para>
<para>I was lucky enough to work in the hospitality industry in my community. Unfortunately, that was about 20 to 25 years ago, but so many young people get their first opportunities in hospitality because of our wineries. According to the 2025 report by Wine Australia, grape growing, winemaking and wine related tourism contribute $51.3 billion to the Australian economy and support more than 200,000 jobs each year. By strengthening the financial viability of these wineries through this rebate increase, we are securing the future of regional towns in my community and in many communities across the country. This measure will help play a role to ensure that the Yarra Valley remains a vibrant, competitive and world renowned destination for generations to come, and I'm proud to always support my communities and always support programs and incentives that will allow them to continue to grow and flourish within our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, brought forward by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, and I commend him for doing so. When I was 16 years old I worked in hospo. I was young, enthusiastic and excited to join the workforce and to work hard for my future. My boss signed me up to a dodgy traineeship. If I were a trainee, you see, he could pay me less, and he got away with it. I don't know whether there was malice or whether the employers in my establishment signed up all employees or just the young, enthusiastic and naive ones. I think it was just a program that, for my employers, was just the norm. What I felt at the time and what I know now is that it wasn't fair and it wasn't right.</para>
<para>This story is one I've told before in this chamber. That's because, for me, it was a really formative moment. I was young. It was the moment when I realised that employees aren't always treated fairly by their bosses and that an employer doesn't always have your best interests at heart, and it's when I learnt the importance of not just advocating for employees—yes, that's important too. I also learnt the value of actually having the right legislation and regulations set up and being adhered to so that these types of situations are prevented from even happening in the first place.</para>
<para>I'm proud to stand here today, because that is exactly what this legislation does. This bill is here to streamline the process for employees to choose a super fund when they start a new job. This is legislation to ban employers from advertising super fund products to new employees during their onboarding process. But it's also about so much more than that. This bill is about empowering employees to make informed choices about their super funds when they start a new job. It's about workers' rights and about creating those laws—the type of laws I could have benefited from at 16 years old—which protect hardworking Australians so they can secure their own futures. Taking advantage of employees who don't know any better, by compelling employees to make choices that are not in their best interests, is simply wrong. I know this, and we, as Labor, know this. We are the party that is grounded in advocating for and legislating to protect the rights of workers, and this bill is no exception to that.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act. This is the part about streamlining the process for choosing your super fund when being onboarded as a new employee. In 2021, a set of reforms—Your Future, Your Super—was introduced to improve the superannuation system. It was designed for a few reasons: to empower members and make it easier to choose a well-performing product that meets your needs; to hold funds to account for underperformance; and to increase transparency and accountability for how super funds use members' savings. It also introduced stapling. A stapled super fund is an existing super account linked, or stapled, to an individual employee, so it follows them as they change jobs. Having stapled funds reduces your account fees as it avoids new super accounts being opened every time you start a new job. This bill will build on those reforms. It will make it easier for employees to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job. This empowers employees by helping them to avoid accidentally paying double or triple fees, and this can save thousands of dollars.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exceptions. It's ridiculous that, when starting out in a new job, employees can have advertisements for super products targeted at them. Meanwhile, information about keeping their previous super account is not readily accessible. This is a key moment when employees engage with their superannuation, and they should be able to do so in an informed and safe way. A ban on advertising superannuation products to an employee, specifically at the point of employee onboarding, is really important.</para>
<para>These changes reinforce our government's commitment to supporting Aussies to make an informed choice about their super while providing strong consumer protections. We're protecting employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, because Aussies should be able to trust their employer and the super system we're all a part of. When you sign up to a new job, you're not always going to independently know all the fine details about all the available super funds and what's best to avoid, but that information should be accessible. Employees shouldn't be getting signed up to super funds that aren't necessarily right for them, just because their employer has compelled them to do so. And do you know what? Employees should be able to trust their employer to not push them into super funds that do not act in their best interests. They should be able to trust the system because the system should be working for them. It should be protecting them. If the system is, in fact, not protecting employees, then it's our duty as parliamentarians to change that. So that's what we're doing.</para>
<para>This bill will create those changes for employees right across the country, including in my own community in Melbourne's western suburbs. My electorate of Gorton is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. The average age is 35. We are full of diverse, young, hardworking families—families who are setting up their children's futures and planning their own retirements. People in a good, hardworking community like mine don't deserve to be taken advantage of by their employers when they start a new job. They deserve to have transparency and proper access to information about their own super. They deserve to be empowered to make informed choices about their retirement savings, as do all Australians.</para>
<para>This bill is important for transparency, for employee empowerment and for strengthening our superannuation system, but it's by no means the only measure the Labor government is taking to ensure Aussies are earning more and keeping more of what they earn right up until retirement. We've passed payday super, a once-in-a-generation reform to fix unpaid super, because workers deserve to get paid their full entitlements and Australians deserve to retire with confidence and with financial security. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22. That's $100 million every week that workers earned and never received. Thanks to this Labor government, from 1 July this year employers will be required to pay super at the same time as they pay wages, instead of paying it quarterly. This means that employees will receive their super in their funds within seven business days of payday and that workers will receive what they're legally owed.</para>
<para>The legislation we're debating here today complements those payday super reforms. That's because, by giving employees more timely and accurate information and details on superannuation, we're supporting their readiness for our payday super reforms. We're legislating these changes for workers because that's what Labor does. We are the champions of workers' rights, and we always have been.</para>
<para>I'm proud that this is not the first time that I've stood up in this chamber and talked about workers' rights, and that's because this is not the first bill that this Labor government has introduced to build better protections for workers. Late last year we passed Baby Priya's bill. Baby Priya's bill introduced a new principle into the Fair Work Act to protect families and employees. It means that, unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled if a child is stillborn or passes away. At the heart of Baby Priya's law are dignity, compassion and workers' rights. The same can be said of our changes to protect penalty and overtime rates. This was about safeguarding fundamental entitlements for around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant Australian workers.</para>
<para>And there's the legislation I haven't yet had the opportunity to talk about in the chamber because it was passed in the last term of parliament. I'm so glad that I have the opportunity to talk about it now. Our same job, same pay laws have seen thousands of workers receiving up to $60,000 extra in their pay packets each year, and our secure jobs, better pay laws were about modernising the bargaining system to protect better pay and conditions for workers. The right-to-disconnect laws have adapted Australia's workplaces to meet the needs of what a modern workplace actually looks like. Meanwhile, we've criminalised wage theft. These are all such important changes for Australian workers—changes that go alongside our reforms to the superannuation system.</para>
<para>Having lived in the Australia I know and love, I sometimes find it surprising to remind myself that, not so long ago, superannuation wasn't legislated. It's only through the work of legislated change and Labor governments that we have the workplace protections that exist today. Under the Keating government, Labor introduced compulsory super to Australia as part of the superannuation guarantee. Even the member for Riverina acknowledged the power of super in his contribution here this evening. Back then, we introduced compulsory super, and today we're strengthening it.</para>
<para>But this is nothing new for us. Labor emerged directly out of the union movements. It was industrial action that paved the way for the weekend. We introduced annual leave and sick leave. The Fair Work Act, unfair dismissal protections and our Paid Parental Leave scheme were all passed in the Rudd-Gillard years. And we've always championed gender equality. When we're talking about super, women really matter, because it's true women earn less and retire with less. The national gender pay gap is sitting at 11.5 per cent. Women are more likely to take significant breaks in their careers, putting them on the back foot when they re-enter the workforce. Women are less likely to be promoted into high-paying management roles, and women have less savings in their super when they retire. The gender super gap is about $50,000 for Australians nearing retirement—$50,000 less for women to live on in their retirement—because nurses, teachers, aged care workers and hairdressers are amongst those in casual and insecure work. Part of the issue is that those women in those fields aren't getting their fair share of super.</para>
<para>In Victoria, there is a 24 per cent gap between men's and women's super savings across all ages. But, for my electorate of Gorton, it's wider than even that. In Gorton, the gender super gap is sitting at 26 per cent, wider than the Victorian average and on par with the national average. This gap widens significantly as women approach retirement. The median man approaching retirement in Gorton has $181,000 in super. Compare this to the median woman. She's got $114,000 in super—37 per cent less. This is wider than both the Victorian and Australian averages by 33 per cent. That's why the changes that this Labor government has made to women's earnings and super are so important. We've introduced LISTO and expanded paid parental leave, and we've ensured that women are now earning super on top of their paid parental leave.</para>
<para>The low-income superannuation tax offset is an automatic tax rebate paid into the super accounts of low-income earners to offset some or all of the tax paid on their super contributions. You or your employer pay this 15 per cent of the pre-tax super contributions into your super fund, up to a maximum of $500, and it's designed to ensure that low-income earners generally don't pay more tax on their super contributions than on their take-home pay. We're increasing the LISTO by $300 to $800, and we're raising the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. This measure is so important. It was about delivering a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, 60 per cent of whom are women. That's because women are among those low-income earners. LISTO is boosting the income of close to 8,000 people in my electorate, totalling $3 million across the electorate, and it's helping close the gender super gap.</para>
<para>To close that gap, we've also made significant changes to super when it comes to parental leave. You can be sure that this Labor government is working at closing that gender pay gap and gender super gap. This is what happens when we elect women: women's issues become the forefront of the government's agenda. I couldn't be prouder to be part of a Labor government made up of 57 per cent women, because, when we elect women, we legislate on women's issues only.</para>
<para>Only our government will protect Aussie super—because this bill is just one part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment for Aussies to earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MONCRIEFF</name>
    <name.id>316540</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Superannuation plays such an important role in securing the financial wellbeing of Australians while also making a tremendous contribution to investment in the Australian economy. Superannuation has provided modern Australians with the financial independence that would have been unimaginable to any of the generations that preceded them. It's a system that has changed lives for the better and it's a system built by Labor.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 builds on that legacy and expands on the financial independence that the superannuation system has provided to modern Australia. The measures in this bill support Australians where they are in their lives, whether they're starting a new job, saving for retirement, running a small business, building a winery, hosting a global sporting event, investing across borders or donating to a cause they believe in.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we believe Australians deserve the choice and the confidence to make economic decisions with fairness and transparency at the forefront. This is particularly felt when we look at superannuation. Superannuation is one of the great Australian reforms. It's a Labor reform. It was built by a Labor government in partnership with working people and, for more than three decades, it has quietly transformed retirement in this country. Labor always has been and always will be the party of superannuation because we understand what it represents. It is not just something people ignore when they're working. It represents dignity in retirement, the difference between scraping by and living with security after decades of hard work.</para>
<para>Let's be honest about the history of superannuation here. Those opposite opposed compulsory super at its creation. They delayed increases to the super guarantee. They described it as a burden. They tried to water it down. We lifted it to 12 per cent; they froze it. We legislated the objective of superannuation so it cannot be quietly redefined; they warned of catastrophe. We are paying super on paid parental leave so that women are not penalised in retirement for taking time out to raise children; they voted against it. So, when we speak about strengthening superannuation, we do so with credibility. This is not an afterthought for us. It is core to who we are, and this bill continues that work.</para>
<para>Think about the moment when someone starts a new job. It is exciting, but it can be stressful. There's paperwork and there are tax file numbers, bank details and emergency contacts. There are systems to log on to, there are forms to sign and somewhere in that process is a choice about super. In that moment, superannuation is often reduced to a tick box—a choice that compounds over 10, 20 or 40 years, a choice that can mean the difference between security and stress in retirement.</para>
<para>Under earlier reforms, stapling was introduced so that workers would remain connected to their existing super fund when they moved jobs, because for too long every time Australians moved jobs they automatically ended up with a brand new super account. That was an important step. It reduced the explosion of unintended duplicate accounts that were eating away at retirement savings through multiple sets of fees and insurance premiums. But the system can work better.</para>
<para>Right now, too often, people are asked to choose a fund without clearly seeing their existing one in front of them, or they are presented with options in a way that is not neutral. We know that we can do better to streamline the choice-of-fund process, with changes like the one in schedule 1 of this bill, which allows employers or their onboarding providers to request an employee's stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the process. That means that, when a worker is completing their onboarding, they can see their existing fund details clearly and make an informed choice—not a rushed choice, not a choice made in confusion but an informed choice—with all the relevant information available.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: choice remains. Workers can choose any eligible fund. We are ensuring that that choice is based on transparency, not confusion, because superannuation is not a retail impulse purchase; it's a lifetime investment. A few percentage points in fees compounded over decades can mean tens of thousands of dollars in retirement.</para>
<para>During a review of earlier reforms, it was discovered that some onboarding software providers were being paid to promote specific super products to new employees during the onboarding process, sometimes products linked to the software provider itself. Reflect on that. A worker is starting a new job, they're required to provide their details, they are navigating unfamiliar systems and, in that moment, they are showed paid promotions for superannuation products. That's not a level playing field. That's not informed consent. That is commercial influence at one of the most vulnerable points in the process.</para>
<para>Superannuation is not a streaming service. It's not something that should be marketed to someone while they are navigating the first day of employment, so we're putting a stop to it. This bill introduces a targeted ban on superannuation advertising during onboarding. It's the end of stealth marketing at the point of employment. It's the end of commercial steering disguised as administration. Employees will see their stapled fund and they will still see the employer default fund. Certain MySuper products can be displayed if they pass the annual performance test, are advertised by an unrelated party and are accompanied by clear disclosures.</para>
<para>When a worker is providing their super details to an employer, that space should be free from inappropriate influence. That is what it means to govern in the public interest. Last year, this parliament passed the payday super legislation. That reform is a once-in-a-generation change to fix unpaid super. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22. That is $100 million every single week that workers earned but never received. Let's reflect on that. Every week, $100 million of Australians' retirement savings was simply not paid out.</para>
<para>Unpaid super disproportionately affects younger workers and those in insecure work. Casual employees, part-time workers, people in industries with high turnover—these are Australians who can least afford to miss out on retirement savings. In a typical ATO investigation of an unpaid super case, a worker has missed out on nearly two years of contributions. For an average 35-year-old, failing to recover that money could reduce their retirement savings by around $32,000 in today's money. If an employer goes bust and super is never recovered, the impact is even worse. For that same 35-year-old, their retirement balance could be more than $90,000 worse off in today's money. That's not an abstract concept; that is real money. It could be a future home deposit. It could be someone's medical costs. It could be someone's dignity in old age.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2026, under payday super, employers will be required to pay super at the same time as wages, rather than quarterly. Super contributions must be received by the employee's fund within seven business days of payday. That change does two things: it makes it easier for employees to track their super in real time and it allows the ATO to detect missed payments earlier, before debts spiral out of control and become unrecoverable. The legislation also strengthens the super guarantee charge. Under the new framework, if an employer fails to pay super in full and on time, the charge applies for each payday missed. It includes notional earnings, compensating employees for investment returns they missed out on due to late payment. It includes an administrative uplift, reflecting the cost of enforcement and incentivising voluntary rectification, with reductions available for employers who come forward and have a good compliance history. It includes choice loading—an additional penalty if the employer fails to pay into the employee's chosen fund. For those who persistently fail to pay, even after the ATO has raised a charge, penalties of up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount can apply. These are serious consequences because unpaid super is a serious issue. Super is workers' money, and under this government we are making sure that it is paid on time every time.</para>
<para>These reforms do not stand alone. They sit alongside the expansion of the performance test, from around 80 products to more than 800, driving accountability and transparency across the system. They sit alongside the Financial Accountability Regime and stronger reporting standards. They sit alongside paying super on paid parental leave. Piece by piece, reform by reform, we are strengthening this system, and we do so because we understand something fundamental: superannuation is deferred wages. It's not a gift from the government. It's not a bonus from employers. It belongs to the people who earned it, and it deserves to be protected as fiercely as wages in a pay packet.</para>
<para>When you look at schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, alongside payday super, a clear theme emerges. We are strengthening super at the point of choice and at the point of payment. We are protecting workers when they start a job and we are protecting them when they get paid. For small businesses across communities like mine in southern Sydney, certainty and clarity now reduce headaches with compliance later.</para>
<para>These reforms provide the right information at the right time. They are sensible, modern changes that reduce friction and help ensure our superannuation system runs smoothly for employers and employees alike. This is what responsible economic management looks like. Each reform strengthens the system. Each reform protects workers. Each reform reflects a simple belief that retirement security is not a luxury; it is a right earned through hard work. It is about understanding that fairness and growth are not opposing forces; they are mutually reinforcing. Those opposite will look at superannuation and see a cost to the system. We look at it and see dignity. They look at consumer protections and see regulation. We see we look at them and see fairness. They will look at global events and see tax concessions. We look at them and see jobs, participation and national pride.</para>
<para>This bill is another step in building an economy that rewards work, protects savings and positions Australia confidently on the global stage. Australians want to know that when they work hard, their retirement savings are protected. They want to know that the system is not quietly chipping away at their balance through unnecessary duplication. They want to know that when they start a new job, they are not being funnelled into a product because someone paid for placement in an onboarding portal. They want fairness. They want transparency. They want confidence. This bill delivers that. It strengthens the moment of choice, it protects the integrity of the process and it reinforces a reform agenda that puts workers first.</para>
<para>Superannuation is one of the great Australian achievements. It did not happen by accident. It happened because a Labor government believed that working people deserved more than the bare minimum in retirement. We are determined to ensure that that belief continues to shape policy, protect workers and strengthen retirement security for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JARRETT</name>
    <name.id>298574</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill introduces important reforms to superannuation and tax laws to implement our election commitments, streamline systems and processes, and reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. Let's start with super. Labor is the party of superannuation. Why? Because Labor is the party for workers.</para>
<para>Let's look at some history. Superannuation in Australia began as a limited benefit salary for white-collar workers, gradually expanding through the union negotiated industrial awards until the early 1980s. A major shift occurred in 1983 with the support of the Labor government under the leadership of Bob Hawke. That government was an architect and proponent of the Prices and Incomes Accord, which exchanged national wage rises for a three per cent superannuation contribution, laying the foundations for universal coverage.</para>
<para>The most significant reform followed in 1992, under the Keating Labor government. That recognised our ageing population and the unaffordable strain the growing age pension payments would have on the Australian economy. As a result, the superannuation guarantee, a compulsory employer contribution, was introduced. Starting at three per cent, it became part of a three-pillar retirement income system. Although Keating proposed compulsory employee contributions from 1997, this element was cancelled by the Howard Liberal government.</para>
<para>Subsequent governments built on or altered these foundations. The Howard government allowed the employer super guarantee rate to rise to nine per cent in 2003, and restricted super guarantee calculations to ordinary time earnings. It was the Rudd-Gillard government, a Labor government, that later legislated to increase the guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent between 2015 and 2019. But, as history says, it was the Abbott government, a Liberal government, that deferred these increases by six years, pushing the commencement to 2021. These deferrals and reversals are typical of the coalition, who have a track record of not supporting workers.</para>
<para>More recently, the super guarantee rate reached 10½ per cent in 2022. Guess who was in government then? Yes, the Albanese Labor government. It's reached 12 per cent, supported by reforms aimed at improving fund portability and performance. This Labor government has also legislated that superannuation be applied to government paid parental leave.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>105</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flynn Electorate: Industry</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are many unsung heroes in the electorate of Flynn that often leave for work in the dark and return home in the dark. These heroes work in the mining, resource, gas, heavy industry and agricultural sectors. I call them heroes as they are the men and women who keep the lights on, build the products Australia and the world need, and grow the food and fibre that we eat from our plates every day. I want to dedicate my speech to these hardworking men and women because I'm sick to death of successive governments treating them like their industries are cash cows, demonising their work and putting their futures at risk.</para>
<para>According to the Queensland Resources Council:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In 2024-25, our resources sector made a contribution of $115.2 billion to the Queensland economy—supporting jobs, businesses, infrastructure and services to benefit communities across the state.</para></quote>
<para>In the electorate of Flynn, the resource sector, in the same financial year, supported over 38,000 local jobs and produced a gross regional product of $8.2 billion alone. What does this Labor government think about this critical industry? In 2019, the now deputy prime minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I mean the global market for thermal coal has collapsed and at one level, that's a good thing, because what that implies is that the world is acting in relation to climate change.</para></quote>
<para>In the Flynn electorate, there is the CSG gas industry, producing approximately 25 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas, which is exported to the world through the Port of Gladstone. An estimate of this export is valued at around $7 billion alone each year. You would think, with all of this gas in the market, that Australia would have a thriving domestic industry. Well, not in Victoria, where the Labor state government has given the provisional green light for a fuel supplier, Viva Energy, to build a floating gas import terminal. Australia has an abundance of gas, but Victoria has gone so far backwards under Labor that this new refinery will aim to receive shipments of liquefied natural gas from my home state of Queensland, as well as from Western Australia and overseas, for use in their local network. You can't make this stuff up—governments need to subsidise gas import facilities in a country like Australia.</para>
<para>Gladstone is known for being a heavy industry powerhouse primarily due to the alumina and aluminium industries. This includes the Yarwun alumina foundry, QAL and Boyne Smelters, with around 4,500 direct jobs, making up 16 per cent of the workforce of the Gladstone region. Furthermore, NRG Gladstone Power Station employs approximately 250 people, encompassing trainees and apprentices and a further 100 contractors onsite at any time. This power station provides most of the energy to the alumina and aluminium industry in Gladstone and is vital for 24/7 power generation.</para>
<para>What does the heavy industry future look like under this Labor government? Firstly, the Yarwun and QAL refineries, as well as the Boyne Island smelter, are included in Labor's carbon tax hit list, also known as the safeguard mechanism. This means that they are literally taxing our manufacturers to reach their emissions targets. Yet, at the same time, we've had to give handouts to the Tomago aluminium facility near Newcastle to keep their doors open. Gladstone Power Station has also signalled it could close as early as 2029. The early closure of the Gladstone Power Station will be devastating to Gladstone. It supplies approximately 80 per cent of its power production to the alumina sector and to the Port of Gladstone and the heavy industry there.</para>
<para>Here's an example of the Labor government's contempt for our agricultural industries following their crusade to close down the live sheep export trade. The Prime Minister shocked the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award gala dinner at Parliament House when he said he'd dined earlier with the Indonesian President-elect. The Prime Minister stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We had dinner, beautiful Australian beef—not the live export, we made sure it was dead.</para></quote>
<para>Put simply, the Prime Minister chose the AgriFutures award gala, a night celebrating our agricultural sector, to mock the phase-out of the live sheep export industry. Do these people have any idea what they're talking about and how their actions have detrimental effects on rural people in regional Australia? I believe the answer is a comprehensive no. For me, I'm very proud of our traditional industries, particularly in Central Queensland, and I'm always committed to fighting for the future of Central Queensland and its people and industries.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Emu Plains Girl Guides, Penrith Museum of Fire, Ward, Mr Merv</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When the Emu Plains Girl Guides told me they were fundraising for a new street library outside their guide hall, I was very happy to help make that happen. It's a work of art built by members of the Nepean Men's Shed, painted bright yellow and even featuring planter boxes on either side. The official launch was great fun. I love seeing young people valuing the good old-fashioned paper book as an alternative to screen time. The artworks painted on the street library draw inspiration from the local Dharug people, choosing symbols which represent guiding and Emu Plains. They include women sitting, meeting place, teaching, campsite and friends. 'Take a book, read a book, leave a book' is their motto, and I encourage kids in the area to do just that at the Emu Plains Girl Guides street library on Nepean Street.</para>
<para>Each year the Penrith Museum of Fire holds an art competition for primary-aged children. For the 2025 awards, the theme was 'Trailblazers', marking 40 years since women were first formally allowed to join the New South Wales Fire Brigades—as it was then called—as firefighters. As Special Envoy for the Arts, I joined parents, families and children at the official awards event in January, and I admired the artwork celebrating the courage, achievements and enduring legacy of the women who stepped forward, broke barriers and helped shape the modern fire service.</para>
<para>Two of the awards were won by Blue Mountains students. 'My Mum the Firefighter', by Cole Brown, from Leura Public School, won the Highly Commended Award for year 2 students. Cole's artwork depicts his mum in uniform and wearing breathing apparatus, with smoke, a fire engine and an overhead drone. His very proud family were with him when he accepted his award. The People's Choice Award was won by Elsie Kuhn, who's in kindergarten at Blue Mountains Grammar, for her work 'Girls Can Do It'. This was voted for by the public. In her own words: 'Girls can do anything and help each other look after people and animals. Firefighters are brave and strong, especially girls. This is a drawing of my aunty and I saving the day.' It was a beautiful work of art.</para>
<para>The theme for this year's competition at the Museum of Fire is 'Dogs in Firefighting'. I am looking forward to seeing the shortlisted works next January, and I encourage every student in every school around the country to enter. It is open to everybody around the country.</para>
<para>It was a sad day at St Matthew's Anglican Church when we joined the wife of Merv Ward, Narelle, from Upper Colo, and family and friends to honour his life. Merv was 92, and I take this opportunity to recognise the service he gave to our community over many decades. I've known Merv and Narelle through their many community activities over the last 10-plus years, from the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association, the Hawkesbury District National Servicemen's Association and the Upper Colo community, and through bushfires and floods.</para>
<para>Merv's history of service began way back in 1952 when he was called up to national service, choosing to remain in what we would now call the Army Reserve until 1960. He then served as a civil defence warden right through to the early seventies. We also honoured his service as a nasho at last Sunday's National Servicemen's service, which Merv and Narelle have led for many years. Narelle continued to do him proud.</para>
<para>As well as being involved in community organisations like the Upper Colo progress association and the Colo ratepayers association, in the sixties Merv helped form the Hawkesbury Potato Growers Cooperative in an attempt to realign the imbalance of power in the wholesale fruit and vegetable market—something that resonates with us still today. He was part of the bushfire brigade service, giving his shed to firefighting appliances rather than his own tractor because there was no actual brigade. That's the kind of person he was. Merv was also a key member of the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association, serving as a senior executive for almost 30 years. Merv was well known, well loved. He was a character and he will be missed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to use this opportunity to address the comments Grace Tame made this week. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's call for us not to politicise this, to have a very cold and calm conversation and, indeed, your direction, Mr Speaker, about how we talk on these things in this place. I think it's a really important conversation for us to have, and it's one that matters to me deeply. I spent the best part of 10 years of my life living in the Middle East, working in the Middle East. I have friends in Israel. I have friends right throughout Palestine and through Jordan. Mashal Ramadan I think of often in these situations. I think they'd be amazed at how much attention this conflict gets in Australia. I think they would be even more amazed to see how uneducated we are when we talk about it.</para>
<para>I arrived in Jeddah shortly after the end of the second intifada, and the scars of that conflict were felt right across the region. I remember having a young Syrian girl working for me who had scars on her shoulder. She wouldn't wear the full niqab because it was important for her to show her scars because that was part of her story of who she was. When she came into a Western office, she wasn't required to wear that and she was allowed to get away with that in that time. I remember just thinking, 'This is the bravest person I have ever met in my life,' because, as soon as she stepped outside of that office, Saudi religious police would force her to cover up. But it was important to her that people understood her story and understood what the intifada meant, what it did in her region and that this was not some happy Che-Guevara-wearing rebellion. This was a bloody, horrible, violent uprising where suicide bombers really came to the fore in Palestine—rocket attacks, gunfights in the streets. There were somewhere around 5,700 Palestinian victims. Over two-thirds of those were civilians. There are about a thousand Israeli victims; about 70 per cent of those were civilians. Many of these died in horrible circumstances.</para>
<para>I had one experience in my time in the Middle East of seeing the result of a suicide bombing. It was at the Al-Ahsa mosque on the eastern side of Saudi Arabia. I was driving to Bahrain to get my monthly stamp in and out, and, as I came back, I drove through the aftermath of a suicide bombing in this mosque. My memory is of black dust everywhere and intense sorrow and wailing as people were walking around, clearly trying to trying to get their bearings, having just walked out of a room that was blown up. There were blood, glass and bits of people across the road. No-one was celebrating. This wasn't something that you celebrate. These are horrible, horrible events.</para>
<para>That is what the intifada is. And I don't think Ms Tame understands that. I think this is a slogan. I wanted to raise this is because I had to raise this conversation with my own daughter, a 16-year-old girl, describing this, because it's not taught—the intifada is some cool word. It's the idea that there's some great struggle, and we're all going to be part of it, and it's great and it's happy. It's bloody horrible. These are real people, and they're butchered and murdered in horrible ways. For someone to call for that clearly rises to the level of incitement to violence under the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900. It clearly meets that threshold. This isn't just calling for someone to steal a loaf of bread because they're hungry. This isn't calling for someone to take out an act of white-collar justice. This is a call for the most gruesome butchery of people, exactly as we saw at Bondi, and it's about time we started to call this sort of stuff out.</para>
<para>It is right that the Prime Minister talked to us about depoliticising this, because this should not be a political issue. No-one should ever accept that that's a call to arms in Australia or that that's something that we should accept in our country. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. It should matter to us, and we should be informed on the issue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education and Care</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about the Albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to giving every Australian child the best possible start in life. Where a child is born or what their parents do for work should never determine the quality of education and care they receive in those critical early years. We know the evidence is clear. Quality early learning lays the foundation for lifelong health, learning and wellbeing. It supports children to thrive at school, strengthens families and builds stronger, more productive communities. That is why the Albanese Labor government is investing in early childhood education like never before.</para>
<para>In August last year I was notified of CatholicCare's decision to close the only childcare centre in Latrobe, in my electorate of Braddon. This was devastating news, as 55 families were suddenly left worried about where they would get care and 23 dedicated staff were left facing uncertainty about their future. For an entire community, the closure of St Patrick's childcare centre meant the loss of a vital local service. The centre was the only service of its kind in Latrobe. There were no alternative providers in town. Families were forced to look outside of their own community for care, often to centres already stretched with long waitlists and limited capacity.</para>
<para>That was simply not acceptable, so I worked tirelessly alongside Latrobe Council, Lady Gowrie Tasmania and the Tasmanian government to find a solution that put families first. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, we delivered exactly that. Through the Community Child Care Fund, Lady Gowrie Tasmania was awarded $334,000. Combined with $200,000 from the Tasmanian government, this funding ensured that Latrobe had ongoing access to high-quality early learning and care. This investment delivered real and immediate relief for local families impacted by the unexpected closure, and I'm pleased to announce that the temporary facility will open this Monday, 16 February.</para>
<para>This is an important milestone for Latrobe because it means children can once again access the early education opportunities they deserve, close to home in their own community, with the same educators that they've been used to and that parents support. This is not an isolated investment. During the 2025 election campaign, we committed up to $4 million to Malangenna Children's Centre in Devonport to double the number of places to 150. There has been a historic investment in early education for Tasmania, one that will strengthen our regional communities, support working families and ensure more children get the very best start in life.</para>
<para>The Albanese government and the Tasmanian government have reached a landmark agreement delivering $25.5 million through the $1 billion Building Early Education Fund alongside a further $5 million from the Tasmanian government. This partnership will significantly expand not-for-profit early learning services right across our state. As part of this investment, the Albanese Labor government will provide $4 million for a brand new early learning service at St Marys District School in Lyons, creating 24 new places for local children; $3.5 million for a new service at Bruny Island District School, delivering 20 new places for families on the island; and $3 million for Bothwell District High School, providing 20 new day-long care places for families in the Central Highlands. The two governments will also work together to deliver a new early learning service at Glen Huon Primary School, further strengthening access to care and education in the Huon Valley.</para>
<para>The Building Early Education Fund is designed to target areas of greatest need, particularly regional communities and outer suburbs, where access has been limited for far too long. It means more families can access quality, affordable early learning close to home. It means less pressure on parents, and it means stronger local communities. These investments are not just about buildings. They are about supporting parents to participate in the workplace; they are about strengthening the economic future of regional Tasmania; and they are about ensuring that every child, no matter where they live, has access to opportunities that set them up for lifelong success.</para>
<para>This is what Labor governments do. We invest in families, we invest in communities and we invest in the future of our younger Australians to give them the best start in life. We know that early education provides that support for our young children. It gives them a real head start in life when they go through an early education, and I'm really happy that we have supported that right across Tasmania, particularly in the electorate of Braddon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Monash Electorate: Cost of Living, Monash Electorate: Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am proud to represent a region that grows, makes and manufactures things—from the Latrobe Valley to West Gippsland and the Bass Coast through to South Gippsland and the southernmost point of mainland Australia. Our region contributes 23 per cent of the nation's milk output, 26 per cent of Victoria's beef production and over 60 per cent of Melbourne's water, and through the Latrobe Valley power stations we still produce well over 60 per cent of Victoria's baseload electricity. People in my electorate spend long hours on their feet, from retail shops through to manufacturing businesses, and they work with their hands in farms and shopfronts, making and producing things that the rest of our country relies on.</para>
<para>When my electorate of Monash does well, the rest of our state succeeds and our country thrives, but right now people in my community are telling me they've never done it tougher. Families tell me it's never been harder to raise a family. Businesses tell me they've never worked longer and faced more risk and red tape for less reward. Young people tell me it's just too hard to get ahead. That dream of homeownership is getting further and further away under this federal government. I want to talk about the cost of living because the economy is central to being able to maintain our standard of living, maintain our global competitiveness as a nation and give young people their best shot at a strong, secure and stable future.</para>
<para>Regional communities are facing structural challenges across many fronts, with greater distances between services. I've spoken a number of times over the last fortnight on digital connectivity and mobile blackspots in my electorate. Those difficulties are getting harder, more immense and less serviceable under this government. Housing is a huge issue for many people in my electorate, from families to young people. Rental vacancies remain tight. Young people who grew up locally are finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing, let alone save for a deposit for their own home. When supply is limited, even modest increases in demand can push prices well beyond what local wages can sustain. Energy costs are a huge burden. Under this government we've seen—Member for Casey, is it $275 in bill relief?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Violi</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right—$275; we're still waiting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're still waiting, after being promised that bill relief nearly 100 times. Well, I can tell you, Member for Casey, families in my electorate—from Drouin to Warragul, Moe to Leongatha and Wonthaggi to Phillip Island—are telling me that they're having to make some really hard choices right now, between buying food to put on the table and being able to pay a bill on time.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Gorman</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wait until you see what Angus Taylor did to energy prices.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ALDRED</name>
    <name.id>11788</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the minister's interjection, because I'll take it. Under this government that he is a part of, energy bills are going up and belts are being tightened but this government is spending $500,000 a minute in repaying debt the rest of us are having to foot.</para>
<para>I want to give a shout-out to educational support staff, who, on very modest wages, are doing an extraordinary job in many schools across my electorate. They are really stepping up. Under the Victorian Labor government we've got overcrowded classrooms. There are many challenges that young people and students are facing. Those educational support staff are passionate about their jobs, and they are committed to helping the young people that they work with.</para>
<para>On that note, I want to acknowledge the joint winners of the South Gippsland Shire Young Citizen of the Year award, Erica Begg and Rhiannon Rawlins, who I had the pleasure of meeting a few weeks back in Meeniyan. They've shown outstanding leadership, dedication and community spirit right across the South Gippsland Shire. They are both known for their volunteering spirit and their outstanding leadership. Rhiannon is at Korumburra Secondary College. They're both doing incredibly important work. I think they're leaders of the future. I am so impressed and so proud to represent them and all young people across the Monash electorate, who I will continue to work my heart out for because we live in the best region in the best country on earth.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Menzies Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NG</name>
    <name.id>316052</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently in Menzies we held the Manningham Chinese New Year Festival at Jackson Court to welcome the Year of the Fire Horse. It was a wonderful day filled with rides, delicious food, cultural performances and possibly the best lion dance I've ever seen, as well as a fantastic fireworks celebration at night. I want to thank the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Anne Aly, for joining me there. She received a warm welcome from members of my community. We chatted to the stallholders, and we were even gifted some beautiful Chinese calligraphy. This is the first of two events we are delivering as part of our election commitment of $200,000 for local multicultural festivals.</para>
<para>Events like this are about more than just having fun and enjoying great food, although there was plenty of that. They are about celebrating culture, building understanding and bringing people together. They are about social cohesion. They reflect the Albanese Labor government's commitment to our multicultural communities and to social cohesion.</para>
<para>I want to thank Bihong Wang, Richard Shi, Tim, Sean, Charlie and everyone from the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse for their leadership, dedication and hard work in bringing this festival to life. It was also an important way of supporting our local small businesses. I want to thank the Jackson Court Traders Association for their engagement with the event. Your collaboration and generosity helped create a welcoming and vibrant atmosphere for everyone who attended.</para>
<para>The second part of our $200,000 commitment will deliver the Box Hill Chinese New Year Festival, to be held on 21 February along Bank Street in Box Hill. On that day, the streets will come alive with colour as lanterns and traditional decorations transform the heart of Box Hill into a vibrant showcase of culture and community. It reflects the many communities that call our area home, including Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and others, each sharing their traditions, stories and spirit. Some will come for the food, from Korean kimchi pancakes and Japanese takoyaki to Chinese steamed buns and Vietnamese banh mi. Some will come for the music and traditional dances, drawn to the rhythm and sound that carry through the streets. When we gather like this, it strengthens and shapes the modern Australian story. It shows that culture is not distant but lived, shared and experienced together.</para>
<para>Festivals like this are more than just dates on a calendar. They demonstrate that, while we come from different backgrounds and traditions, we can not only respect but celebrate our differences. That is social cohesion in action, built through inclusion, acceptance and a shared sense of belonging. These celebrations across our electorate reflect a broader strength in our community.</para>
<para>This Saturday I attended the United Muslim Migrants Association Mosque Open Day in Doncaster East, which provides an opportunity for the broader community to visit the mosque, learn more about Islam and engage in open and respectful dialogue. It was a welcoming event with generous hospitality and thoughtful conversations. Members of the community were invited to ask any questions that they might have, and the religious leaders answered them with grace, with patience and with expertise. Members of our community came together in a genuine spirit of connection. I was accompanied by Vicki Ward, the member for Eltham, and Sonja Terpstra, a member for the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region.</para>
<para>I want to thank Ahmad and the organising team for their warm welcome and leadership in hosting the day. This has been a difficult time for the Muslim community, and UMMA's dedication to holding this event demonstrates the truth that Islam is a religion of peace, compassion and moral integrity. In a time of increasing misinformation and polarisation, this openness and graciousness is exactly what we need to build deeper understanding and reinforce social cohesion. I want to again thank Ahmad and the organising team from UMMA for being so open to our wider community and for their commitment to building understanding, building bridges and building social cohesion.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>110</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 11 February 2026</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Lawrence</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>111</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians do not have a gas shortage problem; we have a government that refuses to put Australians first. New reporting has revealed just how deeply corporate Japan is embedded in Australia's gas export machine. Ministers have met with Japanese LNG executives more than 20 times in a single term while households here are left paying the price. This is what selling out Australians looks like—Australian resources, higher emissions and Australian families carrying the costs while profits are booked offshore. Every week I hear from families choosing which costs to delay from small businesses trying to absorb yet more cost rises. They can't win in a market that has been deliberately distorted by exports.</para>
<para>Australians are told to be patient and to accept rebates and bandaids. Yet Australian gas continues to be shipped out under long-term deals that don't prioritise Australians, and this government keeps waving it through. InfluenceMap has found that Japanese companies hold more than $70 billion in equity across Australian LNG developments—projects linked to around 290 million tonnes of CO2 per year, roughly two-thirds of Australia's annual climate pollution. While we're told that this is all about Japan's energy security, the reality is quite the opposite. A significant share of Australian LNG bought by Japanese firms is on sold to third countries, reportedly generating more than US$1 billion in profit in 2024. Australians pay higher bills. Multinationals cash in, and the tax system barely touches them. Australians paid more than four times more in tax through HECS-HELP repayments than gas companies paid through the PRRT. Low-income households are hit hardest, spending around five times more of their income on energy than high-income earners.</para>
<para>I say to all the members of government: look to what you are doing with the gas exports. If the government is serious, it must stop acting as a concierge for the gas industry and start acting in the national interest. Lock in genuine domestic gas reservation and transparent contracting. Enforce rigorous methane measurements and regulation—no more voluntary rules. Deliver a credible, managed phase-down of gas, consistent with keeping climate change in check and commitments to net zero. Australians deserve an energy system that is affordable, accountable and aligned with climate science, not one designed to boost foreign profits. Let's be clear. Gas is not green, and it is not in the best interests of Australians to keep prioritising Japanese exports.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Doyle Electorate: Racism</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year I stood in this place to condemn blatantly racist and hateful attacks carried out against two Asian restaurants, an Aboriginal healing centre and a Hindu temple in the suburbs of Boronia and Bayswater in my electorate of Aston. Those cowardly acts were not random. They were deliberate, targeted and driven by fear and hatred. I condemned them then, and I condemn them again today without hesitation.</para>
<para>It is therefore with deep anger and profound disappointment that I rise once more to speak about another attack, this time in the suburb of Rowville. On Wednesday last week I was made aware that Victoria Police were investigating the vandalism and theft of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi from the Australian Indian Community Centre in Rowville. Police have since warned scrap metal dealers to be aware of attempts to sell this stolen statue, a shameful detail that only deepens the hurt caused. This statue, donated by the Indian government to the Australian Indian Community Charitable Trust was the only one of its kind in Victoria. That statue was not merely a piece of metal. Ghandi was a man of peace and unity, and his statue at the community centre represented the strong cultural and bilateral ties between Australia and India. Its theft is an insult, not only to that community but to the values we claim to uphold as a nation. The statue had also been vandalised with anti-Gandhi and anti-Indian graffiti in 2023 and 2024. And now, in 2026, we find the statue stolen, cut off at the ankles no less.</para>
<para>I wish to express my utmost sorrow to Mr Vasan Srinivasan, chair of the Australian Indian Community Charitable Trust, which owns the centre. I also want to thank him for his leadership, dignity and steady resolve at a time of deep distress for him and his community. His response has shown strength where others sought to sew division.</para>
<para>There is no other way to put this. These actions are disgraceful, and they have absolutely no place in Aston or anywhere in Australia. I stand unequivocally with those affected. As their federal member, I say this without hesitation or qualification: our multicultural diversity is not a weakness to be feared. It is one of our greatest strengths. It is the foundation of our communities, the lifeblood of our democracy and a defining part of who we are as a nation. Together we will continue to stand united for dignity, for equality and for the shared values that bind us all as Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation, Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you've paid income tax once in the last 11 years you've paid more than the 79 big corporations that haven't paid a cent in the 11 years we've had the ATO corporate tax transparency data. That includes News Corp, Ford, Vodafone, Warner Bros, Virgin Australia and Dow Chemical. Toll road operator Transurban is another company that has not paid any tax over these 11 years—also a huge beneficiary of the privatisation of public road infrastructure, squeezing thousands of dollars a year out of ordinary Australians just trying to get to work each day.</para>
<para>But most of the 79 companies are coal and gas exporters, who are profiting enormously from Australian resources—resources that belong to all of us—exporting them overseas, paying no tax and, cherry on top, making climate change worse. Australians are left to deal with the cost of climate disasters—bushfires, floods and deadly heatwaves—but the very companies profiting off these disasters are contributing nothing back. It's time to make them pay their fair share.</para>
<para>And speaking of the problems with privatisation, let's talk about the abysmal telecommunications infrastructure in my electorate. A phone call can be the difference between life and death. A fall, a heart attack—our community needs to be able to reach out for help. But in my electorate, the vast majority of which is less than 20 kays from the Brisbane CBD, people are being left without basic phone and internet services. It's a result of the privatisation of our infrastructure, and the ridiculous mandate that NBN Co, set up to provide fast internet to all Australians, act like a for-profit company. It's particularly bad in areas like Brookfield, Upper Brookfield and Kenmore Hills, where recent power outages due to summer storms exacerbated the issue and, with roads cut off, led to no communication whatsoever with parts of that community. Down in Moggill, locals also report frequent issues. Even the local shopping complex doesn't have reception inside! A large commercial complex, 20 kays from the CBD, having no reception is simply unacceptable.</para>
<para>This week we found out the new forecast for the full rollout of the NBN won't be completed until 2040—2040! This is the result of years and years of cost-cutting. And with Telstra now in private hands, they have no real incentive to provide services if they're not profitable. We must ensure these essential services are run for public good and not profit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Awards and Honours</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nine residents of Sturt were recognised on Australia Day 2026 for their outstanding service, commitment and dedication to the community, to others and to this great country. The first six amazing individuals I will speak about now were awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia.</para>
<para>Mr Peter Wallace of Glenside was recognised for exceptional service to community health through his leadership roles at the National Heart Foundation, as executive director for the South Australian division and as chief executive officer.</para>
<para>Mr Jean El Kfoury of Newton was recognised for services to taekwondo, including teaching critical self-defence skills to women and girls.</para>
<para>Mrs Kay Collas of Leabrook had her 20-year teaching career recognised alongside her service to St Peter's Cathedral through leadership, volunteer work and support of the St Peter's Cathedral Music Foundation.</para>
<para>Mr Patrick Bourke, also of Leabrook, was recognised for his services to the community through public-speaking coaching, including to local schools in Sturt, such as Seymour College, Prince Alfred College and Loreto College Marryatville. His work has increased confidence, resilience and almost a love of public speaking in his students.</para>
<para>The professional achievements of Dr David Heilbronn of Fullarton in the field of defence science are extensive. His leadership roles within the Defence Science and Technology Group, including serving as chief of maritime operations and electronic warfare, demonstrate a distinguished career of national significance.</para>
<para>Finally, the late Mr William Quinlan-Watson, formerly of Newton, was recognised for his outstanding service to the community of Robe, demonstrated through his leadership on the district council, as both chairman and councillor, and through his pivotal role in establishing the Robe Customs House Maritime Museum. Vale, William.</para>
<para>Mr Simon Kirkmoe of Burnside was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal for his leadership and dedication at the SA Metropolitan Fire Service and as a longstanding volunteer with the SA Country Fire Service. A key achievement was Mr Kirkmoe's pivotal role in the statewide road crash rescue review and the interagency training reforms that followed.</para>
<para>Receiving the Emergency Services Medal was Mr David Potter of Rostrevor, who was recognised for his career with the SA Metropolitan Fire Service. In particular, his service during the catastrophic 2019-20 bushfire season, where he was deployed to Kangaroo Island and New South Wales, was acknowledged.</para>
<para>Finally, Chief Superintendent Stephen Howard of Beaumont was awarded the Australian Police Medal in acknowledgement of his leadership in seeking to improve key policing processes, with his work strengthening both operational practice and justice outcomes.</para>
<para>I congratulate all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm honoured to read to the chamber today a speech prepared for me by Marcus, who is a young Tasmanian and a constituent of Clark:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am almost 18 and I would like to own a home. I love Australia, but the sad reality is that for myself and most of my generation owning a home is becoming increasingly impossible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Gone are the days when houses cost two peanuts and a firm handshake. Today, the price of housing alone paints a grim picture for the future of our young people, and by extension the future of this country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the youth can't afford to live here they won't Cost of living and housing is causing immense strain on the middle class. Of the top 15 most unaffordable property markets in the world, 5 Australian capital cities are present, with Sydney being second in the world. This is ridiculous, and it can't go on.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By this point, we are no longer talking about if the Government wants a "better" future for our young people; if it wants a future for them at all, it must make a concerted effort to increase the supply of housing and to reduce the barriers that prevent this increase.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government must do more than tinker around the edges; they must address the underlying issues driving house prices. A better future is not one created by shrugging our shoulders; it is … created by decisive action in the best interest of this country's youth.</para></quote>
<para>Now, I'd like to thank Marcus for his time and effort in writing that speech and for his reminder that parliamentarians and decision-makers must pay particular attention to young Australians. After all, it is younger Australians who have the biggest stake in the future, and we in this place surely have a duty to examine legislation, policies and decisions through the prism of their future.</para>
<para>I note in closing that we're on the cusp of the greatest wealth transfer in history, from baby boomers to their children, but that this transfer is likely to entrench and exacerbate inequities without careful thought and planning. That's what Marcus reminds us—that we must boldly act now to ensure the next generations can survive and prosper in this country. This must directly address the ongoing housing crisis. There are countless layers to this, but some that come straight to mind are the need to work with state and local government to increase supply, tax reform to give first home buyers a chance to compete with investors and, for those who can't or won't buy, much greater protections for renters.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Griffith Electorate: Coorparoo Bowls Club</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COFFEY</name>
    <name.id>312323</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For nearly 100 years, the Coorparoo Bowls Club has been part of the heartbeat of our community, a place where people come together across generations. It's a club that welcomes locals in a way our community does best—warmly, easily and genuinely. For my family, the Coorparoo Bowls Club is a place that is filled with so many great memories of meals, drinks, conversations and great music. I've been hollering at my children to stay off the greens for as long as they could walk. No-one else seems to be worried, but I'm always trying. The club is treasured by our locals. It's a clubhouse where families feel comfortable, where people know each other and where you can drop in and feel right at home. It's a real home for live music. It backs performers every single week, creating a stage to showcase their talent. I have fond memories of dropping in with my friend Nance for a Sunday session with Mojo Webb.</para>
<para>Of course, at its heart, this is a bowls club and the green is always busy. The club has so many competitive players that they rotate rosters for interclub matches. That says something important about participation and about pride. It's a place people commit to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 09:45 to 10:08</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COFFEY</name>
    <name.id>312323</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, at its heart this is a bowls club, and the green is always busy. The club has so many competitive players, and they rotate rosters for interclub matches. That says something important about participation and about pride. It's a place people commit to. They show up week after week, session after session. What makes Coorparoo Bowls Club truly special is how much it gives back. This is not just a club that serves its members; it serves our community. It supports local charities and community organisations, including Stepping Stone Clubhouse, the MND and Me Foundation and Parkinson's Queensland. It's a club that shows up for our local groups in practical ways by hosting events that bring people together and raising funds for good causes. Late last year, I attended the Carina kindy trivia night, held at the club. It was one of those nights that felt exactly like our community: a bit of fun, plenty of laughter and a real sense of community spirit.</para>
<para>And of course there is the annual Cooper's Cup barefoot bowls day, drawing hundreds of people and supporting local charities. I regret to say that, when I competed, we lost 6-1. I thought my two boys might redeem us in the pie-eating contest, but it was not to be.</para>
<para>It's also worth saying plainly that this club is well run. It turns a profit year after year. That is the maker of a good club—a community that keeps showing up, bringing friends, booking tables, joining teams and supporting what the club offers. It shows that this place is built on connection and that it is sustainable. I'm concerned to hear reports that the future of Coorparoo Bowls Club is once again uncertain despite its success and everything that this club has built. I urge Bowls Queensland to work hard to ensure this club, an exemplary club in our state, is supported to continue its central role in our community.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Melmeth, Mr Harry, Australia Day Awards and Honours</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PENFOLD</name>
    <name.id>248895</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In October last year, I rose in this place to raise serious issues about the treatment of the Melmeth family by the NDIA, a family doing incredible work to give their severely disabled son Harry the best life possible. Marie's story highlighted the systemic failings of the NDIS, showing how its processes can undermine the very people it is meant to serve. In my speech at the time, I shared these words from Marie:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is clear in Harry's medical documentation that his disabilities are life limiting. But instead of spending time and making memories with our family, I must waste my time fighting this David and Goliath battle that consumes and controls my life.</para></quote>
<para>The facts of this case are a shocking indictment of the NDIS, where pleas for help are met with silence or worse, not empathy and respect. I ask that the time for a full investigation into the case, which has not occurred.</para>
<para>It therefore profoundly saddens me today to share the news that Harry passed away in John Hunter Hospital on 22 January. Not only do the Melmeth family share in the grief of his passing but also in the pain of the system letting them down. My sincere condolences to Marie, Michael and the Melmeth family. May Harry's memory never be forgotten.</para>
<para>I acknowledge and congratulate several outstanding constituents from the Lyne electorate who have been recognised in the 2026 Australia Day Honours List for their exemplary service to our communities. Their service reflects the very best of regional Australia and the values we celebrate on Australia Day.</para>
<para>Mrs Deborah Brassey of Pacific Palms has been honoured for her community service, reflecting many years of tireless work supporting the arts in Pacific Palms, nursing, Vietnam Veterans in Great Lakes, the Foster RSL and other community organisations.</para>
<para>Mr Gavin Fry of Lorne has been recognised for his service as a publisher and author, including his contributions to preserving and promoting Australian art and cultural heritage as Director of Museums and Senior Curator of Art at the Australian War Memorial, as well as a lecturer and postgraduate marker.</para>
<para>Mr John Hann of Forster received his award for service to the wonderful Cape Hawke Surf Life Saving Club, acknowledging his leadership in beach safety, and for his wider community involvement with the Forster-Tuncurry Lions Club.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge Superintendent Christopher Schilt of Old Bar, who has been awarded the Australian Police Medal for distinguished service to policing. His dedication to public safety and to the wellbeing of officers under his command has strengthened confidence in law enforcement across the region. Superintendent Schilt has built relationships with local youth through 'boxing with the boss' activities at the Police Citizens Youth Club, and this service has made a real difference.</para>
<para>I warmly congratulate them and their families on this well-deserved national recognition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dunkley Electorate: Energy</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELYEA</name>
    <name.id>309484</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Across Dunkley people are seeing the reality of climate change—hotter summers, heavier storms and rising pressure on households and community facilities. But what inspires me every day is the way our community is stepping up and how this government, the Labor government, is delivering real local action to meet this moment. The Powering Creativity and Wellness Electrification project is transforming two of our most-loved community spaces: Peninsula Aquatic Recreation Centre—PARC—and the Frankston Arts Centre and Library. By replacing outdated gas systems with clean, efficient electric technology powered by renewables, we're not just upgrading buildings; we're safeguarding Dunkley's future. These changes will cut 723 tonnes of emissions every year and save around $207,000 annually. That's a massive 45 per cent reduction in Frankston City Council's gas use. At PARC alone, the shift to high-efficiency electric heat pumps will cut emissions by 511 tonnes a year and save $168,000 per annum. At the arts centre and library, electrification will remove another 212 tonnes of emissions and save another $40,000 a year. This is climate action people can see and feel—cleaner air, warmer pools, safer facilities and savings that go straight back into our community.</para>
<para>It's not just our public buildings making the switch. The federal government's home battery deposit scheme has already seen 856 Dunkley households sign up. That's 856 families choosing cleaner energy and reducing bills. In the coming months, I'll be inviting locals to our renewables and electrification expo, a chance to learn, ask questions and take the next step forward to an all-electric home.</para>
<para>While we power ahead on climate, we are backing local culture too. Over the weekend, the Waterfront Festival marked its 27th year, welcoming around 40,000 visitors to our beautiful foreshore. With a $95,000 support package, we helped bring Australian artists, including Sunday Lemonade and headline act Hockey Dad, to the main stage, keeping live music accessible for everyone.</para>
<para>These investments reflect who we are as a community—creative, resilient and committed to a cleaner future, bringing families, young people and the community together. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on climate action, supporting artists and building a stronger, brighter future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living, Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are suffering a cost-of-living crisis under this Labor government. Mortgages are up, power bills are up and grocery costs are up. Families tell me that they're cutting back everywhere. Under Labor, the great Australian dream is turning into a nightmare. While families juggle bills, Labor's priorities are on full display this week. Senate estimates has revealed that taxpayers have forked out $2.2 million on the renovation of the Greens party room. If you think about this in the midst of a housing crisis, in Queensland, you could build a home with Metricon for approximately $249,490. So that's about eight homes for the price of one party room. This $2.2 million renovation included nearly $50,000 in carpet. I'm sure if you gave World Carpets in Labrador in my electorate a phone call, you would get a better price than $50,000 for carpet in one room. Only Labor would see that as being good value. They are so out of touch.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Fadden, there are almost 20,000 residents over the age of 65, and every week my office is contacted by older Australians and their families desperate for help navigating My Aged Care, which is too often a difficult and slow-to-respond process. The Productivity Commission's report on government services confirms what my constituents are living through. Under Labor, delays are getting worse. The median time for an aged-care assessment has increased to 27 days. But the real damage is after people are assessed. The commission's report finds that the median time from assessment approval to signing a service agreement has blown out to 245 days, up from 118 days just the year before. Labor promised to put the 'care' back into aged care, but all they've managed to do is put the 'wait' in waiting list.</para>
<para>Let me tell you what this looks like on the ground. A constituent of mine moved to Coomera in April 2025 to support their 76-year-old aunt and uncle who live in Ormeau because there's no other family nearby. They're juggling full-time work and trying to provide informal care most afternoons and weekends. The uncle, John, has failing kidneys and is on a level 3 package, but his declining health means he can no longer afford basics like transport to appointments. The aunt, Sheila, has mid-stage dementia. She's been assessed for a higher level of support, but she's been told that funding may still be months away.</para>
<para>This is not a patient-first approach by this Labor government. The Commonwealth is shifting the burden onto families until they break. Under Labor's new system, older Australians can be given only 60 per cent of the support they've been assessed as needing, but the rest doesn't get paid back later. Prime Minister, please fix My Aged Care. Our older Australians deserve nothing but the best.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about the impact of Labor's health investments, particularly in my electorate of Franklin and home state of Tasmania. Certainly we can see already the impact these investments are having, particularly our urgent care clinics. We've now had more than 140,000 visits to the urgent care clinics, and I'm pleased to say that the urgent care clinic in Kingston in my electorate will soon be opening, in coming weeks. I know that many people in the south of my electorate are really looking forward to that urgent care clinic. The two urgent care clinics in Hobart are also going incredibly well in terms of the number of people they've been able to see.</para>
<para>I think what's important about these urgent care clinics is that the data and the responses from those patients they're seeing says that around half of those people would have gone to the emergency department at the Royal Hobart Hospital, and we know that the Royal Hobart Hospital is under increasing pressure. Our government has provided the Tasmanian state government with $750 million just this financial year for public hospitals in Tasmania, and I'm pleased to say that as part of the new Health and Hospitals Funding Agreement we are now getting an extra $700 million into hospitals in Tasmania, thanks to the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>We also of course have been investing in more mental health services; headspace opened just before Christmas in my electorate. This is a headspace that I committed to, and I'm really pleased that it's up and operating. It is an interim location, but these are really important mental health services for my community. The Medicare mental health service should soon be up and running as well. That is an adult headspace, essentially, for others in our community, and we expect that also to be getting underway. This is really good news for people in my electorate.</para>
<para>And of course a large investment in bulk-billing is having a big impact in Tasmania. Tasmania was behind the other states and territories when it came to bulk-billing. Our bulk-billing rate was much lower, thanks to the former government and their cuts to Medicare. I'm pleased to say that the number of fully bulk-billing clinics in Tasmania has gone from just 25 statewide up to 59. That is a very significant increase—more than 5.4 per cent—in bulk-billing appointments for GPs in Tasmania. Obviously we want to see more of these. To the practices and the doctors in Tasmania, my message would be: How come you can bulk-bill in the middle of Sydney and you can't do it in Hobart? You should be able to do it in Hobart, and I want to see more bulk-billing practices in Franklin and across the state of Tasmania. That would be my big message.</para>
<para>To the people of Franklin: we are investing in your health services. We know that we inherited a bit of a mess from those opposite, and we've been investing and investing, opening services and, importantly, training and providing staff with our significant investments in making sure that we have enough health professionals to provide the services Tasmanians need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: Australia Day Honours</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is indeed a privilege to represent the good people of Moncrieff, and it's something I will never, ever take for granted. Moncrieff is in the heart of the Gold Coast, and we're so incredibly lucky to have such a wonderful community—a community built on mateship, on shared values and of course on service. That's why I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the outstanding Aussies from Moncrieff who have been recognised in this year's Australia Day Honours. Australia Day is a time to reflect on who we are as a nation. At their heart, these honours recognise the foundation we've built as a community through that service—the quiet and consistent service that is often carried out without expectation of recognition.</para>
<para>Moncrieff is proud to be home to Australians who embody that very spirit. Mr Leslie Collins AM was recognised for significant service to Indigenous health in Queensland. Mr Collins co-founded the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Council and has dedicated 50 years to the national Aboriginal community controlled health organisation sector. I also acknowledge Mr Tat Fong OAM, recognised for his service to the Chinese community of the Gold Coast. He's been a tireless advocate for multicultural engagement, strengthening community connections and promoting understanding between cultures. His work has enriched the social fabric of our city and reflects the diversity that makes the Gold Coast such a vibrant place to live.</para>
<para>This year's honours also recognised a remarkable husband-and-wife team, Mr Rock O'Keefe OAM and Mrs Joan O'Keefe OAM, both honoured for their service to the community through a wide range of organisations. Together they've given countless hours to supporting local groups, charities and initiatives, strengthening community bonds to ensure that others are supported when they need it most. Their joint recognition is a fitting tribute to a lifetime of shared service. I also congratulate Ms Karen Phillips OAM, recognised for her service to women and to the community of the Gold Coast. Karen has been a strong advocate for women's empowerment, community leadership and local engagement, helping to ensure that voices are heard and opportunities are created for future generations. Karen is also a great supporter of young people.</para>
<para>Finally, I acknowledge Mr Russell Walkington OAM, recognised for his service to broadcast media. Through his work, Russell has informed, entertained and connected our community, playing an important role in local storytelling and public discourse. Known for his work at radio stations 4CRB and 4BH, he is a veteran broadcaster, famous for his 'Gerald the grasshopper' character.</para>
<para>Each of these recipients represent the very best of Moncrieff: service, generosity and a commitment to others. I congratulate them and I thank them for all they have done and continue to do for our community and our nation and for the good people of Moncrieff.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland Government</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COMER</name>
    <name.id>316551</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday, I spent the day doorknocking with Bisma Asif, one of the hardest-working state MPs in Queensland. We went out doorknocking to talk to locals, because we were both heading down to our respective parliaments at the start of this week and we wanted to hear about what's important to our constituents directly from them. Street after street, house after house, whether we were talking to Jenine or Paul or David, the Linkfield Road overpass kept coming up.</para>
<para>Under the former Miles government, the former transport minister Bart Mellish secured funding from the Miles government. He also secured funding from the federal government of $125 million for the Linkfield Road overpass. Since then the Crisafulli Queensland government have come into power. They have released their recent budget and this overpass funding is in limbo. We don't know when it's going to happen. Work started before the state election. What's happening now? Nothing. I challenge the current transport minister in Queensland, Minister Mickelberg, and Premier Crisafulli to take the south-bound exit off the Bruce, sit at that intersection, look my community in the face and say that a staged delivery is what they need. It's not just inconvenient; it's a risk to safety. I've sat at that intersection. You're there for up to 20 minutes and you're seeing other cars get sick of it and pull out in front of other cars. It's totally unsafe, it is unreasonable and my community deserves better.</para>
<para>And speaking of delays and increased costs, which is what's going to happen with the delays in this infrastructure, I'd like to talk about the Redcliffe Hospital expansion. Under previous governments—the Palaszczuk government and the Miles government—the work had already begun. The piling had been completed and we were ready to start putting the hospital up. I was driving past it on the weekend and I have to say I did see them actually do something. They covered the worksite in blue bunting saying 'delivering for Queensland'. If it didn't say 'Queensland', you would easily mistake it as being from New South Wales—the Blues—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Go Maroons!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COMER</name>
    <name.id>316551</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection; go the Maroons! The federal government is getting on with delivering health care for our communities. We've got the urgent care clinic at Deception Bay, we have the mental health facility in Redcliffe and we have 30 per cent of GPs now offering bulk-billing.</para>
<para>It's now time for the Crisafulli government to get on with the job, do what's written on the bunting and deliver for Queensland. We're not asking for too much. The community wants to get home safely on it's Linkfield Road overpass, to see a doctor or go into the hospital expansion. The delay in that is only exacerbating the costs and not meeting the needs of the community. I call on the Crisafulli government to deliver for Queensland.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I speak to the electors of Wright, they ask me: 'How do I get ahead? How do I build a house? How do I get my foot onto the home ownership ladder?' I say to them, 'The task that is in front of you is being made so much more difficult today under the government settings than what they have been in the past.' It's a really easy narrative to outline for them. They are quite surprised when I share with them why it is harder. I say to them: 'When we were last in government, we have 415,000 apprentices and trainees in the system. Today, under Labor, there's just over 100,000 fewer apprentices.' That is 100,000 fewer electricians, chippies, plumbers, sparkies, tilers, plasterers—every trade we need to build that house that they are aspiring to get into. So it is little wonder that, when you start to have a look at the housing completions, you see that they're tanking as well.</para>
<para>When we left government, we were doing 200,000 houses a year. That's not a number that I bring to the house lightly. That's a number espoused by Simon Croft from the Housing Industry Association. Today, under Labor's watch, did that number in the last reporting period get to 200,000? No, they could not have, because they're not building the skills we need with the apprentices. They've dropped the ball on that. They actually delivered much fewer than 200,000. They delivered 170,000 houses last year.</para>
<para>The reason we opposed the housing and the budgetary money to go to Labor was that those schemes are not working. They are not driving. In fact, they're having the opposite effect in some regard to the five per cent scheme, particularly, where they're actually pushing up housing prices. There's ample evidence out there to support that. When you look at the aspirant housing targets that Labor have set, you will see that, in order to meet them, they need to get to an average of 255,000 houses a year. Never in Australia's history has that average number been achieved. In the best year, housing completion rates were 225,000. These guys think they're going to get it to 255,000 without investing in the apprentices that we need for tomorrow.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Newcastle Electorate: Regal Cinema</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to celebrate a significant moment for my community in Newcastle—the reopening of the Regal Cinema in Birmingham Gardens. The Regal is more than bricks and mortar. For decades, it's been a place where stories have been shared, friendships formed and community life strengthened. That's why the closure of this cultural heart of our city was so deeply felt by local residents. For many years since, I've been proud to stand alongside hundreds of cinema-loving Novocastrians campaigning to see the Regal restored, refusing to let this much loved venue be lost to history. That's why its reopening is such an important achievement and one worthy of recognition in this place.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge Jo Smith and George Merryman and the remarkable friends of the Regal whose commitment, vision and hard work have brought the Regal back to life. Restoring a local cinema is no small undertaking. It requires belief in community, confidence in local culture and a willingness to invest in something that delivers far more than a financial return. Jo and George and their extraordinary team of volunteers have done exactly that, and the people of Birmingham Gardens and, indeed, Newcastle, more broadly, are better for it.</para>
<para>What makes this moment particularly significant is that it forms part of a broader resurgence of independent cinema in our region. Only recently, the opening of the Tower Cinemas in King Street, Newcastle, was celebrated—another locally driven independent venture that demonstrates the enduring value of shared cultural experiences. Together, these cinemas show that even in the age of streaming platforms and digital isolation, people continue to seek out places to come together and share in their stories and culture.</para>
<para>Independent cinema plays a vital role in our communities. They support local jobs, provide spaces for Australian and independent films and strengthen the social fabric of our suburbs. They are places of connection where people gather not just to watch a film but to participate in community life. The reopening of the Regal Cinema is a powerful reminder that when local people invest in local places, communities thrive. I congratulate Jo Smith and George Merryman and those extraordinary friends of the Regal who have long fought to reinvigorate a 1930s cinema to make sure that it is still a purposeful building today. I commend everybody involved in that revival of the Regal Cinema. I say thank you. The reopening of the Regal and the Tower Cinemas is a terrific success story. It's rekindled our community's love for cinema and indeed our passion for the preservation, conservation and continued use of these very important historic venues.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Philipse, Mr Marinus, Williams, Cooper, Saraton Theatre</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to recognise Marinus Philipse from Grafton for winning BusNSW's Rural and Regional Driver of the Year. Marinus has worked with Busways for close to 20 years and has built a reputation in the community for the way he treats his passengers with such kindness. People regularly comment on his kindness, especially towards older passengers or a nervous kid on their first ride. He also takes pride in keeping his bus spotless and making sure that people feel safe. Inside the depot he's known as someone who supports new drivers and helps keep the place running smoothly. Before driving buses, Marinus spent 30 years in the dairy industry. I'd also like to acknowledge his wife, Susan. Congratulations, Marinus on a well deserved award.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate a very talented young cricketer, Cooper Williams from Caniaba. Cooper represented New South Wales country at a recent national carnival. Because his performances throughout the tournament were so outstanding, he was selected in the Australian under-17 merit team—an incredible achievement given he still 15 years of age. Cooper's success doesn't just acknowledge his talent. It's about hard work, discipline and commitment to his skill. Earlier this year Cooper was awarded the junior sportsperson Australia Day award by Lismore City Council. It's fantastic to see the incredible opportunities regional communities provide. I'd also like to recognise his mum and dad, Lisa and Troy, and younger brother, Jordy, for their commitment in supporting Cooper throughout his sporting journey. I look forward to seeing the great things that Cooper does in the future.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge that this year marks 100 years of the Saraton Theatre in Grafton. This remarkable milestone was celebrated a couple of weeks ago by over 400 people. In 1926 two teenage Greek migrant brothers, Jack and Tony Notaras, first opened the doors. This iconic landmark has been a place where the Grafton community has come together for entertainment, events and community experiences. Grafton loves the Saraton. Over the decades, the theatre has seen many generations of style. To preserve its heritage features, it underwent major restoration in 2010 with financial backing from Tony's sons, Angelo, John and Mitchell, and Jack's son, Spiro. Spiro, I know, donated a lot of timber from his timber mill for that renovation. Today the theatre continues under the current directors, Anthea and Paul, Tony's granddaughter and Spiro's son. The Saraton's longevity is a testament not only to the dedication of the Notaras family but also to the Grafton community that's loved and supported it for a century. Happy birthday to the Saraton.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bonner Electorate: Awards and Honours, Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KARA COOK</name>
    <name.id>316537</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Bonner in Queensland is home to extraordinary people who make our community stronger, kinder and more connected every single day. From Manly to Mansfield, Wakerley to Wishart, Ransome to Rochedale, that community spirit shows up in countless ways right across the electorate. It's seen in the men's sheds, girl guides, Rotary, local sporting clubs and the quiet everyday acts of people who give their time and energy to help others. That is exactly why I'm so excited to open nominations for my Bonner electorate awards. These awards are about celebrating the people who go the extra mile through volunteering, leadership, community service or simple acts of kindness that make a real difference to our local community. The awards are going to have two categories, one for under-18s and one for over-18s, recognising the contributions of people at different stages of life but united by that same strong sense of commitment to our community.</para>
<para>Nominees don't need a title. They don't need to be well known or hold a formal position. They simply need to be a person who is already showing leadership in their school or community, or they might be someone who has spent years giving their time supporting others and strengthening our local community. I encourage people across my electorate of Bonner to nominate someone you might know who lifts others up, who gives without being asked or who makes Bonner a better place. Nominations are open now and close on 6 April.</para>
<para>Young people in our community deserve to be heard not just talked about, not sidelined but listened to and taken seriously. They care deeply about the future of their communities, and young people should have a real opportunity to share their ideas. That is why I'm so proud to announce that applications for the Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group are now open for young people aged 16 to 23.</para>
<para>This group will give young people from my electorate of Bonner a direct platform to be heard and a genuine opportunity to help shape decisions that affect their lives. We will focus on building community and collaboration and on empowering young people to confidently share their perspectives. The advisory group will bring together emerging local leaders from right across Bonner, and what we want to do is ensure that those views are brought not just into our local community but also back here to this place. Labor believes that young people should be consulted and heard by government, yet the National Youth Survey shows that more than half of young people feel the biggest barrier to participating in politics is not being taken seriously or listened to. That is exactly what the Bonner Future Leaders Advisory Group seeks to change, and I encourage all young people in my community of Bonner to get involved.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government: Economy</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There has been a lot of conversation in my community and around Australia on the role of government spending in inflation and the interest rate rise we saw recently announced by the RBA. The government has told us that there is no connection between government spending and inflation or the interest rate rises, and I want to pick apart two of their claims, because I think it's important to provide facts to this conversation.</para>
<para>Firstly, I refer to a conversation between the Minister for Finance and Senator Paterson at Senate estimates yesterday. The Minister for Finance was quite proud to proclaim that across the term of the Albanese government they'd accumulated $114 billion of savings. This is a true figure—there are $114 billion of savings. But, when asked whether this was a gross figure or a net figure the minister couldn't answer and had to rely upon advisers to tell her that it was a gross figure. So when you prosecute this case a bit further, what is the net figure? What is net savings? You come up with the problem, which is that there has been $142 billion of additional spending. This is outside of indexation. This is $142 billion of new programs that have been brought in across the term of the Albanese government. So a true figure of the savings that have been achieved by the Albanese government is negative $28 billion. We can dismiss the argument that this is a saving government. When a Finance minister is able to understand the difference between net and gross, this is actually a spending government, quite clearly. An example of that would be the home battery scheme the government relies upon as their go-to answer whenever the $275 they promised everybody is. This is a scheme that was originally budgeted at $2.3 billion and has now blown out to $11.6 billion.</para>
<para>The second claim that I want to pull apart is the Treasurer's claim that it is actually private demand that is driving things. Let's have a look at the ABS definition of what makes up private demand. This is what the RBA use. Inputs to this include the aged pension, JobSeeker, the family tax benefit, rent assistance, energy rebates, cost-of-living payments, NDIS payments, any wage subsidies, industry grants, production subsidies and energy subsidies. The thing with demand is it doesn't exist without supply. The supply source of private demand is government. It is government spending. We have seen this time and time again. We have a Treasurer who wants to try to pretend that this private demand is existing without the government supply. As I've just pointed out, the home battery scheme is a great example of this. Yes, that is private demand—the supply mechanism is from the government. This is what is driving our inflation in our country. This is what is driving the RBA's decision-making. It's about time this Treasurer, instead of pretending to hide behind these things, actually addresses what is real. This is a spending government that is driving inflation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bullwinkel Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TRISH COOK</name>
    <name.id>312871</name.id>
    <electorate>Bullwinkel</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to share some fantastic news for the people of Bullwinkel, particularly in those suburbs in the Perth Hills and surrounding communities. At the end of this month we will officially open the doors to the new Mundaring Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. This is a project that I've championed since my first day as a candidate, and seeing it come to fruition is a proud moment for us all and my community. Located at the Mundaring GP Super Clinic on Mundaring Weir Road, this facility is going to be a game changer. For too long families have had to drive right down the hill to the Midland Hospital for non-threatening emergencies, such as stitches or X-rays, and wait for hours at the emergency department. Having this in Mundaring will really suit their needs. It will be open later this month and it will be fully bulk-billed—all you need is your Medicare card—with no out-of-pocket costs, no gap fees, extended hours open seven days a week, including evenings, and walk-in access. No appointment or referral will be necessary for those urgent but non-life-threatening moments. Whether it's a child with a high fever on a Saturday night or a do-it-yourself injury on a Sunday afternoon, help will be right there in Mundaring with X-ray facilities.</para>
<para>This isn't just a win for Mundaring. It's all part of the Albanese Labor government's historic mission to repair the damage done to Medicare over the last decade. New national figures released this week show that our investment is working. The national non-referred attendance rate, the bulk-billing rate, is now 81 per cent. Even more significantly, because of our strategic placement of services and support for local GPS, 96 per cent of the Australian population now lives within a 20-minute drive of a registered Medicare bulk-billing practice. In a country as vast as ours, that is a monumental achievement for equity and access to health care. But there is more to do.</para>
<para>In Bullwinkel, we're seeing the local impact of these reforms right now. Since our government announced the record investment into Medicare, we have had four additional local practices in our electorate step up and become bulk-billing practices. There are four more places where residents can walk in and know that their health and not their bank balance is the priority.</para>
<para>Health care should never be a luxury. It is a fundamental right, and, by opening the Mundaring Medicare urgent care clinic and driving up bulk-billing rates, we're ensuring that when somebody in Bullwinkel is sick or injured, they can get the care that they need when they need it right where they live. I look forward to the opening of the Mundaring urgent care clinic at the end of the month and to continuing to strengthen Medicare for every resident.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Facilities</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I rise to speak as a voice of those who have served and the communities who stand behind them, because right now, across Australia, Defence sites are being labelled by the Albanese government as underutilised, unsustainable or even vacant land. Under the Albanese government, we're going to see a massive fire sale of very historic and important Defence land and property, and I think that's a very short-sighted and foolish decision. But the people who wear the uniform and the people who support them deserve a voice. I've had plenty of feedback from them, and so today I'm going to give them a voice in this chamber and express some of their views whilst protecting their identities.</para>
<para>A reservist in Western Australia has told us plainly that the public narrative about Irwin Barracks is wrong. Irwin is not derelict land waiting for the next housing development; it is home to WA's Army presence. It houses a major headquarters and supports a wide range of capability, and its role matters even more because Western Australia does not have regular battalions like other states. For reservists, Irwin isn't just a workplace; it's where army readiness is built. And that same reservist points out something else: Irwin has received upgrades in recent years. Defence itself has been investing there, so why are we now being told it's disposable?</para>
<para>A former officer commissioned at Fitzroy Barracks has spoken about what it meant to stand on the same ground as generations before him with his family there as they were welcomed into the mess and shown the history by those who understand what the barracks represents. He says those experiences bind families to service. They build pride, tradition and continuity. Once a site like Victoria Barracks is sold, those things cannot be replaced. A long-serving ADF member has described Victoria Barracks, Sydney, as the 'jewel in the crown' of Army heritage, the ceremonial gateway where we welcome dignitaries. It's the home of so much of our Army's tradition. Selling this national site to private developers risks stripping away the army's identity.</para>
<para>Another serving member described the pride of working in a place where Australians have served for nearly two centuries. I don't want to give away their identity, but they took a lot of pride in the buildings, the history, the memorabilia and the culture that engenders. I get a very strong sentiment from that communication. A member from the Royal New South Wales Lancers in Sydney spoke of their shock at learning their barracks may be sold and the heartbreak of knowing he may never again parade there, where generations stood before him. He sees this as severing our generation from the Anzacs who went before them.</para>
<para>And it's not just barracks. A community member from the Western Australian south-west has pointed out that the Coolilup Rifle Range has been listed as having no occupants, which is simply false. It's active most weekends, home to hundreds of members and used by the Army.</para>
<para>These aren't abstract concerns. This fire sale is going to destroy morale and it's going to sever the ADF from its culture and tradition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bondi Beach Attack Victims</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The tragic antisemitic attack at Bondi on 14 December continues to leave a scar on our community. Over the last month I have met with families still grieving their loved ones who were taken too soon. First responders, still traumatised by what they witnessed, watched the community wrap their arms around each other. As time moves on it's important that we don't forget the victims' families, the first responders and survivors. We must continue to look after them and to provide them with support, and that's exactly what our government is doing.</para>
<para>Last week I joined the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention to open a Medicare mental health clinic in Bondi, established to provide free, trauma informed care for the community in the wake of the tragedy. It's located in the Junction Neighbourhood Centre, at 59 Newland Street, Bondi Junction, and the clinic is open from nine to five, Monday to Friday. Care is fully bulk billed, with no referrals or appointments needed—just support where it's needed most. The centre is part of a $42.6 million investment in mental health supports in response to the tragedy that also includes tailored mental health programs for the Jewish community, services for first responders and support for children and young people. We've also provided $2 million for Jewish community organisations to support victims' families, including $1 million for Jewish House and a million dollars for local Jewish organisations to provide community mental health triage. We've also provided $200,000 for both Bondi and North Bondi surf life saving clubs to assist with them replenishing their first aid supplies. Basically every bit of first aid equipment was used on that day.</para>
<para>I also want to thank local community groups for their continuing support through this difficult period. The North Bondi RSL and the veterans there opened their doors without hesitation, hosting the community hub and providing trauma informed counselling. To Chabad Bondi: in a time of immense tragedy for everyone there, you've continued to look after others and open your doors and your arms to the community. I thank my friend Rabbi Mendel Kastel at Jewish House and the team there for the support that they're providing and, of course, JewishCare. Thank you, Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving NSW, for looking after the safety and wellbeing of your members, so many of whom responded heroically on that night. Thank you, Rabbi Yossi Friedman, for your tireless work in commemorating those who lost their lives for 30 days following the tragedy and your continuing advocacy for Jewish families.</para>
<para>As a government, we're committed to continuing to provide support for the community that's been impacted, and I want the Jewish community to know: you'll never walk alone in the wake of this tragedy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>121</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7339" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>121</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It's good timing for me, thank you. Australia's security environment is becoming more dynamic, diverse and, unfortunately, degraded. We know that Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting and cascading threats, and the Albanese government is committed to ensuring that our Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is properly equipped to respond to this complex web of threats. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) will amend ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers contained in division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act to ensure the framework reflects the security environment and strengthens existing safeguards.</para>
<para>ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers are a valuable intelligence collection tool to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. For over 20 years, ASIO has used these powers to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers were not appropriate. Since the introduction of this compulsory-questioning framework in 2003, it's been the subject of multiple parliamentary and independent reviews, causing the parliament to extend the sunset date of these provisions on five occasions. This bill will make the framework permanent by repealing the sunset provision, in recognition that these powers have yielded high-value intelligence and been subject to multiple reviews, and would be consistent with ASIO's other powers.</para>
<para>In September 2023 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security elected to review the existing compulsory questioning framework ahead of its sunset date but did not complete its review prior to the prorogation of the parliament earlier that year. The measure proposed in the bill had been developed with close regard to the submissions made by interested parties in that PJCIS inquiry. The reforms also expand the scope of adult questioning warrants to include sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial or border integrity, in addition to espionage and politically motivated violence, including terrorism and acts of foreign interference, to reflect the dynamic, diverse and degraded security environment ASIO have described.</para>
<para>This ASIO bill further amends the eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities to ensure the independence and impartiality of persons appointed to that role. The changes also introduce additional reporting requirements to ensure that the Attorney-General is made aware of relevant information regarding conduct under a compulsory questioning warrant. Finally, the bill introduces an additional safeguard for questioning where a person has been charged with a related offence and that charge is still to be resolved or for whom such a charge is imminent by requiring that postcharge questioning occur only before a prescribed authority who is a retired judge.</para>
<para>These amendments are supporting ASIO during a time at which Australia's security environment is becoming more dynamic and rapidly evolving. We need only see what, unfortunately, occurred on Australia Day in Perth, with a terrorist incident there, and of course the shocking terrorist incident at Bondi on 14 December to know that we are living in a heightened threat environment in Australia and in many respects throughout the world.</para>
<para>The historic threats that we have always considered with respect to violent extremism and terrorism remain. But as the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, has made clear, increasingly we're also finding people who are younger becoming radicalised faster and radicalised online. This is a deeply disturbing emerging threat. We're increasingly finding people for whom it's no longer a set ideology, albeit what would be viewed as an extremist ideology purporting to be based on faith or what would be described as right-wing racist ideology. It's now also mixed ideologies as part of these rapid forms of radicalisation. That's meant that the threats and the needs have evolved. The government's response needs to evolve as well. In this shifting landscape, ASIO provides the government with the eyes and ears needed to navigate these dangers. They provide the foresight that allows us to protect our sovereignty and, importantly, to protect the Australian people.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the people behind the acronym. The officers of ASIO are everyday Australians—our neighbours, parents and friends—who have chosen a career of distinct service. They can't come home and tell their families about their job or the work they do. They work in high-pressure environments, often dealing with the darkest aspects of human nature, yet they do so with professionalism and restraint. They carry the burden of knowing the threats we face so that the rest of us don't have to face those threats. The ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) will help support ASIO to continue that vitally important work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In rising to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, I think we need to acknowledge, tragically, this is the most challenging environment that we are operating in for the security of this nation in a long time. During the past few years, we have seen a massive spike in social division, which is tearing at the social fabric of our nation. We are seeing the rise of extremism, which is a direct consequence of people increasingly feeling like they don't have control over their own lives or their own future. We can debate the sociopolitical consequences that sit behind that, but there is a simple responsibility for people in this parliament to pass the laws necessary and have the agencies properly resourced to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>We've seen this in recent months in the context, obviously, of the tragedy of the Bondi terrorist attacks and, as the minister mentioned before, on Australia Day, where I think we saw one of the most terrifying—thankfully unfulfilled, but nonetheless still terrifying—attempts. That was the alleged attack in Perth, where an unexploded ordnance was thrown at a number of Indigenous protesters protesting against our national day. We can disagree on the issue or the views, but there is no place in our nation for violence against people exercising those basic rights and freedoms peacefully. I think it sent chills down the spines of many Australians, including mine, that we could have seen, for want of a better phrase, back-to-back fulfilled attacks of this nature. So it speaks to the challenge that we all face right now.</para>
<para>I know those on the front line of the security agencies do everything they can. I am somebody who, of course, believes very much in the importance of people's freedom to be able to live out the best of their lives and that we should temper security measures because of the risks that they can be abused. That's why laws must have proper safeguards, and the compulsory questioning power is no different from that. The compulsory questioning power that ASIO holds has a direct and specific purpose necessary to the proportionality of their functions to make sure that they can find out the nature of what is happening in our community. It is targeted in a way with the safeguards to ensure, firstly, that is not abused but, more importantly, that it has to meet certain thresholds and seek certain levels of approval and power, with political accountability.</para>
<para>The provision of this bill is very important and tragically necessary. I wish it were not and we didn't have to support these types of powers. One of the things I also support is the ongoing review of these powers and sunset clauses so that there's an acknowledgement that they've not become a permanent state of affairs. But we know what happens when they don't exist. It makes Australians weaker and less safe, and that's the basis on which I'm prepared to support the legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRENCH</name>
    <name.id>316550</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2026, security is not just borders and bases; it's networks, data and trust. That is the world this bill addresses. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 modernises ASIO's questioning framework. It keeps what works, fixes what is outdated and strengthens safeguards end to end. Schedule 1, part 1 repeals section 34JF of the ASIO Act. This removes the 7 September 2025 sunset and makes division 3 permanent while keeping the existing safeguards and oversight in place. Schedule 1, part 2 expands the definition of an of an adult questioning matter. Adult questioning warrants may now apply beyond espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference. They may also relate to sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity.</para>
<para>Schedule 1, parts 3 and 4 strengthen the independence of prescribed authorities. They do this by widening the categories of people who cannot be appointed and by clarifying when appointments may and must be terminated. Schedule 1, part 5 strengthens ministerial oversight. It requires the Director-General to report to the Attorney-General on any relevant non-compliance or contraventions connected with a questioning warrant. This includes breaches of guidelines, procedures, warrant conditions or prescribed authority directions. Schedule 1 part 6 adds a specific safeguard to post-charge questioning and closely related circumstances. In those cases, questioning, and any production of documents, must occur only before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court.</para>
<para>Finally, schedule 1 part 1 also amends the Intelligence Services Act. This enables the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to undertake a further review of division 3 three years after this act commences. That is the legislative skeleton.</para>
<para>Now I'll move to the 'why'. Since 2003, ASIO has had compulsory questioning powers under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act. They have been used judiciously to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers may not be appropriate. That restraint tells Australians that the power is exceptional and applied only when necessary. But the threat environment has changed profoundly in two decades. Espionage is now digital extraction, not trench coats under bridges. Foreign interference can be covert influence campaigns disguised as community debate. Sabotage can target satellite links, water treatment plants or defence supply chains. Radicalisation can happen in a private chat channel faster than any pamphlet could spread.</para>
<para>A legal framework frozen in 2003 cannot keep Australia safe in 2025. This bill recognises that reality and updates the reach of the power with tighter guardrails. Australians expect strong powers and strong safeguards, not one at the expense of the other. That is what this bill delivers. The Attorney-General must personally approve each questioning warrant. Questioning occurs before an independent prescribed authority who oversees conduct throughout. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can review every stage and inspect records. The post-charge safeguard ensures questioning of a charged person occurs only before a retired judge. That recognises the interface with the criminal justice process and protects fairness.</para>
<para>The strengthened eligibility and termination settings for prescribed authorities reinforce independence. The new reporting requirements to the Attorney-General enhance ministerial oversight in real time. The framework remains targeted, warranted and proportionate. Courts remain the arbiters of guilt and innocence. This bill respects that line and keeps it bright.</para>
<para>Let me bring this home to Moore. In Joondalup, Edith Cowan University's cybercapability is world class. ECU's work with government and industry shows national security runs through suburbs like ours, not just Canberra. ECU'S cyber researchers safeguard the critical systems our community depends on every day. This bill does the same, protecting our institutions and our people. It strengthens capability and accountability together, not one at the expense of the other.</para>
<para>Some will ask whether making the framework permanent opens the door to overreach. The answer lies in the checks: Attorney-General approval; prescribed authority supervision; IGIS review; and a mandated PJCIS review after three years. That combination provides discipline, transparency and renewal.</para>
<para>Others will ask whether the expanded matters are too broad. The matters reflect real-world harms that Australians face today. Sabotage can be disabling of a critical control system from offshore. Promotion of communal violence can be foreign backed agitation designed to fracture social cohesion. Attacks on our defence system can be interference with command, control or supply. Threats to territorial or border integrity include hostile activities short of armed conflict. Each remains subject to the same warrant thresholds and the same oversight. The expansion recognises contemporary risk; it does not loosen standards.</para>
<para>We also hear questions about rights. Rights are protected by process, and this bill strengthens that process. Questioning is time bound, recorded and supervised. Legal representation is available. Protections against self-incrimination apply as provided by law. Complaints and reviews are possible through established oversight bodies. These safeguards are not decorative; they are enforceable and enforced. That is how liberal democracies wield exceptional powers responsibly.</para>
<para>Now I have a word on cost and consultation. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments have no financial impact. Agencies will operate within existing resources. The reforms were refined through consultation across government with the PJCIS process. Stakeholder feedback sharpened definitions and improved reporting triggers. The framework has been examined repeatedly over two decades and is now being modernised methodically. That's reform done properly not on the run.</para>
<para>I turn to the opposition. The coalition will likely support this bill, and I welcome that, but they've had years in which these reforms could have been made. During that time the threat has evolved rapidly, and reform did not keep pace. This government is providing the clarity that the agencies and public deserve. Our approach is straightforward—capability and transparency. Capability without transparency is risky, and transparency without capability is hollow. We are delivering both. That is the Labor balance. I'd like to return to Moore for a practical example. Suppose a hostile actor targets a research partner connected to ECU's cyber-labs. Traditional powers may not be sufficient to identify the facilitator and method quickly. A questioning warrant approved by the Attorney-General and overseen by a prescribed authority may close that gap. The session is recorded and reviewable, and the outcome is reported to the Attorney-General. If the matter moves to a charge, any further questioning occurs before a retired judge. Parliament would later examine the framework's operation through the PJCIS review. That change shows how power and accountability work together.</para>
<para>Another Western Australian example involves a small Defence supplier helping to secure our systems. If a foreign agent attempts to subvert access credentials, time is critical. The questioning framework can surface who is involved and how the intrusion was orchestrated. The inspector-general can audit the use and the records. The parliament stays informed through mandated reported and scheduled review. That is practical, not theoretical, protection.</para>
<para>For prescribed authorities, independence is not rhetoric. It is defined by law and enforced by rules. The amended eligibility and termination provisions reduce any risk of perceived bias. Tenure settings create clarity about service and departure. Removal grounds are spelled out not improvised. These changes keep the safeguard independent and seen to be independent.</para>
<para>On reporting, the Attorney-General must be informed of relevant warrant conduct. That creates a clearer picture on how powers are exercised and why. It supports ministerial accountability to this parliament. It also assists the PJCIS in its future review. Together these measures embed transparency throughout the life cycle of a warrant. They are practical tools for oversight not paperwork for its own sake. Some may ask whether these reforms restrict operational agility. The opposite is true. Clear rules speed decisions and improve confidence in outcomes. Scheduled review encourages continuous improvement. I want to speak to my younger constituents, studying at ECU and working in local tech firms. Many of you will serve your country by strengthening systems not by wearing a uniform. These laws support that service by ensuring agencies can act quickly and lawfully when you are targeted. These also ensure that your rights are respected and your trust is earned. To local businesses in Joondalup, Edgewater and Woodvale, certainty matters. Permanent powers with clear checks provide certainty. You should not be left wondering whether necessary authority exists when a threat hits your network. You should also not worry that power is used without restraint. This bill addresses both concerns.</para>
<para>National security is not a static portfolio. It is a discipline that adapts as adversaries adapt. The best way to avoid overreach tomorrow is to legislate carefully today. This bill reflects that philosophy. It moves the framework from ad hoc renewal to stable authority under constant scrutiny. It recognises more kinds of modern harm and matches them with proportionate process. It upholds a line between intelligence and prosecution. It respects the role of courts and the rights of individuals. It keeps the parliament firmly in the loop through mandated review. That is how a mature democracy protects itself.</para>
<para>I would like to thank the officials and the oversight bodies who have contributed to the process. I also acknowledge the constructive input received through the prior PJCIS review process. The result before the House is a balanced bill that reflects experience and evidence. The community expects trust in matters of national security.</para>
<para>The business community across Perth's northern corridor depends on secure and predictable supply chains. Students and staff in Joondalup expect strong protections for research security. Families in Kingsley, Padbury and Craigie look for confidence in the protection of democratic institutions. This bill delivers that confidence through stronger powers, clearer safeguards and firm oversight.</para>
<para>Australians want their government to be calm, competent and careful in this domain. That is what this bill represents. It is a careful adjustment, not a sweeping departure. It is grounded in two decades of practice and review. It puts in statute the standards the public rightly expects. It delivers continuity for agencies and accountability for parliament. It keeps Australians safe while keeping Australia itself open, free and lawful.</para>
<para>From the cyberlabs of ECU to the workshops of Heathridge and the homes of Iluka, Mullaloo and Duncraig, these reforms matter. They matter because they reduce risk without reducing rights. They matter because they make the exceptional possible and keep it exceptional. They matter because they ensure the law keeps pace with reality. That is the essence of responsible legislation.</para>
<para>I support this bill because it serves my constituents in Moore by safeguarding what they build and rely upon. I support this bill because it serves Australia's security without eroding Australia's liberties. I support the bill because it replaces uncertainty with clarity, and pairs it with accountability. These are the hallmarks of good law in a serious parliament. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, was established in 1949 to fill a really important need in Australia at that time. The end of World War II had happened only four years earlier, and there was a lot going on in our nation at that time—the rise of communism, a fear of communism. There was so much subversive activity going on to get information about Australia, about its organisations, about its defence capability and the like. The establishment of ASIO was a critical part of making sure that we kept in front of state organisations in other countries that would seek to do us harm.</para>
<para>Never has there been a more important time for the role of ASIO to be at its peak, to be at its utmost level of capability than right now. We are facing, in this nation and throughout the world, a time where people who seek to do us harm are everywhere and endeavouring to infiltrate organisations, even down to local councils and businesses. This is a critical time that we invest, both in resources and people, what is needed to ensure that our intelligence agencies, especially ASIO, are the best that they can be. We should thank them, because we have some incredible people, some amazing and talented people, in ASIO and in our intelligence organisations here and abroad working for us and on our behalf, working to ensure that the safety and security of Australians is paramount.</para>
<para>The world changed with 9/11, with the hijacking of aeroplanes in the United States. Ten Australians were killed in the World Trade Center. I've been to Ground Zero; it's a very sobering and sombre place. I know that the work that ASIO and other organisations have done, particularly since that point in time, has been truly remarkable. Yes, we've had incidents. Yes, we've had some people who would who want the destruction of our society because they hate us. They have been curtailed in their attempts to wreak havoc amongst our peace-loving and law-abiding citizens. Many of those attempts, of course, we never know about. I've been 2IC of the security committee, the peak body here in Australia—not that I'll go into what is said and put across that table, of course—and rest assured it's very comforting to know that our people, ASIO and others, are the best that they can be and the work that they do is always ongoing. It's 24/7. It's 365 days a year. We thank them, and anything that we can do to help them has to be encouraged and has to be followed through.</para>
<para>I know that sometimes there are nefarious and evil-minded people whose activities slip through the cracks—not always but sometimes. We see incidents such as 14 December on Bondi Beach, where out of the blue these acts of terror occur and these people who perpetrate these acts and to and who help others to do just that have to be have to be stopped. It should never happen. They must be prevented from carrying out their terror in the future. And I thank everybody who has a part to play in that, because, indeed, we are very much a peace-loving nation and that is just something that goes against everything we stand for—the traditions and the norms on which our society is based. What we've seen in recent nights in Sydney has been simply unacceptable, and I have to say hate speech on our streets leads to hate events in our communities. It has to be stopped. I know that ASIO very much looks at these on a on an overall level and look at these on an overall basis, but it starts with us as a society following the laws of the land. When these protests go beyond the laws of the land, well, what we see result is what occurred, in particular, two nights ago in Sydney. It's unacceptable. For the Greens to do what they do as a political party—to encourage that sort of hatred in our society—is reprehensible, is abhorrent. I just cannot understand it.</para>
<para>The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 amends the compulsory questioning powers in the ASIO Act. There are several points pertaining to this. It widens the scope of adult questioning warrants to include promotion of communal violence, sabotage, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. It amends the eligibility and termination provisions for proscribed authorities to ensure the independence and impartiality of persons appointed to the role. It introduces additional reporting requirements to ensure the Attorney-General is made aware of any relevant information regarding conduct under a compulsory questioning warrant. It requires that post-charge questioning occur only before a proscribed authority who is a retired judge and it makes the framework permanent by repealing the sunset provision. That is important too.</para>
<para>I know these things are under constant review, and that last point about repealing the sunset provision is noteworthy, but I think many of the aspects related to this bill are very much bipartisan in the sense that the major political parties get it. We just do. We understand it, and I appreciate that you do too, Deputy Speaker Haines. I know that integrity is one of the hallmarks of your political advocacy. But we do have elements within this building who do not always value the role that fundamental organisations such as ASIO play in this nation. They always want to try to completely tear down the very precepts and concepts of what administering the law means. By that I mean that they're always trying to change things.</para>
<para>That is why it's so important that the PJCIS and those sorts of organisations are run by the serious people within the parliament, and I think everybody in this room knows exactly who I mean by 'the serious people'. There are people in this parliament who, quite frankly, just don't like the organisation, the administration and the way our country is run. How they get elected is beyond me—but anyway; we move on.</para>
<para>Bill No. 2 also amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to permit the PJCIS to undertake a further review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the framework three years after the commencement of this bill. The PJCIS plays an important role in national security and the way things are done through the parliament as far as defence and security are concerned.</para>
<para>I appreciate, too—and I do need to make mention of this—that concerns have been expressed by the coalition that the bill promotes some overreach. I know our then shadow home affairs minister, the member for Canning, who I have a lot of respect for regarding the role of national security and the importance of ensuring that national security is front and centre of everything we do, said on 30 July last year, in his speech in the second reading debate on the predecessor bill, 'It should be noted that there are people on both sides of the House who have concerns in relation to the extension of the powers at the heart of this kind of legislation.' He added that in the opposition we were alive to those concerns and that we should also explore them as part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into this bill, and that's important. He knows, as does the member for Cowper, the importance of the PJCIS, the importance of putting the ruler over every line of this and making sure we give it the full accountability it requires.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the role the member for Cowper has played in police work, because police work also goes to the nub of security. We should give thanks not only to organisations such as ASIO but also to the people who don a uniform and go to work every day. I note the member for Solomon opposite, and I acknowledge the part he played in the Australian Army. When people require assistance, the first people they run to are the police. And if things get so bad, the first people those under threat require to do the job for them is our Australian defence forces. Earlier I mentioned the Greens. If the Greens got in trouble, the first thing they'd do is pick up the phone and dial triple zero, and the first people who'd be responding would be the police, and they'd expect that. Yet they turn on the police every step of the way. I don't know why; they just seem to hate the way our country is run.</para>
<para>In the course of the months since the middle of last year, when the member for Canning, as shadow home affairs minister at the time, made the points about this bill I referred to earlier, these issues have, we believe, been satisfactorily examined and addressed, especially in the form of questioning of a number of witnesses, including ASIO, as part of that PJCIS inquiry. So, that's good. And I think the government needs to listen. I have this genuine concern that, given the Labor government's huge role in the House of Representatives, there is a bit of complacency setting in, that the government is not taking seriously the stakeholder engagement and the consultation it should on each piece of legislation. I fear that there is this inclination to just push things through the House of Representatives and then do the negotiations with those who hold the balance of power in the Senate to get it through. But that's not the way parliament's intended. That's not the way parliament should run.</para>
<para>There is a requirement to make sure that people who want to speak, wish to speak and should speak on bills are given the opportunity to do so, and there is an obligation and a duty upon the government of the day, irrespective of the majority it might have in the House of Representatives, to ensure that it does listen to the opposition. I appreciate that things have been interesting of late, but there are very serious people with very serious and qualified backgrounds in the opposition to assist the government, particularly on bills such as this involving national security and involving our national security organisations. Those experienced and qualified views should be listened to.</para>
<para>I know the PJCIS plays an important role in that, and I commend the government for at least making sure that the questions that we raised in the middle of last year were addressed. Thank you. That's to be commended, because national security is too important to place at any risk and ASIO deserves the very best help and everything that it requires. Those concerns included the view from some individuals and organisations that compulsory-questioning powers are excessive measures for an intelligence agency to possess and they ordinarily should not be broadened, but some also argue that the infrequent use of these powers in the past makes the case that there is no need for their extension.</para>
<para>We do support these bills. They are important. I'm glad that the PJCIS has run ruler over them, and I commend them to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>National security, the safety of Australians, must always be any government's No. 1 priority. Without protecting our citizens, without safeguarding our sovereignty, all else is exposed and we have no foundation or basis on which to build our national prosperity and wellbeing. Yet in protecting Australians we face a fundamental tension between individual freedoms and collective security, and that is at the heart of today's debate on this Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. At stake is not just a set of powers for ASIO but a question: how do we balance the liberties that define us as a democracy with the reality that, in a dangerous world, we may need extraordinary tools to keep each other safe. Of course, we now consider this bill with the dark shadow of the Bondi terrorist attack. That tragedy looms large over it. Such a tragedy highlights that freedom must exist alongside constant vigilance. ASIO assumes the responsibility of maintaining that vigilance with its partners on behalf of our society, and this bill aims to give them the tools that they need to do that job.</para>
<para>ASIO performs some of the most important yet least visible work in protecting our nation. Every day, right now its officers are operating quietly and professionally to detect, to deter, to disrupt and to defeat threats to Australia's security. They do so under intense scrutiny and they do so within strict legal frameworks and also often without public recognition. I want to very publicly give them that recognition now in this place, and I thank other members that do the same. It is their dedication, their integrity and their professionalism that helps ensure Australians can go about their lives safely and freely. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work that they are undertaking right now—in the shadows, often, and quietly—to keep our democracy secure and to keep our citizens safe.</para>
<para>Let's consider the purpose of the bill and why it matters. Let me begin by summarising, which I'm sure honourable members will appreciate, what the bill does and why the government argues that we very much need it. I welcome the bipartisan commentary of the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, in this regard.</para>
<para>Currently, division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act grants ASIO compulsory questioning powers. Under a warrant, ASIO can compel a person to answer questions or produce materials relevant to serious security matters. This bill proposes to remove the sunset provision, making these powers permanent. It also expands the scope of what ASIO can question people about. It will include not only espionage—and we know there's plenty of that going on, and foreign interference—but now also sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on defence systems, and serious border security threats. We know that these threats are a real and present danger to the Commonwealth. The bill also reforms the prescribed authority—that is, the person overseeing the questioning—by adding disqualifying criteria, and it strengthens reporting requirements, especially where a person has been charged or a charge is imminent. Importantly, it also mandates a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review three years after commencement.</para>
<para>The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, wrote to PJCIS on 25 August last year to refer the bill for inquiry and report, and the review showed diverging views, with some placing more importance on security and others emphasising individual liberties and freedoms. That is the tension that I referred to earlier in my contribution. During the PJCIS review, a wide range of submissions were made, and they reveal a real debate between security advocates and civil libertarian voices. It's important that we listen respectfully to all the voices and to all members of parliament during this debate, no matter what their view.</para>
<para>The Department of Home Affairs, in its submission, argues strongly that these powers remain necessary in light of changing security threats. They say that over the past 20 years the regime has struck a sound balance between impact on individual rights and the need for intelligence, with which we protect Australian citizens and our interests. They also endorse expanding the questioning powers, notably for sabotage, defence system threats and communal violence. On the other hand, libertarian and legal rights groups—for example, Liberty Victoria and state civil liberties councils—have raised their concerns. They warn that making these powers permanent risks eroding fundamental rights—for example, the right to silence, the presumption of innocence, and fair trial protections. The Law Council of Australia, in its public commentary, explicitly cautions that these powers should remain subject to periodic parliamentary review and argue that removing the sunset clause removes a key democratic safeguard. Now, these are not fringe concerns. They reflect the principled worry about overreach, especially when coercive powers are not tightly constrained.</para>
<para>For an insight into the reasons the powers should be permanent, let us consider ASIO's submission to the review. From the Australian government's perspective and ASIO's perspective, the argument is straightforward. We have an evolving threat environment. I don't think anyone can credibly say that we don't. Threats to Australia are ever more complex. The Department of Home Affairs notes that sabotage, border threats and communal violence now present real risks. ASIO raised the terrorism threat level to 'probable' in 2024 and, according to ASIO'S submission 'Australia is confronted by multifaceted merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats' being driven by the convergence of major geopolitical, economic, social and security challenges.'</para>
<para>In his address to the Lowy Institute on 5 November, Director-General of Security and head of ASIO, Mike Burgess AM, grouped threat actors into three cohorts, all threatening our social cohesion in different ways: the aggrieved—individuals that tear at our social cohesion and our social fabric; the opportunistic—organised groups that take advantage of whatever they can for the purposes of their personal or small group ideology; finally and most concerningly, the cunning—persistent and highly capable nation states that will play the long game to exploit faultlines and fractures in countries such as us that they consider hostile to their ambitions.</para>
<para>Secondly, they are causing real damage. The Australian Institute of Criminology, in partnership with ASIO, has calculated that the cost of espionage to Australia in the financial year 2023-24 to be about $12.5 billion—that's with a B. Now, to put that in perspective, that's just under a quarter of the annual Defence budget. Australia's defence systems are facing a greater threat from espionage too, and with this government's elevated level of investment should come elevated levels of protection for the sensitive capabilities and technologies that those investments will deliver. It's essential.</para>
<para>Mike Burgess spoke in terms of the threat actors previously described tearing away at or eroding our social fabric and social cohesion. The cost of this is of course very difficult to quantify; although, meaningfully, he makes this point: 'A more vulnerable, fractured and intolerant society means a less predictable and increasingly volatile security environment.' The costs of this, both financially and to our citizens' sense of freedom and safety, are incalculable.</para>
<para>Thirdly, there's been judicious use so far. These powers have been rarely used. According to public record, in 22 years, only about 20 questioning warrants have been sought and issued. This restraint, they argue, demonstrates that ASIO uses them sparingly, only when less-invasive means will not suffice.</para>
<para>Fourthly, there's better accountability, not less accountability, now. Rather than allow the powers to lapse, the bill embeds stronger oversight through a prescribed authority, reporting requirements and a future PJCIS review. Our government argues that these mechanisms sufficiently guard against misuse.</para>
<para>Fifth, they are a last resort tool. Our government frames these powers as a measure of last resort, a capability you don't want to need but you want to have. These powers are to be used rarely and only in extreme circumstances. These were the terms used by then Attorney-General the Honourable Daryl Williams QC when the powers were first introduced in 2023, and the reasoning still holds today.</para>
<para>There are several checks and safeguards against the use and potential abuse of these powers. These powers are not unfettered. It is critical when giving such serious powers that they are neither unaccountable nor lawless, and this bill exists not in a vacuum but within a framework of checks. So let me highlight briefly in the time remaining some of the key protections. In the issuing process, the powers will still remain subject to a thorough warranting regime. A questioning warrant must be requested by the DG of security and approved by the AG. The prescribed authority who oversees questioning is typically a former judge or someone with judicial type status—that is, a competent person. The bill tightens criteria for who can serve in that role, adding disqualification rules.</para>
<para>There are obligations during questioning. Persons under questioning have rights—access to a lawyer, protections against self-incrimination and other procedural safeguards. Noncompliance or giving false information is an offence with serious penalties.</para>
<para>Thirdly, there's ongoing oversight. The IGIS plays a key role. Questioning under warrant is overseen by an independent prescribed authority to ensure it's appropriate conduct. The bill mandates the review. As I've mentioned, in its submission, the Department of Home Affairs even suggests legislating periodic independent reviews every five years to ensure the regime remains fit for purpose.</para>
<para>In closing, we should support this bill as it delivers a finely-struck balance between what is necessary to achieve security and what is sufficient to protect the individual rights of Australians. It is necessary in these times to get that balance right. I believe that this bill does and, importantly, it allows our security agencies to do what they need to do to protect Australia and our interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 engages some of the most intrusive powers available to the Commonwealth, coercive questioning powers that allow ASIO to compel answers from individuals, including people who are not accused of any offence and minors over the age of 14. They engage multiple fundamental rights, including the right to silence, freedom of movement, access to legal representation and the privilege against self-incrimination. Powers like these demand a careful, evidence based approach and a legislative framework that's proportionate to the threat environment and our democratic values.</para>
<para>ASIO'S coercive questioning powers have always been considered extraordinary, even by the standards of national security legislation. That's not just my assessment; it's the consistent language of our human rights institutions and legal profession. Their concerns about proportionality, necessity and safeguards should inform this House in charting a sensible path forward.</para>
<para>This bill makes several significant changes to ASIO'S coercive questioning powers under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act 1979. In short, it proposes to remove the longstanding sunset clause and, at the same time, expand the grounds for which an adult can be subject to compulsory questioning. The bill makes relatively minor adjustments to oversight and reporting in relation to the exercise of these powers.</para>
<para>The government argues that the security environment is degrading and that certainty is needed for ASIO'S collection powers. I accept this, but the challenge for us is to ensure that, in meeting today's risks, we do not erode the trust that underpins our democracy. Oversight mechanisms must match the gravity of the powers involved. Since 2003, parliament has attached a sunset clause to these questioning powers, extended on six occasions, precisely because they are exceptional and require regular justification. The bill would remove that safeguard entirely, even as it broadens the matters for which questioning can occur. That combination—more scope with less review and scrutiny—sharpens the need for parliament to consider proportionate amendments.</para>
<para>The additional safeguards proposed in the bill, while welcome, are marginal, especially given the extraordinary powers are now proposed to be expanded and made permanent. They are no substitute for the safeguard provided by periodic review and public scrutiny. We know the powers are rarely used but potentially far-reaching. Only a small number of questioning warrants have been issued since their introduction in the wake of September 11, two decades ago, as limited and temporary measures. Yet the powers remain coercive by design. They compel individuals to appear, produce items and answer questions, and noncompliance is a serious offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Rarity does not make these powers ordinary. It underscores why their continued necessity should be tested periodically and transparently.</para>
<para>The sunset clause has functioned as an accountability measure that prompts detailed review and parliamentary debate before continuation. Removing it would end that automatic cycle of scrutiny. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently empowered to review these extraordinary powers, but only at the committee's discretion. That is, without the sunset clause, there's no automatic cycle of periodic review and public scrutiny. I note that, in a 2024 submission to the PJCIS, ASIO's preference was to not abolish sunsetting but extend it by five years, to 2030. Even though ASIO's position had changed in its 2025 submission to favour making the powers permanent, the organisation specifically recognised that, to fulfil its mission, ASIO must maintain the confidence and trust of the Australian people, parliament and government.</para>
<para>The Law Council has consistently characterised these as extraordinary coercive powers and opposed making them permanent without stronger justification and safeguards, calling for measures such as judicial ratification and enhanced lawyer access. Their central argument is that if scope is broadened then oversight must be strengthened, not relaxed. Across multiple reports in 2025, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned the necessity of repealing the sunset clause, warning that remaining safeguards may be insufficient given the extent of rights interference.</para>
<para>The common theme is consistency. Powerful tools should be balanced by predictable, structured scrutiny. That's not anti-security; it's the formula for durable legitimacy, which in turn strengthens compliance, cooperation and public trust. The test we should apply is not whether ASIO needs tools to protect Australians. I agree that it does. Rather, the test should be whether the combination of permanently entrenching coercive questioning powers and expanding their scope is necessary and proportionate and whether the oversight architecture is strong enough to command enduring public confidence.</para>
<para>Compulsory questioning affects the rights of people who may never be charged with an offence. It intrudes on the right of silence and can limit access to counsel in ways that are unusual in our system. These features explain why, for 20-plus years, parliament has insisted on sunsetting to force a recalibration if the security context or operational experience changes. Removing that discipline risks normalising exceptionality.</para>
<para>I will be introducing two amendments which would ensure that the bill functions effectively and responsibly. They reflect alternative routes to improving oversight and accountability. Firstly, I will propose that the sunset clause is retained, extended to March 2030, in order to preserve the discipline of periodic parliamentary review. This approach gives immediate operational certainty to ASIO while reaffirming that extraordinary powers must be regularly justified. As a second safeguard, which could operate with or without my first amendment, I'll introduce an amendment to ensure the mandatory statutory review of these powers by the PJCIS. Currently that review is discretionary, even though the PJCIS itself said in its inquiry report tabled last week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With the entrenchment of the compulsory questioning powers, regular review, including parliamentary oversight by the committee is more important than ever.</para></quote>
<para>I want to address some possible objections to these amendments. Some will ask, 'Won't stronger oversight slow ASIO down?' Well, my proposed amendments to retain the sunset clause and mandate the committee's periodic review of the powers will not burden ASIO's daily operations. They provide legitimate legislative oversight without impeding ASIO's ability to seek or execute questioning warrants.</para>
<para>Another objection could be, 'If the powers are rarely used, why do we need strong safeguards?' We need these safeguards because they are coercive and exceptional powers. Severe but rarely used powers require predictable, independent scrutiny to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate and are not just permanent and beyond review.</para>
<para>Another objection could be, 'Isn't permanent standard for other ASIO powers?' It's true that many of ASIO's special powers, like those concerning surveillance devices and computer access, do not sunset. But compulsory questioning sits in a different category. It compels information from people who may not be suspects, limits rights normally seen as fundamental, and historically was justified as temporary and exceptional. Treating it differently is consistent with its exceptional character.</para>
<para>Trust grows when powers are used proportionately and overseen credibly. That's why this bill should balance operational need with visible accountability. We cannot afford a false choice between security and rights. Our task is to hold both in view, recognising that the legitimacy of our security laws is itself a national security asset, a measured framework which embeds periodic review and oversight, helps protect against overreach, and sustains the social licence that ASIO needs to do its job effectively. I think there is a credible, constructive middle course: retain the sunset clause consistent with two decades of practice and continue to ensure these powers remain proportionate and appropriate; and/or legislate mandatory periodic reviews by the PJCIS to ensure that parliament periodically tests whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate in light of contemporary risks and practice. Either path respects both the complexity of our security environment and the integrity of our democracy. Either path acknowledges that extraordinary powers deserve extraordinary oversight.</para>
<para>I urge the government to consider amending the legislation in this way—to choose measured safeguards today in order to preserve the legitimacy we will rely on tomorrow. This is how we keep Australians safe while strengthening the trust that keeps us together.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms AMBIHAIPAHAR</name>
    <name.id>315618</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. It's largely a technical bill aimed at amending the compulsory questioning powers in the act. At its core, this bill is about making sure our intelligence laws keep pace with the world around us—a world that is quickly changing, with new threats emerging and extremism on the rise. These changes are not theoretical; they reflect the real pressures our security agencies are dealing with every single day. I want to expand on the context during this speech, while also explaining what this means for the role of being a local MP. While enhancing ASIO's powers is essential, we as elected members must also provide a responsible, reliable and empathetic connection between our constituents and the House.</para>
<para>Security laws alone do not keep this country safe. Trust, social cohesion and a sense of belonging do that. That is how we combat distrust in government and reduce the appeal of extremism. Without this work at the community level, we make the task of our security agencies, law enforcement and judiciary harder, and we jeopardise the safety of our constituents. It is a duty that goes to the core of a local member's work, and one that I do take very seriously.</para>
<para>First, I would like to place these reforms within the security environment we find ourselves in. Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security for ASIO, has said that Australia has entered a period of 'strategic surprise and security fragility'. He made these comments in February last year. In plain terms, what he's telling us is that the world has become more unpredictable, more volatile and less forgiving of complacency. The threats we face are not always obvious and they do not always look like the threats of the past. He went on to say that this fragility is underlined by eroding social cohesion, declining trust in institutions, and a plague of misinformation and conspiracy. These are not abstract concepts—we see them play out in everyday life in how people talk about politics, how they treat one another online and how quickly misinformation spreads. This isn't just something discussed in reports or briefings. It is something that people are living with every single day. It shows up in the 'us versus them' mentality that increasingly defines public debate, and in the digital echo chambers where false claims are repeated until they feel true.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the particular works of the member for Cowan, the Minister for Small Business, Minister for International Development and Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Dr Anne Aly has done a lot of work in this space, and I think it's important that the chamber should take the time to look at her work that she has contributed in this space.</para>
<para>It's the division and hateful rhetoric we see on our streets online, designed to radicalise Australians who feel left out, angry or alone. We don't need study after study to tell us that we are living in a precarious period. People feel it, they see it, they experience it. I encourage people who don't believe me to just to look at the comment sections of my Facebook posts. It's content that I can't put on the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. It's really difficult that debate our community has resulted in that. That kind of language doesn't appear out of nowhere. It's cultivated, encouraged and amplified, often by people who benefit from that division.</para>
<para>Since that day, many Australians have told me they feel a heightened sense of fear and vulnerability. That's not just in the Jewish communities but across the board. When I began writing this speech, before the Bondi massacre on 14 December, we knew that we were living in a dangerous context, but the horror and the evil that unfolded on that day is something that many of us could not have imagined. It was antisemitism, a vile hatred, that motivated such an attack. In the aftermath, many Australians feel that hatred and insecurity all around them.</para>
<para>I am particularly concerned by the number of young people being radicalised in online spaces. ASIO has warned that this will only increase. In ASIO's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security they note that, in 2020, a third of their counterterrorism case load involved minors. This was aggravated by an increased amount of time spent online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Burgess has said that this cohort is overwhelmingly male, largely Australian born and drawn together not by a single ideology but by a fascination with violence. That detail matters because it challenges some easy but incorrect narratives. I'm not repeating these facts to lay blame. Rather, they show that claims about imported violence are often themselves a symptom of radicalisation, not a reflection of reality.</para>
<para>Our young people are being targeted at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. They're being told that their loneliness, frustration and lack of opportunities are the fault of a neighbour, migrant or minority group. In truth, the threat is often far closer to home. It is the anonymous online forum that rewards outrage. It's the algorithm that promotes the most extreme content because it captures attention. It is the replacement of real human connection with constant exposure to anger and fear. This is why measures like the social media ban matter. They recognise that what happens online has very real consequences offline, especially for developing minds.</para>
<para>As parliamentarians we see this evolving context play out in our communities and, yet, I also hear something else from constituents: how lucky they feel to live in this country and how strongly they want it to remain a safe and welcoming country. There are two parts to that task. The first is passing legislation like this bill before us and the anti-hate legislation that was passed a fortnight ago. The second part is less visible but just as important. We must ensure we are playing proactive, constructive roles in our communities. Being an MP does not just mean turning up to presentations or events, while I do enjoy that. It means connecting with all these groups, families and religious groups across the electorates and providing them with effective, efficient connection to government. It's a role that I'm very much humbled to be able to have and I'm proud to play a part in it. It is about consistent, genuine engagement. It means speaking with people one on one, explaining decisions early and listening seriously to their concerns. Populism connects with people because it speaks directly and plainly. We can do the same, without the fear, division or extremism that often accompanies it. If we do not, we risk increasing the likelihood that extraordinary powers will be needed more often. We want ASIO to have the powers it needs to keep Australians safe and we want those powers to be used carefully, proportionately and only when necessary. To make that possible, we as MPs must do our part.</para>
<para>In a similar vein, let me explain the amendments that are before us. ASIO has a compulsory questioning warrants framework under the act. The warrants were first introduced by the Howard government in 2003 as temporary measures, and these compulsory questioning powers are a valuable intelligence collection tool to protect Australians from threats to their security. The clauses in question have been used sparingly but continuously over successive governments. Though originally temporary, the sunset clause on these provisions has been extended five times. Each time, it has been subject to multiple parliamentary and independent reviews. These amendments remove the sunset clause and make the regime permanent. By making it permanent, we are formalising an already regular practice and, in turn, providing certainty and clarity to our security organisations.</para>
<para>As it stands, there are only three grounds upon which an adult can be questioned. These grounds are if the adult has engaged in espionage, politically motivated violence or acts of foreign interference. It covers where these acts are directed or committed in Australia or not. We are adding four new grounds on which an adult can be questioned. These are where they engage in sabotage, where they promote communal violence, where they attack Australia's defence system or for the protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats. The addition of these grounds gives ASIO the power it needs to investigate any potential threats to Australia's peace and security. Put simply, this ensures ASIO can investigate the full range of modern national security threats, not just the ones we were focused on 20 years ago. I think the power to investigate threats of communal violence is particularly important in the wake of 14 December. Wherever there is an actor spruiking violence against a group of people for simply existing, ASIO should have the power to investigate and question this person before the threat becomes real.</para>
<para>There are also amendments to ensure that, for every questioning warrant, the Director-General must give the Attorney-General a written report containing listed details. These details include any non-compliance or contravention of warrants granted. Such enhanced reporting obligations ensure that these laws are not misused whilst maintaining transparency and accountability.</para>
<para>A prescribed authority is a person appointed by the Attorney-General under subsection 34AD(1) of the ASIO Act. They play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the law and protecting the rights of the person being questioned. Eligible persons are former judges who have served on a superior court for at least five years, the current president or deputy president of the ART, or a senior counsellor like a barrister who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least 10 years and holds a current practising certificate. These amendments expand the list of persons who are not eligible to be a prescribed authority. It does so to make sure that anyone with a conflict of interest cannot act in this role. They include members of the Defence Force, APS employees or a Public Service agency head, members of parliament, the Director of Public Prosecutions or solicitors-general. They also propose grounds where the Attorney-General may or must terminate the term of the person serving in that role.</para>
<para>This bill reflects the reality of the security environment Australia is now facing. It acknowledges that threats have evolved and extremism is adapting and that our legal framework must do the same. At the same time, it reinforces the principle that strong security powers must sit alongside strong safeguards, oversight and accountability. And it reminds us that laws alone are not enough. As parliamentarians, we must continue to build trust, strengthen social cohesion and ensure people are heard, supported and included. That is how we reduce the conditions in which extremism thrives. That is how we support the work our security agencies do, and that is how we keep Australia safe not just in law but in practice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This is the second and, I would say, more controversial of the two bills introduced to this parliament to update the powers of our national intelligence agency. The first extended the operation for compulsory questioning powers. This bill goes further by making those powers permanent. The bill proposes to remove longstanding sunset provisions, establish new grounds for compulsory questioning warrants, alter who may oversee that questioning, and change the circumstances in which warrants may be issued when a person has been charged or a charge is imminent.</para>
<para>Once again, I'm disappointed that debate on legislation of such gravity is being relegated to the Federation Chamber, rather than being debated in the full light of the House of Representatives. Measures that shape the reach of our intelligence agencies deserve the highest level of scrutiny, not a narrow window for debate. It's a troubling pattern. Laws with profound consequence for civil liberties and the rule of law must never be met with constrained debate, limited scrutiny and the erosion of any safeguards.</para>
<para>ASIO plays a critical role in maintaining our national security and responding to serious threats through the collection of intelligence information. I don't underestimate the complexity of these threats, nor the responsibility of government to equip our agencies with powers that are effective and proportionate to the threat environment—powers that protect our citizens and contribute to peace throughout the world—but effective powers must never become unfettered powers.</para>
<para>Compulsory questioning powers were introduced in 2003 as part of Australia's response to the increased international threat of terrorism, following the horrendous September 11 attacks on the United States. They were framed then as a measure of last resort, reserved for the most extreme of circumstances. In 2020 these powers were expanded to cover warrants in matters relating to espionage, politically motivated violence and acts of foreign interference. This bill now substitutes the definition of 'adult questioning matter' to include espionage, sabotage, politically motivated violence, promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system, acts of foreign interference, and the protection of Australia's borders. During the lapsed statutory review—only in the last parliament—both ASIO and the Department of Home Affairs recommended against including border security in this list of powers, yet they've changed their tune in recent times. We have little detail to properly consider the shift in this opinion, and detail is important.</para>
<para>Australia already has a very rigorous, multi-agency border protection framework. Evidence to the PJCIS inquiry into this bill did not suggest a historic peak in threats to border protection but instead noted global developments that can drive the displacement of people. We should remember that people seeking asylum are some of the most vulnerable people around the world; they are fleeing conflict and violence, not seeking to perpetrate it.</para>
<para>One justification advanced for these changes is the convenience of aligning ASIO's compulsory questioning with the rest of their warrant powers, including broadening additional heads of security through undefined or vaguely defined terms. Convenience, however, is not a sufficient test for necessity or proportionality when extraordinary powers are at stake. While this bill strengthens some eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities, it gives the Attorney-General certain discretion over appointments and it does not fully resolve concerns about actual or perceived conflicts of interest. In my view, the ratification of warrants would be better safeguarded in a judicial setting, instead of by ministerial approval.</para>
<para>This bill also fails to strike an appropriate balance regarding access to legal advice for someone being questioned under these powers. The point has been well made that such legal representation is only meaningful if sufficient information is available about the basis and the scope of the warrant. There remain unresolved concerns about rule-of-law principles, including privilege against self-incrimination.</para>
<para>Less than two years ago, ASIO told the PJCIS that it no longer saw a strong case for retaining the power to question minors under warrant. This was because ASIO had at the time never used or requested a minor questioning warrant. ASIO has walked back this position and now argues it's proportionate to the potential threat to security. Again, it's difficult to understand the evidence base behind this when we know little about the threat.</para>
<para>Repeal of this power is not before the House, and I question why successive governments have retained these powers when they remain unused and unjustified. The prospect of extraordinary powers being held in reserve for hypothetical future use on a child does not give me assurance that any of these powers are indeed proportionate to the threat. It further concerns me that we're not seeking other alternatives within our judicial system for such circumstances.</para>
<para>It's so important in this House when we legislate laws of such consequence as these that we don't engage in groupthink, that we do put forward questions to really interrogate why we need these laws and the proportionality of them. A sunset clause was not part of the original bill but was negotiated in to secure its passage and provide a protective measure—in fact, by Labor in opposition. To my point, we must never groupthink. We must really interrogate these. The sunset clause has been renewed five times since 2003. That reflects the parliament's consistent recognition that these are extraordinary powers and that they should be monitored.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that ASIO has used these powers at a discretionary level over the past 20 years and that they have cited the complex, challenging and changing nature of the threat environment as a reason they continue. This bill, though, removes the sunset clause and replaces it with a statutory review in three years. I share the view expressed by the Law Council and others that the sunset clause signals the extraordinary nature of compulsory questioning powers. The very restraint in their use underscores the function of the sunset clause. And by requiring parliament to regularly revisit them, the sunset clause delivers the accountability and balance that were central to its original purpose. It ensures that extraordinary powers remain subject to deliberate democratic scrutiny by us—by the parliament—retaining the check and balance that was a condition of Labor's support back in 2003 and that has proven its value over decades.</para>
<para>It is a responsibility of us as legislators to interrogate laws of such great consequence to our citizens. Entrenching these extraordinary powers in our laws, even with the statutory review mechanism, risks normalising executive overreach. At a time when our nation is still living the shock and grief of terrorist atrocity committed against Jewish people at Bondi in December and another terrorist attempt against First Nations people on 26 January, our nation is desperate for effective responses to radicalisation and threats to public safety. Just last month this parliament strengthened laws addressing hate crimes and a longstanding need to improve information-sharing between agencies to better identify and respond to threats.</para>
<para>However, in pursuing security we must not lose sight of lessons from around the world of the tragic consequence of governments exercising extraordinary powers over its citizens. We see the consequence of the politicisation of state powers and its undermining of individual freedoms and the safety of citizens. We have fervently protected our democratic conventions, and we should avoid weakening the mechanisms of scrutiny that preserve the balance between executive and judicial powers. We cannot allow the creep of overreach to compromise that balance.</para>
<para>Of course we must be vigilant against external threats, but we must also be vigilant against the erosion of principles that define our democracy, because protecting those principles provides the ultimate safety for Australians, their rights and the rule of law.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLUTTERHAM</name>
    <name.id>316101</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. As with the other bills pertaining to security and intelligence that have been debated in the 48th parliament, the primary purpose of this bill is to implement reform to keep Australians safe. The role the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation plays in doing that and keeping Australians safe from national security threats cannot be underestimated. There is a grave need, more than ever, for its powers to be adequate to support this function at the same time as being necessary and proportionate to respond to the everchanging and challenging security environment.</para>
<para>This bill will operate to amend the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation's compulsory questioning powers as contained in division 3 of part 3 of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Division 3 of part 3 of the ASIO Act provides for ASIO to request that the Attorney-General issue a warrant to require a person to appear before a prescribed authority to give information, or produce a record or some other thing that is or may be relevant to intelligence that's important in relation to the matter being questioned. The Attorney-General may issue an adult questioning warrant for a person over 18 years or a minor questioning warrant for a person aged 14 to 17 years.</para>
<para>In doing this, the bill also seeks to make comprehensive reforms to the compulsory questioning warrants framework by amending the act to do the following. It expands the scope of adult questioning warrants to include four new grounds and, by making amendments to requirements relating to prescribed authorities, includes new grounds that would disqualify a prospective prescribed authority from being appointed and amending when the Attorney-General can terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority. The bill also makes an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to require that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review the amendments contained in the bill on the third anniversary of its commencement. Background that is important and relevant to this is that on 25 August 2025 the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report. Six public submissions were received, and a public hearing into the operation of the framework was held on 17 November 2025, resulting in that amendment.</para>
<para>The four new expanded grounds, in relation to which the scope of adult questioning warrants apply, are already set out in section 4 of the ASIO Act under the definition of 'security'. Security is defined in that legislation as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) espionage;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) sabotage;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) politically motivated violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) promotion of communal violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) attacks on Australia's defence system; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) acts of foreign interference;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">whether directed from, or committed within, Australia or not …</para></quote>
<para>Of these elements in the definition of security, sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity will be included in the scope of adult questioning in additional to espionage, politically motivated violence including terrorism and acts of foreign interference. These newly expanded areas were already contemplated in the ASIO Act as being relevant to the security of the Australian people. They will now join the other existing elements of that definition with respect to the scope of adult questioning.</para>
<para>In his 2025 annual threat assessment, the Director-General of Security outlined ASIO's outlook to 2030, which assessed that, over the next five years, Australia's security environment will become more dynamic, more diverse and more challenging. Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent, cascading threats, and, if we are to ensure that Australians are safe and feel safe, ASIO must be properly equipped to respond. The 2025 annual threat assessment also outlined that now more than ever information is needed to allow ASIO to anticipate, to look forward, to identify trends and to identify patterns of behaviour. Credible risk assessments and advice to government and other stakeholders can only be developed in relation to credible information from relevant sources. ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers are part of this. They are a vital capability in protecting Australia and Australians from threats to their security. Introduced in 2003, following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the powers were intended to improve ASIO's ability to identify and counter threats to terrorism. The security environment has evolved considerably since 2003, and these reforms have been made to the framework as a result.</para>
<para>Our environment, from a security perspective, is becoming more complex. We have seen recent instances of foreign interference on our shores. Along with security threats from espionage and politically motivated violence, these remain our principal security concerns. But, as things move and change and they do so rapidly, it is important that ASIO's powers continue to evolve to enable ASIO to respond in an increasingly volatile threat environment.</para>
<para>The compulsory-questioning framework is therefore critical, but it must also be proportionate and reasonable to the objective. In this respect, the compulsory framework has, since its introduction, been subject to five parliamentary and two independent reviews. The use of compulsory-questioning powers over more than two decades by ASIO has demonstrated that the powers have been used judiciously to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers may not be as effective.</para>
<para>In reflection of the fact that proper and thorough oversight is critical, given the nature of these powers and the need to ensure trust and confidence, the bill will also make consequential amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable that further review of the compulsory-questioning framework by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is a part of a process of continual review and measurement to ensure that the bill and the framework it promotes are working but working in a way that promotes public trust and confidence.</para>
<para>In this bill the compulsory-questioning warrants will become a permanent feature of ASIO's intelligence collection powers, allowing ASIO to collect the information and intelligence it needs to anticipate Australia's needs in a changing security environment. It must be proactively equipped to deal with this, and this step is illustrative of the government's view that these compulsory-questioning powers now form an essential part of ASIO's collection powers, particularly in light of the evolving security environment.</para>
<para>As an Australian citizen living and working in this great country, I want ASIO to be able to anticipate, to be able to properly advise government and other stakeholders and to be able to prepare accurate and thorough risk assessments so that dynamic and critical risks to the security of the Australian people can be properly managed. I want to know that ASIO knows what is going on and what the threats to this country and its people might be and how best to counter them.</para>
<para>That being said, these compulsory-questioning powers are, of course, serious and need to be used within a framework of the highest standards of integrity, fairness and probity. ASIO has used these powers judiciously since inception, and the framework must be designed so it can continue to do so. The bill therefore retains the existing safeguards, oversight mechanisms and accountability measures that apply to the framework, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.</para>
<para>The measures are available to all members to review in section 34 of part III of division 3 of the ASIO Act and include contact with legal and other representatives, the use and disclosure of information so as not to prejudice a fair trial, the prohibition on questioning of persons under 14 years of age, access to interpreters and additional time for questioning if an interpreter is required. They also include the requirement that the subject of compulsory questioning be advised of the nature of the warrant in terms of what it allows the prescribed authority to do, the period for which the warrant is in force, the circumstances in which the subject may be apprehended, the subject's right to apply for financial assistance and the subject's right to make a complaint in relation to aspects of the warrant.</para>
<para>A person who is the subject of a compulsory questioning warrant continues to have the ability to seek a judicial remedy in relation to the warrant or treatment in connection with the warrant. The person also has a right to contact the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence to make a complaint in relation to ASIO, to contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman to make a complaint in relation to the Australian Federal Police or to contact the complaints agency of the relevant state or territory to make a complaint in relation to the police force of that relevant state or territory. So with respect to these safeguards and the new regime, division 3 of part III will remain consistent with article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the legitimate objective of maintaining national security.</para>
<para>Further, the measures in the bill will provide additional strength to the existing safeguards already in place in the framework, including by ensuring the independence and impartiality of prescribed authorities and ensuring the Attorney-General is made aware of relevant information regarding conduct under the warrant, including any instances of noncompliance. These amendments will strengthen key safeguards in the existing legislative framework to promote fairness, uphold human rights and the right to a fair trial, and to enhance transparency and accountability.</para>
<para>The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation performs an essential role in protecting Australia and Australians from threats to their security. ASIO's compulsory questioning powers provide them with a unique and necessary tool to investigate the most significant threats confronting Australia today. The important reforms contained in this bill are designed to ensure that ASIO's powers remain commensurate to the emerging challenges being faced by Australia so that ASIO can execute its mission to counter threats to Australia's security, and ensure that all Australians not only feel safe but are safe.</para>
<para>Terrorists, malign actors and extremists need to get it right once in order to cause destruction, injury and death on a mass scale. ASIO has to get it right 100 per cent of the time, and it needs to be properly equipped to do so. I stand with the Minister for Home Affairs in this important work, and with this government as it prosecutes its commitment to ensuring Australia's national security laws continually evolve to protect the Australian community while ensuring that strong safeguards and public trust and confidence in the process remain firmly in place. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This obviously is important because we're dealing with the lapse of legislation if it doesn't pass. We're also strengthening powers of investigation for malfeasance that warrants investigation. It's pertinent at the moment because we live in a dynamic environment, which is changing to our detriment. We have in the world at the moment the rise of totalitarianism and there is most definitely an overt form of intrusion into Australia's operation of its government.</para>
<para>We have, even in this building, had issues pertinent to people with interests working, whether they realise it or not, on behalf of other governments, and I also have had reason to question the motivations of policy directions at certain times. I'll go back to the time of changes to the Foreign Investment Review Board that surrounded the sale of Cubbie Station. I made it a distinct purpose to tighten restrictions, especially those pertinent to state-owned enterprises. I remember reading in the Chinese English newspapers that I was noted as 'Ban-a-Buy' Joyce because of my role to try and tighten up foreign investment by state owned enterprises in our nation. I was derided as a bigot, a racist, a redneck and a xenophobe. Now I'm just correct because the state owned enterprises were doing precisely that. Chinese state owned enterprises were doing precisely that to get a foothold in Australia. People have to understand that the Chinese government sees things in their national interest as not being defined by their borders. If they have a financial interest, that's a national interest.</para>
<para>I go to one that is of great concern recently—not so much because of its significance but because of the discussion and the rhetoric that surrounds it. It is the Port of Darwin. The Prime Minister of Australia, whilst in Dili at a press conference, made it clear that Australia was going to reacquire or take back the Port of Darwin. It is owned by Landbridge. That's a Chinese state owned enterprise. It was an incredibly foolish thing that we lost control of it. Ambassador Xiao Qian almost immediately came out in Canberra and said, 'No, you won't be taking that back.' It was as direct as that. To this point, I haven't seen any discussion in the chamber or a statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs as to how they're going to reconcile those two completely different positions. This is in live time. This is happening right now, and it isn't so much a secret. It is playing out right in front of people's faces.</para>
<para>We in this nation have a great reason to try and become as strong as possible as quickly as possible, and I've been saying that for a very long time. Ultimately, strength is the only thing that is going to keep you safe, and in Australia we've almost been on a working plan to make ourselves weak. We've done it with everything from energy policy to our loss of manufacturing to a fascination on policy that we can't possibly change such as climate policy, and all the time we have been becoming comparatively weaker and less able to deal with the substantial change in circumstance that is around us.</para>
<para>We've also have to realise that President Xi Jinping has said that they will take Taiwan by 2027. We are in 2026. We either believe that he's having a joke with us or it's rhetoric or that he's serious. I'm of the view that he's serious. In doing that, there will be a diligent process of organisation to iron out any possible problems that we might be part of for their purpose, which means there is a heightened reason for them to be right on the balls of their feet, trying to insert themselves in a way that gets people on side even if they're not even aware they're on side—but, you know, friendly fools—and also using things such as AI to its umpteenth degree to make sure that they have the appropriate code in the appropriate areas that can create mass disruption if required at the appropriate time. There is also just straight out observation, whether it's cartography or oceanography, to work out all the dynamics so that, if it's really required, they can bring devastating force upon our nation.</para>
<para>Is that rhetoric? No, it's not. We have seen the flotilla that went to the Tasman Sea adjacent to Sydney and practised live fire exercises. The issue there is that we didn't know about it. That was one of the most sophisticated ships in the Chinese navy. What is the purpose of being there? Well, there are two. One is to give a very unsubtle message to Australia to be careful, and the other one is to practice just in case they need to do it. And of course they're practising why? They're practising because they're near Sydney. It's as simple as that. At the same time, a so-called 'research vessel' was making its way through Bass Strait, no doubt getting all the forms of the oceanography that are required so they have complete understanding of that section of Australia. Why? Because Melbourne's there. So that's Sydney and Melbourne.</para>
<para>Now, it's so terrifying that people just want to switch off and say, 'It's not happening,' but it is, and that's the issue. If they're willing to put the tens of millions of dollars just into those excursions before you even look at the platforms they used then they're also willing to put the money into working out how they can have eyes and ears inside this building, how they can have useful fools, how they can create the mechanism for financial gain in such a form as you feel beholden to them. That is also absolutely the point. We have seen, no doubt, people who have been members of parliament and their next job is for Chinese company, for a Chinese state-owned enterprise. The question has to be raised: When did those discussions for that job after politics start? Was it whilst you were in politics? And if it was whilst you were in politics, what were those discussions? Where did you have them? What was the skill set that you were really offering that company that they'd want you to work for—I don't know—Landbridge?</para>
<para>Obviously this says that ASIO has to be the absolute essence of patriotism, the absolute essence of guile, the absolute essence of cunning to match up to the threat that is ever-present right now. Then we have, I believe, decided in our foolishness to create a form of Australia where we don't have cultural control because we've believed in this euphemistic idea of multiculturalism when we should be concentrating on Australian culture, creating guardrails.</para>
<para>The tragic representation of the balkanisation and the discord from a clash of cultural views of the world was Bondi. Why do I say that? Because the murderers at Bondi believed that they were doing something that was appropriate. They didn't know the people. There was no heat in it. It was cold, clinical, calculated and driven by their cultural belief. If there was an overarching form of guardrails of Australian culture—and that is not saying that is determined by creed, by colour, by race; it's just that there has to be those guardrails there—then there would be no motivation for a person to go out and kill other Australians in broad daylight.</para>
<para>My concern is that they're not the only two people in Australia who think like that. My concern is that there is a whole range of people now in Australia who think like that. We saw, even after these so-called hate laws—which were censorship laws because they haven't addressed the problem—a demonstration in Sydney which explicitly reaffirmed the tenor of views that were the seed stock for the Bondi massacre. And it happened on television; we were watching it. There's been no seismic change in this continual process of believing that there is a higher purpose than an attachment to the Australian culture. In a metaphorical state, there is no clearer indication than what we observed in that demonstration the other night. There was not one Australian flag there. There were Palestinian flags. There were sort of quasi-fundamentalist flags, where they do the appropriate changes so they can't be held. But, you know, it is a sign. It is a metaphor for what they want to portray. It was organised. It had the capacity to co-ordinate people to arrive. Obviously, the questions now are: How is that happening? What is that organisational structure? And people say, 'Well, you know, they might be all well-meaning.' No. Within that structure there's a very good chance there's a malevolent force that has the capacity to create discord. That is ultimately what happens to Australia—you get a mechanism of discord, and the driving of it mightn't be as obvious as you'd think. It mightn't be people who really have their heart set on what is happening in Gaza or Palestine or Israel. What their heart might actually be set on is creating disturbance—that's what they want. They want disturbance, they want discord, they want disruption and they want panic, because that makes us, as a nation, weaker.</para>
<para>There's another thing that we should be very aware of. At the appropriate times and the appropriate venues—and we've seen it out the front of this building—the Chinese government have the capacity to organise quite a substantial number of people to turn up and either praise or demonstrate. How does that happen? How do they do it? What chat group are they on? Who's organising it?</para>
<para>These are right in front of us now, so we need to have ASIO, ASIS and the Australian Signals Directorate working within government on a regular basis at the highest levels. The National Security Committee must have these bodies at the table, and these bodies must be courageous enough not to tell you what you probably read in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> that morning but to get to the substance of the issues that need to be pursued.</para>
<para>I don't doubt for one second the patriotism of the Prime Minister or anything like that. Dismiss any idea that I have such an inclination—I don't. But we have to understand that, given where we are right now, in the western Pacific, and noting what is happening in real time around Australia and within Australia, the circumstances that we find ourselves in are entirely different to what they would have been 20 years ago or 30 years ago, and the technology and capacity that is here now is multiple times more complicated and more destructive than what we would have had 20, 30 or 40 years ago. This is way beyond Cold War clumsiness, the Petrov affair and Kim Philby—that's all interesting reading. This is sleeping code, whether it's in the banking sector or whether it's in critical infrastructure, which has a 24/7 process of observation. For this purpose I support the bill, but I say: it's really just a forerunner of the far greater work that we need to do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. The central responsibility of this parliament is to keep Australians safe, in their homes and in their communities. The terrible events across the country recently have stressed that duty, and the parliament has responded. We also have a parallel duty to ensure that the powers that we confer upon the government and its security agencies are exercised lawfully, with proportionality and with proper oversight. These objectives are not in conflict. Proper oversight provides a strengthening of our systems of security. As Minister Burke stated earlier in this debate, there are amendments here to ensure the independence and impartiality of the prescribed authorities, further safeguards around questioning powers, and additional reporting requirements to the office of the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>ASIO's compulsory questioning powers are among the most serious authorities available to the Commonwealth. They are powers that the parliament has revisited repeatedly over the past two decades, not because we doubt their necessity but because we understand the gravity of granting them. Each review, each sunset extension and each added safeguard reflects a consistent parliamentary instinct: vigilance. This bill acknowledges a changed security environment while reinforcing that instinct. As the Director-General of Security has made clear in ASIO's most recent threat assessment, Australia faces a more complex, more diffuse and more interconnected set of risks than at any time in recent history. Espionage, foreign interference, sabotage, attacks on defence systems, the promotion of communal violence and threats to border integrity are no longer discrete risks operating in isolation. They overlap and reinforce one another and evolve quickly. The bill responds to that reality by extending adult questioning warrants to additional heads of security. This is not about expanding powers for its own sake. It is about ensuring that the tools available to ASIO match the threats it is tasked with countering.</para>
<para>But with expanded remit must come strengthened restraint. One of the most significant changes in this bill is the removal of the sunset clause on compulsory questioning powers. Sunsets have played an important role. They have forced governments to justify the continued use of extraordinary powers and have required parliament to take stock of how those powers operate in practice. The fact that these provisions have been reviewed multiple times by parliamentary committees and independent reviewers should give the House confidence that they have not drifted beyond their original intent. Removing the sunset does not mean removing scrutiny, though. On the contrary: this bill embeds further statutory review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security three years after commencement. The PJCIS is a committee of which I am proud to be a member.</para>
<para>I want to focus on what I regard as the most important aspect of this legislation: the strengthening of safeguards. The bill tightens the eligibility requirements for prescribed authorities, expanding disqualifying factors to ensure clear independence from the executive, parliament and prosecutorial roles. And that matters. When individuals are compelled to answer questions under warrant, public confidence depends on the independence and impartiality of the authority overseeing that process.</para>
<para>The bill also clarifies and strengthens arrangements for post-charge questioning, ensuring that, where criminal proceedings are underway or imminent, questioning occurs only before appropriately qualified prescribed authorities. This process protects the integrity of the criminal justice process and the fundamental right to a fair trial. In addition, the enhanced reporting requirements to the Attorney-General, including mandatory reporting of any noncompliance or contravention of warrant conditions, reinforce transparency and accountability. These are not procedural niceties; they are core democratic safeguards.</para>
<para>In Hasluck, I represent communities that are richly diverse, outward looking and deeply connected to the world beyond our shores. As well, many of my constituents work in defence-adjacent industries—logistics, resources and advanced manufacturing. Others come from communities with direct lived experience of conflict, authoritarianism and state overreach. When they talk to me about national security, they do not frame it as an abstract debate; they want Australia to be resilient in the face of foreign interference and emerging threats. But they are equally clear that our response must reflect the democratic values that brought many of them to this country in the first place. This is why, for me, safeguards, independence and proportionality are not theoretical concepts. They inevitably shape whether people trust our institutions, cooperate with authorities and have confidence that the government's power is exercised judiciously and fairly.</para>
<para>In previous contributions to this House I have spoken about the importance of proportionality—the idea that strong laws are legitimate only when they are accompanied by strong protections. Australians understand the need for security agencies to operate effectively. But they also expect, rightly, that extraordinary powers will be used sparingly and lawfully and will be subject to rigorous oversight. Public trust is not automatic. It is earned through transparency, restraint and accountability.</para>
<para>This bill reflects that balance. It recognises that security and rights are not competing values but complementary ones. A system that protects rights strengthens security, because it maintains the legitimacy on which our institutions depend. I've spoken previously in this House about the importance of pairing security with humanity and restraint. In August 2025, when speaking on a motion commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I reflected on the long shadow cast when states pursue security without sufficient regard to human consequences. That contribution was not about history alone. It was about the enduring lesson that power, once normalised, must always be bounded by conscience and law. Similarly, during debate in 2024 on domestic and family violence measures, I spoke about community safety as something that is strengthened, not weakened, when people trust the institutions designed to protect them. That same principle applies here. Intelligence powers are most effective when the public is confident that they are used judiciously, independently and as a last resort.</para>
<para>Finally, this legislation is a reminder of parliament's ongoing responsibility. National security laws are never set-and-forget. They require constant attention, regular review and a willingness to adapt as circumstances change. By modernising ASIO's questioning powers, expanding their scope to meet contemporary threats and reinforcing the safeguards that govern their use, this bill meets that responsibility. It equips ASIO to do its vital work, while ensuring that the exercise of power remains subject to law, oversight and democratic control. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Australia's intelligence agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, play a critical role in keeping the Australian community safe from harm. ASIO's ability to undertake its important work, including through the use of tools such as compulsory questioning, is essential to its ability to identify and pre-empt threats. But the powers that they have are significant, and I believe they should be subject to close and regular scrutiny to ensure that ASIO is undertaking its work in line with the expectations and needs of the day.</para>
<para>As a parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that the powers with which we equip our security agencies are proportionate and necessary. This is why I take very seriously the opportunity to examine this bill. This bill proposes to considerably expand the compulsory questioning powers contained in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and to make these powers permanent rather than subject to sunset every three years. The compulsory questioning framework was introduced in 2003 following the September 11 attacks, when many countries, including Australia, were faced with a new reality. We felt the imperative to ensure that our national security agencies had the tools they needed to collect intelligence to pre-empt and disrupt plans of terrorism. The compulsory questioning powers became an important part of our ability to do that. In light of the extraordinary nature of these powers, and to ensure that they were only used judiciously and sparingly, the parliament legislated a sunset period so the powers would be subject to regular review. Since that time, parliament has reviewed and extended the powers every three years. This bill proposes to go further now, removing the sunset provision entirely, and so making these powers permanent. It also expands the scope of adult questioning warrants to cover new grounds, including sabotage and threats to Australia's territorial or border integrity—a significant widening beyond the original focus on acts of espionage and terrorism.</para>
<para>The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation plays a very important role in upholding Australia's national security in identifying and disrupting threats and keeping Australians safe. ASIO's compulsory questioning powers are extremely important, and I should note that there is no suggestion that these powers have been used improperly or excessively in the more than 20 years that they have been in place. But it is not something we should take for granted. I honestly don't believe we should take a set-and-forget approach to the significant powers with which we entrust our national security agencies. These powers are extraordinary and should remain so. I urge the government to consider not making these powers permanent. I support the renewal of these powers, and more so than ever given the devastating terrorist attack in my own community. But, given how broad and powerful these powers are, I urge the government not to remove the sunset clause but to retain the sunset clause.</para>
<para>Compulsory questioning is something that I don't take lightly. Under these powers, ASIO has the ability to force someone to answer questions at risk of penalty, including if they're a minor. I take very seriously the submission of the Law Council of Australia regarding this legislation, which noted among other things that compulsory questioning was never intended to be made permanent and that a regular review is a critical protection. The passage of time alone should not transform an extraordinary power into an ordinary one. The sunset clause has functioned, I believe, very effectively until now as a safeguard against misuse, and I haven't yet been proposed a credible case to change this in this bill.</para>
<para>I support the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, which would retain the sunset provision and make a review every three years by the PJCIS a mandatory rather than an optional safeguard of the legislation. Until such a time as the PJCIS has an Independent member, it is particularly important that the committee can be counted on to review significant legislation such as this bill as a matter of requirement, rather than according to the preference of the government of the day.</para>
<para>I also am concerned by the bill's failure to wind back the provision for ASIO to compulsorily question minors and support the amendments proposed by the member for Warringah to sunset the minor-questioning provision. Again, these are sunsets which I think are appropriate. I acknowledge the advice from ASIO and others that people are being radicalised younger than ever before—I recognise that threat—and that minors represent a substantial proportion of their case load, but the Law Council has raised that the ability to compulsorily question minors has the potential to significantly trespass on the human rights of a child. ASIO and the Department of Home Affairs have, themselves, accepted that there are less intrusive ways to collect intelligence from minors and that, by the time the minor's activities reach a threshold to warrant compulsory questioning, the matter is better dealt with by the police. Of course, the ideal scenario is that the young person would have been successfully deradicalised long before this point is reached, but that is a topic for another time.</para>
<para>The antisemitic terrorist attack on Bondi Beach tragically reminded us that radicalisation and extremism remain pervasive threats in our society. Bondi showed us that we cannot take for granted for a moment the safety of our community from terrorism. We need to do everything we can to stamp out terrorism and radicalisation while also preserving our social cohesion and civil liberties. This is a difficult balance to strike and something that we must regularly re-examine to ensure that we're getting the balance right.</para>
<para>By the nature of their work, ASIO operates in such a way that most Australians have little idea of what's going on behind the scenes to keep them safe, but the Australian people do deserve to have the confidence that the powers we equip the security agencies with are not being set on default mode. It's precisely because these powers are so extraordinary and because ordinary citizens have so little visibility of ASIO's work that I believe the powers should be subject to regular review by parliament. Really, what I'm urging the government to do is to retain a sunset provision—I think that is a really important part of this bill—and to accept, in particular, the amendments by the member for Curtin. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This is an important bill that acknowledges Australia's challenging and increasingly complex security environment, a reality most tragically borne out by the Bondi terrorist attack. It also comes at a time when the national terrorism threat level is classified as 'probable', meaning around 50 per cent. But the risks we face are not limited to terrorism. Australia faces multiple dynamic threats from ideological actors who seek to disrupt society and sow discord, often in ways that are not so obvious at the outset. The bill responds to this reality by formalising and recalibrating ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers to ensure they remain fit for purpose to address the contemporary threat landscape.</para>
<para>ASIO's compulsory-questioning framework allows ASIO, with the approval of the Attorney-General and a prescribed authority, to compel a person to appear and provide information relevant to serious national security threats. In practice, this allows ASIO to require answers and the production of documents where voluntary cooperation is insufficient. These powers exist because intelligence work is inherently preventive. They are designed to identify and mitigate serious risks before they crystallise into acts of violence or mass harm rather than after tragedy has occurred.</para>
<para>The bill removes the longstanding sunset clause over the compulsory questioning powers and makes them permanent. When I say it makes them permanent, I mean it makes them permanent to the extent that anything is permanent in this place—that is, it is always subject to amendment, always. We're not talking about permanent like we talk about permanency with Constitutional provisions. Every single provision of every single bill that comes through this place is always subject to amendment. So while we talk about making them permanent, to the extent that anything is permanent in this place, if anything, after 10 years, I've learnt is that nothing is permanent in this place and the only thing constant is change.</para>
<para>Since their introduction in 2003, these powers have been repeatedly extended because the threat environment has not diminished. What was initially considered an exceptional post 9/11 measure has, regrettably, become an enduring feature of Australia's national security landscape. Not only has the threat endured but it has also continued to evolve. The bill formalises what has already been the de facto position for years. It provides legal certainty to ASIO and allows parliament to focus scrutiny on governance and safeguards rather than repeatedly revisiting the power's existence. Importantly, the bill also expands the scope of adult questioning warrants, which are the warrants that allow ASIO to compel questioning of adults in relation to serious national security threats. Currently, such warrants may be sought in relation to: espionage; politically motivated violence, including terrorism; and acts of foreign interference. The bill amends the definition of an 'adult questioning matter' to include sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence systems, and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity.</para>
<para>We live in the most geopolitically unstable period since 1945. Foreign interference and espionage rate as some of our greatest national security challenges. Although Australia is a relatively small country by population and, therefore, its ability to be able to walk and chew gum—or to be able to afford to do so—our intelligence agencies have to be able to be equipped to be dealing with not only the threat that we are facing from, quite frankly, countries like China and Russia from an espionage perspective but also the threats that we face from within from extreme Islamic fundamentalists that we have seen result in the deaths of people in Bondi. We cannot be myopic in how we deal with the security of this country. We have to be able to walk and chew gum.</para>
<para>The expansion of the definition of an 'adult questioning matter' that is dealt with by this bill is significant because it reflects our current complex threat environment and recognises that contemporary security threats can be interconnected and do not always fall neatly within what we once considered traditional categories. For example, foreign actors and extremist networks often exploit domestic grievances. We know this to be the case. We have seen Iran up to their armpits in Australian domestic affairs, such that Iran was directly involved in acts of terrorism on Australian soil which led, quite rightly, to this government expelling the Iranian ambassador and two or three other diplomatic staff.</para>
<para>These attacks that were perpetrated by Iran-linked antisemitic groups, which were just criminal gangs, demonstrate how foreign interference can manifest not merely as covert espionage but as direct efforts to inflame communal tensions and undermine social cohesion. In such cases, waiting until conduct escalates into a narrowly defined terrorism or espionage offence may leave intelligence agencies without effective tools at the point that they are most needed. The expanded definition also supports earlier intelligence collection and disruption in complex threat scenarios. It enables ASIO to intervene where there is credible intelligence of serious harm while preserving existing warrant thresholds, ministerial approval requirements and independent oversight mechanisms.</para>
<para>The bill also strengthens oversight, reporting and administrative safeguards. It tightens eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities to reinforce their independence and impartiality. A prescribed authority is an independent legal official, typically a former Superior Court judge or senior legal practitioner, who supervises and controls questioning to ensure it is conducted within strict legal bounds. The bill enhances reporting obligations to the Attorney-General and requires that any questioning occurring after a person has been charged must take place before a retired judge, providing an additional level of independent oversight. Public reporting indicates that ASIO'S compulsory questioning powers have been used very, very sparingly, with only around 20 warrants issued over more than two decades. Oversight bodies, including the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—the independent statutory watchdog for intelligence agencies—have consistently found that the powers are exercised judiciously and as a measure of last resort. Their limited use reflects the deliberately high statutory threshold governing their application, not overreach or misuse.</para>
<para>Some critics argue that legislation of this kind risks compelling innocent people to undergo questioning, but intelligence agencies are not investigating completed crimes; they are seeking to prevent serious harm to Australians. That necessarily involves compelling information from individuals who may not themselves be suspects but who may possess intelligence critical to disrupting imminent threats. Given the increasingly complex and volatile threat landscape facing Australia in 2025, it is crucial that ASIO retains the legal authority to compel information from individuals who may hold intelligence of national security importance, especially where those individuals would otherwise refuse to provide it.</para>
<para>While this bill is essential, it should not be the end of the conversation when it comes to equipping our intelligence agencies to navigate our current threat environment. More needs to be done to prevent emerging threats in the current security environment post Bondi, particularly threats emanating from radical Islamist extremism. Following the Bondi attack, the coalition's antisemitism, extremism and counterterrorism taskforce called for a broader package of reforms to modernise Australia's counterterrorism framework. This includes updates to control order regimes, surveillance capabilities and other preventive powers. These commonsense measures would complement the intelligence tools provided in this bill and help ensure Australia's counterterrorism laws remain effective in a heightened and evolving threat environment. This bill is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done to properly equip our intelligence and security agencies to navigate the complex threat environment we face today.</para>
<para>I've had the privilege of serving in this place as the deputy chair of the intelligence and security committee that oversees ASIO and our intelligence agencies. I have seen how the sausage is made. It's really important that we retain that parliamentary oversight of our intelligence agencies. For all those who may argue that our intelligence agencies have too much power, I want to remind them of one thing. Just think about Bondi. Just think about the 15 people who were killed. The threat environment in which we live is extremely dynamic and, as Mike Burgess, the ASIO director-general, has rightly pointed out, ASIO and our other intelligence agencies are not all-seeing and they are not all-knowing, nor do we want to be in that environment. We do not want to live in a police state where our freedoms are taken away from us in the name of national security. We have to get the balance right between keeping Australians safe and ensuring that we have the appropriate liberties that 103,000 Australians have died for over the last 126 years.</para>
<para>I want to use my last few moments to, as I often do in this place, acknowledge the efforts of our ADF personnel. We often acknowledge the 103,000 men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for protecting this country, but we rarely, in my view, acknowledge the efforts of our intelligence agencies and their people that are stationed in the four corners of this world whose job it is to keep Australians safe. They don't wear a uniform, they certainly don't wear a flag on their left shoulder, they're not armed and, yet, they work to keep us safe. All those men and women often work in what are incredibly dangerous situations for their own personal safety. They do that for you and me and the other 27 million Australians. We should acknowledge the risks that they take every day, and we should thank them for their service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We must oppose overreach of power, especially when applied to children, who are the least able to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children. National security should never come at the cost of our fundamental values. Australia can be safe while also upholding human rights and the rule of law. Parliament has a duty to stay vigilant. Democratic accountability is important.</para>
<para>In speaking on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, I want to say at the outset that I have a deep respect for the work of our intelligence agencies, but I also have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation that seeks to make permanent some of the most intrusive powers ever granted to a Commonwealth agency. Espionage, foreign interference, sabotage and politically motivated violence are real threats. We know this. ASIO plays a vital role in keeping Australians safe amidst complex multithreats to national security and to our security here. We know, following the Bondi terrorism attack, that the accountability of our agencies is incredibly important to ensure Australians are safe. That's why—in that very context—parliamentary oversight is so incredibly important when we are looking at and talking about such broad-reaching powers that this bill seeks to make permanent.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to make three significant changes. It removes the sunset clause for ASIO'S compulsory questioning powers, making them permanent. It expands the scope of those powers and, most concerning, it allows the powers to apply to minors as young as 14, despite ASIO previously stating it does not need those powers in relation to children. Compulsory questioning powers were introduced in 2003 post 9/11 as extraordinary and temporary measures. Over the past 20 years, they have been extended repeatedly. This bill seeks to make these changes permanent and mean that we will not, on a regular basis in this place, make sure that there isn't an overreach of power and have the parliamentary oversight that is so important.</para>
<para>Each time this law has been extended, civil liberties groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised concerns. Rather than addressing those concerns, this bill goes in the opposite direction. It expands the powers and makes them permanent. I have a fundamental issue with that, and every member in this place should also have an issue with that. Sunset clauses are crucial democratic safeguards. They force the parliament to look at the evidence and to consider if laws remain fair and necessary. Removing them strips parliament of oversight and undermines accountability. There should be much more scrutiny of why the government is taking this step at this time.</para>
<para>Grounds for compulsory questioning are expanded in this bill. It now includes sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on our defence system and threats to border integrity. ASIO is on the record stating it does not need powers in relation to border integrity, but they have been included in this bill regardless.</para>
<para>Under this legislation, the scope of adult questioning warrants essentially covers ASIO'S entire security remit, a drift far from the original purpose of the legislation post 9/11, when, I remind you, they were meant to be interim exceptional measures being introduced. The government is now taking a step to make these permanent. It's no longer looking at it from an exceptional point of view but as a permanent situation. It means these powers may be applied in situations that do not present immediate or grave risks to the communities. So the very premise on which these powers were first introduced is not at all the basis on which they are argued to continue.</para>
<para>My biggest concern in relation to this legislation is that this bill fails to protect minors. Children as young as 14 can be compelled to answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Removing the sunset clause prevents parliament from revisiting whether that is appropriate. Is that commensurate and proportional to threats, embedding a process where minors may be forced to participate in secret questioning? Think of that. We as a nation are saying that we are okay with 14 -year-olds being secretly questioned by ASIO. That is the standard the government is asking us to accept. Australia is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that children's best interests be a primary consideration and that they be protected from coercive measures. How is that being given effect in this legislation? I ask that of members of government supporting this legislation. Permanently enacting powers that compel children to be interrogated is not consistent with those obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.</para>
<para>Then there's a real issue about how children could be interrogated and treated under this legislation in the name of all Australians. In 2024, ASIO confirmed that it had never used a minor questioning warrant and no longer saw a strong case to retain the power—yet children remain captured under this bill. Why? If ASIO are saying they do not need these provisions, why is the government persisting and proceeding with this legislation as it stands? Parliament has a duty to oppose the overreach of power, especially when it comes to children, who are unable to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children. I will move amendments to repeal minor questioning powers or, at the very least, retain the sunset clause for children and add new safeguards.</para>
<para>Compulsory questioning is a powerful and intrusive tool. It compels attendance and answers. It criminalises refusal and it conflicts with core legal principles such as self-incrimination and the right to silence. Proposed safeguards in the bill are welcome but incremental, and they don't address the fundamental overreach. The fact that these powers are rarely used is no reassurance. Once permanent, the powers risks becoming normalised and expanded even further. National security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Australia can be a safe country without enacting disproportionate and unnecessary laws. We can empower intelligence agency while preserving parliamentary oversight, and protect national security without breaching children's rights. Ultimately, Australia's laws must be fair and proportional. They must keep our nation secure but also protect our democracy and its most vulnerable people—children. For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being no more speakers, I put the question.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will return to the House for further consideration.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:26 to 16:00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>143</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>143</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7423" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>143</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to commend the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026 to the House. Vaccines are a cornerstone of our public health system. They protect us against serious and preventable illnesses, reduce the burden on our hospital system, help manage our chronic disease load and lower our lifetime healthcare costs. The World Health Organization and the Australian Medical Association recognise immunisation as the world's single most effective medical intervention. Globally, immunisation programs prevent two to three million deaths every single year. And the AMA reports that, since the introduction of vaccines to Australia in 1932, there has been a 99 per cent decrease in the number of deaths caused by vaccine-preventable diseases—conditions like tetanus, polio and diphtheria.</para>
<para>That's why Australia's National Immunisation Program, or the NIP, is so important. The NIP increases Australia's national immunisation coverage by providing free essential vaccines to eligible cohorts for a whole range of diseases. Under the current legislation, the NIP extends only to modes of active immunisation. The definition of 'vaccine' is limited to substances that elicit an immune response. Products that provide only passive immunological protection in a way that does not actually elicit an immune response can't, at this stage, be listed on the NIP. This bill will amend the definition of 'vaccine' in the National Health Act 1953 to include preparations conferring disease protection via either active or passive immunity.</para>
<para>Under this new definition, the minister will be able to more easily and more quickly list new and emerging technologies on the National Immunisation Program. It will render it more flexible and able to respond more quickly to a rapidly evolving healthcare environment. One example of the positive impacts this bill will have is for the monoclonal antibody Beyfortus, which provides prolonged protection for children and babies from respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, which causes serious and often life-threatening chest infections in premature and susceptible babies. It can cause persistent and sometimes lifelong respiratory problems, like asthma. Beyfortus has substantially reduced infants' risk of hospitalisation from RSV infection in recent months. But, until now, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has had to defer approval for Beyfortus because it doesn't actually fit under the NIP's remit.</para>
<para>So I'm glad the minister is bringing this issue to parliament. I support this bill and the potential for us to increase protection against preventable infectious diseases, which it will deliver. But as a paediatrician I remain concerned about access and uptake issues contributing to the declining immunisation rates in Australia. Australia's national aspirational coverage target for vaccinations is 95 per cent. There's a reason we have that number. It's the number needed to achieve herd immunity—the slowing or even prevention of highly contagious diseases.</para>
<para>But across Australia we're seeing a really concerning trend. Vaccination rates are falling below the herd immunity benchmark. Once a global leader in vaccine coverage, Australia is now seeing sustained declines across childhood, adolescent and adult vaccination programs. Data from the Productivity Commission released in January shows that Australia's rate of childhood immunisation has fallen to a 10-year low. Only 89.8 per cent of children aged 24 months or less are fully immunised. This represents an almost three per cent decrease since the COVID pandemic. Full vaccination coverage for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander one-year-olds dropped to 89.2 per cent in 2024, while coverage for two-year-olds declined to 86.7 per cent over the same period.</para>
<para>While this decrease might seem modest, it takes us below the limits for herd immunity. Its effects are already clear. We're seeing a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases in children. Measles is on the rise in Australia, as is RSV and influenza, across all age groups. That puts strain on our healthcare system. In 2023-24, nearly 10 per cent of all preventable hospitalisations were attributed to diseases that could have been prevented by vaccines. Infections with pertussis, or whooping cough, are at their highest since records started in 1991. They are at least four times higher than pre-pandemic levels. Babies are very susceptible to whooping cough as they're not yet protected by their own vaccinations. They're simply too young to have received them.</para>
<para>I've seen babies die in hospital from whooping cough. It's a preventable disease, but they've died because others in the community have chosen not to be immunised and those people have spread the disease to babies who were too small, too young, to have received the vaccines themselves. There is no greater tragedy than the unnecessary death of a child because of negligence towards them.</para>
<para>These numbers reflect more than epidemiology. They reflect a loss of public trust. They reflect vaccine hesitancy and a post-Covid fatigue with immunisation. Rebuilding trust and public buy-in on Australia's vaccination program requires consistent engagement, clear communication and strong leadership.</para>
<para>We have to ensure that as many vaccines as possible are accessible to Australians. Accessibility remains a major barrier for many Australians to receive their full immunisation schedule and, in many cases, that's because of cost. Under the National Immunisation Program schedule, vaccines for diseases like shingles, pneumococcus and influenza are available at no cost to specified groups—those with specific medical conditions, those who are older Australians and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Those are appropriate and important protections. But millions of Australian adults who fall outside of those categories are left to cover the out-of-pocket costs themselves. And, like for many products in health care, those costs can be very significant. A two-dose course of Shingrix, the vaccine protecting against the painful and often debilitating varicella virus, can cost $560 for someone who's ineligible for funding under the NIP.</para>
<para>I've also heard from constituents about Arexvy, which is recommended by ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, for adults aged 75 years or more but is not supported on the NIP. This important protection against RSV can set seniors back more than $300. This is something I wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing about more than two years ago. I've had no response as yet. The minister replied that Arexvy has received a positive PBAC recommendation, but it's still not getting coverage under the NIP.</para>
<para>Beyfortus, which is not on the NIP, is funded in some jurisdictions but only seasonally. That means that a newborn in one state might be entitled to state funded RSV prevention at little or no cost but an infant in another state might miss out completely because their parents cannot cover the $550 cost of this agent. While this bill should secure national access to Beyfortus on the NIP, other immunisations will remain unfunded in some jurisdictions.</para>
<para>Last year, I wrote to the health minister about two devastating cases of meningococcal B disease in young Victorian men. Meningococcal disease is devastating and often fatal. It causes sepsis and meningitis. A vaccine for meningococcus is funded through the NIP for all adolescents aged 14 to 16 in Australia, but the B and W strains, which are responsible for most meningococcal disease in children, adolescents and young adults, are not covered by that vaccine. Many parents are unaware of that fact. The B-strain is included in the NIP only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children under two, and individuals with specific risk factors. For other Australian children additional vaccination is necessary.</para>
<para>Some Australian states—Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory—have made that vaccine free for all children and teens, but Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT and WA are yet to do so. For many families, the cost of vaccinating their children against Meningococcus B—approximately $200 to $300 for the two doses required—is a significant barrier. Tragically, most are simply unaware that their children are not protected against a tragic but preventable disease. Case numbers of the B strain are low in Victoria, but I would argue that the loss of even one child's life from a preventable disease is unacceptable. I know that the Minister's office has engaged supportively and repeatedly with the families of the two boys from Victoria—Levi Syer and James Hall—and that they're doing their best to get this vaccine on the NIP, but our state government has not agreed to fund meningococcal B in the interim. I call on the Allan state government to do that in the name of Levi Syer, who died within six hours of the very first symptoms of meningococcal disease.</para>
<para>We should have a harmonised immunisation program across Australia so that access is consistently funded for all vulnerable Australians no matter their postcode. Accessibility issues are not just limited to the states and territories. It's not just inconsistent funding across jurisdictions. There's also significant variation in the practitioners who can actually administer vaccines. In different states and territories pharmacists can give different vaccines to different age groups and under varying conditions. It creates confusion and inequity, especially when a community pharmacy is people's first port of call for their vaccines. For example, community pharmacists in Victoria are not permitted to prescribe vaccines for haemophilus influenzae type b—another cause of meningitis—or for rotavirus, despite those vaccines being listed on the NIP, whereas pharmacists in other jurisdictions can.</para>
<para>The challenges and accessibility and costs of vaccines aren't isolated within just that sector. I fear that there is a cost-of-health crisis unfolding in Australia. The cost of private health insurance is soaring. Specialist fees and out-of-pocket fees are continuing to surge, and according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, health inflation is rising faster than general inflation. The cost of accessing health care in this country should not be prohibitive. It's unacceptable that many Australians are forced to delay or forego care altogether. Our health care system is shifting from that of a universal guarantee—a guarantee which is, after all, one of the lights on the Labor hill—to a source of anxiety and uncertainty. So while we have to consider the cost barriers to accessible immunisations for Australians, they form only part of a much broader and growing set of cost pressures across the healthcare sector that we need this government to confront.</para>
<para>While I strongly support this bill's amendment to the definition of 'vaccine' so that passive immunisation products can be listed on the NIP, this is a small part of a much bigger problem. Australia's vaccination rates have slipped below herd immunity levels, and we're already seeing the consequences, with rising preventable diseases, cost barriers and inconsistent rules across states. Every community deserves equal protection no matter their postcode. It's time for national consistency, equity and more investment in immunisation coverage. In closing, I thank the House and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there is inconsistent funding of potentially life-saving vaccines in different state and territories, leading to significant inequity of healthcare outcomes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all Australians deserve equal access to life-saving vaccinations such as those for meningococcal and RSV infections; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls upon the Government to urgently work constructively with state and territory governments to facilitate access to life-saving immunisation products for vaccine-preventable diseases".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Steggall</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WHITE</name>
    <name.id>224102</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In speaking to this amendment, I am rising to both provide a response to the honourable member and sum up on the substantive elements of the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. Deputy Speaker Haines, I want to acknowledge the contribution that was made and the depth of knowledge that you bring to this place in sharing your personal experience and speaking about some of the horrific things that you've witnessed on the hospital ward and some of the families that you've represented through your remarks. I also acknowledge the other remarks that were made in response to the tabling of this bill and the support that's been provided by the opposition members for it. I think that, broadly, we all agree that we want immunisation levels to increase across the country, particularly for vulnerable cohorts like babies, and we want to protect Australians from potentially life-threatening vaccine-preventable diseases. The bill that was before the chair seeks to do that by simple a simple amendment to recognise emerging therapies such as immunising monoclonal antibodies so that they can be listed on the NIP.</para>
<para>I have my own story of a child who was diagnosed with RSV and know how terrifying that can be as a parent. I'll just share it briefly. He wasn't vaccinated, and that's very common in Australia. I live in Tasmania and took him to the after-hours doctor. He had a temperature. He had very fast breathing and was clearly not very well. They took him into the treatment room and they assessed his vitals and informed me that he'd need to go to hospital. So I responded in the way that I thought you would. I was only 30 minutes from Hobart. I'd just get in the car and drive him to hospital. And they said, 'No, we're calling an ambulance,' and at that point it struck me how serious it was and how sick my two-year-old was. The ambulance arrived, and we went into hospital and had a very long stay overnight. Thankfully, he got discharged the next day.</para>
<para>Over the course of those 12 to 24 hours, he was provided with exemplary care, but, as is unfortunately the case in Tasmanian hospitals, we were stuck in the emergency department waiting room that entire time. He was admitted to the paediatric ward, but we were treated on the floor of the emergency department, with the doctors coming down and doing their visits to him because there were no beds. So he slept on me while they did 40-minute checks. At that stage we weren't sure quite what was wrong with him, so they were waking him. He was tired and exhausted and sick, and they were trying to check with an asthma ventilator to make sure he could breathe properly and see whether it was something to do with having an asthma condition or whether it was something more serious. The doctors did their job, got the information they needed and confirmed that it was RSV. There were quite a few children who were dealing with RSV at that time in Tasmania, and some of them became critically unwell, were admitted to the ICU and were very lucky that they survived. So I understand how terrible a disease like this is and how important it is for us to do everything possible to prevent it, and adding it to the NIP just makes it possible for families to have affordable access to these sorts of vaccines and prevent these diseases before they ever impact on our children or threaten the lives of our loved ones.</para>
<para>The amendment that the honourable member has moved won't be supported by the government. We want to progress this legislation so that we can make sure that we can add these types of new, emerging therapies to the NIP. Particularly for, in this instance, RSV, I understand your motivation in seeking to amend this bill and respectfully disagree that this is the way you try to progress a cause like this, because it would, of course, disrupt our ability to pass this bill as intended. From talking to the minister and those in the department, I know that there was across government a focus on how we lift immunisation rates across the country, particularly for children and vulnerable cohorts, because it's quite accurate to point out that the levels are falling below the acceptable herd immunity rate of 95 per cent for some particular disease groups.</para>
<para>I thank the honourable member for her contribution, for her intent, but we won't be supporting the amendment. I'm not sure if there are any other speakers on this bill, but I suspect that's the end of it. I thank those members who did speak in support of it and who understand how important it is for us to progress this.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026</title>
          <page.no>146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7424" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At a time when 83 per cent of one-parent families are led by single mothers, when family violence and financial abuse remain endemic, when billions of dollars of child support owed to children goes uncollected and unreceived, the government has introduced a technical bill that makes small, piecemeal administrative adjustments to the child support system while continuing to ignore clear, consistent and longstanding recommendations for real reform. This legislation does nothing harmful but it is deeply inadequate and it represents yet another missed opportunity to fix Australia's broken child support system. Once again, the government is tinkering around the edges rather than doing what is urgently needed to keep women and children safe and financially secure.</para>
<para>In Warringah, my electorate office is regularly contacted by single mothers trying to navigate the child support system. Many have left violent relationships to protect themselves and their children. They are working full-time, part-time, whatever they can fit in, caring for their children and they are at financial and emotional breaking point. They are doing everything asked of them yet we hear the same story again and again: their former partner does not lodge tax returns. As a result, child support assessments are delayed or manipulated. Meanwhile, family support payments are made calculated on the basis of tax returns and incomes pursuant to those tax returns. So on top of everything else they have to deal with, they are often then facing the prospect of an overpayment of the family tax benefit because former partners, when they eventually lodge their tax returns, change the basis on which the payment was made and the assessment. These parents are told at that point by the Commonwealth that they owe a debt to the Commonwealth, not because they did anything wrong but because the system allowed their former partner's non-compliance to be weaponised against them. And rather than the Commonwealth assisting and actually pursuing former partners for child support payments owing, the Commonwealth pursues the single parent—too often the woman—struggling to make ends meet. This is revolting and it is a deep flaw in the system. The government is on notice about it yet it has been going on for months and nothing has been done.</para>
<para>In 2024, 83 per cent of one-parent families were headed by women. Around 60 per cent of those mothers reported violence prior to separation. Single-parent families experience the highest rates of poverty, housing stress and material deprivation in Australia. The child support system is decades old and was not designed with coercive control or financial abuse front of mind. Yet, today, financial abuse is one of the most common forms of domestic violence.</para>
<para>As a former family barrister, I saw firsthand how child support becomes a weapon—withholding of child support, making it difficult—and the only ones who suffer in those situations are the children. Payments are withheld by former partners to exert pressure. Tax returns are delayed to trigger reassessments and disputes escalated to maintain control. Too often, the financial insecurity of a primary carer becomes leveraged by the former partner, and too often the system facilitates that leverage. Approximately one-third of parents paying child support have fallen behind. Billions of dollars in child support debt remains outstanding, and it is the children who bear the consequences. The Commonwealth does nothing to assist those single parents in getting those child support payments back.</para>
<para>This bill makes a series of technical amendments. It aligns child support periods with existing administrative practices within Services Australia. It retrospectively validates previous decisions. It provides a legislative framework for urgent social security payments. It clarifies employment income assessment rules. These are administrative clarifications that close technical gaps. They do not reform the child support system and certainly do not address the financial control and coercive control that is facilitated by the current system. It does not protect victims-survivors from financial abuse, and it doesn't fix structural flaws long identified by experts and frontline organisation. The government itself—members of the government—have described many of these amendments as 'clarifying' and 'upholding' existing arrangements. That tells us everything about what we are doing here, which is tinkering. We are preserving the status quo even though the government knows the status quo is failing women and children.</para>
<para>What's so deeply frustrating is that we know what needs to be done. In fact, in question time, I asked the minister for a national royal commission into domestic violence and femicide so that we can actually analyse all these questions and look to the question of why, when so many levers are known and when we know change needs to happen, it is not actioned by government. I would say I got a fairly inadequate answer by the minister, who basically said to me: 'We've got this. We know what needs to be done. We've done plenty of state based inquiries, and we're getting on with the job. We're doing this.' Meanwhile, multiple independent reviews have laid out clear reform pathways. There are many clear levers we know that need to be done to assist. Yet what we see from the government is no royal commission to properly investigate everything and create accountability and still no action on key recommendations that we know will make a very big difference.</para>
<para>One of those incredible reports that had a lot of important recommendations was <inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">pening the black box of child support</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> shining a light on how financial abuse is perpetrated</inline>. That report drew on the lived experience of 675 single mothers. It made clear that violence is not incidental to the child support system. It had key recommendations, including moving all child support collection back into the ATO, because the ATO is best placed to pursue the $3.7 billion in outstanding child support debt, and making all child support debts owed to and enforced by the Commonwealth. Rather than asking single mothers to pursue former partners when there's been domestic violence for owed child support, it would be for to the ATO to pursue those debts, and those debts could then be balanced against any debt owing in relation to overpayment of child support payments. Other recommendations included paying primary carers first and pursuing non-compliant payers second, and, importantly, if you're not going to change who is recovering these amounts, abolishing the maintenance income test and delinking the family tax benefit from child support.</para>
<para>These are not radical proposals. They're evidence based, and they're supported by organisations like Single Mother Families Australia and women's legal services. Yet here we are, in 2026, many months since that report was provided to the government in its last term, with a bill with technical amendments. We still do not have that systemic reform that is needed—that so many single mothers are crying out for.</para>
<para>In 2024, two years ago, I attended the parliamentary launch of the black box report alongside advocates, front-line workers and women sharing lived experience. It was sobering, and it was clear that reform was urgent. I wrote to the then minister for social services calling for action. The response acknowledged the seriousness of unpaid child support and the risk of financial abuse, it committed to ensuring systems do not exacerbate harm and two years on—nothing, crickets, no changes to the system. More women and children have been left subject to this foul and controlling system. That is why there is that deep frustration and disbelief that, despite all the good, well-meaning assurances, we are still failing to see this government enact the more significant changes that will make a real difference to single parents.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge Single Mother Families Australia and their CEO, Terese Edwards. She has been working passionately. Many in this place have met with her. The work of the organisation consistently demonstrates the scale of the problem. Nearly 300,000 families lose approximately $810 million annually in family payments due to child support income that may never be received. The maintenance income test is harsher than income tests applied to wages or investments. How wrong is that for a system! It contradicts commitments to women's economic security.</para>
<para>To the government: an effective child support system must be safe, certain and accountable. 'Safe' must mean that victims-survivors are not forced to engage with abusers to secure payments of child support; it must be certain, meaning children receive financial support regardless of administrative delay; and it should be accountable, meaning debt recovery targets those who owe, not those already carrying caring responsibilities. This bill doesn't move us meaningfully towards that road map, and it maintains a system that is structurally flawed.</para>
<para>I will continue to call for a national royal commission into domestic and family violence and femicide because the intersection between violence, poverty and policy failure is undeniable. While we have a piecemeal approach of state based inquiries but no ultimate accountability at the federal level, our institutions are not adequately protecting women and children. Billions of dollars have been spent on programs and reviews, yet domestic violence rates remain unacceptably high, financial abuse of single parents remains normalised and accountability remains fragmented.</para>
<para>We can't keep funding responses without interrogating the system. We need structural reform and accountability, and I really urge the government to get on with the job of implementing those meaningful structural reforms that will genuinely help single parents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank all the members who've spoken on this bill for their support and for their constructive comments. With respect to some of the comments made by the member for Warringah, we understand only too well that families broadly and, particularly, single parent families are indeed under cost-of-living pressures. That's why we have introduced a myriad of measures—cost-of-living savings, cost-of-living measures—to help families who are under that pressure. I'm sure that the member has heard us make those lists over and over again, and I'm sure that I won't waste this House's time by going through them all again. But I will mention one, of course: it is including tripling the rent assistance.</para>
<para>With respect to the family and domestic violence issues that the member has raised, we are currently spending over $4 billion or investing $4 billion to protect victims of family and domestic violence. Just yesterday, indeed, we launched 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', an absolute landmark document and strategy to make sure that First Nations people are protected from family, domestic and sexual violence.</para>
<para>It was an absolutely amazing day yesterday, with many members of the First Nations communities there to share in that—something they have been calling on for days. Just this morning with Assistant Minister Rebecca White, we announced an excellent measure to expand a program that we are working with primary health care facilities to train up health professionals, admin staff and allied health staff to know exactly what to do when someone discloses family and domestic violence in their health facility. It is a wonderful program that has been lauded right across the primary health care sector.</para>
<para>With respect to a royal commission, the minister made it very clear in question time the other day that there have been royal commissions after royal commissions and reports after reports into family and domestic violence with hundreds and hundreds of recommendations. The very people working in the sector—peak bodies and those at the coalface—have all said to us: 'We don't need another inquiry. What we need is for you to get on with the job and invest the resources you might expend on a royal commission into the sector and make sure you actually make in roads on those recommendations.' The Albanese government is indeed also, with other issues raised by the member, delivering on our commitment to embed safety in Commonwealth systems and ensure the social security system cannot be weaponised against women experiencing violence. New measures will be introduced to reform the special circumstances debt waiver, which will give Services Australia extended powers to waive social security debts that have been incurred as a result of domestic and family violence.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16:36 to 16:48</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When considering a debt waiver, Services Australia will be able to take into account all the circumstances that lead to someone knowingly making a false statement in relation to a debtor not complying with the law, including circumstances of coercion or financial abuse. So, as the Minister for Social Services and member for Sydney said in introducing it, the bill proposes technical changes which will simply strengthen the legal basis of current policy and practice. The minister's office and the Department of Social Services have provided briefings to the opposition and the crossbench, and we will continue to make these available to assist in the Senate's consideration of the bill. The bill takes important steps to ensure the social security system is operating as intended and in accordance with the law. The Albanese Labor government will always do the work to make sure this system is strong and robust, providing the best support it can to the Australian people who rely on it. I commend the bill.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>148</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health, Aged Care and Disability Committee</title>
          <page.no>148</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>148</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms JORDAN-BAIRD</name>
    <name.id>316021</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I rise today to contribute to the discussion of the Thriving Kids inquiry report. I'm honoured to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability alongside some outstanding members across the chamber. Our committee chair, the member for Macarthur, has tabled the <inline font-style="italic">No Child Left Behind</inline>, a parliamentary inquiry report into the proposed Thriving Kids program. The Thriving Kids initiative is intended to address the missing middle. We define this as the service vacuum for a national system of supports for children aged eight and under with developmental delay and low-to-moderate support needs. We want to focus on identifying developmental concerns earlier whilst ensuring children with permanent and significant disability will continue to be supported through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.</para>
<para>If you speak to any family in my electorate or across the country who have a child with developmental delay under eight, they'll tell you the current system isn't working for them. They're waiting years for specialist appointments. They say that the system is confusing and hard to navigate, and the supports they're receiving from the NDIS aren't targeted enough. The harsh reality is these children are falling through the cracks. One in five young children experience developmental delay or autism, mostly at mild or moderate levels. Intervention is simply not happening early enough.</para>
<para>Our committee's report, <inline font-style="italic">No Child Left Behind</inline>, seeks to provide a strategic framework for the new national system of disability supports so we can better support this cohort of kids to get the very best start in life. The release of this report is the work of the community. We conducted public hearings last year, and community and advocacy groups made over 400 submissions. The committee also received over 1,000 survey responses from parents, carers and providers. We heard from experts, peak bodies, parents, families, providers, participants and those with lived experience. I'd like to thank every single organisation and person who took the care and time to put in a submission for our inquiry. Your experiences and expertise were invaluable to the findings of this report.</para>
<para>As for the health professionals and parent groups, I've found Dr Kate Renshaw's contribution about the benefits of play therapy particularly powerful. As Dr Renshaw pointed out, many therapies and interventions are not specifically designed to complement children's developmental pathways but play therapy is. Paediatric play is evidence based and it's so important to make positive developmental gains. These types of insights are why the inclusion of health professionals and parent groups are so valuable. I thank them for their contributions to this report.</para>
<para>I'd like to give a special shout out to families in my local community who took the time to write to me and raise their concerns. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the work of Shannon Meilak, a fantastic disability advocate in Brimbank. She took the time to compile a number of accounts from locals with lived experience that were really important to this process and helped shape the report. Shannon, thank you for your advocacy.</para>
<para>It was clear to the committee that there was some misinformation following the announcement of the Thriving Kids program by the Minister for Health and Ageing. Families felt anxiety about what the proposed changes might mean for their children. I believe that the recommendations in this report will lead to better outcomes for these children, such as the recommendation for a single port of entry with multiple referral pathways for children with developmental concerns, whether they are in the NDIS or not, or the focus on boosting the workforce to support families to navigate the system, particularly families in regional, rural and remote areas as well as CALD and Indigenous communities, children in out-of-home care, parents and carers with disabilities themselves and other high-risk communities.</para>
<para>There's no doubt that transitions are hard, and there is a specific recommendation for that as well to help children transition from early education into primary education or from primary education into higher education, as appropriate. By increasing funding and resources to already existing organisations that can deliver through a hub-and-spoke system, these supports can be made more readily available and therefore can improve equitable access for these children and their families, thereby ensuring that cost and distance are not barriers.</para>
<para>I'm so proud that the Albanese Labor government has committed $2 billion, matched by the states, to deliver Thriving Kids, and $1.4 billion of this contribution is direct funding to states for Thriving Kids services. The recommendations of this report mean that the Australian government will work closely with the state and territory governments to better help families. I'd like to thank each of the state and territory governments for working alongside us on this momentous initiative.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, this is about giving our kids the best possible start in life without forcing families to navigate the exhausting NDIS-or-nothing battle we see too often. I'd like to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing and our wonderful chair, the member for Macarthur, and the committee secretariat for all of their hard work in bringing this really important report to life. I look forward to being part of the review and continuing this work with the committee.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's wonderful to join with my fellow committee members today in speaking to this report. I would like at the outset to just thank all of the committee members for their genuine engagement on this issue, particularly the committee chair. The inquiry was pretty pressed for time and we were a little bit location limited, but I think everyone worked very hard in the circumstances to try and get the best possible inquiry report together. I think it's been a very useful exercise. The member for Macarthur, who is the chair of the committee, particularly brings a lot of real-world experience to this particular topic. The coalition are broadly very grateful for the skills he brings to this place and to this topic.</para>
<para>I also want to thank the many people who made contributions by way of either submissions or evidence. This is not always an easy process. It's a difficult topic for many people to talk about. On the lived experience that people have either as a person to whom the NDIS or potentially Thriving Kids would apply or as parents of those children, it takes a degree of strength to get up and make a contribution. But it's a valuable contribution because it helps shape the future of what the healthcare system of Australia will look like. So I want to make a proper acknowledgement of those contributions.</para>
<para>At the outset, I just want to say that the coalition supports early identification and early intervention for children with developmental concerns. We will work constructively on sensible reforms that protect the NDIS for the long term. Thriving Kids is described as a national system of supports for children aged eight and under with developmental delay and disability and low to moderate support needs delivered through mainstream services. The report notes the initiative is intended to ease pressure on the NDIS by offering earlier supports through settings like GPs, early childhood education, play groups and community health centres. We note the government has committed $2 billion over five years, with design to be settled with the states and territories. The report also notes evidence that around 739,000 participants receive NDIS support, and of those about 23 per cent are children under nine.</para>
<para>What we, as coalition members—I should acknowledge the member for Nicholls, my coalition colleague on this committee—support in this report is that co-design is essential. The report recommends an inclusive co-design process with evidence based interventions. We support strong safeguards, such as phased implementation and preventing loss of supports as the new arrangements roll out. We support better integrity and oversight, including the recommendation for an inspector-general of the NDIS. We support a single portal of entry, with multiple referral pathways so that families are not forced to navigate a maze. We support a clear principle that being in Thriving Kids must not preclude a child from entering the NDIS later if their needs change.</para>
<para>We know there are areas where the government is failing these families right now. Evidence cited in the report describes families receiving information that is confusing, incomplete or poorly conveyed with slow communication. It also describes inconsistency in decision-making, with families reporting the same diagnosis producing different outcomes. Most concerning, the report records wait times of six months to four years for assessments and therapies, even in urgent cases. Sadly, by any measure that doesn't qualify as early intervention. The system is failing at the moment when families need help the most.</para>
<para>Our major concern is that we've got a major announcement, but we are still lacking a huge amount of detail. I was hoping that we would help flesh this out through the inquiry and the report. The report itself notes that families have been repeatedly told that the change is coming, but the announcements have too often not been matched with detail, adding to their uncertainty and anxiety. Coalition members are saying plainly that families deserve answers on the basics: who will qualify and how decisions are made; what supports are funded, at what intensity and for how long; what safeguards exist if a child's needs escalate; and what review rights families have and where they go when things go wrong.</para>
<para>The report notes concern that accessing supports outside the NDIS can sometimes be perceived as affecting future access, and it stresses Thriving Kids participation should not block later NDIS entry. We agree with that direction, but we add this: no-one should be shifted out or delayed from entry unless viable alternative supports are in place and operating. This must be tested in practice, not just promised in a media release. The transition risk is real, and the families that we heard give evidence are warning this parliament about that. The report records widespread concern about the transition, including the risks of exclusion and loss of supports, and the need for clear rollout timelines and transparent communication. Stakeholders have called for clear pathways for children who will need ongoing support, particularly around the age nine transition point.</para>
<para>We will keep pressing the government on one test: will any child be worse off during transition? And another warning: schools are not going to be a magic solution, and the report warns against such wishful thinking. It records serious concerns about positioning schools as the central hub, including that many schools are not adequately equipped and staff can lack training and capacity. It also records concerns about bullying and discrimination, and that for some children the school environment can be quite difficult. If the government intends schools to play a larger role, it must fund capability, workforce and safeguards and not just pass the problem to our teachers.</para>
<para>The report identifies workforce shortages, limited outreach and telehealth constraints as a significant problem for regional and remote areas. It also notes families can face hours of travel, and telehealth is not always suitable for children with autism. We will hold the government to account to ensure service access is not determined by postcode. We support practical service models for thin markets, including commissioned approaches and hub-and-spoke options, where evidence supports them.</para>
<para>The report recommends dedicated resourcing to ensure robust data accuracy, transparency, interoperability and consideration of Indigenous data sovereignty principles. It also recommends a rapid review after 24 months of operation, with the review to be reported back to the House, which is appropriate. Coalition members support these accountability measures because families deserve proof that outcomes are improving and that they're not just slogans. We will work constructively on reforms that are clinically informed and financially responsible. We will support sensible measures to address the NDIS growth trajectory while keeping the scheme true to its purpose. We will fight to ensure that no-one falls between the cracks. And we will not support changes if alternative supports are not genuinely available.</para>
<para>The future steps that this government takes are really important. They must stop running this sector by announcement. They must publish the detail that families need in order to plan their lives and consult properly with parents, clinicians, allied health professionals, educators and disability advocates. They must provide clear transition pathways and communication so that families are not left anxious and confused. And we must ensure that participation in Thriving Kids never blocks access to the NDIS when needs change.</para>
<para>The government really needs to finalise, as a matter of urgency, an agreement with the states and territories on the design, funding, roles and responsibilities and an implementation timeline for Thriving Kids to provide certainty to families and providers. The objective must be simple: earlier help, clearer pathways and better outcomes for children and their families. We will support what is sensible, strengthen what is missing and hold the government to account until the detail matches the promise. The future of our children deserves that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We all want our children, and Australia's children, to have the best possible start in life. We want them to thrive. And if, by some chance, they seem to exhibit developmental delays, we want to be able to support them to achieve the best possible outcome. As with all early intervention, the earlier the better. But it has to be the right interventions at the right times. When dealing with very small children, this can be difficult to assess. They may not be of an age to be able to undertake assessments. They may not be cooperative with assessments; no-one wants to focus on the things they can't do.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. It seems logical that access to services requires a diagnosis, a gatekeeping eligibility. Yet, for early intervention, this need for a diagnosis can form an impenetrable barrier, preventing young children from accessing vital services for early intervention. This is one of the challenges that Thriving Kids was set up to address. As with any change in a complex system such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the changes themselves are complex, and there is, understandably, concern and nervousness in the participant and carer community as well as among clinicians and therapists.</para>
<para>So I'm pleased to be able to speak about the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability report <inline font-style="italic">No child left behind</inline>, which examines the proposed Thriving Kids initiative, a reform that goes to the heart of who we are as a nation and how we support our youngest Australians. This committee inquiry was specifically set up to examine Thriving Kids and its implementation.</para>
<para>I'd like to think the committee and its chair, the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander, himself a paediatrician, as well as the more than 400 organisations, peak bodies and individuals who provided vital information and gave evidence to the committee. At its core, this report asks a simple but profound question: when a child needs support to thrive, will the system be there—early, equitably and effectively?</para>
<para>Importantly, the committee recognised the importance of maintaining the ideals underpinning the NDIS: independence, dignity, choice, equity and inclusion in the new program. The Thriving Kids initiative is therefore positioned as a critical element of broader reform, designed to strengthen early intervention, improve equity of access and embed evidence-based, coordinated supports for children who have developmental delay and their families. This is not merely administrative reform; it's about life trajectories, because, when support comes early, children are more likely to be able to participate fully in education, build relationships and reach their potential. When it comes late or not at all, the consequences can echo across a lifetime.</para>
<para>Families, clinicians, educators and advocates spoke to the committee clearly. Fragmented systems must be connected. Workforce sustainability matters and reforms must never compromise access to care. Their message was unmistakeable. Reform must be careful, inclusive and grounded in evidence. That is why one of the report's central recommendations is for an inclusive co-design process involving recognised organisations, people with lived experience, First Nations communities and culturally diverse families. If we are designing supports for children, those voices must not just be consulted; they must help lead the design. The report also recommends establishing a thriving kids advisory council to guide governments on implementation and ensure the initiative delivers appropriate quality services. This is about governance, but, more importantly, it's also about trust. Parents must be able to trust that, when the reforms occur, their child will not fall through the cracks. Indeed, the committee was explicit: the initiative should be implemented in phases with safeguards to prevent the loss of supports for children. That principle—no loss of support—should be our guiding light. Any child who misses out, who falls through the cracks, is potential lost.</para>
<para>We know from the inquiry that families already face long wait times for assessments and therapies, sometimes stretching from six months to four years. So much for early intervention. We know they report confusing navigating systems and inconsistent decision-making, and we know that uneven service distribution forces some families, particularly in regional areas, to travel hours just to reach a provider. These are not minor inconveniences; they are structural barriers to opportunity. The report therefore emphasises integrated planning across health, education and disability systems; culturally safe and neurodiversity-affirming models of care; and multidisciplinary teams, particularly in rural and remote areas. In short, it calls for a system that works around the child, not one that forces the child to navigate the system. A single point of entry to help families get the support they need is another really vital reform.</para>
<para>But perhaps the most important message of this report is captured in its title: <inline font-style="italic">No child left behind</inline>. The committee made clear that its objective was to ensure every child who requires foundational supports is protected, included and provided appropriate services as the Thriving Kids initiative is designed to do. That is a commitment this parliament must honour. Now, reform of this scale will inevitably prompt concern. The announcement of Thriving Kids has already caused anxiety among families and providers, and we should not dismiss these concerns. We need to listen to them. Good reform is not measured by how quickly it's implemented but by how safely it is delivered. So, as the government considers its response, due within six months of the report's publication, we must focus on what success looks like. Success is a parent who can access help for their child. Success is a teacher who has the allied health support in the classroom. Success is a child who gets the right support at the right time before challenges become lifelong barriers. And success is a system that is equitable no matter a child's postcode, background or family circumstance.</para>
<para>The measure of a society is not how it treats those who are thriving already; it is how it lifts those who need support to thrive. This report gives us a blueprint. It calls for evidence-based policy, it calls for coordination, it calls for accountability and, above all, it calls for inclusion. So let's take up that challenge with the seriousness it deserves, because, when we invest early in children, we do more than change individual lives. We strengthen communities, reduce long-term disadvantage and build a more compassionate nation. Every child deserves the chance not just to participate but to flourish. And let's ensure that, in Australia, truly, no child is left behind.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The inquiry into the Thriving Kids program was formally referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability on 2 September 2025. The inquiry was tasked with examining and advising on the design of a national system of supports for children aged eight and under with developmental delay and autism who have low to moderate support needs. I want to say a huge thankyou to chair Dr Mike Freelander and co-chair Dr Monique Ryan for their diligence, their stewardship, their care and their deep consideration of all the submissions. I also want to say a very deep thankyou to all those who made presentations and submissions to the inquiry.</para>
<para>It must be acknowledged that, since the Thriving Kids initiative was announced, many families, carers and providers have felt anxious about what's ahead. I've heard directly from local families and providers in my electorate who are worried about what this program will mean for their children and clients. As a member of this committee, I welcome the tabling of the report, <inline font-style="italic">No</inline><inline font-style="italic"> child left behind</inline>, and want to reaffirm that the committee's purpose throughout has been clear: to ensure that every child who needs foundational supports is protected, included and able to access appropriate, high-quality services in a timely way through the design of Thriving Kids. That commitment has guided our work at every stage, and it now must guide the government's decisions in design and implementation.</para>
<para>I also want to thank the many organisations, health professionals, providers, families and carers who contributed to the inquiry, particularly those who shared personal stories. Those accounts were frank, often difficult and deeply instructive.</para>
<para>The phased implementation of Thriving Kids was due to start on 1 July 2026, with the access changes to the NDIS from mid-2027. The commencement has now been delayed to 1 October as part of the National Health Reform Agreement that was finalised last Friday at the National Cabinet meeting, with additional time granted to states and territories to implement the program, which I welcome.</para>
<para>Many stakeholders are pleased to see that the inquiry report reflects core issues raised in evidence, including equity, genuine co-design, evidence based interventions, strong governance, a capable workforce and phased implementation. But a report is not an outcome. As we now turn to program design and implementation, the government must heed the remaining and significant concerns raised by stakeholders in response to the inquiry report as practical advice on what Thriving Kids must look like if it is to succeed. At the moment, families and providers are still asking who exactly will be covered and how decisions will be made, as the inquiry's terms of reference did not include eligibility criteria in its scope. The government must ensure that eligibility for Thriving Kids is transparent, consistent and anchored in functional need.</para>
<para>Stakeholders have expressed concern about language such as 'mild to moderate developmental delay and autism' and suggestions that autism is not a permanent disability, which do not align with established diagnostic frameworks. Crucially, eligibility must not depend on simplistic severity categories that are not applied consistently and can be clinically imprecise. Functional assessment must be the basis for access and funding, with clear guidance and safeguards to prevent children from missing out at the point where early intervention matters most.</para>
<para>Families should not be forced to wait for a formal diagnosis before help begins. Thriving Kids is an opportunity to fix a longstanding gap by funding early screening, navigation and functional supports from the first signs of concern, particularly for children in priority cohorts. Stakeholders support staged reform, but they warned that the revised timeline risks moving faster than systems can safely deliver. Leading autism organisation Amaze cautions that commencement on 1 October and full implementation by 1 January 2028 may still fall short of the inquiry's intent for a flexible, phased rollout supported by pilots and clear public timelines, especially for workforce and service development.</para>
<para>Just as importantly, the inquiry recommended overlap periods where both the NDIS and Thriving Kids operate concurrently, allowing children to remain supported under existing NDIS plans until Thriving Kids is fully functional and able to meet needs. Given the government has previously indicated changes to the NDIS access from mid-2027, stakeholders are concerned they may not fully overlap. It's important that both state and federal governments guarantee continuity of support. That means no child should lose, delay or have reduced support until foundational supports are fully rolled out, accessible and proven to meet demand.</para>
<para>The majority of submissions all returned to the same reality—workforce. Reform will fail if we design a system that assumes clinicians, educators and navigators exist in numbers we wish they did. A local provider in my electorate of Mackellar Kids First Children's Services has made this point powerfully, saying, 'Allied Health qualifications take years. Universities struggle to secure placements. Experienced clinicians are leaving due to workload and administrative burden and lack of support.' So the government's task is two-fold: design a model that can actually be staffed, and invest now to grow and retain the workforce required. I would like to add at this stage that the paid prac placements are core to us growing our allied health workforce. At the moment, we are burning our allied health students out and forcing them to face decisions in their life as to whether they have food on the table or are able to complete their practical placements. That is not good enough. We must fund training pipelines, supervision capacity, retention supports and practical incentives to work in underserviced areas. It also means developing a workforce that is neuro affirming and evidence informed, including capability across diversity, including cultural competency, gender-responsive practice and disability affirming approaches for all disability types.</para>
<para>Kids First Children's Services also cautions that families cannot substitute sustained professional support with information, resources and online programs. The reality is families usually seek early intervention because they are already overwhelmed, not because they lack information. Many parents know what their child needs in theory, but require skilled in-person guidance to apply strategies in real life. Online access can be helpful but it does not reliably build confidence, consistency or progress for children with more complex needs, especially where families face trauma, poverty, housing insecurity, language barriers, disability or burnout.</para>
<para>Government must ensure Thriving Kids supports carers without transferring responsibility onto them. Building carer capacity should mean funding coaching, supported practice, and practical wraparound navigation. Parent capacity has a ceiling shaped by work demands, mental health, caregiving load and life stress. Policy cannot ignore that ceiling.</para>
<para>Another consistent message is that we must design a system that matches the provider landscape and ensures there is not bias towards large NGOs being treated as the default voice of best practice with service models presumed scalable everywhere. In some metropolitan areas, including parts of Sydney, large NGOs have withdrawn due to cost and workforce pressures. Small family run practices remain embedded locally, coordinating with schools, GPs and preschools and supporting children over many years. Government must design Thriving Kids to work with the full ecosystem—public, not-for-profit and private—so families have genuine choice and local capacity is not inadvertently dismantled.</para>
<para>Related to this debate about registration is that, whilst all providers are bound by professional obligations and clinicians are operate under strong regulatory frameworks, many providers choose not to register for reasons of cost and administrative load, not because of poor quality. Any expansion of mandatory registration must be done without disrupting care through a streamlined, proportionate registration pathway that leverages existing professional registrations, reduces duplication and preserves safeguards and quality standards while ensuring small community based services can participate.</para>
<para>Providers stress that resource allocation should be based on real service availability and waiting times, not on postcode. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOLZBERGER</name>
    <name.id>88411</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the Deputy Speaker, who is becoming a regular audience of mine in this chamber. I'm glad to be able to make a contribution to this report. It's unplanned, but it's also something which is very, very close to my heart. In fact, in many ways, I'd say that I've come to this place with a few priorities that are very important to me. My head priorities are probably cheaper housing and cheaper energy, but my heart priority would be the NDIS and looking after the disabled in my community.</para>
<para>I have a very close family member who is autistic. We decided as a family that we wouldn't pursue applying to the NDIS, because I know through the work that I've done in the community that the supports they would have got through the NDIS just would not have been worth the headache and the hassle of going through that process of diagnosis and making an application and going through that torturous project. But, as it has been said, the NDIS is the only lifeboat in the ocean, and with everybody trying to climb on it because there's nothing else there, it has collapsed the system.</para>
<para>I did promise never to read a speech from my phone, but it was literally 39 minutes before I walked into this chamber that I got a follow-up message from a constituent that I tried to help last year. She came to my office with her three-year-old autistic child, who was non-verbal and biting. It was so difficult for her to even have a conversation with me while she was trying to manage his behaviour, that it was just unfathomable what it must be like for her everyday trying to manage that behaviour alone. She saw me because she was about to run out of funding for her child, who was in a specialist day-care centre, because, of course, there are very few day-care centres that are set up to take kids with those sorts of behaviours. She was desperately worried that she was going to lose the funding for that child care. That result would mean that she would have to leave her job, and because of that, it would mean that she would then be living in a car with her severely disabled three-year-old child.</para>
<para>Try as hard as I might to help, I got this message 39 minutes before I walked into this chamber, and she is going to say it better than I could. There are a couple of spelling mistakes, and I just might stumble through it a bit, but the sentiment will be clear: 'Sorry I haven't reached out. My son and I have had a rough few months. After we spoke last, the provider spoke with me and told me a week before Christmas that my son needs the funding if he wanted to return this year. I was devastated. I didn't have time to organise a review or even try to do anything. My housing arrangements fell through because I had to leave work and my son was no longer in care, and the person I was living with could not handle him. We lived in our car for a week before YFS put us in emergency housing. We have been in a motel for two months now, with my son's behaviour getting worse and worse and no end in sight. I'm really not okay, and I can't get anyone to understand or help.'</para>
<para>Probably it would be best to leave my contribution as that, because I'm not going to be able to say anything. I think nobody, none of us, could say anything that would match the power of that. That is a story that, as MPs, I'm sure we see all the time, and it's just unfathomable what people are going through.</para>
<para>I was very pleased with the contribution from the member for Fadden. I think there is a genuine sense that we all want to make this work. It was really very good to hear him list those things that the opposition are setting as preconditions to support Thriving Kids—not that a first-term MP like me is going to be able to hold the government to any of them, but I'm sure the sentiment is something we all agree on. I hadn't understood what the opposition's position was on this, so I was very, very pleased to hear the member for Fadden go through that.</para>
<para>In the electorate I represent, Forde—and these figures are three or four years old now—there's something like 7,000 people on the NDIS. Compare that to another electorate—an inner-city electorate, in fact. I remember the comparison with Griffith. There was something like 3½ thousand people on the NDIS. So, in a working-class area like Forde, you've got twice as many people as you do in an inner-city electorate. Among the schools in Forde there's Eagleby South State School and Waterford West State School. I never quite get the term right—I think it's called an inclusion term or something—but generally it means kids with disability. Something like over 40 per cent of children at that school have a disability. Not only are all of those families and all of those kids really set back to begin with; the 60 per cent of kids in that classroom with them are also struggling with the behaviours. The teachers are struggling with those behaviours, and it holds the whole community back.</para>
<para>So, while there are 7,000 people in Forde who are actually getting the NDIS, it probably makes you think maybe there's another 7,000 people that should be getting the NDIS, but the scheme was never meant for that. In fact, there's one number I know that comes to mind. The Productivity Commission said that the NDIS in Queensland was supposed to cater for about 95,000 people. Right now there are 175,000 people on it. It's totally unsustainable. We all know in this place that, when a scheme like that is unsustainable, as it is, it will lose community support. So it is vital, in order to maintain that support, that the community have faith that it is actually returning value for money and doing what it's supposed to do.</para>
<para>I've got 10 minutes. I could go on forever with the problems. There's one other problem I suppose I would just want to say, which is that, even with all of this money being spent and all of these participants in this system, there are still businesses going out of business. They still can't make the money work. I'm not sure whether it's called Centrecare, but the Catholic Church's arm in Queensland that was looking after it has exited the field because they could not make it work. With a scheme costing—what is it?—$50 billion a year or somewhere around there, they couldn't make it work. Something is going wrong from the end to the beginning, and there have to be changes. Those changes, as has been mentioned, are causing anxiety in the community. So, again, it was very good to hear the opposition's contribution that people need to know the kids aren't going to be worse off—that anybody who's getting the NDIS at the moment is going to continue to get the NDIS, for a start.</para>
<para>This is not about trying to just shove people back into a dark corner, which is what existed prior to the NDIS, but about trying to come up with something better. It may be at the school level, though of course they won't be able to cope with everything. It may be back at the community level, though they will need to be better resourced. What is true is that it's not working now and we have to come up with something else.</para>
<para>While I've got a minute, there are many people in Forde that do an incredible amount of that personal advocacy. One of them is Shannon Manning, who I want to give a shout-out to today. She is a mum who has, well and truly, real life experience, with one severely disabled child and a younger autistic child as well. If there is any woman who is an example of how you do not lose if you keep on fighting, it is Shannon Manning. She fights not only for herself—and when I say 'herself' I mean her kids and her family—but for many parents that I send her way as well, including the woman that sent me that text today. Obviously, we lost that fight. But, together, I think this parliament and people in the community with good spirit will keep fighting and will keep winning for the millions, the 20 per cent, of people in Australia that live with a disability.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 17 : 35</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>